Why Socialism Matters Today.

[Budog]

:) I found this article on the website Dandelion Salad. It is called, Why Socialism Matters Today. I found it very interesting and wanted to share it. I thought it would be of interest if the more experienced Socialists and Communists here dissected and digested it and gave their opinion on the points the author brings up in the article.

By Timothy V. Gatto
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad

October 23, 2009 I recently paid my dues and joined the Socialist Party USA. Why did I do this? It’s pretty easy to figure out. I don’t believe that this nation has ever been threatened by those that control the government and Wall Street as it is today. We are all at the mercy of the credit card companies that convinced the Federal government to amend the bankruptcy laws so that people facing destitution still must pay off their credit cards. The pharmaceutical industry charges up to and above 2000% for brand name medicines that have no generic equivalent. The bankers on Wall Street have raped the taxpayer upwards of 7 billion dollars that cannot be accounted for by the Inspector General of the New York Federal Reserve Board in testimony this week. In fact, the Fed has not even investigated where this money went!
The Federal government according to Senator Dick Durban who told a local radio station in April: “And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.” All of this does not bode well for the future of this nation. Would you like me to go on? I have truckloads of information to write about. Let me give you some more examples just so you know I’m serious.
Goldman Sachs is even more golden than we’d thought. The top firm on Wall Street posted a record third-quarter profit of $3.19 billion, a billion dollars higher than expected, thanks to returns on advising on takeovers and more aggressive investing. That quarterly result more than triples the $845 million it posted this time last year. As for the big question of compensation, the bank said $5.35 billion was going to salaries and the year-end bonus pool, up from last year. “Their biggest challenge and the thing that seems to get the most press is how much they put aside for comp expense,” one financial analyst tells Bloomberg. “A year ago we were talking about whether they would survive and now they just have too much damn money.”
Workers at major Wall Street firms will make as much as $140 billion this year, and the reaction from the public and Congress can already be predicted. According to an exclusive report in The Wall Street Journal, “Workers at 23 top investment banks, hedge funds, asset managers and stock and commodities exchanges can expect to earn even more than they did the peak year of 2007.” Wall Street executives will make the case that many firms like Goldman Sachs (GS) will produce record annual profit results for their shareholders, and that their stock prices have handily outperformed the market. But the board of directors approving the pay might have been better off delaying some of the payouts for a year, or reducing them in the name of self-preservation.
Nothing is more likely to anger Congress and the Administration than headlines announcing that the average Goldman employee will make $700,000, which means its executives will make many times that. It’s enough to pay the health insurance premium for the average American family ($13,375) 1.7 million times…. Or, apparently, it’s enough to reward the employees of Goldman Sachs for a bonanza trading year, at a firm where average employee compensation was recently $622,000 — and likely to be greater this year.
That’s just some of the news from Wall Street. I wrote yesterday how Goldman Sachs (of which most of Obama’s financial advisers are Goldman Alma Mater BTW) took TARP money and invested it in failing banks and when the banks received stimulus money they sold the banks and took the profits.
So why am I attracted to Socialism? Well, I guess you could say that after studying American history most of my life, I see that the top financial elite keep taking and taking and except for a few “philanthropies” that don’t amount to squat, never give it back. The thing is, in this country, with few exceptions, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
That’s not the only reason that Socialism attracts me. To tell you the truth, both the Republicans and Democrats are virtually a “millionaires club”. If they are not millionaires when they get elected, they are after a few years in office. They are controlled by corporations that pay for their re-election campaigns. If that isn’t bad enough, each member of the House and Senate has over two lobbyists for every elected official in Washington. They are given presents and in some cases outright bribery. Want me to go on?
We are fighting wars overseas to keep the military industrial complex humming along. Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon, General Electric, the list goes on and on. Does anyone try to stop this wholesale slaughter and financial giveaway? A few, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul are two that come to mind. There’s not many.
So why did I choose Socialism? It’s because Socialism wants to give back the power to the people. They want democratic elections paid by federal funds with no corporate money involved. They want democracy, not just in government, but in the workplace. They want and end to this robber baron society that makes its wealth off the backs of the workers. It wants those “institutions that are too big to fail” to be owned and run by their workers and accountable to the people.
Democracy is Socialism. No more fat cats garnering nominations so that the people must vote for the lesser of two evils. No more billionaires that treat people like slaves to do their bidding. No more Federal Reserve owned by private banks that operate under a veil of secrecy, owned by private banks, some that aren’t even American owned! They kept the interest rates artificially low so that the vultures could feed on “derivatives”. Now they’re low so people will buy retail and charge their purchases. Meanwhile retail accounts for 70% of the GDP and sales are flat and our business-orientated government tells us we’re coming out of the “recession” while millions are still out of work! Nice trick, that.
Our government lies through its teeth on everything from this “War on Terrorism” to our civil liberties being dismantled one by one. Tell me, how long is it going to take the American people to see that they are being played for fools?
Obama is a liberal? Please, A Socialist, exactly the opposite. He’s in bed with the bankers. Fooled again my fellow Americans, just like the time before that and the time before that. Remember that “compassionate conservative?” With compassion like that who needs Satan.
Look, the Revolutionary War wasn’t fought so that we could end up here. Thomas Jefferson said: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.” While I’m quoting great Americans, Benjamin Franklin said: “Those that would give up their liberty for temporary security shall have neither”. That’s what we did by accepting the Patriot Act I and II and The Military Commissions Act and The John Warner Defense Act that eliminated Posse Comitatus so that Federal troops could hit American streets for law enforcement over the objections of individual State Governors so we can set the stage for a military dictatorship! I don’t want to forget the FISA Act that lets the government read your e-mail and tap your phone.
Does this sound like America? Let me tell you what the Socialist Party stands for:
from the SPUSA Statement of Principles….
THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people’s lives under their own control – a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society… where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible. The working class is in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling capitalist class and its power. The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future – to a real radical democracy from below. The Socialist Party fights for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future. We support militant working class struggles and electoral action, independent of the capitalist controlled two-party system, to present socialist alternatives. We strive for democratic revolutions – radical and fundamental changes in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations – to abolish the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. The Socialist Party is a democratic, multi-tendency organization, with structure and practices visible and accessible to all members Join us today
The only ones that are afraid of Socialism are the mega-rich that have everything to lose. In the United States, the richest 1 percent of households owns 38 percent of all wealth. The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively. From Edgar Wolff (Edward Wolff is a professor of economics at New York University.) Does that make you seethe? It sure does me.
I’m not asking anyone to join me. That is something you must decide for yourselves. All I know is I can’t see anything good coming from the two corporate political parties, the Greens or the Libertarians and certainly not the Conservative Party. I tried to start The Liberal Party of America. It was a lost cause before it started. The two corporate parties during off years gerrymander districts and make it almost impossible for the incumbent to lose. (BTW gerrymandering is illegal). They also raise the bar, requiring sometimes hundreds of thousands of signatures to get on a ballot.
I’ve got the feeling that Socialism will be attracting more and more Americans. In December 2006 I predicted Obama would be President. I’ve made more than a few predictions. On my radio show on Blog Talk Radio one listener calls me Obe Won. All I know is how I feel and what I’m doing to change my country into a place where my Grandchildren will want to grow up. I guess that’s the best I can do.


Budog.

[chegitz guevara]

Well, I ain't sad to see more people joining the Party.

[robbo203]

:) I found this article on the website Dandelion Salad. It is called, Why Socialism Matters Today. I found it very interesting and wanted to share it. I thought it would be of interest if the more experienced Socialists and Communists here dissected and digested it and gave their opinion on the points the author brings up in the article.

:

from the SPUSA Statement of Principles….
THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people’s lives under their own control – a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society… where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible. The working class is in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling capitalist class and its power. The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future – to a real radical democracy from below. The Socialist Party fights for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future. We support militant working class struggles and electoral action, independent of the capitalist controlled two-party system, to present socialist alternatives. We strive for democratic revolutions – radical and fundamental changes in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations – to abolish the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. The Socialist Party is a democratic, multi-tendency organization, with structure and practices visible and accessible to all members Join us today.

Or not. It is pretty clear that the so called Socialist Party of the USA is nothing more than a left wing capitalist outfit. It presents no threat whatsoever to the continuation of capitalism. It envisages the continuation of the wages system, of employment, and therefore of the division of society into an employing and employee class. It shows no understanding of what capitalism is or the socialist alternative to capitalism and thinks you can have capitalism without enormous inequalities

I wouldnt touch this organisation with a bargepole, frankly

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Or not. It is pretty clear that the so called Socialist Party of the USA is nothing more than a left wing capitalist outfit. It presents no threat whatsoever to the continuation of capitalism. It envisages the continuation of the wages system, of employment, and therefore of the division of society into an employing and employee class. It shows no understanding of what capitalism is or the socialist alternative to capitalism and thinks you can have capitalism without enormous inequalities

I wouldnt touch this organisation with a bargepole, frankly
I do not know enough about the SP-USA to write a good evaluation of their politics. But I will say this: Even a reformist organization presents more of a threat to capitalism than no organization at all. Given that the vast, overwhelming, crushing majority of American workers are not organized in any way (not even in trade unions, mind you), any attempt at a working class organization is to be commended.

[chegitz guevara]

Or not. It is pretty clear that the so called Socialist Party of the USA is nothing more than a left wing capitalist outfit. It presents no threat whatsoever to the continuation of capitalism. It envisages the continuation of the wages system, of employment, and therefore of the division of society into an employing and employee class. It shows no understanding of what capitalism is or the socialist alternative to capitalism and thinks you can have capitalism without enormous inequalities

I wouldnt touch this organisation with a bargepole, frankly

Well, I suppose if you take the view of a single person who just joined the SPUSA and conflate it to represent the politics of the entire organization, we could similarly judge your organization by your own posts. Clearly your organization is nothing but of bunch of judgmental fools who have a sophomoric understanding of Marxism and who represent no threat to the Spanish bourgeoisie. :)

And keep your bargepoles to yourself. That's bad touching.

[Budog]

:rolleyes: I see allot of people doing allot of bad mouthing and criticizing of different groups out there. Once again much of it falls under the "all or nothing mentality" that I posted about in a different thread. So how many of the people slinging the mud here are actually doing anything other than being computer warriors and spouting their dogmatic dribble from their keyboard? A communist utopia sounds wonderful but doing nothing but talk about it will do nothing about it... It's one thing to debate and share information and theories, but the constant back stabbing and bad mouthing of other groups really gets old. Maybe I have come to the wrong place...

Budog. :blink:

[Revy]

It's one thing to debate and share information and theories, but the constant back stabbing and bad mouthing of other groups really gets old.

Well said, comrade.

many here like robbo (left communists) are the fundamentalists of the revolutionary left. Basically, any party that isn't left communist is probably going to be called "left-wing capitalist". the ICC says that, apparently that view is present in other left communist groups.

[Budog]

:blink: Well it's easy to be a keyboard warrior and talk shit all the time, it's another thing to get out there and do something realistic to bring about change...

Budog.

[robbo203]

Well said, comrade.

many here like robbo (left communists) are the fundamentalists of the revolutionary left. Basically, any party that isn't left communist is probably going to be called "left-wing capitalist". the ICC says that, apparently that view is present in other left communist groups.


Problem is that most of those who call themselves leftists are not revolutionary at all, have no real understanding of capitalism (which they usually equate with the free market) , let alone the revolutionary alternative to capitalism - communism/socialism

I criticised the so called Socialist Party of the USA for making statements like this:

THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people’s lives under their own control – a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society… where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few.

This is utterly confused hogwash, to put it mildly. For starters, "full employment" implies a system of employment which means you have employers and employees which means you have a class system - in short, capitalism. Then we are told "working people" will "own and control the means of production" in this so-called socialist society but will have the right to form unions freely and to take strike action. Whhhaaattt!!! The owners of industry (supposedly) are going to take strike action against themselves!

These are so elementary blunders one has to wonder how anyone could possibly come up with such transperant gush. Its as if the author of this statement jumbled up a whole bunch of trendy lefty slogans and picked them out at random to compile a "statement"

Finally , Kwisatz Haderach makes this claim:

I do not know enough about the SP-USA to write a good evaluation of their politics. But I will say this: Even a reformist organization presents more of a threat to capitalism than no organization at all. Given that the vast, overwhelming, crushing majority of American workers are not organized in any way (not even in trade unions, mind you), any attempt at a working class organization is to be commended.

Not so. In fact the opposite is true. The reformist pro-capitalist left represents no threat at all to capitalism but on the contrary is vital to the maintenance of capitalism. It provides both a safety valve and a diversion. It constantly draws attention away from the capitalist basis of society by equating capitalism with the free market and state capitalism with socialism. It is not interested - to quote Marx - in putting on its banner "the revolutionary watchword "Abolition of the Wages System! but on the contrary joins in the chorus of bourgeois ideologues who dismiss this as "utopian".

Most of the left are, to put it bluntly, not allies in the cause of socialism but are objectively speaking, unwitting opponents of that cause

[chegitz guevara]

Well then, go be perfect all by yourself.


This is utterly confused hogwash, to put it mildly. For starters, "full employment" implies a system of employment which means you have employers and employees which means you have a class system - in short, capitalism. Then we are told "working people" will "own and control the means of production" in this so-called socialist society but will have the right to form unions freely and to take strike action. Whhhaaattt!!! The owners of industry (supposedly) are going to take strike action against themselves!

Are you really that stupid? Don't bother. Full employment implies nothing beyond that people who want to work will have work.

And as for the workers having the right to have independent unions and the right to strike, against their own state, why would they possibly want that, after everything that happened in the 20th Century. Of, they would never want to strike for political reasons. Yep, the workers don't need unions to protect themselves from perfect revolutionaries like you.

[Niccolò Rossi]

many here like robbo (left communists) are the fundamentalists of the revolutionary left.

Just to clarify, Robbo is not a left communist.

Also, I find it ironic that in one breath you agree with Budog when he says "back stabbing and bad mouthing of other groups really gets old" and yet go on to slur the communist left as 'fundamentalist'.


Well it's easy to be a keyboard warrior and talk shit all the time, it's another thing to get out there and do something realistic to bring about change...

I can assure you the communist left is much more than 'keyboard warriors' and that 'talking shit' is not part of their activity.


Well then, go be perfect all by yourself.

This is nothing but a pathetic, cynical and opportunistic cop-out.

[al8]

The problem is that this 'something' can't be just some aimless activity, that in the end makes people loose heart. It's more helpful to be rational from the get-go, understand the problem at hand and develop clear solutions and rationally evaluate how one can contribute. And only contribute to something that ads up. That is the kind of 'something' that needs to be engaged in.

I say this because I've seen lot of sensible people get side-tracked by established politics designed to curtail change from a capitalist system to a new viable and desirable one, because they want to be 'relevant' now rather than help in the needed and necessary effort of building up the relevance of the bigger aim of systems change. Or at least forming their reform suggestions to serve the bigger and final goal of system change in a clear rational way. In the end someone has to lay the groundwork for a revolution to become the order of the day. And who others then will join the ranks of the ground builders other than those who reject the capitalist system and in addition reject it's narrow established political options?

[Revy]

Niccolo, I thought robbo was a left communist. My mistake. The irony is I actually agree a lot with him about a moneyless society. I just think he is reaching for reasons to call the SP-USA "capitalist".

right, it might be seen as hypocritical for me to say that about left communists. I am sorry for the generalization if you don't feel that you are a "fundamentalist" in your political thinking.

The constant name-calling of liberal, reformist, social democrat against parties like the SP-USA, I don't give a damn anymore. I know I'm not going to talk down to the working class for holding those kind of views. We have to educate and come to a revolutionary consensus.

Would there be a Russian Revolution if all the revolutionaries just thought "Oh, fuck that party, the RSDLP, they're a bunch of capitalists".:rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Left communism is a different political strand from Impossibilism, which is divided into World Socialist Movement types and so-called "DeLeonism."

[Niccolò Rossi]

Niccolo, I thought robbo was a left communist. My mistake.

Maybe Robbo can clarify, but I think he finds himself in the 'impossiblist' tradition.


The irony is I actually agree a lot with him about a moneyless society.

Any (so-called) communist would.


The constant name-calling of liberal, reformist, social democrat against parties like the SP-USA, I don't give a damn anymore. I know I'm not going to talk down to the working class for holding those kind of views. We have to educate and come to a revolutionary consensus.

Recognising an organisation as opportunist, idealist, reformist, or out and out bourgeois does not constitute 'talking down to the working class'. Here we are referring to the so-called 'vanguard(s)' of the class, it's most 'class conscious' layers. Besides, you can't just dismiss political criticism as constituing 'talking down to the working class', or atleast its a poor excuse for doing so. If this were the case, it would also be 'talking down to the working class' to argue against rascist, sexist, homophobic, superstitious and other backward and anti-worker ideas which hold sway amongst large sections of the working class.


Would there be a Russian Revolution if all the revolutionaries just thought "Oh, fuck that party, the RSDLP, they're a bunch of capitalists".:rolleyes:

And if it was? What then of a Russian 'Revolution'? This of course is Robbo's line, not my own. I would argue that the RSDLP and the Bolsheviks were proletarian, in which case arguing that they were bourgeois doesn't make much sense.

[robbo203]

Are you really that stupid? Don't bother. Full employment implies nothing beyond that people who want to work will have work..

Duh. Now lets start at the beginning, shall we? What happens when you seek employment, eh? Yes, thats right - you go to an "employer". You ask for something called a "job". Geddit?. Now already, presumably even you can begin to see that "employment" implies a little bit more than just wanting to work. It implies a socio-economic relationship. The great majority - the working class - owning little or no capital - are economically compelled to seek a "job" - employment - from those own the means of production, the capitalist class. So employment means a system of structural coercion - wage slavery - which lies at the very heart of capitalism.

The SP-USA is a capitalist organisation. Period. It has absolutely no vision of a society beyond capitalism, beyond wage slavery. It advocates "full employment" - a typical reformist illusion which ignores capitalism essential trade cycle and the functional significance of an "industrial reserve army" to quote Marx in holding down wages and so on



And as for the workers having the right to have independent unions and the right to strike, against their own state, why would they possibly want that, after everything that happened in the 20th Century. Of, they would never want to strike for political reasons. Yep, the workers don't need unions to protect themselves from perfect revolutionaries like you.


This is pathetic. You dont attempt to explain why workers would want to exercise the right to strike if they allegedly own the means of production in your so called socialist society. Who would they be striking against - and why?

[ZeroNowhere]

:blink: Well it's easy to be a keyboard warrior and talk shit all the time, it's another thing to get out there and do something realistic to bring about change...

Budog.
And both are equally necessary to bring about change. Well, inasmuch as the latter aren't simply counterproductive, as most people who pride themselves on their realism are.

As for the SPUSA, there are quite a few socialists in there, but it wouldn't be SPUSA without a little reformist bollocks, would it?

[chegitz guevara]

Duh. Now lets start at the beginning, shall we? What happens when you seek employment, eh? Yes, thats right - you go to an "employer". You ask for something called a "job". Geddit?. Now already, presumably even you can begin to see that "employment" implies a little bit more than just wanting to work. It implies a socio-economic relationship. The great majority - the working class - owning little or no capital - are economically compelled to seek a "job" - employment - from those own the means of production, the capitalist class. So employment means a system of structural coercion - wage slavery - which lies at the very heart of capitalism.

Employment = work

No society can function if no one does any work. So what does everyone in your revolution do? Nothing, sit around and starve the human race out of existence? No employment means no food, no electricity, no transportation, no internet, nothing.


This is pathetic. You dont attempt to explain why workers would want to exercise the right to strike if they allegedly own the means of production in your so called socialist society. Who would they be striking against - and why?Isn't this great? A so-called socialist who argues against the right of workers to organize and strike. Of course, in a perfect world, the workers wouldn't need unions or to strike. History, something you might want to check out, tells us that the world isn't perfect, and that even the best intentioned revolutions make mistakes that need correcting. We stand with the workers, against perfect revolutionaries who know everything and never make mistakes.

[robbo203]

Employment = work

No society can function if no one does any work. So what does everyone in your revolution do? Nothing, sit around and starve the human race out of existence? No employment means no food, no electricity, no transportation, no internet, nothing..

Er..no. I can see you are not very familiar with the socialist basics. So lets run through them again, shall we? Employment does not equal work. Actually employment is a subset of the category "work". It is the form which work takes under specific social conditions - namely , where there is a need to go to an employer and ask for a job (since you have no independent means of lving, no capital). In other words employment implies capitalism and in wanting a society in which there is "full employment" - a reformist delusion anyway - SP-USA reveals itself to be the pro-capitalist prganisation that it is.

Socialists want a society in which there is zero employment. Does that mean there will be no work to do? Of course not. Your comments are plain daft. Of course people will work in a socialist society but they will not be "employed" to work. There will be no employers and no employees. In other words, it will be a classless society



Isn't this great? A so-called socialist who argues against the right of workers to organize and strike. Of course, in a perfect world, the workers wouldn't need unions or to strike. History, something you might want to check out, tells us that the world isn't perfect, and that even the best intentioned revolutions make mistakes that need correcting. We stand with the workers, against perfect revolutionaries who know everything and never make mistakes.


Another ridiculous kneejerk comment. Of course, I fully support the right of workers to organise and strike - in capitalism. I ve been there myself. What I was asking you to consider is in what sense is it meaningful to talk about the right to strike in a classless socialist society. Strike against whom and for what? You show no inkling of understanding this point since you dont really understand what socialism is about in the first place. If socialism (aka communism) is a classless wageless stateless commonwealth in which we freely give according to our abilities and freely take according to our needs, what possible reason would there be to strike in the first place?

[chegitz guevara]

Socialism is not a classless, wageless society. What you are describing is communism. In socialism, classes will still exist. The state will still exist. Wages will still exist. Unless, of course, Marx didn't know what the fuck he was talking about in his Critique of the Gotha Programme.

And you're lecturing us over semantics. Do you seriously think anyone in the world aside from you gives a shit about the distinction your perfect group draws between employment and work?

Do you know why I treat you with contempt? It's because you act like you know everything acting as if split hairs are the most important thing in the world. Your knowledge of even basic Marxism is pathetic. That's fine in new people and those willing to learn. From someone who thinks he has all the answer, it's just annoying. Your understanding of how political organizations interact with the real world is even worse.

You jump all over the SPUSA because some guy who just joined the Party has confused ideas about socialism. You attack the party because we use employment differently than you do. You might want to note that English is an amazing language, in which words have multiple definitions, and that no one definition is the definition. So stuff your self-righteous prick up your pristine ass.

Instead of attacking a party in a country on the other side of the globe, why don't you try to make a revolution in your own country. We don't tell you how to overthrow the Spanish bourgeoisie. Kindly extend us the same courtesy.

[robbo203]

Socialism is not a classless, wageless society. What you are describing is communism. In socialism, classes will still exist. The state will still exist. Wages will still exist. Unless, of course, Marx didn't know what the fuck he was talking about in his Critique of the Gotha Programme.

And you're lecturing us over semantics. Do you seriously think anyone in the world aside from you gives a shit about the distinction your perfect group draws between employment and work?

Do you know why I treat you with contempt? It's because you act like you know everything acting as if split hairs are the most important thing in the world. Your knowledge of even basic Marxism is pathetic. That's fine in new people and those willing to learn. From someone who thinks he has all the answer, it's just annoying. Your understanding of how political organizations interact with the real world is even worse.

You jump all over the SPUSA because some guy who just joined the Party has confused ideas about socialism. You attack the party because we use employment differently than you do. You might want to note that English is an amazing language, in which words have multiple definitions, and that no one definition is the definition. So stuff your self-righteous prick up your pristine ass.

Instead of attacking a party in a country on the other side of the globe, why don't you try to make a revolution in your own country. We don't tell you how to overthrow the Spanish bourgeoisie. Kindly extend us the same courtesy.

Instread of getting in such a tizz, have a check at the statement from the SP-USA I criticised. Here is the relevant peice:

THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people’s lives under their own control – a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society…

So now, Mr Foot-in-Mouth, did you spot something? I guess not so let me point it out to you - it says a socialist society will be among other things a classless society. But, oh no, according to you "Socialism is not a classless, wageless society. What you are describing is communism" Clearly, one of you must be wrong. Which one, eh? Perhaps you ought to take this up with your local vanguard and at least thrash out some kind of consistent line of argument.

In point of fact neither Marx or Engels distinguished between communism and socialism. They regarded these terms as synonyms. The supposed distinction between socialism and communism was principally an invention of a certain Mr Lenin.

I am still waiting to hear a direct response from you to my point about employment not the self righteous diversionary twaddle you have come out with above. Employment has "multiple defintions" you say . What a load of bollocks! Its pretty clear what you mean by this in the context of your statement about "full employment". By employment you mean paid wage labour. THe SP-USA has no vision of an alternative beyond capitalism, beyond the wages system

The fact of the matter is that your SP-USA has been shown up for what it is - just another reformist pro-capitalist left party and you are trying desparately to wriggle out of this one. It wont work

[chegitz guevara]

Don't act like I'm the one who started this conversation off on the wrong foot. Your only point in this conversation is to be an ass.

Is the SPUSA Statement of Principles sloppy and poorly worded? Yes. Is that indicative of a bourgeois organization? No. It's indicative of an organization that doesn't take theory very seriously. But, you'd rather be an asshole and carp about our Principles than actually ask questions. I don't know Budog, so I can't speak for him, but every other member of the SPUSA on RevLeft is a communist, and the majority of active members of the SPUSA are communists.

As for what Marx and Engels distinguished, go reread your Critique of the Gotha Programme. Marx clearly distinguishes between lower and higher phases of communism. And the rest of us understand that the lower phase of communism is socialism. And if the SPUSA uses socialism incorrectly, so the fuck what? Get over yourself. We don't pretend to be perfect revolutionaries who have every little question sewn up tight before ever engaging in politics.

[robbo203]

Don't act like I'm the one who started this conversation off on the wrong foot. Your only point in this conversation is to be an ass.

Is the SPUSA Statement of Principles sloppy and poorly worded? Yes. Is that indicative of a bourgeois organization? No. It's indicative of an organization that doesn't take theory very seriously. But, you'd rather be an asshole and carp about our Principles than actually ask questions. I don't know Budog, so I can't speak for him, but every other member of the SPUSA on RevLeft is a communist, and the majority of active members of the SPUSA are communists.

As for what Marx and Engels distinguished, go reread your Critique of the Gotha Programme. Marx clearly distinguishes between lower and higher phases of communism. And the rest of us understand that the lower phase of communism is socialism. And if the SPUSA uses socialism incorrectly, so the fuck what? Get over yourself. We don't pretend to be perfect revolutionaries who have every little question sewn up tight before ever engaging in politics.


My word, we are a little snappy, arent we? It appears I am not even permitted to make a criticism of the SP-USA because Mr Foot-in-Mouth here pompously deems that to do so is to "behave like an ass" and that my only point in criticising was to do this (yeah very meaningful mature criticism that). Getting him finally to admit that the SP-USA's statement is sloppy (an understatement if there ever was one!) is llikely trying to get blood from a stone. Behind all this bluster, I suggest, you have been stung into the realisation that the SP-USA is afterall nothing but a pro-capitalist organisation, has no vision of an alternative beyond the wages system, and you simply dont like having to live with this uncomfortable truth

As far Marx distinguishing between a lower and higher phase of communism on the Critique of the Gotha programme,yes, I am well aware of that thank you very much. Point is he didnt call the lower phase "socialism" did he. The so called "rest of us" who do use this usage - speak for yourself, many of us dont - take their cue from Mr Lenin who initiated this abrupt departure from Marxist terminology. But even here you are totally inconsistent. You claim socialism is a class-based society but if you read the Critique of the Gotha Programme you can see quite clearly that the lower phase of communism was emphatically not a class-based society. So how the hell can you equate your so called "socialism" with this lower phase, eh?

Talk about being muddleheaded. But then I dont expect a reasoned response from you. No doubt, you will go off again huffying and puffing in yet another diatribe against us ..er... "perfect revolutionaries"

[chegitz guevara]

It appears I am not even permitted to make a criticism of the SP-USA

You did not make a criticism. You made a wholesale attack, (nothing but a left-bourgeois organization) then looked for examples to "prove" your point.

If you want to make a criticism, i.e., the statement of principles is muddled, poorly thought out, etc., fine by me. Be my guest. It is. It's terrible IMO. If, instead, you're going to use it to "prove" that were are nothing more than a bunch of social democrats, then we're going to have a fight.

The majority of the active members of the SPUSA are revolutionaries (anarchists, left communists, Trotskyists, Luxemburgists, revolutionary Marxists, etc.). We just don't have enough of a majority to overcome the social democrat's "veto," which means we're stuck with the awful thing for another two years. Hopefully by the next convention, we'll have the 2/3rds majority to replace it.