Socialists get newfound attention as 'red-baiting' draws interest from youth [Archive]

Die Neue Zeit

25th February 2010, 14:06

The socialist agenda that some conservatives see lurking around every corner, hidden in everything from health insurance reform to stimulus spending to President Obama's policies, exasperates Louisvillian Fred Hicks.

As the leader of a local socialist group, Hicks says the use of the “S-word” as a political smear is a gross mischaracterization that ignores the reality that socialism remains a lonely movement, with his 40-person group struggling to get more than a dozen people to attend a meeting.

And yet while the term's recent popularity irks Hicks, the retired professor says it's also beginning to have an unexpected result: It's bringing newfound interest and attention to his cause.

More:

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100223/FEATURES/2230310/1010/Socialists+get+newfound+attention+as+%E2%80%98red-baiting++draws+interest+from+youth

25th February 2010, 15:22

The bourgeoisie is growing its own grave, ey? Thank you Murdoch & co!

chegitz guevara

25th February 2010, 17:41

While I agree with the basic premise of the article, that the conservatives have done us a tremendous favor, I dislike the pro-social democratic tilt the article gives the SPUSA.

Jimmie Higgins

25th February 2010, 17:58

Thanks for posting this. To back up the anecdotal evidence from this article there was last years poll which found that after the recession only 1/2 of Americans thought that capitalism was better than socialism and 1/3 of young people thought that socialism was better than capitalism.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2009/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism

As far as anti-socialist propaganda and smears - I am much happier when it comes from the far right than when it comes (more sneakily and dishonestly) from liberals (who more often dismiss radicalism rather than attack it outright like the right-wing does). If a bunch of AM radio pro-rich warmongers are spewing homophobia, sexism, and racism and saying that "socialism is the enemy of all they stand for"... well then I have to think there are a fair number of left-leaning people thinking to themselves that the enemy of their enemy must be their friend.

Hopefully the right-wing will do for socialism what their crusading propaganda has done for pre-marital sex and pot... made them widely accepted and very popular with the youth.

KurtFF8

25th February 2010, 18:13

Interesting article indeed. It's absolutely the case that the right's new red-baiting has backfired to some extent. The real question of importance will be whether the Left can capitalize on this or not.

Robocommie

25th February 2010, 18:17

KurtFF8

25th February 2010, 18:20

Well you also have to remember that that poll came out some time ago. And the "activist" trend we've been seeing has been more of a right-wing trend than a left-wing trend.

25th February 2010, 18:23

Interesting article, we can only hope real socialist organisations get their numbers boosted too.

While I agree with the basic premise of the article, that the conservatives have done us a tremendous favor, I dislike the pro-social democratic tilt the article gives the SPUSA.

Of course you would, but that's because they are in effect social-democrats, in fact, they are distracting revolutionaries from a real party which is negating this jump in an interest in socialism.

Robocommie

25th February 2010, 18:26

Well you also have to remember that that poll came out some time ago. And the "activist" trend we've been seeing has been more of a right-wing trend than a left-wing trend.

True, however I've also heard it stated, and I think there's a lot of truth in it, that the Tea Party movement gets over-represented. How many Left wing demonstrations have been formed with numbers in excess of right wing demonstrations, and yet the right wing movement is supposed to be more indicative of national sentiment at large.

After all, we have Fox News, which is blatantly right wing in it's sympathies, but there is no news network in this country which sympathizes strongly and openly with even social democrats in this country.

Jimmie Higgins

25th February 2010, 19:27

Well you also have to remember that that poll came out some time ago. And the "activist" trend we've been seeing has been more of a right-wing trend than a left-wing trend.True and in addition, I have no doubt that most of the people polled thought socialism = financial regulation, health care, and a return to having a social safety net, not worker's power and revolution.

Still I think it shows how to the left of the Democratic Party, much of the country (and Dem party supporters), really are. Additionally is shows how shallow the support for neoliberalism and capitalism really are among US workers. For the last 3 decades we've been told that US workers are center-right, do not have a taste for social-democracy or democratic socialism like people in all other industrial counties, and whole-heartedly believe in pull yourself up by your bootstraps Am-urh-ruh-can capitalism and individualism.

When the economy is jolted and suddenly all the cheerleaders of capitalism (particularly neoliberal capitalism) in economics, media, politics, and academia are exposed (and everything they said would help working people actually destroys their savings) ... hmmm, suddenly the American working class has the same class instincts as workers in similar capitalist countries. It just goes to show how weak and thin the capitalists hold over our consciousness really is. Without the full weight of the capitalist superstructure bearing down on us, people go with their class interests.

Usui

25th February 2010, 19:33

Now if only there was an organized enough socialist movement in the USA to take advantage of this situation.

Red Commissar

25th February 2010, 19:52

It has given people reason to learn more about it. After all the way wingnuts use "socialist" so loosely, it virtually makes every government on Earth "socialist", and thus people want to know what it really means...

KurtFF8

25th February 2010, 20:22

It means we not only have to rebuild a movement, we have to fight over the term in the mean time. It's not really that big of a task to clarify the term when we're approached with it. The real task is getting involved with what current struggles are going on, and making sure that the Left can find itself amongst those struggles once again.

The Douche

25th February 2010, 20:45

While I agree with the basic premise of the article, that the conservatives have done us a tremendous favor, I dislike the pro-social democratic tilt the article gives the SPUSA.

Sorry for being a jerk, but the SP-USA is effectively a social democratic party. There are lots of revolutionaries in it (I was, and you are), but the party is always represented by its social-democratic wing.

As long as your party (no matter how many revolutionaries are in it) is represented by the Brian Moores of the party, you will fail to be a revolutionary party.

I also think the party should be more clear on how it views worker control of the means of production/the siezure thereof.

I have a soft spot in my heart for the SP because its where I started my activism, but I haven't seen the revolutionaries be able to make much progress in the past 5 years.

Crux

25th February 2010, 23:08

I am going to be kind and say that the SP-USA are broadly centrists.

The Douche

25th February 2010, 23:42

I am going to be kind and say that the SP-USA are broadly centrists.

I would say that the party is mainly revolutionaries, but there is a firm social democratic hold on the leadership.

I was in the party, many people around my tendency and on the periphery of it detested the centrist and social democratic membership, I don't know why the revolutionaries can't take control of the party.

Where is chegitz? There should be an SP thread, its a very interesting party.

GPDP

26th February 2010, 00:41

According to chegitz, the social democrats have been steadily losing their hold on the SPUSA leadership, if not outright leaving the party, in recent times, so I think that's why he resents the SPUSA being called a social-democrat party.

Robocommie

26th February 2010, 01:33

I'm not interested in picking fights with Social Democrats. I think we've got bigger things to worry about than ideological purity.

Agnapostate

26th February 2010, 01:53

What sickening idiocy in that article's comment section...can't say it's anything new, naturally.

The Douche

26th February 2010, 01:53

I'm not interested in picking fights with Social Democrats. I think we've got bigger things to worry about than ideological purity.

Honestly, it makes sense to try and get the social democrats out of your organization if you want to push for revolution and not reform.

RadioRaheem84

26th February 2010, 02:02

All this talk of reformists makes me wonder just which groups are actually socialist and which ones are reformist social democrats.

SP-USA - Socialist Party USA
CPUSA - Communist Party USA
SD-USA - Social Democrats USA
DSOA - Democratic socialists of America

etc.

GPDP

26th February 2010, 02:32

SP-USA - Rank and file appears to be mainly revolutionary socialist, but a substantial part of the leadership is made up of social democrats. This seems to be changing.

CPUSA - No doubt has a few actual communists in there, but it's by and large a Democrat cheerleader party. It's a joke.

SD-USA - Obviously social democratic.

DSOA - Same as the above, really, though it wouldn't surprise me if a few actual socialists are in the rank and file.

The Douche

26th February 2010, 02:54

Now that I think about it, it might be DSOA which is related to the SP and not SD-USA...

But all those groups, currently, act in a reformist manner. But I think that is changing in the SP, or there is a large bloc pushing for it to change. I think the CP is gonna die after the current leadership retires.

Part of me thinks the revolutionaries in the SP ought to back out and get involved with the WPA. The WPA seems to have similar politics to the revolutionaries in the SP.

The Red Next Door

26th February 2010, 03:23

I can't wait for more members.

Robocommie

26th February 2010, 03:28

Honestly, it makes sense to try and get the social democrats out of your organization if you want to push for revolution and not reform.

You have a point. But at the same time, it's occurred to me lately that with the number of bodies we'd need to win a revolution in the US, we might as well not abandon elections, even as we prepare for the worst. One never knows, since Chavez, Allende, and Morales were all voted in.

I mean obviously, if groups like the CPUSA reject revolution, then we should reject them, but I don't see a reason to not try and get mayors, councilmen, or even national congressmen elected, even if it's a long shot.

Rusty Shackleford

26th February 2010, 03:33

i JUST joined the SP-USA and the whole time i was afraid of it being a social-democratic party. but seeing how many SP members are on here i had the confidence to join.

i was contemplating the PSL which would have been my second choice if the SP-USA failed to interest me any more. the one problem with the PSL is that im not sure if my faintly trot(in that i dont believe there can be FULL ON socialism in one state but i believe a single state can easily progress towards socialism kind of like dividing a number over and over... it gets closer to zero but never actually gets there) and more overtly anarchistic tendencies would cause a problem.

overall though i follow the marxist analysis of things like class struggle and hold marxist theory at the top above all others.

still got a lot to learn but joining a party was one of my goals. now that that is out of the way i can progress farther.

EDIT: that red baiting was what initiated me into socialist thinking. gradually i went from social democrat to preferring socialism as only the FIRST step to a better world.

The Douche

26th February 2010, 04:08

You have a point. But at the same time, it's occurred to me lately that with the number of bodies we'd need to win a revolution in the US, we might as well not abandon elections, even as we prepare for the worst. One never knows, since Chavez, Allende, and Morales were all voted in.

I mean obviously, if groups like the CPUSA reject revolution, then we should reject them, but I don't see a reason to not try and get mayors, councilmen, or even national congressmen elected, even if it's a long shot.

The SP will probably always stand in elections, the revolutionary elements still support this.

The CP however does reject revolution, and socialism, in favor of endorsing the democrats.

I will also point out that chavex, allende, and morales do not represent successful socialist revolution...

Robocommie

26th February 2010, 04:21

I will also point out that chavex, allende, and morales do not represent successful socialist revolution...

I don't really see how it's useful to exclude them. Allende was a socialist with ties to the Chilean Communist Party, you can call it a failure because he was executed in a coup, but he was more or less our guy, and as far as Chavez goes, he's been advancing a lot of interesting developments as seen in the thread on Venezuelan peasant militias.

The Douche

26th February 2010, 04:40

I don't really see how it's useful to exclude them. Allende was a socialist with ties to the Chilean Communist Party, you can call it a failure because he was executed in a coup, but he was more or less our guy, and as far as Chavez goes, he's been advancing a lot of interesting developments as seen in the thread on Venezuelan peasant militias.

Allende represents probably the best out of that list, but the fact that a coup stopped the revolution demonstrates that it wasn't based in a mass working class movement.

Chavez doesn't impress me at all, and those peasant militias are state controlled, so its nothing more than a part time military, we have the national guard here in the US too...:rolleyes:

If they were independent organizations then I would have to reconsider my stance, but I don't think Chavez is doing much to empower the working class.

Robocommie

26th February 2010, 04:53

Allende represents probably the best out of that list, but the fact that a coup stopped the revolution demonstrates that it wasn't based in a mass working class movement.

Is that why Pinochet had to murder thousands of people with death squads, and brutally repress the others with state torturers? I think it's kindof insulting, and really kindof insensitive to all those killed and terrorized under Pinochet to say Allende did not have mass working class support. How else do you suppose he won the election?

Chavez doesn't impress me at all, and those peasant militias are state controlled, so its nothing more than a part time military, we have the national guard here in the US too...:rolleyes:

If they were independent organizations then I would have to reconsider my stance, but I don't think Chavez is doing much to empower the working class.

Now I see what RadioRaheem was talking about.

Those militias were formed to provide self defense to the peasants who are being attacked in response to Chavez' land reform bills. How is that not empowering the workers?

It's not just a part time military, and it is not like the National Guard. That's a mischaracterization.

Die Neue Zeit

26th February 2010, 05:08

SP-USA - Rank and file appears to be mainly revolutionary socialist, but a substantial part of the leadership is made up of social democrats. This seems to be changing.

Even with the revolutionary leadership, the bulk of mere dues payers are still reformist social-democrats (over half the total membership), as Chegitz himself noted. There's just there for the label, not paying much attention to party politics.

The Douche

26th February 2010, 05:16

Is that why Pinochet had to murder thousands of people with death squads, and brutally repress the others with state torturers? I think it's kindof insulting, and really kindof insensitive to all those killed and terrorized under Pinochet to say Allende did not have mass working class support. How else do you suppose he won the election?

You think electing a president ammounts to a revolution? The working class wasn't militant enough or organized enough to carry out revolution, and so they weren't capable of defending what they got from Allende. The same situation exists (potentially) with Chavez.

Those militias were formed to provide self defense to the peasants who are being attacked in response to Chavez' land reform bills. How is that not empowering the workers?

Because they are not autonomous organizations of the working class, they're state controlled organizations for the purpose of carrying out state policies (which are progressive, for now).

It's not just a part time military, and it is not like the National Guard. That's a mischaracterization.

I don't think either of us knows how to characterize them properly. But it is certainly not a "worker's militia", because it answers to the state, not to the working class.

zimmerwald1915

26th February 2010, 05:20

Those militias were formed to provide self defense to the peasants who are being attacked in response to Chavez' land reform bills. How is that not empowering the workers?

It's not just a part time military, and it is not like the National Guard. That's a mischaracterization.
Chavez disagrees with you.

"For Chavez, the peasant militias 'are just a first sign of developing a popular armed force to safeguard our integrity and our sovereignty'...The peasant militia will also assist the regular army 'against any foreign aggressor,' wrote Chavez."

So does his Defense Minister.

"Major General and Defence Minister Carlos Mata Figueroa described the peasant militias, which began training in the state of Cojedes last week as a 'strategic arm for the defence of our republic.'"

Link (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5150)

Robocommie

26th February 2010, 05:50

Chavez disagrees with you.

"For Chavez, the peasant militias 'are just a first sign of developing a popular armed force to safeguard our integrity and our sovereignty'...The peasant militia will also assist the regular army 'against any foreign aggressor,' wrote Chavez."

So does his Defense Minister.

"Major General and Defence Minister Carlos Mata Figueroa described the peasant militias, which began training in the state of Cojedes last week as a 'strategic arm for the defence of our republic.'"

Link (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5150)

Yes, I read that in the other thread. And just as then, I still think you're missing the point. But that's for that thread, not this one.

zimmerwald1915

26th February 2010, 05:56

Yes, I read that in the other thread. And just as then, I still think you're missing the point. But that's for that thread, not this one.
Hey, I'm just looking at the statements of the people who actually set them up, rather than engaging in wish-thinking. Also, if I recall, you were the one who brought up Chavez, Morales, and Allende in this thread, not me.

Robocommie

26th February 2010, 06:47

Hey, I'm just looking at the statements of the people who actually set them up, rather than engaging in wish-thinking. Also, if I recall, you were the one who brought up Chavez, Morales, and Allende in this thread, not me.

Yes, and I was going to respond to you more fully, but that would've turned this thread into yet another discussion of the militias, but there is already a thread for that. And I've expressed my thoughts on it there.

zimmerwald1915

26th February 2010, 06:50

Fair enough. Back to exulting how gratuitous red-baiting is a boon to socialism, then.

cyu

26th February 2010, 09:09

You think electing a president ammounts to a revolution? The working class wasn't militant enough or organized enough to carry out revolution, and so they weren't capable of defending what they got from Allende.

Then there's this from http://socialistworld.net/eng/2010/01/0401.html

Allende spoke of a “peaceful, democratic revolution” and, in spite of relentless attacks, believed the capitalist opposition would ultimately have to respect his democratic mandate. He held onto these illusions right up until the end, even while sections of the military were alerting him to plans of a coup and 500,000 workers and peasants were marching to the presidential palace asking for arms to defend their revolution and the Allende government.

Rusty Shackleford

26th February 2010, 09:13

lesson to be learned from Allende experience. manage to arm workers sometime soon after election victory.

lesson learned from Morales experience. The ballot has as much potential as the bullet.

The Douche

26th February 2010, 13:07

Then there's this from http://socialistworld.net/eng/2010/01/0401.html

Allende spoke of a “peaceful, democratic revolution” and, in spite of relentless attacks, believed the capitalist opposition would ultimately have to respect his democratic mandate. He held onto these illusions right up until the end, even while sections of the military were alerting him to plans of a coup and 500,000 workers and peasants were marching to the presidential palace asking for arms to defend their revolution and the Allende government.

Thanks for proving my point?

The power of that "revolution" was seated in the hands of Allende, not the working class, he in fact denies the working class its power when they ask for it in defense of the gains they have made with his help.

chegitz guevara

26th February 2010, 15:26

Where is chegitz? There should be an SP thread, its a very interesting party.

I'm here. Y'all have been discussing the problems quite well, so I thought I'd keep my trap shut. One of the things I've learned over the decades is, not every discussion needs my input. :)

cyu

27th February 2010, 02:01

The power of that "revolution" was seated in the hands of Allende, not the working class

Indeed that's a danger of hero-worship, which is why I have anarchist leanings.

he in fact denies the working class its power when they ask for it in defense of the gains they have made with his help.

He was naive and his people trusted him because they liked him. It's important to remember that just because you like someone or their policies, you can't assume they are infallible - people who consider themselves "followers" looking for "good leadership" very often fall into this trap.

On a less serious note...
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=29758&type=card

Nolan

28th February 2010, 18:14

This is certainly a welcome development. I've been getting more attention lately for my Marxist politics.

Robocommie

28th February 2010, 18:27

Now that I think about it I may have seen this development lately in my own life. Most of my friends are left-liberals, and the furor over health care exposed them to a lot of bullshit. Since I was already a socialist, I had a chance to step in and tell them what socialism really is, and what it stands for. Three of my friends have since switched ideologies since I started talking to them about politics.

the last donut of the night

4th March 2010, 03:39

Rusty Shackleford

4th March 2010, 04:05

Well i joined the SP-USA and ill stick with them. unless something concerning happens i wont leave. personally i think its shitty to join a party, leave it soon after, then join another one.

Robocommie

4th March 2010, 05:43

Well i joined the SP-USA and ill stick with them. unless something concerning happens i wont leave. personally i think its shitty to join a party, leave it soon after, then join another one.

Unless the first party runs out of booze amirite?

Rusty Shackleford

4th March 2010, 05:52

Unless the first party runs out of booze amirite?
socialists of all stripes all have ample amounts of alcohol. so, what really matters is the people at the party. if someone has too much alcohol and starts acting like an asshole, ill just gtfo.

Agnapostate

4th March 2010, 08:09

My own PSL chapter isn't very dogmatic about factionalism, though I'm not an actual member; I've just been kind of a hanger-on for a couple of years.

Tablo

4th March 2010, 08:27

The insane amount of sectarian conflict is ridiculous. Until we have control I see little point in these petty conflicts. We have enough in common to share a common front for the working class. Though the division between Anarchist and Stalinist tendencies I think is justified.. there just simply is not enough in common in these tendencies to allow much cooperation.

chegitz guevara

4th March 2010, 13:14

I see even less point after we have control.

The problem with our era is that we cannot test in practice every single idea that comes into our heads, and so we fight over them entirely in the mental realm. This leads to every idea having its own organization. If we had the masses to test the different ideas, very quickly we'd see which had potential and which were shit.

The Douche

4th March 2010, 13:53

My own PSL chapter isn't very dogmatic about factionalism, though I'm not an actual member; I've just been kind of a hanger-on for a couple of years.

Woahhhhh, pump the brakes on that one buddy...

Why do you work through the PSL (I know you're not a member, but you say you've worked with them for years) if you're an anarchist?

Really, anarcho-stalinism? Sweeeeeeeeet.

Robocommie

4th March 2010, 13:57

Woahhhhh, pump the brakes on that one buddy...

Why do you work through the PSL (I know you're not a member, but you say you've worked with them for years) if you're an anarchist?

Really, anarcho-stalinism? Sweeeeeeeeet.

I wouldn't call the PSL "Stalinist."

The Douche

4th March 2010, 14:11

I wouldn't call the PSL "Stalinist."

Okay, fair enough, they're not traditionally stalinist. They're more like non-dogmatic anti-revisionist. Either way, its not an organization anarchists would choose to work with usually. And its kind of non-senseical for an anarchist to work with them.

Robocommie

4th March 2010, 14:18

Okay, fair enough, they're not traditionally stalinist. They're more like non-dogmatic anti-revisionist. Either way, its not an organization anarchists would choose to work with usually. And its kind of non-senseical for an anarchist to work with them.

I guess I can see your point, yeah.

4th March 2010, 18:37

They are 'non-sectarian', in the same way that the opportunistic SWP or AWL over here (who are not-so-incidentally Trots) wouldn't mind liberals, socdems, anarchists (same thing in a lot of the cases with the SWP/AWL). So yeah.

The Douche

4th March 2010, 21:29