21st Century 'Socialism' What's Your Vision?

[Jacobinist]

Good day comrades, as you have probably been aware of for the last 10 years, we are in a new century. A new century of hope where hopefully progress will be made as we learn from the mistakes in our past; correct? We learned in the past century that the left is far too divided. The right knows what they want; power, capital, and land/resources.
But ask that question to the left, and depending on who you ask, you’ll get a wide array of answers; probably a whole alphabet soup of party initials and –ism’s. Yet, most of us can agree that we are Marxist, and want some type of ‘socialism.’ Yet we seem divided as if though there is no common thread to our ideologies.

This is why I ask the question, should all parties interested not draft a ‘compromise‘ treaty, or 10 commandments to agree on? Seems viable, hard, but viable. And in this new century, what do you want to see? What would be your 10 commandments? All models can be improved, how would you improve your own personal favorite?

[Dimentio]

Basically, a system which balances the well-being and quality of life of all human beings with the needs of the environment, so we could ensure that even future generations should enjoy life. A world where all human beings could reach their highest potential.

I think this is the road of course: www.technocracynet.eu

[Jacobinist]

"a system which balances the well-being and quality of life of all human beings with the needs of the environment" - Dme

The importance of sustainablity cannot be forgotten in a world with ever dwindling resources. Good point.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well it's a good idea and I would see it as a positive development if a sort of general-left party organized or even a principled democratic-socialist party formed in the US. But I don't think our own organization is the root of the problem with the left right now - our main obstacle as I see it is that radical politics and ideas and organizations have been removed from the working class. So modern radical groups might have a few members as bureaucrats, but no connection to the rank and file or, conversely may have rank and file members in disperse industries, but are blocked from grassroots influence by liberal bureaucrats. In other movements it's largely the same in the US with large liberal pro-Democratic Party groups monopolizing social movements and leading them into the ground for the most part.

So a large national presence would be nice, but I think it is like trying to fly a jumbo-jet before taking any flying lessons. We need to take the basic steps of organizing where we are in schools and our workplaces and communities and try and build up independent working class movements. Out of these larger movements, I think things like democratic-socialist parties and other organizations will form naturally because there will be a large base of people trying to figure out how to push our movements forward.

[tophat]

The trouble with overly broad things is that it limits effective action, and ultimately may create more division. So while I find the sectarianism of the (statist left, anyway) far-left in the UK a joke, I don't see how the whole far-left could be bound together by some principles. They would have to be so broad and vague to avoid disagreement - yet this would just dilute the politics. In more single-issue type campaigns, sure, we on the left can all work together more or less. But to unite left-communists/anarchists with Leninists/Trotskyites and social democrats/left-liberals in a broad grouping would be pointless. Unless you mean uniting one specific tendency within the left? But even then, as I don't believe in the need for one vanguard party I can't see much value in it, apart from for overcoming petty factionalism.
I value theoretical and tactical unity in revolutionary organisation.

[Dimentio]

If I was a radical leftist in the USA, I would focus a lot more on Canada. There is probably a higher chance to create something progressive there, and a progressive change in Canada would have a tremendous effect for the United States.

[CartCollector]

There is probably a higher chance to create something progressive there, and a progressive change in Canada would have a tremendous effect for the United States.Perfect example: when Canada got government run health insurance, there was instantly a big push to have it in the US. Oh wait...

[Jacobinist]

The US is doomed to destruction and WILL NOT REFORM. It must collapse.

[Jacobinist]

This is pretty pathetic. No one has a vision independent of a political party?

I would have thought this post could have brought together various groups over some core principals. Guess not.

BTW, my reputation is horrible, and only because the Truth Can Suck. :p

[Dimentio]

Perfect example: when Canada got government run health insurance, there was instantly a big push to have it in the US. Oh wait...

If Canada became socialist, it would create a red scare in America. Given that Canada has another historical development than Russia, we can assume that Canadian socialism will be different and attain a much more attractive face, especially when the standards of living are continuously eroded in the United States. Given the common language and the similar culture, it is unlikely that the United States would invade Canada as easily as for example Guatemala or Mexico. Moreover, Canada is resource-abundant compared to its population and also control a large part of the US energy grid through the Niagara Falls powerplant.

[Roland-Marxista]

The central thesis of the XXI century socialism, must be not to make certain structural errors committed by the so-called Real Socialism ...

Never confuse either, Democratic Socialism to Social Democracy ....

The goal is always to achieve the socialization of the means of production and eliminate class privileges ...

[Dimentio]

The central thesis of the XXI century socialism, must be not to make certain structural errors committed by the so-called Real Socialism ...

Never confuse either, Democratic Socialism to Social Democracy ....

The goal is always to achieve the socialization of the means of production and eliminate class privileges ...

What is characteristic for 21st century socialism then?

[Philzer]

Hi!


Basically, a system which balances the well-being and quality of life of all human beings with the needs of the environment, so we could ensure that even future generations should enjoy life.

Of course. And exactly the opposite of this eagerness is the basic of the real existing democracy:

Democracy is material corruption of a low consciousness mass, which is participated in the ruthless exploitation of the world.



and eliminate class privileges

Ok. But also the privileges of reach exploitation-democratic-nation to use the rest of the world as their wages-slaves and natural resources spring.


The US is doomed to destruction and WILL NOT REFORM. It must collapse.

I agree. But also all NATO states. Thier citizens are deep religious of the threedimensional freedom and all this pantheismus of bourgeois.

The collaborate from the working class of the democratic-nations with the world-imperialists is the famousest coup for the bourgeoisies and was the key to kill socialism.

Long before their citizens could take a breath of this new kind of freedom would they death armed from the democratic nations.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html

Kind regards

[Roland-Marxista]

What is characteristic for 21st century socialism then?

Can you read a book in Spanish?

[Dimentio]

Send me it ^^

[Dean]

Basically, a system which balances the well-being and quality of life of all human beings with the needs of the environment, so we could ensure that even future generations should enjoy life. A world where all human beings could reach their highest potential.

I think this is the road of course: www.technocracynet.eu (http://www.technocracynet.eu)

I think you're missing one of the fundamental values - popular, decentralized control of political, economic and social systems.

[Dimentio]

I think you're missing one of the fundamental values - popular, decentralized control of political, economic and social systems.

People have decentralised economic, political and social control in our proposed system. All legislation is taken care of through a confederate system of autonomous communes, and all consumer product production is determined by the individual allocation of the millions of users through the energy accounting system. The technate is there to manage a flow, but not to decide what the flow would consist of.

[CartCollector]

Roland-Marxista, ¿cómo se llama el libro? Quiero leerlo también.


This is why I ask the question, should all parties interested not draft a ‘compromise‘ treaty, or 10 commandments to agree on? Seems viable, hard, but viable.

Isn't that basically what an International is?

Also, I'm surprised no one's brought up Parecon yet. What do all of you think of Parecon? I think it meets socialist goals (worker's control of the means of production, an end to the alienation of labor, production for use and not exchange) without the usual pitfalls (economic calculation type arguments). If you want to know more about it, let me know and I can get you some writings on it.

[Communist]

:D

Hi!

This is really the most extremely hardest hyper super ultra funniest religious thread I ever seen as theory from so called "lefts". ok ok ok.... hahahahaha....ok....lol.... ok....Theo.. lol ...ry ......

Good night, sleep tight and dream on!

( dont forget to morrow to post the dreams here! :D:D )

Don't post nonsense like this, it is called trolling and subject to disciplinary action (http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=general#faq_faqforumrules). If you do it again you'll receive a verbal warning, and on from there, but hopefully there won't be a next time.
.

[Paul Cockshott]

Good day comrades, as you have probably been aware of for the last 10 years, we are in a new century. A new century of hope where hopefully progress will be made as we learn from the mistakes in our past; correct? We learned in the past century that the left is far too divided. The right knows what they want; power, capital, and land/resources.
But ask that question to the left, and depending on who you ask, you’ll get a wide array of answers; probably a whole alphabet soup of party initials and –ism’s. Yet, most of us can agree that we are Marxist, and want some type of ‘socialism.’ Yet we seem divided as if though there is no common thread to our ideologies.

This is why I ask the question, should all parties interested not draft a ‘compromise‘ treaty, or 10 commandments to agree on? Seems viable, hard, but viable. And in this new century, what do you want to see? What would be your 10 commandments? All models can be improved, how would you improve your own personal favorite?

The phrase xxi century socialism originates with Dieterich who gives as its 3 key characteristics :


Participatory democracy
Equivalence economy based on labour values
Cybernetic control of the economy

A recent account of his conception is given here http://www.wrpe.org/WAPE/WAPE%20papers%202009/DIETERICH.pdf

[iskrabronstein]

I think that the defining characteristic of socialism in the 21st century generally, and Marxist policy in particular, needs to be flexibility on a tactical and strategic level. We on the left have wasted decades fighting each other on the proper political and social formulae needed to bring about a "truly socialist" revolution. But in this fratricide, we have missed the fundamental lesson of the twentieth century - there is no single political policy, or set of policies, that can apply across the board to all the situations in which we on the left must work.

Consequently, although I consider myself a Trotskyist politically, my own ideas on strategy differ greatly from those put forward by the major Trotskyist organizations. In the specific case of the United States, I do not personally see the requisite conditions for an orthodox Leninist-style revolution: America is bereft of workers' organizations with a genuinely progressive role socially and politically. The first task of Marxists in this country, in my opinion, is to not only radicalize the existing union apparati but also to take advantage of the opportunities that the current capitalist crisis presents. We have a duty to build the organs of proletarian democracy and mutual support now, in order to defend the interests of the people in this current day rather than simply sharpening our swords for the battle to come.

The policy I would advocate to fulfill this end is one that is bounded by the conditions I've witnessed - the people want more direct control over their political systems and economic future. This is a desire that crosses party lines and ideological lines in this country - we as Marxists cannot swim against the current in the name of dogma. As such, our task in America is not simply to create an ideologically pure vanguard, but rather to channel popular resentment and political ferment into genuinely democratic, progressive policies put into place by workers' organizations themselves. We must build the organs of workers' government first, and worry about their ideological purity later.

In my opinion, the best way to do this is to follow the example of the Mondragon Corporation in Barcelona - foster the development of cooperatively owned and operated corporations to pull devastated communities out of economic stagnation. The fact is, in America, socialist policies are largely discounted as idealistic and impossible. The only way to defeat this perception is to prove the superiority of direct workers' control over industry to autocratic corporate management - if socialism is the policy that rebuilds the American economy, its political viability will be unquestionable.

That said, I adhere to my previous statement about the inapplicability of this policy generally. Different battles require different means, and I would not presume to dictate policy to comrades involved in struggles of a different political character.

[Roland-Marxista]

Send me it ^^

I have frustration, I can not hang the links to the books .... I have not yet the number of messages required ...

[Communist]

I have frustration, I can not hang the links to the books .... I have not yet the number of messages required ...

Right, until then just cut and paste url addresses into the message, they won't be hotlinks but anyone can cut and paste them into their browser. That's fine.

.

[Ben Seattle]

Hi folks,

I created a new thread to give my views on this topic. It can be seen here:

Workers' Rule (what "socialism" will look like)
free information vs. martial law
http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-rule-socialism-t132354/index.html

The introductory paragraph is as follows:

Here are some basic principles which will help us to better understand what workers' rule will be like following the overthrow of bourgeois rule--in particular as it relates to the need for the free flow of information and a possible short period of revolutionary martial law in difficult conditions. I used the word "socialism" in the title of this post, but I generally avoid that word (because it is understood in so many different and inaccurate ways) and advocate instead the use of the word proletarism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://proletarism.com).