Are there any honest, unapologetic supporters of the status quo?

[GPDP]

By honest and unapologetic, I mean they tell it like it is: they don't attempt to mislead you into thinking the current system is about democracy or freedom, or that it's fair, or anything like that, and instead of criticizing it, they support it and tell you openly they want things to stay as they are. They support imperialism and capitalism without remorse and without fostering illusions about their benefits to anyone but the ruling class.

Are there any such politicians or intellectuals that do this? Obviously they'd be rare, since supporters of the status quo by nature have to spin lies and mislead people with all kinds of nice buzzwords if they are to keep their privilege and power. But it'd be interesting to see if there are any that basically say "fuck all of that, we all know what's really going on and who really benefits. Don't like it? Deal with it."

This is actually more or less what I'm thinking of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49qmXh5krNc
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49qmXh5krNc)

[IcarusAngel]

In many of the Federalists papers they openly admit that the public is too stupid to govern themselves, and constantly refer to the public as "the great beast," the ignorant masses, people who are too stupid to decide what to do with their resources as they're too "selfish and ignorant" to wisely utilize resources. This is who Republicans constantly admire, always going on about "the founders" as if they're some weird group out of a scientific novel who agreed on everything.

Promoters of this elite democracy also include Walter Lippman, who said that the public are to be spectators in a democracy, not active participants.

Today, the propaganda is referred to as their candid moments, like when a Japanese CEO said that companies generally steal public resources or when one of the Vice Presidents of GE said that GE has actually never invented anything (quoted in Democracy for the Few, by Parenti).

[Dean]

hayenmill, LeftSideDown, MMIKEYJ, Skooma Addict and Comrade Anarchist come to mind...

[GPDP]

hayenmill, LeftSideDown, MMIKEYJ, Skooma Addict and Comrade Anarchist come to mind...

They don't fit the bill and you know it.

It's one thing to support an idealistic version of capitalism. It's quite another to fully support it in its current form. I doubt any of the posters above have anything nice to say about U.S. imperialism, for instance.

[IcarusAngel]

Would supporting current capitalism over alternatives count? As in, capitalist is the natural progression of history, and other, more "advanced" forms of capitalism, such as fascism, are worse than current capitalism, and as well pure "laissez-faire capitalism" was also worse. Plenty of liberals argue for capitalism in this way, that capitalism is the best of the bad systems.

(Btw.. why wouldn't fascism be seen as the next progression in history in Marxist theory? Or at least corporatism I mean. So shouldn't we be talking about "corporatism" and capitalism is dead, according to Marxist theory, or am I confused?)

[The Gallant Gallstone]

They don't fit the bill and you know it.

It's one thing to support an idealistic version of capitalism. It's quite another to fully support it in its current form. I doubt any of the posters above have anything nice to say about U.S. imperialism, for instance.

I think you'd have to find some determinist or necessitarian philosopher if you wanted to speak with someone who is honestly and unapologetically in support of the status quo. I don't think anyone else is happy with the status quo; we socialists certainly don't like it. Even the imperialists resent the feeble limitations placed on their ambitions.

[GPDP]

I think you'd have to find some determinist or necessitarian philosopher if you wanted to speak with someone who is honestly and unapologetically in support of the status quo. I don't think anyone else is happy with the status quo; we socialists certainly don't like it. Even the imperialists resent the feeble limitations placed on their ambitions.

I'm more or less talking about someone who fundamentally agrees with the general essence of the current distribution of power and resources in society, and if they have any gripes with the system, it's that it's not more geared toward the powerful than it already is.


Would supporting current capitalism over alternatives count? As in, capitalist is the natural progression of history, and other, more "advanced" forms of capitalism, such as fascism, are worse than current capitalism, and as well pure "laissez-faire capitalism" was also worse. Plenty of liberals argue for capitalism in this way, that capitalism is the best of the bad systems.

It depends. Would they try to frame the system as that offering the greatest possible freedom, opportunities, etc.? Or would they cut the crap, and outright tell you it sucks unless you have a "seat at the table," as the senator from the video clip I linked to said?

[Publius]

David Brooks comes close: http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/04/10/brooks-let-them-eat-work/

[Havet]

They don't fit the bill and you know it.

Thank you


It's one thing to support an idealistic version of capitalism. It's quite another to fully support it in its current form. I doubt any of the posters above have anything nice to say about U.S. imperialism, for instance.

I don't support an idealistic version of capitalism. I support its abolition, as I have stated inumerous times. Anyway...

Indeed, I have nothing nice to say about U.S. Imperialism, and I think its one of the points (as well as religion) where communists, right-libertarians and left-libertarians might find common ground on.

Also, I kind of thought as Bud Struggle as the type of person you were describing in the OP, though obviously he will be a better person to explain this.

[Dean]

Indeed, I have nothing nice to say about U.S. Imperialism, and I think its one of the points (as well as religion) where communists, right-libertarians and left-libertarians might find common ground on.
To bad the right libertarians don't! There was a split in the LP about 50/50 over the Iraq war. This really underlines how delusion the paradigm is, and how detached it is from legitimate criticism of contemporary systems.

[GPDP]

Also, I kind of thought as Bud Struggle as the type of person you were describing in the OP, though obviously he will be a better person to explain this.

Nah, Bud often apologizes for the system, and when he doesn't, he is open to reforming it. I'm looking for someone who tells you outright the system is unfair, and tells you to get used to it.

[Bud Struggle]

Nah, Bud often apologizes for the system, and when he doesn't, he is open to reforming it. I'm looking for someone who tells you outright the system is unfair, and tells you to get used to it.

I think the system is indeed flawed and needs to be reformed. It has some good points, to be sure, but for the most part it's grossly unfair to most people.

Where I differ from the RevLefters is that I think Capitalism doesn't have to be completely done away with and I don't believe Revolution is going to bring about the change we want to see happen.

[GPDP]

I should note that I once had a professor who actually came close to this kind of attitude. He told the class up front that the CIA has been involved in all sorts of shady business for decades, overthrowing governments and such, but that we shouldn't be so critical of them, because their actions made our standard of living possible or some shit. Real fucked up stuff, but brutally honest.

[#FF0000]

I should note that I once had a professor who actually came close to this kind of attitude. He told the class up front that the CIA has been involved in all sorts of shady business for decades, overthrowing governments and such, but that we shouldn't be so critical of them, because their actions made our standard of living possible or some shit. Real fucked up stuff, but brutally honest.

Reminds me of a kid I hang out with. He's an insufferable prick, and really typical of the sort I used to know in my honors classes. Well-off, out of touch with reality, big fan of repeating what his parents or what he hears on the news to maintain his reputation as a "smart kid".

I was having a discussion with him and he was sounding a lot like Bud, which was fine, until he tells me that freedom isn't anywhere close to being as important as capitalism.

Also: objectivists, though they're p. critical of the government, will excuse literally everything any government has ever done because of this weird "might makes right" mentality they have.

[Skooma Addict]

Lol, why do you hang out with him then?

[#FF0000]

Lol, why do you hang out with him then?

Best I can figure is that I like being annoyed and agitated. I hang out with a lot of people and I really don't like most of them.

[Bud Struggle]

I should note that I once had a professor who actually came close to this kind of attitude. He told the class up front that the CIA has been involved in all sorts of shady business for decades, overthrowing governments and such, but that we shouldn't be so critical of them, because their actions made our standard of living possible or some shit. Real fucked up stuff, but brutally honest.


Your prof was of course right. We pay our government officials big bucks to keeps us happy. In a way Americans are kind of like Mafia wives--we really don't want to know who had to get killed for us to live well. We just want the money to keep comming.

[LeftSideDown]

They don't fit the bill and you know it.

Mostly just this.

[RGacky3]

I don't support an idealistic version of capitalism. I support its abolition, as I have stated inumerous times. Anyway...


Yeah, but your definition of Capitalism differs from most, you support private property and markets, which to most people = Capitalism.


I think the system is indeed flawed and needs to be reformed. It has some good points, to be sure, but for the most part it's grossly unfair to most people.

Where I differ from the RevLefters is that I think Capitalism doesn't have to be completely done away with and I don't believe Revolution is going to bring about the change we want to see happen.

Thats your problem Bud, you don't understand the nature of how power works. You won't get reform without threat of revolution, power will ALWAYS lay firmly in the ruling class and their interests will always take precidence, unless their system is simply not accepted, if you work within their frame work, your playing THEIR games of which they make the rules, they will always win that game, we saw that with healthcare reform. If you want reform, don't play their game.

Let me give you an example, the workplace, the Capitalist game is every worker is alone and makes the deal with the boss individually, if workers want higher wages and just play it that way, the way the boss does it, the power is HUGELY in favor of the boss who has much more power when its one worker vrs one Capitalist, because he has all the money all the Capital, and the worker only has his own labor, the Capitalist can threaten with fireing, the worker has much more too loose. So ultimately nothing will change, and if it does its only for the interest of the Capitalist over the workers.

However if the workers change the game and work together as a union, NOW they have some real power, they threaten revolution, they threaten to shut down his buisiness, they now are at a negociating table and the Capitalist now has to give up some power.

This is how you get change, in the workplace, in politics, anywhere. You come from a position of strength, and YOU make the rules, you don't just accept the rulling class' rules.


Your prof was of course right. We pay our government officials big bucks to keeps us happy. In a way Americans are kind of like Mafia wives--we really don't want to know who had to get killed for us to live well. We just want the money to keep comming.

Thats absolutely untrue, what the American government does overseas, for the most part, does'nt benefit the American public whatsoever, it benefits the ruling class though, thats why the AMerican puiblic does'nt know, not because we don't want too (ask anyone if they'd rather know or not know where their tax dollars go), its because its not publicised because they know it would not be acceptable to the American public if it were told honestly.

[Bud Struggle]

Thats your problem Bud, you don't understand the nature of how power works. You won't get reform without threat of revolution, power will ALWAYS lay firmly in the ruling class and their interests will always take precidence, unless their system is simply not accepted, if you work within their frame work, your playing THEIR games of which they make the rules, they will always win that game, we saw that with healthcare reform. If you want reform, don't play their game. Oh, I understand. I just think a Revolution will bring about more of what Revolutions have always brought about--more vanguards or generalissimos or whatever. Someone else--and always in the name of the people--will take control and rule--in the name of the people. Slow steady reform relies on reason--and equality of all people IS REASONABLE. Revolution is emotional and there are people out there that can easily inflame reason. There were over 115 Revolutions in South America in the 19th Century--none brough about Communism or anything close. Occasionally something worthwhile happens--but you have to look at the statistics for Revolutions--and it isn't good.


Let me give you an example, the workplace, the Capitalist game is every worker is alone and makes the deal with the boss individually, if workers want higher wages and just play it that way, the way the boss does it, the power is HUGELY in favor of the boss who has much more power when its one worker vrs one Capitalist, because he has all the money all the Capital, and the worker only has his own labor, the Capitalist can threaten with fireing, the worker has much more too loose. So ultimately nothing will change, and if it does its only for the interest of the Capitalist over the workers. All true, vut what does it matter? There is ALWAYS (at least in the American system) of people getting together and forming a collective--they never do. Doesn't that tell you anything?


However if the workers change the game and work together as a union, NOW they have some real power, they threaten revolution, they threaten to shut down his buisiness, they now are at a negociating table and the Capitalist now has to give up some power. And that's pretty reasonable. Unions are fine, Fcapitalists shouldn't have total authority, but both the managers and the workers have jobs to do and they shouldn't be intertwined--it doesn't work.


Thats absolutely untrue, what the American government does overseas, for the most part, does'nt benefit the American public whatsoever, it benefits the ruling class though, thats why the AMerican puiblic does'nt know, not because we don't want too (ask anyone if they'd rather know or not know where their tax dollars go), its because its not publicised because they know it would not be acceptable to the American public if it were told honestly.

And WHERE does that money go that companies make-? Lots to rich people, but also lots to workers that want to enjoy retirements, etc. We all take part in what America does.

[RGacky3]

Oh, I understand. I just think a Revolution will bring about more of what Revolutions have always brought about--more vanguards or generalissimos or whatever. Someone else--and always in the name of the people--will take control and rule--in the name of the people. Slow steady reform relies on reason--and equality of all people IS REASONABLE. Revolution is emotional and there are people out there that can easily inflame reason. There were over 115 Revolutions in South America in the 19th Century--none brough about Communism or anything close. Occasionally something worthwhile happens--but you have to look at the statistics for Revolutions--and it isn't good.


It depends waht you mean by revolution, if what you meanis guerrilla insurgency, then I agree, it generally does'nt work. But there are many different types of revolutions.


All true, vut what does it matter? There is ALWAYS (at least in the American system) of people getting together and forming a collective--they never do. Doesn't that tell you anything?


Forming a collective? You first need Capital and land to form a collective, thats not what we are talking about here. We are talking about getting rid of Capitalism.


And that's pretty reasonable. Unions are fine, Fcapitalists shouldn't have total authority, but both the managers and the workers have jobs to do and they shouldn't be intertwined--it doesn't work.


They have jobs to do? Says who? Says the Capitalists. Who decides what jobs there are to do and who does them and for what? The Capitalists. We want to get rid of unaccountable manegarial authority and make it accountable.

What your saying is the same as "both the king and the peasant have jobs to do, they should'nt be intertwined." (its amazing how similar Capitalism is to feudalism).


And WHERE does that money go that companies make-? Lots to rich people, but also lots to workers that want to enjoy retirements, etc. We all take part in what America does.

Statistically, almost all to rich people, thats no hyperboly. We all take part in what America does, but only the rich really benefit from what America does.

[#FF0000]

Oh, I understand. I just think a Revolution will bring about more of what Revolutions have always brought about--more vanguards or generalissimos or whatever. Someone else--and always in the name of the people--will take control and rule--in the name of the people. Slow steady reform relies on reason--and equality of all people IS REASONABLE. Revolution is emotional and there are people out there that can easily inflame reason. There were over 115 Revolutions in South America in the 19th Century--none brough about Communism or anything close. Occasionally something worthwhile happens--but you have to look at the statistics for Revolutions--and it isn't good.

That is nonsense, though. We're talking about shifting from one mode of production, capitalism, to another, socialism. Throughout history, this has only ever been achieved through revolution, violent or otherwise. Revolutions can certainly fail. Everything comes with the risk of failure. But expecting to be able to use the state, a tool of class struggle which is used by one class to maintain power, to dismantle the system is is in place to protect, is absurd.


And WHERE does that money go that companies make-? Lots to rich people, but also lots to workers that want to enjoy retirements, etc. We all take part in what America does.

I don't think that's really true. Workers fight in wars and take the brunt of everything this country does, and the wealthy always are better off from it. Most goes to the wealthy, and some goes to the worker. Might seem fair to some, but not so much when one is honest and understands that the wealthy have no claim to what they have.

[Bud Struggle]

That is nonsense, though. We're talking about shifting from one mode of production, capitalism, to another, socialism. Throughout history, this has only ever been achieved through revolution, violent or otherwise. Revolutions can certainly fail. Everything comes with the risk of failure. But expecting to be able to use the state, a tool of class struggle which is used by one class to maintain power, to dismantle the system is is in place to protect, is absurd. Well yea, if you believe all that "class struggle" stuff. And I'm not saying it's wrong--but I don' quite know if it's right. I don't have the faith. I think a Revolution can easily create another Hitler or Stalin before it can create a just and fair world. I ten to side with the Technocrats on the idea that things should be tried out and if it works--then and only then should it be implemented. Throwing up a deck of cards and hoping they all fall together in numerical order by suites--is a bit difficult for me to believe in.



I don't think that's really true. Workers fight in wars and take the brunt of everything this country does, and the wealthy always are better off from it. Most goes to the wealthy, and some goes to the worker. Might seem fair to some, but not so much when one is honest and understands that the wealthy have no claim to what they have. The rich get most--to be sure. But the poor are getting better than they ever got and I think THAT is the trend the world is going in. A fair society is going to take time--lots of time, but then so would a Revolution.

[Dermezel]

Well yea, if you believe all that "class struggle" stuff. And I'm not saying it's wrong--but I don' quite know if it's right. I don't have the faith. I think a Revolution can easily create another Hitler or Stalin before it can create a just and fair world. I ten to side with the Technocrats on the idea that things should be tried out and if it works--then and only then should it be implemented. Throwing up a deck of cards and hoping they all fall together in numerical order by suites--is a bit difficult for me to believe in.

Straw Man argument. A revolution proceeds from a Class Conscious Proletariat. A Class Conscious Proletariat is unlikely to fall to a dictatorship.

Hitler didn't win by "Revolution" he just did a coup. The legal system of Germany helped him greatly. His base was primarily the petty bourgeoisie.

And Stalin got his power from the peasantry. The proletariat =/= peasantry.


The rich get most--to be sure. But the poor are getting better than they ever got and I think THAT is the trend the world is going in. A fair society is going to take time--lots of time, but then so would a Revolution.

That is in terms of absolute value, in terms of relative value they are worse off. And relative value is important because it determines the future of the economy and political power.

[Dr Mindbender]

The rich get most--to be sure. But the poor are getting better than they ever got and I think THAT is the trend the world is going in. A fair society is going to take time--lots of time, but then so would a Revolution.

Naom Chomsky made the interesting point that right after Hitler got into power, ordinary indigenous Germans had it much easier under the nazis than they did under president Hindenburg. Therefore if we're going to use what makes ordinary people feel marginally better off as the basis of what ideology we implement is that an argument in favour of National socialism?

The argument that we shouldnt strive in favour of a superior system because we are slightly better off than what we were 100 years ago is a total cop out. Furthermore, the gains we have made have been the result of organised workers agitation while along the bosses dragged their feet grudgingly. There is a reason why workers in America earn x dollars an hour (i dont know the US minimum wage) while Indians or Thais conversely, make only a few cents. Its because Indian workers, as with most of the developing world have much weaker union movements in a weaker position to demand more concessions of the indigenous bourgeoisie.

It is not in the bosses interests for a society where the workers are in a strong position to demand better lives. The expediation towards a world with superior living standards for all, as well as the development of the southern hemisphere can only be acheived by a social system that more closely resembles communism.

[Bud Struggle]

The argument that we shouldnt strive in favour of a superior system because we are slightly better off than what we were 100 years ago is a total cop out. Furthermore, the gains we have made have been the result of organised workers agitation while along the bosses dragged their feet grudgingly. There is a reason why workers in America earn x dollars an hour (i dont know the US minimum wage) while Indians or Thais conversely, make only a few cents. Its because Indian workers, as with most of the developing world have much weaker union movements in a weaker position to demand more concessions of the indigenous bourgeoisie.

The expediation towards a world with superior living standards for all, as well as the development of the southern hemisphere can only be acheived by a social system that more closely resembles communism.

I'm not disagreeing. I really have no problem with Communism--my problem is HOW DO WE GET THERE. I'm not even saying that Revolution is a bad idea--it might work. But the consequences would be dreadful if it didn't.

I'm just not ready to take the gamble. I need to stay in OI for a long while. :)

[Dermezel]

I'm not disagreeing. I really have no problem with Communism--my problem is HOW DO WE GET THERE. I'm not even saying that Revolution is a bad idea--it might work. But the consequences would be dreadful if it didn't.

I'm just not ready to take the gamble.

Who said we are going to gamble? I say use strategy to hedge the odds.

[Bud Struggle]

Who said we are going to gamble? I say use strategy to hedge the odds.

How have Revolutions worked so far? Do you actually SEE any fair and honest societies that have ever come from Revolution? Maybe the CTN in Spain or the EZLN--but they weren't exactly "Revolutions" that brough those societies about.

I'm no fan of what became of China or Russia and I don't think Revolution actually brought Socialism in Cuba (not that I think it's a bad place.) I am a fan of the Technocrat solution of"trying" a plan out on a small scale--and if it works implementing it. It it doesn't: next.

[Dermezel]

How have Revolutions worked so far?


Great. Life Expectancy has increased in every single Workers' State. They get free health care, education, housing, food. Even under embargo Cuba is looking damn fine.

[Glenn Beck]

Re: OP, pay a visit to your local university economics department

[Dermezel]

Re: OP, pay a visit to your local university economics department

You mean the ones who adhere to the untestable "theory" of Marginal Utility? Sorry but I put science over religion.

[Bud Struggle]

Great. Life Expectancy has increased in every single Workers' State. They get free health care, education, housing, food. Even under embargo Cuba is looking damn fine.

What worker states?

Interesting though--you mention "worker states," but when it comes down to it all you really are looking for is things for "free."

One of the big problem I see with Communism is how rarely people talk about what they can contribute to society but how much they can get for free.

[Dermezel]

What worker states?

Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam. Any where the means of production is now owned by the State.


Interesting though--you mention "worker states," but when it comes down to it all you really are looking for is things for "free."

That's right. I don't like working. I value my free time. A Workers' State is like a "Slave"-run State where they kicked out their masters. The point isn't to make the former slaves work harder.


One of the big problem I see with Communism is how rarely people talk about what they can contribute to society but how much they can get for free.

Yeah, that's called progress. Progress is about making life easier and giving people more free time- not making people work harder.

[Dr Mindbender]

How have Revolutions worked so far? Do you actually SEE any fair and honest societies that have ever come from Revolution?

The point is, revolutions cant survive in isolation. They must be sweeping and global otherwise at best you end up with a stalemate as was the cold war.

There was a reason Lenin called for the proletariat of the world to arise immediately after October 1917.


China, North Korea, Vietnam

I want whatever you are smoking.

[Glenn Beck]

You mean the ones who adhere to the untestable "theory" of Marginal Utility? Sorry but I put science over religion.

Be that as it may it's a generally a good place to find at least one or two people who sincerely believe in the system without holding many illusions in its benevolence.

Personally I think Milton Friedman and similar types would qualify. From watching Free to Choose it felt pretty clear to me that all the platitudes about sweatshop work being genuinely beneficial and uplifting for the people involved was just a fig leaf and not a serious ethical proposition. Someone who felt any shred of genuine empathy would refuse to simply accept the necessity of such harsh exploitation and would likely strain to find a way to at least mitigate the problem, rather than take such an "oh well, I guess everything is fine" stance. I think those kinds of weak "sweep it under the rug" justifications are just ways to rationalize not caring at all.

[GPDP]

Re: OP, pay a visit to your local university economics department

Funny you mention that. I actually remember a debate between my leftist Political Economy professor, a far-right ex-student of his, and an economics professor back when the recession first started, and both the ex-student and the economics professor were openly stating the recession was a natural result of the economic system, without apologizing for it or mystifying it. They just said "that's how the economy works, it's natural, tough luck. We just gotta ride it out."

So yeah, I do think there is a tendency for bourgeois economists to fit the bill.

[Dr Mindbender]

What worker states?

Interesting though--you mention "worker states," but when it comes down to it all you really are looking for is things for "free."

One of the big problem I see with Communism is how rarely people talk about what they can contribute to society but how much they can get for free.

I cant speak for others, but i personally want communism so i can get the sort of job that under capitalism has currently eluded me.

What do the donald trumps and bill gates of the world currently contribute?

[Bud Struggle]

The point is, revolutions cant survive in isolation. They must be sweeping and global otherwise at best you end up with a stalemate as was the cold war.

Yup. As I said--I agree as to where we are going, I just have issues (and I think they are fair ones) about how we get there.

[Bud Struggle]

I cant speak for others, but i personally want communism so i can get the sort of job that under capitalism has currently eluded me. Self fufillment. The question is how to best get that for ALL people. I wish you the best.


What do the donald trumps and bill gates of the world currently contribute? I agree, nothing at the present time.

[Dermezel]

Be that as it may it's a generally a good place to find at least one or two people who sincerely believe in the system without holding many illusions in its benevolence.

Personally I think Milton Friedman and similar types would qualify. From watching Free to Choose it felt pretty clear to me that all the platitudes about sweatshop work being genuinely beneficial and uplifting for the people involved was just a fig leaf and not a serious ethical proposition. Someone who felt any shred of genuine empathy would refuse to simply accept the necessity of such harsh exploitation and would likely strain to find a way to at least mitigate the problem, rather than take such an "oh well, I guess everything is fine" stance. I think those kinds of weak "sweep it under the rug" justifications are just ways to rationalize not caring at all.

Dude Friedman knows his theory is untestable and that capitalism hurts people. He is a malicious witch doctor.

Again- Marginal Utility is untestable. It is admitted to be untestable by the Austrian School.

Marx's Centralization of Capital is not only testable- it is proven by the evidence.

[#FF0000]

Throwing up a deck of cards and hoping they all fall together in numerical order by suites--is a bit difficult for me to believe in.


But a revolution isn't nearly so random. We aren't proposing just tearing everything down. We want a transition from Capitalism to Socialism. That's what "revolution" means, not necesarily desperate guerilla fighting in the hills.

[Dermezel]

But a revolution isn't nearly so random. We aren't proposing just tearing everything down. We want a transition from Capitalism to Socialism. That's what "revolution" means, not necesarily desperate guerilla fighting in the hills.

He's defining any sudden/dramatic political change as a "Revolution". That's why he includes fascism. Most of us consider Revolution to be Progressive.

Of course now he's gonna argue that "Progressive" is a subjective term- which it isn't.

[Scary Monster]

I'm no fan of what became of China or Russia and I don't think Revolution actually brought Socialism in Cuba (not that I think it's a bad place.) I am a fan of the Technocrat solution of"trying" a plan out on a small scale--and if it works implementing it. It it doesn't: next.

Like I say all the time-- just about every country of the 20th century that called itself "socialist/communist" ended up a state-capitalist welfare state. Even then, lack of starvation and homelessness can describe these countries, such as Cuba, compared to capitalist countries (especially the US), where starvation and homelessness is still prevalent. State-capitalist countries are just another example of one ruling class replacing another. This is why these state-capitalist countries simply cannot be considered communist, because the core of communism means workers having direct control. The beginning of the USSR had something like this, but of course all the true communists were snuffed out by Stalin, same thing with Tito in Yugoslavia. This is why a revolution by workers, and workers only, is needed to move toward true socialism/communism. A vanguard political party should never be allowed to retain power over the majority.


Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam. Any where the means of production is now owned by the State.

No! North Korea is closer to a Monarchy than anything remotely Communist. Besides, as ive said above, workers never had much of a say in any of these governments you mention

[Dermezel]

No! North Korea is closer to a Monarchy than anything remotely Communist. Besides, as ive said above, workers never had much of a say in any of these governments you mention

North Korea is the most backwards of the Workers' States. But even they have lower rates of starvation then most developing nations. And that is under an Embargo.

[Raúl Duke]

Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam. Any where the means of production is now owned by the State. State-ownership =/= socialism/worker's control

Even Marx himself made a similar remark when Prussia began to nationalize a few industries. Plus China and Vietnam don't even fit in this model anymore now that they have private firms.

Does the working class have an actual say in any of these societies (this being what really counts for socialism, all the other stuff about starvation is just social welfare)? Maybe to some degree in Cuba. But in China? Nope. In North Korea? Hell, no.

[Dermezel]

State-ownership =/= socialism/worker's control


Nope, but it is better for the people because it gives incentive for long-term economic development. Remember the Fascists were pure privatization:



Who did Mussolini and Hitler support once they seized state power? In both countries a strikingly similar agenda was pursued. Labor unions and strikes were outlawed, union property and publications were confiscated, farm cooperatives were handed over to rich private owners, big agribusiness farming was heavily subsidized. In both Germany and Italy the already modest wages of the workers were cut drastically; in Germany, from 25-40%; in Italy, 50%. In both countries the minimum wage laws, overtime pay, and factory safety regulations were abolished or turned into dead letters. Taxes were increased for the general populace, but lowered or eliminated for the rich and big business. Inheritance taxes for the wealthy were greatly reduced or abolished. Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their business patrons by handing over to them publicly owned and perfectly solvent steel mills, power plants, banks, steamship companies (”privatization,” it’s called here). Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to refloat or subsidize heavy industry (corporate welfarism). Both states guaranteed a return on the capital invested by giant corporations and assumed most of the risks and losses on investment. (Sounds like S&Ls, doesn’t it?)


As in all reactionary regimes, public capital was raided by private capital. As a result, in Italy during the 1930s the economy was gripped by recession, a staggering public debt, and widespread corruption, but industrial profits rose, and the armaments factories busily rolled out the weapons. In Germany, unemployment was eased somewhat because of the massive arms program and the arms spending. But generally, poverty increased. But from 1935-1943, the net income of German corporate leaders rose 46%. In both countries, the conditions of labor deteriorated greatly: speed-ups, dismissals, imprisonment for workers who complained about unsafe or inhumane work conditions, longer hours for less wages.


http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/fascism-a-false-revolution-by-michael-parenti-1996/

[Dermezel]

Does the working class have an actual say in any of these societies (this being what really counts for socialism, all the other stuff about starvation is just social welfare)? Maybe to some degree in Cuba. But in China? Nope. In North Korea? Hell, no.

Yes. Their legitimacy rests on it. If they go capitalist, their economies will collapse.

See, I know Socialism, even partial, is more efficient then capitalism. If they go capitalist their economies will implode just like Russia's. After going capitalist Russia lost 50% of it's GDP in 2 years.

Did the Workers' have much say in the USSR? No. But they were much better off under State control.

[GPDP]

Yes. Their legitimacy rests on it. If they go capitalist, their economies will collapse.

See, I know Socialism, even partial, is more efficient then capitalism. If they go capitalist their economies will implode just like Russia's. After going capitalist Russia lost 50% of it's GDP in 2 years.

Did the Workers' have much say in the USSR? No. But they were much better off under State control.

And you know what works even better than state control?

Worker's control, that's what.

[Dermezel]

And you know what works even better than state control?

Worker's control, that's what.

Post-Proletariat control is best. People doing zero work. =)

[Scary Monster]

Yes. Their legitimacy rests on it. If they go capitalist, their economies will collapse.

See, I know Socialism, even partial, is more efficient then capitalism. If they go capitalist their economies will implode just like Russia's. After going capitalist Russia lost 50% of it's GDP in 2 years.

Did the Workers' have much say in the USSR? No. But they were much better off under State control.

My point was that they are not worker's states, when you replied to Bud's question, "What worker's states?" All those you mentioned are government (the Few having all the power, i.e. Bourgeoisie) having total control over industry and government, without the workers having any say whatsoever in any of these matters, and when they did rise up against their government, they were brutally repressed.

State control does bring a more stable life to the people than capitalism (not to mention how powerful countries like the USSR and Yugoslavia fell only when they started instituting capitalist reforms), but these governments tend to be oppressive bastards. Again, this is why a few people should never be given power over the workers' democratic control, or else it will fall into yet another class struggle.

[Scary Monster]

North Korea is the most backwards of the Workers' States. But even they have lower rates of starvation then most developing nations. And that is under an Embargo.

Dude, stop calling them worker's states. The workers are shot up if they rise up at all against the ruling class. North Korea might have lower rates of starvation than other developing nations, but this does not mean they are a workers' state, nor does it justify the violent oppression of the ruling party on the proletariat of North Korea.

[Bud Struggle]

A vanguard political party should never be allowed to retain power over the majority.


While good in (some theory,) they never leave. They turn permanent revolution into permanent vanguardism. The vanguard is just an Oligarchy by other means.

[Havet]

Post-Proletariat control is best. People doing zero work. =)

People doing zero work is science fiction right now. I doubt that all forms of human labour will be rendered useless (both physical and intellectual), so I don't see how you could make that claim.

Even if it were possible, I wouldn't desire it for myself personally. I don't want to just be a consumer, I take pleasure in producing.

[RGacky3]

While good in (some theory,) they never leave. They turn permanent revolution into permanent vanguardism. The vanguard is just an Oligarchy by other means.

I agree, which is why I say never have a vanguard party, or trust anyone that wants to be the leader. Bottom up organization, direct action, and solidarity are what revolutions are made of (big and small).

[Phased Out]

By honest and unapologetic, I mean they tell it like it is: they don't attempt to mislead you into thinking the current system is about democracy or freedom, or that it's fair, or anything like that, and instead of criticizing it, they support it and tell you openly they want things to stay as they are. They support imperialism and capitalism without remorse and without fostering illusions about their benefits to anyone but the ruling class.

Are there any such politicians or intellectuals that do this? Obviously they'd be rare, since supporters of the status quo by nature have to spin lies and mislead people with all kinds of nice buzzwords if they are to keep their privilege and power. But it'd be interesting to see if there are any that basically say "fuck all of that, we all know what's really going on and who really benefits. Don't like it? Deal with it."

This is actually more or less what I'm thinking of:


I sincerely would but that would probably lead me to being banned.

Mention anything about intelligence or how spending a ton of public money on "at risk kids" is a complete waste of time, money and resources, and not to mention as to the fact that the majority of people who work their entire lives in low wage jobs were born dumb and unmotivated, is just asking for a "NAZI" white wash from fellow board members.

Oh wait. I already said it. Well, I could divulge deeper into my support of some aspects of the status quo and what I despise about it.

[#FF0000]

While good in (some theory,) they never leave. They turn permanent revolution into permanent vanguardism. The vanguard is just an Oligarchy by other means.

I think you don't understand what the vanguard is. It isn't a group of people that can never be questioned, and it's not an exclusive group either. I think the Continental Congress could be seen as an example of a vanguard from a past revolution.

[RGacky3]

Spain, Chiapas, Argentina, Bolivia, Hungary (before the USSR destroyed it), Ukraine, and I can also list tons and tons of strikes, occupations, sit ins (i.e. small revolutions) and the such that worked.

But better yet, show me a Leninist one that has worked, that has actually created a free socialist society? That has actually created genuine democratic socialism? Show me one where the State (i.e. the party) did'nt run the show.


money and resources, and not to mention as to the fact that the majority of people who work their entire lives in low wage jobs were born dumb and unmotivated,

Well damn I suppose the vast majority of the world is dumb and unmotivated, and especially in the third world. Ahh, but those corporate bankers and CEOs that caused the financial crisis were so smart.

[#FF0000]

Spain, Chiapas, Argentina, Bolivia, Hungary (before the USSR destroyed it), Ukraine, and I can also list tons and tons of strikes, occupations, sit ins (i.e. small revolutions) and the such that worked.

My reply earlier was pretty poorly worded and I deleted it, so yeah.

Bakhno in the Ukraine was just as dictatorial and brutal as you can say Lenin was. Spain was crushed, and even without soviet intervention it's unlikely that the anarchists could hold out much longer, what with how great they were with squandering material. And everything else you mentioned are now p. capitalist, last I checked.


But better yet, show me a Leninist one that has worked, that has actually created a free socialist society? That has actually created genuine democratic socialism? Show me one where the State (i.e. the party) did'nt run the show.

What happened in the USSR isn't a result of vanguardism, though. The Russian state after the revolution was a catastrophic mess and pretty much everything that came after was the result of a desperate attempt to keep shit together.

[Bud Struggle]

I think you don't understand what the vanguard is. It isn't a group of people that can never be questioned, and it's not an exclusive group either. I think the Continental Congress could be seen as an example of a vanguard from a past revolution.

I know what a vanguard SHOULD BE. I just think that when people get in power they stay in power forever and ever Amen.

It's best to avoid that temptation. While I don't think the word "vanguard" was actually spoken, the Gang of Four and Stalin and the Kim and Castro Duos might be all considers as such. "Glorious Leader" and vanguard sound the same to me.


What happened in the USSR isn't a result of vanguardism, though. The Russian state after the revolution was a catastrophic mess and pretty much everything that came after was the result of a desperate attempt to keep shit together.

It was BAD Revolution--and that's exactly what I am afraid of.

[RGacky3]

My reply earlier was pretty poorly worded and I deleted it, so yeah.

Bakhno in the Ukraine was just as dictatorial and brutal as you can say Lenin was. Spain was crushed, and even without soviet intervention it's unlikely that the anarchists could hold out much longer, what with how great they were with squandering material. And everything else you mentioned are now p. capitalist, last I checked.

As far as the Spain issue, the soviets fought AGAINST the Anarchists, as far as everything else being Capitalist, I'm not a nationalist, I don't view things as just nations, Chiapas being liberated is just as important to be as an actual nation of its size being liberated, I don't care about nations, I care about people.


What happened in the USSR isn't a result of vanguardism, though. The Russian state after the revolution was a catastrophic mess and pretty much everything that came after was the result of a desperate attempt to keep shit together.

Depends on what you mean by "what happened," what I mean is the centralization of power and the lack of meaningfull democracy, as well as the oppression that followed.

[#FF0000]

Depends on what you mean by "what happened," what I mean is the centralization of power and the lack of meaningfull democracy, as well as the oppression that followed.

That's exactly what I'm talking about, too.


I know what a vanguard SHOULD BE. I just think that when people get in power they stay in power forever and ever Amen.

It's best to avoid that temptation. While I don't think the word "vanguard" was actually spoken, the Gang of Four and Stalin and the Kim and Castro Duos might be all considers as such. "Glorious Leader" and vanguard sound the same to me.


Well, that's your issue, then. When we say vanguard, we just mean "people who are spearheading the revolution", not "infallible, glorious leaders"


It was BAD Revolution--and that's exactly what I am afraid of.

This was in Russia, though, in the 1900s. America, or anywhere, in 2010, would turn out different.

[RGacky3]

Well, that's your issue, then. When we say vanguard, we just mean "people who are spearheading the revolution", not "infallible, glorious leaders"

I understand that, I obviouslyhave no problem with people spearheading the revolution, the problem comes when these people are the actual desicion makers and are not subject to democratica accountability. I have no problem with the actual theory of vanguardism (at least some versions of it), what I do have a problem with is undemocratic institutions and leadership, which is what vanguardism has led to Under Lenin, Mao, Castro and others.


That's exactly what I'm talking about, too.

Ic, we can have this debate somehwere else thoug.


This was in Russia, though, in the 1900s. America, or anywhere, in 2010, would turn out different.

Exactly, America in 2010, its not russia, so why should we be following Lenins ideas?

I'm just saying, heed the words of Eugene Debs.

"I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Moses) to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition; as it is now the capitalists use your heads and your hands. "

We can't rely on leaders, we can't rely on vanguards, we can't rely on political parties.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, that's your issue, then. When we say vanguard, we just mean "people who are spearheading the revolution", not "infallible, glorious leaders".

That's why--at this time--Communism doesn't need Revolution, it need Infomercials...people need things explained to them.

[#FF0000]

I understand that, I obviouslyhave no problem with people spearheading the revolution, the problem comes when these people are the actual desicion makers and are not subject to democratica accountability. I have no problem with the actual theory of vanguardism (at least some versions of it), what I do have a problem with is undemocratic institutions and leadership, which is what vanguardism has led to Under Lenin, Mao, Castro and others.

Can't really speak for Cuba or China, but in Russia, vanguardism had absolutely nothing to do with the extreme centralization of political power. That is more the result of the desperate struggle to keep the entire political and economic system of the USSR from collapsing after the Revolution.


Exactly, America in 2010, its not russia, so why should we be following Lenins ideas?

Because some of his ideas were good and most of them weren't specific to 1917 Russia.


I'm just saying, heed the words of Eugene Debs.

"I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Moses) to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition; as it is now the capitalists use your heads and your hands. "

We can't rely on leaders, we can't rely on vanguards, we can't rely on political parties.

But the vanguard isn't separate from the working class at all. It isn't there to lead the way, but to organize the class, which is absolutely necessary because the capitalist class has had over 200 years to entrench itself.

[#FF0000]

That's why--at this time--Communism doesn't need Revolution, it need Infomercials...people need things explained to them.

Oh, no doubt, but when people eventually know what's up and want to push for socialism, the ruling class isn't going to be too eager to "get it".

[Dermezel]

People doing zero work is science fiction right now. I doubt that all forms of human labour will be rendered useless (both physical and intellectual), so I don't see how you could make that claim.

Even if it were possible, I wouldn't desire it for myself personally. I don't want to just be a consumer, I take pleasure in producing.

Well we do have robotics. With a centralized, rationally planned economy we could develop that pretty quickly. If you "want" to work more that's your decision.

To me that's weird, to you I dunno, maybe u r a glutton for it.

[Dermezel]

Dude, stop calling them worker's states. The workers are shot up if they rise up at all against the ruling class. North Korea might have lower rates of starvation than other developing nations, but this does not mean they are a workers' state, nor does it justify the violent oppression of the ruling party on the proletariat of North Korea.


They are free of Imperialist rule. Technically they are Workers' States according to objective economic measurements.

[Havet]

Well we do have robotics. With a centralized, rationally planned economy we could develop that pretty quickly. If you "want" to work more that's your decision.

Centralization is not rational. What evidence do you have to support that statement? The USSR?!


To me that's weird, to you I dunno, maybe u r a glutton for it.

I don't like to feel like a parasite, y'know.

[GPDP]

They are free of Imperialist rule. Technically they are Workers' States according to objective economic measurements.

You gotta admit calling a state like NK's a "Workers' State" is fucking confusing, no matter how "objective" you say the label is.

I think to most socialists who don't have their heads up Stalin's ass, the real measure of whether a state is, in essence, truly a "Workers' State" depends much more on whether the state actually IS being run by the workers rather than whether they are free of imperialist rule.

[Nolan]

No, I don't think there are any CEO's or bankers here.

[LeftSideDown]

No, I don't think there are any CEO's or bankers here.

Who knows... maybe they want more power!