Tips to avoid becoming overwhelmed with the insane amount of ignorance on socialism?

[RadioRaheem84]

Spent a good time with someone I assumed wanted to have a rational discussion about the economy. As soon as I mentioned that we would be better off with a planned economy, he became really defensive. And this was not just some middle aged man with a middle management position at some high tec firm (the usual stereotype of right wing influence), this was a working class young man in his late 20s probably. He actually used his trips to Moscow in the 90s to describe how socialism doesn't work. He described the misery that he saw and attributed it to socialism. :confused:

When I told him what he thought about third world countries, he said that third world countries are poor because of socialism, not capitalism. He didn't view Mexico, Guatamala, Indonesia, etc. as capitalist nations but socialist ones. Afghanistan under the Taliban = socialist, under US occupation = capitalist.

Can all of this ignorance be blamed on propaganda alone? It seems like all people understand about socialism is it = to misery. Isn't there a willingness among the population that ascribes to right wing views to not be told otherwise? I mean people in third world countries who are bombarded everyday with capitalist propaganda can see the utter BS, why not in the US? Are we more successfully repressed than they are that we believe a lot of what officials tell us? One would think that oppression/repression was due to propaganda not working to subdue the public.

I am with Noam Chomsky on this issue. He believes that there is almost no hope for a large swathe of the population that has been willfully indoctrinated with right wing propaganda for decades. I mean living in that alternate reality for so long has a lasting impact. A religious or fascist-like movement is almost the only outlet for their grief. I mean we're dealing with similar conditions as in the Middle East with religion taking place of leftism.


How do we deal with an insane alternate reality the right has created and nearly soldified in the media in this century? Help with not being so ovewhelmed by it.

[ed miliband]

We need a new dictionary, for a start.

[ContrarianLemming]

Point to nations in Europe which have more planned economies, learn about them a how they are superior to the USA in nearly every way

[RadioRaheem84]

Point to nations in Europe which have more planned economies, learn about them a how they are superior to the USA in nearly every way

But do they not rely on imperial policies too? To be a successful social democracy on the Western scale is to rely on "club membership" into the international economic order. Sweden, even under the Palme Era (the most coveted administration in the liberal/social democrats view) relied on the same monopoly capitalist/imperial economic order as the rest of them.

[Stephen Colbert]

Lesser of two evils, yes they rely on exploitative affairs vis-a-vis imperial foreign doctrine, but their planned economies are still a step in the right direction

[Stephen Colbert]

Spent a good time with someone I assumed wanted to have a rational discussion about the economy. As soon as I mentioned that we would be better off with a planned economy, he became really defensive. And this was not just some middle aged man with a middle management position at some high tec firm (the usual stereotype of right wing influence), this was a working class young man in his late 20s probably. He actually used his trips to Moscow in the 90s to describe how socialism doesn't work. He described the misery that he saw and attributed it to socialism. :confused:

When I told him what he thought about third world countries, he said that third world countries are poor because of socialism, not capitalism. He didn't view Mexico, Guatamala, Indonesia, etc. as capitalist nations but socialist ones. Afghanistan under the Taliban = socialist, under US occupation = capitalist.

Can all of this ignorance be blamed on propaganda alone? It seems like all people understand about socialism is it = to misery. Isn't there a willingness among the population that ascribes to right wing views to not be told otherwise? I mean people in third world countries who are bombarded everyday with capitalist propaganda can see the utter BS, why not in the US? Are we more successfully repressed than they are that we believe a lot of what officials tell us? One would think that oppression/repression was due to propaganda not working to subdue the public.

I am with Noam Chomsky on this issue. He believes that there is almost no hope for a large swathe of the population that has been willfully indoctrinated with right wing propaganda for decades. I mean living in that alternate reality for so long has a lasting impact. A religious or fascist-like movement is almost the only outlet for their grief. I mean we're dealing with similar conditions as in the Middle East with religion taking place of leftism.


How do we deal with an insane alternate reality the right has created and nearly soldified in the media in this century? Help with not being so ovewhelmed by it.

It also doesn't help that the U.S. general mentality of " I would rather the status quo instead of change no matter how bad my life is" is so embedded in the culture as well.

Also, it's a numbers game. What does the right have to defend? Everything-- the establishment. Religion, culture, morals, etc etc. That's why millions go into corporate advertising convincing you that BP is a good company, coal is nice for the environment, acai berries help with weight loss. The right has everything to defend, the burden of proof is on the left to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the system has failed, its like a courtroom, with the defendant being the status-quo and the attorney being the best defendant money could ever buy.

[Enragé]

Tell the guy capitalist economy is also planned, from the boardrooms of companies. Then, wouldnt it be better, to democratically control those boardrooms?

[Stephen Colbert]

Or just make the distinction that you would rather the worker's/public own the means of production rather than the government/state. It's a big difference for people who view socialism as an absolute and as a police-state(insert propaganda here) what have you.

Remind him that in capitalism, business controls the country. Who owns energy, food, housing? Not the government or the people. Government has no real power. Business makes the legislation for fuck's sake

[RadioRaheem84]

I've noticed that a lot of people have been sympathetic to anarchism but do not realize it's a variant of socialism. People tend to equate it with anarcho-capitalism.

Right-libertarians are annoying about this, insisting that anarchism is not leftist because it's abhors the state. :rolleyes:

[Broletariat]

I've noticed that a lot of people have been sympathetic to anarchism but do not realize it's a variant of socialism. People tend to equate it with anarcho-capitalism.

Right-libertarians are annoying about this, insisting that anarchism is not leftist because it's abhors the state. :rolleyes:
I find that you can always circumvent this by throwing the word "class" in there and giving some sort of class-analysis at the same time, that usually throws people off.

[DenisDenis]

don't be fooled by europe, we were only able to maintain our social-democratic system
of large governmental control over certain sectors (like health-care, ...) because of
the complete rebuilding after being utterly destroyed by ww2, and the following
blossoming of the economy. Ofcourse capitalists assumed economies can keep growing
explosively forever and ever, but as this is not the case we just cant keep affording all
these social securities...

So europe is making sure there will soon be no governmental control over anything
anymore, basically in 20 years we'll be just like the USA, unless we stop it ofcourse...

[RadioRaheem84]

don't be fooled by europe, we were only able to maintain our social-democratic system
of large governmental control over certain sectors (like health-care, ...) because of
the complete rebuilding after being utterly destroyed by ww2, and the following
blossoming of the economy. Ofcourse capitalists assumed economies can keep growing
explosively forever and ever, but as this is not the case we just cant keep affording all
these social securities...

So europe is making sure there will soon be no governmental control over anything
anymore, basically in 20 years we'll be just like the USA, unless we stop it ofcourse...


Not good. So there is a rollback process in the EU? Something has to be done.

[Stephen Colbert]

Im making some molotovs for ya :cool::lol:

[Enragé]

the rollback has been going on since the late 70's.


don't be fooled by europe, we were only able to maintain our social-democratic system
of large governmental control over certain sectors (like health-care, ...) because of
the complete rebuilding after being utterly destroyed by ww2, and the following
blossoming of the economy. Ofcourse capitalists assumed economies can keep growing
explosively forever and ever, but as this is not the case we just cant keep affording all
these social securities...

ofcourse we can afford it, just not on terms the capitalists are comfortable with.

[Stephen Colbert]

Yea it might have to be on terms of sacrificing some of the sacred calf that is the military budget, or getting off of petroleum fuels....

[Sam_b]

He believes that there is almost no hope for a large swathe of the population that has been willfully indoctrinated with right wing propaganda for decades

Well Chomsky is a fucking idiot. If we take this line then we might as well give up fighting first of all, as the possiblilty of the revolution has to come from the mass of the working class. As rightly said, these people who hold completely alien views to ourselves have social causes: the neoliberal influence on sections of society.

Remember these arguments were being had at the time of Tsarist Russia, and we have always pointed this out. The autarchy 'indocrination' was very strong, very real, and did grip swathes of the populous, via Tsarism and the Orthodox church. How then, did the Russian working class become such a strong and revolutionary force? It was the groundwork set out by the Bolsheviks of getting into communities and factories, and working with the class to achieve a level where the class was a) supporting the concept of revolution and b) capable enough of joining the class ranks. We can't dismiss sections of the population because they've grown up in a particular environment: revolutionaries should be seeing it as a challenge and remembering that such obstacles have been overcome before - and will again.

[RadioRaheem84]

What strange is that even though Islam has a strong grip on politics in the middle east, I still think that leftist revolutionary action is still able to penetrate and have a significant impact on the populace. I guess I shouldn't think that it's impossible here too.

My only concern is that the amount of time and money put into propaganda in this country has vastly socially engineered the population into an insular state of mind so large that it creates an almost alternate set of theories, outlook, and whole series of presumptions. I mean look at how much is out there that recycles the tired mantra of the right (some it devoted to whole canards Marx answered in his own text for crying out loud!).

I mean we're almost dealing with breaking a fundamental foundation of the American psyche that has been the American staple for almost a century. No other nation has quite dealt with that.

[punisa]

Are we more successfully repressed than they are that we believe a lot of what officials tell us? One would think that oppression/repression was due to propaganda not working to subdue the public.

While I do believe that propaganda is a strong machine, people are also an issue.
The thing is this:
- in the US you see a big ass plasma TV at your friend's house
- in the 3rd world you see it only in movies.

Logical "common people" conclusion?
US: If my friend has it, I can have it too !
3RD WORLD: Nah, I'll never have it... nobody does.

Are we going to close our eyes on this forever dear comrades?
There are too many workers in the US having too much damn luxury.
Until the majority starts living like shit, you won't see any revolutionary vigor.
Sounds sad, but its true.

[RadioRaheem84]

While I do believe that propaganda is a strong machine, people are also an issue.
The thing is this:
- in the US you see a big ass plasma TV at your friend's house
- in the 3rd world you see it only in movies.

Logical "common people" conclusion?
US: If my friend has it, I can have it too !
3RD WORLD: Nah, I'll never have it... nobody does.

Are we going to close our eyes on this forever dear comrades?
There are too many workers in the US having too much damn luxury.
Until the majority starts living like shit, you won't see any revolutionary vigor.
Sounds sad, but its true.

But the American working class became increasingly radical during the 60s when America was at it's economic peak in living standards. We became more right wing when we were at our lowest post-war in the late 70s and 80s.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

But do they not rely on imperial policies too? To be a successful social democracy on the Western scale is to rely on "club membership" into the international economic order. Sweden, even under the Palme Era (the most coveted administration in the liberal/social democrats view) relied on the same monopoly capitalist/imperial economic order as the rest of them.

I certainly wouldn't say the Palme era was even the height of Swedish social democracy, if anything that was probably around 1970 (the height of the Swedish left-wave). The strictly controlled (by no means planned, however) economy presided upon by Gunnar Sträng begun to be dismounted in the mid 1970's. From 1973 the SAF (Sveriges arbetsgivarförening, the Swedish Employer's Association, basically a union of business owners and other corrupt capitalists) launched the start of their anti-social-democratic (as well as fiercely anti-socialist and anti-unionist) propaganda programme, which continues to this day, operated throughout various organisations and think tanks owned by the SAF, today known as "Svenskt Näringsliv" (Swedish Enterprise), a classical piece of propaganda which was "500 000 new jobs are possible" which basically raves on about how privatising everything is the solution to all social ills and taxes are the devil and public ownership is inefficient, you know the drill.

This propaganda campaign has been the ideological basis for the deconstruction of the welfare state as well as a principal force for fostering individualist and pro-capitalist mentality in the generations born since it begun, with increasing penetration by year. In a way, this curiously mirrors similar campaigns initiated at a similar time in the U.S., the Swedish general political and cultural climate had up until the point that it was launched been twisting further and further to the left; I think it even was so that the leader of the SAF at the time of the launch of this long-term campaign to "re-mold the Swedish mentality" as it was described, was inspired a great deal by the efforts in the U.S. at the time.

This has until today corrupted any perception and understanding to socialism to one of messy, nonsensical thoughtless labelling of groups and individuals. Today, as in the U.S., the term socialism is generally perceived negatively, and propagandist conceptions of "totalitarianism" and "dictatorship" are ever-present.


Not good. So there is a rollback process in the EU? Something has to be done.

I thought this was well-known? The European commission is a strong force that has accelerated the speed of liberalisation through a series of directives (with great penalties were they not to be enacted) demanding deregulation, privatisation and "opening up to competition". One of the more clear examples of this conversion to "market operation" to create fake "growth" would be the 1996 directive demanding that all railway companies be corporatised (converted from government ministries or similar to for-profit companies) and the division of infrastructure from operation (to allow "multiple operators" and "competition". Similar things apply to the electricity and other utility sectors.

[RadioRaheem84]

Today, as in the U.S., the term socialism is generally perceived negatively, and propagandist conceptions of "totalitarianism" and "dictatorship" are ever-present.

It also didn't help that the CIA was funding several "left wing" publications in Europe, creating a whole 'new left' that went against "totalitarianism" and was pro-social democratic and anti-socialist. Most of the time though they sided with anti-coms and the right, insisting that they were defending democracy from communism.

Basically in my opinion, the left was surely co-opted and subjected to a barrage of anti-Soviet propaganda that made them steer their politics further to the center so as not to appear "anti-democratic". Now the left, even in Sweden, is generally anti-socialist.

[DenisDenis]

Not good. So there is a rollback process in the EU? Something has to be done.

Yeah, personally I don't know how other EU countries are doing but here in
belgium telecom has been liberalised a decade ago (which is the only success
story as prices got lower), then followed the electricity market a couple of
years ago(where the prices skyrocketed) , next up is the mail (major
restructuring(less service, and less quality) has already happened to make it
more 'attractive') and following in the future is the railroad sector (and we all
know how that worked out for the brits :p )

Something HAS to be done, nobody i know supports these privatisations, but
nobody seems to be willing to do anything against it, they all seem to just let
it be, which is very frustrating ...

from what i know this has also happened in other EU countries, so I'd like to
know how it worked out for the rest of the europeans. Whas it a success or
not, and how is the public opinion?

[punisa]

But the American working class became increasingly radical during the 60s when America was at it's economic peak in living standards. We became more right wing when we were at our lowest post-war in the late 70s and 80s.

60s were the grand breakaway from the old tradition and young people in particular tried to take destiny into their own hands.
But the capitalists and especially long tedious equations and mathematician like precision of the marketing gurus is always there to exploit every social change to make a profit out of it.
In the end 60's ended up with 1000s of colorful new products and increased market share.

In our days, its the internet. Instead of being a free flow of progressive information we all hoped it would be, it is slowly becoming THE most important tool for dumbing and numbing down the masses.
Research a little bit on what people search for on internet, its depressing.

We all agree (or most of us) that capitalism will not go down on its own, but it must fail a "little" bit.
We can only win when it breaks a leg and then kick it to the ground.

Masses will get acquainted with socialism very rapidly once it becomes a necessity to do so and the only way out.
Thus I would say to the OP not to worry about it, surely you know examples where people "figured out" the whole socialism idea in one afternoon - all it takes is the right situation (this is where capitalism come in) and the people who are already knowledgeable about socialist theory (this is where we come in)

[Enragé]

How then, did the Russian working class become such a strong and revolutionary force? It was the groundwork set out by the Bolsheviks of getting into communities and factories, and working with the class to achieve a level where the class was a) supporting the concept of revolution and b) capable enough of joining the class ranks. We can't dismiss sections of the population because they've grown up in a particular environment: revolutionaries should be seeing it as a challenge and remembering that such obstacles have been overcome before - and will again.

I dont want to start a sectarian flamewar but this is exactly the problem with leninism. While affirming, theoretically, that the revolution comes from the working class, in practice it upholds the line that revolutionary thought can only be infused into the working class from without. Thus, in the end, revolutions come from the work of the party.

It simply doesnt work like that. Movements upon movements, insurrection after insurrection, then we might see the glimmer of revolution in the distance. Not through the steady building of monolithic, centralised structures which sap initiative and joi-de-vivre from those who resist, only to come up to the ultimate question: what is 'big enough' to unleash revolution? The SWP has been bigger than the bolshevik party was up till 1910 at least for decades!

I would like to turn the standard anarchist argument that the bolsheviks hi-jacked the russian revolution on its head, the revolution hi-jacked the bolsheviks for a while (as evidenced by, among other things, the relatively libertarian content of Lenin's State and Revolution written between the february and october revolutions). After ofcourse, the conservative social-democratist elements re-gained momentum as the theoretical core of the bolsheviks (i.e belief in the state as the way to promote emancipation, consciousness only coming to the working class from without, the centrality of the idea of a [revolutionary] leftist intelligentsia etc.)

[Scary Monster]

He actually used his trips to Moscow in the 90s to describe how socialism doesn't work. He described the misery that he saw and attributed it to socialism. :confused:



:lol: A good start would be telling him Russia became capitalist in the 90s, after the introduction of a market system that brought about extreme poverty and rampant mafia activity, etc.

[-A-kRud-A-]

I recently spent some time trying to talk about socialism with people at a few shows in the Bay Area talking with so called "anarchists" (people/"anarchists" over 21 in 21+ shows) about anarchism. Back in the late 1990's the 'scene' was much more political but these days (I'm 30 now) no one seems to be politically involved as much. No one I talk to outside of rallies and protests seems to even understand anarchism is a part of the broader socialist tradition let alone socialism itself. Not workers, not 'anarchist' punk rock kids not anyone (outside of actual anarchist/socialist events and universities).

Marxism is pretty misunderstood as well, even more so Marx's works themselves. I'm not even sure most Marxists can agree on what Marx truly said before all of the various revisions by numerous people. Hell, we can hardly figure out our similarities (Marxists and anarchists). For us the question isn't what is communism the question is how do we bring about communism.

I'd start with the simple fact communism is a classless society in where the political system is merged with the work place under direct democracy. In order for socialism to advance into communism let alone be understood I think a sort of convergence with Marxism and anarchism must happen. A united front (which isnt happening obviously) for the sake of spreading class consciousness. The last time socialism was on peoples tongues (in a positive manner) was before during and just after the great depression. Back when we had men like Debs. Why aren't there, not men like Debs, but, a demand for men like Debs. There are plenty of us out there but no interested audience.

More political activity in the work place is necessary. Less in the Universities.