Why do progressive liberals hate socialism so much?

[MarxistMan]

Hello, I have a question. I don't understand why do so many progressive-liberals hate socialism, and marxism so much? I ask this question because i've had some progressive friends in the friends list of the facebook, and they critisize Obama and The Democrat Party but the other day they deleted me from their friends list, because i advocated a dictatorship of the proletariat in USA, and the workers rising to power and governing the USA.

Could it be because many progressive liberals are middle class people who also have social bonds and relationship with people of the upper-middle class and maybe even with some rich progressives of the upper class like Ariana Huffington. And maybe their social contact, social bonds and links with people that own businesses, put them in embarassing situation when they advocate the main premises of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky?

I just would like to know the real causes of why progressive liberals are so reactionary against marxist-socialism

.

[#FF0000]

Because their ideology is only progressive in that they want to reform capitalism or "put a human face" on it.

There it is.

[smk]

Could it be because many progressive liberals are middle class people who also have social bonds and relationship with people of the upper-middle class and maybe even with some rich progressives of the upper class like Ariana Huffington. And maybe their social contact, social bonds and links with people that own businesses, put them in embarassing situation when they advocate the main premises of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky?

No, there not just pretending to hate socialism. The biggest problem with modern liberals being opposed to socialism is education. The only thing they have been exposed to is right wing propaganda, and at the furthest left which they have been exposed to, propaganda of the Democratic Party (both of which are still obviously pretty antisocialist.) I have a feeling that if these misconceptions about socialism were discussed in a mainstream way, there would be large scale disillusionment of capitalism- not only amongst liberals, but also amongst conservatives.

[NGNM85]

Hello, I have a question. I don't understand why do so many progressive-liberals hate socialism, and marxism so much? I ask this question because i've had some progressive friends in the friends list of the facebook, and they critisize Obama and The Democrat Party but the other day they deleted me from their friends list, because i advocated a dictatorship of the proletariat in USA, and the workers rising to power and governing the USA.

First of all, Progressives and Liberals are represented by a range of opinion.

Second, that’s two questions; how they feel about Marxism, and how they might feel about socialism. For example; I am a socialist, but not a Marxist.

Frankly, I’m an Anarchist and I’m not too keen on the idea of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.


Could it be because many progressive liberals are middle class people who also have social bonds and relationship with people of the upper-middle class and maybe even with some rich progressives of the upper class like Ariana Huffington. And maybe their social contact, social bonds and links with people that own businesses, put them in embarassing situation when they advocate the main premises of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky?

I’m a socialist and I don’t want to be associated with Lenin or Trotsky.


I just would like to know the real causes of why progressive liberals are so reactionary against marxist-socialism

.

You are misusing the word ‘reactionary.’ If anything Progressives should generally be more sympathetic or inclined with socialism. The Green party, which is Progressive, often works with the Socialist Party.

[Savage]

because we out-liberal them.

[Rusty Shackleford]

because liberals are capitalists and anti-communists.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

because liberals are capitalists and anti-communists.

I think this is the main thing.

Also, they may not want to associate with Far-Leftism. Liberals are probably butthurt by moron anti-communists in the mainstream media or the "Tea Party" who keep trying to paint Obama and leftwing politics in general as some kind of neo-stalinism.

They might also be scared by the phrase "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". That's a scary concept to most Americans. It sounds scarier than it is.

[Kalifornia]

Because they are capitalists, they uphold capitalism, but usually rag on about corporations, ignoring the fact that monopoly capitalism is inherent in the system.

[Die Rote Fahne]

They more or lews fear it. The liberal progressives believe the conservative regressive stance that cqpitalism actually works.

[Magón]

Because they're only as progressive as they have to be, to stay within Capitalism.

[ZeroNowhere]

Because they are abstract system-builders, who advocate reforms in the abstract which restrain capital, while advocating the undermining of proletarian autonomy and ultimately class-collaborationism. Of course, this means that they support the weakening of the workers' movement, and we have no sympathy with their abstract reforms corresponding to a weaker working class, as all that they do is lower the rate of profit, hasten crisis and hence slow the development of capitalism which itself leads to harsher crises. Of course, they also stayed on the far side of the class line as regards the World Wars, leading to the advocacy of proletarians signing up to defend their ruling class, and hence prolonging capital with proletarian blood.

Ultimately, "Free competition is the ultimate, highest and most developed form of existence of private property. All measures, therefore, which start from the basis of private property and which are nevertheless directed against free competition, are reactionary and tend to restore more primitive stages in the development of property, and for that reason they must finally be defeated once more by competition and result in the restoration of the present situation. These objections the bourgeoisie raises, which lose all their force as soon as one regards the above social reforms as pure mesures de salut public, as revolutionary and transitory measures, these objections are devastating as far as Herr Heinzen’s peasant-socialist black, red and gold republic is concerned." Really, I'd be more surprised at 'libertarians' disliking us, and I'm not surprised at that at all.

Ultimately, communists are opposed to all such forms of reformist system-building, as well as to utopian socialism, which is essentially the same thing on the socialist side.

[the last donut of the night]

Frankly, I’m an Anarchist and I’m not too keen on the idea of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.



oh NGNM85, you make it just too easy :blushing:

[Property Is Robbery]

They're brainwashed fools.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

They represent a certain wing of capital.

[Catmatic Leftist]

A lot of progressive liberals are wealthy, and they fear that under communism that they will lose their breadth of influence and monetary clout.

[syndicat]

maybe your advocacy of a dictatorship is part of the reason you alienated them.

[MarxistMan]

My friend, well, how come even progressive-liberal thinkers and writters of books and articles like Naomi Klein, Tom Engelhart from http://www.tomdispatch.com Michael Parenti, Chris Hedges, Paul Krugman, Michael More, Alexander Cockburn and other progressive-liberal thinkers and intellectuals are also anti-marxist-socialism.

I just don't understand the basic ideology of progressive thinkers. They claim to be "thinkers", but they don't think too much when they write books and articles against capitalism, against imperialism, against The Democrat Party and against The Republican Party, but at the same time the never advocate a workers-government and a full socialist system in America.

So i just thought that the causes of why they are too *shy and too scared* to advocate a full socialism system for USA in their articles is that maybe these progressive-liberal writters i just mentioned here have relationship and social contact and bonds with people of the upper-middle class and even with people of the upper-class of USA

.



No, there not just pretending to hate socialism. The biggest problem with modern liberals being opposed to socialism is education. The only thing they have been exposed to is right wing propaganda, and at the furthest left which they have been exposed to, propaganda of the Democratic Party (both of which are still obviously pretty antisocialist.) I have a feeling that if these misconceptions about socialism were discussed in a mainstream way, there would be large scale disillusionment of capitalism- not only amongst liberals, but also amongst conservatives.

[Blackscare]

Also, given all the red baiting going on these days, it doesn't surprise me that liberals would react negatively to Marxism lest they concede to the republicans that they are indeed islamofascist communazis.

[MarxistMan]

I asked the progressive-liberal thinker Professor Dr. Michael Parenti when does he think that a Socialist Workers Party would rise to government power in USA and if its possible to see all large Multionational Corporations to be nationalized under state-control and workers-control in our near future and in our lifetime and he deleted me from his friends list of his facebook profile website.

Damn i don't know why even real smart historians and professors like Professor Dr. Michael Parenti is so anti-marxism, so anti-100% socialist system

.



A lot of progressive liberals are wealthy, and they fear that under communism that they will lose their breadth of influence and monetary clout.

[Jose Gracchus]

Mostly because the represent a particular agglomeration of capital interests. However, if the Left we to become strong like the early 20th C. I would hope we would attract professional and educated fellow-travelers like the honorable tradition of Albert Einstein, John Dewey, Bertrand Russell, etc.

However, the rank-and-file working people need to be in the "driver's seat".

EDIT: There is a possibility that some of them are alienated by the socially and public relations cluelessness that persists in the doctrinaire far-left (like Marxist-Leninists). Most progressive writers are trying to be a half-way house to socialism, and so they'll talk and write one way to a liberal audience (including working people and people in their communities - the fact is even most progressive class elements are within a system of doctrinal hegemony by capital) hoping to move them to the left. Chomsky's a clear example, in his writings on anarchism versus his foriegn policy and other talks. Maybe you think you could stand in a local progressive/left bookstore or activist-friendly church, and give some wide-eyed screed about Stalin and Anti-Revisionism and the Bloc of Four Classes or whatever, but that, uh, would be self-defeating. We have to make socialism defensible in public again before we can start having arguments in public about how and what kind of organization and strategy - otherwise we're really just arguing amongst our isolated selves.

A lot of leftists seem to think being a leftist is about never compromising rhetorically your lines or principles. That's self-indulgent. Its not about you feeling better, its about building organizations of, by, and for working people, and to build class consciousness. These things are so important now that any means necessary is mandatory. I'm sorry, insistence on talking as if it is RevLeft in trying to "convert" others is just idiotic. Of course this reality surfacing continuously here, where people think it is some kind of virtue to make it a distilled leftist liquor without any adulterants: an echo chamber.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I really can't say for sure, since I know very few liberals in real life. Based on what I have seen and read, though, it seems they distance themselves from the far left because conservatives accuse them of communist ties so much. When faced with radio pundits accusing them of supporting the USSR or something, they respond with "no way, I don't even like communism" in hopes of retaining winning the immediate battle. It doesn't help that no one else likes communism either, so avoiding it like the plague only helps their career.

One should not forget as well that progressive liberalism and socialism are two distinct philosophies with different historical origins and axioms. Although they sometimes converge on issues like civil rights and regulation of capitalism, they have very different theoretical bases and ultimate visions of society. Progressives ultimately descend from the classical liberal philosophy of the 18th century which upheld free market capitalism over feudalism, and while they have incorporated the need for restrictions on capitalism, they still regard it as a fundamentally good system corrupted by bad apples that abuse it. The very notion of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" runs thoroughly counter to pretty much everything liberalism stands for (capitalism, limited government, bourgeois democracy) and it should hardly surprise anyone if they find it as horrifying as any conservative would.

[#FF0000]

My friend, well, how come even progressive-liberal thinkers and writters of books and articles like Naomi Klein, Tom Engelhart from http://www.tomdispatch.com Michael Parenti, Chris Hedges, Paul Krugman, Michael More, Alexander Cockburn and other progressive-liberal thinkers and intellectuals are also anti-marxist-socialism..

*RECORD SCRATCH*

I thought Michael Parenti was a Marxist-Leninist?

[Jose Gracchus]

*RECORD SCRATCH*

I thought Michael Parenti was a Marxist-Leninist?

He is. Blackshirts and Reds and The Assassination of Julius Caesar are both Stalinist apologia.

But that's enough for some people, who would rather he rave in public about the glorious party or something, as if context-free radicalism-for-radicalism's sake is somehow principled or useful.

[Rafiq]

Because 'progressive Liberal' is contradiction in terms.

[NGNM85]

oh NGNM85, you make it just too easy :blushing:

"Upon this contradiction our polemic has come to a halt. They insist that only dictatorship (of course their own) can create freedom for the people. We reply that all dictatorship has no objective other than self-perpetuation, and that slavery is all it can generate and instill in the people who suffer it. Freedom can be created only by freedom, by a total rebellion of the people, and by a voluntary organization of the people from the bottom up."-Mikhail Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy'

[DuracellBunny97]

the whole idea of liberalism is being an advocate for civil liberties and rights, even the "right" to private property I suppose. We are all liberals in a way, we all support and believe in people's rights to be who they are, but people who actually identify as liberals just tend to prefer capitalism to socialism, or at least think they do, most liberals I've heard from have quite a warped understanding of socialism,, communism, and anarchism. So I think the hatred of socialism stems from the idea that capitalism=freedom.

[Proukunin]

because liberals wish they were socialists.

[Rafiq]

That's stupid. No one 'wishes' they could be a certain Idealogy. They just do it.

[Witan]

Partially it's because they're petit-bourgeois. I think mostly it's because they've forgotten where they came from. They claim to be left while trying to show that they love our capitalist society just as much as the reactionaries in our society. They have the worst of all worlds, and don't even have the courage of their convictions. That also explains why right-wing Republicans can get away with so much.

[Amphictyonis]

"Upon this contradiction our polemic has come to a halt. They insist that only dictatorship (of course their own) can create freedom for the people. We reply that all dictatorship has no objective other than self-perpetuation (unless it's by Democrats), and that slavery is all it can generate and instill in the people who suffer it. Freedom can be created only by freedom, by a total subjugation of the people under the Democrat party and by organization of the people under front groups fighting for "Change" and the total privatization of healthcare."

Fixed. :)

[Amphictyonis]

First of all, Progressives and Liberals are represented by a range of opinion.

Second, that’s two questions; how they feel about Marxism, and how they might feel about socialism. For example; I am a socialist, but not a Marxist.

Frankly, I’m an Anarchist and I’m not too keen on the idea of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.



I’m a socialist and I don’t want to be associated with Lenin or Trotsky.



You are misusing the word ‘reactionary.’ If anything Progressives should generally be more sympathetic or inclined with socialism. The Green party, which is Progressive, often works with the Socialist Party.

Funny you would be the one with the most to say when it comes to defending "progressives" and liberals. I wonder why that is? It has nothing to do with anarchism. Nothing.

[RadioRaheem84]

maybe your advocacy of a dictatorship is part of the reason you alienated them.


Yeah, as if liberals find anarcho-syndicalism any better than Trotskyism or ML.




I also see NGN is still in in here insisting that liberals are a wholesome group of well meaning individuals that are more compatible with true leftism and socialism than MLs or other people who believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat.

How is it not evident to everyone that liberals are devout capitalists that believe in the sanctity of private property and free enterprise?

Progressives are America's answer to social democrats of a moderate persuasion.

Both Ralph Nader (progressive) and James Carville (liberal) hate communism, anarchism and socialism.

[NGNM85]

Funny you would be the one with the most to say when it comes to defending "progressives" and liberals. I wonder why that is? It has nothing to do with anarchism. Nothing.

Actually, three-quarters of that was Anarchism as opposed to Marxism, and Bolshevism.

Well, I have the advantage of actually knowing what these words mean. I’m highly skeptical you could define them to save your life. I mean, we could have a serious, rational conversation about the merit of these philosophies, in which case, I’m skeptical of you’re qualifications, but, far more importantly than that, you aren’t remotely interested in doing so. You’re only interested in making snide remarks, engaging in ad hominems, and distorting what I say, virtually, beyond all recognition. If the day comes that you actually want to seriously discuss something, that might be productive, but I’m not optimistic.

Incidentally, the Liberal ideas of the Enlightenment were a serious influence on early Anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin, etc., (As well as Marx, in the case of Ricardo, and Adam Smith.) I think most Anarchists, Socialists, etc, would embrace a number of the core classical Liberal ideas, namely; democracy, human rights, secularism, social equality, and the scientific method. I happen to think those are pretty good ideas. However, most of these thinkers came up somewhat short on economics, coming from, essentially, a pre-capitalist era. This is why they didn’t write about corporations, they wrote about state oppression, and religious oppression, that was what they knew. So, with some exceptions they, generally, didn’t have an especially sophisticated perspective on economic institutions, which makes a certain degree of sense. The difference between this and Anarchism, or Libertarian Socialism is an understanding of social class, and a belief that real democracy involves control over ones’ productive life. This is merely taking these ideas to the next, logical step. Moreover, it’s very likely many of these philosophers, had they lived somewhat longer, would have also seen it that way, for example, Adam Smith’s comments on the degrading effects of the division of labor, or James Madison’s later concerns that private power was becoming a genuine threat to democracy.

[StalinFanboy]

"Upon this contradiction our polemic has come to a halt. They insist that only dictatorship (of course their own) can create freedom for the people. We reply that all dictatorship has no objective other than self-perpetuation, and that slavery is all it can generate and instill in the people who suffer it. Freedom can be created only by freedom, by a total rebellion of the people, and by a voluntary organization of the people from the bottom up."-Mikhail Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy'

Bakunin was far more blatantly authoritarian than Marx ever was.

[NGNM85]

Yeah, as if liberals find anarcho-syndicalism any better than Trotskyism or ML.

See above.


I also see NGN is still in in here insisting that liberals are a wholesome group of well meaning individuals that are more compatible with true leftism and socialism than MLs or other people who believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Again, I really don't see how any legitimate Leftist can be opposed to democracy, human rights, secularism, and the scientific method. I stand by those concepts.

I think the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' is a fundamentally bogus idea, and this has been the standard objection of Anarchists for over a century. I quoted Bakunin, but you can find any number of others. I happen to think it's a very legitimate criticism.


How is it not evident to everyone that liberals are devout capitalists that believe in the sanctity of private property and free enterprise?

Classical Liberalism was essentially precapitalist. Modern-day Liberals range from some sort of modified Keynesianism to quasi-Socialism.


Progressives are America's answer to social democrats of a moderate persuasion.

There is some equivalency, there.


Both Ralph Nader (progressive) and James Carville (liberal) hate communism, anarchism and socialism.

I haven't read any substantive statements from these individuals on any of those subjects, regardless, I don't think it's particularly meaningful.

[NGNM85]

Bakunin was far more blatantly authoritarian than Marx ever was.

I'd really rather nor pursue that as that is going to lead to a protracted debate which is going to take us away from the subject at hand. Bakunin certainly had his failings, I have a number of criticisms, myself, however, if you take the argument, by itself, I think it's pretty solid. Again, you could easily find any number of substitutes which say, essentially the same thing, all the way up to modern-day Anarchists.

[Rocky Rococo]

Thinking outside of the hegemonic limits imposed by the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie simply isn't acceptable, and they are well-trained servants of the system, so they don't ever question the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

[The Red Next Door]

First of all, Progressives and Liberals are represented by a range of opinion.

Second, that’s two questions; how they feel about Marxism, and how they might feel about socialism. For example; I am a socialist, but not a Marxist.

Frankly, I’m an Anarchist and I’m not too keen on the idea of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.



I’m a socialist and I don’t want to be associated with Lenin or Trotsky.



You are misusing the word ‘reactionary.’ If anything Progressives should generally be more sympathetic or inclined with socialism. The Green party, which is Progressive, often works with the Socialist Party.

You are an Anarcho-Democrat :D

[NGNM85]

You are an Anarcho-Democrat :D

Of course you're being completely disingenuous. However, beyond that, that is a fundamental contradiction in terms.

I have repeatedly expressed my personal dislike of, and philosophical disagreement with the Democratic party.

Lastly, getting back to the dishonesty, that you could so horribly distort and misconstrue what I said, this goes beyond misinterpretation into straight-out lying.

Wake me up when you have something intelligent to say. Epic Fail.

[Victus Mortuum]

because i advocated a dictatorship of the proletariat in USA

Perhaps your use of the word dictatorship is problematic. Marx abused those words in his time. If you take the words in a Marxist context and clarify, then understand can be had between socialist theorists (I'd argue that such terminology should perhaps be reoriented to 'democracy of the proletariat' or 'proletarian democracy' - as this is, of course, what is meant). However, in common conversation (especially on facebook) to advocate dictatorship is to just be stupid. Other people don't have the literary context you have for that word. They're gonna think you actually mean dictatorship.

[Jimmie Higgins]

maybe your advocacy of a dictatorship is part of the reason you alienated them.Yeah, to the OP: was you're facebook post as jargon-y as your synopsis of it here or are you using jargon-short-hand just to summarize for us? If so I think that could turn people off.

NGMN85 brought up an important point IMO - progressives and regular people who call themselves liberals usually don't really have a coherent and solid ideology - they have a mix of ideas.

I disagree with the idea that they universally and consciously support the system (some do - but they are likely to actually be politicians or members of the ruling class with class interests in upholding this system) because sometimes they'll have radical ideas but it's all mixed up and half-baked. They might want industry to be nationalized or might say all corporations are evil, but they are still directing their anger at aspects of the system, not the entire system and they have no alternative in mind.

So telling people like that that they should support a worker-run society is just too much of a leap in logic for them. It's like telling someone that X = 8.7 when they don't know what the equation you are solving is and they weren't even trying to find out what X is in the first place. So worker's power is the answer to a series of questions and I think part of the job of radicals is to try and take sympathetic workers through the equations so to speak.

IMO, with liberals and progressives, it's easier to start where our common criticisms are and then explain our perspective on it and what conclusions our analysis leads to rather than "telling people the answer" (X=worker's power) and then wondering why they don't agree. So if a progressive says GW Bush or Obama sucks, then we can agree on that level, but then we need to go through how it is not just them but part of a larger system and why/how it needs to/can be replaced by the working class.

[RadioRaheem84]

When they get red baited by the right, then you will see how loving they are toward our ideals.

and NGN, what is quasi-socialist? Sounds like a buzzword used by the mainstream media to describe the Scandinavian model.

[the last donut of the night]

"Upon this contradiction our polemic has come to a halt. They insist that only dictatorship (of course their own) can create freedom for the people. We reply that all dictatorship has no objective other than self-perpetuation, and that slavery is all it can generate and instill in the people who suffer it. Freedom can be created only by freedom, by a total rebellion of the people, and by a voluntary organization of the people from the bottom up."-Mikhail Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy'

lol then obviously you have no idea what the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" means

[the last donut of the night]

Incidentally, the Liberal ideas of the Enlightenment were a serious influence on early Anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin, etc., (As well as Marx, in the case of Ricardo, and Adam Smith.) I think most Anarchists, Socialists, etc, would embrace a number of the core classical Liberal ideas, namely; ". I happen to think those are pretty good ideas. However, most of these thinkers came up somewhat short on economics, coming from, essentially, a pre-capitalist era. This is why they didn’t write about corporations, they wrote about state oppression, and religious oppression, that was what they knew. So, with some exceptions they, generally, didn’t have an especially sophisticated perspective on economic institutions, which makes a certain degree of sense. The difference between this and Anarchism, or Libertarian Socialism is an understanding of social class, and a belief that real democracy involves control over ones’ productive life. This is merely taking these ideas to the next, logical step. Moreover, it’s very likely many of these philosophers, had they lived somewhat longer, would have also seen it that way, for example, Adam Smith’s comments on the degrading effects of the division of labor, or James Madison’s later concerns that private power was becoming a genuine threat to democracy.

1. The Enlightenment was a capitalist social phenomenon. The Enlightenment philosophers, therefore, did live under capitalism. They knew what it was. They didn't criticize capitalism because, well, they were liberals. Pretty simple, if you ask me. Don't go making apologies for anti-revolutionary ideology.

2. I don't care what you think about "democracy, human rights, secularism, social equality, and the scientific method", but you have to note that they're not ideas unto themselves. In other words, there is no such thing as an abstract notion of democracy, or human rights. Bourgeois democracy is one form of capital, and workers' democracy is a form of workers' power. Democracy is not a goal we strive to reach -- it's a form, a tool, that helps us reach our goal, which is the complete abolition of classes. The same thing with human rights. These ideas were developed to suit some form of capitalist rule. That's why the US gets really panicky about "human rights" when its interests are endangered. It's not because they're corrupting that phrase or because they've lost hold of some nice ideal that stretches back into the eons. Because today, under capitalism, human rights means the defense of the bourgeoisie and democracy means its rule. That's it.

[Ocean Seal]

Hello, I have a question. I don't understand why do so many progressive-liberals hate socialism, and marxism so much? I ask this question because i've had some progressive friends in the friends list of the facebook, and they critisize Obama and The Democrat Party but the other day they deleted me from their friends list, because i advocated a dictatorship of the proletariat in USA, and the workers rising to power and governing the USA.

Could it be because many progressive liberals are middle class people who also have social bonds and relationship with people of the upper-middle class and maybe even with some rich progressives of the upper class like Ariana Huffington. And maybe their social contact, social bonds and links with people that own businesses, put them in embarassing situation when they advocate the main premises of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky?

I just would like to know the real causes of why progressive liberals are so reactionary against marxist-socialism

.
Progressive liberals is a contradiction. The truth is that liberals are far closer to the reactionary right than to those who want actual progress, or even social democrats.
Also on the point of deleting you, that seems a bit harsh. Are they friends from the internet, or from life.

[NGNM85]

lol then obviously you have no idea what the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" means

That was a quote, so, what you should have said is; "Mikhail Bakunin obviously doesn't know what the phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means.'" Incidentally, I disagree.

[NGNM85]

and NGN, what is quasi-socialist? Sounds like a buzzword used by the mainstream media to describe the Scandinavian model.

I generally mean people who accept most of the fundamentals of socialism, without being ideological. I think there's a lot of this, for example, among members of the working class. They don't read Kropotkin, but they know many of the ideas, intimately.You can also see it in the elites, corporate executives and such, they are vulgar Marxists, but they don't spend a lot of time reading theory, it's more instinctual. I often talk to people who have no idea what Libertarian Socialism is, however, when I start to explain it, most of them agree with about nine-tenths of it.

[~Spectre]

You can also see it in the elites, corporate executives and such, they are vulgar Marxists, but they don't spend a lot of time reading theory, it's more instinctual.

How the fuck is that quasi-socialist?

[Proukunin]

That's stupid. No one 'wishes' they could be a certain Idealogy. They just do it.


it was a joke man.

[NGNM85]

How the fuck is that quasi-socialist?

Well, that would actually be quasi-Marxist, or, as I said, vulgar Marxist. What I was comparing was the extent to which they totally embrace many of the fundamentals, but not in a systemic or ideological way.

[StalinFanboy]

I'd really rather nor pursue that as that is going to lead to a protracted debate which is going to take us away from the subject at hand. Bakunin certainly had his failings, I have a number of criticisms, myself, however, if you take the argument, by itself, I think it's pretty solid. Whether it's a solid argument or not isn't really the question. I have no idea how anyone can talk about Marx being authoritarian and then counter-pose this to Bakunin.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the suppression by the proletartiat of counter-revolutionary and bourgeois forces. I don't see what's so wrong with this. Are you against Mahkno, Durruti, etc?


Again, you could easily find any number of substitutes which say, essentially the same thing, all the way up to modern-day Anarchists.
Most modern-day anarchists are fucking wieners.

[~Spectre]

Well, that would actually be quasi-Marxist, or, as I said, vulgar Marxist. What I was comparing was the extent to which they totally embrace many of the fundamentals, but not in a systemic or ideological way.

You're not saying anything then. If Marx proposes that society features constant class conflict, then saying "yeah elites tend to engage in class conflict", doesn't make them "quasi-Marxist".

People have biological instincts. That doesn't make everyone a "vulgar Darwinist" in any meaningful sense.

Raheem nailed it, you're just throwing around buzzwords. It's as silly as the "we are ALL socialists NOW" meme.

[Amphictyonis]

Actually, three-quarters of that was Anarchism as opposed to Marxism, and Bolshevism.
No not really. The anarchists I know in and around the bay area and here online don't share your favorable view of modern liberal ideology. Your liberalism has nothing to do with anarchism.



Well, I have the advantage of actually knowing what these words mean.
Do tell, a lesson is in order. Please educate me professor Chomsky.



Incidentally, the Liberal ideas of the Enlightenment were a serious influence on early Anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin, etc., (As well as Marx, in the case of Ricardo, and Adam Smith.) I think most Anarchists, Socialists, etc, would embrace a number of the core classical Liberal ideas, namely; democracy, human rights, secularism, social equality, and the scientific method. I happen to think those are pretty good ideas. Ya, I explained this to a kid the other day who didn't understand how Marx viewed capitalism. He saw it as progressive but condemned it at the same time. Of course the enlightenment was an inspiration for socialists. This is in part why I make fun of you. Stating the obvious.


However, most of these thinkers came up somewhat short on economics, coming from, essentially, a pre-capitalist era. This is why they didn’t write about CORPORATIONS...... (emphasis added)
You need to read Marx and quit focusing on "corporations" as something separate from capitalism's natural tendency towards monopoly. The state and concentrated wealth have never been two separate entities.



.....they wrote about state oppression, and religious oppression, that was what they knew. So, with some exceptions they, generally, didn’t have an especially sophisticated perspective on economic institutions, which makes a certain degree of sense. The difference between this and Anarchism, or Libertarian Socialism is an understanding of social class, and a belief that real democracy involves control over ones’ productive life. This is merely taking these ideas to the next, logical step. Moreover, it’s very likely many of these philosophers, had they lived somewhat longer, would have also seen it that way, for example, Adam Smith’s comments on the degrading effects of the division of labor, or James Madison’s later concerns that private power was becoming a genuine threat to democracy.
Adam Smith only cared about education because he rightly admitted the division of labor would make us all knuckle dragging cave men and it would be a detriment to capitalists to have large populations of uncontrollable savages running amok. James Madison the socialist? Jesus, you should read what they said when they set up the constitution, since you like Chomsky so much:

John Jay: "The people who own the country ought to govern it."... is quite clear that he had a particular minority in mind "the minority of the opulent".
-Chomsky-

I don't need a history lesson on why liberals were once a progressive force pushing human development as they obviously were at one point. That's no reason to defend them today as you do. This is 2011 you know.

[NGNM85]

No not really. The anarchists I know in and around the bay area and here online don't share your favorable view of modern liberal ideology.

I don’t think most modern Liberals are terribly ideological, at least not consciously.

I have made remarkably few value statements.

Many so-called Anarchists are idiots. There are dozens of assholes in Boston who think listening to Crass, eating out of dumpsters, and throwing fake blood at ladies in mink coats is ‘revolutionary.’


Your liberalism has nothing to do with anarchism.

I have no unique philosophical branch or tendency that I could call my own. If I did, I would disown it, because once you attach someone’s name to an Ism you start to deify them and it becomes unhealthy. Second, I really don’t see any need for superfluous adjectives. If I were to pick one I’d pick Anarcho-Syndicalism, but I think it just gets far too technical and tedious.
Also, if you knew anything about Anarchism, and you understood my views, you’d understand that I don’t significantly stray from classical Anarchism in any significant respect.


Do tell, a lesson is in order. Please educate me professor Chomsky.

These are imperfect, but decent basic introductions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Philosophy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States#Contemporary_pr ogressivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States#Contemporary_pr ogressivism)



Ya, I explained this to a kid the other day who didn't understand how Marx viewed capitalism. He saw it as progressive but condemned it at the same time. Of course the enlightenment was an inspiration for socialists. This is in part why I make fun of you. Stating the obvious.

If I accept you are being completely truthful in this, and I don’t, this is another one of the many differences between us. I only argue propositions I legitimately disagree with.


You need to read Marx and quit focusing on "corporations" as something separate from capitalism's natural tendency towards monopoly. The state and concentrated wealth have never been two separate entities.

You need to start reading Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Chomsky. If we focus on the Marxist/Anarchist divide this is going to go nowhere fast. That isn’t a pertinent issue at the moment.


Adam Smith only cared about education because he rightly admitted the division of labor would make us all knuckle dragging cave men and it would be a detriment to capitalists to have large populations of uncontrollable savages running amok.

That’s an oversimplification. He also decried the ‘vile maxim of the masters of mankind’; All for ourselves, and nothing for other people’, etc. He was really substantially different from the character that is presented today, one of the saints of the Church of the Almighty Dollar. Here’s an excellent piece separating the man from the myth;
http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm

[QUOTE=Amphictyonis;2021608] James Madison the socialist?

He was not a Socialist. However, later on, as the capitalist state just began to take shape, he did observe that private wealth was becoming a genuine threat to democracy; stockjobbers will become the pretorian band of the government--at once its tools and its tyrant; bribed by its largesses, and overawing it by clamors and combinations." Little did he know.


Jesus, you should read what they said when they set up the constitution, since you like Chomsky so much:

John Jay: "The people who own the country ought to govern it."... is quite clear that he had a particular minority in mind "the minority of the opulent".
-Chomsky-

You didn’t have to quote Chomsky quoting Jay, I know the line by heart.


I don't need a history lesson on why liberals were once a progressive force pushing human development as they obviously were at one point. That's no reason to defend them today as you do. This is 2011 you know.

I’m not defending anything. I’m trying to cut through the horseshit which abounds in this intellectual sewer. The luminaries of the Enlightenment were not saints, but neither were they devils. I’m trying to present a rational, serious assessment without the bullshit. At the very least, because this IS Learning, after all, and I presume there are new members, probably in high school or junior high who are actually interested in understanding these things.

[Amphictyonis]

Many so-called Anarchists are idiots. There are dozens of assholes in Boston who think listening to Crass, eating out of dumpsters, and throwing fake blood at ladies in mink coats is ‘revolutionary.’ I'd do lunch with a lifstylist in a dumpster rather than a liberal in a bourgeois restaurant any day :)




I have no unique philosophical branch or tendency that I could call my own. If I did, I would disown it, because once you attach someone’s name to an Ism you start to deify them and it becomes unhealthy. I think labeling you a Chomskyist isn't far from the truth :)




Also, if you knew anything about Anarchism What gives me the 'authority'(pun intended) to criticize your liberalism is the fact I do know much about anarchism.









If I accept you are being completely truthful in this, and I don’t, this is another one of the many differences between us. I only argue propositions I legitimately disagree with. Well you should, it was on this forum. I think someone thanked the post so you can go through all my thanked posts and find it. I'm surely not spending the time doing so.




You need to start reading Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Chomsky. If we focus on the Marxist/Anarchist divide.... I've read all of the above and more. We aren't focusing on the anarchist /marxist divide as I said your liberalism has nothing to do with anarchism. I liked Kropotkins 'Mutual Aid', the way he showed how the right misused Darwin. Conquest Of Bread was a good read, especially the chapter on expropriation where he explains why a Rothchild type foreign capitalist couldn't force people into capitalism if the means of production had been socialized. Theoretically it was beautiful but today's advanced military apparatus didnt exist in his time. I've read Goldman and have seen the influence Stirner had on her. Read Berkman as well, Have the ABC's of anarchism right in front of me and just finished "Life Of An Anarchist" by Gene Fellner which includes much of Berkmans prison correspondence with Goldman. He had a tough time of it in prison and the world would have been better off if Frick died. A problem Berkman had seemes to exist today, he was trying to insight working class awareness through propaganda of the deed but as he said the workers actually got mad at him for doing so. Read Stirners 'Ego And It's Own'.....Proudhon's Idea Of The Revolution and What Is Property. Have read Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, the Common Good and Chomsky On Anarchism. I've read Albert Meltzer's Anarchism, Arguments For And Against, Orwells Homage To Catalonia. Read Rockers Anarcho-Syndicalism etc and so on. I understand anarchism. Right now I'm reading Mikhail Bakunin: The Philosophical Basis Of His Anarchism by Paul McLaughlin.


Adam Smith only cared about education because he rightly admitted the division of labor would make us all knuckle dragging cave men and it would be a detriment to capitalists to have large populations of uncontrollable savages running amok.


[QUOTE=NGNM85;2021634]That’s an oversimplification. He also decried the ‘vile maxim of the masters of mankind’; All for ourselves, and nothing for other people’, etc. He was really substantially different from the character that is presented today, one of the saints of the Church of the Almighty Dollar. Here’s an excellent piece separating the man from the myth I've read it years ago.





He was not a Socialist. However, later on, as the capitalist state just began to take shape, he did observe that private wealth was becoming a genuine threat to democracy; stockjobbers will become the pretorian band of the government--at once its tools and its tyrant; bribed by its largesses, and overawing it by clamors and combinations." Little did he know. Again I'll refer to to this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Transformation_%28book%29









I’m not defending anything. I’m trying to cut through the horseshit which abounds in this intellectual sewer. The luminaries of the Enlightenment were not saints, but neither were they devils. I’m trying to present a rational, serious assessment without the bullshit. At the very least, because this IS Learning, after all, and I presume there are new members, probably in high school or junior high who are actually interested in understanding these things.

Modern liberals deserve no defense.

[The Red Next Door]

My cousin called himself a progressive and he believes america should have one view and one ideology. Fascist wise.

[NGNM85]

I'd do lunch with a lifstylist in a dumpster rather than a liberal in a bourgeois restaurant any day

Lifestylists are completely useless, it’s likely they do more harm than good.

Eating out of dumpsters is unsanitary.


I think labeling you a Chomskyist isn't far from the truth

The problem with that, beyond that I reject any (Insert name here.)isms, is that Chomsky doesn’t represent a unique tendency, or even a sub-tendency. Philosophically, he doesn’t really stray outside the bounds of Kropotkin, Bakunin, or Emma Goldman. (Neither do I, for that matter.) While I disagree with Marxist-Leninism, or Maoism these are legitimate tendencies because they represent distinct variations of, or, additions to, Marxism.


What gives me the 'authority'(pun intended) to criticize your liberalism is the fact I do know much about anarchism.

This is false because, again, I don’t philosophically stray outside the bounds of classical Anarchism in any significant way. That’s not because I have some impulse towards conformity, and there’s a lot of that going around, but, rather I simply accept these propositions as they seem to be the most sensible. Also, Anarchism is not as restrictive as other philosophies.


Well you should, it was on this forum. I think someone thanked the post so you can go through all my thanked posts and find it. I'm surely not spending the time doing so.

I don’t buy it. You express a certain zeal that goes way beyond this. It’s totally out of proportion.


I've read all of the above and more. We aren't focusing on the anarchist /marxist divide as I said your liberalism has nothing to do with anarchism.

See above.


I liked Kropotkins 'Mutual Aid', the way he showed how the right misused Darwin.

It was quite good.


Conquest Of Bread was a good read, especially the chapter on expropriation where he explains why a Rothchild type foreign capitalist couldn't force people into capitalism if the means of production had been socialized. Theoretically it was beautiful but today's advanced military apparatus didnt exist in his time.

I haven’t read this is years so I can’t recall much of the specifics.


I've read Goldman and have seen the influence Stirner had on her.

Made a huge impact on me. This was actually my introduction to Anarchism. I was curious and I thought Anarchism & Other Essays sounded like a good starting point.

Stirner has his moments but Individualist Anarchism is problematic. For the most part, I’d rather read Nietzsche, whom I find more interesting.


Read Berkman as well, Have the ABC's of anarchism right in front of me

Berkman is excellent, however, he and Emma Goldman pretty much mirror eachother, which is to be expected.


and just finished "Life Of An Anarchist" by Gene Fellner which includes much of Berkmans prison correspondence with Goldman. He had a tough time of it in prison and the world would have been better off if Frick died. A problem Berkman had seemes to exist today, he was trying to insight working class awareness through propaganda of the deed but as he said the workers actually got mad at him for doing so.

‘Propaganda by the deed’ can be problematic and is prone to backfiring.


Read Stirners 'Ego And It's Own'.....Proudhon's Idea Of The Revolution and What Is Property.

What is Property is essential..


Have read Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, the Common Good and Chomsky On Anarchism.

Chomsky on Anarchism is absolutely essential. (Unless, of course, you already have this material from other sources.)

I could add a number of other recommendations, I would especially recommend Profit Over People.


I've read Albert Meltzer's Anarchism, Arguments For And Against,

I actually haven’t read that.


Orwells Homage To Catalonia.

Classic. Although, I’d rather read 1984. Animal Farm was also excellent.


Read Rockers Anarcho-Syndicalism etc and so on.

Also excellent. However, I’m thinking I’ve neglected Rocker. I’ve read a little of his work, but I’ve read fragments of stuff since and I intend to revisit his work in a more comprehensive way.


I understand anarchism. Right now I'm reading Mikhail Bakunin: The Philosophical Basis Of His Anarchism by Paul McLaughlin.

I haven’t read that. However, I’ve read God & the State, Marxism, Freedom, & the State, Stateless Socialism , etc.

The best single volume on Anarchism, which is criminally overlooked is Peter Marshall’s Demanding the Impossible. It has some minor flaws, but, again, it is the absolute best single volume on Anarchism, in total.




I've read it years ago.

Then there’s no need for the flippant and one-sided appraisal of Smith. Again, especially in Learning.



Again I'll refer to to this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Transformation_%28book%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Transformation_%28book%29)

I might actually read this at some point. I found a short reference in Profit Over People. I’ve got a long list. Right now I’m reading Tear Down this Myth, and The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11.


Modern liberals deserve no defense.

I’m not really defending anything. I want us, all of us, to have an informed, rational discussion. (Of course, I have no illusions about the likelihood of this.) Without just saying; ‘X totally sucks.’ Not that I’ve never done this, for example, I recently posted that John Zerzan is a crank. That, obviously, isn’t especially insightful or revealing. However;
A. John Zerzan is just one man, not a philosophy unto himself, or a historical movement.
B. John Zerzan really is a fucking crank.
C. I have absolutely no opposition, whatsoever, to providing a full, comprehensive treatment, if anybody is actually interested. (So far no-one has contested this asessment.)

[NGNM85]

Whether it's a solid argument or not isn't really the question.

It's absolutely the question. However, if you like, you can take any number of substitutes; Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, etc.


I have no idea how anyone can talk about Marx being authoritarian and then counter-pose this to Bakunin.

I think you're wrong about that, but, again, this is missing the point.


The dictatorship of the proletariat is the suppression by the proletartiat of counter-revolutionary and bourgeois forces.

That's one way of characterizing it.


I don't see what's so wrong with this. Are you against Mahkno, Durruti, etc?

Mahkno explicitly rejected this idea, for the same reasons. I don't know what Durutti's position was.


Most modern-day anarchists are fucking wieners.

Brilliant.

[Amphictyonis]

I messed up some quotes in that post but I think you get the gist of my reply. The problem I have with you, as I've said in the past, isnt your criticism of "communist" Russia or your anarchist position it's your defense of liberals and the defense of the Democrats/Republican/capitalist health care law was about all I could take. I'm still at a loss as to why you think thats a good thing or some improvement for the working class. There's posts you've made that make sense but they become nullified when you expose this tendency to almost backtrack to a position I would expect a young person to hold, a person who's just getting into radical/revolutionary politics/economics. The whole "corporate" this and "corporate" that thing is telling as well. I could nit pick if I had more time or the inclination I just wanted to make it clear to you and anarchists on this forum I'm not criticizing you because of your anarchist positions.

[Lucretia]

I messed up some quotes in that post but I think you get the gist of my reply. The problem I have with you, as I've said in the past, isnt your criticism of "communist" Russia or your anarchist position it's your defense of liberals and the defense of the Democrats/Republican/capitalist health care law was about all I could take. I'm still at a loss as to why you think thats a good thing or some improvement for the working class. There's posts you've made that make sense but they become nullified when you expose this tendency to almost backtrack to a position I would expect a young person to hold, a person who's just getting into radical/revolutionary politics/economics. The whole "corporate" this and "corporate" that thing is telling as well. I could nit pick if I had more time or the inclination I just wanted to make it clear to you and anarchists on this forum I'm not criticizing you because of your anarchist positions.

There's little doubt in my mind that NGNM is youthful. Anybody who has had dealings with the insurance companies, and knows how insurance coverage differs from health care, can understand how the Obamacare law is major step backward, a step toward privatization. Young people tend not to need health insurance (good health) or just to remain on mom and dad's plan.

[NGNM85]

I messed up some quotes in that post but I think you get the gist of my reply. The problem I have with you, as I've said in the past, isnt your criticism of "communist" Russia or your anarchist position

I don't have any positions that are philosophically outside of Anarchism. I may have opinions on things Anarchists generally haven't written a lot about, I don't think Bakunin wrote anything about Artificial Intelligence, but I would wager my views on that subject are completely philosophically in line with Anarchist traditions, for the most part, the central currents.


it's your defense of liberals

Well, we have to be able to diffferentiate, first between Classical Liberals, and modern Liberals. We also have to be able to differentiate between ideas, and the people who espouse these ideas to varying extents. Classical Liberalism, representing the ideals of the Enlightenment, was a massive leap forward, philosophically. It also embodied key concepts which any Libertarian Socialist accepts, because Libertarian Socialism evolved out of Classical Liberalism. (Actually, almost all political movements presently embrace some form of Classical Liberalism, with the exception of the far right.) Bakunin acknowledged this. The luminaries of the Enlightenment were a mixed bag, most of them didn't live up to their rhetoric, but they were instrumental in creating some positive social developments. Again, they weren't devils, or angels, they were something in between, and we should be able to talk about them rationally and honestly without reducing things to crude stereotypes, or becoming emotional.


and the defense of the Democrats/Republican/capitalist health care law was about all I could take. I'm still at a loss as to why you think thats a good thing or some improvement for the working class.

'Defense' is a bit of a stretch. I think it's a bad Bill, and I said so, but that doesn't mean I think it should be repealed, except in the context of replacing it with something more comprehensive, which isn't an immediate possibility. However, we could work on that. Also, this is not a question of philosophical inconsistency with Anarchism, this is a debate over the merits of a particular piece of legislation. I've stated what my asessment is and why, and I'd be perfectly willing to do so again, just not in this thread.


There's posts you've made that make sense but they become nullified when you expose this tendency to almost backtrack to a position I would expect a young person to hold, a person who's just getting into radical/revolutionary politics/economics.

I have no idea what you're refferring to.


The whole "corporate" this and "corporate" that thing is telling as well. I could nit pick if I had more time or the inclination I just wanted to make it clear to you and anarchists on this forum I'm not criticizing you because of your anarchist positions.

I said 'corporate mercantilism', which I actually got from Chomsky and can be found in his writing going back over a decade, at least, as well as a number of other sources. I'm not exactly sure of the etymology, the earliest reference I could find was a economics journal from 1992. However, I meant to use it in a very specific way.

Again, I'm not aware of having any non-Anarchist positions.

[RadioRaheem84]

Again, I'm not aware of having any non-Anarchist positions.

That's your main problem.

[NGNM85]

That's your main problem.

Name one.

[MarxistMan]

Well, they were just Facebook friends, not real friends. However i've had bad experiences with progressive liberal intellectual celebrities like Michael Parenti, Amy Goodman, Michael Moore and others bourgeoise reformist intellectuals. I think that most of them are very popular, write very good articles against capitalism and imperialism. But i just think that they are too selfish, too anti-social, too disconnected from the oppressed, too self-absorved, and most important of all, too disconnected from the problems of the people beating the bullets in America who are the homeless, the extreme poors, the oppressed blacks, the prisoners like Mumia, the american indians, and the undocumented people. As opposed to the Marxist-Leninist, and workers parties who are a lot friendlier and have a real humanist, compassionate behaviour, just like Che Guevara.

So I think that their behaviour, the way they behave you like yuppies and like right-wingers is what really makes them right-wing reformists, and not real revolutionary leftists who care about a real change in America

.

.

.



Also on the point of deleting you, that seems a bit harsh. Are they friends from the internet, or from life.