Socialism as enemy of mankind [Archive]

Across The Street

14th February 2011, 04:10

Broletariat

14th February 2011, 04:12

Marx never distinguished between Socialism and Communism and used the words interchangeable.

Most people here are much the same, for us Socialism and Communism mean the same thing. You may be thinking of Social-Democracy or Democratic Socialism which we all oppose.

Across The Street

14th February 2011, 04:16

That first sentence is untrue, as far as my knowledge of Marx. The communist manifesto itself was an attempt to break away from the socialism that dominated the resistance to capitalism present in the time in which it was written. Granted, that resistance was minimal while capitalism was new to the world, but these days socialism does more to perpetuate the current system than offer opposition or resistance to it. Anarchism and Communism are revolutionary, and we need to realize that right now, Socialism isn't.

Victus Mortuum

14th February 2011, 04:20

To me, Anarchism is not about revolutionary socialism, and neither is Communism for that matter, nor has it ever been.

I detect ignorance. Anarchism is a socialist philosophy.

I see way too many threads where people substitute Communism for Socialism, in some vague attempt to pretend that the two are even close to the same.

Communism is a type of socialism...

I see an evolution in Anarchist thought which breaks fully, completely, and finally away from any supposed socialist government.

Okay. So you either don't understand the word socialist as it is commonly used, or you believe the Leninist conception of socialism is the only one people mean when they use it.

The reason for this is that Socialism is unarguably reformist and obsolete due solely to this fact.

Yeah, you know how reformist it is to demand a workers revolution to abolish private property...

Anarchists don't seek to reform, we seek to destroy and put something entirely new in the place of the old.

Yeah...anarchists are socialists...

I'm not gonna go on. You should probably start reading some socialist works.

Socialism is a general term referring to democratic producers control of production. Anarchism is a philosophy that advocates this (as is Marxism). Communism is a type of socialism that involves democratic- rather than market-based consumption distribution (usually opposed to Market Socialism or Labor Vouchers).

Joe Payne

14th February 2011, 04:26

Nah, socialism is pretty much used by everyone (anarchists included) to be the general term. I understand that because even Nazis have used the word, that it may be better to just drop it to avoid having to explain our explicit take on our particular view of what socialism is, however Communism can also be confused to mean regimes with CPs at their head, which also leads to more conversations having to explain what we mean by communism.

Anarchism, though, doesn't have mass murder or silly reformism attached to it. It does have its misrepresentations, but because those misrepresentations are generally vague and abstract ("ZOMG CHAOS AND STUFFZ!!!111") It's real easy and takes a much shorter conversation explaining what anarchism is. So maybe, at least in your day-to-day, just use anarchist.

Anarchists are communists anyway, just not every "communist" is an anarchist. That goes for socialism too. :thumbup1:

MarxistMan

14th February 2011, 04:27

My friend you have to realize something, most humans wether right-wing capitalists voters or leftist socialist party voters are too self-centered, too selfish, and too family-narcissists (They only worried about their own nuclear central family). Most people in this world are like that. Just because you see people wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt and a marxism logo doesn't mean that they are pure altruist saints.

I know what you mean, there is a lot of selfishness, and people looking for fame and glory in the US left, specially in the bourgeoise progressive liberal reformist left (Social-democrat left of USA). And specially on social network websites such as Facebook, where there are a lot of leftists, but many of them are just after fame, glory and attention seeking.

I think that you can't blame socialists for that, it's because most humans today are like that. It's real real hard to be a hero like the hero of the movies Robin Hood and William Wallace or a political hero like the revolutionary heroes Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, Martin Luther King, Lenin, Malcom X, Durruti and others.

However you have to accept the socialist stage. You have to welcome socialism, because from a realist scientific point of view, there is no way that a country can pass from oligarchic plutocratic capitalism like USA, Mexico and Canada to anarchist-communism, without passing first thru welfare-state-capitalism (like Venezuela), and then to socialism (Like Paris Commune), and then toward anarchist-communism.

So that's like if you weigh 400 lbs. and your goal weight is 160, but you first have to pass thru 300 which is not perfect but its better than 400 lbs.

So socialism will not be a perfect paradise, but it will be a lot more democratic than Neoliberal Corporate Plutocratic Capitalism of USA and Mexico.

.

To me, Anarchism is not about revolutionary socialism, and neither is Communism for that matter, nor has it ever been. I see way too many threads where people substitute Communism for Socialism, in some vague attempt to pretend that the two are even close to the same. I see an evolution in Anarchist thought which breaks fully, completely, and finally away from any supposed socialist government. The reason for this is that Socialism is unarguably reformist and obsolete due solely to this fact. Anarchists don't seek to reform, we seek to destroy and put something entirely new in the place of the old.

I have an aversion to Socialism for many reasons, the main reason being that the name itself is a front. Socialists largely don't care about social relations, everything they propose is contrived to benefit a very small minority over the rest of humanity, envisioning a society which is very near to the current capitalist mindframe that dominates the world today. This is a charge that was levelled against the early communists but which clearly shows in the speech and thoughts of socialists in the 21st century.

My main point, that if communist theory is to advance at all, and if anarchism is to become solidified and offer a true alternative to the masses of the world, we must all clearly acknowledge and honestly attempt to break away from false notions of socialism.

I can go more in depth if there's enough interest in this topic, but for me socialism is a dead end.

scarletghoul

14th February 2011, 04:31

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

MarxistMan

14th February 2011, 04:31

Oh by the way i forgot to say one thing, there are real important requirements for the leaders of a Revolutionary Socialist Workers Party, and these requirements are love, honesty, purity, morality, altruism and goodness, in order for that Socialist Party to succeed in applying a Socialist Marxist Political System in any nation after they rise to government power. Because of the fact that Socialist leaders after they rise to power might become thieves, steal lots of money, concentrate power, and just install a Stalinist USSR Dictatorship, and that's not what true socialists want for their country

So again honesty, goodness, love, compassion, purity, tolerance and morality are real important traits. And like i said in my other post most humans are tempted to be evil, selfish and corrupt.

.

To me, Anarchism is not about revolutionary socialism, and neither is Communism for that matter, nor has it ever been. I see way too many threads where people substitute Communism for Socialism, in some vague attempt to pretend that the two are even close to the same. I see an evolution in Anarchist thought which breaks fully, completely, and finally away from any supposed socialist government. The reason for this is that Socialism is unarguably reformist and obsolete due solely to this fact. Anarchists don't seek to reform, we seek to destroy and put something entirely new in the place of the old.

I have an aversion to Socialism for many reasons, the main reason being that the name itself is a front. Socialists largely don't care about social relations, everything they propose is contrived to benefit a very small minority over the rest of humanity, envisioning a society which is very near to the current capitalist mindframe that dominates the world today. This is a charge that was levelled against the early communists but which clearly shows in the speech and thoughts of socialists in the 21st century.

My main point, that if communist theory is to advance at all, and if anarchism is to become solidified and offer a true alternative to the masses of the world, we must all clearly acknowledge and honestly attempt to break away from false notions of socialism.

I can go more in depth if there's enough interest in this topic, but for me socialism is a dead end.

Pavlov's House Party

14th February 2011, 04:33

Socialism is a means to attain communism. Basically, communism is a stateless, classless society, but you can't just jump to it overnight because among other things, people won't be used to living in a society without a state or classes right away. The socialist state, in the Leninist sense, is thus a state run by the working class which is designed to make itself obsolete and slowly "reprogram" society until there are no more different classes and there is therefore no need for the state.

Even after the Russian Revolution, Bolsheviks like Lenin and Trotsky acknowledged they would not live to see communism implemented; from their perspective it would have taken several generations before any distinguishing class differences were eradicated and the state no longer needed to exist.

MarxistMan

14th February 2011, 04:35

Indeed, i am anti-murdering people, even against murdering Nazis. Killing people is real evil. And to me any socialist leftist that supports murdering another human being is not a real leftist, but a Stalinist. We need a new revolutionary justice system based on loving enemies, even loving criminals, not on killing capitalists or killing criminals.

.

Nah, socialism is pretty much used by everyone (anarchists included) to be the general term. I understand that because even Nazis have used the word, that it may be better to just drop it to avoid having to explain our explicit take on our particular view of what socialism is, however Communism can also be confused to mean regimes with CPs at their head, which also leads to more conversations having to explain what we mean by communism.

Anarchism, though, doesn't have mass murder or silly reformism attached to it. It does have its misrepresentations, but because those misrepresentations are generally vague and abstract ("ZOMG CHAOS AND STUFFZ!!!111") It's real easy and takes a much shorter conversation explaining what anarchism is. So maybe, at least in your day-to-day, just use anarchist.

Anarchists are communists anyway, just not every "communist" is an anarchist. That goes for socialism too. :thumbup1:

MarxistMan

14th February 2011, 04:39

Pav: That's what i was talking about. Most people think that the world is like a book. Most people in this world are even anti-politics, too a-political, only a few like us are real politicized, and another thing is that changing the political systems and behaviours of people is not a piece of cake. Look at Venezuela, it is still a welfare-capitalist system. Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Government haven't been able to change Venezuela to 100% socialism in the 11 years of the Bolivarian Government.

People here have to realize that reality is too complicated and the behaviour of people is too complicated, and that the right-wing and corporations are just too strong even in Venezuela.

Another thing that anarchists have to realize is that the middle classes are still too right-wingers, among many other causes that prevent changing a nation from capitalism to socialism overnight.

.

Socialism is a means to attain communism. Basically, communism is a stateless, classless society, but you can't just jump to it overnight because among other things, people won't be used to living in a society without a state or classes right away. The socialist state, in the Leninist sense, is thus a state run by the working class which is designed to make itself obsolete and slowly "reprogram" society until there are no more different classes and there is therefore no need for the state.

Even after the Russian Revolution, Bolsheviks like Lenin and Trotsky acknowledged they would not live to see communism implemented; from their perspective it would have taken several generations before any distinguishing class differences were eradicated and the state no longer needed to exist.

Across The Street

14th February 2011, 04:39

I don't agree that socialism is a necessary step on the path to Anarchist-communism. If people truly want to see revolution, it won't involve socialism. I'm not dreaming here, we will progress directly to more local forms of governance that don't involve the heirarchic systems that socialism implies. Revolution rarely occurs as it has been plotted by those who think such a thing can even be plotted.

GPDP

14th February 2011, 04:41

So basically, your problem is you're hung up on semantics.

If that's your only issue with socialism, then I'd say there's no issue.

MarxSchmarx

14th February 2011, 04:48

This sounds like basically a semantic debate. Across the Street you can call yourself what you want, but I don't think launching a broadside against 'socialism' serves you any good. It sounds like you want a classless, stateless society here and now without a transition period. Then your criticism should focus against such "transitory" regimes and their specific policies. I think you will learn more and be a lot clearer if this is the case.

My friend you have to realize something, most humans wether right-wing capitalists voters or leftist socialist party voters are too self-centered, too selfish, and too family-narcissists (They only worried about their own nuclear central family). Most people in this world are like that. Just because you see people wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt and a marxism logo doesn't mean that they are pure altruist saints.

I think we underestimate what some capitalist apologists call "the virtue of selfishness." Our movement is about "human liberation" which to me comes down to individuals setting their own destinies. When individuals realize that their "selfish" aspirations can be met only in a social context and without the interference of a ruling class and an oppressive economic order does it really become possible to speak about an end to alientation and exploitation.

Indeed, I think that an appeal of capitalism is that people (at least in the global north) feel that as long as they can make enough money, they can be freed from the constraints of scarcity to pursue their ambitions. When we can get people to envision a social order in which they don't have to spend their lives on a treadmill like a mouse, the rational course of action is to minimize undesirable work and maximize personally fulfilling work - a goal only possible in a classless, democratically planned economy.

Across The Street

14th February 2011, 04:50

My issue is that people don't even understand what they're preaching on here, and yes, most of revleft is preaching, among many threads which straight up turn into some quasi-personal bullshit that wastes everybodys time.

Across The Street

14th February 2011, 04:53

MarxSchmarx

14th February 2011, 05:06

Marx Schmarx:"Then your criticism should focus against such "transitory" regimes and their specific policies. I think you will learn more and be a lot clearer if this is the case."

Sounds about right, solid advice.

Without drumming it in too hard, differences of opinion articulated as critiques of politics can be quite productive whereas labels tend to obscure rather than illuminate, I've found. Indeed, your observation that

My issue is that people don't even understand what they're preaching on here, and yes, most of revleft is preaching, among many threads which straight up turn into some quasi-personal bullshit that wastes everybodys time. has a kernel of truth. Part of this is that what is used as shorthand in one circle has a completely different meaning in another circle. This seriously hampers communication.

Take for example the term "Trotskyite". In some circles it is shorthand for misguided attempts to export the Russian revolution, but in other areas it is actually shorthand for a misunderstanding of Lenin's texts, and yet in a third arena it is some vague combination of the two etc... Over time the insult "Trotskyite" loses its meaning, even within or among groups that like Lenin but find Trotsky's writings objectionable, and somehow becomes a general insult, not too far from "nincompoop" but supposedly more erudite.

I think your concern with "socialism" has a similar fate. The term "socialism" means too many things to too many different people to really be a coherent target of analysis or criticism. I think we have to live with this, but being mindful of the limitations of jargon can only help us sharpen our theoretical and practical acumen.

Across The Street

14th February 2011, 05:19

MarxSchmarx:"I think your concern with "socialism" has a similar fate. The term "socialism" means too many things to too many different people to really be a coherent target of analysis or criticism. I think we have to live with this, but being mindful of the limitations of jargon can only help us sharpen our theoretical and practical acumen."

I agree, I know each person probably takes a different meaning from the word. It has been said, maybe by Benjamin Tucker? that 'every anarchist is a socialist, but not every socialist is an anarchist' and I just disagreed with that, I think anarchism needs to split from socialism, and I just thought I'd see what others thought about this.

GPDP

14th February 2011, 05:27

I agree, I know each person probably takes a different meaning from the word. It has been said, maybe by Benjamin Tucker? that 'every anarchist is a socialist, but not every socialist is an anarchist' and I just disagreed with that, I think anarchism needs to split from socialism, and I just thought I'd see what others thought about this.

You mean it should distance itself from the socialism that generally means reformism or social-democracy, socialism as understood by apologists of the old Stalinist regimes, or socialism in terms of the worker's movement to place the means of production under democratic control?

Because if it's the latter, well, look at the inanity that is Post-Left Anarchism, and tell me if that's a desirable outcome of separating anarchism from its socialist roots.

Klaatu

14th February 2011, 05:29

Anarchists don't seek to reform, we seek to destroy and put something entirely new in the place of the old.

So what is your solution? What "something entirely new in the place of the old?"

Socialists largely don't care about social relations, everything they propose is contrived to benefit a very small minority over the rest of humanity, envisioning a society which is very near to the current capitalist mindframe that dominates the world today.

Socialism works. A proven fact.

(A) How many Socialists do you personally know, and

(B) How is anarchism (anything goes) supposed to work? have you thought of the organized crime that tends to fill in the power vacuum
left over from your "overthrown authority?"

If you want an example of anarchy, I think Somalia might suffice.

Across The Street

14th February 2011, 05:46

Klaatu: "So what is your solution? What "something entirely new in the place of the old?""

This could take a lifetime to fully develop, but as of now, it would be based on the politics I see at play in my locality. Most people in my community barely register each others existence and my solution for this would be an honest attempt by each person to engage with each other on problems that affect us all. Community meetings each time a new law is being passed to get peoples responses and to engage in resistance if necessary. Non-profits that truly give free food, investment coming from the whole community to provide for those who can't provide for themselves. Active resistance to violent crime outside of the activities of the pigs, retribution as fits the crimes formulated by the victims. I can't really go into this as, it's a bit off topic, and I'm never at a loss for ideas.

Klaatu: "(A) How many Socialists do you personally know, and

(B) How is anarchism (anything goes) supposed to work? have you thought of the organized crime that tends to fill in the power vacuum
left over from your "overthrown authority?""

A: None

B:Anarchism does not mean anything goes. People are capable of governing themselves, and you seem to ignore the fact that organized crime currently is opposed by the vast majority of people and there is such a thing as vigilante justice.

Across The Street

14th February 2011, 05:50

"You mean it should distance itself from the socialism that generally means reformism or social-democracy, socialism as understood by apologists of the old Stalinist regimes, or socialism in terms of the worker's movement to place the means of production under democratic control?"

The first two examples of so-called socialism are absolutely negatives, the third is a good idea , though the third ignores the fact that under socialism it wouldn't be democratic control if government is centralized and the workplaces are directed from the corridors of power.

GPDP

14th February 2011, 05:57

The first two examples of so-called socialism are absolutely negatives, the third is a good idea , though the third ignores the fact that under socialism it wouldn't be democratic control if government is centralized and the workplaces are directed from the corridors of power.

Or perhaps you're ignoring that if it isn't democratic, then perhaps it isn't socialism?

Across The Street

14th February 2011, 06:03

Most of the people who straight up advocate socialism, reject democracy, sometimes with a violent passion.

GPDP

14th February 2011, 06:05

Most of the people who straight up advocate socialism, reject democracy, sometimes with a violent passion.

You're gonna need to back up that assertion.

Across The Street

14th February 2011, 06:07

The weight of that statement is contained within your denial of it. It is an opinion, and one that a hell of a lot of posts on this site confirm as true.

Le Socialiste

14th February 2011, 06:13

To me, Anarchism is not about revolutionary socialism, and neither is Communism for that matter, nor has it ever been. I see way too many threads where people substitute Communism for Socialism, in some vague attempt to pretend that the two are even close to the same. I see an evolution in Anarchist thought which breaks fully, completely, and finally away from any supposed socialist government. The reason for this is that Socialism is unarguably reformist and obsolete due solely to this fact. Anarchists don't seek to reform, we seek to destroy and put something entirely new in the place of the old.

Anarchism is, as many people here have noted, ideologically tied to revolutionary Socialism and stems from socialistic theory. The same could be said of Communism. Marx commonly used Socialism and Communism interchangeably - another point brought up by some. Communism and Socialism aren't foreign to one another, as some have tried to claim. What evolution of Anarchism do you see that breaks totally and completely from socialist governments - and what governments are you referring to? If you're thinking of the old FSU and Eastern bloc, those who were largely dominated by Leninist parties (which don't represent the whole of the socialist movement), then you should know they aren’t the only strain of socialist thought. Another possible theory is that you're thinking of the social democratic states of Scandinavia and Western Europe (which are, of course, still largely capitalistic, not socialist). Sure, there's a difference between statist and libertarian socialist theory, but you don't really convey this in your post.

I have an aversion to Socialism for many reasons, the main reason being that the name itself is a front. Socialists largely don't care about social relations, everything they propose is contrived to benefit a very small minority over the rest of humanity, envisioning a society which is very near to the current capitalist mindframe that dominates the world today. This is a charge that was levelled against the early communists but which clearly shows in the speech and thoughts of socialists in the 21st century.

How is the term "Socialism" a front? Granted, numerous parties have co-opted socialistic rhetoric in order to garner votes and support; those that take the opportunist and reformist road. However, the basic ideals and theories of Socialism aren't any kind of front at all. I'm beginning to suspect you have Socialism (which, in my mind, is better explained as an umbrella term for countless theories and ideologies - i.e. Leninism, Luxemburgism, Anarchism, Syndicalism, etc.) for the statist bureaucracies of the USSR and those that followed the Soviet model. But let me be clear: the vast majority of socialists do not seek to prop up a privileged, wealthy minority at the expense of the workers themselves. By and large, no matter one's line of thinking, we seek the emancipatory road - one that demands equality, dignity, and adheres to the socialist Ideal. We want the workers to benefit, not some bourgeois minority.

My main point, that if communist theory is to advance at all, and if anarchism is to become solidified and offer a true alternative to the masses of the world, we must all clearly acknowledge and honestly attempt to break away from false notions of socialism.

It's like I said above, all three theories/ideologies are branches of the same family, one rooted in socialistic theory. There are differences, of course, but there's no denying our (largely) shared beginnings. We can either splinter off into distinct factions, or we can unite in the broader struggle - the struggle of the international proletariat. I'd much prefer the latter, wouldn't you?

I can go more in depth if there's enough interest in this topic, but for me socialism is a dead end.

I would love for you to elaborate more. Let me be clear - I don't mean to offend or insult anybody through my responses or posts. That includes you. I would like to hear more about how you've arrived at this particular conclusion.

GPDP

14th February 2011, 06:14

The weight of that statement is contained within your denial of it. It is an opinion, and one that a hell of a lot of posts on this site confirm as true.

When you make a quasi-statistical statement such as "most socialists reject democracy," the burden of proof lies on you to back up that statement. You can't expect to hide behind the cloak of "it is an opinion" to get away from proving such a claim.

I'd accept if you said "some" or "a number," perhaps even "a significant amount," but when you say the majority of socialists are violent opponents of democracy, you have to tell me who these socialists are. For all I know, you could be talking about me, and I sure as hell do not consider myself an opponent of democracy.

MarxistMan

14th February 2011, 06:16

My friend, life is real real hard, real complicated, humans are evil, and the world out there is a jungle. We have to be open minded and realists. Changing a nation from capitalism to socialism which is not even anarchist-communism is just not a piece of cake. Most workers in this world are right-wingers, are still with a free market mentality and that's thanks to the TV, movies and media. Its real real tough to change nations.

So you have to be patient and optimist at the same time. Like a Baseball Manager Chuck Tanner once said: "Don't never quit, not even on baseball, but on life"

So don't quit trying to overthrow the capitalist system, just because it's too hard you should be optimist

.

Marx Schmarx:"Then your criticism should focus against such "transitory" regimes and their specific policies. I think you will learn more and be a lot clearer if this is the case."

Sounds about right, solid advice.

Blackscare

14th February 2011, 06:19

ITT: people share imaginary definitions of popular words.

Across The Street

14th February 2011, 07:11

Le Socialiste: "What evolution of Anarchism do you see that breaks totally and completely from socialist governments - and what governments are you referring to?"

The evolution of conditions on the ground, although Anarchism is widely misunderstood, everything is heating up worldwide, and people look toward Anarchism as a possible future. The governments I was referring to are any that have taken the title of Socialism, currently and historically.

"It's like I said above, all three theories/ideologies are branches of the same family, one rooted in socialistic theory. There are differences, of course, but there's no denying our (largely) shared beginnings. We can either splinter off into distinct factions, or we can unite in the broader struggle - the struggle of the international proletariat. I'd much prefer the latter, wouldn't you?"

I'd be a fool to answer no to this question, the struggles of any particular part of the world are undeniably linked to problems each one of us faces everyday. I realize we all strive for an ideal world, and that goes for just about everybody, regardless of political affiliation. Don't get me wrong though, I definitely don't think there are very many idealists out there.

GPDP: "I'd accept if you said "some" or "a number," perhaps even "a significant amount," but when you say the majority of socialists are violent opponents of democracy, you have to tell me who these socialists are. For all I know, you could be talking about me, and I sure as hell do not consider myself an opponent of democracy. "

I wasn't referencing you in particular, and I can't point to any specific posts at the moment, I've just seen some people on this site in the past who are completely hostile to the idea of democracy. To me, I get the feeling some people hide behind ideas of saving the world with intentions of completely corrupting and destroying it. I defend my opinions to the point of risking death to see them proven. I guess what has really gotten me to the point of hating socialism would be the fact that so many people have hidden behind the ideal to justify atrocity and slaughter. I see an association with socialism as an invitation to sidestep or cover up unconscionable wholesale madness. Mass movements are built from ideas of a better world, and I ask myself, how has socialism made this a better world?

MarxistMan: "So you have to be patient and optimist at the same time. Like a Baseball Manager Chuck Tanner once said: "Don't never quit, not even on baseball, but on life"

So don't quit trying to overthrow the capitalist system, just because it's too hard you should be optimist"

I like your perspective, and I promise you I'll never give up on life, nor will I ever lose the tendency to look for the positive in all things. I don't believe that people are evil by nature, in fact I believe the opposite.

.

GPDP

14th February 2011, 10:41

I wasn't referencing you in particular, and I can't point to any specific posts at the moment, I've just seen some people on this site in the past who are completely hostile to the idea of democracy. To me, I get the feeling some people hide behind ideas of saving the world with intentions of completely corrupting and destroying it. I defend my opinions to the point of risking death to see them proven. I guess what has really gotten me to the point of hating socialism would be the fact that so many people have hidden behind the ideal to justify atrocity and slaughter. I see an association with socialism as an invitation to sidestep or cover up unconscionable wholesale madness. Mass movements are built from ideas of a better world, and I ask myself, how has socialism made this a better world?

The same can be said about democracy, or freedom, or human rights, and a myriad other countless noble and otherwise sympathetic causes and ideas. Are we to discount them all as well because some assholes hide behind them to justify their sinister plans? Are we to find democracy distasteful because the United States invokes it as a justification for endless wars, and the right frames the debate to set themselves as the champions of democracy against the left-wing menace?

Honestly, no offense, but your hate for socialism seems largely irrational to me, almost like a man who comes to hate all dogs because one bit him when he was a kid. Yet I implore you to consider the other side of the coin, and not dwell on the creeps who have hijacked the mantle of socialism. The history of class struggle is rife with good examples of socialists genuinely changing the world for the better. While I acknowledge the mistakes of Lenin and the crimes of Stalin, instead of dwelling upon those figures I look up to those who did make a difference, like Debs, Joe Hill, the early SP and CPUSA, the anarchists who so valiantly held their ground in Spain, and the current generation here and abroad struggling despite the lack of consciousness and the increasingly brutal attacks on the working class.

It is their example, and not the likes of Stalin, that makes socialism worth fighting for.

#FF0000

14th February 2011, 10:49

I wasn't referencing you in particular, and I can't point to any specific posts at the moment, I've just seen some people on this site in the past who are completely hostile to the idea of democracy I'm sorry but this just isn't true. You aren't going to find anyone except for a few clueless newbies who will come out against Democracy.

hatzel

14th February 2011, 11:49

Something tells me that somebody doesn't understand that 'representative' democracy and participatory democracy are two different things. Sure, there are plenty of people here who are completely hostile to the current system of 'representative' democracy (as you should be, no, didn't you say you were an anarchist...?), but that doesn't mean that they're hostile to the idea of democracy, just the current form of democracy. I haven't seen all too many ultra-Stalinists around here calling for some totalitarian anti-democratic regime. I remember only one guy who did, user Сталин, and he's banned now, presumably for being a massive racist National Bolshevik moron :)

Jimmie Higgins

14th February 2011, 12:12

So basically, your problem is you're hung up on semantics.

If that's your only issue with socialism, then I'd say there's no issue.

Hung-up on semantics or straw-men descriptions of Marxian socialism.

"You mean it should distance itself from the socialism that generally means reformism or social-democracy, socialism as understood by apologists of the old Stalinist regimes, or socialism in terms of the worker's movement to place the means of production under democratic control?"

The first two examples of so-called socialism are absolutely negatives, the third is a good idea , though the third ignores the fact that under socialism it wouldn't be democratic control if government is centralized and the workplaces are directed from the corridors of power.

The fact? To me socialism only means a society run by the working class - a society that has never fully existed but came close for short times in the Paris commune and the first few years of the Russian Revolution.

So how workers decide work their rule can be somewhat flexible - some workers and revolutionaries will probably argue for a more centralized democratic system and others for a more federalist system. Some workplaces or communities might decided to make decisions by full democratic vote of everyone whereas other places workers might decide that it's best to have elected and re-callable representatives.

There can't be "substitutionism" of a party or individual for the working class IMO - unlike the some of the "great-men"-like ideas of Che's "revolutionaries who make the revolution" and Mao's cult of personality or even insurrectionist "anarchists" who want a revolution where the working class does not consciously lead in their own interests.

So how does a large mass ruling class best collectively rule and make decisions? For me some kind of democratic decision making process will be necessary. This is a state, a worker's state (as opposed to the minority-run so-called "worker states" where the working class had no direct control of production or making policy) and it is a variation of some of the ideas you laid out.

The word "socialism" and really not even bad political ideas on their own created the bastardized "socialisms" of democratic-socialism and Stalinism. For different reasons both of these traditions came out of non-working-class class interests. For democratic socialism, the role of the bureaucracy became more important than the needs of the workers - the bureaucracy of, say, the German Democratic Socialists owed it's position in society in trying to mediate the demands of the workers with capitalism. So the structures they built to help workers deal with life in capitalism (their parties, trade-unions, clubs, schools, charities) would be destroyed by working class rule (because who needs them at that point?) as would the need for mediators to negotiate the conditions of capitalism. Stalinism was a different process, but with a similar result of creating a layer with different class interests IMO.

It's one thing if you think that workers can go straight from capitalism to a classless and stateless society. But if you think workers would need to organize themselves and rule society collectively in order to get rid of remaining inequalities and class differences or just to defend from counter-revolution (either external or internal) then basically you are in agreement with this view of Socialism.

raasko

14th February 2011, 12:16

You are spot on brah!

Dimentio

14th February 2011, 12:25

Anarcho-capitalism?

Across The Street

15th February 2011, 16:32

Dimentio: "Anarcho-capitalism?"

This response is the most time I will ever give to this non-existent idea. Not fucking funny, dude.

Krimskrams: "Something tells me that somebody doesn't understand that 'representative' democracy and participatory democracy are two different things. Sure, there are plenty of people here who are completely hostile to the current system of 'representative' democracy (as you should be, no, didn't you say you were an anarchist...?), but that doesn't mean that they're hostile to the idea of democracy, just the current form of democracy"

Indeed, I make this distinction, but perhaps we should try and think of a new form of democracy which incorporates both elements. I think to call what we have now representative democracy is a mistake. The recall of representatives is practically the only safeguard we have right now of enemies of democracy coming to power. I don't, however, believe that those currently in power here in the US are even remotely democratic, all propaganda and posturing aside.

The Artist: "I'm sorry but this just isn't true. You aren't going to find anyone except for a few clueless newbies who will come out against Democracy."

I'm still pretty new to posting on the site, I've been visiting this place for a long time though, and I've seen some pretty despicable views espoused in the past, though I was probably just writing in anger, and I admit that statement was incorrect.

GPDP: "The history of class struggle is rife with good examples of socialists genuinely changing the world for the better. While I acknowledge the mistakes of Lenin and the crimes of Stalin, instead of dwelling upon those figures I look up to those who did make a difference, like Debs, Joe Hill, the early SP and CPUSA, the anarchists who so valiantly held their ground in Spain, and the current generation here and abroad struggling despite the lack of consciousness and the increasingly brutal attacks on the working class.

It is their example, and not the likes of Stalin, that makes socialism worth fighting for."

Indeed, but I won't back down from the stance that socialism is more disastrous now, I don't forget history, and especially with regards to Spain circa '36, the situation is arguable. I just don't see noble examples from the past equating to the prevailing narratives of today.