Ryan's budget plan

[csquared]

Should we support his plan, to speed up the downfall of capitalism? or should we fight it because it is so ignorant?

[Geiseric]

fight it for sure. I wouldn't want to be seen on the same side as the republicans, worse then dems.

[Dumb]

Generally speaking, when capitalism falls, we want the working class to act from a position of strength, not weakness. Just because capitalism falls doesn't mean the ruling class will automatically fall as well - we could always get something worse than capitalism.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Of course the course of action should be to fight the plan, in my opinion.

By the way, like the govt shutdown before, Obama must be praying for the GOP to attack social security and medicare.

[RGacky3]

Should we support his plan, to speed up the downfall of capitalism?

Are you insane? Since when does the downfall of Capitalism mean socialism?

We fight it, is'nt the whole point of being a socialist fighting for the working class?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hello and welcome csquared.

Should we support his plan, to speed up the downfall of capitalism? or should we fight it because it is so ignorant?
Well I don't think capitalism will just fall. After all capitalism survived WWI, depressions, WWII, etc. I hope that we don't have to wait for shit to get that bad before we can rule our own lives. Capitalism's institutions might fall from bad management or small rebellions or just the contradictions of the system, but these would be replaced by something.

As I socialist I want that replacement to be worker's power and so that means we should fight the cuts and attacks on worker rights in order to help build a broad movement of workers who can fight in their own class interests and then if they can topple the system they can replace it.

[Demogorgon]

When I see people asking if we should support right wing policies because they might "bring down capitalism" I have to wonder what planet they are living on. It would take a long time indeed to list everything that is wrong with such a remarkably stupid suggestion but I'm sure everyone here can work it out on their own.

[Jimmie Higgins]

When I see people asking if we should support right wing policies because they might "bring down capitalism" I have to wonder what planet they are living on. It would take a long time indeed to list everything that is wrong with such a remarkably stupid suggestion but I'm sure everyone here can work it out on their own.

I know this wasn't posted in learning, but maybe folks can be a little more patient with a brand-new poster who asks a question. I often hear these kinds of arguments - especially from people who are relatively new to radical politics or activism.

[csquared]

Ok I'm sorry for being so stupid

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ok I'm sorry for being so stupidHow dare you ask a question! Grrr!

[csquared]

I was just wondering because I was thinking that it would be easier for the workers to join together if things got so bad. Because liberal ways tend to divide the working class

[graymouser]

It's a common theme among the left, "let it get worse so we can make it better." But really the fact is that the revolutionary party can best be built during the fightback against austerity and cuts. People really tend to radicalize when they are involved in a social struggle, and the capitalist rulers all turn out to be equally bums. Waiting for it to get so desperate that people have no choice, we can sometimes find out that it's too late to act and, as a comrade of mine always says, you should've built the boat before the storm.

[RGacky3]

As do right wing ways, racism, pitting workers against each other, blaiming the poorer for the plight of the poor.

Also when people are hungry, they'll give up anything for bread, the more victories workers have they can keep it going.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I was just wondering because I was thinking that it would be easier for the workers to join together if things got so bad. Because liberal ways tend to divide the working class

I was joking with that last post btw. But, yeah, sometimes people get pushed so hard they have no choice but to fight while other times they get pushed and retreat (or even struggle a little and loose and then retreat). Most of the recent struggle we've seen since the crisis has been in a sort of reactive mode where people are under attack and try and fight back.

But I think the problem is that it's a weak position to be starting out in for us as a class. For one thing, fighting defensively means that people will probably be more willing to settle for a compromise since they didn't have an offensive goal in mind... like, with the immigrant rights protests: they were strong when fighting against Sensenbrenner, but then got disorganized after that bill was defeated.

I think it's better to be fighting from a position where you already have some momentum and have already organized and prepared for a strike or protest movement or whatever.

But when it comes down to it, like Marx said, people don't choose the conditions of struggle. So we are in a weak position and being attacked as workers right now - we have to do what we can to try and organize resistance under those circumstances or it will only get worse.

[csquared]

Yeah you guys are totally right. Thanks a lot

[Roman_von_Ungern]

Same argument far right uses. "Hehe when he/she is in power immigration will get so bad that society will collapse and we will rise!!11"


Still hasn't happened.

[csquared]

Same argument far right uses. "Hehe when he/she is in power immigration will get so bad that society will collapse and we will rise!!11"


Still hasn't happened.

yeah great point, if things get so bad we might see "phony communists", it is better to have hardcore communists who did not like the system before it got bad

[danyboy27]

a lot of Marxist stayed passive and sometime even encouraged Hitler rise to power beccause they expected capitalism to fall beccause of him.

it ended up bad.


Lets do that zombie apocalypse style, by sticking together.

[Roman_von_Ungern]

Really? That seems kind of odd since NSDAP incorporated a lot of socialist economic policies, if speaking strictly economic terms.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Really? That seems kind of odd since NSDAP incorporated a lot of socialist economic policies, if speaking strictly economic terms.Well, so did FDR by that measure. A jet moves through the air as does a plane as does a bird as does a kite or a bee. Hammers wood and nails can build someone a home or a gallows.

Policies are only meaningful in context; who was using this policy, for what purpose, and how were they using it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

a lot of Marxist stayed passive and sometime even encouraged Hitler rise to power beccause they expected capitalism to fall beccause of him.

it ended up bad.


Yup, famous last words: "After Hitler, us"

[danyboy27]

Really? That seems kind of odd since NSDAP incorporated a lot of socialist economic policies, if speaking strictly economic terms.

Not really, socialist politics are determined by the moving of wealth from the top to the bottom by various methods; Taxation, nationalisation, regulation of industries etc etc.

Fascist economics did litteraly the opposite, empowering the small and big industries, everybody had to work, destroying independent unions, and dirrecting most of their efforts on various military venture rather than improving actual structures.

To compensate for the absence of unions they created various organisations to ''help the worker'' who organised various social activities like book fair, free theatre representation, free boat cruise.

The objective of those fluffy pieces was to blurry the line between the working class and the rulling class and trying to make the working class believe that there was no division or class warfare.

hoo didnt i mentionned that Hitler killed a truckload of socialist communists?

[#FF0000]

Really? That seems kind of odd since NSDAP incorporated a lot of socialist economic policies, if speaking strictly economic terms.

If your definition of "socialism" is "government doing things in the economy", which is a dumb definition, I think.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

That seems to be one definition that is going around in the USA today.

Unless we're talking about the governement giving giant subsidies to defense contractors. Or the largest drug companies on the planet. Or the richest corporations on the planet like exxon-mobile. Or to giant agribusiness corporations that want to own all crops grown with their seed, like monsanto, which was also a giant defense contractor producing agent orange back in the day.

For any of those things, the government funding is obviously a sign of a healthy free market, and the socialists are the ones who want to stop these govt expenditures.

[RGacky3]

That seems to be one definition that is going around in the USA today.


Only by tea-partiers, but then again the also think people hung out with dinosours and Obama is a Kenyan Socialist and they still believe in supply side economics, which means no one should care what they think.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I'm not saying that it is the definition, and I'm certainly not suggesting that the elderly man I met awhile ago who lambasted Obama's socialist policies, aimed at taking away this man's social security and medicare, wasn't a little bit confused.