Why is Socialism considered a joke?

[Geiseric]

Ok everybody, I want to know what happened in the past 100 years which cause people to freak out when I say I'm a socialist. I know for sure that 80 years ago that would be respectable among the working class. Today, when I tell people that they look at me like wtf?! So please answer, what happened in the past 100 years that completely reversed the class consiousness gained in 4000 years of proletarian slave labor, exploitation, and struggle.

[starmix]

It's a combination of Stalin, Mao and American propaganda.

[Blake's Baby]

Stalinism.

Sounds like I'm trolling, but really...

When you look at what socialism was supposed to deliver, then look at what it actually delivered:
1 - in the form of social-democracy, support for imperialist slaughter followed by the management of national capitalism;
2 - in the for of Stalinism, initial rejection of imperialist slaughter (this is before it was Stalinism of course) followed by a brutal and dictatorial regime that also became an imperialist power involved in wholesale slaughter;
is it any wonder that most people look at that legacy and think we're toxic?

The point for me is to get back to what socialism was - a method for the liberation of humanity, and the establishment of a classless communal society called world communism - and not what people think it is.

[NewSocialist]

Ok everybody, I want to know what happened in the past 100 years which cause people to freak out when I say I'm a socialist. I know for sure that 80 years ago that would be respectable among the working class. Today, when I tell people that they look at me like wtf?! So please answer, what happened in the past 100 years that completely reversed the class consiousness gained in 4000 years of proletarian slave labor, exploitation, and struggle.

Bourgeois and Stalinist propaganda happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ

[Tablo]

Most people don't know wat socialism is and consider either state cpitalism or social democract to be socialism.

[Tommy4ever]

http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc433/ATTACK77/red-scare.jpghttp://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc433/ATTACK77/statue.jpg

http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc433/ATTACK77/red_rape_cvr.jpg

[Q]

Why is Socialism considered a joke?

It is? I learn something new every day.

[ZeroNowhere]

Ok everybody, I want to know what happened in the past 100 years which cause people to freak out when I say I'm a socialist. I know for sure that 80 years ago that would be respectable among the working class. Today, when I tell people that they look at me like wtf?! So please answer, what happened in the past 100 years that completely reversed the class consiousness gained in 4000 years of proletarian slave labor, exploitation, and struggle.Revleft.

On a more serious note, the post-war boom ended up more or less reducing most leftist groups to small Parties attempting to 'spread the word' and such, this effect being more pronounced due to the earlier rise of revisionism following the Long Depression, which ended up with the reduction of leftists to essentially propagandists attempting to convert people. Larger groups often ended up leaving behind any class basis for more votes and popularity, in a move which may be compared with the French possibilists (as Engels commented, 'possibilism' being the Socialist term for 'opportunism), as well as more obviously with the SPD, while on the other side this facilitated the formation of impotent sects essentially promoting socialism as a 'nice idea' and eternal principle to be imparted unto the masses, which is probably connected to the widespread conception of socialism as essentially 'a nice idea on paper, but bad in practice'. Of course, this isn't any fault of the socialists themselves, it's just the way that history plays.

Of course, that's not to say that the presence of the Soviet Union and such factors did not contribute, although the branding of communism as 'impractical' or 'impossible' was something that even Marx and Engels had attacked, so wasn't necessarily a recent invention. As a result of the Cold War, nationalism also came into it more directly, in the same way that Western nationalism lead to the widespread view of Nazis as the children of Satan on Earth. This, of course, was aided by the end of the Great Depression, which lead to the aspect of competition among the working class becoming more pronounced.

[Rainsborough]

Ok everybody, I want to know what happened in the past 100 years which cause people to freak out when I say I'm a socialist. I know for sure that 80 years ago that would be respectable among the working class. Today, when I tell people that they look at me like wtf?! So please answer, what happened in the past 100 years that completely reversed the class consiousness gained in 4000 years of proletarian slave labor, exploitation, and struggle.

The bourgeois media and establishment needed 'baddies' and the socialists, especially the communists, fitted that bill splendidly. :rolleyes:

[Zav]

The Capitalist media told the people that Socialism was bad, and when the USSR collapsed, that it had died.

[Olentzero]

http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc433/ATTACK77/red_rape_cvr.jpgThat dude needs to work on his aim. He's richocheted off her back like, what, 15 times?

[Pulasthi]

I raised this point in some other thread but I'll repeat it again.


So please answer, what happened in the past 100 years that completely reversed the class consiousness gained in 4000 years of proletarian slave labor, exploitation, and struggle.

The main reason is the collapse of the soviet bloc.Right or wrong the soviet union was viewed as the ideal outlook of socialism.But the soviet type of socialism was unsuccessful in democratizing the relationship between the state and the people.Here just murmuring slogans like communism is stateless is futile as all we agree in order to achieve a classless society we have to build a transitional state ie the worker's state and the problem is the relationship between that state and the society.

Before the revolutions in Russia/China socialism as an ideology provided a great sense of expectations about prospeirty and freedom to the oppressed people.but when that ideology came in to practice through regimes it turned out to be a brutal dictatorial regime.And in the economic field excessive centralization (Not basic centralization but centralization in an excessive manner) proved to be an inefficient tactic.That caused many economic difficulties such as the stagnation period of Brezhnev.Due to these internal problems of the Soviet style - the ideology's credibility which it held in the beginning of the 20th century rapidly decreased.Imperialist propaganda has done a significant role here too,but still above weaknesses were ACTUALLY there.

If I mention a personal experience there is a friend of mine who recently traveled to Germany to engage in some work of shooting a film.What he says is that many of the people hate socialism because of what they experienced during the existence of the East German socialist regime.He said that still He witnessed some differences between the people in the eastern area and the west, that is the west is leaned towards consumerism but leaning towards intellectualism can be witnessed in the east (which is the heritage of the old socialist regime) , but although people acknowledge the cultural and educational progress in East Germany they hate the system due to it's tyrannical nature.I don't think There is much use of saying these common people (who hate "socialism" due to their first hand experiences) that "No East Germany is NOT socialist,they are something else,real socialists are people who were in the Paris Communion" etc.In theory that may be right but in practice it won't help much i guess.

What I propose is a different method in approach is needed.

As an example when you go out and say that you are for the DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT it is something which easily can be misinterpreted.Secondly we have to be completely honest regarding the past heritage.We should not hesitate to criticize tyrannies of ex socialist regimes - without just simply rejecting them as imperialist propaganda.As an example I have seen many Maoists who speak about the cultural revolution in an appreciative manner.When someone raises about the excessive incidents which took place during the so called cultural revolution without any hesitation they simply deny such happenings.That is not honest and that won't help.As Arunadthi Roy has mentioned recently to renew the struggle we should be honest about this past and should seek new methods to overcome such results.The conditions are favorable and becoming more favorable to the advancement of an anti capitalist movement.Issues like global warming,Environmental problems caused by the greed of cooperates can be raised in an effective manner.The only thing is the left should change it's methods of approach,should re think and innovate.Make necessary changes in terminology.Why can't we simply use the term proletariat democracy or socialist democracy , instead of dictatorship of the proletariat?If you feel that the word communist in front of a party's name won't help in advancing just leave the name and adopt some other name.Name doesn't matter,what's more important is the pro-gramme you put forward.If the name communist make people uneasy and if that reminds them of brutal incidents happened during Stalin's - that is a barrier to continue the political pro-gramme.Castro didn't identify him as a "communist" until even he came to power!He just put forward his programme to the peasant's to abolish big landlords.

next important thing is sectarianism.Like various Christian cults which claim that they are the true heirs of the Christ leftist small groups continue to quarrel saying that they are the true heirs of Marx or Lenin.To an outsider this appears to be completely absurd.Again if I mention a personal experience once I participated a political meeting organized by the SEP - Sri lankan branch.There were several people - most of them were university undergrats - present there.The speaker was a genius ,I should say that, but the content of his speech was so abstract.From the very beginning he spent his time bashing Stalin and Stalinists.The ordinary people who do not no anything about Stalin or Trotsky or their conflict just watched him in an astonished manner.The ordinary south asian people who live in the 21st century,what is the relevance for them about a conflict between two people who lived ages back?Many :socialists; are genius but they miserably fail to adopt their learned theories in to practical situations.Durin the above speech Many left the premises,and i guess they should have simple thought that THESE SOCIALISTS ARE CRAZY!These make socialists a laughable stuff.

[Rusty Shackleford]

'stalinism' is a laughable excuse. but really, the problem in the west and countries the west has made inroads to is this:

COLD WAR PROPAGANDA.

seriously. the working class of the world was behind the soviet union. even during "stalinist" times.

the only people who have the right to complain are people who lived during the 30s and 40s in the soviet union.

yeah the non aggression pact pissed people off, but other than that, the Soviet Union was a sort of beacon for the international working class.

Anarchism was in full swing too but that died by the 40s. it saw a revival in the 90s in the US at least but at the same time, both anarchism and ML communism have become the answer for some 'aware' working and oppressed people.

this century is definitely different.

Obama is seen as a socialist in the eyes of conservatives and reactionaries in the US but some people have taken that as a sign that socialism might be an acceptable thing. wait till the economy crashes again. workers wont be so shy as they were before. it just takes a bit of disillusionment with the capitalist parties.

[Jimmie Higgins]

'stalinism' is a laughable excuse. but really, the problem in the west and countries the west has made inroads to is this:

COLD WAR PROPAGANDA.

seriously. the working class of the world was behind the soviet union. even during "stalinist" times.

the only people who have the right to complain are people who lived during the 30s and 40s in the soviet union.

yeah the non aggression pact pissed people off, but other than that, the Soviet Union was a sort of beacon for the international working class.

Anarchism was in full swing too but that died by the 40s. it saw a revival in the 90s in the US at least but at the same time, both anarchism and ML communism have become the answer for some 'aware' working and oppressed people.

this century is definitely different.

Obama is seen as a socialist in the eyes of conservatives and reactionaries in the US but some people have taken that as a sign that socialism might be an acceptable thing. wait till the economy crashes again. workers wont be so shy as they were before. it just takes a bit of disillusionment with the capitalist parties.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with this. There was anti-radical/anti-bolshevik/and anti-red propaganda by ruling classes pretty constantly from the very beginning, so I don't think it can be chalked up to cold war propaganda alone otherwise the effect on working class consciousness would be as constant as the propaganda.

In the US, the main effects for lack of working class support of socialism has gone hand in hand with declines in working class struggle IMO - this happened in the 1920s and in the post-war boom and the neo-liberal era. Of course witch-hunts and red-scares were a big part of repressing working class fight back (specifically radical organizing like the IWW and then communist groups). Without working class struggle, trying to agitate for radical ideas is like trying to convince people to buy umbrellas in a drought.

However, the effects of reformist parties or the so-called socialist states of the Cold War does play a part in discouraging people from supporting or adopting socialist ideas. Arguments in the early 20th century against "anarchy" and "reds" generally (and now many of the Glenn-Beck-type arguments) about socialism "degrading values" or being "forgin" are much less effective than the cold-war propaganda in which the ruling class pointed to various "socialist" countries and said, "well you may think this sucks, but look at the alternative... forced labor, lack of basic rights, etc - it's worse, so stick with the devil you know".

And I don't know if the working class supported Russia so much when even the radical movement didn't back it fully. I mean there never would have been the rise of Maoist groups in the 1960s-70s or a resurgence of anarchist ideas at that time if people were content with the USSR model. The new left grew out of radicals seeking alternatives to the traditional CPs which many people were disillusioned with and the need for the left to make sense of the USSR as a superpower sending in tanks against the countries it claimed to have liberated.

But again, while I think these politics played a part, the main thing is economic booms and declines in struggle along with ruling class repression of radicals and worker's movements. But the game is changing now as both the ideas of the invincibility of the system and the idea of ongoing generational upward mobility have been empirically destroyed in the eyes of many people. In the US, support for capitalism among the lower levels of the working class has dropped faster than the market itself.



this century is definitely different.Yes, this I enthusiastically agree with. :)

[Savage]

This (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-triumph-willpower-t156153/index.html) is the main reason that I can think of

[Dimmu]

Cold war propaganda and Soviet Union which played into the hands of the capitalists..

[Ocean Seal]

Its considered a joke because there isn't a sizeable socialist bloc and we've all be sold the story that socialism is a dead ideology. So there it is.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with this. There was anti-radical/anti-bolshevik/and anti-red propaganda by ruling classes pretty constantly from the very beginning, so I don't think it can be chalked up to cold war propaganda alone otherwise the effect on working class consciousness would be as constant as the propaganda.

In the US, the main effects for lack of working class support of socialism has gone hand in hand with declines in working class struggle IMO - this happened in the 1920s and in the post-war boom and the neo-liberal era. Of course witch-hunts and red-scares were a big part of repressing working class fight back (specifically radical organizing like the IWW and then communist groups). Without working class struggle, trying to agitate for radical ideas is like trying to convince people to buy umbrellas in a drought.

However, the effects of reformist parties or the so-called socialist states of the Cold War does play a part in discouraging people from supporting or adopting socialist ideas. Arguments in the early 20th century against "anarchy" and "reds" generally (and now many of the Glenn-Beck-type arguments) about socialism "degrading values" or being "forgin" are much less effective than the cold-war propaganda in which the ruling class pointed to various "socialist" countries and said, "well you may think this sucks, but look at the alternative... forced labor, lack of basic rights, etc - it's worse, so stick with the devil you know".

And I don't know if the working class supported Russia so much when even the radical movement didn't back it fully. I mean there never would have been the rise of Maoist groups in the 1960s-70s or a resurgence of anarchist ideas at that time if people were content with the USSR model. The new left grew out of radicals seeking alternatives to the traditional CPs which many people were disillusioned with and the need for the left to make sense of the USSR as a superpower sending in tanks against the countries it claimed to have liberated.

But again, while I think these politics played a part, the main thing is economic booms and declines in struggle along with ruling class repression of radicals and worker's movements. But the game is changing now as both the ideas of the invincibility of the system and the idea of ongoing generational upward mobility have been empirically destroyed in the eyes of many people. In the US, support for capitalism among the lower levels of the working class has dropped faster than the market itself.

Yes, this I enthusiastically agree with. :)

you know, most of your points are valid.

ive been pondering a bit about the rise in Maoism in the west and it really seems to be a result of the split in the 50s or wahtever.


50s-60s china was definitely more revolutionary than 50s-60s fSU. people craves real change.

also, your point about boom and bust cycles. spot on. in boom times, the population of ANY society experiencing a boom wont give a fuck about change because, materially, they are doin alright. only in downturns and "busts" are people starting to get pissed off.

and yeah, maybe i have exaggerated anti-communist sentiment as being a result of the cold war, but it certainly wasnt helpful for the communist movement. With the triumph of bourgeois democratic and socialist forces against fascism, there was no other route. and with the post war boom and western anti-communism, (and some unfortunate decisions by the international prior to the war) socialism died in the 50s in the west.


but, nevertheless, socialism is becoming less of a demon today. and all this tendency infighting is, frankly, stupid. id doesnt matter wheter or not MLs and trots and anarchists and left coms get along. no one pays attention to this but we communists. the working class today is facing constant cutbacks, oppression, and various "shit end of the stick"s.

on an ideological level, i personally disagree with most other groups, but on a practical level, i wont start criticizing in public if it means i can at least advance the struggle*.

*depends on circumstance of course.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

It isn't. :lol:


Whether Propaganda relating to previous Socialist gains exists or not. Propaganda standing against the Capitalist System, against the illusions put forward by Capitalism and against the actions of the Capitalist System will continue to exist and thrive.

As with all Propaganda, Propaganda can empower the Bourgeoisie. Momentarily this power is used in the form to empower the Bourgeois in order to allow for the carrying out of Capitalism, Imperialism and for the excesses thereof. However, as a reaction to this systematic propaganda system, differing Proletarian Propaganda is put out that engages the Proletariat to seize the means of production and realize the illusions of the current Bourgeois System, the ills spawned from it and the Society that the Bourgeois System has created.

Through this the Working Class is capable of in forms being agitated to take on the goals of actions against the Bourgeois and seizing the means of production from the Bourgeois and carrying on Proletarian Objectives of restructuring Society.


Whether or not Stalinism had committed crimes is simply invalid. As Stalinism no longer holds political clout. However what does matter and is valid is the criminal actions of the Capitalist System throughout history that does hold power and political clout and does carry out actions against the Proletariat.

Crimes such as:

*Imperialist Slaughter that has claimed millions of lives, from the very creation of the United States with the blood of upwards of 100,000,000 Natives spilled upon the soil, to the Belgian Congo in which an upwards of 10,000,000 had been slaughtered in order to carry on Imperialism for the needs of Capitalism, the First World War in which millions in the name of Capitalism, Bourgeois Nationalism and Imperialism had lost their lives in the names of their respective countries and various Imperialist Interventions by the United States throughout the World that have claimed the lives of millions in order to maintain Economic Imperialism, Military Imperialism and push forward United States foreign influence.

*Starvation that has claimed from 1990-2011 in Capitalist Countries at the lowest 105,000,000, with millions continuing to suffer from malnutrition and starvation.

*The lack of proper Medical Resources due to the current Capitalist mode of Production that have claimed the lives of millions world wide from diseases that could have been easily preventable.

The only way forward is the continued showing of the illusions of Bourgeois Society and the continued crimes that Bourgeois Society is responsible for. In response to these crimes and illusions of Bourgeois Society, Alternatives to Bourgeois Society must be created and shown to be superior to the Bourgeois Methods, the Bourgeois Society and Culture must be agitated through Proletarian Action and Education and from this-- Bourgeois Society must inevitably be swallowed away by the Proletariat.

[Desperado]

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas."

[The Man]

Socialism is not a joke. Millions have died defending Socialism. It is very serious, and the only way to human liberation.

[PhoenixAsh]

If they see it as a joke...lets see to it that the joke is on them

[Tommy4ever]

If they see it as a joke...lets see to it that the joke is on them

What does that even mean?

[PhoenixAsh]

What does that even mean?

It means: lets see who has the last laugh.

[thefinalmarch]

Ok everybody, I want to know what happened in the past 100 years which cause people to freak out when I say I'm a socialist. I know for sure that 80 years ago that would be respectable among the working class. Today, when I tell people that they look at me like wtf?! So please answer, what happened in the past 100 years that completely reversed the class consiousness gained in 4000 years of proletarian slave labor, exploitation, and struggle.
Four thousand years of capitalism? Well, I never...

[Spartacus.]

Four thousand years of capitalism? Well, I never...


I think he was talking about 4000 years of class society... :)

[Reznov]

It's a combination of Stalin, Mao and American propaganda.

More of the American Propaganda, leftovers from the Cold War.

If you ever leave America and visit a different country and ask about Socialism, you'll get a huge different response than the typical american "That's not right, it wont work, it cant work, its a really evil and bad dictator."

Mainly because many other countries citizens get to see what Capitalism and Imperialism does firsthand, unlike in America where the majority lives in a comfortable middle/lower middle class.

[Fawkes]

Years of propaganda and application of the word "socialist" to brutal, dictatorial regimes. As far as whether or not it's considered a joke, it really depends on the circles in which you travel I guess. Most of my friends, family, classmates, and teachers either recognize their own ignorance regarding socialism and subsequently don't comment on it or they actually respect it as a legitimate political theory.

[Blake's Baby]

Who is even reading what Syd has had to say?

The title of this thread is not "Why is socialism a joke?" but "Why is socialism considered a joke?"

Any answers that start 'It isn't' are either totally missing the point or accusing Syd of lying.





.... I know for sure that 80 years ago that (when I say I'm a socialist) would be respectable among the working class. Today, when I tell people that they look at me like wtf?!

So those claiming that there have always been anti-socialists are also missing the point; if it was respectable in the early 20th why not the early 21st?

Of course, as there has always been anti-socialist propaganda (which is of course true) it's difficult to see how the change between 1911 and 2011 can be due to... anti-socilist propaganda.




.... please answer, what happened in the past 100 years that completely reversed the class consiousness gained in 4000 years of proletarian slave labor, exploitation, and struggle.


So, why is socialism so discredited now compared to 100 years ago. It can hardly be through the actions of the ruling class, they have always been anti-socialist. So, is it the actions of people who've called themselves 'socialist' that have given the idea a bad name?

[Rainsborough]

More of the American Propaganda, leftovers from the Cold War.

If you ever leave America and visit a different country and ask about Socialism, you'll get a huge different response than the typical american "That's not right, it wont work, it cant work, its a really evil and bad dictator."

Mainly because many other countries citizens get to see what Capitalism and Imperialism does firsthand, unlike in America where the majority lives in a comfortable middle/lower middle class.

Exactly, it may be considered some kind of 'bogey-man' in America, but in the rest of the world its accepted, if not particularly liked. In my experience it's not socialism that's seen as a joke, just some of the idiots who shelter under its name.

[Spartacus.]

Ok everybody, I want to know what happened in the past 100 years which cause people to freak out when I say I'm a socialist. I know for sure that 80 years ago that would be respectable among the working class. Today, when I tell people that they look at me like wtf?! So please answer, what happened in the past 100 years that completely reversed the class consiousness gained in 4000 years of proletarian slave labor, exploitation, and struggle.


Why do you think people would have looked you nicely and gently in 1911 if you told them you were a Communist? IIRC, after the WWI there were an entire paramilitary units formed in the US in order to combat the potential Communist "threat". Not to mention mass arrests and torture of tens of thousands of leftists during the Palmer raids. McCarthyism was also quite unpleasant from what I heard. :D
The sad fact is that US has always been the strongest fortress of reaction, together with England, and it would probably remain as such until the circumstances in world don't drastically change. To blame Stalin for such a situation is just an example (as demonstrated in this thread by various phony "communists") of amount of stupidity present among the US "communists" and total lack of any real, Marxist analisis on their part. If Stalin is to be blamed for sad condition of today's Communist movement, than how would the proponents of this theory explain the similar fall of popularity of Anarchist ideas, which do not bear the stigma of Stalin? For example, the CNT had some one million members in the 30's and now has been reduced to some 10 000 members. Now, we can't blame the Stalin for that, can't we? :) Also, it would be hard to explain how come most of Russians that actually lived under Stalin love him and consider him a hero, if Stalin is to be blamed for all the evils of today's lack of strength of Communism. Not to mention the fact that the most serious struggles for socialism today are led by the "Stalinists" :rolleyes: (KKE in Greece, FARC in Colombia and Maoists in India, Phillipines and Nepal).
That could perhaps mean that the real reason for utter failure of American Communists is the fact that they are living in the imperialist country, which is able, thanks to the imperialist super-profits, to bribe large part of the working class and to destroy their revolutionary potential, thus rendering any efforts of the Communists in the US futile. Stalin has nothing to do with that, otherwise Anarchists would have mass support numbering in millions and not cults of 50 people. :)

[∞]

Ask people in the third-world what they think about socialism, you'll get a much more positive answer. People in capitalist-imperialist states don't mind capitalism because they live in its epicenter where all the wealth is concentrated, i.e. the middle-class. In oppressed countries that are under the boot of of globalist oppression socialism is synonymous political struggle.

[Geiseric]

Huh ok fair enough, thanks for answering my questions.

[Ilyich]

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas."

The above is very true. Put simply the bourgeoisie are anti-socialist because they would not be allowed to exploit others under socialism. They then create lies about socialism and spread it to the working class through the media which they control. The bourgeoisie makes sure that the working class is uneducated so that they believe their lies and learn to fear socialism. Of course, Stalinist and neo-Stalinist atrocities do not help either. The bourgeoisie-controlled media use them as fodder to spread fear of socialism.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Ok everybody, I want to know what happened in the past 100 years which cause people to freak out when I say I'm a socialist. I know for sure that 80 years ago that would be respectable among the working class. Today, when I tell people that they look at me like wtf?! So please answer, what happened in the past 100 years that completely reversed the class consiousness gained in 4000 years of proletarian slave labor, exploitation, and struggle.

Capitalist hegemony and the failures of various Socialist states. Propaganda should never be under estimated but the key difference between the failures or errors of Socialist states and bourgeois-democratic states is that when the capitalists fail, it's because of the individual, he fucked up, not the system, it is therefore blameless. Yet when it happens in a Socialist state, then it's the whole system, the entire party, the guilt of failure becomes collective. Further, I think it also has to do with the idea that the USSR and other Socialist states were seen as social 'experiments' so when the USSR dissolved and other worker's states, the idea then became, "oh, Socialism failed, proof positive, game over," and that's how the bourgeois have spinned it ever since, so when people are like wtf, you're Socialist? I think it would be the equivilant of saying you think Monarchism is the beez kneez, makes people think you're trying to resurrect some failed/replaced system.

[Bardo]

Every anti-socialist I know personally uses the fall of the USSR as the trump card. "Well the Soviets fell therefore socialism is failure." Socialism took a poor, feudal society like Russia and turned it into a superpower within 25 years despite being invaded several times, despite civil war, despite famine and two world wars. However none of this is relevent to these people I know.

[Rafiq]

Anyone who speaks of the problem as solely cold war propaganda, Stalinism, Maoism, The American Media, ect. are wrong. Not only are they wrong, they are Idealists as well.

The main problem, is that you are seeing the world with a socialist filter.

Yes, people don't know as much about these things as they did before, but why?

I'll tell you: The Neoliberal policies of the last thirty years, and the downhill decay of capitalism in the past thirty years.

When people are living worse, or when the economy is bad, it harms Ideas as well. Since the 90's we've been in an age of stupidity. Not because the SU collapsed, no, the left's existence wasn't tied to the fate of the soviet union. People have been getting less and less intelligence,

Solely due to the struggles people are facing to survive capitalism. The Left was strong and mighty in the 60's and 70's.

When the economy got worse, so did the level of intelligence people had.

Come on guys, this is basic marxism.

I have a new theory:

The constraint that human civilization was in did something unusual: It shrunk.

This is what happens when reactionaries succeed in bringing us back to a previous state of affairs. This literally shrinks the 'constraint' marxists always speak of.

Less money for colleges, for schools, shitty everything.

[Rafiq]

Ask people in the third-world what they think about socialism, you'll get a much more positive answer. People in capitalist-imperialist states don't mind capitalism because they live in its epicenter where all the wealth is concentrated, i.e. the middle-class. In oppressed countries that are under the boot of of globalist oppression socialism is synonymous political struggle.

I don't know why no one in this thread failed to noticed this obvious third worldist crap.

[Geiseric]

Rafiq, you do have a point with your 1st post. General stupidity I guess is true, despite its depressing implications.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Ok everybody, I want to know what happened in the past 100 years which cause people to freak out when I say I'm a socialist. I know for sure that 80 years ago that would be respectable among the working class. Today, when I tell people that they look at me like wtf?! So please answer, what happened in the past 100 years that completely reversed the class consiousness gained in 4000 years of proletarian slave labor, exploitation, and struggle.
Long before 1917, people were cursing "those darn communists" and "socialists" as well. Yes, it had more support and openness among the working-class, but trust me, a lot of people were scared of the term back then too.

[Coach Trotsky]

Better question for RevLeft is "what are WE going to do to make revolutionary socialism a serious alternative and force within the working class today?"

Figure that out, commit to the action that must flow from the necessary conclusions, and then no one will be left still thinking that socialism is a joke.

So long as the left treats socialism as a joke and doesn't actually FIGHT for it, it is obvious that everyone else will think it's a joke too (what do ya expect?).

[thefinalmarch]

I think he was talking about 4000 years of class society... :)
It was incorrect to label it 'proletarian', in that case.

[Das war einmal]

Ok everybody, I want to know what happened in the past 100 years which cause people to freak out when I say I'm a socialist.


Maybe you shouldn't wear a clown costume while informing people that you're a socialist ;)

[Pretty Flaco]

I think most people nowadays associate socialism with either european countries led by social democratic parties (especially in scandinavia) or china & friends. Although people associate it increasing less with china.
However, the American media often portrays europe as drowning in debt and financial crises because of socialism. Libertarianism is starting to root itself deeply into american politics, as a response to "socialism".

[Das war einmal]

I think most people nowadays associate socialism with either european countries led by social democratic parties (especially in scandinavia) or china & friends. Although people associate it increasing less with china.
However, the American media often portrays europe as drowning in debt and financial crises because of socialism. Libertarianism is starting to root itself deeply into american politics, as a response to "socialism".

That's a bad joke. Even if you associate socialism with the scandinavian model then it's not true aswell. The cause of the crisis that is.

[Red Commissar]

I wouldn't say it's so much as a joke as that some people either A. Think it doesn't work or is utopian, or B. Is something angsty teens or college students do.

However it isn't accurate to say that that it was any better in the past. Socialists had to deal with as much a stigma then as we do now in agitation among the working class. They had to deal with much of the same matters we did- no, we aren't going to turn you into slaves, or to counter what they heard in the news or company rumor mills about mass chaos and death. And of course we can't forget the role of religion in those days that presented as much a problem as it does nowadays.

The parties were indeed stronger back then, but we have to remember that many times this was before the major splits between reformists and revolutionaries, and later the numerous splits within Revolutionary Marxist groups themselves. Of course they would seem to be stronger then.

Furthermore, a lot of the initial support for socialist groups was from their basic agenda- minimum wage, public programs, infrastructure projects for employment, nationalization of banks and railroads, trade union and labor rights, etc (if you look at some of the platforms that Eugene Debs ran under for the SPA, you'd recognize a lot of the proposals were not all that "radical", particularly in modern time frame). A lot of this was taken up by the reformists in their social democratic parties and undercut revolutionary agenda- in the US parts of this was taken up by the New Deal Democrats.

Combine that with the decades of Cold War mentality, the misconceptions and criticisms of socialism as the Soviet Union and China pursued it in different stages, and people perceiving the "capitalist" system worked better for them than their counterparts in the Soviet, Chinese, or other self-proclaimed socialist state. The dream of the illustrious American Middle-Class, I suppose.

However, I think I've found it easier to discuss socialism nowadays than my older cousins who did much of the same in the 1990s. I think more people are open to the idea now and the terrain is easier to work with. There are misconceptions we must get beyond, as well as the hot potato of big gubmint and bureaucracy ("European Style Politics") that has been the norm for opposing groups in politics for sometime now, but at the end of the day I think people realize the weaknesses of the system once they have a chance to see how bad it gets.

[-marx-]

When social commentators continually refer to the DPRK as communist are you really surprised that the masses think its bad? Coupled with Americas irrational fear with anything red and all the propaganda against it, it doesn't go down too well in the world, especially America.

[∞]

Its actually quite cereal.

[freya4]

i think most people, atleast in the US, aren't aware of what socialism really is. they think its either welfare state, government regulated capitalism, or some totalitarian nightmare (although i think this is more associated w/ communism). either way, if the left is going enjoy any amount of considerable success and acceptance, or even be recognized as a viable political force, the general population needs to be aware of what our true goals and aims are.
i try to do my best to educate my misinformed friends sometimes, but i think it gets on their nerves a bit :rolleyes: