What is wrong with striving for Socialism?

[apathy maybe]

Most people here seem to think that socialism is better then capitalism.
Many people here seem to think we should go either straight to communism or anarchism.
So if there isn't going to be a revolution anytime soon, why shouldn't we get people elected to parliament etc?

[The Children of the Revolution]

It would certainly be an improvement... Which is why I encourage everyone to vote Green come election day! (They are broadly socialist and have sensible policies relating to the environment...)

Green Party UK (http://www.greenparty.org.uk/)
Green Party USA (http://www.gp.org/)
Green Party Canada (http://www.green.ca/english/)

However, ANY Political Party in power will remain a slave to corporations - unless drastic (and therefore unlikely) measures are put in place. Corporations love low (or no) taxes. If a government tries to impose higher corporate taxes, they move their manufacturing or services abroad. Thus, Britain loses jobs and services - obviously an unpopular move.

This is why the main political parties are becoming increasingly Right Centralist. This won't really change until there is Revolution...

But until that day comes, we should definitely try to get a broadly socialist Party into power.

[redstar2000]

Setting aside all the "heavy" theoretical arguments, I think it really boils down to "what do you really want?".

Some people here want a "more humane" form of class society...socialism. Others would settle for liberal social democracy, like Sweden...or even Canada.(!)

There's nothing "wrong" in struggling for socialism or even "capitalism with a human face" if that's all you really want.

Some of us--communists and anarchists--want something else. We want a classless, state-less society.

So what's the "problem"?

The problem is when these contradictory desires are "blurred together" in some kind of fuzzy "progressive-ness".

This not only leads to a lot of confusion...but to genuine anger. And it's justified anger.

When someone says to me, even by implication, that a vote for Howard Dean or the victory of a Leninist party is "a step towards what you want"...I get pissed off!

Neither of those scenarios has anything to do with what I want. History has demonstrated that beyond any reasonable doubt.

I think those who wish "to change the world" have an obligation to their own integrity to determine just what kind of new world they really want and then act in accordance with that goal.

I don't expect socialists or liberal social democrats to "support" what I want...in many ways, communism/anarchism would be a "catastrophe" from their points-of-view.

I do try to persuade socialists and liberal social democrats to give up their goals in favor of mine...on the grounds that mine are far better.

But what does infuriate me are those who attempt to use me with the specious argument that "we're all for the same thing".

No, we're not!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[apathy maybe]

The way I see it is that it is unlikly for there to be a revolution anytime soon. So we are stuck with capitalism for the next 100 years, great! But if we vote for and elect (in those places with parliaments) socialists and others to the left, (If there is a decent system (such as the Tasmanian (lower house)) you can just vote left to right on the ticket and even if the people you vote for number 1 don't get in, your vote still counts.), then we still have a better system. And if we educate the people, gradually we can move the entire system left, it may take a while but less time then waiting for a revolution.

[Faceless]

All forms of National Socialism help to weaken the real labour movement. They help legitimise the market democracys who may either reverse these reforms later. As for bringing the real worker's parties to power, the bourgeoisie will do their best to fight any real change. Communists favour a parliamentary majority but must ready the workers for revolution. In the New World Order the move to the left through popular pressure has only meant that TNCs move further abroad in search of easy repression and as such we have two teir systems in the modern world with the First/Third worlds (one being more massive than the other.) The labour movement is weaker in the first world where social reforms have made a difference but it is from here which the Capitalists exploit entire nations. As such the labour movement is globally weaker. Nevertheless, the current system is unsustainable as greedy, heavy reliance upon limited resources, and popular struggle in the other parts of the world will cause it to crumble.

[peaccenicked]

Today, right now, even when we are on this website, we are in the middle of a worldwide war. It is no longer between theories of capitalism and socialism.
It is a war for humanity against barbarism. It takes place at the counter in a cafe, just in ordinary day to day respect for one another. Unipolar imperialism
and its largely servile media, its facelessness in ordinary day to day cultural dealings is gnawing away at the humanity of everyone on this planet.
Socialists by their motivations are best placed to provide examples, address culture issues and practices ,bring out what is best in people.
We are no longer merely struggling for socialism but our very humanity as a species.
All we can do is continually sharpen our weapons. We have a world to win.

[Faceless]

I would say your suggestions are largely correct from the perspective of someone living in the first world. Why though are we fighting to even keep these people human? Because they don't see the terrible conditions of the rest of the world or at any rate it is an impersonal statistic. "Socialism" is such a broad word. Those socialist who look inward only (and account for the majority of "socialist" parties) do only damage. Of course revolutionaries and internationalists are different.

[peaccenicked]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 11:20 PM
. Why though are we fighting to even keep these people human? .
Comrade,
I am hurt too, even though I live in the so-called first world. It has got a first in ignorance alright. All I can say really is what the women have said to me over the years. 'If the men changed it would help us a lot'.
It is not about keeping them human but recognising that their humanity has been targeted by the greatest robbers on earth, the imperialists. That their humanity has been damaged and is still being damaged and that is damaging everyone on the planet.
Our fight has always been to become the universal class, one class equalling no class, and when we bring the imperialists to their knees. Killing shall be to good for them, they shall know their crimes until the feel a shame that begs for forgiveness.

[Morpheus]

Every time socialists get elected they become capitalists. Look at Lula, the German Greens, the Social Democrats, etc. It's the Iron Law of Electoralism. Electing socialists does jack squat, except waste rescources and create illusions in bourgeois democracy. If you want reforms you should riot, not vote.

[Hate Is Art]

agreed, i think this how che's quote goes "a revolution doesn't require all the factors to be there the armed struggle can create them"

maybe if people took up arms in britain then people would realise whats wrong with our conutry and join them, the only thing is i don't see a lot of people getting out off their cushy jobs to join an armed struggle which will most likely fail at the moment

[redstar2000]

I think this how Che's quote goes "a revolution doesn't require all the factors to be there; the armed struggle can create them".

A dubious proposition. Presuming we could actually know ahead of time what the "factors" actually are and which ones were "missing", perhaps a statement like this might be true.

Thus far, however, it seems that the "factors" which lead to a successful revolution can only be identified in "hindsight"...in which case, launching an armed struggle by a small minority is a gamble.

It Cuba, the gamblers won. In Bolivia, they lost.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Faceless]

It Cuba, the gamblers won. In Bolivia, they lost. They lost? I would say that they set precedents, encouraged would-be rebels and gave us martyrs. Jose Marti was a failed revolutionary but perhaps Castro's greatest inspiration.

maybe if people took up arms in britain then people would realise whats wrong with our conutry and join them Here, in Britain, as the rest of the West, there is a terrible blindfold over the people's eyes. At present we must unmask imposters and oppressors. The pen is our only option so screw the sword. Small scale fighting here provokes controversy but is it good? I don't know...

[redstar2000]

They lost? I would say that they set precedents, encouraged would-be rebels and gave us martyrs. Jose Marti was a failed revolutionary but perhaps Castro's greatest inspiration.

I dare say as a matter of fact that you are probably right.

I just don't understand it.

How is losing an encouragement?

Why is creating "martyrs" a "good thing"?

And I don't even know what you mean by "setting precedents" in this context.

Perhaps it's "just me"...but there's a "religious" flavor about this kind of "reasoning" that makes me uncomfortable.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[peaccenicked]

The history of class struggle is losing. If we had won anything but some transient rights, some great cultural achievements. If had won the great prize of the world to share, then we would nt have the great privilege of being here, arguing over the remnants of lost battles.
I think we do take encouragement from the lessons that we have learned.

[Hate Is Art]

bolvia was just a set back, you dont lose until you admit defeat!

[Faceless]

Why is creating "martyrs" a "good thing"? I dont know what is so hard to understand but Che has proven to be a guiding star for many. He "failed" to make revolution in America and his ultimate death signified his "fall" but say he became a beurocrat. Wouldn't have been the same hero. And once more I point to the "failure" of Marti. On using the word "precedent", I perhaps should have used "learning curve" or experience. Yes men died but that happend in revolution whether Vanguardist, popular or otherwise with few exceptions.

[redstar2000]

I don't know what is so hard to understand but Che has proven to be a guiding star for many.

Yes, the very existence of this site testifies to that...but why?

Not why Che, but why anybody?

I know, the very young start with the "icon" and go on to learn the ideas. That part is understandable.

But a "WWCD" bracelet is no substitute for serious political thought. If someone proposes to "kick-start" a revolution by launching a guerrilla war with a small group of committed revolutionaries, it is a gamble, pure and simple. And the odds are terrible.

It may be "heroic"...but is heroism "more important" than winning?

Of course, it can be argued that in a "period of reaction" like this one, there is no "winning strategy" and therefore those with a "romantic temperament" can go into the hills (or the urban alleys), fight their brief "wars", and get themselves killed without affecting history one way or the other.

I just think it's a waste...as I think Che's death was a waste. True, he made "icon status" and definitely got his name into the revolutionary history books for the 20th century.

But what might he have accomplished had he lived to think and speak and act for another three or four decades?

Clearly, he utterly lacked the "bureaucratic temperament" required for success in Leninist circles...he would never (I don't think) have become a "party hack".

What he might have become is a "crack" in the monolith of Leninism at that time...someone respected by communists around the world who might have attacked Leninism "from the left".

You can imagine the consequences...!

I simply can't help feeling that it's wrong in a fundamental sense to want to "die for the revolution". We should want to live for the revolution...let the reactionaries do the dying.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas