Why not Democratic Socialism? [Archive]

Ismail

4th August 2012, 07:04

Chavez seems to have a command on the army, something Allende did not have.When the coup first began Allende was confident that Pinochet was imprisoned by dissident commanders for his loyalty to the government. Obviously that wasn't the case.

As Hoxha noted (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/hoxhachile.htm):

All the revisionists, from those of Moscow to those of Italy, France and elsewhere, presented the “Chilean experience” as a concrete example which proved their “new theories” about the “peaceful road of the revolution”, the transition to socialism under the leadership of many parties, the moderation of the nature of imperialism, the dying out of the class struggle in the conditions of peaceful coexistence, etc. The revisionist press made great play with the “Chilean road” in order to advertise the opportunist theses of the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the reformist and utopian programs of the Togliattist type.

From the “Chilean experience” the revisionists expected not only confirmation of their “theories” about “the parliamentary road”, but also a “classical” example of the building of socialism under the leadership of a coalition of Marxist and bourgeois parties. They expected confirmation of their thesis that the transition to socialism is possible through parliamentary elections and without revolution, that socialism can be built, not only without smashing the old state apparatus of the bourgeoisie, but even with its aid, not only without establishing the revolutionary people’s power, but by negating it....

The Communist Party of Chile, which was one of the main forces of the Allende government, fervently adhered to the Khrushchevite theses of “peaceful transition”, both in theory and practice. Following instructions from Moscow, it claimed that the national bourgeoisie and imperialism had now been tamed, had become tolerant and reasonable, and that in the new class conditions, allegedly created by the present-day world development, they were no longer able to go over to counter-revolution.

However, as the case of Chile proved once again these and similar theories make the working masses irresolute and disorientated, weaken their revolutionary spirit, and keep them immobilized in the face of the threats of the bourgeoisie, paralyse their capacity and make it impossible for them to carry out decisive revolutionary actions against the counter-revolutionary plans and actions of the bourgeoisie...

The revisionists try to prove that the dividing line between the revolution and reforms has been wiped out, that in today’s conditions of world development there is no longer any need for a revolutionary overthrow, because, they allege, the present technical-scientific revolution is doing away with the social class contradictions of bourgeois society, is allegedly a means for the integration of capitalism into socialism, a means to create a “new society” of prosperity for all. Thus; according to this confusing logic, one can no longer speak about exploiters and exploited, hence according to them, social revolution, the smashing of the bourgeois state machine and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat become unnecessary....

History has proved, and the events in Chile, where it was not yet a question of socialism but of a democratic regime, again made clear, that the establishment of socialism through the parliamentary road is utterly impossible. In the first place, it must be said that up till now it has never happened that the bourgeoisie has allowed the communists to win a majority in parliament and form their own government. Even in the occasional instance where the communists and their allies have managed to ensure a balance in their favour in parliament and enter the government; this has not led to any change in the bourgeois character of the parliament or the government, and their action has never gone so far as to smash the old state machine and establish a new one.

In the conditions when the bourgeoisie controls the bureaucratic-administrative apparatus, securing a “parliamentary majority” that would change the destiny of the country is not only impossible but also unreliable. The main parts of the bourgeois state machine are the political and economic power and the armed forces. As long as these forces remain intact, i.e., as long as they have not been dissolved and new forces created in their stead, as long as the old apparatus of the police, the secret intelligence services, etc.; is retained, there is no guarantee that a parliament or a democratic government will be able to last long; Not only the case of Chile, but many others have proved that the counter-revolutionary coups d’état have been carried out precisely by the armed forces commanded by the bourgeoisie....

As long as imperialism exists, there still exists the basis and possibility for, and its unchangeable policy of, interference in the internal affairs of other countries, counter-revolutionary plots, the overthrow of lawful governments, the liquidation of democratic and progressive forces, and the strangling of the revolution....

The Allende government was also sabotaged and savagely opposed by the Christian-democratic and other factions of the bourgeoisie, so-called radical democratic forces similar to those together with which the communist parties of Italy and France claim that they will advance to socialism through reforms and the peaceful parliamentary road. The Frey party in Chile does not bear only “intellectual responsibility”, as some claim, because it refused to collaborate with the Allende government, or because it was lacking in loyalty to the legal government. It bears responsibility also because it used all possible means to sabotage the normal activity of the government, because it united with the forces of the Right to undermine the nationalized economy and to create confusion in the country, because it perpetrated a thousand and one acts of subversion.

RadioRaheem84

4th August 2012, 07:14

Well yes, Hoxha is right. But the point is that the theory of actually gaining victory through parliamentary was right while maintaining and underestimating the brutality of their opponents was wrong. It also points out the sham of bourgeois liberal democratic politics.

Chavez was correct to learn from the Allende experience and defend the revolution and gaining the trust of the army. I mean we shall see how long or how well this holds, so far it's not looking like the best in road.

But another point is that the peaceful transition has to be ready for a defense and possible ensuing civil war that might effect it's stability.

A lot of the best peaceful transitions that were not tainted by the Soviet experience seemed to be Chile's Allende, Greece before their Civil War in the late 40s, Republican Spain, and the Bolivarian Revolution of the early 2000s. They were all imperfect and barely held on by a string but managed to promote the idea that a "peaceful transition" can happen.

In these instances counter revolution seems to be the main factor to deal with.

Ismail

4th August 2012, 07:19

A lot of the best peaceful transitions that were not tainted by the Soviet experience seemed to be Chile's Allende, Greece before their Civil War in the late 40s, Republican Spain, and the Bolivarian Revolution of the early 2000s. They were all imperfect and barely held on by a string but managed to promote the idea that a "peaceful transition" can happen.

In these instances counter revolution seems to be the main factor to deal with.I don't see how you can compare Greece and Republican Spain with Chile. In Greece there was a national liberation war in which the Communists were dominant. They only lost because of British and American intervention coupled with tactical blunders (the Varkiza agreement mainly.) Republican Spain saw a fascist rebellion in which the PCE played a leading role against to the extent that "moderate" bourgeois figures began to fear its power and move towards an "understanding" with the fascists. Not to mention that the Popular Front didn't come to power on a platform of socialism, but of consolidating bourgeois democracy against the remnants of feudalism, of clerical influences in education and society, etc.

There was no civil war in Chile. An electoral coalition won and Allende naïvely thought he could somehow create socialism on the basis of bourgeois democracy.

RadioRaheem84

4th August 2012, 07:25

I don't see how you can compare Greece and Republican Spain with Chile. In Greece there was a national liberation war in which the Communists were dominant. They only lost because of British and American intervention coupled with tactical blunders (the Varkiza agreement mainly.) Republican Spain saw a fascist rebellion in which the PCE played a leading role against to the extent that "moderate" bourgeois democrats began to fear its power and to move against it. Not to mention that the Popular Front didn't come to power on a platform of socialism, but of consolidating bourgeois democracy against the remnants of feudalism, of clerical influences in education and society, etc.

There was no civil war in Chile. An electoral coalition won and Allende naïvely thought he could somehow create socialism on the basis of bourgeois democracy.

I meant that the Greeks held elections in which it saw the dominant CP win and was on its way to establish a socialist state before the Brits destroyed it.

The Republican government was voted in and yes it was led by liberals but the majority of the people backed leftists.

No civil war in Chile, yes, but I just meant that socialism was elected democratically in Chile.

Why was it naive? Through the basis of bougie democracy, I can see but using it as a starting point to gain ground and transform it from within?

Is this sounding too Fabianist? I am trying to see some merit in the Allende transition.

Welshy

4th August 2012, 07:32

Why was it naive? Through the basis of bougie democracy, I can see but using it as a starting point to gain ground and transform it from within?

Is this sounding too Fabianist? I am trying to see some merit in the Allende transition.

Check out the Impossibilists of the SPGB, they love using the parliament to institute socialism.

eric922

4th August 2012, 07:34

RadioRaheem84

4th August 2012, 07:42

I am Monthly Review's biggest fan! :)

MarxSchmarx

4th August 2012, 08:09

At its core, democratic socialism suffers from the basic pathology of much of leninism - namely, it retains the state infrastructure responsible for instituting socialism from above. Democratic socialism relies not merely on the goodwill of parliamentary and other elected officials, but also on the humongous bureaucracy that does everything from monitor disease outbreaks to manage traffic signals to implement socialism.

The assertion that this state of affairs can lead to a classless, stateless society is without historical merit. It provides the foundation for the reinstatement of capitalism by creating a class of individuals single-handedly able to direct the outcome of the class struggle in their own favor. The track record of democratic socialism is admittedly not as disappointing as outright bolshevist dictatorships; but Venezuela standing as perhaps the only major exception anywhere that has fought back both capitalist reaction and the bourgeoisification of the state bureaucracy. But it is indicative to me that some of the best hope for Venezuela lies not in the supposedly "socialist" parliament but in the organic, civil institutions being built up with strikingly limited state assistance.

l'EnfermÃ©

4th August 2012, 14:09

Chavez has his uses. The most important thing he's done is decrease the peasant/petty-bourgeoisie population and increase the working class population. This opens up the way to genuine class-struggle.

At its core, democratic socialism suffers from the basic pathology of much of leninism - namely, it retains the state infrastructure responsible for instituting socialism from above. Democratic socialism relies not merely on the goodwill of parliamentary and other elected officials, but also on the humongous bureaucracy that does everything from monitor disease outbreaks to manage traffic signals to implement socialism.

The assertion that this state of affairs can lead to a classless, stateless society is without historical merit. It provides the foundation for the reinstatement of capitalism by creating a class of individuals single-handedly able to direct the outcome of the class struggle in their own favor. The track record of democratic socialism is admittedly not as disappointing as outright bolshevist dictatorships; but Venezuela standing as perhaps the only major exception anywhere that has fought back both capitalist reaction and the bourgeoisification of the state bureaucracy. But it is indicative to me that some of the best hope for Venezuela lies not in the supposedly "socialist" parliament but in the organic, civil institutions being built up with strikingly limited state assistance.
Dictatorships? There was only ever one comrade, you have your history wrong.

JPSartre12

4th August 2012, 15:06

As a democratic socialist, let me do my best to respond to these.

What is the main reason for many people in here not supporting Democratic Socialism?

The main argument against democratic socialism (which I believe to have some merit and a historical basis) is that it will end up in a sort of progressive-capitalist State rather than a socialist one. Let me explain - pushing forward towards socialism is all well and good, but the moment that the proletariat wins some reforms (socializing healthcare, regulating banks more heavily, making education public, and so on) it will grow complacent; the socialist movement will loose some of its fiery zeal as the proletariat calms down and accepts the reforms. Think of Lenin's trade union consciousness: the proletariat in many countries care about the immediate here-and-now, not some abstract post-capitalist concept. Once they win a few reforms, they'll accept their newer, more "comfortable" lifestyle more so and relax. Think of northern Europe (Denmark, Scandinavia, Iceland, etc) where self-described "democratic socialists" (though I would not say they are not) have been in power for extended periods of time, and the harsh market system has been made "softer" and more "just". Capitalism is not gone; it is tempered, but it is very much present.

Unfortunately, this is very effective - the bourgeoisie has a vested interest in allowing moderate reforms to take place, because it will pacify the proletariat's potential desire for a system-wide revolution.

I am becoming more and more a believer in the Allende/Chavez way of popular organizing and working through the channels of the system to change it from within. It seems that it's worked better in the latter stages of capitalism as it (capitalism) has grown into a fierce protective machine.

A lot of mistakes were made during Allende's rise and Chavez doesn't seem to be making more in roads toward pushing socialism forward in Venezuela but at least workers agendas were pushed to the forefront despite the two leaders.

We will have to wait out the process and judge it form a historical perspective, I think. While they're certainly acting out of good will, I'm not particularly convinced that the policies that they're putting in place will actually bring about socialism. Reformism cannot be the singular tactic - it has to be done in conjuncture with (or even be secondary to, I would say!) a proletarian revolution. Socialism will be created from a bottom-up, grassroots, proletarian revolution ... It will not be dictated top-down down by bureaucrats.

Are there any Dem Socs in here?

Yes, although the population of us is rather small. We're a minority faction here. The more that you read and debate, though, you'll understand that gradualism is not the sole answer to all of capitalism's problems. It does require a revolution. Message me and we can discuss this further, if you would like.

Obama was elected into office on the mantle that he was some "progressive" alternative. Well what if someone was that and more? Couldn't that be a catalyst for change too?

President Obama was certainly elected on a platform of "change", but he is no way a democratic socialist. He is not trying to abolish the capitalist mode of production, let alone erect a socialist one! I would argue that it would be difficult to even call him a "progressive", as he has sided with Wall St and his campaign donors on far too many issues. At most, he simply wants to integrate "social justice" and the likes into capitalism - and legalizing same-sex marriage and enacting universal healthcare, as we all know, is not socialism.

RadioRaheem84

4th August 2012, 17:00

JPSartre12

4th August 2012, 17:25

But Chavez has mobilized the working class, so much so that the grassroots IS the hope for the Revolution's survival. They're the ones that have kept Chavez's feet to the fire while many of his social democratic cronies have been beating back real socialist reform.

I am thinking that Chavez does this think defending their stance from the opposition is appropriate.

I agree! He is taking some wonderful steps - when you compare what's going on down there versus what's happening in the United States (rampant corporatism, Citizens United, and so on), they are light-years ahead of us. There are definitely a few things that we could learn from him and implement here. If the people keep holding pressure on him (or any elected official, I suppose!), he will act in relative accordance to their demands or be swept out of office. But then again, we're also placing our hope for fundamental economic change in the hands of the State, and if we want to establish true socialism, that will involve the eventual dissolution of the State itself ... So I'm not sure how much the State is willing to reform before it starts putting the breaks on the reformist movement.

Also, for the record, I do not and have never thought of Obama as a socialist nor even a progressive. I was merely saying that if he could garner so many votes based on "change", how much more could a real Eugene V. Debb's like socialist?

Oh, I'm not trying to imply that you did :) I'm just saying it draw the distinction between Obama and what many perceive democratic socialism as being. As much as I would love a Debs-like figure in the U.S., I think that the word "socialism" is so toxic in American politics that it would be very difficult for a self-described socialist to get much of anywhere. Even if one did, the corporate powers-that-be would throw all of their resources at the alternative conservative or pro-capitalist candidate and, unfortunately, the one in politics that wins is often the one that has the most money :(

About the complacency, wouldn't a massive campaign detailing the need to keep pushing forward toward socialism be enough? Always debate in detail the need for it and keep exposing more and more the capitalist fraud. I am sure the more people know and understand about capitalism, it's historical development, it's brutality, the more people will accept the reforms going further into total systemic change.

It is possible, I suppose, that continuously pushing for, and educating the proletariat about, socialism even after getting stuck in that social democratic rut may work, but I wouldn't bet any money on it. Most of the proletariat though will loose that revolutionary zeal once they get their health insurance to be a little more comprehensive, have their Social Security check be a little more generous, have some equal rights legislation passed, etc. The overwhelming majority of people that I talk to (outside of Revleft, of course) that want a change to the system are merely progressive Democrats who cannot see anything beyond getting healthcare or education reform passed through Congress. They're too concerned with their immediate life than their future life. History has proven time and time again that, the only way for an economic class to gain power, there has to be some form of a revolution. I have been thinking about the same thing, too - I am very much a pacifist and I would prefer a gradual capitalism-to-socialism evolution, but the State has a vested interest in stopping those reforms (or making them so moderate) so that we do not get to socialism.

If working class people in Venezuela who many just barely became literate can understand this, why not Americans? Europeans?

Again, it is possible, but not probable. I would say that the reason that it is so unlikely to happen in the United States is because capitalism, free enterprise, and the "free market" are so engrained in our cultural psyche that we don't really have the ability to conceptualize anything fundamentally different right now. Europe (although more progressive, surely) is still very much in a capitalist mindset.

l'EnfermÃ©

4th August 2012, 18:44

Veovis

4th August 2012, 18:50

Vladimir Innit Lenin

4th August 2012, 19:47

To the OP: what about the historical failures of the PCF, the UK Labour Party? Why has there not been Socialism in Scandanavia?

You mention that if Obama can get votes based on change, then why can't we get more based on Socialism?

2 points to make here:

Obama's message was change, but his intention was continuity and even expansion of Capitalism. Besides, he had a massive fundraising pool. Socialists will not be so lucky in terms of finances in bourgeois elections.

Secondly, what to do in the unlikely instance that a Chavez-type figure wins a bourgeois election in the developed, western world? How would we institute Socialism?

I must say though, OP, if you are interested in this course of progression (DemSoc), then you might want to visit the World Socialists' website (i think it's the WS - whatever the international of the SPGB is), they have some good stuff (although I disagree) on elections and democracy.

NGNM85

4th August 2012, 19:59

NGNM85

4th August 2012, 20:11

Obama's message was change, but his intention was continuity and even expansion of Capitalism. Besides, he had a massive fundraising pool. Socialists will not be so lucky in terms of finances in bourgeois elections

Certainly not now, in the wake of Citizens' United. This is just one of the reasons why American Radicals should be making overturning this diabolical decision ae top priority. I would go so far as to say it's actually the most significant single political issue in the United States, today, because everything else depends on it. This is not impossible. It's very unpopular. Most of the public dislikes it. Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig has laid out a very compelling plan by which this might be accomplished, as well as an outline of a publicly financed system that would replace the disaster that we have today, with shadowy groups using tax loopholes to secretly spend unlimited amounts of money to defeat candidates, or individual pieces of legislation. There are already national campaigns working on this, like; MovetoAmend, and Wolf-PAC. It's just a question of energy, and willpower. If we had public campaign financing, it would, first; of all, limit the ability of corporations to directly control thye legislative process, and, second; make it substantially easier to form Radical parties, and run Socialist candidates who could actually get elected.

JPSartre12

4th August 2012, 20:28

To the OP: what about the historical failures of the PCF, the UK Labour Party? Why has there not been Socialism in Scandanavia?

I'd say that's because they're not socialist ... Oh wait, you weren't asking me? :rolleyes:

JPSartre12

5th August 2012, 00:49

l'EnfermÃ©

5th August 2012, 04:43

It bears mentioning that the idea of achieving the liberation of the working class via parliamentary means is not necessarily; 'revisionist', at all. It's straight Marxist. Marx (The mature Marx, mind; the Marx of Das Kapital.) was very explicit that, in his view, in, at least, some of the Western constitutional republics (Or, constitutional monarchy, in the case of England.) such as the United States, or the United Kingdom, the working class could achieve it's ends through parliamentary politics;

Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, ...But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same.
You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm
The balls on you, comrade! You say this of the man who coined the term "parliamentary cretinism"(the illusion that socialism can be achieved by parliamentary means and not revolutionary process)! Bernstein would be proud of you!

What about Marx's famous critique of the draft programme for the Gotha Unity Congress, written in 1975(3 years after the speech you quote, perhaps during these 3 years Marx had slipped back into the immaturity of the Communist Manifesto, The German Ideology, the 18th Brumaire of Lous Bonoparte and the Poverty of Philosophy, but would again re-emerge out of it? Poor Marx! So inconsistent!). In Part III, he writes:

Instead of arising from the revolutionary process of transformation of society, the "socialist organization of the total labor" "arises" from the "state aid" that the state gives to the producers' co-operative societies and which the state, not the workers, "calls into being". It is worthy of Lassalle's imagination that with state loans one can build a new society just as well as a new railway! Marx states that Socialism arises from the revolutionary process of transformation of society, what do the bourgeoisie's parliaments have to do with this?

And what about when in part IV of his critique, he writes:

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx writes that the communist/socialist society arises out of capitalist society after a period of political transition, the revolutionary DoTP. Not the ballot box. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is incompatible with bourgeoisie democracy, and neither Marx nor Engels have ever implied otherwise.

Marx couldn't have possibly meant that the working class can achieve it's "goal"(you use the word "ends" and Marx wrote "goal", but the meaning remains the same - the ends/goal of the working class is socialism/communism), socialism, through parliamentary tactics. This notion is absurd, and yes, it's very revisionist and Bernsteinian.

In the quote you give us, Marx says "he[the proletarian] must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions". Does not "old institutions" category include also the bourgeoisie parliament? How is this an approval of parliamentary cretinism? "where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.". How did you conclude that by "peaceful means", Marx means "parliamentary tactics"? Right after "peaceful means", Marx says something which disproves your whole argument, comrade. Including the last sentence, the quote goes like this

You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must some day appeal in order to erect the rule of labor.I.e Marx is saying that while in America and Britain, when the proletariat initiates it's socialist revolution, it could be in such a powerful position that the forces of counter-revolution will be so terrified by the proletariat's power that they will not mobilize and the revolution will be peaceful, while in most other economically advanced countries, the proletariat will have to use violence and engage in brutal civil war with it's class enemy. "in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force", so when he's talking about goals being attained by peaceful means, he's talking about revolution being attained by peaceful means. Is he then implying that revolution is possible through parliamentary tactics? Do you actually believe that nonsense?

Marx wasn't some reformist parliamentary spineless coward and hack. And he sure as hell didn't turn into one in old age. The idea of "achieving the liberation of the working class via parliamentary means" is a revisionist one. It's a disgusting and monstrous idea. It's fit for the likes of Jaurèses and Bernsteins, not for revolutionary communists.

l'EnfermÃ©

5th August 2012, 05:06

To answer your question, I do support Democratic Socialism. I think Chavez needs to move faster and I hope the workers in Venezuela will push him more to the left, but I think there is merit in the Democratic Socialism. I'm not sure it can get us all the way, but I do think it is a starting point at least. I know some may accuse me of reformism, but since I call for the ultimate abolition of capitalism, I don't think that is accurate.

To be very clear I do support the abolition of capitalism and do not support Social-Democracy.

Oh and RadioRaheem if you haven't read it you might be interested in Einstein's Why Socialism http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism
You support the ultimate abolition of capitalism? Yes, sure. Good. All reformists say they they support the ultimate abolition of capitalism(a more proper term would be transformation, the transformation of capitalism into socialism - socialism doesn't appear out of a vacuum, it arises out of capitalism, out of the old society). The SDP, the post-WWI SDP that ordered the executions of Liebknecht and Luxemburg, maintained that it wanted the tranformation of capitalist society into socialist until, I think, 1956! The reformists and the revolutionaries all agree on their final aims - socialism. What we disagree on is the means. If the means to arrive at socialism you prefer is reform, that makes you reformist. You, like other democratic socialists, are reformists.

I think it's pretty funny that I, an Orthodox Marxist, am restricted for allegedly being pro-Imperialism(yeah I fucking it love it when Americans napalm the fuck out of Vietnamese schools or Russians indiscriminately bomb Chechen villages, and seeing the pictures of starving African children just gives me an erection, guys! Fuck yeah Imperialism!), while reformists walk around with impunity. It's fucking hilarious, or rather, pretty maddening and upsetting. Alas!

Comrade Lenin

5th August 2012, 06:37

While democratic socialism is ideal, in larger countries it is difficult for an election to come out with a socialist victor. It takes money to win elections and candidates get money from donations, and significant donations generally come from the rich, and from their corporations. There are no significant socialist political parties or media stations for this reason. In a country that is already capitalist, it is very difficult for democratic socialism to arise. Well it maybe possible in countries like France where they regulate the power of money in elections, it is very difficult for it to arise in many countries.

Beeth

5th August 2012, 07:03

eric922

5th August 2012, 07:13

Einstein was remarkable. As regards the op, I thought d soc was different from soc dem. in the former, workers plan production through democratic means, whereas the latter is a more benign form of capitalism.
That is true. Also most Democratic Socialists think it is possible to create socialism within in modern democratic state. I'm not completely sold on the idea, but I do think it is something worth considering.

Ismail

5th August 2012, 10:51

Also most Democratic Socialists think it is possible to create socialism within in modern democratic state. I'm not completely sold on the idea, but I do think it is something worth considering.I don't see why it's "worth considering" when its results have either been reactionary bloodshed (Chile) or opportunism and degeneration into social-democracy (Italy, France, Spain, etc.) The only practical use bourgeois parliaments have had for communists is to serve as places where said communists give speeches denouncing capitalism, exposing the hypocritical and reactionary policies of the bourgeois governments, etc., not by trying to win votes so that you can legislate to abolish the state or whatever.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

5th August 2012, 12:47

Certainly not now, in the wake of Citizens' United. This is just one of the reasons why American Radicals should be making overturning this diabolical decision ae top priority. I would go so far as to say it's actually the most significant single political issue in the United States, today, because everything else depends on it. This is not impossible. It's very unpopular. Most of the public dislikes it. Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig has laid out a very compelling plan by which this might be accomplished, as well as an outline of a publicly financed system that would replace the disaster that we have today, with shadowy groups using tax loopholes to secretly spend unlimited amounts of money to defeat candidates, or individual pieces of legislation. There are already national campaigns working on this, like; MovetoAmend, and Wolf-PAC. It's just a question of energy, and willpower. If we had public campaign financing, it would, first; of all, limit the ability of corporations to directly control thye legislative process, and, second; make it substantially easier to form Radical parties, and run Socialist candidates who could actually get elected.

Without being overly antagonistic, i'll say this:

you could put all your energy into that for a generation, and you might succeed. But succeed in what? Some nationalisations, some social democracy cloaked under the 'liberal' agenda. Rooseveltism. That seems to be the extent of your ambitions: replace the 'bad' parts of Capitalism with 'good' Capitalism or whatever.

But as Marxists, we have no place for morality. We don't dislike Capitalism because it is 'bad', and we don't embrace Socialism because it is 'good'; I can recognise that universal morality - objective morality, if you will - does not exist. It is all subjective.

Rather, our philosophical framework is neither 'pro-good' nor 'anti-bad', but merely, most simply, unequivocally pro-worker and anti-capital. This is the nub of it. We are political partisans and this is what we stand for: class war, because we are the exploited class right now, and we want to be the winning class, and then we want to be the group that abolishes class forever and ends class war.

Thus, only the total and conclusive overthrow and replacement of Capitalism with a Socialist society can bring satiate our political aims.

It's really that simple.

JPSartre12

5th August 2012, 18:13

Without being overly antagonistic, i'll say this:

Oh, don't worry, I love the debate :)

you could put all your energy into that for a generation, and you might succeed. But succeed in what? Some nationalisations, some social democracy cloaked under the 'liberal' agenda. Rooseveltism. That seems to be the extent of your ambitions: replace the 'bad' parts of Capitalism with 'good' Capitalism or whatever.

I mostly agree. We're not trying to construct a sort of progressive, social democratic State - we're trying to establish a whole new mode of production. That beings said, I think that we loose sight of the troubles that the proletariat goes through day-in and day-out under capitalism: it's great that we expose capitalism and propose and alternative, but there are small steps that we can take to improve the lives of the average working class family. If a few more social programs or a bit of nationalization improves things, I think that we should do them, but never loose sight of our socialist goal the entire time.

We don't want to replace "bad" capitalism with "good" capitalism, I agree. But if there's anything at all that we can do to improve the proletariat's immediate condition, we should.

But as Marxists, we have no place for morality. We don't dislike Capitalism because it is 'bad', and we don't embrace Socialism because it is 'good'; I can recognise that universal morality - objective morality, if you will - does not exist. It is all subjective.

Oh, you know my existentialist little heart too well :wub:

Rather, our philosophical framework is neither 'pro-good' nor 'anti-bad', but merely, most simply, unequivocally pro-worker and anti-capital. This is the nub of it. We are political partisans and this is what we stand for: class war, because we are the exploited class right now, and we want to be the winning class, and then we want to be the group that abolishes class forever and ends class war.

Thus, only the total and conclusive overthrow and replacement of Capitalism with a Socialist society can bring satiate our political aims.

It's really that simple.

Well put! It really is that simple

RadioRaheem84

5th August 2012, 18:46

You support the ultimate abolition of capitalism? Yes, sure. Good. All reformists say they they support the ultimate abolition of capitalism(a more proper term would be transformation, the transformation of capitalism into socialism - socialism doesn't appear out of a vacuum, it arises out of capitalism, out of the old society). The SDP, the post-WWI SDP that ordered the executions of Liebknecht and Luxemburg, maintained that it wanted the tranformation of capitalist society into socialist until, I think, 1956! The reformists and the revolutionaries all agree on their final aims - socialism. What we disagree on is the means. If the means to arrive at socialism you prefer is reform, that makes you reformist. You, like other democratic socialists, are reformists.

No those soc dems were reformists. Allende, I believe had the intention of turning Chile Red before Pinochet turned him 'red'.

Is this idea the power corrupts? That once in power complacency will set in and the new socialists will become old capitalists?

If anything is an example of this to the fullest extent, it's Russia and China. The two nations with the most violent revolutions and symbols of communism and now they're third world bastions of free market capitalism.

Chile had to be taken out in order to be capitalist like China or Russia, and even then it's not close because what Allende installed like nationalizing the Copper Mines, was not undone after Pinochet but in fact saved his ass from depression in the early 80s.

While Pinochet's shadow lingers in Chile, Chile still had soc dem reformers take over the helm from the disastrous reign of the Chicago Boys.

Again this is NOT an apology for Soc Dems by any means. But lets look at the facts here, the most revolutionary of ML states became the most reactionary, most free market, and most disastrous to the working class in the 90s. Now these states are dangerous rogue states with their own goals of imperialism or market dominance.

The old leaders who touted socialism and managed the state enterprises now own them like oligarchs and capitalists.

The complacency of the dem socs turned soc dems still favored the working class to some extent. While the roll backs are imminent, there is still a chance to mobilize and perform real radical reform not just more concessions.

Venezuela still has a shot as its grassroots is still red as ever.

Spirit

5th August 2012, 19:27

Please stop mentioning Obama in the context of democratic socialism. Thank you.

JPSartre12

5th August 2012, 20:22

Is this idea the power corrupts? That once in power complacency will set in and the new socialists will become old capitalists?

Unfortunately, there's the distinct possibility of that happening. It's one reason why I think that we shouldn't put our faith in the system to change the system. There has to be a revolutionary movement to capitalize on the unstable political environment.

If anything is an example of this to the fullest extent, it's Russia and China. The two nations with the most violent revolutions and symbols of communism and now they're third world bastions of free market capitalism.

Again this is NOT an apology for Soc Dems by any means. But lets look at the facts here, the most revolutionary of ML states became the most reactionary, most free market, and most disastrous to the working class in the 90s. Now these states are dangerous rogue states with their own goals of imperialism or market dominance.

The old leaders who touted socialism and managed the state enterprises now own them like oligarchs and capitalists.

You make some very good points here. I'd say, though, that the reason that Russia, China, etc proceeded into state capitalism rather than socialism is because of the material conditions at the time of their revolution. Perhaps I'm being a bit of a purist when it comes to the historical dialectic, but I'm very much convinced that you have to proceed through capitalism to get to socialism. You can't cut corners and think that a feudal-agrarian society will be able to hop into a post-scarcity socialist utopia just because it wants to. Proceeding through capitalism allows you to develop means of production sophisticated enough to overcome scarcity and produce aplenty for everyone. Russia and China's nationalized, top-down, state capitalist system used government-mandated economic plans to induce industrialization, rather than rely on the market; either way, it still results in industrial capitalism. If there was a revolution in Russia or China now (or in the future) I think that it would have very different results, because the material conditions at the time of the revolution would be so different.

The complacency of the dem socs turned soc dems still favored the working class to some extent. While the roll backs are imminent, there is still a chance to mobilize and perform real radical reform not just more concessions.

Right - some change is better than none, I agree. But we have to be mindful that it preserves the capitalist mode of production, market mechanisms, class divisions, and that reform tempers revolutionary zeal.

Venezuela still has a shot as its grassroots is still red as ever.

I hope so! I'm cautiously optimistic :)

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

5th August 2012, 20:39

DSA are reactionary, social-democratic swine. Are you really a supporter of the DSA, JP? I thought social-democrats were restricted?

RadioRaheem84

5th August 2012, 21:25

DSA are reactionary, social-democratic swine. Are you really a supporter of the DSA, JP? I thought social-democrats were restricted?

I have no idea what they're all about actually. I have no political affiliation as of yet. I consider myself a member of the Monthly Review School though.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

5th August 2012, 21:42

I have no idea what they're all about actually. I have no political affiliation as of yet. I consider myself a member of the Monthly Review School though.

They are a revolting war-supporting pro-imperialist U.S. group. I didn't mean you (JPSarte, rather, who seems to list them as his organisation?) or the term "Democratic Socialism", but the organisation "Democratic Socialists of America", who are a vile social-democratic outfit more or less active as the left-wing of the Democratic party.

Ismail

5th August 2012, 23:07

Again this is NOT an apology for Soc Dems by any means. But lets look at the facts here, the most revolutionary of ML states became the most reactionary, most free market, and most disastrous to the working class in the 90s. Now these states are dangerous rogue states with their own goals of imperialism or market dominance.This is rather strange logic. After all, Allende's Chile concluded with Pinochet's Chile. The USSR was a social-imperialist power, as China was trying to be in the 1970's onwards.

Not to mention that the West encouraged "democratization" and the rise of reactionary leaders. In Bulgaria and Albania US fronts contributed much money to the reactionary opposition parties and promised aid only if these states would be "democratic," i.e. pro-US. In both Bulgaria and Albania the ruling parties won the first multi-party elections and yet were forced out of power by international and US-backed opposition party pressure which made governing pretty much impossible.

In Romania, where the post-Ceaușescu government was hardly a paragon of democracy and to this day (as in Albania) its government is accused of corruption and autocratic tendencies, the leadership is firmly pro-US and thus a-okay, whereas Belarus and other pro-Russian states are criticized by the USA for similar abuses.

Igor

5th August 2012, 23:57

JPSartre12

6th August 2012, 02:01

DSA are reactionary, social-democratic swine. Are you really a supporter of the DSA, JP? I thought social-democrats were restricted?

Haha well its a good thing that the DSA isn't a vanguard party of any form than. Yeah, I agree with you, it's not much of a "real" socialist group, but more of a little book reading club :lol:

RadioRaheem84

6th August 2012, 03:47

...dangerous rogue states? That's not exactly the kind of rhetoric you're used to hearing from a revolutionary leftist, you know, so I'm all ears regarding what's making these countries more dangerous or "rogue" than pretty much any other country out there, or that which country exactly doesn't have their "own goal of imperialism or market dominance."

don't go liberal on us bro, walk away from the light

I just meant China is expanding in Africa. These nations have their own ambitions that have nothing to do with spreading socialism.

maskerade

6th August 2012, 15:43

Chavez's powerbase is the military and the cronies he's put in place all over the country, comrade. Not the working class; in fact he's closer to the peasantry than the proletariat.

this is complete nonsense and you don't know what you're talking about. Chavez's supporter base has shifted from middle class, which initially elected him, to working class voters. This means that, because of Chavez's election and attempts at removing him, large segments of the working class has become radicalized and now sees a potential for true social change. This working class movement is separate from Chavez. But to deny that there is a relationship between Chavez's state and the working class movement is to be genuinely naive, perhaps purposefully so. Chavez relies on the working class to agitate him further to the left whereas the movement needs to be challenged by the state in order to be radicalized and develop its socialist trajectory. Whether this is explicitly intentional is another matter, but Chavez is well aware of his supporter base and what they're up to - he has to be.

There are countless examples of Chavez siding with the working class over the bureaucracy and his "cronies"; he even removed ministers that were getting in the way of meeting working class demands.

NGNM85

7th August 2012, 18:30

The balls on you, comrade!

I'm going to choose to interpret this as a compliment. So...thanks.

You say this of the man who coined the term "parliamentary cretinism"(the illusion that socialism can be achieved by parliamentary means and not revolutionary process)! Bernstein would be proud of you!

I have no interest in speculating about what Bernsten might or might not do, nor do I care.

More importantly; the whole issue here seems to be my use of the phrase; 'parliamentary means.' Perhaps, in hindsight, I should have used the phrase; 'non-violent' instead. I never meant to suggest that other rforms of activism; protests, trade unionism, etc., should be excluded. I just assumed that was a given.

What about Marx's famous critique of the draft programme for the Gotha Unity Congress, written in 1975(3 years after the speech you quote, perhaps during these 3 years Marx had slipped back into the immaturity of the Communist Manifesto, The German Ideology, the 18th Brumaire of Lous Bonoparte and the Poverty of Philosophy, but would again re-emerge out of it? Poor Marx! So inconsistent!). In Part III, he writes:

Marx states that Socialism arises from the revolutionary process of transformation of society, what do the bourgeoisie's parliaments have to do with this?

See above.

That depends entirely on how you define; 'revolutionary.'

And what about when in part IV of his critique, he writes:
Marx writes that the communist/socialist society arises out of capitalist society after a period of political transition, the revolutionary DoTP. Not the ballot box. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is incompatible with bourgeoisie democracy, and neither Marx nor Engels have ever implied otherwise.

Engels seemed to support Marx's contention. In the preface to the first edition of Das Kapital, he asserts that Marx believed that; 'in Europe, england is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected by entirely peaceful means.' Although, in the interests of transparency, he does note that he expects that the elites will resist this process, and may even respond with counter-revolutionary violence of some kind.

Marx couldn't have possibly meant that the working class can achieve it's "goal"(you use the word "ends" and Marx wrote "goal", but the meaning remains the same - the ends/goal of the working class is socialism/communism), socialism, through parliamentary tactics. This notion is absurd, and yes, it's very revisionist and Bernsteinian.

This is just a masterpiece of gnarled logic. You affirm that I was absolutely correct in interpreting Marx's comments as such, with the aforementioned clarification, but then insist he could not have meant what he actually said.

In the quote you give us, Marx says "he[the proletarian] must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions". Does not "old institutions" category include also the bourgeoisie parliament? How is this an approval of parliamentary cretinism? "where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.". How did you conclude that by "peaceful means", Marx means "parliamentary tactics"? Right after "peaceful means", Marx says something which disproves your whole argument, comrade. Including the last sentence, the quote goes like this

Again; I never intended to suggest that other forms of non-violent organization, and activism should be neglected. Again; I justr assumed that was understood. However; it's abundantly clear that 'non-violent means' also, absolutely, includes parliamentary process.

I.e Marx is saying that while in America and Britain, when the proletariat initiates it's socialist revolution, it could be in such a powerful position that the forces of counter-revolution will be so terrified by the proletariat's power that they will not mobilize and the revolution will be peaceful, while in most other economically advanced countries, the proletariat will have to use violence and engage in brutal civil war with it's class enemy. "in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force", so when he's talking about goals being attained by peaceful means, he's talking about revolution being attained by peaceful means. Is he then implying that revolution is possible through parliamentary tactics? Do you actually believe that nonsense?

This is implied, more subtly, in the earlier segments which I quoted. For example, his clarification that tactics would need to vary, from country, to country, and prefacing the central comments with the phrase; 'in some countries..', which very clearly indicates this is not always the case. I assumed this was, also, implicit.

Marx wasn't some reformist parliamentary spineless coward and hack. And he sure as hell didn't turn into one in old age. The idea of "achieving the liberation of the working class via parliamentary means" is a revisionist one. It's a disgusting and monstrous idea. It's fit for the likes of Jaurèses and Bernsteins, not for revolutionary communists.

Marx, the mature Marx, very clearly, and very explicitly believed that the working class could emancipate itself in certain particular countries, through non-violent means. He absolutely believed that. I mean, it's not scripture to me, so I'm not bound by it; but he absolutely believed that. Incidentally; (Since nobody asked.) I'm an agnostic on the question.

Rational Radical

7th August 2012, 18:49

I use to label myself a democratic socialist up until i saw how reformist the DSA was,on their website it says something to the likes of "we joined the democratic party to strengthen it's left-wing". I then started to read libertarian socialist literature which proposes a society that's more democratic and socialist than capitalism with a strong welfare state, i still admire Eugene Debs,George Orwell and many other demsocs though.

NGNM85

7th August 2012, 19:12

Without being overly antagonistic, i'll say this:

you could put all your energy into that for a generation, and you might succeed. But succeed in what?

I could ask you the same question; 'succeed in what?' If you mean overturning Citizens' United, and instituting a public financing for political campaigns (Which, in case we've forgotten, would be advantageous in that A; it would reduce the ability of the corporate class to directly control the legislative process, and B; would make it a thousand times easier to run increasingly Radical candidates and actually win elections.) something along the lines in Lessig's book, that's totally possible. As I've said; the idea resonates with a very large segment of the American public. That could be fairly easily capitalized on. It shouldn't take a generation. Same thing for universal healthcare. I mean; the Radical Left was just totally absent during the legislative battle that resulted the Affordavble Care Act, which was criminally negligent for a subculture that claims to care so much about the working class. Again; without a common definition of 'success', it isn't really possible to say. Furthermore; any sane, rational, philosophically consistent Socialist should, ideally, want to achieve said goals via democratic, grassroots means, through non-violent means, not some bloody coup. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot, or a psychopath. For clarification; I'm not saying this is necessarily possible, only that it is desirable.

Some nationalisations, some social democracy cloaked under the 'liberal' agenda. Rooseveltism. That seems to be the extent of your ambitions: replace the 'bad' parts of Capitalism with 'good' Capitalism or whatever.

There really aren't any; 'good parts of capitalism', as you say. None of the possible examples of positive outcomes can be said to be exclusive to 'the capitalist mode of production', as you say, whereas virtually all of the negative characteristics, are.

Also; these acidic comments about the despicable European social democracies are ridiculous, although not quite as ridiculous as when I hear it from fellow Americans. Do you have any idea what a massive improvement that would be, especially for the working class? Do you have any idea how radically far behind these countries Americans are by practically every social metric? Healthcare, education, unemployment, etc., etc. We’re so far behind that. To the inevitable respondants who will say that things like universal healthcare, education, higher employment, etc., supposedly sap the revolutionary potential of the working class (I disagree.) to make such arguments precludes any genuine concern for the working class. (Which; I would argue, is one of the primary sufficient conditions of whether one is, or is not, a “Socialist.”) That’s not what; ‘caring’ means. Not to mention this line of thinking; ‘the worse-the betterism’ reduces the question of tactics to; ‘How badly must we torture the working class?’ Which, as I’ve said, no consistent Socialist should ever be asking.

But as Marxists, we have no place for morality. We don't dislike Capitalism because it is 'bad', and we don't embrace Socialism because it is 'good';

First of all; you shouldn’t refer to yourself in the plural.

Second; You’re confused. This makes no sense. To paraphrase Hume; ‘you can’t get an; ‘ought’, from an; ‘is.’’ Once you assert that something ‘should’ be, you are making a value judgment. Marxism is not ‘value-free.’ People who claim to be ‘anti-moralists’ don’t understand what they are talking about.

I can recognise that universal morality - objective morality, if you will - does not exist. It is all subjective.

That depends on what you mean by; ‘objective.’ Marx recognized that while the interests of the ‘bougeoisie’ and the ‘proletariat’ were, generally, opposed, but that they were not always opposed. For example; he was sharp enough to realize that the British 10 Hours Law actually benefitted both groups. I mean, it’s fairly obvious, even taking the antagonistic nature of the class structure that, as the bourgeoisie are homo sapiens, that we must share some common interests. However; I digress...

Rather, our philosophical framework is neither 'pro-good' nor 'anti-bad', but merely, most simply, unequivocally pro-worker and anti-capital. This is the nub of it. We are political partisans and this is what we stand for: class war, because we are the exploited class right now, and we want to be the winning class, and then we want to be the group that abolishes class forever and ends class war.
Thus, only the total and conclusive overthrow and replacement of Capitalism with a Socialist society can bring satiate our political aims.
It's really that simple.

This is exactly what I was talking about. That’s a moral argument. You can’t be; ‘Pro-Worker’ without caring about ‘workers’; that whats’ good for them is ‘good’, and what is ‘bad’ for them is ‘bad.’ Again; morals are hypothesis about human well-being. Even religious morality is consequentialist. So, you may have different morals, but you’re opposition to ‘capital’ is, fundamentally, a moral one. The sooner you realize this; the better off you’ll be.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

7th August 2012, 22:02

I could ask you the same question; 'succeed in what?' If you mean overturning Citizens' United, and instituting a public financing for political campaigns (Which, in case we've forgotten, would be advantageous in that A; it would reduce the ability of the corporate class to directly control the legislative process, and B; would make it a thousand times easier to run increasingly Radical candidates and actually win elections.) something along the lines in Lessig's book, that's totally possible. As I've said; the idea resonates with a very large segment of the American public. That could be fairly easily capitalized on. It shouldn't take a generation. Same thing for universal healthcare. I mean; the Radical Left was just totally absent during the legislative battle that resulted the Affordavble Care Act, which was criminally negligent for a subculture that claims to care so much about the working class. Again; without a common definition of 'success', it isn't really possible to say. Furthermore; any sane, rational, philosophically consistent Socialist should, ideally, want to achieve said goals via democratic, grassroots means, through non-violent means, not some bloody coup. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot, or a psychopath. For clarification; I'm not saying this is necessarily possible, only that it is desirable.

I don't disagree that, if America woke up tomorrow and had public ownership of the banks and universal healthcare, that wouldn't be a darned huge improvement for the American working class. But is this possible? Politics - bourgeois politics - often comes down to compromise. Liberals compromise by settling on electing Democrats because, even if they are not as 'liberal as they want', they will still 'get more done than the Republicans'. So what you end up doing is watering down your aims from Marxism, and then through pragmatism you'll end up watering down even your watered down, reformist aims.

We clearly define Socialism differently. I define Socialism as a post-Capitalist system where the bourgeois class has been expropriated and capital has been liquidated. Why, as a Socialist, would I accept - nay, actively state as my aim - policies which do not, and never will do, lead to Socialism? I would be anything but philosophically consistent!

Also; these acidic comments about the despicable European social democracies are ridiculous, although not quite as ridiculous as when I hear it from fellow Americans. Do you have any idea what a massive improvement that would be, especially for the working class? Do you have any idea how radically far behind these countries Americans are by practically every social metric? Healthcare, education, unemployment, etc., etc. We’re so far behind that. To the inevitable respondants who will say that things like universal healthcare, education, higher employment, etc., supposedly sap the revolutionary potential of the working class (I disagree.) to make such arguments precludes any genuine concern for the working class. (Which; I would argue, is one of the primary sufficient conditions of whether one is, or is not, a “Socialist.”) That’s not what; ‘caring’ means. Not to mention this line of thinking; ‘the worse-the betterism’ reduces the question of tactics to; ‘How badly must we torture the working class?’ Which, as I’ve said, no consistent Socialist should ever be asking.

I have never, and will never, argue for the immiseration of the working class merely in the hope that they'll 'have to' rise up. You're correct; no Socialist, let alone a consistent Socialist, should ever have this aim in mind. Moreover, as a worker myself, it's not really in my own interests!

And as I said above, i'm not dissing universal healthcare, or quality, publicly funded education, or employment, or being blase about the difference between Britain in 1951 and the USA in 2008/09. There is a marked difference in the quality of life of the worker. But the salient point is this: as a revolutionary Socialist, as a Marxist, my political philosophy stems from the fundamental idea - an historical truth, no less, if one studies historical periods - that revolutionary change comes only from revolutionary action, and that as a Socialist, I want only revolutionary change. I don't deny universal healthcare, or any other feature of Social Democracy, but it's not Socialism. You can fight for it if you wish, and sure, against the bastards on the right I wish you the best of luck, and i'll join and defend my classes pay and working conditions and welfare along with everyone else, but that's an economic struggle my friend. For a Marxist, the political struggle demands that we are revolutionaries and revolutionaries only. If we submit ourselves to reform and economic struggle, we may win some smaller, tangible gains, but we will always be defeated in the long run, since under Capitalism, the bourgeoisie holds all the cards. Economic power, military might, propaganda. It holds all the aces, as it is the dominant class, and I for one refuse to beg for crumbs off the table, at least not as my dominant political philosophy.

First of all; you shouldn’t refer to yourself in the plural.

Second; You’re confused. This makes no sense. To paraphrase Hume; ‘you can’t get an; ‘ought’, from an; ‘is.’’ Once you assert that something ‘should’ be, you are making a value judgment. Marxism is not ‘value-free.’ People who claim to be ‘anti-moralists’ don’t understand what they are talking about.

Individually we have morals, and make value judgements, sure. But that has no place in a Marxist political philosophy, otherwise we can end up supporting reform over revolution, because reform represents something 'better' than reaction [or so you might say if you do not analyse society from a Marxist point of view].

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]

This is exactly what I was talking about. That’s a moral argument. You can’t be; ‘Pro-Worker’ without caring about ‘workers’; that whats’ good for them is ‘good’, and what is ‘bad’ for them is ‘bad.’ Again; morals are hypothesis about human well-being. Even religious morality is consequentialist. So, you may have different morals, but you’re opposition to ‘capital’ is, fundamentally, a moral one. The sooner you realize this; the better off you’ll be.[/QUOTE]

I'm opposed to Capitalism because i'm a worker from a one-parent household who will start his career with £30,000+ worth of debt and 10+ wage-labour jobs already behind him at the tender age of 22/23ish. I don't 'care' about workers on an individual level from some moralistic perspective, I care about the working class cos it's my class and its fate is directly tied to mine. That's how I became class and politically conscious, not through some moralistic bullshit.

JPSartre12

7th August 2012, 23:31

Also; these acidic comments about the despicable European social democracies are ridiculous, although not quite as ridiculous as when I hear it from fellow Americans. Do you have any idea what a massive improvement that would be, especially for the working class? Do you have any idea how radically far behind these countries Americans are by practically every social metric? Healthcare, education, unemployment, etc., etc. We’re so far behind that. To the inevitable respondants who will say that things like universal healthcare, education, higher employment, etc., supposedly sap the revolutionary potential of the working class (I disagree.) to make such arguments precludes any genuine concern for the working class. (Which; I would argue, is one of the primary sufficient conditions of whether one is, or is not, a “Socialist.”) That’s not what; ‘caring’ means. Not to mention this line of thinking; ‘the worse-the betterism’ reduces the question of tactics to; ‘How badly must we torture the working class?’ Which, as I’ve said, no consistent Socialist should ever be asking.

I agree comrade :thumbup1:
Social democratic countries are light-years ahead of the United States. I'm not defending social democracy and it isn't socialism, but it's still better than the neoliberal austerity-loving "free market" capitalism that the U.S. has. That should be obvious.

Why do you think that reformism does not sap revolutionary potential? I cannot follow your train of thought with that - I see reform as being very anti-revolutionary, as a compromise actualized by the bourgeois to encourage proletarian complacency.

l'EnfermÃ©

8th August 2012, 01:36

I'm going to choose to interpret this as a compliment. So...thanks.
I retract that, you're an eunuch! :tt2:

I have no interest in speculating about what Bernsten might or might not do, nor do I care.

More importantly; the whole issue here seems to be my use of the phrase; 'parliamentary means.' Perhaps, in hindsight, I should have used the phrase; 'non-violent' instead. I never meant to suggest that other rforms of activism; protests, trade unionism, etc., should be excluded. I just assumed that was a given.

Comrade, there's a huuuuge difference between achieving socialism through "parliamentary means" and achieving it non-violently. When Engels asserts that Marx believed that "in Europe, England is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected by entirely peaceful means.", he isn't saying Marx believed that in England, socialism will arise out of capitalism through "parliamentary means". What is meant by "peaceful" is that the proletariat, at the decisive moment, will be so powerful, that the counter-revolution will not mobilize and won't have to be put down by violence means. For Marx, the proletariat is capable of waging revolutionary struggle through peaceful means in England/America. Parliamentary cretinism is not a form of revolutionary struggle.

See above.

That depends entirely on how you define; 'revolutionary.'I think there's only one valid way to define "political revolution". A change in ruling classes. More precisely, the overthrow of the old ruling class by a new one. Politics, after all, is nothing more than the expression of class antagonisms.

Engels seemed to support Marx's contention. In the preface to the first edition of Das Kapital, he asserts that Marx believed that; 'in Europe, england is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected by entirely peaceful means.' Although, in the interests of transparency, he does note that he expects that the elites will resist this process, and may even respond with counter-revolutionary violence of some kind. Peaceful means ≠ parliamentary means, as I said before.

This is just a masterpiece of gnarled logic. You affirm that I was absolutely correct in interpreting Marx's comments as such, with the aforementioned clarification, but then insist he could not have meant what he actually said. I affirmed no such thing, comrade! Your interpretation of Marx's/Engels' "peaceful means" is primarily working through the bourgeois parliamentary system. This is not correct, they mean to say no such thing.

Marx, the mature Marx, very clearly, and very explicitly believed that the working class could emancipate itself in certain particular countries, through non-violent means. He absolutely believed that. I mean, it's not scripture to me, so I'm not bound by it; but he absolutely believed that. Incidentally; (Since nobody asked.) I'm an agnostic on the question.Marx's point is that the proletariat can wage peaceful revolutionary struggle in England and America, but will have to resort to violence in France, Germany, Austria, etc, etc. Yes, Marx believed that the working class could emancipate itself through peaceful means, but no, Marx doesn't mean parliamentary means, as you've implied. You turn him into a Berstenian reformist(a conclusion the bourgeoisie would surely love to adopt!).

If you want to find the moment when "mature" Marx broke with the "young" Marx, it's when he wrote The Poverty of Philosophy, in 1847. You keep on saying, "Mature Marx, Marx of Das Kapital", as if Das Kapital was exclusively the child of the old man Marx. That's simply not true, Marx has been working on it for 2 decades before he published Volume I in 1867. Das Kapital doesn't signify some kind of philosophical break with Marx's older writings, it's their logical continuation.

You try to portray the Marx of 1872 as someone who believes that the proletariat can achieve it's emancipation through the bourgeoisie
parliament. Marx becomes a reformist. But you dismiss the Marx of 1875, the revolutionary who wrote the critique of the Gotha Programme, and that's not right comrade. The man who coined the phrase "parliamentary cretinism" becomes a parliamentary cretin! This is sadder than Kautsky going renegade.

Os Cangaceiros

8th August 2012, 02:11

The_Red_Spark

8th August 2012, 03:22

As I said in another thread, there was no way, at any point in the history of the United States, that socialism would come about through peaceful and/or "parliamentary" ends. Socialism would've only come about in this country with more than a hint of grapeshot in the air.

I couldn't agree with you more. The social conditions and political climate aren't conducive to a parliamentary seizure of power. Businesses have to much money to thwart such a movement and way to much political power to allow it to gain the necessary momentum. It would be broken up before it got anywhere and the leaders would be put on trial for trumped up charges of domestic terrorism or something like that.

Another thing to consider is that if a two party bourgeoisie system is constantly battling gridlock how would it be any different when the two parties aligned themselves against the DS party the way they did against Jesse Ventura the independent? Then there is the problem with having zero credibility and a lack of a successful track record. Any effort along those lines would have to start small and along local lines instead of seeking national positions like congress, senate, or president.

The only way we will see a Socialist system implemented in the USA is when revolution erupts; which will surely face counter revolution and a likely civil war. America is far too adverse to anything ending in -ism due to years of cold war rhetoric and myth-making.

JPSartre12

8th August 2012, 16:29

I couldn't agree with you more. The social conditions and political climate aren't conducive to a parliamentary seizure of power. Businesses have to much money to thwart such a movement and way to much political power to allow it to gain the necessary momentum. It would be broken up before it got anywhere and the leaders would be put on trial for trumped up charges of domestic terrorism or something like that.

I agree with Spark. I like the fact that Marx pointed out that there are certain conditions wherein the proletariat can gain power non-violently, but I think that the situation that we have in the United States is going to prevent that from happening. I think that the most that we'll be able to do in the context of our "democratic" system is be able to change the political discussion - how Occupy raised the issue of wealth inequality, for example. I don't think that there's much that we can do inside the system other than influence the topic of discussion, and seeing as we have so much anti-socialist rhetoric permeating our politics, we'll only be able to orientate it towards "progressive" topics, at best.

The only way we will see a Socialist system implemented in the USA is when revolution erupts; which will surely face counter revolution and a likely civil war. America is far too adverse to anything ending in -ism due to years of cold war rhetoric and myth-making.

I'd be very interested to see how a revolution (with spontaneous, universal class consciousness or led by an activist vanguard party) would play out in the United States, seeing as it would be happening in an entirely different historical moment with entirely different material conditions than it did in Russia or China - we have sophisticated means of production, the ability to overcome scarcity, industrialized cities, are in modernity, have the foundation for a more democratic system, and so on. As reactionary as I think the State would be against us, I think that (if we succeed) there would be an entirely different outcome.

NGNM85

8th August 2012, 17:42

Comrade, there's a huuuuge difference between achieving socialism through "parliamentary means" and achieving it non-violently. When Engels asserts that Marx believed that "in Europe, England is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected by entirely peaceful means.", he isn't saying Marx believed that in England, socialism will arise out of capitalism through "parliamentary means". What is meant by "peaceful" is that the proletariat, at the decisive moment, will be so powerful, that the counter-revolution will not mobilize and won't have to be put down by violence means. For Marx, the proletariat is capable of waging revolutionary struggle through peaceful means in England/America. Parliamentary cretinism is not a form of revolutionary struggle.

...Peaceful means ≠ parliamentary means, as I said before.

...I affirmed no such thing, comrade! Your interpretation of Marx's/Engels' "peaceful means" is primarily working through the bourgeois parliamentary system. This is not correct, they mean to say no such thing.

I thought this was resolved. Again; I never meant to suggest that other means of activism, and organization, like protests, or trade unionism should be excluded, I thought that was implicit. However; again, it's fairly obvious that 'non-violent means' does include participation in parliamentary politics. He supported Lincoln and the Republicans in 1861, albiet from abroad, he supported the 10 Hours Law, he was a huge proponant of universal suffrage, etc., etc.

I think there's only one valid way to define "political revolution". A change in ruling classes. More precisely, the overthrow of the old ruling class by a new one. Politics, after all, is nothing more than the expression of class antagonisms. [/quote]

Any social movement which fundamentally transforms society is, by default; 'revolutionary.' The means by which this is achieved is irrelevent.

Marx's point is that the proletariat can wage peaceful revolutionary struggle in England and America, but will have to resort to violence in France, Germany, Austria, etc, etc.

He wasn't that specific. Moreover; any such claim would be based on an asessment of these countries at that time, in 1872, which is substantially different from what they are, today. I would submit that, using the same criteria, today, presuming he was correct, we would expand that circle to include most of Western Europe, as well as Australia, etc.

Yes, Marx believed that the working class could emancipate itself through peaceful means, but no, Marx doesn't mean parliamentary means, as you've implied. You turn him into a Berstenian reformist(a conclusion the bourgeoisie would surely love to adopt!).

Again; nothing I've read demonstrates some irrational fear of the political process. I'd expect that (Unfortunately.) from the more unsophisticated Anarchists, but I see no evidence that he suffered from this neurosis. It seems abundantly clear that this included parliamentary participation.

No, I actually don't think that's what the 'bougeoisie' want. I think they want very minimal participation from a docile public, or, rather, certain segments of it. For example; Samuel Huntington's report; 'The Crisis of Democracy', referring to the social upheaval of the 60's. What was the crisis? That the American public, especially marginalized segments like ethnic minorities, women, etc., were getting up and demanding things, and they were getting them. (Notice; this is pretty much the standard, literal definition of 'democracy.') Huntington said we have to abandon those fuzzy-minded ideas, no, real 'democracy' is; the geniuses make all the big decisions, and the public follows, meekly, along. So, for 'real democracy' to flourish, it's better if large segments of the public don't participate, at all.

If you want to find the moment when "mature" Marx broke with the "young" Marx, it's when he wrote The Poverty of Philosophy, in 1847. You keep on saying, "Mature Marx, Marx of Das Kapital", as if Das Kapital was exclusively the child of the old man Marx. That's simply not true, Marx has been working on it for 2 decades before he published Volume I in 1867. Das Kapital doesn't signify some kind of philosophical break with Marx's older writings, it's their logical continuation.

I emphasize that these comments were from the latter period of his life because his early writings tend to be, generally, dismissed.

You try to portray the Marx of 1872 as someone who believes that the proletariat can achieve it's emancipation through the bourgeoisie
parliament.

...Again; I never meant to suggest that he was saying that it would be acheived exclusively through parliamentary means. (I hope we can, finally, put this behind us.)

Marx becomes a reformist. But you dismiss the Marx of 1875, the revolutionary who wrote the critique of the Gotha Programme, and that's not right comrade. The man who coined the phrase "parliamentary cretinism" becomes a parliamentary cretin! This is sadder than Kautsky going renegade.

No.. 'Reformism' implies that Socialism can be achieved, universally, through strictly parliamentary means. That's not what he was saying. What he seems, very clearly, to be saying, in the La Liberte speech, is that revolutionary change can be enacted, through non-violent means, including, but not limited to, the parliamentary process, in some countries, (But not others.) which is quite a bit different.

Again; it makes no difference to me, personally.

NGNM85

8th August 2012, 18:30

I don't disagree that, if America woke up tomorrow and had public ownership of the banks and universal healthcare, that wouldn't be a darned huge improvement for the American working class.

It would be an enormous win for the working class.

But is this possible?

Most likely; yes.

Politics - bourgeois politics - often comes down to compromise. Liberals compromise by settling on electing Democrats because, even if they are not as 'liberal as they want', they will still 'get more done than the Republicans'.

Well, first of all, you need to realize that the Democratic party is not a homogenous entity. It's not simply that the Democrats will, quote; 'get more done.' It's also a protest against the Republican party's reactionary agenda.

So what you end up doing is watering down your aims from Marxism, and then through pragmatism you'll end up watering down even your watered down, reformist aims.

Liberals are not Radicals, they are Liberals. The key difference being that they don't ever question the legitimacy of institutions like capitalism, or nation-states. That's what makes them Liberals, otherwise, they would be Radicals.

No, the goal never changes. That's not in dispute. The question is; How do we get there? What advances the interests of the working class?

We clearly define Socialism differently. I define Socialism as a post-Capitalist system where the bourgeois class has been expropriated and capital has been liquidated.

It's a little broad, and I wouldn't use that language, but I agree with the substance.

Why, as a Socialist, would I accept - nay, actively state as my aim - policies which do not, and never will do, lead to Socialism? I would be anything but philosophically consistent!

Well; no shit. First of all; I don't think you have the slightest idea what I'm suggesting, second; I would argue that it is the only sensible, and philopsophically consistent approach.

I have never, and will never, argue for the immiseration of the working class merely in the hope that they'll 'have to' rise up. You're correct; no Socialist, let alone a consistent Socialist, should ever have this aim in mind. Moreover, as a worker myself, it's not really in my own interests!

I'm working class, myself, but my commitment to Socialism goes well beyond mere self-interest.

And as I said above, i'm not dissing universal healthcare, or quality, publicly funded education, or employment, or being blase about the difference between Britain in 1951 and the USA in 2008/09. There is a marked difference in the quality of life of the worker. But the salient point is this: as a revolutionary Socialist, as a Marxist, my political philosophy stems from the fundamental idea - an historical truth, no less, if one studies historical periods - that revolutionary change comes only from revolutionary action, and that as a Socialist, I want only revolutionary change.

That doesn't follow, and contradicts your previous statement. By this logic; we should ignore gay rights, we should ignore health care reform, we should ignore union busting, etc., etc. Beyond the fact that this is blatantly at odds with, what should be, fundamental Socialist priorities, it also renders us totally irrelevent to the working class. If we can't speak to the daily struggles of working people; there's absolutely noreason why they should listen to a word we have to say. Single mothers working two jobs to feed their kids aren't suffering from lack of Marxist rhetoric, they want their children fed, they want them educated, they want to be able to provide them with medical care. If that's beneath your concern, then you are beneath theirs, and you should be.

I don't deny universal healthcare, or any other feature of Social Democracy, but it's not Socialism.

No one suggested otherwise. However; it's in the interests of the working class, and, potentially, at least, a step towards Socialism.

You can fight for it if you wish, and sure, against the bastards on the right I wish you the best of luck, and i'll join and defend my classes pay and working conditions and welfare along with everyone else, but that's an economic struggle my friend. For a Marxist, the political struggle demands that we are revolutionaries and revolutionaries only. If we submit ourselves to reform and economic struggle, we may win some smaller, tangible gains, but we will always be defeated in the long run, since under Capitalism, the bourgeoisie holds all the cards. Economic power, military might, propaganda. It holds all the aces, as it is the dominant class, and I for one refuse to beg for crumbs off the table, at least not as my dominant political philosophy.

This is nonsense. So, you'll protest for gay rights, or against union busting, etc., but you'll never, ever vote for legislation that advances these causes, or for political candidates who are more favorable to these causes, or even staunch advocates for them? That's hypocritical, and, frankly, absurd. If you say; Oh, I care about gay rights, but not enough to vote for them.', then you don't actually care about gay rights.

You might not subscribe to 'the worse-the betterism', but it doesn't sound like you are particularly interested in doing anything to improve the circumstances of the working class, and seem to be opposed to any attempt to do so.

Individually we have morals, and make value judgements, sure. But that has no place in a Marxist political philosophy,

Marxism is based on value judgments. Marxism is not value-free. It is not neutral.

...otherwise we can end up supporting reform over revolution, because reform represents something 'better' than reaction [or so you might say if you do not analyse society from a Marxist point of view].

That's not what I'm suggesting. This is ludicrous. You're central thesis is wrong. 'Revolution' which, from you, means; 'a violent coup', isn't even remotely possible, right now, in the United States, England, etc., for any number of reasons, not in the least of which being that the working class is not organized and conscious of itself, as a class, and does not embrace said revolution. (Or; 'revolution.') You act as though I'm saying; 'Oh, let's stop this revolution and go play politics, indefinitely.' This has no resemblance, whatsoever, to reality. Moreover; like I said before; it isn't even possible to build such a movement, or anything remotely close to it, if we are not willing to address the immediate concerns of the working class.

I'm opposed to Capitalism because i'm a worker from a one-parent household who will start his career with £30,000+ worth of debt and 10+ wage-labour jobs already behind him at the tender age of 22/23ish. I don't 'care' about workers on an individual level from some moralistic perspective, I care about the working class cos it's my class and its fate is directly tied to mine. That's how I became class and politically conscious, not through some moralistic bullshit.

Not this garbage, again. Beyond all the other logical problems with this, you're proclamation to simply be acting in your self interest makes no sense. Overthrowing capitalism won't necessarily improve your situation, personally, in fact, it's likely, and this is in the best case scenario, that you are successful, in the next few years, in initiating a violent overthrow of the existing order, to make the circumstances of your existence much worse. This is probably the worst possible way to improve your lot in life. You'd be better off buying lotto tickets. So, that's simply rubbish.

The sooner you abandon this ridiculous 'anti-moralism', the better off you'll be.

l'EnfermÃ©

8th August 2012, 19:34

I thought this was resolved. Again; I never meant to suggest that other means of activism, and organization, like protests, or trade unionism should be excluded, I thought that was implicit. However; again, it's fairly obvious that 'non-violent means' does include participation in parliamentary politics. He supported Lincoln and the Republicans in 1861, albiet from abroad, he supported the 10 Hours Law, he was a huge proponant of universal suffrage, etc., etc.
You wrote:

It bears mentioning that the idea of achieving the liberation of the working class via parliamentary means is not necessarily; 'revisionist', at all. It's straight Marxist. Marx (The mature Marx, mind; the Marx of Das Kapital.) was very explicit that, in his view, in, at least, some of the Western constitutional republics (Or, constitutional monarchy, in the case of England.) such as the United States, or the United Kingdom, the working class could achieve it's ends through parliamentary politics;
According to you, the idea of achieving the liberation of the proletariat through parliamentary means is not revisionist, but Marxist. You base this on your misinterpretation of a speech Marx gave and a quote from Engels's preface to Das Kapital.

Yes, by "peaceful means", participation in parliaments is included, but that's not what you said; you said that by "peaceful means", Marx implies that socialism can be achieved by elections. Here, you're wrong.

Any social movement which fundamentally transforms society is, by default; 'revolutionary.' The means by which this is achieved is irrelevent.
A fundamental transformation of society can only be achieved by a change in the ruling class.

He wasn't that specific. Moreover; any such claim would be based on an asessment of these countries at that time, in 1872, which is substantially different from what they are, today. I would submit that, using the same criteria, today, presuming he was correct, we would expand that circle to include most of Western Europe, as well as Australia, etc.

Yes, the working class in the entire developed world could achieve it's liberation and socialism through peaceful means. Provided a revolutionary movement engaging in class-struggle existed in any part of the developed world, but there's none worth mentioning at the moment.

Again; nothing I've read demonstrates some irrational fear of the political process. I'd expect that (Unfortunately.) from the more unsophisticated Anarchists, but I see no evidence that he suffered from this neurosis. It seems abundantly clear that this included parliamentary participation.

No, I actually don't think that's what the 'bougeoisie' want. I think they want very minimal participation from a docile public, or, rather, certain segments of it. For example; Samuel Huntington's report; 'The Crisis of Democracy', referring to the social upheaval of the 60's. What was the crisis? That the American public, especially marginalized segments like ethnic minorities, women, etc., were getting up and demanding things, and they were getting them. (Notice; this is pretty much the standard, literal definition of 'democracy.') Huntington said we have to abandon those fuzzy-minded ideas, no, real 'democracy' is; the geniuses make all the big decisions, and the public follows, meekly, along. So, for 'real democracy' to flourish, it's better if large segments of the public don't participate, at all.
You make the mistake of thinking that participating in parliamentary process is the only political act in existence, and that's simply not true. Parliamentary participation is a part of the class-struggle, but Marx didn't imply that socialism could be achieved through it. Marx clearly writes in 1875 that socialism arises out of capitalism after a transitory stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and he held this view when he wrote the Civil War in France too. Either Marx was a revolutionary in 1871 when he wrote the Civil War, became a parliamentary reformist in 1872, and then became a revolutionary again in 1875, or you're misinterpreting what Marx means in the speech and what Engels means in the preface to Das Kapital. It's like when the more infantile "Marxists" quote this sentence from Marx's Preface to the German edition of 1872 of the Communist Manifesto(Marx quotes himself from chapter 5 of the Civil War):

One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes
And keep on bombarding "Leninists" and "authoritarian"(what a stupid word!)Marxists with it, thinking that Marx means to say that the working class should not seize state power but immediately abolish the state, while in reality Marx means to say that after the workers conquer state power, they should smash the capitalist state and rebuild it in a shape more suitable for advancing the interests of proletariat(i.e, abolish the standing army, all officials being subject to election and immediate recall, etc, etc). What is meant by this is the transformation of the state, a tool of repression of the majority by the minority, into a tool of repression of the minority by the majority.

You make similar mistakes when trying to understand what Marx is saying(if you weren't making these mistakes, you'd be a Marxist).

I emphasize that these comments were from the latter period of his life because his early writings tend to be, generally, dismissed.
The entirety of the literature that compromises Marxian socialism, written by Engels and Marx, was written by a mature Marx/Engels(even the founding document of Marxism, the Communist Manifesto, written in 1848 - after the Poverty of Philosophy!). Marx's writings before the Poverty of Philosophy are rightly dismissed, before it he was basically a bourgeois academic.

...Again; I never meant to suggest that he was saying that it would be acheived exclusively through parliamentary means. (I hope we can, finally, put this behind us.)
Fine :glare:

No.. 'Reformism' implies that Socialism can be achieved, universally, through strictly parliamentary means. That's not what he was saying. What he seems, very clearly, to be saying, in the La Liberte speech, is that revolutionary change can be enacted, through non-violent means, including, but not limited to, the parliamentary process, in some countries, (But not others.) which is quite a bit different.

Again; it makes no difference to me, personally.
The problem is, he said absolutely nothing about parliamentary process, at all. He, and Engels in the preface to Das Kapital, say "peaceful means". I still don't understand where you got all this stuff about parliamentary process from. Peaceful and parliamentary are not synonyms, not even close!

It's probably worth mentioning, that if socialism is achievable through parliamentary process, this in no way guarantees that this parliamentary process will be peaceful...

JPSartre12

8th August 2012, 20:04

The problem is, he said absolutely nothing about parliamentary process, at all. He, and Engels in the preface to Das Kapital, say "peaceful means". I still don't understand where you got all this stuff about parliamentary process from. Peaceful and parliamentary are not synonyms, not even close!

It's probably worth mentioning, that if socialism is achievable through parliamentary process, this in no way guarantees that this parliamentary process will be peaceful...

I agree with you, comrade - I think that's a distinction that far too many people (regardless of their tendency or affiliation) get wrong!

I'd like to see a peaceful transition to socialism; say, wherein the proletariat gains class consciousness, and the bourgeois realizes that it is far outnumbered and overpowered and the transition is as non-violent as possible. I don't really want to see a parliamentary transition, because (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) that the bourgeois class and its pet State are not going to allow socialism to become actualized - they'll allow some moderate, social democratic reforms to pass through the legislature so that the proletariat will be pacified, grow complacent, and have its revolutionary zeal diminished.

Yes, the working class in the entire developed world could achieve it's liberation and socialism through peaceful means. Provided a revolutionary movement engaging in class-struggle existed in any part of the developed world, but there's none worth mentioning at the moment.

True! Such an achievement is possible, and as nice as that would be, I would argue that it's not probable because the bourgeois class is most likely going to violently retaliate against any move for power that we make. Unfortunately, I'm almost certain that our revolution will ultimately be violent.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

8th August 2012, 22:02

Well, first of all, you need to realize that the Democratic party is not a homogenous entity. It's not simply that the Democrats will, quote; 'get more done.' It's also a protest against the Republican party's reactionary agenda.]

Ah right, so you're saying that:

a) Socialists support Democrats as well as the liberals, and
b) The Democrats aren't reactionary? Why would you vote for Reactionary Party A's agenda to protest the reactionary nature of Reactionary Party B's agenda.

Liberals are not Radicals, they are Liberals. The key difference being that they don't ever question the legitimacy of institutions like capitalism, or nation-states. That's what makes them Liberals, otherwise, they would be Radicals.

No, the goal never changes. That's not in dispute. The question is; How do we get there? What advances the interests of the working class?

Sorry, that first paragraph is bullshit. Liberals often question the legitimacy of Capitalism and its various institutions from an utopian POV, but when it comes to action, they'd rather go for the pragmatic, reformist 'get things done' approach that you espouse. That is what makes a liberal - you - a liberal, and what separates you from a Marxist analysis of society.

You ask, "What advances the interests of the working class?" The only answer to this is - the overthrow of Capitalism. The working class have been co-opted and betrayed by your type of thinking so, so many times in history - in Britain by t Trade Unions at the turn of the 20th Century, in Germany by the SPD, the PCF in France. You can talk all you want about sharing objectives, but that is really all just lip service because what you're actively fighting for is reforms, whilst having this utopian idea that your liberal less-evilism will somehow lead to Socialism, despite this never having been the case ANYWHERE, ever, and not being found in any legitimate Marxist text. It's a staggering non sequitor.

I'm working class, myself, but my commitment to Socialism goes well beyond mere self-interest.

Good for you, but I don't believe that. If you were bourgeois, you might 'care' for the working class, but that's not Socialism, that's bourgeois Socialism (read the Communist Manifesto). It's paternalistic and inherently reformist, since bourgeois socialists will never, eventually, abandon their class interests when the class struggle really intensifies. That is where your paternal 'moralism' falls down. It's great that you 'care' about the working class, but outside of a discussion forum that means little because, when shit hits the fan, society will divide along class lines and brazen ideology will be rendered secondary to this class struggle.

That doesn't follow, and contradicts your previous statement. By this logic; we should ignore gay rights, we should ignore health care reform, we should ignore union busting, etc., etc. Beyond the fact that this is blatantly at odds with, what should be, fundamental Socialist priorities, it also renders us totally irrelevent to the working class. If we can't speak to the daily struggles of working people; there's absolutely noreason why they should listen to a word we have to say. Single mothers working two jobs to feed their kids aren't suffering from lack of Marxist rhetoric, they want their children fed, they want them educated, they want to be able to provide them with medical care. If that's beneath your concern, then you are beneath theirs, and you should be.

You should read Luxemburg's The Mass Strike. She explains that the mass strike, the highest manifestation of the revolutionary consciousness of the working class, and a fatal weapon to kill off Capitalism with, comes about through two struggles: the economic and the political. What you argue for is the economic only: the defensive struggle for pay and conditions, for the defence of already-made gains and for encroachment into greater welfare - as you say, healthcare, LGBTQ rights and so on. You ignore the political struggle: the struggle of the worker gaining consciousness. The collective class making political - and importantly, revolutionary! - demands. Luxemburg describes how the economic flows from the political and the political from the economic (it's slightly dialectic and confusing logic at first, but does make sense on a basic level). Essentially, we can ignore that reforms benefit the working class in the short term because, as history has shown, in the long term the working class ALWAYS loses out without political struggle. So yeah, please don't try and call me anti-LGBT and anti-worker, I think it's clear i'm not. I'll always support workers defending themselves, single mothers, the LGBTQ movement and welfare, but i'll not ignore the political struggle. Socialists adopt the political struggle, it doesn't mean we ignore the economic struggle, we just recognise that without the political struggle, the economic struggle is a dead end to nowhere.

No one suggested otherwise. However; it's in the interests of the working class, and, potentially, at least, a step towards Socialism.

Please explain this 'stepping stones towards Socialism' theory. How do reforms lead to Socialism, exactly? Can you point to one example in history, or one theory, that supports/demonstrates this?

This is nonsense. So, you'll protest for gay rights, or against union busting, etc., but you'll never, ever vote for legislation that advances these causes, or for political candidates who are more favorable to these causes, or even staunch advocates for them? That's hypocritical, and, frankly, absurd. If you say; Oh, I care about gay rights, but not enough to vote for them.', then you don't actually care about gay rights.

Ah, the classic reformist logic: 'well, if you didn't vote, then don't complain'. Listen to this: I don't support bourgeois parliaments, bourgeois senates or anything like that. Therefore, whilst I recognise the impact that some reformists have in the struggle for LGBTQ rights and other 'progressive' causes, i'm not going to support their political careers because they are the enemy: they are Capitalists. I support Socialists who support progressive causes because, when all is said and done and the utopians have gone back home to watch something on their Apple Macs or whatever, Capitalism is the root of horizontal inequalities such as the gender gap, the racial gap and issues surrounding LGBTQ people. ONLY Socialism can solve these issues, not petty reforms.

You might not subscribe to 'the worse-the betterism', but it doesn't sound like you are particularly interested in doing anything to improve the circumstances of the working class, and seem to be opposed to any attempt to do so.

You're so paternalistic it's untrue. Like I said, I don't support my class out of benign 'moralism' or 'care', I support my class because i'm a politically conscious worker and my fate is directly tied to that of the working class. Besides, the way you talk so abstractly of the working class makes me doubt whether you actually understand what it's like to be exploited, in real terms. And what have YOU ever done for the working class? Ever organised anything in your life? Ever done more than cheer from the sidelines?

That's not what I'm suggesting. This is ludicrous. You're central thesis is wrong. 'Revolution' which, from you, means; 'a violent coup', isn't even remotely possible, right now, in the United States, England, etc., for any number of reasons, not in the least of which being that the working class is not organized and conscious of itself, as a class, and does not embrace said revolution. (Or; 'revolution.') You act as though I'm saying; 'Oh, let's stop this revolution and go play politics, indefinitely.' This has no resemblance, whatsoever, to reality. Moreover; like I said before; it isn't even possible to build such a movement, or anything remotely close to it, if we are not willing to address the immediate concerns of the working class.

I don't think i've ever called revolution a 'violent coup', but by making such a presumption, you've laid your contempt for revolutionary Socialism and your real feelings about such a process clear for all to see.

Not this garbage, again. Beyond all the other logical problems with this, you're proclamation to simply be acting in your self interest makes no sense. Overthrowing capitalism won't necessarily improve your situation, personally, in fact, it's likely, and this is in the best case scenario, that you are successful, in the next few years, in initiating a violent overthrow of the existing order, to make the circumstances of your existence much worse. This is probably the worst possible way to improve your lot in life. You'd be better off buying lotto tickets. So, that's simply rubbish.

Haha sorry, overthrowing Capitalism will make the life of the worker worse? You're showing yourself up to be the anti-Socialist fuck that you are.

And, yet again, i've never said that revolution will necessarily be violent. You clearly have little idea of what revolution, or Marxism, actually entails.

Hey man, have fun voting Obama later this year. That'll be a real coup for the working class. With that Mormon out the office, Obama can screw over the workers to the insurance companies, use LGBTQ rights as an electoral pinball and kill innocent people all over the world, and you can support this as your step towards Socialism cos, you know, these are real, solid gains for the working class, buddy. :rolleyes:

NGNM85

9th August 2012, 01:21

Ah right, so you're saying that:

a) Socialists support Democrats as well as the liberals,

I don’t think this has any relationship to what I said. What I said was; ‘The Democratic party is not a homogenous entity.’ (Incidentally; neither are the Republicans.) by which I meant exactly that.

And b) The Democrats aren't reactionary?

Not if we’re using the term in the literal sense, meaning something like; ‘extreme Rightism in social, and political views.’ However; it’s by no means clear in what context you are speaking.

Why would you vote for Reactionary Party A's agenda to protest the reactionary nature of Reactionary Party B's agenda.

See above.

Sorry, that first paragraph is bullshit. Liberals often question the legitimacy of Capitalism and its various institutions from an utopian POV, but when it comes to action, they'd rather go for the pragmatic, reformist 'get things done' approach that you espouse.

No, that’s wrong. What primarily separates Liberals from Radicals is that Liberals don’t question the legitimacy of institutions like Capitalism, or Nation-States. Hence the name; ‘Radical’, from the Latin for; ‘root.’

I’m not a ‘reformist.’ You can keep saying it, but it’s bullshit. I’ve never suggested, or never meant to suggest that Socialism can be achieved purely through parliamentary means. What I’m saying is that in the Western democratic nations, Socialists should be availing themselves of the available institutional mechanisms to advance the interests of the working class, and that to not do so is shortsighted, counterproductive, and, frankly, stupid.

That is what makes a liberal - you - a liberal, and what separates you from a Marxist analysis of society.

First; See above.

Second; most of what I’ve said is totally consistent with positions Marx, himself, took, not that I care, mind. Marx (critically, conditionally) supported Lincoln, and the Republicans in 1861, he supported the Ten Hours Law, and he was right in both cases.

You ask, "What advances the interests of the working class?" The only answer to this is - the overthrow of Capitalism.

However it is you conceptualize that, that would be the totalemancipation of the working class, after which, there would cease to be a working class. Incidentally, it sounds pretty good to me. However; this says absolutely nothing about what to do now, today, about how we get there.

The working class have been co-opted and betrayed by your type of thinking so, so many times in history - in Britain by t Trade Unions at the turn of the 20th Century, in Germany by the SPD, the PCF in France. You can talk all you want about sharing objectives, but that is really all just lip service because what you're actively fighting for is reforms, whilst having this utopian idea that your liberal less-evilism will somehow lead to Socialism, despite this never having been the case ANYWHERE, ever, and not being found in any legitimate Marxist text. It's a staggering non sequitor.

This is based on a misunderstanding, again; you’re opposing the struggle for reforms and concessions versus the development of a revolutionary working class movement. This makes no sense, and has no relationship to anything I’ve said. For the second time; I’m not saying; ‘Hold off on this revolution business, let’s go play politics.’ That has no resemblance to reality, both in terms of my comments, and the political, and social realities in our respective countries.

Good for you, but I don't believe that.

All I can offer you is my word. There’s nothing else I can do. You can accept that, or you can reject it, but I assure you; it is the truth.

If you were bourgeois, you might 'care' for the working class, but that's not Socialism, that's bourgeois Socialism (read the Communist Manifesto). It's paternalistic and inherently reformist, since bourgeois socialists will never, eventually, abandon their class interests when the class struggle really intensifies.

Oh lord, how tedious… Well; I’m not; ‘bougeois’, so it doesn’t make any difference, now, does it?

That is where your paternal 'moralism' falls down. It's great that you 'care' about the working class, but outside of a discussion forum that means little because, when shit hits the fan, society will divide along class lines and brazen ideology will be rendered secondary to this class struggle.

I’m not even going to bother with this.

You should read Luxemburg's The Mass Strike. She explains that the mass strike, the highest manifestation of the revolutionary consciousness of the working class, and a fatal weapon to kill off Capitalism with, comes about through two struggles: the economic and the political. What you argue for is the economic only: the defensive struggle for pay and conditions, for the defence of already-made gains and for encroachment into greater welfare - as you say, healthcare, LGBTQ rights and so on. You ignore the political struggle: the struggle of the worker gaining consciousness. The collective class making political - and importantly, revolutionary! - demands.

Luxemburg describes how the economic flows from the political and the political from the economic (it's slightly dialectic and confusing logic at first, but does make sense on a basic level). Essentially, we can ignore that reforms benefit the working class in the short term because, as history has shown, in the long term the working class ALWAYS loses out without political struggle. So yeah, please don't try and call me anti-LGBT and anti-worker, I think it's clear i'm not. I'll always support workers defending themselves, single mothers, the LGBTQ movement and welfare, but i'll not ignore the political struggle. Socialists adopt the political struggle, it doesn't mean we ignore the economic struggle, we just recognise that without the political struggle, the economic struggle is a dead end to nowhere.

Something is getting lost in translation.

Please explain this 'stepping stones towards Socialism' theory. How do reforms lead to Socialism, exactly? Can you point to one example in history, or one theory, that supports/demonstrates this?

Again; for any consistent Socialist support for the working class should be unconditional. Second; the process of fighting for reforms, and concessions, and getting them, involves the organization of large segments of the working class, and can raise the consciousness, if you will, of the working class. It’s also empowering.

Ah, the classic reformist logic: 'well, if you didn't vote, then don't complain'.

That’s not what I said. What I said, for the second time, was; you can’t say you support something and, then, not vote for it. If you don’t vote for it, then you don’t really care about it. For example; if you’re eligible to vote, and there’s a vote on gay marriage, and you opt out; you don’t really care about gay rights.

Listen to this: I don't support bourgeois parliaments, bourgeois senates or anything like that. Therefore, whilst I recognise the impact that some reformists have in the struggle for LGBTQ rights and other 'progressive' causes, i'm not going to support their political careers because they are the enemy: they are Capitalists. I support Socialists who support progressive causes because, when all is said and done and the utopians have gone back home to watch something on their Apple Macs or whatever, Capitalism is the root of horizontal inequalities such as the gender gap, the racial gap and issues surrounding LGBTQ people. ONLY Socialism can solve these issues, not petty reforms.

That might be the case, but reforms, and concessions can make an enormous difference for working class people, especially on the national scale. By your reasoning, Socialists should have abstained from the civil rights movement, etc.

You're so paternalistic it's untrue. Like I said, I don't support my class out of benign 'moralism' or 'care', I support my class because i'm a politically conscious worker and my fate is directly tied to that of the working class. Besides, the way you talk so abstractly of the working class makes me doubt whether you actually understand what it's like to be exploited, in real terms.

I am of, and from the working class. The drudgery of working class life is not theoretical to me. My mom sometimes worked three jobs when I was growing up to put food on the table. I work a filthy, physically exhausting, thankless job, for shit pay. You can believe me, or you cannot. I can only tell you the truth; I cannot make you accept it. As a working class person I can tell you that my fellow employees don’t want Marxist rhetoric; they want to be able to feed their kids, they want their kids to get a decent education, they want to be able to afford medical care. If you can’t answer those needs; they will not listen to you, and, honestly, they shouldn’t.

And what have YOU ever done for the working class? Ever organised anything in your life? Ever done more than cheer from the sidelines?

I’ve been a member of various groups, participated in various protests, marches, etc. I’m in a labor union. Our contract is coming up, we might go on strike, it’s hard to say what will happen. I have never started a political party, or created a political organization. I wasn’t aware I was obligated to. Have you ever created a political party or organization?

I don't think i've ever called revolution a 'violent coup', but by making such a presumption, you've laid your contempt for revolutionary Socialism and your real feelings about such a process clear for all to see.

No, I’m expressing my contempt for Maoists, Leninists, and other aspiring despots who tarnish the good name of; ‘Socialism.’

Haha sorry, overthrowing Capitalism will make the life of the worker worse? You're showing yourself up to be the anti-Socialist fuck that you are.

There’s really no reason for that. This also has very little relationship to what I said. Again; you made the ridiculous assertion that you are a Socialist because being a Socialist is the best way to improve your standard of living. It isn’t. That should be obvious. Even you have to know that. I mean; you aren’t making any money off of it. The more time, and energy you devote to it is less time that you have to spend working, so you’re actually, at least, potentially, losing money. Second; even if the ‘revolution’ happens in the immediate future, and there’s no reason to expect that it will, this will, at least from most of the comments made around here, involve a long, and bloody period of civil war, which will entail a significant decrease in your standard of living, presuming you survive it. After that, you’ve got a long period of rebuilding, and reorganization, presuming the revolution succeeds, and is able to achieve stability. I mean, it’s by no means certain, again, even assuming everything goes according to plan, and that’s a lot of ifs, and that you survive the armed conflict, that you will see any net benefit in your standard of living for quite some time, if ever. If all you’re concerned about is improving you’re station in life, nothing more; (Which, incidentally, I don’t believe is really the case.) this is a manifestly terrible way of going about it. That’s not saying I’m against achieving Socialism, I absolutely am, I’m just saying that if all you want to do is improve your station in life; this isn’t the way to do it. You’d be better off buying lotto tickets. You’re much more likely to see a financial return on your investment.

And, yet again, i've never said that revolution will necessarily be violent. You clearly have little idea of what revolution, or Marxism, actually entails.

I’ve never claimed to be a Marxist, but I get the basics.

Literally speaking; any change in the fundamental social structure is ‘revolutionary.’ However; that’s not the way it’s employed on this forum. On this forum it usually means something like; ‘a violent coup by a revolutionary elite.’ I reject that definition. I think it renders the word an obscenity.

Hey man, have fun voting Obama later this year. That'll be a real coup for the working class. With that Mormon out the office, Obama can screw over the workers to the insurance companies, use LGBTQ rights as an electoral pinball and kill innocent people all over the world, and you can support this as your step towards Socialism cos, you know, these are real, solid gains for the working class, buddy.

See, now you’re just being combative, and flippant. I mean; we could have a serious conversation about that, but that clearly isn’t your intent.

JPSartre12

9th August 2012, 01:47

Could we possibly get this thread a little more on track?

I'd rather us be discussing the pros and cons of democratic socialism than arguing over that stuff :lol:

RadioRaheem84

9th August 2012, 05:02

NGN how could you have turned a perfectly good discussion about Democratic Socialism into an endorsement of a blatantly liberal policy?

There is no room for socialists to triumph Democrat liberal policy junk. You keep expressing your infatuation with the right definition of certain words but all you're doing is showing us is that you share the same presuppositions of the liberal establishment.

Do you secretly want to be a policy wonk?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

9th August 2012, 10:12

Not if we’re using the term in the literal sense, meaning something like; ‘extreme Rightism in social, and political views.’ However; it’s by no means clear in what context you are speaking. [/FONT][/COLOR]

So the Democrats didn't lynch blacks less than half a century ago? The Democrats support LGBTQ rights? The Democrats aren't neo-liberal hawks on foreign policy? The Democrats don't have a caucus group celebrating right-wing, 'blue dog' policies? The Democrats don't support the racist torture of Muslims at Guantanamo Bay? Nay, DO IT THEMSELVES! The Democrats don't support racist, illegal pillaging of foreign countries? Nay, again, DO IT THEMSELVES! The Democrats don't support the death penalty? The Democrats don't support the most wild Capitalism imaginable? The Democrats don't support the ruling class, in all its fucking endeavours, against the working class?

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I’m not a ‘reformist.’ You can keep saying it, but it’s bullshit. I’ve never suggested, or never meant to suggest that Socialism can be achieved purely through parliamentary means. What I’m saying is that in the Western democratic nations, Socialists should be availing themselves of the available institutional mechanisms to advance the interests of the working class, and that to not do so is shortsighted, counterproductive, and, frankly, stupid.

The whole reason the bourgeoisie created institutions under Capitalism is to strengthen and legitimise their own class rule, their economic and political power, through political institutions. They weren't created to be avenues of working class dissent, and they aren't. There's not one instance in history of the working class using existing bourgeois institutions as a base to overthrow the ruling class.

However it is you conceptualize that, that would be the totalemancipation of the working class, after which, there would cease to be a working class. Incidentally, it sounds pretty good to me. However; this says absolutely nothing about what to do now, today, about how we get there.

As I said earlier, we 'get there' by advocating political struggle alongside economic struggle. Economic struggle means, yes, defending gains so far. But as I said earlier - and as you seem to reject - economic struggle is meaningless without political struggle. It's petty unionism and Social Democracy, if economic struggle is not always and everywhere accompanied by revolutionary gesture, revolutionary demand and revolutionary action. A revolutionary program can find space for economic struggle, but an economistic program itself has no place for Socialism.

This is based on a misunderstanding, again; you’re opposing the struggle for reforms and concessions versus the development of a revolutionary working class movement. This makes no sense, and has no relationship to anything I’ve said. For the second time; I’m not saying; ‘Hold off on this revolution business, let’s go play politics.’ That has no resemblance to reality, both in terms of my comments, and the political, and social realities in our respective countries.

I'm not opposed in the slightest to reforms, if they improve the lot of the working class. They must merely be within the framework of revolution. This is eminently possible and all that i've been saying.

Again; for any consistent Socialist support for the working class should be unconditional. Second; the process of fighting for reforms, and concessions, and getting them, involves the organization of large segments of the working class, and can raise the consciousness, if you will, of the working class. It’s also empowering.

Where are you getting this from? Is there any historical precedent or theory that suggests this will ever happen? You seem incapable of understanding: this is not how class struggle happens. Class struggle, whilst not spontaneous, does contain a certain element of extra-institutional revolt from the class as a political movement. You seem to think that, after some utopian world in which workers get a few reforms, that they'll suddenly 'see the light' and 'go for revolution'. Again, how do you think this would actually happen? It seems an impossibility to me.

That’s not what I said. What I said, for the second time, was; you can’t say you support something and, then, not vote for it. If you don’t vote for it, then you don’t really care about it. For example; if you’re eligible to vote, and there’s a vote on gay marriage, and you opt out; you don’t really care about gay rights.

I don't bother (generally) with voting because it historically has achieved very little. Every revolution - and every meaningful reform, for that matter - has been achieved not by lobbying for votes, but by extra-institutional action. This is an historical truth that you cannot deny.

That might be the case, but reforms, and concessions can make an enormous difference for working class people, especially on the national scale. By your reasoning, Socialists should have abstained from the civil rights movement, etc.

The civil rights MOVEMENT - this is the key. The civil rights movement was extra-institutional, which is why it succeeded. If MLK had just gone to the Senate, gotten elected, and tried to pass some laws and tried to lobby black people to vote, what do you think would have happened? The civil rights movement contained riots, anger, genuine popular anger. That is why it succeeded.

I’ve been a member of various groups, participated in various protests, marches, etc. I’m in a labor union. Our contract is coming up, we might go on strike, it’s hard to say what will happen. I have never started a political party, or created a political organization. I wasn’t aware I was obligated to. Have you ever created a political party or organization?

Well I don't support parties, so no.

No, I’m expressing my contempt for Maoists, Leninists, and other aspiring despots who tarnish the good name of; ‘Socialism.’

I'm not a Maoist, Leninist or 'aspiring despot', believe it or not. Again, it doesn't fucking matter whether Socialism has a 'good name' or not, it is an ideology, and though we are in the realm of politics, ideology matters little when it comes to politico-economic structure. Regardless of Lenin, Stalin or any petty ideology, Capitalism WILL fail one day because of its inherent contradictions, and the working class will rule. Call it Socialism or ASFANSDLFABSJKFBism, it will happen regardless of puppets cheering it from the sidelines with their votes.

There’s really no reason for that. This also has very little relationship to what I said. Again; you made the ridiculous assertion that you are a Socialist because being a Socialist is the best way to improve your standard of living. It isn’t. That should be obvious. Even you have to know that. I mean; you aren’t making any money off of it. The more time, and energy you devote to it is less time that you have to spend working, so you’re actually, at least, potentially, losing money. Second; even if the ‘revolution’ happens in the immediate future, and there’s no reason to expect that it will, this will, at least from most of the comments made around here, involve a long, and bloody period of civil war, which will entail a significant decrease in your standard of living, presuming you survive it. After that, you’ve got a long period of rebuilding, and reorganization, presuming the revolution succeeds, and is able to achieve stability. I mean, it’s by no means certain, again, even assuming everything goes according to plan, and that’s a lot of ifs, and that you survive the armed conflict, that you will see any net benefit in your standard of living for quite some time, if ever. If all you’re concerned about is improving you’re station in life, nothing more; (Which, incidentally, I don’t believe is really the case.) this is a manifestly terrible way of going about it. That’s not saying I’m against achieving Socialism, I absolutely am, I’m just saying that if all you want to do is improve your station in life; this isn’t the way to do it. You’d be better off buying lotto tickets. You’re much more likely to see a financial return on your investment.

Ah, the classic liberal: "dude, I know you like this revolutionary thing, but it's not gonna happen, you should invest in a more attractive financial investment, like world peace and legalising pot, man." Seriously, you do just pay lip service to revolution, your comments show you have no intent on fighting for revolution, merely reform.

I’ve never claimed to be a Marxist, but I get the basics.

I seriously don't think you do.

Literally speaking; any change in the fundamental social structure is ‘revolutionary.’ However; that’s not the way it’s employed on this forum. On this forum it usually means something like; ‘a violent coup by a revolutionary elite.’ I reject that definition. I think it renders the word an obscenity.

Again, I don't think i've ever advocated or supported a 'violent coup'. Revolution is not a coup, and it won't necessarily be violent (though it probably will at some point). Your first sentence makes me think that, should [thinking the utopian here, bear with me] a genuinely left-liberal Democratic President get elected and be able to get universal healthcare, free education and welfare stuff like that, you'd go on about Socialism and him/her being revolutionary or whatever.

Dude, get this seriously: REFORMS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SOCIALISM. Socialism is incompatible with the existence of Capitalism. You advocate reforms, ergo you are both a reformist and a Capitalist. That's not slander, it's factual. Mostly, people who called themselves Socialists but advocate reforms are called Social Democrats.

mew

9th August 2012, 12:18

ngnm85, feel like why do you exist when i could just hit a noam chomsky quote generator.

NGNM85

9th August 2012, 17:35

NGN how could you have turned a perfectly good discussion about Democratic Socialism into an endorsement of a blatantly liberal policy?

I didn't do anything of the kind. Just because Liberals support a policy or a program, that does not make that program, or policy fundamentally 'Liberal.' There's nothing fundamentally "Liberal' about gay rights, there's nothing fundamentally 'Liberal' about universal healthcare. The problem, well, one of the problems, is your simplistic, manichean worldview.

There is no room for socialists to triumph Democrat liberal policy junk.

It's not entirely clear what that's supposed to mean, personally; I think you're just tossing out in-group pejoratives, but that's not what I'm doing.
If the radical Left is to have any relevence to working class people we first must understand what is going on. Simply ignoring current events, living in cultivated ignorance is counterproductive, and stupid. We must not simply understand what the problems are, but we must have an understanding of how to fix them. If you know the background of the Citizens' United case, and you've been following the effects that it is had on American politics then it is manifestly obvious that this was an absolute disaster for the working class, and it's going to get worse. Ok. You're next question should be; What can be done about that? Unfortunately; overturning supreme court decisions is something of a tricky business. However; it's not impossible. Again; Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig has laid out a clear, concise guideline for how to overturn Citizens', and to create a framework for publicly funded elections. This would be a massive win for the working class because; A; it would substantially limit the ability of special interests to directly control the political process, and B; it would make it a million times easier to run increasingly Radical candidates and for those candidates to actually win elections. Moreover; there are polling statistics that show that such a measure would be extremely popular with the American public., and there are already organizations working on it.There's nothing fundamentally 'Liberal' about that. Every Socialist should support that.

You keep expressing your infatuation with the right definition of certain words but all you're doing is showing us is that you share the same presuppositions of the liberal establishment.

In order to communicate we need to speak a common language, otherwise we're just talking to ourselves. I speak plain English. For example; in plain English, the word; 'Reactionary' means something like; 'extreme rightism in social, and political views.'
(Feel free to consult the nearest Dictionary.) That is completely apolitical. It doesn't contain any ideological presuppositions, whatsoever, of any kind.

Do you secretly want to be a policy wonk?

I want to fight for the working class and that means understanding what's going on in the world. Understanding the problems, and finding solutions requires a certain level of understanding. Tragically; it seems much of the Radical Left would rather live in a carefully cultivated ignorance.

JPSartre12

9th August 2012, 21:03

There is no room for socialists to triumph Democrat liberal policy junk.

In an attempt to get this thread back on track, I'll work off this to get the discussion flowing again :tt2:

I dislike when there are so many Democrats think that its just a synonym for "liberal" or "progressive". Sure, come of our causes may overlap a little (like support for single-payer healthcare, or something along those lines), but I hate it when you have Democrats who say "Oh yeah, I like universal healthcare, same-sex marriage, and progressive taxation so I must be a socialist!"

Nooo guys, that's not what socialism is. It makes me so annoyed when they think that socialism is just wanting to be more like England or France. :thumbdown:

ed miliband

9th August 2012, 21:38

In an attempt to get this thread back on track, I'll work off this to get the discussion flowing again :tt2:

I dislike when there are so many Democrats think that its just a synonym for "liberal" or "progressive". Sure, come of our causes may overlap a little (like support for single-payer healthcare, or something along those lines), but I hate it when you have Democrats who say "Oh yeah, I like universal healthcare, same-sex marriage, and progressive taxation so I must be a socialist!"

Nooo guys, that's not what socialism is. It makes me so annoyed when they think that socialism is just wanting to be more like England or France. :thumbdown:

which requires imagining that england (sic) and france are actually functioning welfare states, which requires ignoring the history of these countries for the past thirty or so years.

JPSartre12

9th August 2012, 21:54

which requires imagining that england (sic) and france are actually functioning welfare states, which requires ignoring the history of these countries for the past thirty or so years.

Yeah, but although the title "socialist" isn't warranted at all when it comes to England, France, etc, there are plenty of Americans that associate them with socialism.

They're not socialist at all - they have a capitalist mode of production, and I'd say that they're less likely than we are to institute socialism, for reasons that I explained before. Their welfare state (functioning or not!) cuts down on revolutionary zeal. Though, the whole fetish that Europe's developed with austerity may have opened up some peoples eyes and changed that.

ed miliband

9th August 2012, 22:06

Yeah, but although the title "socialist" isn't warranted at all when it comes to England, France, etc, there are plenty of Americans that associate them with socialism.

They're not socialist at all - they have a capitalist mode of production, and I'd say that they're less likely than we are to institute socialism, for reasons that I explained before. Their welfare state (functioning or not!) cuts down on revolutionary zeal. Though, the whole fetish that Europe's developed with austerity may have opened up some peoples eyes and changed that.

oh, it's quite clear that england and france, welfare state are not, are capitalist countries. dunno how you got the impression i think otherwise. the establishment of a welfare state in england (where i live...) was vital for the continued functioning of capitalism (and the same applies elsewhere, clearly). my point was simply that people who romanticise european welfare states ignore the fact that they don't really exist anymore, and there's a clear reason for that: european social-democracy was the result of class relations that no longer exist, a compromise between organised labour and capital.

and to be a bit pedantic, it isn't a simple case of having a "fetish with austerity", the erosion of european social-democracy has been an on-going process since the late 1970s. what we are witnessing now is merely speeding it up.

JPSartre12

9th August 2012, 22:26

oh, it's quite clear that england and france, welfare state are not, are capitalist countries. dunno how you got the impression i think otherwise.

Oh, I don't mean you :lol: I'm just referring to the large of people in the U.S. who perceive any type of social program, government spending, etc to be "socialism :tt2:

the establishment of a welfare state in england (where i live...) was vital for the continued functioning of capitalism (and the same applies elsewhere, clearly). my point was simply that people who romanticise european welfare states ignore the fact that they don't really exist anymore, and there's a clear reason for that: european social-democracy was the result of class relations that no longer exist, a compromise between organised labour and capital.

I absolutely agree, comrade. Like I said to the OP at the beginning of this thread, my biggest problem with social democracy is that it does retain the capitalist mode of production. That's what makes social democracy so dangerous, I think - that the bourgeois class grants the working class a series of legislative reforms that just make the market a little less harsh, and the proletariat loose their desire for revolution because they've become pacified by a little bit of "change", and continue to live under capitalism for a longer period of time.

and to be a bit pedantic, it isn't a simple case of having a "fetish with austerity", the erosion of european social-democracy has been an on-going process since the late 1970s. what we are witnessing now is merely speeding it up.

Oh, I know :) I'm just colorfully illustrating the way that it is speeding up, and how rampant neoliberal policies are becoming more and more talked about and actualized.

ed miliband

9th August 2012, 22:58

I absolutely agree, comrade. Like I said to the OP at the beginning of this thread, my biggest problem with social democracy is that it does retain the capitalist mode of production. That's what makes social democracy so dangerous, I think - that the bourgeois class grants the working class a series of legislative reforms that just make the market a little less harsh, and the proletariat loose their desire for revolution because they've become pacified by a little bit of "change", and continue to live under capitalism for a longer period of time.

this is true to a point. i mean, i'm guilty of overstating the influence of organised labour on the establishment of britain's welfare state for example. after the first world war a tory mp remarked 'we must give them reform or they'll give us revolution', but after the second world war (when the british welfare state was properly established), a lot of it was purely bourgeois pragmatics: so much infrastructure was destroyed that private industry could not afford to replace it, so the state stepped in, hence the nationalistion of things like rail, and so on. and make no mistake, the former owners were paid off nicely.

from the late 60s onwards there was a clear rejection of social-democratic/welfare state politics from the working class. perhaps not revolutionary, but wildcat strikes surged across europe, and even in the states. some theorists (post-operarists) even claim that neo-liberalism is capitalism assuming elements of communism (so, precarious employment as the refusal of work, something that was rampant in the 70s, for eg). i don't agree with that, but the point is that whilst the working class might have been bought of temporarily by social-democratic reforms, it didn't last, and indeed the working class played a serious role in the decline of social-democracy.

JPSartre12

9th August 2012, 23:35

from the late 60s onwards there was a clear rejection of social-democratic/welfare state politics from the working class. perhaps not revolutionary, but wildcat strikes surged across europe, and even in the states. some theorists (post-operarists) even claim that neo-liberalism is capitalism assuming elements of communism (so, precarious employment as the refusal of work, something that was rampant in the 70s, for eg). i don't agree with that, but the point is that whilst the working class might have been bought of temporarily by social-democratic reforms, it didn't last, and indeed the working class played a serious role in the decline of social-democracy.

Could you elaborate a little more on the claim that neoliberalism assumes elements of capitalism?

ed miliband

9th August 2012, 23:52

Could you elaborate a little more on the claim that neoliberalism assumes elements of capitalism?

of communism ya mean? :p

i don't agree with this stuff, but as certain thinkers associated with what is described as post-operaism (post-workerism, after all the awesome stuff that happened in italy in the mid 20th c.) have suggested that neoliberalism and post-fordism represents the "communism of capital" (a term, i belive, actually taken from marx). actually, i think even zizek has picked up on this theme.

so for example...

"The communism of capital": there is as much communism in capital [I]as capital is capable of too: abolition of work, dissolution of the state, etc. But communism in any shape or form would require equality, and this, capital is incapable of providing. Post-Fordism therefore can only satisfy the demands of a virtual communism. A communality of generalized intellect without material equality. How "communistic" can that be? And can this virtual communism be enough to turn subjected "people" into a freer "multitude"? This is what Empire is claiming to achieve, but the multitude isn't exactly thriving beyond the First World, or below. In under-developing countries the new labour class is finding freedom through uprooting and over-exploitation. Inequalities everywhere are growing exponentially, and so is cynicism, not especially of the creative kind.http://libcom.org/book/export/html/14548

in the 70s there was a widespread rejection of the tenets of social-democracy, particularly in italy. in this sense, capitalism had to adapt to the pressures of the working class, hence the points suggested above: "abolition of work, dissolution of the state, etc." which, some argue, is reflected in neoliberal ideology.

idk if i'm explaining this well, i'm pretty drunk tbh.

RadioRaheem84

10th August 2012, 02:48

I didn't do anything of the kind. Just because Liberals support a policy or a program, that does not make that program, or policy fundamentally 'Liberal.' There's nothing fundamentally "Liberal' about gay rights, there's nothing fundamentally 'Liberal' about universal healthcare. The problem, well, one of the problems, is your simplistic, manichean worldview.

It's not even a simplistic outlook I am spewing. It's a materialist worldview in which I see forces of production creating social antagonisms. A lot of the problems associated with single issues liberals triumph are created by the class structure and are socio-economic in nature and scope.

A lot of what passes for racism is actually class bound. Usually when people speak or joke about this or that race, it has more to do with class rather than a cultural norm. In the States especially, race substitutes for class 99% of the time.

The same can be said for sexism, homophobia, etc. under these existing conditions. I know you're going to retort that these isms and phobias have always existed and predate capitalism, but again how they exist as of now.

The insistence on liberal pandering to single issue voters is due in large part because of the breakup of major socialist forces in this country.

If the radical Left is to have any relevence to working class people we first must understand what is going on. Simply ignoring current events, living in cultivated ignorance is counterproductive, and stupid. We must not simply understand what the problems are, but we must have an understanding of how to fix them. If you know the background of the Citizens' United case, and you've been following the effects that it is had on American politics then it is manifestly obvious that this was an absolute disaster for the working class, and it's going to get worse. Ok. You're next question should be; What can be done about that? Unfortunately; overturning supreme court decisions is something of a tricky business. However; it's not impossible. Again; Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig has laid out a clear, concise guideline for how to overturn Citizens', and to create a framework for publicly funded elections. This would be a massive win for the working class because; A; it would substantially limit the ability of special interests to directly control the political process, and B; it would make it a million times easier to run increasingly Radical candidates and for those candidates to actually win elections. Moreover; there are polling statistics that show that such a measure would be extremely popular with the American public., and there are already organizations working on it.There's nothing fundamentally 'Liberal' about that. Every Socialist should support that.

NGN, you are such condescending fool. We understand these liberal policies VERY WELL. Do you not read any Marxist publications?

Read Monthly Review and shut your big trap. It reads like a Marxist Time Magazine replete with the issues you so love to triumph, while they support the issues listed, they still analytically critique the premises.

You should be thrilled to know that Chomsky is one of their biggest contributors.

In order to communicate we need to speak a common language, otherwise we're just talking to ourselves. I speak plain English. For example; in plain English, the word; 'Reactionary' means something like; 'extreme rightism in social, and political views.'

You don't even bother to analyze the material you spout. Because if you did you would you wouldn't be so damn gung ho about liberal policies.

I don't even think Chomsky is as gung ho about them as you are. He sees them as good, but flawed pieces of liberal legislation which temporarily affiliate worker grievances.

The world doesn't need another condescending "left winger" telling socialists they're not leftier than thou because they do not fully support American policies coming from politicians.

That hopefully died with Hitchens.

I want to fight for the working class and that means understanding what's going on in the world. Understanding the problems, and finding solutions requires a certain level of understanding. Tragically; it seems much of the Radical Left would rather live in a carefully cultivated ignorance.

The radical left discuss these issues ALL the time. What the hell are you talking about?

You would know if your face wasn't planted in some liberal rag like The Nation or the Economist.

Good God, you are unbelievably naive and such a snob.

We don't offer a liberal complaint. We offer radical critiques.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

10th August 2012, 13:16

NGNM85

10th August 2012, 17:43

So the Democrats didn't lynch blacks less than half a century ago?

Sure, and the Republicans used to be the (Small 'p.') progressive party. That's why marx supported them. However; this not 1861, nor is it 1950.

The Democrats support LGBTQ rights?

Yeah. I mean, virtually all of them.

The Democrats aren't neo-liberal hawks on foreign policy?

The parties are most alike in terms of foreign policy, however; there are minor differences.

The Democrats don't have a caucus group celebrating right-wing, 'blue dog' policies?

Yeah; the Blue Dog caucus, they represent the Right end of the party, on the other side is the Progressive Caucus (Which is substantially larger.) which represents the Left end of the party. This is why I was saying referring to them as a collective entity is misleading.

The Democrats don't support the racist torture of Muslims at Guantanamo Bay? Nay, DO IT THEMSELVES!

Closing Gitmo was one of Obama's campaign promises, but, as of yet, this
facility remains open, and is likely to stay that way for the forseeable future. The reaction among congressional Democrats has been mixed.

The Democrats don't support racist, illegal pillaging of foreign countries? Nay, again, DO IT THEMSELVES!

It's not exactly clear what you're talking about, but it sounds like you're referring to so-called 'Free Trade Agreements', and the like.

The Democrats don't support the death penalty?

Most of them don't, no.

The Democrats don't support the most wild Capitalism imaginable?

Again; it's not clear what this means.

The Democrats don't support the ruling class, in all its fucking endeavours, against the working class?

This is also terribly vague.

The whole reason the bourgeoisie created institutions under Capitalism is to strengthen and legitimise their own class rule, their economic and political power, through political institutions. They weren't created to be avenues of working class dissent, and they aren't.

However; they can be used to improve the conditions of the working class, and to empower the working class.

There's not one instance in history of the working class using existing bourgeois institutions as a base to overthrow the ruling class.

None that I'm aware of, but that doesn't mean anything.

As I said earlier, we 'get there' by advocating political struggle alongside economic struggle. Economic struggle means, yes, defending gains so far. But as I said earlier - and as you seem to reject - economic struggle is meaningless without political struggle. It's petty unionism and Social Democracy, if economic struggle is not always and everywhere accompanied by revolutionary gesture, revolutionary demand and revolutionary action. A revolutionary program can find space for economic struggle, but an economistic program itself has no place for Socialism.

Something is still getting lost in translation.

I'm not opposed in the slightest to reforms, if they improve the lot of the working class. They must merely be within the framework of revolution. This is eminently possible and all that i've been saying.

In practical terms, and preferably, in plain english; what does this mean?

Where are you getting this from? Is there any historical precedent or theory that suggests this will ever happen? You seem incapable of understanding: this is not how class struggle happens. Class struggle, whilst not spontaneous, does contain a certain element of extra-institutional revolt from the class as a political movement.

Of course.

You seem to think that, after some utopian world in which workers get a few reforms, that they'll suddenly 'see the light' and 'go for revolution'. Again, how do you think this would actually happen? It seems an impossibility to me.

I don't have a complete, detailed roadmap as to how to build a functioning, stable, Socialist society from where we are, today. Nobody could honestly make such a claim. However; I think we can establish some general guiding principles. Furthermore; proceeding from those principles, we can come up with some concrete, practical ideas, as to what we should be doing, right now. I have a number of suggestions.

I don't bother (generally) with voting because it historically has achieved very little. Every revolution - and every meaningful reform, for that matter - has been achieved not by lobbying for votes, but by extra-institutional action. This is an historical truth that you cannot deny.

Of course. Ultimately; the system bends under enough pressure. However; it would be smarter, and more efficient to utilize a multi-pronged strategy combining both approaches.

The civil rights MOVEMENT - this is the key. The civil rights movement was extra-institutional, which is why it succeeded. If MLK had just gone to the Senate, gotten elected, and tried to pass some laws and tried to lobby black people to vote, what do you think would have happened? The civil rights movement contained riots, anger, genuine popular anger. That is why it succeeded.

Exactly. I never suggested that protests, demonstrations, etc., aren't vital, I'm saying we should be using all of the means at our disposal.

Well I don't support parties, so no.

Well; 'support' can mean different things in different context. Full-throated support, unconditional support for, as you say 'bourgeois' parties would be impossible for a Socialist because it would necessitate conceding the legitimacy of capitalism, nation-states, etc. However; at times, it may make sense to vote for the least objectionable party, or candidate, conditionally, and without illusions.

I'm not a Maoist, Leninist or 'aspiring despot', believe it or not.

Well, that's good, because we've got far too many of those, as it is.

Again, it doesn't fucking matter whether Socialism has a 'good name' or not,

If Socialism is ever to acheive it's stated ends, it must finally, and irrevocably, break with the aforementioned imposters, and their followers.

it is an ideology, and though we are in the realm of politics, ideology matters little when it comes to politico-economic structure. Regardless of Lenin, Stalin or any petty ideology, Capitalism WILL fail one day because of its inherent contradictions, and the working class will rule. Call it Socialism or ASFANSDLFABSJKFBism, it will happen regardless of puppets cheering it from the sidelines with their votes.

Ok. That's just going to be an impasse, because I don't believe Socialism is inevitable, at all. I've never found this argument pursuasive. It's far more likely that I will see the extinction of the human species than a stable, modern, fully developed Socialist society. I don't mean to sound cavalier, I'm extremely concerned about it.

Ah, the classic liberal: "dude, I know you like this revolutionary thing, but it's not gonna happen, you should invest in a more attractive financial investment, like world peace and legalising pot, man." Seriously, you do just pay lip service to revolution, your comments show you have no intent on fighting for revolution, merely reform.

That's not what I was saying, at all. Again; I was responding to the, no offense, but silly comment you made that your dedication to Radical politics is based solely on pursuing your immediate self-interest, as the 23, or 24-year-old guy with, what sounds like, a considerable amount of debt. Again; this is ridiculous. Participating in Radical politics is probably the least effective route to financial security. Under 'the capitalist mode of production' improving your standard of living equates to making as much money as humanly possible, and as far as I know, activism, especially of this kind, is not especially lucrative. (Unless I've been doing it wrong.) I'm simply saying that if all you want is a bigger house, a nicer car, more disposable income, etc., that's the wrong way to go about it. I'm not saying you shouldn't be active in Radical politics, you absolutely should, but you should dispense with the absurd excuse that you're only pursuing your immediate self-interest, because that's plainly not so. That's what I was saying.

I seriously don't think you do.

Whatever. It really doesn't matter.

Again, I don't think i've ever advocated or supported a 'violent coup'. Revolution is not a coup, and it won't necessarily be violent (though it probably will at some point).

I'd be inclined to agree, however; this is a minority opinion, in these parts.

Your first sentence makes me think that, should [thinking the utopian here, bear with me] a genuinely left-liberal Democratic President get elected and be able to get universal healthcare, free education and welfare stuff like that, you'd go on about Socialism and him/her being revolutionary or whatever.

It would take a bit more than that, but no, absolutely not. However; as a Socialist, I would consider that a positive development because it would empower the working class, and improve the conditions of the working class.

Dude, get this seriously: REFORMS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SOCIALISM.

Being a Socialist means you care about the working class, that you want to empower, the working class, or, at the very least, alleviate the suffering of the working class, to the greatest extent of your ability. So, for a practical example; you don't have to be a Socialist to support universal healthcare, or gay rights, but you can't, honestly, call yourself a Socialist and be against them, or indifferent to them.

Socialism is incompatible with the existence of Capitalism.

If you mean they can't exist simultaneously, then; yes, obviously.

You advocate reforms, ergo you are both a reformist and a Capitalist. That's not slander, it's factual. Mostly, people who called themselves Socialists but advocate reforms are called Social Democrats.

No, that's totally bogus. 'Reformism' doesn't mean you support reforms, every Socialist should support universal healthcare, gay rights, etc. It means believing Socialism can be acheived exclusively through parliamentary means. I don't believe that. In fact; Marx was closer to this position than I am. He was fairly certain that in some countries, such as England, or the United States, the working class could emancipate itself without resorting to violence. I'm more skeptical. I'm really an agnostic, on the question. For that matter, Marx supported reforms, like the Ten Hours law, and he also supported 'bourgeois' politicians, (critically, conditionally) like Lincoln. Furthermore; this contradicts your earlier statement expressing support for reforms, or, at least, some reforms.

Brosa Luxemburg

10th August 2012, 18:00

The Democrats don't support the racist torture of Muslims at Guantanamo Bay? Nay, DO IT THEMSELVES!

Closing Gitmo was one of Obama's campaign promises, but, as of yet, this
facility remains open, and is likely to stay that way for the forseeable future. The reaction among congressional Democrats has been mixed.

Okay, so this thread is already 4 pages in and there is not point in me getting too involved, but I wanted to jump on this, because that is complete bullshit. Only a small number of democrats have said anything about this, the rest have either been completely silent on the matter or have shown their support for not shutting down the facility. There hasn't been a "mixed" reaction, the overwhelming majority have been silent on the issue completely.

NGNM85

10th August 2012, 18:17

It's not even a simplistic outlook I am spewing. It's a materialist worldview in which I see forces of production creating social antagonisms. A lot of the problems associated with single issues liberals triumph are created by the class structure and are socio-economic in nature and scope.

A lot of what passes for racism is actually class bound. Usually when people speak or joke about this or that race, it has more to do with class rather than a cultural norm. In the States especially, race substitutes for class 99% of the time.

The same can be said for sexism, homophobia, etc. under these existing conditions. I know you're going to retort that these isms and phobias have always existed and predate capitalism, but again how they exist as of now.

The insistence on liberal pandering to single issue voters is due in large part because of the breakup of major socialist forces in this country.

If you're going to use the quote function, please clearly indicate whom it is you are quoting.

We're not talking philosophy, here. You're obfuscating the issue. I'm talking about solving some of these problems, and, if that's what you want to do, there are very clear, straightforward ways we could go about doing that.

NGN, you are such condescending fool. We understand these liberal policies VERY WELL. Do you not read any Marxist publications?

As a rule, no. However; I do follow the World Socialist Website.

I have no idea about you, personally, because you haven't said anything about it. However; many in the Radical Left do not. Tragically; most American Radicals know more about the Soviet Union than whats' going on in their own government.

Read Monthly Review and shut your big trap. It reads like a Marxist Time Magazine replete with the issues you so love to triumph, while they support the issues listed, they still analytically critique the premises.

You should be thrilled to know that Chomsky is one of their biggest contributors.

Fabulous. This has nothing to do with anything.

You don't even bother to analyze the material you spout. Because if you did you would you wouldn't be so damn gung ho about liberal policies.

You're full of crap. First of all; it's almost impossible to actually have a conversation with you because you never specifically say anything, you just make these vague accusations, which you never elaborate.

This is also total bullshit. Again; there's nothing fundamentally 'Liberal' about gay rights, or universal healthcare. Just because Liberals support them does not make them fundamentally 'Liberal.' As a Socialist; I care about the working class. I want to empower the working class.

I don't even think Chomsky is as gung ho about them as you are. He sees them as good, but flawed pieces of liberal legislation which temporarily affiliate worker grievances.

There is no; 'them', you're conflating things that have no intrinsic relationship.

The world doesn't need another condescending "left winger"
telling socialists they're not leftier than thou because they do not fully support American policies coming from politicians.

That hopefully died with Hitchens.

That's low, even for you.

Just as there's nothing fundamentally 'Liberal' about universal healthcare, or gay rights, there is nothing fundamentally 'American' about them, either.

The radical left discuss these issues ALL the time. What the hell are you talking about?

Not very often, and mostly in a very superficial way, at least, from the discussions that take place around here.

You would know if your face wasn't planted in some liberal rag like The Nation or the Economist.

I have read these publications, but I don't usually read them, not that that has anything to do with anything.

Good God, you are unbelievably naive and such a snob.

Nothing I've been saying is; 'naive.' I'm being extremely practical.

We don't offer a liberal complaint. We offer radical critiques.

This is nonsense. It's the same crap you pull all of the time. You never specifically suggest anything, you never honestly criticize anything, you just roll out the in-group pejoratives. We could, theoretically, have an honest, productive, intellectual discussion, that's not to say there would be any kind of meeting of the minds, I sincerely doubt it, but, clearly, you're not interested in that.

NGNM85

10th August 2012, 18:28

I agree comrade :thumbup1:
Social democratic countries are light-years ahead of the United States. I'm not defending social democracy and it isn't socialism, but it's still better than the neoliberal austerity-loving "free market" capitalism that the U.S. has. That should be obvious.

It should be, but it isn't.

Why do you think that reformism does not sap revolutionary potential? I cannot follow your train of thought with that - I see reform as being very anti-revolutionary, as a compromise actualized by the bourgeois to encourage proletarian complacency.

I'm not saying that it never has that effect, at all, although I think it's overstated. The biggest problem with this, again; is that if we follow it to it's inevitable conclusions we not only shouldn't fight for reforms, and concessions, but we should actually oppose them, in fact we should hope for the absolute worst brutalization of the working class. Obviously; this should set off alarm klaxons in the head of any Socialist that they've taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque. We should always be fighting for the empowerment of the working class, for the betterment of the working class. As I was saying earlier; I think this tranquilizing effect is overstated. In the process of fighting for change the working class becomes, more organized, and aware. It also has the effect of reducing the publics' tolerance for exploitation, and oppression, and can whet their appetite for more concessions, more freedom. Also; as counterintuitive as it may seem, experience has shown that (comparatively speaking) prosparity can also lead to social unrest.

The Idler

10th August 2012, 20:00

Check out the Impossibilists of the SPGB, they love using the parliament to institute socialism.
If you checked the SPGB out, you're realise they don't propose using the parliament to institute socialism. Given that the SPGB propose abolition of the market, they're a bit more revolutionary than democratic socialists.
The pamphlet What's Wrong with Using Parliament (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliament) explains

The example given is quite irrelevant to the claim that “socialism cannot come through parliament” (or rather that parliament cannot be used in the course of establishing socialism). Allende was not a socialist, did not command a majority in congress (parliament) or enjoy majority popular support. Nor was he overthrown immediately on assuming office in 1970 but three years later (by which time he had failed to reform capitalism in the worker's interests).

RadioRaheem84

10th August 2012, 22:57

NGN, you keep saying I'm vague and what not but I keep telling you to read Monthly Review or even Democracy for the Few by Michael Parenti for an analysis if the specific policies and single issues from a Marxist perspective.

The point is you offer no systemic analysis much less a real viable solution. What us the point if you even being a radical leftist? Just be a liberal.

You're just trying to have the best of both worlds. You're upset cus leftists aren't "taken seriously" or told they're relevant.

The issues in the way they're framed in American political discourse is most assuredly different than the way a Marxist would frame it.

We understand the govt very well and how it works. That's why we are Marxists.

RadioRaheem84

11th August 2012, 02:37

Raheem - are you now starting to understand the dangers of Democratic Socialism/Social Democracy?

Unfortunately, I don't think the two are particularly divorced from one another, or rather, they don't offer a revolutionary break from Capitalism. I associate the more radical rhetoric of the Bolivarians more with their need to appear strong in the face of US imperialism than anything else.

I see the dangers of dem soc slipping into soc dem and even further into just plain liberalism.

I still want to fashion a theory of revolutionary politics through the parliamentary politics. I am studying Allende in Chile and the Bolivarian Revolution. There has to be a solution to it's un-sustainability.

JPSartre12

11th August 2012, 14:19

of communism ya mean? :p

i don't agree with this stuff, but as certain thinkers associated with what is described as post-operaism (post-workerism, after all the awesome stuff that happened in italy in the mid 20th c.) have suggested that neoliberalism and post-fordism represents the "communism of capital[ism]" (a term, i belive, actually taken from marx). actually, i think even zizek has picked up on this theme.

so for example...

http://libcom.org/book/export/html/14548

in the 70s there was a widespread rejection of the tenets of social-democracy, particularly in italy. in this sense, capitalism had to adapt to the pressures of the working class, hence the points suggested above: "abolition of work, dissolution of the state, etc." which, some argue, is reflected in neoliberal ideology.

idk if i'm explaining this well, i'm pretty drunk tbh.

Yes, I meant communism :tt2: Thanks, comrade

JPSartre12

11th August 2012, 14:31

I see the dangers of dem soc slipping into soc dem and even further into just plain liberalism.

Exactly, comrade. Which is why those of us who do identify as dem socs have to continuously contrast our views with soc dems so that we prevent ourselves from slipping into a merely reformist approach. As you hinted at in the beginning of this thread ...

About the complacency, wouldn't a massive campaign detailing the need to keep pushing forward toward socialism be enough? Always debate in detail the need for it and keep exposing more and more the capitalist fraud. I am sure the more people know and understand about capitalism, it's historical development, it's brutality, the more people will accept the reforms going further into total systemic change.

.... we have to adhere to a firm, uncompromising vision of socialism and complete abolition of capitalism and get let ourselves get complacent at all. What kind of socialists would we be if we saw reforms as an end in themselves? Oh, right, we'd be soc dems then :p

I still want to fashion a theory of revolutionary politics through the parliamentary politics. I am studying Allende in Chile and the Bolivarian Revolution. There has to be a solution to it's un-sustainability.

Oh, dem soc isn't limited to strictly parliamentary politics :lol: It generally prefers a non-violent and often reformist approach to socialism, but it's not anti-revolution or anything. Us dem socs acknowledge that bringing about real socialism is probably going to require a revolution and we're fans of that too :thumbup:

NGNM85

11th August 2012, 19:16

NGN, you keep saying I'm vague and what not but I keep telling you to read Monthly Review or even Democracy for the Few by Michael Parenti for an analysis if the specific policies and single issues from a Marxist perspective.

What specific policies? What specific issues? Why can't you clearly, concisely summarize the essential points?

The point is you offer no systemic analysis much less a real viable solution.

First of all; we have to establish a framework for the conversation; what is being discussed, here? What are we hoping to accomplish?

I'd like to talk to the OP, the guy who said;

I am becoming more and more a believer in the Allende/Chavez way of popular organizing and working through the channels of the system to change it from within. It seems that it's worked better in the latter stages of capitalism as it (capitalism) has grown into a fierce protective machine.

...Obama was elected into office on the mantle that he was some "progressive" alternative. Well what if someone was that and more? Couldn't that be a catalyst for change too?

I'd like to have that conversation. I'd be happy to have a serious conversation with that guy. I have a number of ideas on the subject.

What us the point if you even being a radical leftist? Just be a liberal.

The primary virtue of being a Radical is that the Radical Left, or, rather, some elements, thereof, offer the most accurate asessment of how the world functions, and offer the most compelling solutions for solving humanity's greatest problems. I know a lot of people hate this, but to paraphrase Chomsky; any truly objective study of human civilization will, ultimately, lead to Radical conclusions. Simply put; the (Radical) Left is right.

You're just trying to have the best of both worlds. You're upset cus leftists aren't "taken seriously" or told they're relevant.

No, I'm upset that many Radicals seem determined to remain irrelevent, most importantly, to the working class. I mean, that's what matters most. Not the professional pundits, the talking heads. The Radical Left can only be relevent to the working class by addressing the immediate concerns of working class people.

The issues in the way they're framed in American political discourse is most assuredly different than the way a Marxist would frame it.

That would be a very reasonable expectation.

We understand the govt very well and how it works. That's why we are Marxists.

You don't constiute a; 'we.' I think many of the people on this website have a strong grasp of theory, they seem to spend a large amount of time analyzing increasingly obscure philosophical, and economic tracts, but, again, from the looks of things, most American Radicals know much more about the Soviet Union than they do about their own government. That's really unfortunate.

NGNM85

11th August 2012, 19:52

To JPSartre12; to elaborate on my earlier remarks regarding reforms, and the welfare state, etc., I highly recommend checking out Michael Harrington's Twilight of Capitalism, specifically, Chapter 12; Some Dialectical Complications, which explores this matter in much greater detail.

JPSartre12

11th August 2012, 22:52

JPSartre12

13th August 2012, 18:24

Rather than start a new thread regarding dem soc, I'll just add this here -

I was having a conversation with a libertarian co-worker (an in a legitimate classical liberal, not an I-have-a-fetish-with-the-word-liberty sort of conservative) about socialism, and he made the point that even though we call the Nordic European countries (Sweden, Norway, etc) "social democratic" and not "socialist", we rightly should be calling them "socialist" instead because that's the best that self-described dem socs have brought about.

I know that us dem socs want to establish a socialist mode of production, but the idea that we're portrayed as being the same as soc dems bugs me :blink: Do you think that it's warranted? I don't.

NGNM85

14th August 2012, 00:04

JPSartre12

14th August 2012, 00:35

NGNM85

14th August 2012, 01:25

Like you said, getting rid of Citizens United should be one of our highest priorities. The best way to go about doing that would be to get a progressive in the White House, a majority of Congress, and a majority in state legislatures. As much as I'm skeptical of using the democratic process or how likely it is to happen, I think that that's a good start.

That's a good idea. Especially, the part about Congress, and state legislatures. The greatest value in Presidential elections is simply keeping Reactionaries off of the Supreme Court. That's how we got here, in the first place.

However; it bears mentioning this is increasingly difficult in a post-Citizens' world. Also; what we need to understand is overturning a Supreme Court decision is a lot harder than overriding a law. As I've said; Harvard Law professpor Lawrence Lessig has explored this in detail, and according to him the best way to overturn Citizens' is by holding a Constitutional Convention. It hasn't been done before, but it's on the books. According to Article V; this would require 38 states to pass resolutions calling for a Convention. There are reasons to take this proposal seriously. The Supreme Courts' decision was wildly unpopular, I think the disapproval rating was upwards of 75%. Also; this idea has some currency on the Right, as well as the Left.

I'd say take both a pro-reform and a pro-revolution stance.

I don't think it even makes sense to counterpose the two. Any sensible Socialist, today, would support enacting reforms, and extracting concessions to further empower the working class. That's very much a part of the Revolution. How are you going to build a broad, working-class movement without addressing the immediate concerns of the working class? It can't be done.

The Democrats just added marriage equality to their national platform (and, if we can manage to swing the Dems to Left a by purging it of all "conservative Democrats", the Blue Dogs, etc

The Blue Dogs lost a lot of seats. (Specifically, I would argue because of their conservative positions.) They are like a third of the size of the Progressive Caucus, now.

Gay marriage is going to end in the Supreme Court. That's a given. It's just a question of getting there. First, we want to keep the Reactionaries off the Supreme Court, and, if possible, tip the balance back to the Left. There's some hope, there. Scalia is 76, and Thomas is 64, and niether of them look like tofu-and-yoga kinda guys. However; it's not like Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a spring chicken, either. So; it's definitely something worth keeping in mind. Back to the matter at hand, this is an issue that will have to be pursued at a state level. Six states have already passed gay marriage, a couple more are pretty close. I mean; I'm not too optimistic about Texas, but, in any case, anyone who lives in any of those 54 states should be pushing for marriage equality. It's like cannabis legalization; after a certain amount of states legalize it, the federal government will, inevitably bend to the tide of history.

and get a majority of it to be boldly progressive), and we could push them to add bigger, bolder policies added to. Single-payer healthcare,

There have been some proposals on how to expand on the Affordable Care Act to UHC, or something closer to it. I could dig up some more details.

nationalization or democratization of banks and too-big-to-fail corporations, establishing a living wage, nuclear disarmament,

Excellent ideas, but most of these are a ways off. As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, I'm a proponant of signing the FISSBAN treaty, or something like it, to which the United States was the sole opposition. It happens to be wildly popular with the American public.

amend the Constitution to include the Equal Rights Amendment, etc etc etc.

That's nice, but it's actually not necessary.

At that point I think that we would be a progressive enough society for us to make our presence known on the national stage without fear - very much unlike today. A self-described socialist nowadays would get destroyed by the political machine; give it a generation or two after a solid progressive movement, and the whole political climate will be different. Once we're out and about, we can influence the public conversation, contribute, be heard, state socialist views, preach anti-capitalist theory, get our ideas spread better, and so on.

With a publicly financed campaign system we could run Radical candidates, and win seats. Furthermore; I expect this would have a self-reinforcing feedback effect.

But that would only get us a social democratic system at best, so it would have to be coupled by labor union activism, support for union strikes and expropriations, pointing out capitalism's flaws during economic downturns, creating an anti-capitalist and revolutionary mindset, etc ... We can't expect to use the system to destroy the system; that makes no sense. There has to be dynamic, revolutionary activity outside of the system at the same time.

Absolutely.

In short; my idea is that we should do what we should have done the moment Occupy poppued up, and that is to coalesce around a short list of key issues. This goals should be popular, allowing the greatest amount of unity between the largest possible number of people, they should be of immediate importance to the working class, they should be few in number, either one, or maybe four, or five, so they can be clearly articulated, and understood. The biggest of which should be overturning Citizens'. This platform should be adapted to the differing circumstances in each particular state, and pursued within the framework of the unique political environment in each state.

blake 3:17

14th August 2012, 02:18

The Democrats just added marriage equality to their national platform (and, if we can manage to swing the Dems to Left a by purging it of all "conservative Democrats", the Blue Dogs, etc and get a majority of it to be boldly progressive), and we could push them to add bigger, bolder policies added to. Single-payer healthcare, nationalization or democratization of banks and too-big-to-fail corporations, establishing a living wage, nuclear disarmament, amend the Constitution to include the Equal Rights Amendment, etc etc etc.

At that point I think that we would be a progressive enough society for us to make our presence known on the national stage without fear - very much unlike today. A self-described socialist nowadays would get destroyed by the political machine; give it a generation or two after a solid progressive movement, and the whole political climate will be different. Once we're out and about, we can influence the public conversation, contribute, be heard, state socialist views, preach anti-capitalist theory, get our ideas spread better, and so on.

I really don't think that holding your breath will work very well.

feather canyons

14th August 2012, 03:27

There is too much capitalism in Democratic Socialism. People still have far to much freedom to behave in a commercial way.

JPSartre12

14th August 2012, 16:11

There is too much capitalism in Democratic Socialism. People still have far to much freedom to behave in a commercial way.

Oh, I wouldn't say that there's any capitalism "in" democratic socialism. Dem soc is just as anti-capitalist as anything else on the Left, we just prefer to use the democratic system to bring about as much of the change as we possibly can. That being said, I think that (all too often!) many dem socs lose sight of the fact that the reforms that we're trying to enact aren't an end in themselves, but rather a means to a establish a revolutionary and socialist society ... too many dem socs stop fighting for the enactment of a fully socialist mode of production and instead begin to focus on just winning reforms instead, and they slip into that proletarian complacency and end up as social democrats.

Also, what do you mean by behaving in a commercial way? Do you mean retaining a market?

The_Red_Spark

14th August 2012, 17:56

Zukunftsmusik

14th August 2012, 19:30

I would actually like to go back to the OP's original question. Seeing as we live in Western Constitutional Republics, or Constitutional Monarchies; how best should we use the institutional mechanisms, built into our respective political systems, to advance the interests of the working class?

Can we actually use said institutions to advance the interests of the working class? Most reforms are fought for through a fight that goes way beyond the limits of parliamentary democracy, and historically other means are used, at least in addition to the representative organs (strikes etc). And often even then, the fights are often defensive.

Another important point is that what the working class fight against, is not only a political structure, but economic laws. Rosa Luxemburg points this out in Reform or Revolution. How can you ban an economic law? The fight for the overthrow of the capitalistic system can't be won through parliamentary democracy. One could use it for defensive means, or as a part of the struggle, but you can't overcome the law of value with enough votes in parliament.

JPSartre12

14th August 2012, 20:41

Another important point is that what the working class fight against, is not only a political structure, but economic laws. Rosa Luxemburg points this out in Reform or Revolution. How can you ban an economic law? The fight for the overthrow of the capitalistic system can't be won through parliamentary democracy. One could use it for defensive means, or as a part of the struggle, but you can't overcome the law of value with enough votes in parliament.

Agreed. There's only so much that we can do while working inside the parliamentary system - the majority of it and the real change is going to be done by revolutionary forces outside parliament.

What's the most that you think that we can do inside the parliamentary system? What's the best you think that we can do through it?

RadioRaheem84

15th August 2012, 02:44

Agreed. There's only so much that we can do while working inside the parliamentary system - the majority of it and the real change is going to be done by revolutionary forces outside parliament.

What's the most that you think that we can do inside the parliamentary system? What's the best you think that we can do through it?

Does this mean winning through parliamentary means but taking the reforms to revolutionary ends and waiting for the counter insurgency?

What I mean by this is lets say a socialist gets elected, he passes his reforms but wants to push further into socialism. This will assuredly lead to revolt from the capitalists.

Is the defense of the revolution the part that you guys are concerned about, because I am trying to figure out as to what it is about about dem soc that is not viable?

JPSartre12

15th August 2012, 03:57

Yeah I feel the same way, too bad they're the only damn "Socialists" that meet in my city. There are real socialists, they don't meet but they're here. I'll give up on trying to find a damn Communist organization in this state :crying: but hey the damn DSA is thriving here.
That's my personal beef with them, I know it's quite silly. :rolleyes:
but seriously ideologically how I see it is many of them are glorified Social Democrats.

Aww I love the DSA :lol: It's a wonderful little book and debate club. First place that I learned about parecon ... Not much for an activist or engaged group though, mostly just armchair academics :glare:

I get what you're saying about dem socs being associated with soc dems. All too often, I think that dem socs loose sight of our truly socialist goal and begin to see reformism as an end in itself. A lot of people (and even some self-described dem socs and soc dems!) don't understand the difference between "democratic socialism" and "social democracy" ... The moderate wing of the DSA is like that :blushing:

feather canyons

15th August 2012, 12:06

Oh, I wouldn't say that there's any capitalism "in" democratic socialism. Dem soc is just as anti-capitalist as anything else on the Left, we just prefer to use the democratic system to bring about as much of the change as we possibly can. That being said, I think that (all too often!) many dem socs lose sight of the fact that the reforms that we're trying to enact aren't an end in themselves, but rather a means to a establish a revolutionary and socialist society ... too many dem socs stop fighting for the enactment of a fully socialist mode of production and instead begin to focus on just winning reforms instead, and they slip into that proletarian complacency and end up as social democrats.

Also, what do you mean by behaving in a commercial way? Do you mean retaining a market?

Yes, but there is still going to be capitalism and wage-slavery while we are edging towards communism democratically. It is morally unacceptable to deviate from plans for a revolution while injustice exists.

NGNM85

15th August 2012, 17:33

Can we actually use said institutions to advance the interests of the working class?

Of course. There are numerous examples; Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage, etc., etc.

Most reforms are fought for through a fight that goes way beyond the limits of parliamentary democracy, and historically other means are used, at least in addition to the representative organs (strikes etc). And often even then, the fights are often defensive.

Of course. No-ones' suggesting that trade unionism, protests, etc., aren't vital components of working class struggle. What I'm saying is that we should be using every weapon in the arsenal, including the institutional mechanisms built into our respective political systems.

Another important point is that what the working class fight against, is not only a political structure, but economic laws. Rosa Luxemburg points this out in Reform or Revolution. How can you ban an economic law? The fight for the overthrow of the capitalistic system can't be won through parliamentary democracy. One could use it for defensive means, or as a part of the struggle, but you can't overcome the law of value with enough votes in parliament.

I've never asserted that Socialism can be achieved exclusively through parliamentary means, or, even through non-violent means. (Although; that would certainly be ideal.) However, again; these institutional mechanisms can be used to advance the interests of the working class, and this must play an important role in the revolutionary process, at least, in the West.

JPSartre12

15th August 2012, 17:56

Of course. There are numerous examples; Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage, etc., etc.

Right, and I wholeheartedly support all of those. However, we don't want to make reformism our goal, it's the means through which we get to our goal (socialism). Do you think that there's a way to make sure that none of our dem soc allies fall into that social democratic complacency phase?

Of course. No-ones' suggesting that trade unionism, protests, etc., aren't vital components of working class struggle. What I'm saying is that we should be using every weapon in the arsenal, including the institutional mechanisms built into our respective political systems.

Absolutely! I think that us working inside the system is an invaluable tool, because if we can tweak the laws a little so that they don't favor the bourgeois class and if we can scale back police and military activity, I think that we'll find our revolution to be a tad easier.

I've never asserted that Socialism can be achieved exclusively through parliamentary means, or, even through non-violent means. (Although; that would certainly be ideal.) However, again; these institutional mechanisms can be used to advance the interests of the working class, and this must play an important role in the revolutionary process, at least, in the West.

Will parliamentary reformism bring about socialism? Nahhh, I don't think that any of us are implying that. What we're saying (and I agree with you! ^) is that we can make some progress by worming out way into the institution and working form inside. If nothing else, we can at least use the soapbox of politics to preach our ideas and try to bring about a revolutionary political climate.

NGNM85

15th August 2012, 18:09

Right, and I wholeheartedly support all of those. However, we don't want to make reformism our goal, it's the means through which we get to our goal (socialism).

If you're going to use the quote function, please attribute quotes, so it's clear whom you are responding to.

Well, reformists are still Socialists, they are simply Socialists who believe that Socialism can be achieved through the parliamentary process. Again; although I'm fairly skeptical, I'm pretty much an agnostic on the question. It's simply impossible to say, with any certainty.

Do you think that there's a way to make sure that none of our dem soc allies fall into that social democratic complacency phase?

I don't think it's possible to gauruntee this won't happen, there's no silver bullet. All we can do is try to stay true to our guiding principles and not lose sight of our goals.

Absolutely! I think that us working inside the system is an invaluable tool, because if we can tweak the laws a little so that they don't favor the bourgeois class and if we can scale back police and military activity, I think that we'll find our revolution to be a tad easier.

Again; without doing so I don't even think it will be possible. First, because there's no possibility of building a mass movement without addressing the needs of the working class, and, second; because the masses will only be open to demolishing, or replacing the existing institutions once they have organized themselves as a class, and have been frustrated by the limitations of those institutions.

Will parliamentary reformism bring about socialism? Nahhh, I don't think that any of us are implying that.

So far, no-one has suggested it. Again; I'm skeptical.

What we're saying (and I agree with you! ^) is that we can make some progress by worming out way into the institution and working form inside.

Absoloutely. Not only should we be doing that, but we must. To not do so would be negligent, and hypocritical.

If nothing else, we can at least use the soapbox of politics to preach our ideas and try to bring about a revolutionary political climate.

Among other things; yes, certainly.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

17th August 2012, 08:16

Like you said, getting rid of Citizens United should be one of our highest priorities. The best way to go about doing that would be to get a progressive in the White House, a majority of Congress, and a majority in state legislatures. As much as I'm skeptical of using the democratic process or how likely it is to happen, I think that that's a good start. I'd say take both a pro-reform and a pro-revolution stance.

The Democrats just added marriage equality to their national platform (and, if we can manage to swing the Dems to Left a by purging it of all "conservative Democrats", the Blue Dogs, etc and get a majority of it to be boldly progressive), and we could push them to add bigger, bolder policies added to. Single-payer healthcare, nationalization or democratization of banks and too-big-to-fail corporations, establishing a living wage, nuclear disarmament, amend the Constitution to include the Equal Rights Amendment, etc etc etc.

At that point I think that we would be a progressive enough society for us to make our presence known on the national stage without fear - very much unlike today. A self-described socialist nowadays would get destroyed by the political machine; give it a generation or two after a solid progressive movement, and the whole political climate will be different. Once we're out and about, we can influence the public conversation, contribute, be heard, state socialist views, preach anti-capitalist theory, get our ideas spread better, and so on.

But that would only get us a social democratic system at best, so it would have to be coupled by labor union activism, support for union strikes and expropriations, pointing out capitalism's flaws during economic downturns, creating an anti-capitalist and revolutionary mindset, etc ... We can't expect to use the system to destroy the system; that makes no sense. There has to be dynamic, revolutionary activity outside of the system at the same time.

1. You can't get a 'genuine' progressive in the white house. The money would never flow there in a presidential election, the 'l' word would come out. Even Dukakis could't get elected because of his liberal attitudes, and he was hardly 'progressive.'

2. Taking a pro-reform and pro-revolution approach is a non-sequitor. Whilst both can exist - economic struggles and political struggles - you cannot aim for both. As a person/organisation/movement, your main aim is either reform or revolution. Saying your aims are both reform and revolution are, in the end, just paying lip service to revolution, because you will eventually bend your will towards reform, expend your energy on petty reforms and lose the revolutionary rhetoric to give yourself that bourgeois 'respectability' that will allow you to grab some crumbs from the Democrat table.

3. Why would you be able to 'swing to the left' a party that, barely half a century ago, still hung black people for being black? It has a strong neo-conservative element and you're not just gonna purge that with good will and some woolly reformist policies. It hasn't happened yet for a reason - not just because people haven't been trying. It hasn't happened because the Democrats have not the capacity to even be a European-style Social Democratic Party. They are at least as right-wing as the Conservative Party in the UK; saying we can turn the Democrats to the left is just as ridiculous - if not more - than saying a viable strategy for revolution in the UK would be to swing the Conservative Party to the left. Your 'swing to the left' strategy has ZERO chance of success. Stop living in a bubble.

4. There can be no progressive 'movement' under Capitalism. You seem to totally mis-understand the state of play under Capitalism. Capitalism is the hegemony of capital. Capital rules and it uses the political sphere to legitimise its rule. When it needs reform, it reforms. When it can squeeze workers, it squeezes fuckin' hard. There will be no socially accepted progressive movement within the confines of Capitalism. There's not one historical example of this happening ever, without it being brutally crushed. Stop overlooking history. This is what Democratic Socialism does - it doesn't have a Marxian conception of economic, social and political history and thus fails to understand WHY its policies are totally doomed to failure from the very start.

5. Besides, why would a progressive movement propagandise against Capitalism? By the very nature of it being a progressive movement, it needs Capitalism to survive. No Capitalism = no progressives. Society, as well as being made up of classes, is also made up of a load of interest groups, the ideologues being chiefly amongst them. If a progressive movement actually got any success, it would not allow revolutionary elements to threaten its programme. Look at Europe - the Social Democrats, the progressives! - of the 20th Century were virulently anti-communist, because communism was a threat to the hegemony of Social Democracy. Again, another example of your ideology, Democratic Socialism, not doing its historical homework.

6. How do you go about putting effort into intra-system reforms, and extra-system revolutionary 'mindset'? It's an impossibility. Revolutionary 'mindset' would mean you would get nowhere with your petty reforms due to not having bourgeois credibility, and bourgeois credibility would give you something of a reputation as a turncoat amongst the class conscious proletariat.

Seriously, i'm amazed that after asking so many questions and getting good answers from Marxist comrades, and after we've recommended so many good texts, that you're still pushing this reformist line. Are you for the working class or for some Social Democratic petty ideologues?

JPSartre12

18th August 2012, 14:55

1. You can't get a 'genuine' progressive in the white house. The money would never flow there in a presidential election, the 'l' word would come out. Even Dukakis could't get elected because of his liberal attitudes, and he was hardly 'progressive.

Yeah, I agree, it would be difficult, if not downright impossible :crying:

2. Taking a pro-reform and pro-revolution approach is a non-sequitor. Whilst both can exist - economic struggles and political struggles - you cannot aim for both. As a person/organisation/movement, your main aim is either reform or revolution. Saying your aims are both reform and revolution are, in the end, just paying lip service to revolution, because you will eventually bend your will towards reform, expend your energy on petty reforms and lose the revolutionary rhetoric to give yourself that bourgeois 'respectability' that will allow you to grab some crumbs from the Democrat table.

I'm not so sure, comrade. I'd like to think that you can have both reform and revolution ... and when I say "reform", I suppose I'm referring more to the audacious steps being taken in Venezuela than the oh-so-conservative compromises of Obama. I get that there's going to need to be a revolution to fully establish a socialist mode of production, I do - I'm just thinking that if we start being vocal about some serious, fundamental reforms/changes to the system that we'll be able to open peoples' eyes about how the system isn't geared in their economic interests and that things need to change. I'd like to think that it's a way of sparking class consciousness so that we could have a revolution, but I'm not sure that would work :unsure:

3. Why would you be able to 'swing to the left' a party that, barely half a century ago, still hung black people for being black? It has a strong neo-conservative element and you're not just gonna purge that with good will and some woolly reformist policies. It hasn't happened yet for a reason - not just because people haven't been trying. It hasn't happened because the Democrats have not the capacity to even be a European-style Social Democratic Party. They are at least as right-wing as the Conservative Party in the UK; saying we can turn the Democrats to the left is just as ridiculous - if not more - than saying a viable strategy for revolution in the UK would be to swing the Conservative Party to the left. Your 'swing to the left' strategy has ZERO chance of success. Stop living in a bubble.

You make a very valid point, comrade! A friend of mine is from Oxford and he was doing a study abroad program in the U.S. to work with Obama during the election, and he was astounded at how conservative the Dems were. I'd like to think that we could hijack the national infrastructure of the Democratic Party and use that to establish some sort of proletarian vanguard, but you're right - the odds of that happening pretty much have a zero chance of success.

4. There can be no progressive 'movement' under Capitalism. You seem to totally mis-understand the state of play under Capitalism. Capitalism is the hegemony of capital. Capital rules and it uses the political sphere to legitimise its rule. When it needs reform, it reforms. When it can squeeze workers, it squeezes fuckin' hard. There will be no socially accepted progressive movement within the confines of Capitalism. There's not one historical example of this happening ever, without it being brutally crushed. Stop overlooking history. This is what Democratic Socialism does - it doesn't have a Marxian conception of economic, social and political history and thus fails to understand WHY its policies are totally doomed to failure from the very start.

Again, I'll concede that you're right :lol: What I bolded pretty much describes why I've been starting to give up more on reformism ... I guess I'm a hopeless idealist, though. Do you think that we should give up on all reformism and only pursue a revolutionary path? I feel like we should fight for reformism in the short run because it can improve the lives of workers a bit, but we should also pursue a revolution because it can improve the lives of workers a lot.

6. How do you go about putting effort into intra-system reforms, and extra-system revolutionary 'mindset'? It's an impossibility. Revolutionary 'mindset' would mean you would get nowhere with your petty reforms due to not having bourgeois credibility, and bourgeois credibility would give you something of a reputation as a turncoat amongst the class conscious proletariat.

But wouldn't the discussion of reforms at least make people think about economic alternatives? Wouldn't talk about socializing this, expropriating that, having strikes here, and lock-outs there, etc etc at least get people thinking? I think it would, but then again, I'm not so sure. And to the second part - as much as I hate to admit it, you're probably right :blushing: Being on the side of the bourgeois establishment makes one anti-proletariat, and being on the side of the proletariat makes one anti-bourgeois.

Seriously, i'm amazed that after asking so many questions and getting good answers from Marxist comrades, and after we've recommended so many good texts, that you're still pushing this reformist line. Are you for the working class or for some Social Democratic petty ideologues?

Well, I'm still learning :) Honestly, what you have all been saying in response to my threads and comments, and recommending that I read, and debating me through PMs and all that, well, they've really been making a difference, I think. Give me some more time, and I'll help you storm the barricades soon enough :tt2: I used to be completely pro-reform and anti-revolution, but now I'm probably more pro-revolution than I am pro-reform. My views are evolving over time. Just finished Luxemburg's The Mass Strike and Reform or Revolution?, and I thought they were great, and they've really gotten me thinking. I guess when I talk about gradualism it's my pacifist streak coming through! Brosa recommended a nice article (added a quote from it to my sig) that's making me think about violent revolution in a whole new way!

Marxaveli

18th August 2012, 18:01

I think that a breakthrough into the mainstream political arena by a Socialist of any kind is extremely unlikely in places like the USA where the defensive capability, as it pertains to state apparatus, politics, and the mobilization of a large opposition, and the propaganda instruments of the bourgeoisie are honed so well. In places like Latin America, Sweden, or any of the other areas mentioned; they aren't as advanced and well developed and lack a huge sophisticated police state to sap the strength of such an attempt. This has permitted a unique opportunity in those places and nations that is truly absent in the US.

I think it is important to point out that the 2008 election of Obama was due in large part to reaction and the fear of all things conservative and especially the Republican GOP. This capitalized on a desire for change but showed a well maintained belief in the current two party system that is in actuality unjustifiable. As Tom Morrello said a few months ago in a RT interview,"... the blinders are off now" and now the pendulum has swung back to center leaving a less defined political climate than in 2008. This is the reason for a rise in third party groups an ideas and is due to dissatisfaction with a false political dichotomy in mainstream politics. The pendulum can swing either way from here.

I think the problem in much of the advanced world is not one of ideology or tendency so much as it is organization and effective strategy and tactics. The situation is very much like it was in 1905 when What is to Be Done? was written. We are fractured, factionalized and splintered, polarized and paralyzed, and many of the existing organizations are heavily infiltrated and sapped of strength, resources, and direction to neutralize our effect. It is something that we must address soon and move beyond or we will be mere marginalized spectators for some time to come.

^^This. America has such a history of reactionary idealism that even Social Democrats are "too radical" for Americans, and half the population considers Obama a Marxist, and they think these things are all the same! The false consciousness and lack of knowledge of philosophy, political science, and economics in America is genuinely scary - most Americans throw words like Communism and Socialism around without knowing what these words actually mean. The propaganda and misinformation machine is in full swing. We are the only advanced nation pretty much that has never had any kind of a true Socialist party, at least one that has had any sort of political power. Sometimes I wonder if Socialism, be it through the ballot box or through revolution, will be ever possible in the USA. Much as I hate to say it, I think it will take a much larger crisis than the one in 2008 for Americans to realize that Capitalism just doesn't work, and even then, we are the type of nation where reactionary charismatic figures are very appealing in such circumstances. I view the current political and social climate of the USA to be like Germany was in the early 1930's, just before the Nazi's came to power.

NGNM85

20th August 2012, 17:32

In this chapter, I will follow Marx's lead and focus on the complexities, contradictions, and ambiguities of the welfare state. In the process, it will be necessary to criticize some of the Leftists who have concentrated too exclusively on the undeniable proposition that social reform within capitalism eventually tends to help capitalism. ...it is a mistake and it has serious consequences for the Marxist method and for political strategy. On the theoretical plane, by making the welfare state into a mere tool of the corporations, these theorists turn it into a conscious, almost conspiritorial phenomenon.

...if one regards the entire welfare state as purely and simply facade, then it's most militant defenders, the organized workers, are a part of the capitalist apparatus. Therefore, all commitment to reform is illusory, or worse, a process by which the Left unwittingly shores up the status quo.

There is a thesis that sees the welfare state as a means of pacifying-of buying off-revolutionary discontent. There is...truth in this; only it is one-sided.

...The history of the welfare state, then, is most dialectical. In considerable measure, writers like Piven and Cloward are right: it represents the reluctant concessions of the ruling class, the increments of reform that function to make basic change unnecessary. But it is also the product of conscience and conscousness, that of Socialist workers and middle-class Liberals, of militant blacks and students, and of the aging. As such, it has been the instrument of the oppressed as well as the oppressors, a means of partial liberation as well as pacification.

...Another aspect of this tactical issue has to do with hw manipulative one thinks the welfare state is. If it is seen as merely, or primarily, a tool in the hands of the ruling class, then the struggles between Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals, don't matter very much. ...But if one has the point of view of this chapter, seeing the welfare state as an arena of struggle that is nominally, and systematically biased in favor of the powers that be, but in which gains can be made by the Left, another stance is indicated. In this perspective, the victories of the unions in the thirties-the political as well as the industrial victories-made a significant, and positive, change in the conditions of life...

The welfare state, then, is a dialectical and complicated phenomenon. It is predominantly and unconsciously (ideologically) structured so as to help the corporations more than the people. But this is accomplished in a complex way in which the government takes on a life of it's own and is not simply an 'instrument' of capital. As a result, it is a batlle ground in which the popular forces, if they are massively and effectively mobilized, can make incremental gains of considerable value. But then the long-range tendency reasserts itself, and the victories of the organized workers and/or of the poor, the minorities, and the middle-class advocates of social change are taken over and turned to ruling-class purposes. However, the possibility of assembling the political forces that might make irreversible structural changes and eventually transform the system itself occurs precisely in the course of the 'reformist' battles for modest increments of dignity.

-Michael Harrington's Twilight of Capitalism, CH. 10; 'Some Dialectical Complications'

l'EnfermÃ©

20th August 2012, 18:49

As if anyone is going to take seriously the words of a man that wanted to work within the Democratic Party when he talks about Marx, NGNM.

RadioRaheem84

21st August 2012, 03:21

Why are you all of a sudden quoting Marxists, NGN? You had nothing but disdain for Marxism and the dialectal method, dialectal materialism.

I don't think you're getting when Marxists analyze how gains for the working class are good but that we still won't selectively struggle for liberal polices that are too wonkish to have any real benefit for the working class today.

For instance, at this stage even incremental gains in some form wouldn't even be helpful. The narrative of political discourse has been so distorted in this country by the right wing that policies are shaped within that narrative; even liberal left ones. Progressives and liberals in this country buy into a lot of the narrative sold to them by the press that certain things are unworkable, so they instead short change the working class with not only watered down policies but compromised ones that might even make things worse. Obama's health care plan is one prime example.

Radical gains back in the thirties were radical for the reason that there were certain factors that made them the hallmark of change for our standard of living; The USSR, a major labor force mobilized against capital, strong socialist and populist support and capitalism being utterly disgraced by the Depression.

That doesn't exist now. If anything liberals can be more harmful to leftists with their insistence of throwing us under the bus when they get red baited. They'll shift their policies more to the right any time a right winger accuses them of behaving Marxist or that their proposals are left wing. And then they'll have the nerve to call their watered down crap, liberal, left, progressive!

And you want us to stand behind that and say it's an incremental gain? Yet with your idealist drivel you keep insisting that it's better than nothing? That these watered down practically useless polices are "universal" policies because they include some lofty idealist language.

Your shtick is so stale it's not even funny anymore.

MarxSchmarx

21st August 2012, 05:09

1. You can't get a 'genuine' progressive in the white house. The money would never flow there in a presidential election, the 'l' word would come out. Even Dukakis could't get elected because of his liberal attitudes, and he was hardly 'progressive.'

2. Taking a pro-reform and pro-revolution approach is a non-sequitor. Whilst both can exist - economic struggles and political struggles - you cannot aim for both. As a person/organisation/movement, your main aim is either reform or revolution. Saying your aims are both reform and revolution are, in the end, just paying lip service to revolution, because you will eventually bend your will towards reform, expend your energy on petty reforms and lose the revolutionary rhetoric to give yourself that bourgeois 'respectability' that will allow you to grab some crumbs from the Democrat table.

3. Why would you be able to 'swing to the left' a party that, barely half a century ago, still hung black people for being black? It has a strong neo-conservative element and you're not just gonna purge that with good will and some woolly reformist policies. It hasn't happened yet for a reason - not just because people haven't been trying. It hasn't happened because the Democrats have not the capacity to even be a European-style Social Democratic Party. They are at least as right-wing as the Conservative Party in the UK; saying we can turn the Democrats to the left is just as ridiculous - if not more - than saying a viable strategy for revolution in the UK would be to swing the Conservative Party to the left. Your 'swing to the left' strategy has ZERO chance of success. Stop living in a bubble.

4. There can be no progressive 'movement' under Capitalism. You seem to totally mis-understand the state of play under Capitalism. Capitalism is the hegemony of capital. Capital rules and it uses the political sphere to legitimise its rule. When it needs reform, it reforms. When it can squeeze workers, it squeezes fuckin' hard. There will be no socially accepted progressive movement within the confines of Capitalism. There's not one historical example of this happening ever, without it being brutally crushed. Stop overlooking history. This is what Democratic Socialism does - it doesn't have a Marxian conception of economic, social and political history and thus fails to understand WHY its policies are totally doomed to failure from the very start.

5. Besides, why would a progressive movement propagandise against Capitalism? By the very nature of it being a progressive movement, it needs Capitalism to survive. No Capitalism = no progressives. Society, as well as being made up of classes, is also made up of a load of interest groups, the ideologues being chiefly amongst them. If a progressive movement actually got any success, it would not allow revolutionary elements to threaten its programme. Look at Europe - the Social Democrats, the progressives! - of the 20th Century were virulently anti-communist, because communism was a threat to the hegemony of Social Democracy. Again, another example of your ideology, Democratic Socialism, not doing its historical homework.

6. How do you go about putting effort into intra-system reforms, and extra-system revolutionary 'mindset'? It's an impossibility. Revolutionary 'mindset' would mean you would get nowhere with your petty reforms due to not having bourgeois credibility, and bourgeois credibility would give you something of a reputation as a turncoat amongst the class conscious proletariat.

Seriously, i'm amazed that after asking so many questions and getting good answers from Marxist comrades, and after we've recommended so many good texts, that you're still pushing this reformist line. Are you for the working class or for some Social Democratic petty ideologues?

I think you neglect the enormous impact Chavez has had on Venezuelan society and quite possibly Latin America in your analysis. It could be argued that had a few soldiers looked the other way, his program could have failed spectacularly in the early 2000s with the coup. Moreover, Chavez has yet to remove Venezuela's incredible dependence on capitalism, although even here he has taken steps to mitigate the reliance on the capitalist heartland in the west.

But there have been meaningful, substantive changes that are going to be hard to reverse like the Bolivarian councils and the legacy of his welfare programs. These represent some of the more constructive advances the left has seen anywhere in several generations.

I am critical of what is commonly understood as democratic socialism for several reasons, and am no Chavista - in fact, I don't "critically support" his regime. For one thing I find this Bolivarian nationalism nauseating. Not to mention that we should be very suspicious, if not openly hostile to, someone with such strong ties to the military. However, I think the developments in South America have been compelling enough that they provide pause. Chavez has used the state (with varying success) to build a grassroots, non-governmental road to socialism that recognizes the limitations of the capitalist state in a way, say, the occupy movement could only dream of. That a movement like his can learn and apply the lessons of the traditional indictments of parliamentary socialisms, many of which you echo, has led me to keep a bit more of an open mind about it's proponents. We are yet to see its fruits, and I have serious doubts they will work in the developed world, particularly where a majority are for now more or less materially comfortable. but at the same time, it's gotten much further than the left anywhere has in a very very long time.

NGNM85

21st August 2012, 20:38

As if anyone is going to take seriously the words of a man that wanted to work within the Democratic Party when he talks about Marx, NGNM.

It's surprising, and a little disappointing, to hear you, say that, of all people. First of all; this is a particularly egregious logical fallacy. Regardless of what one thinks of Michael Harrington, that doesn't, in any way, automatically invalidate every argument that he makes. Second; the statement I quoted was both entirely correct, and, more to the point, entirely consistent with Marx. As Harrington points out later on, Marx had a similarly 'dialectical' understanding of the Ten Hours Law, (Displaying far more nuance than most of the participants in this conversation.) he acknowledged that, in some ways, it made capitalism more rational, and efficient, but it also improved the standard of living of the workers, and promoted solidarity among them, which is the reason why he supported it. There's no difference.

NGNM85

21st August 2012, 21:23

Why are you all of a sudden quoting Marxists, NGN? You had nothing but disdain for Marxism and the dialectal method, dialectal materialism.

The primary reason is that, while I think the possibility for any kind of productive exchange of ideas is exceedingly low, that it might be effective to try to speak your language, to put things in terms you like to use, and to demonstrate a continuity with Marx, and Marxist literature. I'm not optimistic, but I thought it might be worth a shot.

Not exactly. I mean, I think Dialectical Materialism, the attempt to turn Marxism into some kind of meta-science, applying it to physics and biology, etc., is nonsense. My feelings about Marxism are mixed. I mean; there's such a range of opinion one can only speak in the most general way. Obviously; I'm not particularly enamored of Maoism, Leninism, etc. However; as time has gone on, I've realized that the bulk of my disagreements are with those who claim to be his heirs, than the man, himself. Some strains of Marxism are almost indistinguishable from Anarchism, just not the ones that are popular, around here.

I don't think you're getting when Marxists analyze how gains for the working class are good but that we still won't selectively struggle for liberal polices that are too wonkish to have any real benefit for the working class today.

This is just another example of your manichean worldview. The political establishment is bad. Liberals are bad. Therefore; everything related to one, or the other is bad, so, not only do you reflexively, instinctively oppose it, there's really no point in even understanding it.

No, everything I've suggested would have real, measurable, immediate gains for the working class, etc. Universal Healthcare, or something like it, would be an enormous win for the working class. We should absolutely be behind that. We should also support civil rights issues; like gay marriage, or opposing assaults on civil rights like the law passed in Tennessee requiring ultrasounds for anyone who wants an abortion. We should be supporting drug law reforms, not in the least because the majority of people being incarcerated under these ridiculous, draconian laws are poor blacks, and latinos. Etc., etc. All of these things are totally doable, practical, and would have immediate, measurable gains.

First, and foremost; I submit that the most crucial political issue in the United States, today, is overturning Citizens'. It was a disaster for the working class. There's a number of pieces on it in your precious Monthly Review, since that's the only source you seem willing to accept, like this one;

http://monthlyreview.org/2012/04/01/the-bull-market

However; what I couldn't find was any practical ideas about what to do about it. If Citizens' is a problem; what would be the solution?

For instance, at this stage even incremental gains in some form wouldn't even be helpful.

'Gains', by definition, are always helpful, otherwise, they'd be called; 'losses.'

The narrative of political discourse has been so distorted in this country by the right wing that policies are shaped within that narrative; even liberal left ones. Progressives and liberals in this country buy into a lot of the narrative sold to them by the press that certain things are unworkable, so they instead short change the working class with not only watered down policies but compromised ones that might even make things worse.

It's not as simple as that, but; yes, the political spectrum has shifted to the Right over the past few decades. However; it's really irrelevent, because you don't seem to bother differentiating.

Obama's health care plan is one prime example.

That's completely wrong. I'm not in love with the Affordable Care Act, by any means, however; it was absolutely an improvement. For example; it ended termination of coverage, or denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, it ended lifetime coverage limits, and annual coverage limits, it provides free preventative care like colonoscopies, and mammograms, it ends gender discrimination in terms of what insurance companies charge, it allows people to keep their kids covered up to age 26, which, just to illustrate, by itself, insured more than 3 million previously uninsured Americans. Etc., etc. Those are al good things, if you care about the working class.

Furthermore; there are compelling strategies by which this program could be substantially expanded, to move closer to something like what they have in Europe, the norm in the industrialized world.

Last, but not least; Where were the Radicals during this battle over healthcare? The Radical Left was totally asleep.

Radical gains back in the thirties were radical for the reason that there were certain factors that made them the hallmark of change for our standard of living; The USSR, a major labor force mobilized against capital, strong socialist and populist support and capitalism being utterly disgraced by the Depression.

That doesn't exist now. If anything liberals can be more harmful to leftists with their insistence of throwing us under the bus when they get red baited. They'll shift their policies more to the right any time a right winger accuses them of behaving Marxist or that their proposals are left wing. And then they'll have the nerve to call their watered down crap, liberal, left, progressive!

Not to beat a dead horse; but Liberals are Leftists, literally speaking.

That's a bit simplistic, but; granted, the political spectrum has shifted to the Right over the past few decades.

Like I was saying, earlier; it's misleading to refer to either of the political parties, the Democratic party, especially, as a collective entity.

And you want us to stand behind that and say it's an incremental gain?

The Affordable Healthcare Act? Absolutely, if for no other reason than it's the only interpretation that is consistent with the facts.

Yet with your idealist drivel you keep insisting that it's better than nothing? That these watered down practically useless polices are "universal" policies because they include some lofty idealist language.

Your shtick is so stale it's not even funny anymore.

Nothing I'm saying is 'idealist.' I'm being extremely practical, and pragmatic. I mean; I don't think you know what I'm suggesting, and I don't think you really care. Look, the only thing you seem willing to concede is that the way things are right now sucks. That seems to be the only thing in the entire universe that you can allow yourself to agree with me on. Granted. So; what can we do about it? What can we do, in real, practical terms, not vagueries, not philosophy, not a mess of jargon, what real, practical things can we do, today, specifically, to empower the working class? What can we do for gay rights? Etc., etc. That's the conversation I would love to have. However; I don't see it happening.

RadioRaheem84

22nd August 2012, 02:56

JPSartre12

22nd August 2012, 03:03

And having reformed welfare over no welfare is also a serious material gain for the working class? Yes, and no. The point is always that there is difference between understanding our real choices and championing them. Voting without illusions. But you actually want us to campaign and be wonkish about these liberal policies.

I think that this relates back to the whole "accepting liberal and progressive reforms will not create socialism, but rather perpetuate capitalism with a complacent proletariat that's been leeched of some of its revolutionary zeal" idea that we mentioned at the beginning.

Heck, I'm a democratic socialist and even I'll admit that purely electoral actions aren't going to get us anywhere. If we want socialism, we need a revolution. It's that simple.

And no liberals not are leftists

Right .... but I would say that they have the potential to be Leftists, if we educate them enough. Of all the non-Left political groups out there, I think that they're one that we could probably snag a few from.

NGNM85

22nd August 2012, 20:07

And having reformed welfare over no welfare is also a serious material gain for the working class? Yes, and no.

So; you're basically not acknowledging nine-tenths of what I said. I'd say I was disappointed, but that implies I actually expected something. Moving on...

For single moms with kids to feed; it absolutely is. Again; reforms, and concessions can have the effect of temporarily quelling dissent, they can make capitalism more stable, and they are inevitably geared toward the benefit of private enterprise. However; they also improve the conditions of the working class, empower the working class, and foster solidarity among the working class. That should be any Radicals' understanding, that was how Marx understood it, and that's why he supported things like the Ten Hours Law, displaying a degree of comprehension of nuance, as well as a bit of basic common sense that is, unfortunately, almost totally nonexistant, in this community.

The point is always that there is difference between understanding our real choices and championing them. Voting without illusions. But you actually want us to campaign and be wonkish about these liberal policies.

If you actually do understand the choices, and I'm extremely skeptical, then you make the choice, again, without illusions. Virtually no-one, here, does that, more than that; they're adamantly opposed to it.

No; you still don't get it. Let's say we could actually get to the point where we could agree that there are some issues that we should be fighting for; gay marriage, protecting reproductive rights, drug law reform, overturning Citizens' United, Universal Healthcare, whatever, it really doesn't matter. Presuming, by some fucking miracle, we could actually have that conversation; how would we actually go about doing it? I mean, you can march in the streets, and make noise, and, inevitably, that's going to be a part of any strategy, but if you actually want to change anything, if you ever want to accomplish the stated goals, then you have to understand things like; how our legal system works, how laws get made, etc. You're probably familiar with the colloquialism; 'Work smarter, not harder.' I mean any government is probably going to have to bend, somewhat under the appropriate pressure, but if you actually understand what you're doing, you can be a lot more effective. That's why actually understanding this; 'bourgeois legal crap', as somebody recently put it, matters.

And no liberals not are leftists. Are you still peddling that junk?

Only in the literal sense;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

You keep talking about these rights in idealist and general terms.

No, that's completely disingenuous. There's nothing idealist about it. I'm also being extremely specific. In terms of gay rights; I'm talking about gay marriage. In terms of protecting reproductive rights; I'm talking about these draconian, and transparent attempts by Republicans in Congress, and at the state level, to make abortion less accessible, or to intimidate, or harass people seeking to have abortions, like the law recently passed, in Tennessee, requiring unnecessary, and invasive ultrasounds. I can't possibly be more specific than that.

You literally are nothing more than a purveyor of liberal presuppositions.

I only suppose that we're both speaking english.

NGNM85

22nd August 2012, 20:35

I think that this relates back to the whole "accepting liberal and progressive reforms will not create socialism, but rather perpetuate capitalism with a complacent proletariat that's been leeched of some of its revolutionary zeal" idea that we mentioned at the beginning.

As mentioned this is the product of a crude, and shallow worldview. Marx knew better.

Heck, I'm a democratic socialist and even I'll admit that purely electoral actions aren't going to get us anywhere. If we want socialism, we need a revolution. It's that simple.

Again; any process that fundamentally alters the social structure, is, by definition; 'revolutionary.'

Also; I've never said that Socialism could be acheived exclusively through the parliamentary process. (There's no way an intellectually honest person could definitively make such a statement.) I'm, frankly, pretty skeptical about the idea, and I've said so, by my count, at least 11, now, make that 12 times, in the course of this conversation, alone. What's really interesting is that Marx was actually closer to this position than I am. He said, very confidently, than in the United States, Britain, and a number of other countries; the working class could emancipate itself without resorting to violence. (Also; by this, and other associated statements, it is equally clear that this hypothetical process included, but was not limited to, participation in the parliamentary system.) I would never make a prediction like that, although; again, mostly because it's impossible to know, with any certainty. I fully acknowledge that there's a strong possibility revolutionary violence may well become necessary.

Right .... but I would say that they have the potential to be Leftists, if we educate them enough. Of all the non-Left political groups out there, I think that they're one that we could probably snag a few from.

Again;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

There's no reason why we can't cooperate with more moderate Leftists, 'y'know; Liberals, Progressives, etc., to acheive shared objectives. There's plenty of precedent; the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, etc. There's simply no reason not to utilize every availible resource. Also; yes, it goes without saying that said collaboration offers an opportunity to promote Radical ideas, and should be expected to have the effect of Radicalizing some of the previously more moderate elements, as an added bonus.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

23rd August 2012, 23:03

There's no reason why we can't cooperate with more moderate Leftists, 'y'know; Liberals, Progressives, etc., to acheive shared objectives. There's plenty of precedent; the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, etc.

How did that go for you? Abolished war and racism yet?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

23rd August 2012, 23:31

I think you neglect the enormous impact Chavez has had on Venezuelan society and quite possibly Latin America in your analysis. It could be argued that had a few soldiers looked the other way, his program could have failed spectacularly in the early 2000s with the coup. Moreover, Chavez has yet to remove Venezuela's incredible dependence on capitalism, although even here he has taken steps to mitigate the reliance on the capitalist heartland in the west.

But there have been meaningful, substantive changes that are going to be hard to reverse like the Bolivarian councils and the legacy of his welfare programs. These represent some of the more constructive advances the left has seen anywhere in several generations.

I am critical of what is commonly understood as democratic socialism for several reasons, and am no Chavista - in fact, I don't "critically support" his regime. For one thing I find this Bolivarian nationalism nauseating. Not to mention that we should be very suspicious, if not openly hostile to, someone with such strong ties to the military. However, I think the developments in South America have been compelling enough that they provide pause. Chavez has used the state (with varying success) to build a grassroots, non-governmental road to socialism that recognizes the limitations of the capitalist state in a way, say, the occupy movement could only dream of. That a movement like his can learn and apply the lessons of the traditional indictments of parliamentary socialisms, many of which you echo, has led me to keep a bit more of an open mind about it's proponents. We are yet to see its fruits, and I have serious doubts they will work in the developed world, particularly where a majority are for now more or less materially comfortable. but at the same time, it's gotten much further than the left anywhere has in a very very long time.

I don't disagree with any of this. Spot on.

Veovis

23rd August 2012, 23:39

How did that go for you? Abolished war and racism yet?

No, but at least the Vietnam war was ended because of pressure at home and although racism still exists, it at least can't be codified into law anymore like it was decades ago.

It goes without saying that liberal reforms aren't the cure-all, but they have the potential to improve the situation of working people, not to mention the process of struggle that familiarizes them to radical politics.

RadioRaheem84

24th August 2012, 02:41

No, but at least the Vietnam war was ended because of pressure at home and although racism still exists, it at least can't be codified into law anymore like it was decades ago.

It goes without saying that liberal reforms aren't the cure-all, but they have the potential to improve the situation of working people, not to mention the process of struggle that familiarizes them to radical politics.

But I tend to take a look at the historical development of those reforms too. There was a strong radical movement that pushed for those reforms and it trickled up and kicked liberals in the face until they did something about it.

Liberal heroes like JFK and RFK hated the civil rights movement.

Liberals jump on the bandwagon whenever there is a popular sentiment against a certain thing and then proceed to tame the flames with lofty policies. There is nothing to champion.

Whenever there is an issue that arises in this country the authorities try to stamp it out, if not they coalesce with the movement changing it from the inside. By the end the issue is devoid of class and ends up being an issue surrounding idealist entry into the mainstream.

The civil rights movement had a second component to it and that was economic justice. Instead this was forgotten in favor of entrance into the mainstream. This happens with a lot of minority groups that strive for equality. It's happening with the LBGT community too. A market niche created around a cultural stereotype seems to be the way certain people define a "movement". I cannot tell you how many times my LBGT friends say that there are certain business folk that care more about promoting a market niche than gay civil rights. For them, they conflate the two as through the market you win acceptance into the mainstream apparently.

I think it was Chomsky who said this very same thing; that first the markets have to be in favor of such a change then the liberal politicians will jump on the bandwagon. When real change happens in this country or a minority group pushes for equality, business has to be line or liberal politicians won't budge.

I am off on a tangent and Chomsky explained it better. But what I am trying to say is that at this historical point we are at liberal policies are not what's needed or even to be championed. They are helpful to the working class but hardly a solution.

A radical movement is needed to spurn real change because the only real changes that we've seen in the last century that empowered the working class came not from liberals but from radicals and the people twisting the arm of liberal politicians to win concessions from the teeth of big business.

There is no radical movement now, so to champion liberal policies is to give into their presuppositions, their framework on how things should work, on how things get done and what not.

I know NGN thinks we're immature radicals who just don't understand government but he should forgive us for not understanding just how the system of "corporate communism" works. :rolleyes::lol:

JPSartre12

24th August 2012, 02:56

You make some great points, comrade! Thanks for that :)

Liberals jump on the bandwagon whenever there is a popular sentiment against a certain thing and then proceed to tame the flames with lofty policies. There is nothing to champion.

Yes - one thing that I've noticed about American liberals is that it's a sort of vaguely reactionary. If the Republicans say or do one thing, the Democrats jump up and down shouting that they're the exact opposite. It seems that each party gains definition simply by bashing and counter-posing the antics of the other.

Your brief explanation of Chomsky's view on this isn't something that I've heard before, but it makes sense to me. There are plenty of businesses, corporations, etc that capitalize on public sentiment about these sorts of things so as to make profit - corporations are giving "equality-friendly" ratings and the such by the Human Rights Campaign, and the LGBT community and its pro-LGBT rights allies get a better view of that company, are more willing to buy its products, and so on. I think its stunning how much businesses are politicizing themselves so as to appeal to particular consumers.

I am off on a tangent and Chomsky explained it better. But what I am trying to say is that at this historical point we are at liberal policies are not what's needed or even to be championed. They are helpful to the working class but hardly a solution.

I agree, but if we can get a little something done in the immediate here-and-now (such as national recognition of same-sex marriage, if we want to stay on that train of thought), I'm not opposed to it. Oh, sure, we can have that discussion about how marriage is a bourgeois institution, has inherently sexist and anti-women traits, is all about property relations and financial deals and so on and I mostly agree with that ... but I don't think that we should be such ideological purists that we need to take up the "I'll never work with liberals because they're liberals" approach every time. If they can bring about a little change here and there, I think that helps.

RadioRaheem84

24th August 2012, 15:21

I am talking about making liberals work for us, not working with them. A radical movement needs to tear concessions out of power like they did in the thirties and on, not accept every liberal premise and champion their policies.

NGN is just a wannabe wonk that gives too much legitimacy to the power structure and accepts it's presuppositions. He sounds no different to me than the liberals I've dealt with before that insist that this is the way things are and you have to adapt in order to effect real change. I'm not blind that I don't see liberals doing great work to help their communities but at the same time I see how much of a drop in the water it is in the long run.

JPSartre12

24th August 2012, 16:29

Vladimir Innit Lenin

24th August 2012, 21:39

Yes - one thing that I've noticed about American liberals is that it's a sort of vaguely reactionary. If the Republicans say or do one thing, the Democrats jump up and down shouting that they're the exact opposite. It seems that each party gains definition simply by bashing and counter-posing the antics of the other.

That's not what reactionary means. Reactionary is wanting to reverse the tide of progression and hark back to an earlier age. So you could say that Liberals are reactionary insofar as (the American ones) eulogise the founding fathers, the constitution etc. But they are not reactionary for merely opposing the Republicans because they are Republicans - that is sectarianism, not reaction in the sense we are talking here.

I agree, but if we can get a little something done in the immediate here-and-now (such as national recognition of same-sex marriage, if we want to stay on that train of thought), I'm not opposed to it. Oh, sure, we can have that discussion about how marriage is a bourgeois institution, has inherently sexist and anti-women traits, is all about property relations and financial deals and so on and I mostly agree with that ... but I don't think that we should be such ideological purists that we need to take up the "I'll never work with liberals because they're liberals" approach every time. If they can bring about a little change here and there, I think that helps.

Sorry but this screams to me, "oh sure, revolution is a great idea but really we have to focus on the here-and-now and do our bit."

As a reaction to the emboldened: Socialists don't work with liberals not because of the name-tag 'liberal', but because history has shown that liberals are raving anti-communists and will stab us in the back the moment they get a bit of institutional power. Raheem uses the example of liberal heroes such as JFK, RFK etc. Virulent anti-communists. There's no point working with them because their goal is not the same as ours. You sometimes have to work with your enemy, if that enemy's enemy is your enemy. I would work with Leninists against Capitalism, because our shared goal is the overthrow of Capitalism, even if Leninists and non-Leninists otherwise despise each other. But Liberals and Socialists have no common ground. You need to understand this: liberals are not just 'soft capitalists' they are pro-Capitalists. They institute reforms because they want to save Capitalism, enhance Capitalism and make it stronger. The very businesses that adopt certain causes as a market niche are a great example of left-liberalism. Liberals co-opt, and for that reason you should not be advocating working with them and their pro-Capitalist agenda.

NGNM85

25th August 2012, 19:38

How did that go for you? Abolished war and racism yet?

I can't blame you for not wanting to participate in this farce. However; on behalf of everyone, I would ask you to not make spurious posts, such as this, please.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

25th August 2012, 20:30

I can't blame you for not wanting to participate in this farce. However; on behalf of everyone, I would ask you to not make spurious posts, such as this, please.

No, not spurious - curious. I'm genuinely curious: has your liberal movement for change abolished war and racism in the US yet?

If not, keep on striving - 'yes we can' and all that! :thumbdown:

NGNM85

25th August 2012, 20:40

I am talking about making liberals work for us, not working with them.

That's much closer to what I was actually saying.

A radical movement needs to tear concessions out of power like they did in the thirties and on,

Of course. Nobody said otherwise.

not accept every liberal premise and champion their policies.

You're talking out of your ass. I didn't; 'accept' any; 'Liberal premises.' Nor did I; 'champion' any; 'Liberal policies.'

The reason I got into this absolute farce of a conversation was as a result of comments made by you, such as;

I am becoming more and more a believer in the Allende/Chavez way of popular organizing and working through the channels of the system to change it from within.

and;

Why was it naive? Through the basis of bougie democracy, I can see but using it as a starting point to gain ground and transform it from within?

and;

... was merely saying that if he could garner so many votes based on "change", how much more could a real Eugene V. Debb's like socialist?

I think those are interesting ideas, and that they could, theoretically, be the starting point for a productive, and vital exchange of ideas. Of course; there's absolutely no chance of that, whatsoever, but that's not my fault. The only way to do this, today, to run far-Left, or Radical candidates, and actually win seats, to effect political change, to empower the working class, to improve the living conditions of the working class, etc., (All laudable goals, and I totally concur.) presuming you really want those things; then you have to overturn Citizens' United. Before then, an undertaking such as this would have been extremely difficult, now; it's essentially impossible. Not that there aren't other reasons to overturn it, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but if this was a strategy you actually wanted to really pursue, that would be a prerequisite. There's simply no other way to do it. So; presuming we understand all of this, we understand the background of Citizens' United vs. The Federal Election Commission, we understand that this was an absolute disaster for the working class, (It's going to get a lot worse.) and, of course, that we understand how the United States government functions, the separation of powers, how laws get made, etc.; What do we do about it? Or, perhaps, more accurately; what can we do about it? That's a good question. Overturning Supreme Court decisions is quite a bit more complicated than getting rid of an especially heinous politician, or overturning some heinous piece of legislation. There are, really, only a few avenues by which this might be accomplished, there are only about four, to be exact, and I would argue only one of those is really feasible.

This is not a 'Liberal policy' in that it is not a policy, but; rather a; 'goal', or a; 'strategy', and there's nothing fundamentally; 'Liberal' about it. I also argued in favor of equal rights for LGBT Americans, specifically, gay marriage. That is a policy, and a damn good idea, but it not a; 'Liberal' policy. I happen to take the civil rights of the LGTB community (And, just in a general sense.) pretty seriously. I also argued in favor of blocking blatant attacks on reproductive rights, and overturning draconian laws passed to limit access to abortion, or intimidate people out of getting them; such as, specifically, the law passed, fairly recently, in Tennessee, which requires anyone seeking an abortion to have an invasive, and medically unnecessary ultrasound, which, in case you aren't aware, requires putting a probe inside the patients' vagina, again, whether they like it, or not. Yes; I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'm opposed to that, and that any Radicals, in Tennesee, should be working hard to strike it down. There's nothing; 'Liberal' about that, you don't have to be a; 'Liberal' to object to Reactionary religious idiots forcing women to undergo invasive, and unnecessary medical procedures to intimidate them out of having abortions. (Or, for any other reason, really.) Yes; I oppose that. Lastly; I recommended drug law reform, specifically the decriminalization, and/or legalization of Cannabis, not in the least, because, overwhelmingly, the people who are going to jail for this victimless 'crime' are brown, or black, and poor. There's nothing; 'Liberal' about that. Yes; I believe Cannabis should be legal, as it would be, in any rational society. There's no reason, whatsoever, why any Radical would be opposed to legalizing Cannabis. So; it's completely disingenuous to say that I'm quote; 'championing liberal policies.'

NGN is just a wannabe wonk that gives too much legitimacy to the power structure and accepts it's presuppositions. He sounds no different to me than the liberals I've dealt with before that insist that this is the way things are and you have to adapt in order to effect real change. I'm not blind that I don't see liberals doing great work to help their communities but at the same time I see how much of a drop in the water it is in the long run.

I could give three shits who you think I sound like. I'm not responsible, and cannot be held accountable for what I did not say. All that is relevent, to this conversation, is what I did say.

By being; 'wonkish', you mean; 'actually understanding how the government works.'

I have never asserted, or even implied, that the state is legitimate. However; we must acknowledge that it exists.

Again; I would love to have a serious conversation, along the lines of your original post; but you continually, adamantly refuse to do that.

Also; don't talk about me in the third person, in a thread I'm participating in, as if I'm not going to read it. If you have something to say to me; then say it. There's no reason for that.

Finally; I would still like, at the very least, hear from you a couple of concrete, specific suggestions for some productive things we could be doing, right here, right now, for the working class, either in terms of economic issues, or civil rights issues like LGBT issues, or defending reproductive rights, etc. I really want to hear that.

NGNM85

25th August 2012, 21:06

No, not spurious - curious. I'm genuinely curious: has your liberal movement for change abolished war and racism in the US yet?

If not, keep on striving - 'yes we can' and all that! :thumbdown:

This is another spurious post. As in; 'not genuine.' I mean, you can't possibly be that ignorant. Well, I shouldn't say you can't, but I don't think that you are. First of all; while Liberals did participate in them, and continue to do so, at varying times, to varying degrees, there's nothing fundamentally; 'Liberal' about the civil rights movement. (In this case, of course, referring, specifically in terms of the struggle for civil rights for African-Americans, although; the same holds true, in general.) The civil rights movement is bigger than that. Similarly; there's nothing fundamentally; 'Liberal' about the anti-war movement, or, I should say, movements, in the United States, from the Great War, to the, relatively, recent occupations of Iraq, and Afghanistan. Of course; you know that.

Ending racism, at least, on an individual level, y'know, racist ideation, completely is extremely difficult, and may take centuries. It's very possible that even in a, what you might call, 'fully developed' Socialist society, something like Albert and Shaloms' Participatory Society, which is just, basically, a fleshed-out version of Marx's thumbnail sketch of the; 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat', that racism would still persist, on some, albiet extremely minimal, level. It's also next to impossible to definitively verify, with any certainty. That said; whether we're talking about the institutionalized form, or simply racist ideation, obviously; enormous strides have been made.

This brings us to the final point; what, I would argue, is actually the most egregious part, that what you are saying is that the anti-war movements, and the civil rights movement, all the individuals who fought for them, and, in some cases, died for them, that all that those people did, tfrom Martin Luther King, to Malcolm X, to Emma Goldman, to Abbie Hoffman, to A. Phillip Randolph, etc., etc., etc., everything they did, politically, at least, was a complete waste of time. They accomplished absolutely nothing. To honestly make such a sugestion basically necessitates near total ignorance of American history, in the 20th century.

Whatever else I think of you, at the very least, I don't think you're that ignorant. You're simply being flippant, and combative, which is totally unnecessary, and counterproductive. Again; you're under no obligation to participate, but, if you want to do so; at least be serious, please.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

25th August 2012, 22:05

This is another spurious post. As in; 'not genuine.' I mean, you can't possibly be that ignorant. Well, I shouldn't say you can't, but I don't think that you are. First of all; while Liberals did participate in them, and continue to do so, at varying times, to varying degrees, there's nothing fundamentally; 'Liberal' about the civil rights movement. (In this case, of course, referring, specifically in terms of the struggle for civil rights for African-Americans, although; the same holds true, in general.) The civil rights movement is bigger than that. Similarly; there's nothing fundamentally; 'Liberal' about the anti-war movement, or, I should say, movements, in the United States, from the Great War, to the, relatively, recent occupations of Iraq, and Afghanistan. Of course; you know that.

Ending racism, at least, on an individual level, y'know, racist ideation, completely is extremely difficult, and may take centuries. It's very possible that even in a, what you might call, 'fully developed' Socialist society, something like Albert and Shaloms' Participatory Society, which is just, basically, a fleshed-out version of Marx's thumbnail sketch of the; 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat', that racism would still persist, on some, albiet extremely minimal, level. It's also next to impossible to definitively verify, with any certainty. That said; whether we're talking about the institutionalized form, or simply racist ideation, obviously; enormous strides have been made.

This brings us to the final point; what, I would argue, is actually the most egregious part, that what you are saying is that the anti-war movements, and the civil rights movement, all the individuals who fought for them, and, in some cases, died for them, that all that those people did, tfrom Martin Luther King, to Malcolm X, to Emma Goldman, to Abbie Hoffman, to A. Phillip Randolph, etc., etc., etc., everything they did, politically, at least, was a complete waste of time. They accomplished absolutely nothing. To honestly make such a sugestion basically necessitates near total ignorance of American history, in the 20th century.

Whatever else I think of you, at the very least, I don't think you're that ignorant. You're simply being flippant, and combative, which is totally unnecessary, and counterproductive. Again; you're under no obligation to participate, but, if you want to do so; at least be serious, please.

Yes, i'm clearly calling Emma Goldman a waste of time. That's exactly what i'm doing.

Sadly, it's impossible to co-operate with a liberal such as yourself, who wishes merely to co-opt and define his way out of ever talking about Socialism. Indeed, this conversation shows exactly why revolutionary Socialists like myself and 'left'-liberals like yourself can never co-operate; you don't want to overthrow Capitalism.

l'EnfermÃ©

25th August 2012, 22:20

Yes, i'm clearly calling Emma Goldman a waste of time. That's exactly what i'm doing.

First time I've agreed with you.

Veovis

26th August 2012, 07:36

But I tend to take a look at the historical development of those reforms too. There was a strong radical movement that pushed for those reforms and it trickled up and kicked liberals in the face until they did something about it.

That's very true, it's just that there are people on the left that accuse those radicals of being liberals for fighting for reforms alongside liberals.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

26th August 2012, 07:55

First time I've agreed with you.

Her work on marriage as an institution is of the highest quality, whatever you may think of her politics. FYI, I was being highly sarcastic in that previous post, I thought that was obvious. Goldman is an inspiration.

JPSartre12

26th August 2012, 16:12

That's not what reactionary means. Reactionary is wanting to reverse the tide of progression and hark back to an earlier age. So you could say that Liberals are reactionary insofar as (the American ones) eulogise the founding fathers, the constitution etc. But they are not reactionary for merely opposing the Republicans because they are Republicans - that is sectarianism, not reaction in the sense we are talking here.

Oh, I don't mean "reactionary" the the traditional way that it's meant. I'm probably using the wrong choice of words to describe what I'm thinking of - I mean "reacting" to the conservative platform, crying foul, and doing the opposite. So yeah "reactionary" isn't probably the best word to use.

As a reaction to the emboldened: Socialists don't work with liberals not because of the name-tag 'liberal', but because history has shown that liberals are raving anti-communists and will stab us in the back the moment they get a bit of institutional power. Raheem uses the example of liberal heroes such as JFK, RFK etc. Virulent anti-communists. There's no point working with them because their goal is not the same as ours. You sometimes have to work with your enemy, if that enemy's enemy is your enemy. I would work with Leninists against Capitalism, because our shared goal is the overthrow of Capitalism, even if Leninists and non-Leninists otherwise despise each other. But Liberals and Socialists have no common ground. You need to understand this: liberals are not just 'soft capitalists' they are pro-Capitalists. They institute reforms because they want to save Capitalism, enhance Capitalism and make it stronger. The very businesses that adopt certain causes as a market niche are a great example of left-liberalism. Liberals co-opt, and for that reason you should not be advocating working with them and their pro-Capitalist agenda.

Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks for that, comrade. That's making me think.
I was under the impression that we could work side-by-side with liberals in the immediate short term, but that's an awfully compelling argument.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

26th August 2012, 19:46

Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks for that, comrade. That's making me think.
I was under the impression that we could work side-by-side with liberals in the immediate short term, but that's an awfully compelling argument.

Think of it like this: Marxism [if that's what you're interested in...], at its roots, is class struggle. So it doesn't matter if liberals want to tag along or not, whether Social Democrats or reformists or any ideology for that matter wants to tag on to whichever cause might overlap between the revolutionary and reformist sides at any given moment. Only of concern to Marxists [and anarchists] is whether the working class:

a) supports what we're saying, and most importantly
b) takes on what we're saying, what other Marxists have said, and implement it for themselves, given particular material conditions.

The reason i'm not that bothered about working with liberals is that they have a history of being virulently anti-communist and anti-worker. Historically, liberalism (in the American sense of the word) can be seen in the context of a petty-bourgeois ideology where a bit of re-distribution here, a bit of 'peace man' there tends to satiate their desire for change. They have no beef with Capitalism, they are mere ideologues. Socialism is a lot greater than that. As I say often: it's a philosophy, not an ideology.

Ostrinski

26th August 2012, 20:10

Democratic socialism is a redundant term. Social democracy is what's being referred to.

NGNM85

27th August 2012, 23:24

Yes, i'm clearly calling Emma Goldman a waste of time. That's exactly what i'm doing.

No, you said the anti-war movement, which Emma Goldman participated in, in fact, (Which is the reason why she was deported.) was a waste of time, as well as the Civil Rights movement, which is, of course; completely wrong, and totally ridiculous.

Not that this has anything to do with anything; my politicization began with Emma Goldman, after discovering a battered copy of Anarchism & Other Essays at the local library.

Sadly, it's impossible to co-operate with a liberal such as yourself,

This is, also, completely bogus. It's just the accepted in-group pejorative, the Revleft equivalent of; 'buttface', and displaying about as much intelligence. What's really ridiculous is that this bogus accusation is predicated, as far as I can tell, solely on my insistence on using the availible institutional mechanisms built into our respective political systems to advance, or defend the interests of the working class. This is especially ridiculous because, not only is that entirely consistent with Marx's writings, but that Marx, who was, also, not a 'reformist', was actually somewhat closer to 'reformism' than I am.

who wishes merely to co-opt and define his way out of ever talking about Socialism.

I have no problem, whatsoever, talking about Socialism.

Indeed, this conversation shows exactly why revolutionary Socialists like myself and 'left'-liberals like yourself can never co-operate; you don't want to overthrow Capitalism.

Incidentally; the phrase 'Left-Liberal' is redundant.

This is, also, completely wrong. You could argue that you think I'm totally wrong in terms of acheiving Socialism, etc., obviously, I would disagree. However; I've been I've been very explicit about my commitment to Socialism, and consistently so. This is just a rehashing of the straw-man argument you've been making all along, as if we're right on the edge of acheiving Socialism, and I was suggesting that we put that on hold to play politics, indefinitely. This scenario bares absolutely no resemblance to reality. I happen to believe (And; from what I understand, Marx would've agreed.) that Socialism can only be acheived organically, and democratically, by the working class, itself, and only upon such time as the working class, or some large majority, thereof, has become organized, and conscious of itself, as a class. That simply is not the case, today. We're quite a ways away from that.

I would also put to you the same question I asked RadioRaheem; what real, constructive ideas do you have? What do you think we can do, today, to empower the working class, etc.?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

30th August 2012, 07:54

[QUOTE=NGNM85;2501952]No, you said the anti-war movement, which Emma Goldman participated in, in fact, (Which is the reason why she was deported.) was a waste of time, as well as the Civil Rights movement, which is, of course; completely wrong, and totally ridiculous.

Not that this has anything to do with anything; my politicization began with Emma Goldman, after discovering a battered copy of Anarchism & Other Essays at the local library.

I was talking more about the anti-vietnam war movement, and infact Stop The War here in the UK, being co-opted by 'peace,man' types, totally destroying the possibility of genuine revolt against vietnam spreading to elements of the army.

I'm sure Emma Goldman would be suitably horrified to see that you managed to take a liberal inspiration from her fine work.

This is, also, completely bogus. It's just the accepted in-group pejorative, the Revleft equivalent of; 'buttface', and displaying about as much intelligence. What's really ridiculous is that this bogus accusation is predicated, as far as I can tell, solely on my insistence on using the availible institutional mechanisms built into our respective political systems to advance, or defend the interests of the working class. This is especially ridiculous because, not only is that entirely consistent with Marx's writings, but that Marx, who was, also, not a 'reformist', was actually somewhat closer to 'reformism' than I am.

No, it's not bogus. We want to create a new society, not merely 'improve' Capitalism under existing institutions. Capitalist institutions - markets, bourgeois assemblies etc. - are geared to supporting the profit system, a system which is obviously incompatible with Socialism. Sure, you can use existing institutions to fight for some petty reforms, but it'll get you no closer to Socialism.

Can you name one time in history in which the working class has used hitherto existing pro-Capitalist institutions to move towards Socialism?

This is, also, completely wrong. You could argue that you think I'm totally wrong in terms of acheiving Socialism, etc., obviously, I would disagree. However; I've been I've been very explicit about my commitment to Socialism, and consistently so. This is just a rehashing of the straw-man argument you've been making all along, as if we're right on the edge of acheiving Socialism, and I was suggesting that we put that on hold to play politics, indefinitely. This scenario bares absolutely no resemblance to reality. I happen to believe (And; from what I understand, Marx would've agreed.) that Socialism can only be acheived organically, and democratically, by the working class, itself, and only upon such time as the working class, or some large majority, thereof, has become organized, and conscious of itself, as a class. That simply is not the case, today. We're quite a ways away from that.

Marx - and I agree - believed on building a revolutionary movement and fighting for Socialism as a rupture with Capitalism, not merely this paternalistic bullshit about 'improving the lives of the working class'. Look, improving the conditions for the working class right here and now is no bad thing, but you have to recognise that it is the domain of guilty white liberals, of Social Democrats and reformists. As revolutionary Socialists, we fight for a rupture with the current system and a whole new system in society. As such, we focus not on petty economistic struggles right now (though of course we utilise such struggles to further our goals), but the broader political struggle. The economic struggle (one day, limited strikes over pay and conditions; petitions; representation by 'left' candidates in bourgeois assemblies) is of use only to feed into the political struggle (extended secondary/wildcat strikes, political demands, building a revolutionary movement, riots, protests, extended withdrawal of labour i.e. the mass strike).

NGNM85

30th August 2012, 16:56

I was talking more about the anti-vietnam war movement, and infact Stop The War here in the UK, being co-opted by 'peace,man' types, totally destroying the possibility of genuine revolt against vietnam spreading to elements of the army.

You're moving the goalposts. You should just drop this. There's no sense digging in your heels to defend such ridiculous statements, especially when they were so obviously spurious.

I'm sure Emma Goldman would be suitably horrified to see that you managed to take a liberal inspiration from her fine work.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

No, it's not bogus. We want to create a new society, not merely 'improve' Capitalism under existing institutions.

Yes; but that doesn't mean that you should be opposed to improving conditions of the working class, or empowering the working class, here, and now.

Capitalist institutions - markets, bourgeois assemblies etc. - are geared to supporting the profit system,

I tend to avoid using that kind of terminology, but; Yes.

a system which is obviously incompatible with Socialism.

Yes.

Sure, you can use existing institutions to fight for some petty reforms,

You're use of language is telling. You couldn't possibly have just said; 'reforms.' That would've been psychologically impossible. This venom, this bile, is completely irrational. I don't think there's anything 'petty' about Universal Healthcare. It's very serious business, if you're a mother on welfare. It's also interesting, for someone who so loudly proclaims his identification as one of the working class, (Which, to be clear, I'm not contesting.) that you have such a detached, and contemptuous attitude toward any attempt to do anything that might improve the conditions of working class people.

but it'll get you no closer to Socialism.

This is not only baseless; it's wrong.

Can you name one time in history in which the working class has used hitherto existing pro-Capitalist institutions to move towards Socialism?

It's not even logically possible to definitively answer that, for several reasons. However; there is a long, and rich history of struggle on the behalf of the working class, and various oppressed groups, which, admittedly, includes a number of defeats, but also a number of impressive victories. I would say every struggle that mobilizes, and organizes the working class, and empowers the working class, is, potentially, at least, a step towards Socialism.

Marx - and I agree - believed on building a revolutionary movement and fighting for Socialism as a rupture with Capitalism, not merely this paternalistic bullshit about 'improving the lives of the working class'. Look, improving the conditions for the working class right here and now is no bad thing, but you have to recognise that it is the domain of guilty white liberals, of Social Democrats and reformists. As revolutionary Socialists, we fight for a rupture with the current system and a whole new system in society. As such, we focus not on petty economistic struggles right now (though of course we utilise such struggles to further our goals), but the broader political struggle. The economic struggle (one day, limited strikes over pay and conditions; petitions; representation by 'left' candidates in bourgeois assemblies) is of use only to feed into the political struggle (extended secondary/wildcat strikes, political demands, building a revolutionary movement, riots, protests, extended withdrawal of labour i.e. the mass strike).

No, no, no, no, no. This is not Marx. (Not that I care, mind.) Marx fully, and explicitly supported reforms that empowered the working class, like the 10 Hours Law, like universal suffrage, etc., he supported participation in parliamentary politics to advance the interests of the working class, etc.

If improving the condition of the working class, and empowering the working class is only interesting to you to the extent that you see an immediate political return on it; you don't give a shit about the working class. That's not what; 'caring' means. There's also absolutely nothing 'paternalistic' about it. If you deliver this spiel to them, I'm sure any poor person with dependents will gladly confirm just how out of touch you are.

This brings me to my next point; putting everything else aside, from a logistical standpoint; how do you expect to build a broad working class-movement with this approach? If you aren't interested in addressing the daily concerns of working class people; they're not going to listen to you, and, to be honest; they shouldn't.

I would also ask you again; specifically, what do you suggest should be done, today, to empower the working class, or advance the interests of the working class?

Zanthorus

30th August 2012, 17:16

This looks to actually be one of those cases on Revleft where the thread provides a short and concise answer to the problem. Why not Democratic Socialism? NGNM85.

l'EnfermÃ©

30th August 2012, 17:37

This looks to actually be one of those cases on Revleft where the thread provides a short and concise answer to the problem. Why not Democratic Socialism? NGNM85.
NGNM is not a Democratic Socialist, he's an Anarchist. Why does this need to be repeated over and over again?

NGNM85

31st August 2012, 15:00

This looks to actually be one of those cases on Revleft where the thread provides a short and concise answer to the problem. Why not Democratic Socialism? NGNM85.

Is that the smartest thing you could come up with?

NGNM85

31st August 2012, 15:07

NGNM is not a Democratic Socialist, he's an Anarchist. Why does this need to be repeated over and over again?

First of all; this presumes that facts matter. Second; while I wouldn't describe myself as such, as the term; 'Democratic Socialism' has been used, interchangably with; 'Libertarian Socialism', (I know you hate that phrase.) it isn't necessarily incorrect.

JPSartre12

31st August 2012, 15:36

First of all; this presumes that facts matter. Second; while I wouldn't describe myself as such, as the term; 'Democratic Socialism' has been used, interchangably with; 'Libertarian Socialism', (I know you hate that phrase.) it isn't necessarily incorrect.

Well, I do know a number of democratic socialists who also identify as libertarian socialists. I'm not saying that they're one and the same (cause they're definitely not!), but there is a little bit of room where they overlap. I'd say that I have a libertarian socialist streak in me, but I wouldn't say that it's significant enough to identify (at this point in time - maybe it'll change in the future) as a out-and-out libertarian socialist though.

I like the way that libertarian socialism has been influenced by anarchism. I think that Martha Acklesberg put it nicely in her book Free Women of Spain: Anarchism and the Struggle for the Emancipation of Women when she said "the exercise of power in any institutionalized form—whether economic, political, religious, or sexual—brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised". Great line, I think :drool:

NGNM85

31st August 2012, 15:48

Well, I do know a number of democratic socialists who also identify as libertarian socialists. I'm not saying that they're one and the same (cause they're definitely not!), but there is a little bit of room where they overlap. I'd say that I have a libertarian socialist streak in me, but I wouldn't say that it's significant enough to identify (at this point in time - maybe it'll change in the future) as a out-and-out libertarian socialist though.

I like the way that libertarian socialism has been influenced by anarchism. I think that Martha Acklesberg put it nicely in her book Free Women of Spain: Anarchism and the Struggle for the Emancipation of Women when she said "the exercise of power in any institutionalized form—whether economic, political, religious, or sexual—brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised". Great line, I think :drool:

Well, the term 'Libertarian Socialism' is an extremely broad term encompassing a range of ideologies, including; Anarchism, as well as a number of Marxist variants like; Council Communsts, and Left Communists, etc. The common denominator is the belief that Socialism can only be achieved organically, by free, and democratic means.

Yeah; I like that quote, too.

l'EnfermÃ©

31st August 2012, 20:35

Left Communism and Council Communism are not Marxism. There are no different variants of "Marxism", there's only one. The two are symptoms of the decay of the Marxist movement, not it's variations.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

31st August 2012, 22:28

Left Communism and Council Communism are not Marxism. There are no different variants of "Marxism", there's only one. The two are symptoms of the decay of the Marxist movement, not it's variations.

Care to argue that? Left Communism and Council Communism, by their very definition, are based on the very core tenets of Marxism. I don't understand how that can be disputed, even if you don't like the ideologies.

l'EnfermÃ©

31st August 2012, 22:46

No they aren't. If they were, they would be called "Marxism", not Left-Communism and Council Communism.

This seems to be quite obvious.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

31st August 2012, 23:09

Oh right, so you don't actually have any argument.

Are left-communists and council communists anarchists? No. They are communists of the Marxist tradition.

If you don't have any argument, then don't post.

l'EnfermÃ©

31st August 2012, 23:22

RadioRaheem84

1st September 2012, 07:33

:confused:

Vladimir Innit Lenin

1st September 2012, 08:50

Anarchists are Anarchists. Left-Communists are Left-Communists. Council Communists are Council Communists. Marxists are Marxists. Stalinists are Stalinists. Maoists are Maoists.

Council Communists don't even pretend to adhere to Marxism. Fuck are you talking about?

Are you trolling me?

If you are, you're doing a bad job, because you're making yourself look like a fool.:thumbup:

Stalinism = Marxism-Leninism
Maoism = Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

etc.

l'EnfermÃ©

1st September 2012, 16:53

NGNM85

1st September 2012, 21:14

This thread, such as it is, seems to be going wildly off the rails. Regardless of how everyone feels about which various Marxist sects, if any, can be considered the rightful claimants of his legacy, and what exactly; 'true' Marxism consists of, we can be absolutely certain that this matter will not be resolved in the course of this conversation, and, more importantly, it is completely irrelevent.

More to the point; the Lenin quote I was referring to, earlier, was a paraphrase, from Bertrand Russell's published recollection of a conversation between the two of them, in Moscow, concerning the possibility of a Socialist revolution in the United Kingdom;

He admitted that there is little chance of revolution in England now, and that the working man is not yet disgusted with Parliamentary government. But he hopes that this result may be brought about by a Labour Ministry. He thinks that, if Mr. Henderson, for instance, were to become Prime Minister, nothing of importance would be done; organized Labour would then, so he hopes and believes, turn to revolution. On this ground, he wishes his supporters in this country to do everything in their power to secure a Labour majority in Parliament; he does not advocate abstention from Parliamentary contests, but participation with a view to making Parliament obviously contemptible.

http://www.davemckay.co.uk/philosophy/russell/russell.php?name=the.practice.and.theory.of.bolshe vism.03

My feelings about Lenin, aside, I concede that the substance of this argument is totally sound. Only upon such time as the working class, or some large majority, thereof, come to pursue their class interests, and find themselves frustrated by the structural limitations of the prevailing institutions, will the idea of revolution gain acceptance among the general public. (Well; that, or, perhaps, some horrendous cataclysm that, more or less, totally destroys society, as we know it.)
Or, as Michael Harrington said;

...the possibility of assembling the political forces that might make irreversible structural changes and eventually transform the system itself occurs precisely in the course of the 'reformist' battles for modest increments of dignity.

ed miliband

1st September 2012, 21:24

Art Vandelay

1st September 2012, 21:35

Are you trolling me?

If you are, you're doing a bad job, because you're making yourself look like a fool.:thumbup:

Stalinism = Marxism-Leninism
Maoism = Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

etc.

I think this is what comrade Borz is getting at:

Marxism-Leninism is no more Marxism than national socialist is a tenet of socialism. It represented the reaction against the October revolution and thus is an entirely bourgeois Ideology.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is M-L adapted to the material conditions of China and envisions a strong role for the peasantry. Basically see above.

Council Communism is simply an anarchist waving a red flag. It is not difficult to see how they represent the decay in the Marxist movement and how they incorporate many anarchist convictions (an ideology tainted with traces of liberal thought).

Etc...

ed miliband

1st September 2012, 21:51

I think this is what comrade Borz is getting at:

Marxism-Leninism is no more Marxism than national socialist is a tenet of socialism. It represented the reaction against the October revolution and thus is an entirely bourgeois Ideology.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is M-L adapted to the material conditions of China and envisions a strong role for the peasantry. Basically see above.

Council Communism is simply an anarchist waving a red flag. It is not difficult to see how they represent the decay in the Marxist movement and how they incorporate many anarchist convictions (an ideology tainted with traces of liberal thought).

Etc...

lol, son, weren't you an anarchist like 3 months ago or something? you read what the council communists had to say about anarchism? or what engaged left communists over on libcom (for eg) have to say about anarchism now (ie, it isn't "tainted with traces of liberal thought" but one of the few revolutionary, proletarian, internationalist currents).

like one of those people who convert to a religion and then get all uppity about their past.

Камо́ Зэд

1st September 2012, 21:54

Hey, comrades! What's going on in this thre--

Anarchists are Anarchists. Left-Communists are Left-Communists. Council Communists are Council Communists. Marxists are Marxists. Stalinists are Stalinists. Maoists are Maoists.

Council Communists don't even pretend to adhere to Marxism. Fuck are you talking about?

Bye, comrades!

Art Vandelay

2nd September 2012, 00:17

lol, son, weren't you an anarchist like 3 months ago or something?
Yes I was, your point?

you read what the council communists had to say about anarchism? or what

No and I don't really care. Whether or not they would like to admit it, council communism contains traces of anarchist thought, which in turn contains traces of liberal thought. I could really break it down for you if you'd like, but I shouldn't have, nor do I want to.

engaged left communists over on libcom (for eg) have to say about anarchism now (ie, it isn't "tainted with traces of liberal thought" but one of the few revolutionary, proletarian, internationalist currents).

First off I don't go to libcom, so no I don't, but I never stated that anarchism wasn't a internationalist and thoroughly revolutionary proletarian ideology; it was originally apart of the 1st Internationale after all. But that doesn't stop it from containing some liberal convictions, ie: power corrupts, etc.

like one of those people who convert to a religion and then get all uppity about their past.

Not even sure what this means, but fuck off. :)

I never even claimed to agree with what Borz was saying, there just appeared to be some misunderstanding going on and I attempted to help clear it up.

ed miliband

2nd September 2012, 00:43

Yes I was, your point?

you were an anarchist. either you didn't understand anarchism to begin with, or you have taken an unconvincing "break" with your past.

tbh, i like you and your posts so i don't want dwell on this, just seems a little strange you'd use ancient criticisms of anarchism that are no longer relevant when you were an anarchist a few months ago.

No and I don't really care. Whether or not they would like to admit it, council communism contains traces of anarchist thought, which in turn contains traces of liberal thought. I could really break it down for you if you'd like, but I shouldn't have, nor do I want to.well... from the early precursors of council communism (rosa luxemburg being most notable, not that she was a council communist), through the classics (pannekoek and gorter, et al) up to the councilists of the mid-20th c. (socialisme ou barbarisme, clr james' facing reality, brinton's solidarity), you'll fine few to no positive words about anarchists, and a lot of slander along your lines ("traces of liberalism").

First off I don't go to libcom, so no I don't, but I never stated that anarchism wasn't a internationalist and thoroughly revolutionary proletarian ideology; it was originally apart of the 1st Internationale after all. But that doesn't stop it from containing some liberal convictions, ie: power corrupts, etc. why don't you go on libcom? seriously, it's an incredible resource for those involved in the class struggle, all arguments aside for a moment.

i'm yet to meet a single anarchist who argues that "power corrupts" and bases their opposition to the state on that. it isn't the 19th c. anymore bro.

Not even sure what this means, but fuck off. :)

not very nice, is it?

i mean, you were an anarchist... i don't believe people turn their back on things that quickly, or become FULL BORDIGISTS or REVOLUTIONARY MARXISTS after reading a few posts on a message board.

like, i'm an anarchist and i'm comfortable with that, doesn't stop me liking some of bordiga's shit, even if it's critical of my own position. in fact, i think it enriches it. i'm just saying, some born again christians go from being atheists to nutjobs in a matter of months (not saying you're a nutjob). i just don't see how you can disregard your past to the point tha you are regurgitating old slurs so quickly; makes it seem like ideological posturing to me.

l'EnfermÃ©

2nd September 2012, 00:44

lol, son, weren't you an anarchist like 3 months ago or something? you read what the council communists had to say about anarchism? or what engaged left communists over on libcom (for eg) have to say about anarchism now (ie, it isn't "tainted with traces of liberal thought" but one of the few revolutionary, proletarian, internationalist currents).

like one of those people who convert to a religion and then get all uppity about their past.
"Engaged Left Communists over on libcom" :laugh:

How is Anarchism a "proleterian current" anyways? Historically, the backbone of the Anarchist movement has been the petty-bourgeoisie, with a peasant following here and there(in Makhno's little military dictatorship in the Ukraine for example).

Zanthorus

2nd September 2012, 00:58

NGNM is... an Anarchist.

I think I heard Bakunin wince.

Council Communists don't even pretend to adhere to Marxism.

Paul Mattick. Your argument is invalid.

lol, son, weren't you an anarchist like 3 months ago or something?

This is Revleft we're talking about here, where commitment to a particular paradigm of thought amounts to continually repeating the right phrases until the adherent manages to convince themselves they actually believe half the crap they say.

ed miliband

2nd September 2012, 01:03

This is Revleft we're talking about here, where commitment to a particular paradigm of thought amounts to continually repeating the right phrases until the adherent manages to convince themselves they actually believe half the crap they say.

or the rep increases, obv.

l'EnfermÃ©

2nd September 2012, 01:16

Rosa Luxemburg was hardly a precursor to Council Communism. Actually, just before she was killed, during the founding congress of the KPD in December 1918, she stood in opposition to the German ultra-lefts(both left-coms and council communists, what became the German council communists in 1915 split from the SPD to form the ISD, which joined the KPD - Luxemburg clearly stood in opposition to them), who made up the majority of the KPD are the Congress, this majority I think was expelled in October 1919 and in 1920 the expelled proto-Council Communists of the ISD formed the KAPD. Anyways, yeah, Luxemburg was no more a precursor to Council Communism or Left Communism than Lenin was.

l'EnfermÃ©

2nd September 2012, 01:45

What of Paul Mattick? The man was delusional, thinking that Council Communism and Marxism are not mutually exclusive. Crazy men don't determine the validity of my argument.

Re. Bakunin, most Anarchists have disowned the crazy bastard by now, bad example, comrade.

ed miliband

2nd September 2012, 01:48

i'm drunk now, i'm gonna respond to yr. post about anarchism having peasent and petit-bourgeois routes tomorrow.

but when you distinguish marxism from council communism and maoism and leninism et al, is it on the basis that 'marxism' itself is an ideology of which the others are deviations?

Art Vandelay

2nd September 2012, 22:31

you were an anarchist. either you didn't understand anarchism to begin with, or you have taken an unconvincing "break" with your past.

My break with anarchism started when I dropped out of being active politically after being disillusioned with the fact that all the shit I was doing wasn't accomplishing anything. I understood anarchism; through praxis it just showed itself to be an inefficient form of organizing.

tbh, i like you and your posts so i don't want dwell on this, just seems a little strange you'd use ancient criticisms of anarchism that are no longer relevant when you were an anarchist a few months ago.

Sorry if I came off hostile, but I don't see how my criticisms are ancient. If anything these criticisms were drawn from my own experiences.

well... from the early precursors of council communism (rosa luxemburg being most notable, not that she was a council communist), through the classics (pannekoek and gorter, et al) up to the councilists of the mid-20th c. (socialisme ou barbarisme, clr james' facing reality, brinton's solidarity), you'll fine few to no positive words about anarchists, and a lot of slander along your lines ("traces of liberalism").

I don't doubt that, but I would also argue that said traces of anarchism did not leak into the ideas of those theorists. I mean, for example, you take Rosa Luxembourg (a left-com) who fetishized the mass strike, a tactic which arose from Bakunin.

why don't you go on libcom? seriously, it's an incredible resource for those involved in the class struggle, all arguments aside for a moment.

Perhaps I'll give it a look. Mostly I would say because I don't consider myself an anarchist or libertarian communist, but I am unaware of what goes on there.

i'm yet to meet a single anarchist who argues that "power corrupts" and bases their opposition to the state on that. it isn't the 19th c. anymore bro.

If not for the conviction that power corrupts, I don't see how one could argue for decentralization, as apposed to centralization. The only intellectually sufficient answer I have ever heard (and this was strictly concerning military means), came from Tim Cornellis and I had to respectfully disagree with him.

i mean, you were an anarchist... i don't believe people turn their back on things that quickly, or become FULL BORDIGISTS or REVOLUTIONARY MARXISTS after reading a few posts on a message board.

While some of my current political leanings were further cemented through conversations with like minded comrades on here, what made me lose faith in anarchism was real life experiences and what brought me back to Marxism (orthodox Marxism; although I am far from well read, it's what I most associate myself with) was getting back to reading the basics of Marx and Engels.

like, i'm an anarchist and i'm comfortable with that, doesn't stop me liking some of bordiga's shit, even if it's critical of my own position. in fact, i think it enriches it. i'm just saying, some born again christians go from being atheists to nutjobs in a matter of months (not saying you're a nutjob). i just don't see how you can disregard your past to the point tha you are regurgitating old slurs so quickly; makes it seem like ideological posturing to me.

Fair enough, once again I would repeat that I would disagree that my criticisms are ideological posturing. Honestly though I think the quote in my sig sums up my thoughts on anti-authoritarians fairly succinctly.

Positivist

2nd September 2012, 22:56

NGNM85

4th September 2012, 21:25

total opposite of what you're saying, mate. lenin's idea was that things will be as bad for the working class under a labour government as they would a liberal or conservative one, and by ensuring a labour government this would convince the working class that this is the case. switch 'labour' for democrat, and 'conservative' for republican, and you believe that a democratic gov. would genuinely be better. lenin didn't.

This is such a tangled knot of falsehoods and gnarled logic, I'm not even sure where to begin. First of all; you seem to have completely lost track of what I said. What I said was;

'Only upon such time as the working class, or some large majority, thereof, come to pursue their class interests, and find themselves frustrated by the structural limitations of the prevailing institutions, will the idea of revolution gain acceptance among the general public.'

This was the thing that was being compared, and on this point, (Which is the only one that matters.) Lenin, and myself are in total agreement.(There's really no other way to see it.) Pointing out any one of the innumerable points of disagreement betwen him, and myself, is simply not relevent, and does not negate this particular point of agreement.

I don't believe, rather, I know, because I know much more about American politics than you do, that the American working class, etc., fare slightly better under Democratic administrations', which is the result of policy differences between the parties, owing, largely, to the fact that they reflect a different elite constituencies, which is a matter of empirical fact. This doesn't really have anything to do with anything, and, furthermore; this does not, in any way undermine, or contradict the previous assertion that revolution will only achieve mass appeal when the working class, or some large percentage, thereof, have reached a certain level of awareness, have organized, have, collectively, pursued their class interests, and been, ultimately, inevitably, frustrated in doing so, by the structural limitations of the prevailing institutions, and not a minute sooner.

not to defend him, he was wrong.

Then how, pray tell, do you see the masses coming to embrace revolution? Aside from, again, the possibility of some catestrophic breakdown that destroys society, as we know it, there's simply no other way to acheive this.

but then your lesser-evilism

What you describe as; 'lesser-evilism' is simply applied logic. There are no rational arguments against making the best choice, when presented with multiple options, it doesn't matter how good, how bad, how many, or how few ones' options are, that never makes sense. The real issue here is American politics, which you don't sufficiently understand.

would fit in better with certain groups that claim to be leninist.

It would fit in more with Marxists, as they tend not to develop this superstitious attitude. However; this is primarily because, unfortunately, most of the people out there calling themselves Anarchists, today, are nimrods.

The implication that I am some kind of secret authoritarian is preposterous.

ed miliband

4th September 2012, 21:59

This is such a tangled knot of falsehoods and gnarled logic, I'm not even sure where to begin. First of all; you seem to have completely lost track of what I said. What I said was;

'Only upon such time as the working class, or some large majority, thereof, come to pursue their class interests, and find themselves frustrated by the structural limitations of the prevailing institutions, will the idea of revolution gain acceptance among the general public.'

This was the thing that was being compared, and on this point, (Which is the only one that matters.) Lenin, and myself are in total agreement.(There's really no other way to see it.) Pointing out any one of the innumerable points of disagreement betwen him, and myself, is simply not relevent, and does not negate this particular point of agreement.

you should have highlighted that then, instead of posting a longer quote which held views contradictory to your own. i.e. that a labour government would not be better for the british working class. you've conveniently cut it down to just the part that suits your argument though now.

so there was my point, no "tangled knot of falsehoods and gnarled logic": the quote you posted, stating that you were in full agreement with it, rested on the idea that the british working class would not fare better under a labour government and that would compel them to revolutionary struggle. that's all i was pointing out to you: that it's somewhat contradictory to your stance on the democrats.

lenin was wrong because the british working classes have been continually "betrayed" and disenchanted by labour governments, and as yet... no revolution.

never said you were a "secret authoritarian".

ed miliband

4th September 2012, 22:10

@ed miliband, what the hell are you talking about? Are you seriously saying that someone can't go from being an anarchist to a Marxist? What do you think, that NRZ's lying? Your treating ideology like some sort of weird tribal religion, which someone is a traitor for leaving, and even worse... critiscizing it!

there's no beef with me and nrz over it, i don't think.

i was just saying i find it odd for someone to go from being an anarchist to somebody repeating dogma about anarchism that isn't really true or relevant anymore. my point was not that he was lying but, as i said, it can appear to be "ideological posturing" or something.

blake 3:17

4th September 2012, 22:12

Then how, pray tell, do you see the masses coming to embrace revolution? Aside from, again, the possibility of some catestrophic breakdown that destroys society, as we know it, there's simply no other way to acheive this.

Revolution is a means, not an end.

NGNM85

4th September 2012, 22:22

you should have highlighted that then, instead of posting a longer quote which held views contradictory to your own. i.e. that a labour government would not be better for the british working class. you've conveniently cut it down to just the part that suits your argument though now.

so there was my point, no "tangled knot of falsehoods and gnarled logic": the quote you posted, stating that you were in full agreement with it, rested on the idea that the british working class would not fare better under a labour government and that would compel them to revolutionary struggle. that's all i was pointing out to you: that it's somewhat contradictory to your stance on the democrats.

The fact that one statement directly followed the other should have made this explicitly clear.

Well, there's a number of other problems I didn't mention, like the fact that it's by no means clear what Lenin exactly means by the word; 'significant', (If 'significant' means; 'fundamental', then I, absolutely, concur.) and that any asessment of the Labour Party the better part of a century ago couldn't possibly reveal a great deal about the Democratic Party, or, much else, for that matter, in 2012.

'Stance' implies that I was expressing an opinion, I wasn't.

I mean the thing that gets me, really, is the arrogance of presuming to educate me about American politics, it just comes off as incredibly arrogant, and irritating as all hell.

lenin was wrong because the british working classes have been continually "betrayed" and disenchanted by labour governments, and as yet... no revolution.

More or less, yes. However; this 'consciousness' has been mostly limited, and intermittent. At, essentially, no point has the entirety of the working class, or the overwhelming majority of the working class, acheived a high level of awareness of their class interests, and remained organized, and active, in pursuit of this interests long enough to come up against the structural limitations of the prevailing institutions. However; these smaller skirmishes, among other things, open up the possibility of developing the momentum to make such a thing possible. Furthermore; from a simply logistical standpoint; there simply isn't any other way to garner mass support from the working class, if we remain detached, and uninvolved in the pressing issues that affect their daily lives. (To the extremely limited extent that the Radical Left can be referred to as a whole.) we will consign ourselves to irrelevence.

never said you were a "secret authoritarian".

I fail to see any other value in tarring me with an association to Leninism.

NGNM85

4th September 2012, 22:24

Revolution is a means, not an end.

Well; it's both. Socialism can only be acheived via fundamental transformation of society, the destruction, or transformation of the prevailing institutions, in a word; 'revolution.'

RadioRaheem84

6th September 2012, 06:03

NGN why do you feel the need to always clarify your position in a subsequent post. Why not just get it right the first time?

Камо́ Зэд

6th September 2012, 06:09

NGN why do you feel the need to always clarify your position in a subsequent post. Why not just get it right the first time?

It isn't often on RevLeft that someone can post something without it being prompted of them to clarify or otherwise defend that position with expansion.

RadioRaheem84

6th September 2012, 19:05

It isn't often on RevLeft that someone can post something without it being prompted of them to clarify or otherwise defend that position with expansion.

I see it as more him trying to backtrack or explain an illogical position that people just didn't get the first time.

NGNM85

9th September 2012, 18:50

NGN why do you feel the need to always clarify your position in a subsequent post. Why not just get it right the first time?

I see it as more him trying to backtrack or explain an illogical position that people just didn't get the first time.

I did get it right the first time. I make a substantial effort to express myself in a clear, and concise manner, and, while I'm not searching for praise, here; I maintain that any examination will confirm as much. I've been complimented on this, several times, even by people with whom I strongly disagree. (Incidentally; much of the disagreement, in this conversation, has concerned philosophical differences, or disputes over historical trivia.) However; 'it takes two to tango.' No amount of concision, or clarity on my part can guarantee, with absolute certainty, that I will be understood, or that a fruitful discussion will follow, it just increases the probability that these things will happen. I'm only one half of the equation. For example; the other party has to have a certain basic understanding of any relevent facts, they have to have a certain level of command of the english language, and, perhaps, most importantly, they have to be committed to having a rational, civil, productive conversation. In this case, especially, the latter is of primary importance. I mean, I'm extremely doubtful that it is possible for you, and I to have a civil conversation, or, more specifically; I'm deeply skeptical that it is psychologically possible for you to have a civil, productive conversation with me.

This whole conversation is a perfect example; you seem totally oblivious, or indifferent to the fact that I've been trying to agree with you. Not only can those of us who live in Western Constutional Republics, or Constitutional Monarchies, use the particular mechanisms built into our respective political institutions to improve the conditions of the working class, (Which is, also, as I've been saying, entirely philosophically consistent with Marxism, and Anarchism.) and oppressed, or marginalized groups, (Blacks, Latinos, women, the LGBT community, etc.) and to empower the working class, and oppressed, or marginalized groups, but, if we're serious, and consistent in the application of our principles, and in the pursuit of our stated goals, we must do so. I've spent most of this time fighting with a number of people, including yourself, strangely enough, to demonstrate the validity of what you said on page one.

Lowtech

11th September 2012, 05:23

I am becoming more and more a believer in the Allende/Chavez way of popular organizing and working through the channels of the system to change it from within.

you can't change capitalism from within, to change it is to break it. capitalism isn't something that can "evolve" into communism. they do completely different things. that's like trying to turn racism into altruism through "channels of the system to change it from within."

you can't change our economic system by making friends with the elites, you can only do this by exposing them as the exploiters that they are.

Камо́ Зэд

11th September 2012, 05:40

I see it as more him trying to backtrack or explain an illogical position that people just didn't get the first time.
My point demonstrates itself.

NGNM85

13th September 2012, 16:52

you can't change capitalism from within, to change it is to break it. capitalism isn't something that can "evolve" into communism. they do completely different things. that's like trying to turn racism into altruism through "channels of the system to change it from within."

No offense, but I think it would be best for all parties involved, yourself included, to, at the very least, skim over the discussion that's being had, rather than to just jump in on page nine. That being said, I'll try to summarize the salient points;

Is it possible to transition from the capitalist mode of production to Socialism through non-violent means? (Including, but not necessarily limited to the parliamentary process.) Marx was certain of it, at least, in some cases. I'm considerably more skeptical. That said; this does not mean that Radicals should have no part in more superficial political, or economic battles, quite the contrary. In fact, if we're serious about our principles, and our stated goals; we must do so. For starters; one of the primary sufficient conditions of being a Socialist is caring about the working class, I would also say that being opposed to the oppression, or marginilization of persons on the basis of arbitrary characteristics, like; race, gender, or sexuality, is equally fundamental. Therefore; we cannot, in good conscience, sit on the sidelines. Second; beyond ideology, it's simply a logistical necessity. First of all; it's impossible to build a unified, broad-based workers movement without knocking down the barriers that have been used to marginalize various strata of the working class, based on gender, sexuality, etc. Second; it's equally impossible to build such a broad-based movement without addressing the day-to-day struggles of working people, as long as the Radical Left remains uninvolved in these issues, it will remain totally irrelevent to the working class. Finally; the idea of revolutionary social change will only gain mass acceptance once a sufficiently large segment of the working class has mobilized itself, and begun to pursue it's interests, as a class, and been frustrated in this capacity, by the structural limitations of the prevailing institutions, and not a minute sooner.

you can't change our economic system by making friends with the elites, you can only do this by exposing them as the exploiters that they are.

No-ones' really suggesting that. (Which, not to beat a dead horse, or anything,you'd know, if you had bothered to skim the thread.) Again, for, probably the 17th time, or something; I'm fairly skeptical about transitioning from capitalism to Socialism through non-violent means. (Although, it should go without saying that this would be ideal.) However; it is possible to make superficial changes, to exact concessions, and reforms, that have a real, measurable impact on the lives of the working class, and marginalized groups, and if we're serious about or principles, and our objectives, then we must get involved in that, as a matter of philosophical consistency, as well as practical necessity. What I'd like to see is some serious, practical discussion about how, specifically, to go about doing that.

NGNM85

13th September 2012, 16:58

To get back to what I was saying, earlier, it looks like a faction of Occupy has their shit together, and did exactly what I was suggesting;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Percent_Declaration

Even though this attempt was unsuccessful, it's a good idea, and an impressive effort.

Lowtech

15th September 2012, 02:57

No offense, but I think it would be best for all parties involved...

I added something meaningful. Whether or not I participated in your sub discussion in the in-between pages isn't necessary unless you could kindly point me to a sticky or forum rule somewhere. In either case, disrespect wasn't intended, however if I am following the rules its obvious that its really just your opinion that bothered you enough to critic my forum etiquette, so I'd suggest sticking to the topic of the thread or simply not responding to my comments.

with that said, your response is something I actually agree with, however wording like "channels of the system to change it from within" sounds much like being much too friendly to the system. If we don't call out the system for being mathematically broken and a failure of economics and not anywhere near as productive as it claims to be, then we appear to lack the courage of our convictions. we appear as though we are begging for others to prefer our way of thinking. we shouldn't beg and let the current system patronize us by using "channels within the system". we should expose the whole broken machine for what it is.

NGNM85

15th September 2012, 20:10

I added something meaningful. Whether or not I participated in your sub discussion in the in-between pages isn't necessary unless you could kindly point me to a sticky or forum rule somewhere. In either case, disrespect wasn't intended, however if I am following the rules its obvious that its really just your opinion that bothered you enough to critic my forum etiquette, so I'd suggest sticking to the topic of the thread or simply not responding to my comments.

I never meant to suggest you were in violation of official forum rules, but rather the informal rules, as you say; 'forum etiquette.' It doesn't matter that much because this thread has, essentially, died, but, in practice, it's very disruptive to have people hopping into a long, protracted, complex discussion, and going back to the very beginning, as if nothing has happened. To paraphrase a line from one of my favorite films; 'You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie...etc.' If you're not going to respond to one of the most recent posts, then, please, at least skim the thread, first; because your comments, or questions may have very likely been raised, and answered, and, second; because things run a hell of a lot smoother that way. I have no desire to make a federal case out of this, I was just trying to give you some helpful advice. The rest is up to you.

with that said, your response is something I actually agree with, however wording like "channels of the system to change it from within" sounds much like being much too friendly to the system. If we don't call out the system for being mathematically broken and a failure of economics and not anywhere near as productive as it claims to be, then we appear to lack the courage of our convictions. we appear as though we are begging for others to prefer our way of thinking. we shouldn't beg and let the current system patronize us by using "channels within the system". we should expose the whole broken machine for what it is.

Participating in the political system does not require one to concede the legitimacy of the political system, it only requires one to acknowledge that it exists. Again; the only way to affect fundamental social change is through the smaller battles for, in Harrington's words; 'modest increments of dignity.' I'd love to have a serious discussion about doing that, moving beyond theory, and suggesting some real, practical proposals, but I'm not holding my breath.

Lowtech

15th September 2012, 21:38

the only way to affect fundamental social change is through the smaller battles for, in Harrington's words; 'modest increments of dignity.' I'd love to have a serious discussion about doing that, moving beyond theory, and suggesting some real, practical proposals, but I'm not holding my breath.

If you feel that's the best way to go, do it, your efforts are best utilized doing what you feel is right, rather than debating the validity of it. Although I'd enjoy a meaningful conversation of the topic. Ultimately however, working within the system will not provide the change needed, nearly every government around the world is designed around capitalism, in fact most laws are written to protect property and the interests of capitalists, so they simply don't have the provisioning to allow for change into a non-market/non-monetary system.

You're arguing for diplomacy, but will the capitalist dictators of our so-called economic system be the slightest bit receptive to diplomacy with us working class "monkeys"?

Raskolnikov

16th September 2012, 03:22

the only way to affect fundamental social change is through the smaller battles

Yes, as we all know social change as only come through small battles and was only effectively won through being within the system that created the problem in the first place.

Like slavery. Or child-Labour. Or racism against foreign workers and using unions against them. Or the old aristocratic system.

NGNM85

17th September 2012, 18:27

If you feel that's the best way to go, do it, your efforts are best utilized doing what you feel is right, rather than debating the validity of it.

Not really. There are substantial limitations to what I, as an isolated individual, can accomplish, alone. This is the fundamental reason why Radicals form parties, coalitions, etc. Fighting for social justice, and advancing, or defending the interests of the working class are group activities. If we actually want to accomplish anything; we have to be organized, and work together.

Although I'd enjoy a meaningful conversation of the topic.

So would I.

Ultimately however, working within the system will not provide the change needed, nearly every government around the world is designed around capitalism, in fact most laws are written to protect property and the interests of capitalists, so they simply don't have the provisioning to allow for change into a non-market/non-monetary system.

I know I said I was done with this (This is the last time, I swear.) but, again, these questions were explored, at length, over the course of the last nine pages. First of all; I never expressed any certainty that it would be possible to transition from 'the capitalist mode of production' to Socialism, through non-violent means, institutional, or otherwise. (Although; again, this would absolutely be ideal.) To the contrary, I'm rather skeptical about this, which I've said, approaching 20-something times, over the course of this thread, including my first response to you. The problem, here is that you're thinking is fundamentally flawed. You're making an irrational leap from the aforementioned, fairly sensible prediction to the unwarranted presumption that, therefore, political activity within the established mechanisms is irrelevent to the Socialist project, which is not only totally wrong, but it doesn't follow. It's like saying; 'You can't bake brownies in a mixing bowl, so; mixing bowls are irrelevent to baking brownies.' These smaller skirmishes for, again; 'modest increments of dignity', play an absolutely vital role in the Socialist project, which simply cannot be overemphasized. Again; there is simply no possibility of developing a mass, working class movement without knocking down the barriers used to divide the working class, and, more importantly, without addressing the immediate concerns of working class people. Welfare mothers, as a rule, aren't desperate for Marxist literature; they want healthcare, they want to be able to feed their kids, clothe them, and give them a decent education. To the extent we do not address these vital, pressing issues; we are totally irrelevent to their lives. They won't pay us any attention, and they probably shouldn't. So, beyond philosophy, beyond ethics, this is simply a logistical necessity. That said; again, there is also a philosophical, and ethical imperative. A Socialist, by definition, is one who cares about the working class. You can't honestly call yourself a Socialist and be totally detatched, and indifferent to the struggles of working class people, and oppressed minorities, or other, socially marginalized groups.

You're arguing for diplomacy, but will the capitalist dictators of our so-called economic system be the slightest bit receptive to diplomacy with us working class "monkeys"?

First; See above.

Second; this is a crude oversimplification. Remember; the bourgeoisie rules, but does not govern.

Lowtech

19th September 2012, 22:31

Not really.
...

If we actually want to accomplish anything; we have to be organized, and work together. non sequitur
So would I. if you say so Trollasaurus rex
Welfare mothers, as a rule, aren't desperate for Marxist literature; they want healthcare, they want to be able to feed their kids, clothe them, and give them a decent education. its very much marxism 101 but I am all about educating the unaware, inadequate healthcare and artificial scarcity is due to the rich and capitalism

Remember; the bourgeoisie rules, but does not govern.what kind of bullshit is this? The existence of a plutocratic ruling class completely undermines any political system. They do not magically coexist. I hardly expect a response from you because its amazing you haven't tried eating glass or something else idiotic.

NGNM85

20th September 2012, 01:38

non sequitur

Empirical fact. There are significant limitations to the degree of social change a single individual can create, by themselves.

if you say so Trollasaurus rex

This is completely baseless. My comments in this thread have been entirely topical, and substantive. I have tried, many times, both in this thread, and in many other threads, to have serious, practical discussions of this sort, so far, there's been very little interest, in fact, the response has been, overwhelmingly hostile.

its very much marxism 101 but I am all about educating the unaware, inadequate healthcare and artificial scarcity is due to the rich and capitalism

Artificial scarcity is the result of capitalism. The state of healthcare in the United States is not, at least, not exclusively. The United States is unique in the industrialized world, in this respect. Clearly; universal healthcare is totally compatible with capitalism. There's no economic reason why the United States could not have a healthcare system comperable to the rest of the Western world. Etc., etc. Similarly; there's no economic law that requires that gay Americans can't get married, if they want, or that patients seeking abortions should have to go through uncomfortable, invasive, and medically unecessary ultrasounds. These things can be changed.

what kind of bullshit is this? The existence of a plutocratic ruling class completely undermines any political system. They do not magically coexist.

Instead of paraphrasing, I'll just quote Harrington, again, because I think he summarizes this very nicely;

The capitalists, unlike fedual nobility or the slaveowners, do not rule in their own name. It is, after all, the functional illusion of this society that in it equals freely choose their work (their class) as well as their rulers. The upper class, therefore, must be more discreet than in other epochs. Moreover, that class is itself anarchic and competative. It therefore requires an 'executive committee' which is not simply the creature of the wealthy and their managers but the articulator of a unity, of a national point of view that transcends all business rivalries and that the corporate rich cannot themselves effect.
-Twilight of Capitalism

I hardly expect a response from you because its amazing you haven't tried eating glass or something else idiotic.

That you should respond to that with this is absolutely baffling.

Lowtech

21st September 2012, 08:55

Empirical fact. There are significant limitations to the degree of social change a single individual can create, by themselves. perhaps, however I made no contention otherwise, the original comment was that I felt your efforts are best spent doing what you feel is right, then your response was so off base that it was literally you talking to yourself
in fact, the response has been, overwhelmingly hostile.expect it, you argue for the sake of arguing and spout loopy garbage and then quote from a book that obviously has so few copies sold that you feel the need to spam this forum about it
The state of healthcare in the United States is not, at least, not exclusively ... universal healthcare is totally compatible with capitalism. nothing useful is compatible with capitalism as it is not designed to be anything other than a means for the few to retain value. to put this in terms even a Trollasaurus rex can understand, nothing is compatible with capitalism unless it is lucrative to the elites; being either they can overprice it (selling above operating cost) or underpaying workers who produce such commodity; retaining value. this is why capitalism cannot produce anything fit for human consumption, economically or otherwise.

to sell above cost the plutocratic class must do essentially three things

1. develop commodities of such garbage that it's dirt cheap to produce
2. cut down production cost by paying workers far less than the actual value of their labor
3. stimulate "demand" for this garbage via commercialism

nothing of real value, such as adequate healthcare, can be produced within a system that uses resources based on the above principles.

also, very little can be done by a governing entity that has little to no control over where and how resources are used. far more money is concentrated in the elites than has ever found its way into the hands of governments and this is why governments are nearly powerless in the face of plutocratic tyranny.

what you and capitalists fail to understand is that a proper economic system is one that fulfills the role of a public utility that is designed to sustain a civilization.

capitalism isn't designed to sustain a civilization. instead it is designed to retain value for the elites, supporting a minority who consume more than they produce; making themselves mathematically equivalent to non-working people that waste billions of times more resources than they could ever legitimately earn let alone actually require for long, healthy and happy lives.

and regardless what your opinion may be, this is mathematically observable.

RadioRaheem84

22nd September 2012, 05:34

Lowtech, beautifully put. I am jacking the last response for some of my capitalist friends who email their economic 101 presumptions.
:thumbup:

Lowtech

22nd September 2012, 14:57

Lowtech, beautifully put. I am jacking the last response for some of my capitalist friends who email their economic 101 presumptions.
:thumbup:

I am very pleased you found my post useful

"The truth is open source / the truth is not proprietary information"

NGNM85

22nd September 2012, 18:17

perhaps, however I made no contention otherwise, the original comment was that I felt your efforts are best spent doing what you feel is right, then your response was so off base that it was literally you talking to yourself

Nonsense. Again, you said;

If you feel that's the best way to go, do it, your efforts are best utilized doing what you feel is right, rather than debating the validity of it.

To which I responded;

'There are substantial limitations to what I, as an isolated individual, can accomplish, alone. This is the fundamental reason why Radicals form parties, coalitions, etc. Fighting for social justice, and advancing, or defending the interests of the working class are group activities. If we actually want to accomplish anything; we have to be organized, and work together.'

This is all painfully obvious, well, to any rational person, (Not too many of those hanging about.) but it's totally topical, and substantive. This is, in no sense; 'off base.'

expect it, you argue for the sake of arguing

No. I never do that. That would be a complete waste of time, and energy.

and spout loopy garbage

It is not 'loopy garbage', it's basic Marxism, as you put it; 'Marxism 101.' Not that I'm really a Marxist, mind, but on these points, besides the aforementioned exception, I believe he was absolutely correct.

Second; if you do honestly believe that what I was saying was so horribly wrong, why can't you articulate that in a clear, and intelligible way?

and then quote from a book that obviously has so few copies sold that you feel the need to spam this forum about it

The obscurity of the text is totally irrelevent. All that matters is that the argument makes logical sense, and accurately reflects reality. Although; if you're going to start harping on people for quoting obscure literature, you're going to be very busy. It's a thriving industry, on this forum.

Second; Twilight of Capitalism is not obscure. It may not have sold as well as his first book; The Other America, which sold well over a million copies, but it's still, by no means, obscure. Of course, as I've said, this is totally irrelevent.

Third; I'm not 'spamming the forum' with anything. It's sort of ridiculous for you to be making this comment, seeing as you've just stmbled into this. However; the quotes cited speak directly to the subject raised by the OP, specifically; the theoretical, and practical implications of using the mechanisms built into our respective political systems to defend, or advance working class interests. That is the fucking subject that is being discussed, or rather; that was being discussed.

nothing useful is compatible with capitalism

'Useful' is sort of subjective, but this is complete nonsense. Anything that serves a constructive purpose, effectively, can be deemed; 'useful.' My car is 'useful.' My shoes are useful. My air pressure gauge is 'useful.' Under capitalism, as you go on to point out, commodities are produced for profit, as opposed to meeting human needs, as you say;

as it is not designed to be anything other than a means for the few to retain value.

but that does not mean that they are, therefore incapable of meeting human needs. That's ridiculous.

to put this in terms even a Trollasaurus rex can understand,

I'm not trolling. I don't do that. I mean; you can keep saying it, but this has no relationship to reality.

nothing is compatible with capitalism unless it is lucrative to the elites; being either they can overprice it (selling above operating cost) or underpaying workers who produce such commodity; retaining value. this is why capitalism cannot produce anything fit for human consumption, economically or otherwise.

That doesn't follow. Just because my air pressure gauge was produced through exploitation, etc., does not mean that it does not serve my needs, specifically; to check the air pressure in my tires.

to sell above cost the plutocratic class must do essentially three things

1. develop commodities of such garbage that it's dirt cheap to produce
2. cut down production cost by paying workers far less than the actual value of their labor
3. stimulate "demand" for this garbage via commercialism

That's mostly accurate. Capitalists are under constant pressure to keep production costs down, but that doesn't always necessitate creating products of poor quality.

nothing of real value, such as adequate healthcare, can be produced within a system that uses resources based on the above principles.

'Adequate healthcare' is sort of subjective. Comparatively speaking, the United States has one of the worst healthcare systems in the industrialized world. So; again, there's no economic law that dictates the United States can't have a healthcare system comperable to Sweden, or the United Kingdom, which are light years ahead of what we have, today.

also, very little can be done by a governing entity that has little to no control over where and how resources are used. far more money is concentrated in the elites than has ever found its way into the hands of governments and this is why governments are nearly powerless in the face of plutocratic tyranny.

This is also very subjective. It really defends on how you choose to define; 'very little.' Again; I'm highly skeptical about the possiblity of acheiving fundamental change through institutional means, or, even non-violent means, even more so than Marx, however; that does not mean that the Radical Left has no stake in these smaller skirmishes. Again; there's an ethical, and ideological obligation to care about the working class, and minorities, or marginalized social groups, tand to constantly defend the interests of the working class, and socially marginalized groups. Furthermore; beyond ethics, and philosophy, this is simply a logistical necessity as these battles represent the only hope of building the kind of conscious, mass movement that would make such a fundamental transformation of society possible.

what you and capitalists fail to understand is that a proper economic system is one that fulfills the role of a public utility that is designed to sustain a civilization.

First of all; I'm an Anarchist. Second; I couldn't agree more, and, in fact, I've never suggested otherwise. Quite the opposite.

capitalism isn't designed to sustain a civilization. instead it is designed to retain value for the elites, supporting a minority who consume more than they produce; making themselves mathematically equivalent to non-working people that waste billions of times more resources than they could ever legitimately earn let alone actually require for long, healthy and happy lives.

and regardless what your opinion may be, this is mathematically observable.

I pretty much totally agree with that, and I really never said otherwise, so I have no idea what point you think you're making.

Lowtech

22nd September 2012, 21:07

Nonsense. Again, you said;
just a suggestion, but if you're wanting to falsifying a statement, don't actually quote the statment you're falsifying, it makes you look either like an idiot or crazy.

If we actually want to accomplish anything; we have to be organized, and work together.
'doing what you feel is right' does not also mean 'do not organize' - for you to assume so is almost as loopy as an anarchist advocating people organizing - if you come across broken glass, please do not eat it

No. I never do that. That would be a complete waste of time, and energy.

lies, typing your responses is a complete waste of time and energy, BUT YOU'RE OK WITH THAT.

why can't you articulate that in a clear, and intelligible way?
if english isn't intelligible enough for you, I can't help you

Second; Twilight of Capitalism is not obscure. I really don't care for twilight anything. Sparkly fairies are no more legitimate vampires than you are a ligitimate leftist.

Third; I'm not 'spamming the forum' with anything. really? then you respond with MORE spamming.you're one post away from linking your online webstore.

'Useful' is sort of subjective, but this is complete nonsense. useful in an economic sense means to meet a need with the least waste of effort/resources as possible; where the effort expended to produce doesn't negate what you get out of it. The profit mechanism is not only economically unessisary, it is a kind of waste or undue burden upon the processing of resources into usable commodities . Capitalism makes everything less useful, often in the obvious sense, but always mathematically.

but that does not mean that they are, therefore incapable of meeting human needs. That's ridiculous. capitalism is very incapable of meeting needs, its not even designed to do so, nor will it's masters suddendly develop benevolence. put down the Starbucks, we're not in a coffee house debate.

Touché me already before you really get your ass handed to you.

Kotze

23rd September 2012, 13:24

Hyperbolic statements like capitalism cannot produce anything fit for human consumption or capitalism makes everything less useful make me cringe. I don't see how this sort of rhetoric is supposed to help you win over people, non-loopy ones at least, and would certainly not mail such rubbish to hypothetical capitalist friends of mine :P

Back to the original question of the thread: There are differences in living standards of different countries that I don't think can be explained away entirely by different endowments of natural resources or how much they exploit people in other countries and there are differences over time like introducing minimum-wage laws, so reforming capitalism in a way that benefits the working class looks possible.

A non-revolutionary change that benefits the working class is only undesirable if that is outweighted by how much it makes introducing or keeping the bigger changes in that direction less likely.

Marxists make a lot of assertions that reforms don't help or even make things worse, but such a claim should always be substantiated in a way that addresses the concrete proposal, otherwise you look like a the-worse-the-better nutter. Eg. some mandatory profit-sharing based on the company you work at is not a bad idea because it may make things better in the short term (it can only be a bad idea despite that); it might be on balance a bad idea because it makes the appearance of class relations more confusing (picture an army of highschool teachers droning, You see, a variable part of everybody's wage here in Bestcountryintheworld is called profit share and capitalists get profit, so that means we are all capitalists now, derpdederp) and it promotes identification with a specific company, an attitude that doesn't mesh well with the kind of society I want.

I say it again: A non-revolutionary change that benefits the working class is only undesirable if that is outweighted by how much it makes introducing or keeping the bigger changes in that direction less likely, and that requires that you have at least a rough idea of what you want, something Marxists are outstandingly shit at compared to virtually anybody else. (Have we reached agreement yet whether there will be remuneration? -Well, that's just a detail I guess :rolleyes:)

The cappies will try to block change, of course. I think there's a lot of educational value in directly experiencing that, and propagandistic value. To appear as the good side it's important to have a plausible narrative where your side is the one that gets attacked and is defending itself, not the other way around. It's better if the capitalists themselves dismantle their liberal constitutional guaranteed rights of free speech and what have you in reaction to the working-class organizing to improve their conditions, that they drop the masks, than us going first for some bold dismantling here with some half-assed justification about how all of that and worse would have happened anyway and how everything we are doing is important to get to true communism, which is always at an indeterminate future date of course. Derpdederp.