US Citizens Free to be Private Socialists

[Jason]

Sorry for odd post name. What I mean to say is: "A US citizen can choose to reject capitalism and imperalism and live on a socialist commune etc. However a person in a communist nation cannot choose to reject socialism and live on a capitalist reservation."

How can a marxist answer such a claim by capitalists? What would be the justification of forcing all people in a certain nation to become socialist or get out?

[o well this is ok I guess]

A US citizen can choose to reject capitalism and imperalism and live on a socialist commune If someone told me he was gonna go off and do this, I'd just tell him "yo good luck with that".
He's gonna need it.

[Red Banana]

Socialism cannot exist in one country, let alone one commune out in the woods.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Sorry for odd post name. What I mean to say is: "A US citizen can choose to reject capitalism and imperalism and live on a socialist commune etc. However a person in a communist nation cannot choose to reject socialism and live on a capitalist reservation."


You can't 'reject' capitalism and imperialism. They aren't fucking lifestyles.
A group of individuals could run this probably cultish and unenjoyable commune all they want (which probably wouldn't be very nice considering how food would be scarce and they'd practically be given access to the tiniest acre of land - sounds like a weird kind of agricultural primitivism really), but as soon as they get any idea of expanding this concept to actually achieve the benefits it is supposed to give them and other proletarians, the social security trucks will start rolling in.

I honestly don't know what your cappie-loving friend was trying to get at here, because if it was supposed to be some kind of criticism of socialism then your only response should be to laugh.

[Zealot]

Why would anyone leave a democratic workplace to be a wage slave at a capitalist reservation?

[l'Enfermé]

"However a person in a communist nation cannot choose to reject socialism and live on a capitalist reservation"

I think "capitalist reservation" is an excellent euphemism for a GULAG camp.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Sorry for odd post name. What I mean to say is: "A US citizen can choose to reject capitalism and imperalism and live on a socialist commune etc. However a person in a communist nation cannot choose to reject socialism and live on a capitalist reservation."

How can a marxist answer such a claim by capitalists? What would be the justification of forcing all people in a certain nation to become socialist or get out?

If you replaced 'capitalism' with 'feudalism' and 'Communism' with 'capitalism,' you'll see very quickly how the above sentence is silly. But as pointed out where not talking about pairs of jeans.

[ind_com]

Socialism/communism is not living in a commune inside a capitalist system; it is the working class seizing the means of production. Is the American working class free to seize the means of production?

And yes I think people in a communist or a socialist system of the future would be free to dissociate from the system. Anyone would be free to construct a factory out of whatever natural resources were allocated to him and ask others to leave all the mainstream social benefits and be his wage slaves. Of course, since he dissociated from the socialist system, no one would be responsible for how others react to that...

[helot]

What you're basically asking is the following question: how can you justify abolishing exploitation?


edit: if every man and woman had automatic access to what they need to produce who would work for the capitalist? The capitalist cannot exist without the majority of people being alienated from the means of production and a public force ready to back up the capitalist with brutality.

[zoot_allures]

How about all the citizens of other countries who choose to reject capitalism and imperialism? That's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'%C3%A9tat) never (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_the_Dominican_Republic _(1965%E2%80%931966)) bothered (http://www.amazon.com/Economists-Guns-Authoritarian-Development-U-S-Indonesian/dp/0804771820) the (http://libcom.org/history/articles/nicaragua-contras) US (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_Guat.html), right (http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-C-I-Interventions-II--Updated/dp/1567512526/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355499070&sr=1-1&keywords=killing+hope+william+blum)? Or all the members of indigenous tribes who choose to reject capitalism and imperialism? The capitalists just wanna live and let live (http://www.amazon.com/Victims-Progress-John-H-Bodley/dp/0759111480), don't they?

Even if it was true that US citizens could just choose to live as socialists (that's not true, but whatever), this hardly makes a dent on the record of tyranny and oppression that capitalism and imperialism must answer for. Who cares about "private socialism"? That's like talking about "private slavery abolitionism". The point is the victims, whether or not you're among them.

[Ocean Seal]

Sorry for odd post name. What I mean to say is: "A US citizen can choose to reject capitalism and imperalism and live on a socialist commune etc. However a person in a communist nation cannot choose to reject socialism and live on a capitalist reservation."
How can a marxist answer such a claim by capitalists? What would be the justification of forcing all people in a certain nation to become socialist or get out?
Your idea intrigues me. Unfortunately, I am not cruel enough to create a world of "capitalism on one reservation".

[Jason]

How about all the citizens of other countries who choose to reject capitalism and imperialism? That's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'%C3%A9tat) never (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_the_Dominican_Republic _(1965%E2%80%931966)) bothered (http://www.amazon.com/Economists-Guns-Authoritarian-Development-U-S-Indonesian/dp/0804771820) the (http://libcom.org/history/articles/nicaragua-contras) US (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_Guat.html), right (http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-C-I-Interventions-II--Updated/dp/1567512526/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355499070&sr=1-1&keywords=killing+hope+william+blum)? Or all the members of indigenous tribes who choose to reject capitalism and imperialism? The capitalists just wanna live and let live (http://www.amazon.com/Victims-Progress-John-H-Bodley/dp/0759111480), don't they?

Even if it was true that US citizens could just choose to live as socialists (that's not true, but whatever), this hardly makes a dent on the record of tyranny and oppression that capitalism and imperialism must answer for. Who cares about "private socialism"? That's like talking about "private slavery abolitionism". The point is the victims, whether or not you're among them.

Right, as you say, "live and let live". The problem is that capitalism doesn't let anybody do that nor does socialism. So there is always a fight between the two systems at a national and international level.

It's unavoidable. It's kind of like the theological battle (not claiming to be religious) between so called "God" and "Satan".

Anyhow, a better response would be that people interact (economies, laws etc..) on a national level. Therefore, a national system has to be either socialist or capitalist. Another big reason is the agressive nature of capitalism which leaves nobody alone on an international level. Always capitalism seeks to exploit new markets in other lands which makes people in other lands angry.

So in regards to the above paragraph, you see why the "Ron Paul" stand is so silly. Paul fails to understand the "international" part of capitalism. Capitalists seek to expand and won't leave others alone. For instance, the US snatched the Phillippine Islands once they had the ability to do so. They were even doing so on America itself (before), but probably Paul doesn't consider the removal of native Americans as imperalism.


I honestly don't know what your cappie-loving friend was trying to get at here, because if it was supposed to be some kind of criticism of socialism then your only response should be to laugh.

I saw a response to something on YouTube. The poster brought up the question. So I thought, "What would be a marxist response to that comment?".



Why would anyone leave a democratic workplace to be a wage slave at a capitalist reservation?


Lots of proud gun owning "Joe the Plumber" Americans :D

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Kropotkin wrote a letter about this topic to a group who wanted to create a commune in the US.

marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1895/settlement.htm)

Read this. It makes sense.

[Jason]

Kropotkin wrote a letter about this topic to a group who wanted to create a commune in the US.

marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1895/settlement.htm)

Read this. It makes sense.

Right doesn't work. One group in Virginia USA has tried this recently. But it's silly to produce inferior socialist collectives when you can take over the whole nation and make a superior socialist nation (one that can provide real goods and services people need). Socialists are not primitivists like Harrison Ford on the "Mosquito Coast" movie.

Anyhow, you also run into the "hero" problem. How can marxists permit millions to be exploited and do nothing about it? "Live and let live" is nothing but cowardice.

Ultimately, communists demand full control everywhere much as radical Islamists or Christian missionaries. It's because of the "hero" problem.

[Hermes]

Right doesn't work. One group in Virginia USA has tried this recently. But it's silly to produce inferior socialist collectives when you can take over the whole nation and make a superior socialist nation (one that can provide real goods and services people need). Socialists are not primitivists like Harrison Ford on the "Mosquito Coast" movie.

Anyhow, you also run into the "hero" problem. How can marxists permit millions to be exploited and do nothing about it? "Live and let live" is nothing but cowardice.

Ultimately, communists demand full control everywhere much as radical Islamists or Christian missionaries. It's because of the "hero" problem.

I think you might be confusing the issue a little bit, if I'm understanding you correctly.

Communists demand full control everywhere because otherwise communism can't exist. Although to many people it is a moral thing, both are part of it.

(this is, of course, if I'm understanding you correctly and if I'm not being an idiot)

[GoddessCleoLover]

The contention about "full control" is a red herring. Today capitalism is a universal and international phenomena. Capitalists have "full control". Communists don't seek "full control" due to any hero problem, rather due to the fact that any mode of production is inherently universal. Constructing socialism in isolated countries is a losing proposition. Been there and tried that.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The contention about "full control" is a red herring. Today capitalism is a universal and international phenomena. Capitalists have "full control". Communists don't seek "full control" due to any hero problem, rather due to the fact that any mode of production is inherently universal. Constructing socialism in isolated countries is a losing proposition. Been there and tried that.
Which begs the question; would it really be better to have national struggles, or should there be a cross-national movement from the get-go? I seriously do not understand the fetish leftists have with nations - they're just borders, and a fucking useful tool for segregation by the people running them if you ask me.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The left's fetishization with nations escalated with the failure of the post-1917 revolutionary process. From that failure the theory of Socialism In One Country became the totem to which the Comintern demanded obedience. The Comintern became subordinated the needs of proletarians elsewhere to the needs of Soviet state policy, the result was "national bolshevism".

[Klaatu]

What we should be discussing is the "how to," that is, the road from here to there, the transition from capitalist exploitation to socialist fairness. Will this be sudden (as in bloody revolution) or can it be gradual (ever-increasing tax rates on the rich, and ever-larger and more powerful unions?) I know this: a far greater number of people earned better livings back in the 1960s, (at least here in Detroit, where we had the powerful UAW) and the opulent class was much smaller, paying income tax as high as 90%) What I am saying is that we seemed to be on the road to a better society (Socialist) then, at least until Reagan came along and reversed this trend and started a slow decline into oblivion for the working class (and we are getting there fast!) :crying:

[GoddessCleoLover]

What we should be discussing is the "how to," that is, the road from here to there, the transition from capitalist exploitation to socialist fairness. Will this be sudden (as in bloody revolution) or can it be gradual (ever-increasing tax rates on the rich, and ever-larger and more powerful unions?) I know this: a far greater number of people earned better livings back in the 1960s, (at least here in Detroit, where we had the powerful UAW) and the opulent class was much smaller, paying income tax as high as 90%) What I am saying is that we seemed to be on the road to a better society (Socialist) then, at least until Reagan came along and reversed this trend and started a slow decline into oblivion for the working class (and we are getting there fast!) :crying:


Revolution seems to be the leitmotif. Suddenness is a difficult and relative concept, but the history of revolutions point to suddenness. It seems that a certain "tipping point" is attained that results in a mass uprising. I wouldn't look exclusively to a Russian October, 1917 precedent, a successful version of the events in Germany in 1918 might be more likely.

With respect to bloodiness, IMO it is critical to deal with issue in an intelligent and circumspect manner. First, as a matter of principle we ought to strive to avoid anything like the GULAG archipelago let alone the Cambodian "killing fields". A bloodbath is not some inevitable thing. We are not seers into the future and ought not engage in idle predictions. Additionally, the masses of workers do not want to hear about any revolution that would involve massive bloodshed. It is poor politics and well as wrong in principle.

[Ostrinski]

Horseshit. What they mean here is quite condescending - don't worry, let us have control over global society and the vast majority of the earth's resources and productive capacity, and in return we'll let you have your little play socialist community where you can share your shoes, toothbrushes, and hair curlers.

For the record, I don't personally remember sitting down to some assembly and voting on whether or not the imperialists and corporations should have control over everything. I also must be forgetting the time where we all got together that one time to decide whether we should have a capitalist or socialist economy. This whole idea that capitalism exists because people consent to it existing is a laughable tragedy of a perspective. Of course many people consent to capitalism but that's not why it exists. People consent to capitalism because of false consciousness and the ideological hegemony of the bourgeoisie.

A socialist economy in the most meaningful sense can only be built through global planning. A mode of production is a totality as it is the foundation of a society. All political, social, and cultural characteristics of society are merely reflections of the existing economic relationships. Therefore, the socialist mode of production can only be realized upon the death of the capitalist mode of production and its global control.

What Red Godfather says is true as well, it's just a logical fallacy. Why the hell would anyone want to go back to a previous, inferior state of being?

"Gee, this whole being a free producer and having control over the product of my labor deal is nice and all, but whatever happened to the good ol days of wage labor or being on the dole? Bring those days back!"

[Ostrinski]

What we should be discussing is the "how to," that is, the road from here to there, the transition from capitalist exploitation to socialist fairness. Will this be sudden (as in bloody revolution) or can it be gradual (ever-increasing tax rates on the rich, and ever-larger and more powerful unions?) I know this: a far greater number of people earned better livings back in the 1960s, (at least here in Detroit, where we had the powerful UAW) and the opulent class was much smaller, paying income tax as high as 90%) What I am saying is that we seemed to be on the road to a better society (Socialist) then, at least until Reagan came along and reversed this trend and started a slow decline into oblivion for the working class (and we are getting there fast!) :crying:Capitalism cannot be reformed into socialism. Fiscal policy is exercised within the constraints of the existing productive relationships.

The working class cannot simply lay hold of the readymade state machinery and wield it for its own purposes, as Marx said.

[Klaatu]

For the record, I don't personally remember sitting down to some assembly and voting on whether or not the imperialists and corporations should have control over everything. I also must be forgetting the time where we all got together that one time to decide whether we should have a capitalist or socialist economy.

The way I understand it, capitalism has it's roots in monarchies which existed in the middle ages, and class society was born out of the belief that the king was ordained by god himself (consider that the masses were so illiterate then that they had no way to fully understand the folly of such a system


This whole idea that capitalism exists because people consent to it existing is a laughable tragedy of a perspective. Of course many people consent to capitalism but that's not why it exists. People consent to capitalism because of false consciousness and the ideological hegemony of the bourgeoisie.

It may be that people 'consent' because (A) they don't know any better (see my comment above) and (B) they continue to believe that they themselves 'can be rich' because of the belief that there is 'equal opportunity' in Western Society (there is no such thing; not even close)

[GoddessCleoLover]

Consent is both coerced as well as manufactured in the sense that the bourgeoisie uses its great wealth and resources to instill its values via media of mass communications. Capitalist society has also been quite adept at appropriating the institutions of civil society such as religion, unions, schools, and social and cultural organizations into forming pillars of the status quo.

[Ostrinski]

The way I understand it, capitalism has it's roots in monarchies which existed in the middle ages, and class society was born out of the belief that the king was ordained by god himself (consider that the masses were so illiterate then that they had no way to fully understand the folly of such a systemFor the most part actually capitalism swept away the old monarchies which had their roots in the old feudal order. Capitalism developed within feudalism and grew out of the development of the factory system, rise of industry, urbanization, etc. In Europe and the US as well as in other places the result was a republican form of government.

Class society and its values were born out of the agricultural revolution and division of labor, not some silly view of god and kings. Rather it would be more rational to say that such a silly view was a result of the development of class society, not its causation.


It may be that people 'consent' because (A) they don't know any better (see my comment above) and (B) they continue to believe that they themselves 'can be rich' because of the belief that there is 'equal opportunity' in Western Society (there is no such thing; not even close)I would say that many workers think capitalism is the best system possible but maybe not the best system for them. But in any instance that it comes full circle it is a broader issue of false consciousness and the ideological hegemony of the bourgeoisie (the ruling class). Such are the only ways that class society reproduces itself.

Ideology is the instrument of social reproduction, as Marx put it better than I.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Separatism as suggested by Jason just seems to me to be based upon an entire misunderstanding as to how a mode of production functions in the real world.

[Baseball]

Revolution seems to be the leitmotif. Suddenness is a difficult and relative concept, but the history of revolutions point to suddenness. It seems that a certain "tipping point" is attained that results in a mass uprising. I wouldn't look exclusively to a Russian October, 1917 precedent, a successful version of the events in Germany in 1918 might be more likely.

With respect to bloodiness, IMO it is critical to deal with issue in an intelligent and circumspect manner. First, as a matter of principle we ought to strive to avoid anything like the GULAG archipelago let alone the Cambodian "killing fields". A bloodbath is not some inevitable thing. We are not seers into the future and ought not engage in idle predictions. Additionally, the masses of workers do not want to hear about any revolution that would involve massive bloodshed. It is poor politics and well as wrong in principle.

I guess non-socialists should be relieved that mass murder is simply bad policy and bad politics

[Baseball]

The left's fetishization with nations escalated with the failure of the post-1917 revolutionary process. From that failure the theory of Socialism In One Country became the totem to which the Comintern demanded obedience. The Comintern became subordinated the needs of proletarians elsewhere to the needs of Soviet state policy, the result was "national bolshevism".

but unless there is going to be and instantaneous, concurrent, world wide Revolution, the existence of revolutionary communities existing side by side non Revolutionary communities for an undetermined period of time, has to be considered. for the revolutionaries of 90 years ago, that problem was more than a simple academic exercise. that they failed to solve the problem should not be seen as an indictment of them. rather it should be seen as proof that the problem cannot be solved, in manners that would be seen as "good policy."

[hetz]

Communists don't seek "full control" due to any hero problem, rather due to the fact that any mode of production is inherently universal.
Feudalism ( a historical mode of production according to my book on political economy ) wasn't universal. Neither was capitalism for a long time.

[GoddessCleoLover]

but unless there is going to be and instantaneous, concurrent, world wide Revolution, the existence of revolutionary communities existing side by side non Revolutionary communities for an undetermined period of time, has to be considered. for the revolutionaries of 90 years ago, that problem was more than a simple academic exercise. that they failed to solve the problem should not be seen as an indictment of them. rather it should be seen as proof that the problem cannot be solved, in manners that would be seen as "good policy."

The fact that the problems to which you refer were not solved in the past odes not mean they are insoluble. Bourgeois ideologists may demand that se get it right the first time but IMO we are not obliged to fall into that trap. The history of capitalist and pre-capitalist societies teaches us that history proceeds in a fitful manner.

[Czcibor]

But to be honest I still don't get you... Assuming that socialism is as great as is claimed all over this forum such village should thrive. It should become a shining example and experiment nicely proving all your theories to sceptics.

(or be openly destroyed by your scared enemies, however, in such case you will still be able to show your point)

Assuming that you really need all world... well to be honest for me it would fail as experiment or any scientific rigour. (and AFAIK communism was supposed to be scientific) There would be neither a control group nor a benchmark.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

(and AFAIK communism was supposed to be scientific) There would be neither a control group nor a benchmark.

What is it with this science fetish? I'm all into communism and shit, but is a filosophy, not a science!

A very good and honest filosophy, but nothing more. You can't measure communism. There is no socialist-scale!