Would I be restricted since I'm a Democratic Socialist? [Archive]

RadioRaheem84

24th November 2013, 10:26

ed miliband

24th November 2013, 10:33

With the election of Kshama Sawant, I've really been stoked about parliamentary politics and socialism through that route. Also, reading the history of the Allende administrations many achievements and innovations, I am really thinking that Democratic Socialism is possible.

how anyone can look at allende and take away any message other than 'well, clearly this doesn't work' is beyond me.

Per Levy

24th November 2013, 12:31

Would I be restricted since I'm a Democratic Socialist?

doubtful, we have many social-dems on the site, several cpusa members, market socialists and others who arnt restricted. i dont see why you would be restricted while the others arnt.

Vanguard1917

24th November 2013, 12:49

doubtful, we have many social-dems on the site, several cpusa members, market socialists and others who arnt restricted. i dont see why you would be restricted while the others arnt.

Restriction on revleft is based more on whim than logic.

With the election of Kshama Sawant, I've really been stoked about parliamentary politics and socialism through that route.

Some Sunday (re-)reading for you:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

Oenomaus

24th November 2013, 16:03

how anyone can look at allende and take away any message other than 'well, clearly this doesn't work' is beyond me.

It really is curious. I think some people extend their aversion to the US-backed coup by the military into uncritical support for what was, at best, a populist bourgeois regime. What did Allende accomplish, exactly? The means of production were not socialised during his presidency. Nor could they have been - that's a fairly basic consequence of the Marxist theory of the state that revisionists forget. At best, Allende introduced a greater level of economic centralisation and coordination - but the economy being coordinated was capitalist, and indeed, much of the coordination was done by a corporation established by the Radical (i.e. bourgeois-liberal) president Cerda. Allende's agrarian reforms place him, at best, in the same category as other bourgeois politicians who carried out agrarian reforms, as does his close relation to the Soviet Union. He didn't even have the radical pretensions of politicians like Garrido Canabal. Nor did his government advance democratic rights in any way.

Sawant is an even odder case. Her intentions aside, how is her election an argument for parliamentarianism? She was elected and then... did what, exactly?

WilliamGreen

24th November 2013, 16:24

In my eyes democratic socialism has never figured out the problem of true representation.

In practice it doesn't seem to work. Or at least with the state of our communities as they stand.

It may be that it would be a viable option when our communities social and economic structures have been changed and the people have a different consciousness about them and the issues of the day.

brigadista

24th November 2013, 16:26

motion denied

24th November 2013, 16:38

It really is curious. I think some people extend their aversion to the US-backed coup by the military into uncritical support for what was, at best, a populist bourgeois regime. What did Allende accomplish, exactly? The means of production were not socialised during his presidency. Nor could they have been - that's a fairly basic consequence of the Marxist theory of the state that revisionists forget. At best, Allende introduced a greater level of economic centralisation and coordination - but the economy being coordinated was capitalist, and indeed, much of the coordination was done by a corporation established by the Radical (i.e. bourgeois-liberal) president Cerda. Allende's agrarian reforms place him, at best, in the same category as other bourgeois politicians who carried out agrarian reforms, as does his close relation to the Soviet Union. He didn't even have the radical pretensions of politicians like Garrido Canabal. Nor did his government advance democratic rights in any way.

Sawant is an even odder case. Her intentions aside, how is her election an argument for parliamentarianism? She was elected and then... did what, exactly?

Have you ever heard of Cordones Industriales? Or people managing their own resources in the neighbourhoods? You gotta stop thinking that the government is almighty. Thinking politically is thinking narrowly.

Political understanding is just political understanding because its thought does not transcend the limits of politics. The sharper and livelier it is, the more incapable is it of comprehending social problems. [...] The principle of politics is the will. The more one-sided – i.e., the more prefect – political understanding is, the more completely it puts its faith in the omnipotence of the will the blinder it is towards the natural and spiritual limitations of the will, the more incapable it becomes of discovering the real source of the evils of society.

Allende's government did not socialise the means of production (oh, the horror! He should have ran it to parliament right?), because as you put it, and rightly so, it was impossible. On the other hand, under his government the working class could build a somehow autonomous and strong movement. Of course Unidade Popular was no champion of the working class; at some point, they became quite the opposite, which doesn't mean people "uncritically support them because anti-US-ism".

Revleft is funny most of the time. Everything that has ever existed is shit. If only our pure and beautiful Revolution(TM) fell from the sky as we dream of.

Oenomaus

24th November 2013, 16:49

Have you ever heard of Cordones Industriales? Or people managing their own resources in the neighbourhoods? You gotta stop thinking that the government is almighty. Thinking politically is thinking narrowly.

[...]

Allende's government did not socialise the means of production (oh, the horror! He should have ran it to parliament right?), because as you put it, and rightly so, it was impossible. On the other hand, under his government the working class could build a somehow autonomous and strong movement. Of course Unidade Popular was no champion of the working class; at some point, they became quite the opposite, which doesn't mean people "uncritically support them because anti-US-ism".

Revleft is funny most of the time. Everything that has ever existed is shit. If only our pure and beautiful Revolution(TM) fell from the sky as we dream of.

I said people have an (understandable!) aversion to the US-backed coup. And, indeed, any socialist can only feel revulsion to the Pinochet regime. But this does not mean that the Allende government was socialist or was to be supported - after all, Peron was also removed in a US-sponsored coup, but this does not mean socialists should extend any support to her rotten, anti-communist government.

And no, Allende should not have "ran it to parliament". There was nothing Allende could have done to facilitate the socialisation of the means of production - except arming the workers, which he refused to do, and which would have worked against him in the end, since a socialist revolution must smash the bourgeois state, no matter how "socialist" it considers itself.

The cordones - which were ultimately an amorphous organisation much below the level of the Bolivian COR, for example - were organised despite Allende, not because of him. We might as well praise prince Lvov for the soviets.

Remus Bleys

24th November 2013, 17:07

Everyone knew you were democratic socialist. Just keep doing what your doing, if they cared youd ve been restricted long ago.

Anyway, didn't pinochet increase the spread of capitalism in chile? Is that true or false?

#FF0000

25th November 2013, 03:30

Everyone knew you were democratic socialist. Just keep doing what your doing, if they cared youd ve been restricted long ago.

you joined less than 6 months ago

Remus Bleys

25th November 2013, 13:42

you joined less than 6 months ago
There is such a thing as lurking...

Sinister Cultural Marxist

25th November 2013, 22:40

I don't think republican and revolutionary means are so contradictory as some posters seem to think. In fact I think the example of Chile is good evidence that they work best when pursued together. Allende's problem wasn't that he was democratically elected, it was that he didn't organize the working class to protect their newfound political power. He didn't recognize the threat of the bourgeois state he had taken power over someday killing him and vast swaths of his supporters. Thus the workers had no agency and no real means of defending Chile's revolution against the armed forces.

Democratic socialism without a popular revolutionary base is doomed to failure because if it ever seizes power with the intent of overhauling the old order of production it will just force the old social and economic elites to intervene against it with force.

Anyway it would be dumb to restrict you for that - I don't think anyone's ideological development is linear and really some level of debate and exchange is necessary. You're clearly not a liberal even if you believe in socialism through liberal elections, and you're not a fascist or reactionary either.

Oenomaus

25th November 2013, 22:48

I don't think republican and revolutionary means are so contradictory as some posters seem to think. In fact I think the example of Chile is good evidence that they work best when pursued together. Allende's problem wasn't that he was democratically elected, it was that he didn't organize the working class to protect their newfound political power. He didn't recognize the threat of the bourgeois state he had taken power over someday killing him and vast swaths of his supporters. Thus the workers had no agency and no real means of defending Chile's revolution against the armed forces.

What revolution? You mean the bourgeois government that wrapped itself in a red (or pink) flag and carried out limited capitalist reforms, much like Ne Win or Kwame Nkrumah? Had they been armed, and class conscious, the workers might have initiated a revolution - which would have meant both smashing Pinochet and his employer Allende, with all his pretty social-democratic rhetoric.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

25th November 2013, 23:44

i'd hope any non-revolutionary would be restricted because, if you aren't for a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, then you are for the continuation of capitalist social relations (i.e. a ruling class of some description, bolstered by the force of the state, and an exploited class of some type) and, frankly, i don't feel that if someone of such politics is here that this is a safe space for the rest of us.

I also must ask: how can the experience of Allende lead us to conclude anything else than his sort of politics leads to, well, a bullet in the head? It's such a dead end!

Sinister Cultural Marxist

26th November 2013, 01:11

What revolution? You mean the bourgeois government that wrapped itself in a red (or pink) flag and carried out limited capitalist reforms, much like Ne Win or Kwame Nkrumah? Had they been armed, and class conscious, the workers might have initiated a revolution - which would have meant both smashing Pinochet and his employer Allende, with all his pretty social-democratic rhetoric.

I'm taking it as a given that there was some kind of revolution in the process that got aborted. If there wasn't, then Pinochet wouldn't have needed to step in to preserve Capitalist relations. In the least, it seems that the US seriously thought that an actual revolution was starting. The point isn't that Allende couldn't be a revolutionary in virtue of the fact that he was elected, but that Chile's revolution failed because it didn't take sufficiently revolutionary strategies early enough to defend itself.

The Chileans clearly WERE class conscious to a point, and I agree that their problem was the fact that the Chilean military vastly outgunned them, tho i didnt state that explicitly.

Orange Juche

26th November 2013, 06:49

Just don't question the almighty authority of our Dear Leaders and I suspect you'll be fine.

Used to be the "authoritarians" were restricted on here, my how things have changed.

RadioRaheem84

26th November 2013, 07:18

argeiphontes

26th November 2013, 07:49

I've enjoyed this forum for the time I spent on it, but lately I've been dropping tendencies like flies. I've been reading a lot of Democratic Socialist stuff, even some market socialists like David Schweickart. Richard Wolff has been influencing me a lot lately and you guys know my tendency to side with the MR school.

What's the MR school?

Schweickart and Wolff believe in democracy but they aren't 'social democrats' in the sense that Sweden is a 'social democracy'. I.e. they aren't reformist because their goal isn't a nicer capitalism with some income redistribution and free education, they're advocating socialist relations of production. So, 'democratic socialists' aren't 'social democrats' (reformists), and hence IMO shouldn't be restricted, unless one has a narrow definition of revolution.

Market socialism is also "real" socialism since it doesn't have wage labor or appropriation of surplus labor by another class, and enterprises/collectives/whatever are managed by the workers themselves. It retains the market as an allocation mechanism for what's difficult to allocate via planning, but not other things like investment decisions.

(I also see Sawant as a step forward, and I say that as a self-professed libertarian socialist who wants nothing to do with comrade Trotsky and thinks the Russian revolution died in Kronstadt and was buried with Kropotkin.)

edit: I just associate Democratic Socialists with DSA, and they seem to be real socialists also but I haven't given their website a good look to be honest.

edit2: If you just mean parliamentarianism, that's just a strategy and not a goal. Reform is a goal, and only those who want to merely reform capitalism while retaining it are reformists.

Remus Bleys

26th November 2013, 13:54

Market socialism is also "real" socialism since it doesn't have wage labor or appropriation of surplus labor by another class, and enterprises/collectives/whatever are managed by the workers themselves. It retains the market as an allocation mechanism for what's difficult to allocate via planning, but not other things like investment decisions.

This is a fundamentally flawed understanding of what socialism and capitalism are.
Do you believe that the workers will trade with eachother? Weill the market be run with money, buying commodities? What determines the value of the products in this case?

Oenomaus

26th November 2013, 16:00

I'm taking it as a given that there was some kind of revolution in the process that got aborted. If there wasn't, then Pinochet wouldn't have needed to step in to preserve Capitalist relations.

This assumes that Pinochet "stepped in" to preserve capitalist relations, instead of serving the interest of one section of the bourgeoisie by violently overthrowing the government (but preserving the state apparatus, which is odd if this was a capitalist restoration) associated with other factions. Such sanjurjadas are a dime a dozen in history, particularly in regions of delayed capitalist development.

In the least, it seems that the US seriously thought that an actual revolution was starting.

That doesn't prove anything. The US government is not exactly known for its tact and calm analytical prowess.

The point isn't that Allende couldn't be a revolutionary in virtue of the fact that he was elected, but that Chile's revolution failed because it didn't take sufficiently revolutionary strategies early enough to defend itself.

What was there to defend? Can you point out one measure taken by the Allende government that had not been taken by obviously bourgeois governments?

I am also curious, if Allende was a socialist, and indeed presided over a revolution (!), which of the following also led a revolution:

Kwame Nkrumah;
Julius Nyerere;
Friedrich Ebert;
Salah Jadid;
Ne Win;
Than Shwe;
Saddam Hussein;
Hugo Chavez;
Ben Bella?

The problem here is the "processist" view of the revolution as a process which starts in the bourgeois society, ends in some milquetoast "socialist" government, and goes nowhere in between - Pablo also put a lot of stock in this conception of the revolution - as against the Leninist view of the revolution as the violent overthrow of one class by another.

This isn't hard to figure out. I'm liking the socialist alternative stance on things.

Apparently not, since, even though the Sawant campaign was painfully liberal, the SAlt do not think that electoral methods will lead to socialism.

I think its pretty wild to see a socialist like kshama sawant get elected in a major American city and be endorsed by one the biggest unions in the country. I don't know why such a feat
is denigrated. It may amount to big things or it might not, who knows, but the reality of worker gains seems tangible.

So... what worker gains would those be, and why would they be impossible if, for example, a "progressive" Democrat or even a "socialist" like Sanders were elected?

Do some of you really see democratic socialism as such a bane to workers?

It amounts to sowing illusions in bourgeois electoralism.

I'm sure you guys appreciate people like Eugene V. Debs?

Debs spent time in prison for revolutionary activities; the "sewer socialists" were in the same party as Debs but the man couldn't stand them.

argeiphontes

26th November 2013, 17:36

This is a fundamentally flawed understanding of what socialism and capitalism are.

Maybe. But I see capitalism as having the characteristics of 1) market allocation (the US has some state capitalist elements, not a pure market economy), 2) private ownership of the means of production, 3) appropriation of surplus labor by the capitalist class, 4) wage labor as the relation tying proletarians and capitalists together. I don't see markets themselves as essential to capitalism, but the social relations of production.

Even if markets and money can be eliminated, it seems it would be good to have socialist relations in place first. Markets and money are going to be the hardest things to change; the others aren't technical problems (or maybe even problems of human nature) but can be changed by people themselves expropriating capitalists or setting up their own replacement institutions. Also keep in mind that my goal is a decentralized but federated system of producer-managed collectives (libsoc/anarchism) and I wouldn't want to see a coordinator class or centralized state arise/remain.

Do you believe that the workers will trade with eachother? Weill the market be run with money, buying commodities? What determines the value of the products in this case?

The market. Market prices in capitalism fluctuate around the value of the labor contained in them anyway, and I think that there would be fewer distortions of this in market socialism. (Advertizing, price supports, corporate welfare, etc). Capital markets (stock markets, loans) would be eliminated and investment decisions would instead be handled at the level of the federation structure that they affected, in keeping with the libsoc principle that decision making power should be proportional to how much the people involved are affected by it. A hospital could be a local or regional decision, the internet backbone could be a "national" or multinational decision (whatever "national" would mean in the future).

So, if Schweickart was an anarchist, he'd be my hero ;)

As for whether workers could trade with each other or sell hot dogs on the street corner, I don't think it would ruin the whole thing for everybody else as long as nobody could hire anybody else for wages, but would be required to set up a collective instead.

Remus Bleys

26th November 2013, 17:47

so your vision of socialism still has the law of value operating in it.
Heh. Anarcho-Stalinism.

reb

26th November 2013, 18:51

RadioRaheem84

26th November 2013, 19:03

Apparently not, since, even though the Sawant campaign was painfully liberal, the SAlt do not think that electoral methods will lead to socialism.

I agree with their minimum wage stance and other electoral reforms. I haven't read anything about them not thinking that electoral methods will lead to socialism, if so, I disagree.

So... what worker gains would those be, and why would they be impossible if, for example, a "progressive" Democrat or even a "socialist" like Sanders were elected?

I've always been a progressive left supporter and I think Bernie Sanders is an excellent champion of workers in the Senate. He actually stands up in front of bankers and right wing politicians and tells them they're lying and are crooks to their face. I mean what more do you want? I wouldn't care if a progressive Democrat or Bernie Sanders were promoting worker gains. I am all for it. Sanders is my favorite guy in politics right now.

It amounts to sowing illusions in bourgeois electoralism.

Worker gains in the last 20th century came about because of the labor movement having those sowing illusions.

On Debs, he was arrested for anti-war activities. And those "sewer socialists" are just progressives.

All I am saying is that the SA ran two socialists for city council, one won and the other just barely lost. I mean the race was very very close. That amazes me. Change can happen through this route.

GiantMonkeyMan

26th November 2013, 19:16

This isn't hard to figure out. I'm liking the socialist alternative stance on things. I think its pretty wild to see a socialist like kshama sawant get elected in a major American city and be endorsed by one the biggest unions in the country. I don't know why such a feat
is denigrated. It may amount to big things or it might not, who knows, but the reality of worker gains seems tangible. This is just where my intellectual journey has taken me. Do some of you really see democratic socialism as such a bane to workers? I'm sure you guys appreciate people like Eugene V. Debs?
I think you've seen a successful election result and drawn the wrong conclusions. Sawant is a revolutionary socialist and warns against making too much out of the election. Revolutionaries in bourgeois parliament can only support workers and harass the bourgeoisie from a position within the capitalist system but it'll take workers acting beyond bourgeois parliament to affect fundamental change. It's certainly a step forward in my opinion and hopefully the media exposure will inspire some workers to have the confidence to take up the struggle for better conditions and read more about socialism/revolution.

argeiphontes

26th November 2013, 19:44

All I am saying is that the SA ran two socialists for city council, one won and the other just barely lost. I mean the race was very very close. That amazes me. Change can happen through this route.

FWIW, aside from the fact that immediate reforms are important to the working class for various reasons, and aside from the fun but condescending rhetoric (italics are in the original):

Is parliamentarianism "politically obsolete"? That is quite a different matter. If that were true, the position of the "Lefts" would be a strong one.

....

How can one say that "parliamentarianism is politically obsolete", when "millions" and "legions" of proletarians are not only still in favour of parliamentarianism in general, but are downright "counter-revolutionary"!?

....

You are in duty bound to call their bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices what they are—prejudices. But at the same time you must [I]soberly follow the actual state of the class-consciousness and preparedness of the entire class (not only of its communist vanguard), and of all the working people (not only of their advanced elements).

....

...participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.

From Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm).

#FF0000

26th November 2013, 23:59

All I am saying is that the SA ran two socialists for city council, one won and the other just barely lost. I mean the race was very very close. That amazes me. Change can happen through this route.

Eh, maybe? I think that's a wild conclusion to be jumping to from the victory of a socialist for one city council seat in one of the most left-leaning cities in America. Revolutionary change can't happen through parliamentary means alone, and can't happen through gradualism.

Oenomaus

27th November 2013, 00:06

I've always been a progressive left supporter and I think Bernie Sanders is an excellent champion of workers in the Senate. He actually stands up in front of bankers and right wing politicians and tells them they're lying and are crooks to their face. I mean what more do you want? I wouldn't care if a progressive Democrat or Bernie Sanders were promoting worker gains. I am all for it. Sanders is my favorite guy in politics right now.

I wanted to write a long post about petit-bourgeois "radicals" and "progressives", how they serve as a necessary part of the ideological apparatus of the bourgeois state by channeling proletarian discontent into campaigns against Republicans, bankers, "corporations", evil Jewish finance capitalism, whatever, while shoring up good German industrial capitalism, the small business of America, the national bourgeoisie, "eco-friendly" companies that boycott certain countries etc.

I'm not going to do that.

This is something that should be taken for granted on a site that prides itself on being the "home of the revolutionary left". This is the basic line that divides the revolutionaries from the swamp of bourgeois politics. We do not ask for a nicer capitalism. We don't want to tell bankers they're evil so that Ma and Pa shops will prosper (in fact many of us want to use the machinery of finance capital, q.v. Lenin and Preobrazhensky). We want to seize control of the means of production. We want to smash the old society. And we don't care if we're being mean while we're doing it. We don't care for the counting of hands. All that matters is revolution. You, poor fellow, are simply a glaringly obvious example of the same sort of confusion that leads people to embrace Chavez, cooperatives in bourgeois societies, and the good nonexistent Saint-Simonian god knows what else.

I give up. I just give up.

Art Vandelay

27th November 2013, 00:12

I agree with their minimum wage stance and other electoral reforms. I haven't read anything about them not thinking that electoral methods will lead to socialism, if so, I disagree.

The CWI does not believe that socialism can be achieved through electoral means, I'm really not sure where you're getting that from; just because salt participates in elections, does not mean it adopts a SPGB type of attitude on this matter. I was on the ground in the Minneapolis campaign and can guarantee you that is not the message we were spreading there, in Seattle, or in Boston.

Per Levy

27th November 2013, 00:31

It may amount to big things or it might not, who knows, but the reality of worker gains seems tangible.

actually its not, sawant will play the opposition role in that council, she has not the power to enact anything without the help of the other council members. and i doubt that they would go along with fullfilling sawants election promises.

Do some of you really see democratic socialism as such a bane to workers?

yes, cause everytime when democratic socialists came to power they betrayed the workers, or when they didnt and played the opposition role they helped to blow of some steam off and with that play an importent role in bourgeois politics.

I'm sure you guys appreciate people like Eugene V. Debs?

i might be wrong and please correct me if i am, but didnt debs say something like that change cant come through the ballot box only through revolution?

I've always been a progressive left supporter and I think Bernie Sanders is an excellent champion of workers in the Senate. He actually stands up in front of bankers and right wing politicians and tells them they're lying and are crooks to their face.

is he only doing that to the rightwing repubs or also to the centrist democrats as well?

I mean what more do you want?

id like that he tells his voters that a cushy senate seat for him wont change a damn thing, only if his voters wake up and see that it is them who can bring change things might actually change. does he do that? or is he just saying that some people are crooks?

All I am saying is that the SA ran two socialists for city council, one won and the other just barely lost. I mean the race was very very close. That amazes me. Change can happen through this route.

than why hasnt it happend yet? that tactic was used for over a hundred years, and where are we now?

RadioRaheem84

27th November 2013, 01:54

You, poor fellow, are simply a glaringly obvious example of the same sort of confusion that leads people to embrace Chavez, cooperatives in bourgeois societies, and the good nonexistent Saint-Simonian god knows what else.

This is a bit much. This is strictly about my intellectual journey. I've always preferred the approach of the Dem Socs even while I was reading Lenin, Mao, etc. I've had Allende on my avatar for years, I am surprised this is such a surprise to people. I just think reformist positions do have the chance to elicit change.

What is gradualism? I am curious

#FF0000

27th November 2013, 02:48

I just think reformist positions do have the chance to elicit change.

What does "elicit change" mean? We don't just want "change". We want the revolutionary restructuring of society and reformist positions cannot bring that about.

What is gradualism? I am curious

A political position advocating for gradual reform rather than revolution.

o well this is ok I guess

27th November 2013, 02:56

It's pretty simple problem to solve
If workers in your town were putting up barricades and shit, where would you be?

Sabot Cat

27th November 2013, 03:00

So on this forum we have social-democrats who are self described market socialists, technocratic utopian socialist and stalinists running around without restrictions? So much for a revolutionary left forum, we may as well call it reformist-left-and-if-that-is-too-much-oh-well-we'll-just-ask-for-a-nice-capitalism-and-call-it-quits-left-also-who-cares-about-this-marx-fellow-anyway-I-mean-its-not-like-we-should-read-him-or-anything. Bang up job, revleft.

Yes, let's just shut out all political debate until the only thing we hear is our own echoes. That way, when we try to convince other members of the working class to patricipate in the revolutionary struggle, they will be swept away by our incessant pedantry and gobbledygook.

Remus Bleys

27th November 2013, 04:10

Sinister Cultural Marxist

27th November 2013, 04:25

What does "elicit change" mean? We don't just want "change". We want the revolutionary restructuring of society and reformist positions cannot bring that about.

I think what RR is trying to say is that revolutionary change doesn't need to happen overnight. IMO it is a funny sort of temporality whereby the working class must seize power literally all at once, and that the class which rules society must be able to change, in a sense, overnight to obtain any kind of revolutionary ends. It makes sense that changes over time could constitute a revolution, as well as radical, overnight change.

Yes revleft is home of the debate for non-revolutionaries, and is basically where all the working class is hanging out.

On the contrary, I think everyone on this forum wants a society which is fundamentally revolutionized from where we are at today. There are just differing accounts of how to realize that end. And some people's ideas include more use of liberal political structures to realize that end - whether or not it works or not is another issue. At the very least I would agree with you that electoral strategies alone cannot achieve anything, especially because it is insane to think that socialists could attain anything electorally without appealing to business interests unless there was already a powerful, independent working class movement at its heels.

I guess what I'm saying is, I think you're within your right to criticize the means of Radio Raheem and other "less revolutionary" forum members but it is unfair to assume that they necessarily must have different ends.

Remus Bleys

27th November 2013, 04:28

Words I really do like you, but I think this is a simple way of looking at things. Liberals do not want communism, neither do conservatives. Hell, fascism did include large segments of the working class.

RadioRaheem84

27th November 2013, 09:04

When I read Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, or Che, I really just read it as mostly history. What revs me up is someone like Michael Parenti who dismantles the dominant paradigm, Richard Wolff who easily dissects the economy, Schweikart who promotes a pretty tangle looking picture of worker owned enterprises. I like listening to democracy now, Jeremy Scahill and root for Bernie Sanders. I like approach of someone like Cornell West more than a tankie type. In that whole sense I've always been this way.

Even though I tried to get into more revolutionary theoretical works I've always just gravitated toward more democratic socialism. I guess I've always been a more progressive lefty. I think I spent most of my time on this board asking questions about theory than giving answers. I've been here what since. 07 and I still ask beginner questions sometimes? Yet I've gotten more stoked about social change from ppl you guys might call liberals.

I mean the catalyst was the revelation that I've been adhering to "underconsumptionist" argument of capitalism the entire time and that to most Marxists it was dead wrong. I don't even agree with the orthodox Marxist view of crises. I stick with MR theory. I mean that's what I based my entire leftist paradigm on. That's what influenced my entire theory on imperialism, class struggle and such. To know that its not what orthodox Marxists even remotely think is true just through me for a loop. I said well then I'm a dem soc.

The Feral Underclass

27th November 2013, 09:13

worker owned enterprises

Either you want an end to exploitation or you don't. Choose.

social change from ppl you guys might call liberals.

Worker owned enterprises isn't social change, it's a different way of managing exploitation.

#FF0000

27th November 2013, 13:56

I think what RR is trying to say is that revolutionary change doesn't need to happen overnight.

Like I said before in some other thread, I think framing things like this is inaccurate. Revolutionists don't think change happens "overnight". It takes time to build a movement, to build power, to challenge the legitimacy of the status quo.

It makes sense that changes over time could constitute a revolution, as well as radical, overnight change.No, because the bourgeois state isn't a neutral construct. It's a class construct to maintain the dominance of the ruling class. You can either work to overthrow the system or you can work to govern and work in it -- but those choices are mutually exclusive. I mean, goddamn dude even the social democratic parties of the world don't adhere to a strategy of "gradualism" anymore (they all gave up the overthrow of capitalism long ago -- which ought to tell you something)

Oenomaus

27th November 2013, 15:27

I think what RR is trying to say is that revolutionary change doesn't need to happen overnight. IMO it is a funny sort of temporality whereby the working class must seize power literally all at once, and that the class which rules society must be able to change, in a sense, overnight to obtain any kind of revolutionary ends. It makes sense that changes over time could constitute a revolution, as well as radical, overnight change.

No, the issue is not the time scale - although one should be wary of those who propose "revolutionary change" at a glacial pace. The issue is that revolutionaries want to smash the bourgeois state machine, and reformists want to work within the bourgeois state machine. There can, therefore, be no compromise between the two standpoints; either the workers must elect an unending series of "progressive" representatives so that they can change capitalism in some minor way, or the whole system must go up in flames.

On the contrary, I think everyone on this forum wants a society which is fundamentally revolutionized from where we are at today. There are just differing accounts of how to realize that end. And some people's ideas include more use of liberal political structures to realize that end - whether or not it works or not is another issue. At the very least I would agree with you that electoral strategies alone cannot achieve anything, especially because it is insane to think that socialists could attain anything electorally without appealing to business interests unless there was already a powerful, independent working class movement at its heels.

I guess what I'm saying is, I think you're within your right to criticize the means of Radio Raheem and other "less revolutionary" forum members but it is unfair to assume that they necessarily must have different ends.

So what are their ends? Worker-managed enterprises? Price controls? A "social market economy"? That is not what the revolutionary left fights for - the socialisation of the means of production and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Art Vandelay

27th November 2013, 17:09

reb

27th November 2013, 17:11

Yes, let's just shut out all political debate until the only thing we hear is our own echoes. That way, when we try to convince other members of the working class to patricipate in the revolutionary struggle, they will be swept away by our incessant pedantry and gobbledygook.

I suppose that while we are at it, we should resurrect Proudhon, Kautsky and Stalin as walking corpses. I'm sure that adovacting for complete and utter utopian nonesense such as market socialism, dressing it up in Marxist rhetoric, will completely convince the working class of their own emancipation. That's the problem with all of you completely detached socialist wannabes, you have to come up with plans to "convince" the working class. Materialism, rest in peace thou window dressing of thine choosing. Having a political debate with these sort of people is like trying to argue evolution to a creationist. Something that I also don't do with my precious time. Consign them to the ash heap where they belong.

ed miliband

27th November 2013, 17:33

This isn't hard to figure out. I'm liking the socialist alternative stance on things. I think its pretty wild to see a socialist like kshama sawant get elected in a major American city and be endorsed by one the biggest unions in the country. I don't know why such a feat
is denigrated. It may amount to big things or it might not, who knows, but the reality of worker gains seems tangible. This is just where my intellectual journey has taken me. Do some of you really see democratic socialism as such a bane to workers? I'm sure you guys appreciate people like Eugene V. Debs?

mate, you aren't giving socialist alternative enough credit, much as it pains me to say. they aren't so silly as to think socialism can be voted in through parliamentary means, they see it as a necessary step towards building a revolutionary party: on the one hand the working class gets to see their power to enact reforms, on the other the working class will see the limits of the parliamentary system, etc. in fact, you seem to be taking the exact opposite conclusion to the one they want you to take - eventually, at least.

also, let's be realistic: there is no real distinction between "democratic socialist" and "social democrat". in fact, when the labour party formally ceased to be a social democratic party, removing clause iv of their constitution, they announced themselves to be a "democratic socialist" party for the first time - it really says it all. if somebody can convince me that actually, there's a world of difference between each position, i'll give them a cookie.

and lol(!!) at having the anarcho-bernstein ngnm85 like your posts. :laugh:

Per Levy

27th November 2013, 17:40

back on topic: we have lukashenko/belarus supporters here who arnt restricted nor banned, so no you wont be restricted or else it would've happend years agao tbh.

DasFapital

27th November 2013, 17:46

I am an undercover FBI agent and I'm not restricted.

#FF0000

27th November 2013, 17:53

I am an undercover FBI agent and I'm not restricted.

Same

EDIT: hey what are you bringing to the Holiday Potluck this year?

Alexios

27th November 2013, 19:22

mate, you aren't giving socialist alternative enough credit, much as it pains me to say. they aren't so silly as to think socialism can be voted in through parliamentary means, they see it as a necessary step towards building a revolutionary party: on the one hand the working class gets to see their power to enact reforms, on the other the working class will see the limits of the parliamentary system, etc. in fact, you seem to be taking the exact opposite conclusion to the one they want you to take - eventually, at least.

also, let's be realistic: there is no real distinction between "democratic socialist" and "social democrat". in fact, when the labour party formally ceased to be a social democratic party, removing clause iv of their constitution, they announced themselves to be a "democratic socialist" party for the first time - it really says it all. if somebody can convince me that actually, there's a world of difference between each position, i'll give them a cookie.

and lol(!!) at having the anarcho-bernstein ngnm85 like your posts. :laugh:

Not that I don't agree with your post, but Socialist Alternative is a self-proclaimed "democratic socialist" organization.

#FF0000

27th November 2013, 19:47

Not that I don't agree with your post, but Socialist Alternative is a self-proclaimed "democratic socialist" organization.

They're Trotskyist. There are "democratic socialist" members, apparently, but they are a Trotskyist organization.

They're part of the CWI, remember.

Sabot Cat

27th November 2013, 19:56

I suppose that while we are at it, we should resurrect Proudhon, Kautsky and Stalin as walking corpses. I'm sure that adovacting for complete and utter utopian nonesense such as market socialism, dressing it up in Marxist rhetoric, will completely convince the working class of their own emancipation.

I wasn't aware that Yugoslavia was considered a fictional utopian land.

That's the problem with all of you completely detached socialist wannabes, you have to come up with plans to "convince" the working class.

Most of the working class (in the United States at least) isn't already on board with any kind of socialism, because they conflate it with despotic Bolshevik regimes. Thus, there is a certain degree of convincing that needs to be done.

Materialism, rest in peace thou window dressing of thine choosing. Having a political debate with these sort of people is like trying to argue evolution to a creationist. Something that I also don't do with my precious time. Consign them to the ash heap where they belong.

We all want nearly the same thing, and as such we must act in concert with our fellow anti-capitalists, and pursue every available channel for societal change, be it reformist or revolutionary; the bourgeois remain a potent group of adversaries even without our intrafactional divisions.

ed miliband

27th November 2013, 20:17

I wasn't aware that Yugoslavia was considered a fictional utopian land.

omg, i just... hahaha :laugh:

Red Commissar

27th November 2013, 20:22

"Democratic Socialism" is sometimes used as a euphemism by American orgs. to avoid being lumped in with the popular image of Soviet or Chinese Communism and its allies, many times devoid of actual meaning.

As for RadioRaheem- I'll grant that it is impressive that a third party candidate managed to unseat a democrat in one of their strongholds- this is not an easy feat to do when party machines dig deep into city politics. Before you laud it as a success though, you should wait and see how they keep it. I guarantee you that the next time her seat comes up for election, the Democrats will bring their political machine to bear to reclaim it. They didn't take Sawant seriously at first until it became apparent she was posting respectable opinion poll numbers, and the next time around they will come out of the gate guns blazing to avoid repeating that mistake.

It is then you can see whether or not the DemSoc model is viable- if Sawant is able to keep the support of the people who put her there in the first place and expand that base in the face of a political machine which has A. Money and B. much more organized support mechanisms on the street, and still manage to be re-elected, then you could see it as a success.

This is ignoring of course what she can do with the seat. We should keep it in perspective- this is a single seat in a city council of nine members, the rest of whom are all democrats. They will do their best to embarrass her, isolate her, and inevitably put her in a position that will make her chose between the people she's representing or her political future, and in the event she choses the later it will greatly demoralize those who had put energy into her campaign. The former will probably do the same too though once they push her out if she chose to be intransigent on city council matters.

We need to look back at the history of the handful of elected officials the SPA put in all levels of US politics- from mayoral spots to state legislatures right up to the the House itself. Some were kicked out because of trumpeted up charges around anti-war positions, but others stayed but were eventually unseated by the Democratic or Republican member that had the benefit of funds and redbaiting, and I can see this happening to her as well. Again, it will challenge her campaign to really connect to the base and keep that support, and it will put the whole concept of electoralism on the table. Say she sticks by her positions but as a result, doesn't get anything done because of the city council. Her supporters are disillusioned because they blame her for the inaction- come re-election, the clout of democrat voters and the on-the-fence types who switched votes will be her downfall.

An example- you are probably aware that Milwaukee thrice had mayors affiliated to the Socialist Party. The first, Emil Seidel, was ousted after two years in office by a Democratic-Republican fusion candidate. The second, Daniel Hoan, was mayor for nearly 24 years before being ousted by a Democrat. The third, Frank P. Zeidler, was mayor for 12 years in the midst of the really aggressive part of the Cold War, choosing not to run for re-election because of the stress his opponents were putting on him for supporting the Civil Rights movement, which threatened to split the support he was getting from working-class voters.

In each of these cases, they came in admittedly as reformists, but had to constantly reinvent "socialism" to merely mean public goods and services to present it as not dictatorial and compromise their views to keep the administration running (under the logic of don't throw the baby out with the bath water). Hoan ended up jumping ship altogether and became a Democrat. You must also ask yourself, what happened to all those people who voted them in the first place and re-elected them? They didn't simply disappear.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket just yet I guess is what I'm saying. I could understand this if we got even a lousy reformist elected as mayor somewhere, but a city council seat is a bit premature.

Alexios

27th November 2013, 21:41

They're Trotskyist. There are "democratic socialist" members, apparently, but they are a Trotskyist organization.

They're part of the CWI, remember.

No, the party openly proclaims "democratic socialism" as its ideology which you can see if you meet them in person or just look at their party platform. I'm not even saying this to be insulting; it's just a known fact.

Baseball

28th November 2013, 05:01

[QUOTE]As for RadioRaheem- I'll grant that it is impressive that a third party candidate managed to unseat a democrat in one of their strongholds- this is not an easy feat to do when party machines dig deep into city politics. Before you laud it as a success though, you should wait and see how they keep it. I guarantee you that the next time her seat comes up for election, the Democrats will bring their political machine to bear to reclaim it. They didn't take Sawant seriously at first until it became apparent she was posting respectable opinion poll numbers, and the next time around they will come out of the gate guns blazing to avoid repeating that mistake.

It is then you can see whether or not the DemSoc model is viable- if Sawant is able to keep the support of the people who put her there in the first place

OK-- so a weakness (the weakness?) of the "DemSoc model" is that people might very well abandon their support of "DemSoc" elected councilors, representatives ect?

A few notes back #FF000 observed that DemSoc's had long since even abandoned the goal of "gradualism" and cited that as a sign of the futility of the DemSoc effort.

Having no particular dog in that hunt, I would however ask to what extent the rather dim opinion that the revleft folks have in requiring popular support for their efforts, was a factor in the split with the DemSoc folks decades and decades ago.

argeiphontes

28th November 2013, 06:16

the rather dim opinion that the revleft folks have in requiring popular support for their efforts

Haven't you heard? Taking into account the actual position of the proletariat is Idealistic and utopian.

argeiphontes

28th November 2013, 06:41

...and on that note...

Richard Wolff who easily dissects the economy, Schweikart who promotes a pretty tangle looking picture of worker owned enterprises.

You might want to check out Gar Alperovitz (http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/garalperovitz) as well.

edit: If you can get to Z's website these days...

NGNM85

30th November 2013, 20:57

...and lol(!!) at having the anarcho-bernstein ngnm85 like your posts. :laugh:

How juvenile. An accurate comparison would not be the arch-reformist Bernstein, but Rosa Luxemburg. I've never argued that socialism can be achieved via parliamentary means, in fact, I've explicitly criticized this idea, which, I think, is extremely naive, at best. This does not mean, however, that socialists should not avail themselves of the mechanisms afforded them, under bourgeois democracy, or that social reforms don't play a significant, even vital, role in the socialist project. Like the lady said;

"Can we oppose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, its final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not.
"The practical daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social Democracy the only means of engaging in the proletarian class struggle and working in the direction of the final goal--the conquest of political power and the suppression of wage labor. For Socialist Democracy, there is an indissoluble tie between social reforms and revolution. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its goal."
-Luxemburg, Rosa, Reform or Revolution, 1900

Of course, you know this, because I've told you so, on several occasions.