Is it obvious that socialism is preferable?

[ARomanCandle]

Most of us agree that production in the control of those who produce is preferable to capitalism, and that a society based on human need is better than M-C-M.

My question is: Why don't most people understand this?

a) It is easy to understand that socialism is preferable to capitalism, but ruling class ideology prevents people from accepting this;

or

b) To understand why socialism is preferable to capitalism takes a level of abstract thought that most people cannot/do not exercise.

Do you think it is more a) or b), and why?

[tallguy]

Socialism is far more preferable to most people given what most people earn and the way they have to live. However, we have an all encompassing MSM plus men with guns, where necessary, to keep people from becoming fully conscious.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I don't know for other countries, but here in the Netherlands people are afraid of everything that's leftist.
Why?
Stalin. Can't bring up any subject remotely social or the USSR under Stalin comes up. Or Mao.

Thanks a lot Stalin! :mad:

[Bala Perdida]

Yeah. Here in the US most people have no idea what socialism actually is or how it works. They either think it's a capitalist welfare style economy, or an oppressive USSR style regime. Power systems have basically manipulated and destroyed the meaning of socialism for their own benefit. People don't know to what extent it rivals capital, and how much it would put them in power and provide their basic needs at the very least.

[Red Economist]

Most of us agree that production in the control of those who produce is preferable to capitalism, and that a society based on human need is better than M-C-M.

My question is: Why don't most people understand this?

a) It is easy to understand that socialism is preferable to capitalism, but ruling class ideology prevents people from accepting this;

or

b) To understand why socialism is preferable to capitalism takes a level of abstract thought that most people cannot/do not exercise.

Do you think it is more a) or b), and why?

I think it's both. The ruling class ideology prevents people from seeing the advantages of socialism as a theoretical form of social organization. Instead, the emphasis is on how the increased size and power of government leads 'inevitably' to a totalitarian state.

Because 'socialism' has not been built yet (assuming you don't accept the historical example of the USSR etc. as socialist/desirable), it requires a hell of a lot of political idealism and abstract reasoning. If you want to argue that the USSR was a socialist paradise or was somewhere on the road to it, well- your either insane or a thinking dialectically. When Marxism was still 'new' and untested as a revolutionary ideology- people were free to be much more idealistic and utopian as they want, and it was part of the cultural landscape at the beginning of the twentieth century to believe that scientific and technological progress would lead to social progress.

In the mainstream view, the twentieth century went so badly (two world wars, a great depression, invention of nuclear weapons, cold war, Fascism, the holocaust, Cuban Missile Crisis, stalinism, etc.) that for the most part, people are deeply pessimistic and take the view human beings are (to one extent or another) inherently evil. In the UK, turn on the TV and your pretty much guaranteed to find something about Nazis even if the second world war ended now 69 years ago.
This 'realistic' view is- on a purely ideological plane- why it is so hard to get people to go left as it requires quite a lot of utopian reasoning and a faith in man kinds ability to progress, especially given the scale of the changes involved. Marxism requires something of a "f**k it, let's do it anyway" kind of attitude and is more appropriate to a state of social crisis when out of necessity, people get together and try to do something about the world's problems because they affect them so immediately.

But at it's heart the pessimism is the result of the dominance in the belief in human selfishness as the "realistic" view (often presented as a 'scientific' or objective view of history, psychology etc) , reflecting the power of capitalism both through the mass media and also to shape our socioeconomic environment.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Most of us agree that production in the control of those who produce is preferable to capitalism, and that a society based on human need is better than M-C-M.

My question is: Why don't most people understand this?

a) It is easy to understand that socialism is preferable to capitalism, but ruling class ideology prevents people from accepting this;

or

b) To understand why socialism is preferable to capitalism takes a level of abstract thought that most people cannot/do not exercise.

Do you think it is more a) or b), and why?

I don't think option b has really anything to do with it. Option a is part of the story, but really when you look at arguments by pro-caps from o.i. Here to politicians and the media, they are pretty lazy. This is because they don't really need to make an convincing argument, they really only need to argue that there aren't other possibilities, or at least other options are no better. This is where the USSR comes in and helps back up the argument.

Related to your first point about collective production vs exploitative production, also part of why this is not readily apparent is because exploitation is hidden in wage work. Crappies always say, if you have a bad deal, then work somewhere else. This is because they see wage work as a fair trade... You get paid for your hours... What's hidden is that you don't get paid for your productivity.

They don't have to intellectually convince people of capitalism, because capitalist relations and tendencies are just a fact of life. You have to compete for a job as a worker, cities have to "attract" business revenue to function in this society. What one thinks of it matters little on it's own because the system forces us to act in this way for the most part... We don't have to like it, and the anger and cynicism of society suggests to me that most people do have some level of dissatisfaction. But unchallenged, capitalism tends to force people to compete with each other on terms set by the bosses.

But organized class struggle can begin to change that dynamic and encourage more class militancy and allow for radical alternatives to seem more possible and revolutionary currents to develop. It begins to introduce the possibility that, for one example, solidarity and workplace (better yet, class) organizing is more effective than competition.

[G4b3n]

It is A in the sense that ruling class ideology is built on the presumption that there are no sustainable alternatives and the alternatives that can be established (which they argue is nothing less than Stalinism) are infinitely less desirable than capitalism. It furthers these assumptions by presenting the primary components of bourgeois society (property, markets, etc) as things that have always existed and always will exist. It blows my mind how so many bourgeois historians can be so intellectually dishonest when in academia, at least here in America, you are most likely to here at least a quasi-historical materialist interpretation of the industrial revolution and fall of federalism, which is really the only means by which one can make sense of these things.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I think one of the major failures of the left is their inability to think concretely, not abstractly. Workers are generally forced to think in concrete terms by the virtue of their material conditions. But leftist theorists, often petit-bourgeois, are free to dream up empty slogans and split hairs as much as they like.

This doesn't mean that theory is useless. For example, it is important for militant workers to understand what a mode of production is. But if they can't understand what a non-mode of production or bureaucratic collectivism is, it's not the fault of the workers.

Marxist theory can only develop fruitfully in a firm contact with the workers' struggle.

As for "Stalinism", I think that is more of a concern in "the West", that is in those countries that have never experienced "Stalinist" rule. In countries that have, many if not most people are nostalgic about the period. Some of them are, of course, creepazoids like the KPRF, who I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole if that pole had a condom at the end and someone else was holding the pole. But a lot of them are people who are nostalgic about an era where they could eat, work and have a roof over their heads. We need to approach those workers, not through empty sloganeering, but by explaining why we oppose "Stalinism"-revisionism and how our opposition to "Stalinism" is different from that of the nationalists and liberals.

[theuproar]

Most of us agree that production in the control of those who produce is preferable to capitalism, and that a society based on human need is better than M-C-M.

My question is: Why don't most people understand this?

a) It is easy to understand that socialism is preferable to capitalism, but ruling class ideology prevents people from accepting this;

or

b) To understand why socialism is preferable to capitalism takes a level of abstract thought that most people cannot/do not exercise.

Do you think it is more a) or b), and why?

I would say A. I try not to be too presumptive about the ability/inability of others to utilize higher-order thinking, although sometimes my cynicism gets the best of me.

Overall, in the USA, the idea that a socialist system of economics is easily-abused is incredibly pervasive... The reactionary response, then, is to ask "Who is John Galt?", and retreat into the paranoia of isolation. Once there, I believe, people begin to retroactively construct an ideology to match that state of mind. Altruism is a disservice, innovation through competition, etc etc.

[bropasaran]

Most of us agree that production in the control of those who produce is preferable to capitalism, and that a society based on human need is better than M-C-M.

My question is: Why don't most people understand this?

a) It is easy to understand that socialism is preferable to capitalism, but ruling class ideology prevents people from accepting this;

or

b) To understand why socialism is preferable to capitalism takes a level of abstract thought that most people cannot/do not exercise.

Do you think it is more a) or b), and why?

I would say neither, but maybe a modifed form of "a)", namely- it is easy to understand that socialism is preferable to capitalism, but ruling class propaganda prevents people from cognitively acknowledging this.

Based on my experience of agitating in various jobs I worked and in the community where I live, when I talk to people about liberarian socialist principles in laymen terms, without using even the term "socialism" - majority of people does understand and does accept those principles, because they actually intuitively hold basically the same ideals. So it certainly isn't "b)".

Concerning "b)" I would say it's the opposite- that undestanding why capitalism is preferable to (libertarian) socialism takes a level of abstract thought that most people cannot/ do not exercise.

But of course, there are problems. The first, smaller, problem is that due to propaganda many words having to do with economy and politics have become void of concrete meaning, and have become vague emotionally-charged labels in service of the rulling class interests. The rulling class is going to do what they're going to do, but within the left, I mostly blame people who support marxism for furthering the confusion, and I see marxist theories of history and economy pointless, it's theory of class wrong and detrimental; I think that all that needs to be rejected in favour of simple libertarian socialist (anarchist) theory- rulers (in any sphere of society) that are (or want to be) parasites vs the ruled that are the working people.

Another big problem with people who like theories, both libertarian marxists and anarchists, is something I very much dislike, and that is a pevalent classist attitude that they have toward working people, when I hear those conversation and the patronising attitude like "I'm so smart, I'm an intellectual because I know about all these theories, and now I'm going to explain to you what's going on in the world", that's a position that's maybe fine for some formally organised lecture, but in agitation "on the street", in just simple talking to people (which should really be talking to them, not preaching to them), that just alienates people from the left.

The second, bigger, problem appears when people do cognitively acknowledge those principles they hold (they can but don't need to use the words socialism, anarchism, etc) that's when rulling class indoctrination sets in, with three large obstacles that just keep comming all over, again and again. It's been frustrating for me at first, I've somewhat gotten used to over time, but over the years, I have been having optimism/ pessimism swings regarding my agitational activity.

One thing is passivity and dissinterest, which I think is pretty obviously the consequence of the "distraction" part of propaganda. You get out of people that they actually already are libertarian socialists, simply by talking to them, but then they start with "it's a nice idea, but it's impossible" and when you ask why, the first answer is- they can't be bothered with that, they have their work, they need to take care of their family, they can't think about some ideal and just society now. IMO, mass direct action for reforms is indispensible here, so that people get activated, maybe they are not interested to get involed in fighting for a LibSoc society, but they are largely interested in get
ting involved in fighting for higher wages, less work-time, against companies polluting their environment, and similar things, which I think is a great nudge that can get them thinking- about further into future and about roots of problems and the solutions for those.

The second obstacle I always come accross is the answer "yeah, it's a nice idea, but people can't function without some people in authority, there'd be chaos". I can explain the irrationality of that idea all I want, but it's my feeling is that until people start really socialising and really getting to know other working people, and seeing that they're normal people just like them, they're going to accept this idea. I've been involved in organising something like informal health clubs, with mostly younger people getting toghether to jog, do light exercise, hang out and talk about health and everyday stuff, with conversations about society poping up; but I don't know what sort of social interaction could be more mass-based, maybe churches, like UU and stuff like that. It'd be great to come up with something that includes travel, interaction between people from different groups- ethnic, educational, urban/ rural, stuff like that, but I don't know what could that be. Any ideas?

The third obstacle is the market mentality that is rammed down people's throats. That's the wierdest part, they'll say that they agree with an idea (solidarity, cooperation etc), and then they will object to it using some capitalist "logic" that the propaganda imposes on everyone (eg. people are just too selfish and lazy); about after a minute or two in the conversation they will themselves recognize the falseness of the objection, but they will still keep holding it. I mean, I just... I don't know, maybe it's because they have to live it to some degree, so they have to accept it on some level of consciousness and "rationalize" it, but I just don't know how we should counter that, maybe organising some solidarity activities, I have to admit, I haven't been involved in such things. Has someone here, what are your experiences? And if someone who has been working blue collar jobs and been agitating in them, or has been active in community organizing of working people, and has any tips and ideas about this, it'd be great to hear them.

[ckaihatsu]

Because 'socialism' has not been built yet (assuming you don't accept the historical example of the USSR etc. as socialist/desirable), it requires a hell of a lot of political idealism and abstract reasoning.


I'll differ on this point -- the reason we advocate for a transition *past* capitalism is because the social ills / problems under bourgeois rule are *supposed* to be immediately apparent and conscious, due to everyone's daily experience from living and working in them.

This means it's *not* idealism or abstraction for anyone to simply reference and reflect-on how the world currently works, and to immediately reach the conclusion that humanity can do far better.

On another thread I'm reminding some rightists that the world no longer has any material-logistical requirement for the use of money, whatsoever:


Coordination in an economically fragmented world

http://www.revleft.com/vb/coordination-economically-fragmented-t186188/index.html?p=2723761#post2723761

[ckaihatsu]

The second obstacle I always come accross is the answer "yeah, it's a nice idea, but people can't function without some people in authority, there'd be chaos". I can explain the irrationality of that idea all I want, but it's my feeling is that until people start really socialising and really getting to know other working people, and seeing that they're normal people just like them, they're going to accept this idea.


The famous phrase 'a nation of laws, not men' immediately comes to mind here -- we should point out that any formal conclusions, even today, are supposed to be derived from a *democratic* process.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law


As socialists / revolutionaries, we're simply saying that this kind of democracy needs to be extended into all areas of production and productivity, instead of leaving such to the hands-off 'auto-pilot' of the capitalist markets.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

Mostly A, B to an extent.

Most people don't understand what socialism is and what exactly it implies. They don't realize that it's a completely different system. Like others have said, in the US this is because conservatives label everything that is remotely progressive as socialism.

In Europe however, the problem is, in my opinion, even more serious. Socialism isn't something that scares people off and is understood a little better (in the sense that people generally know that it embodies ideas that help the working class) than in North America. However, the term has become diluted by social democrats who have politically moved to the right over the past few decades, giving up some of the main goals of socialism and supporting the petite bourgeoisie.

In doing so, they have become completely detached from most of the actual working class. To the point that the socialist labour union (also reformist and in my eyes not left-wing enough) have tried distancing themselves from them.

To top it off, a lot of these parties still have the word 'socialist' in their name. This makes it very hard to explain that actual socialism isn't social liberalism as most of the current 'social democrats' make it seem.

[RedCornFlakes]

Do you think it is more a) or b), and why?

I think it's more acceptable. In capitalism you have to work like 10 hours a day sometimes. In socialism (collective ownership of the means of production), you can either keep the 10 hour workday or just decide to have a 2-hour work today.

In Capitalism it costs like $400 to get an Xbox One, In Socialism it's free.

It's pretty obvious that socialism is better.

[tallguy]

I'm 14 so some of this is going over my head. In socialist places (real ones) everything is free and you work for what you work for is that right? Close enough?Yep, close enough...:)

Each contributes according to their ability. Each receives according to their needs.