New to "the Left" (Socialist?)

[RedSeppoku]

Hey, guys. As you can read from the title, I'm pretty new to the whole leftist agenda. Recently, I have read a book entitled "The Capitalism Papers: Flaws of an Obsolete System", written by Jerry Mander. (I would not be surprised if a great deal of you have read it already) This book has opened my eyes to a lot of the evils being perpetrated by the bourgeois in this country (I'm an American). Although, while I have adopted Mander's position of Anti-Capitalism, which he clearly established within the pages of his essay, he ultimately didn't state a CLEAR political affiliation that might combat and/or ail the troubles found in the free-market system. I did some independent research and found that socialism might be the closest belief that I could find that falls within the parameters of what I am seeking. However, I am still not 100% sure on what being a socialist might entail. What are your social policies? What are your thoughts on things like religion and the entertainment industry? Does being Anti-Capitalist directly go hand-in-hand with being a socialist? I'm just a fresh-off-the-boat lefty asking some questions, and I came to what seems like a friendly, online community that might have some answers for me.

[The Idler]

Being anti-capitalist does not go hand-in-hand with being a socialist. Being anti-capitalist entails criticising capitalism. Being a socialist entails criticising capitalism and waging the class struggle on the side of the working-class understanding only the working-class can emancipate society. Religion is a ruling-class idea, that is its role in society. Entertainment is similar to a lesser extent as it depends on what sort of entertainment you are talking about. Socialists enjoy film, music and games just like the rest of society.

[Црвена]

Welcome :)

1) I've heard "social policy" mean policy relating to civil liberties (as opposed to "economic policy") or relating to public services (which I think is the technical meaning). Regarding the former, socialists basically want the law to get out of our bodies and relationships; we support LGBT rights, abortion rights, drug legalisation and so on. Regarding the latter, obviously public services will be unnecessary under socialism, but under capitalism we see them as better for workers than everything being private, though there is nothing socialist about having the state provide some services in a capitalist society.

2) Most socialists vehemently oppose religious institutions (though there are a few, I think predominantly Christian, who base their socialism on their religion) on the grounds that they promote reactionary and harmful things like segregation and the family. But we won't send the thought police after you if you want to practise your religion in private. Nor do we have anything in particular against the entertainment industry, although we definitely don't appreciate the discrimination that goes on in it.

3) Yeah, as The Idler said, socialism is more specific than just a criticism of capitalism, and socialists always advocate social ownership of the means of production as an end. Therefore supporters of the Nordic Model are not socialist.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I misread your post at first as referring to (Ernst) Mandel, the "centrist for all seasons". Mander (what an unfortunate name for someone involved in American politics), from what I gather, is an "old left" liberal. His position seems to be based on some kind of "immorality" (always a problematic term) of capitalism rather than the class struggle.

Socialists stand for the social control of the means of production - social and scientific planning of the production process on the basis of free labour (that is, labour not constrained by wages or any other form of rationing) and free access to the entirety of the social product by any member of society, the overcoming of the state and so on. It's a bit difficult to talk about "policies" when we envision a stateless society - in the meantime we stand for proletarian rights like the right to strike, picket etc., for democratic rights, particularly for minorities - but I don't think you could really get any policies like "increase the capital gains tax", we don't want to tell the bourgeois state how to run capitalism but to smash the said state in favour of a workers' government.

"Anti-capitalism" is a problematic term. Most of those who consider themselves "anti-capitalist" in fact want private ownership of the means of production, generalised commodity production (products being produced not for human need but for sale on the market) and wage labour to continue, and as such are not against capitalism at all. It's also associated with capitulation to various religious forces, particularly those associated with Khomeini's reactionary regime, by various left groups.

Religion is part of bourgeois ideology, and is particularly harmful to women and minorities.

[Vogel]

My position is workers should own the workplace. No more of this top down, hierarchical capitalism. Remove the capitalist from the position of appropriating what the workers produce, and replace them with the workers.
Personally, the reason for my views is largely because of Jesus. What the Idler saying about religion is largely true to. Like figures such as Martin Luther King, Jesus message has been de-fanged. Take for instance the KING James version. Why would a king want his citizens to be encouraged to fight the ruling class, as Jesus did? Hence you find all sorts of tidbits where translations were purposefully stretched. If you feel like, Reza Alsan (https://vimeo.com/72784795) is a great place (http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/zealot-author-reaza-aslan/5409a7e902a760b9a000055al) to start if you find this interesting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/reza-aslan-jesus-marxist_n_5786932.html). Of course you may have no interest in it, but hey, better to spread da knowledge. (And prove we are very accepting of religions :P )

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well with all due respect replacing capitalists with "workers" (who them become capitalists) is precisely what socialism is not. And linking to the Huffington Post is sort of a dead give-away for where this kind of politics leads.

[Vogel]

I don't watch, read, or listen to huffpost in any form. I still don't know what kind of stuff they talk about. Not gossip, as far as I know. I link it because it has a very intelligent man who knows about a historical figure talking about this historical figure. keep in mind Reza is in no way an expert in Marx, so don't listen to his thoughts on Marx.

I am not saying elect some workers to the position of the Board of Directors. I am saying get completely rid of the board of directors and put their function of appropriating and distributing with the people who do the producing. The workers. Discussion for another thread.

[Q]

Moved from /intro to /learning.

[Tim Cornelis]

The first paragraphs in that book are dedicated to describing how small businesses are not the problem. So from a Marxist perspective, it's a reactionary petty bourgeois socialism. Can anyone recommend some good article or whatever about what's wrong with small businesses as solution to capitalism, a bit more elaborate than it being 'reactionary'? Thanks.

--

I tried googling, came across this atrocity, "Small businesses, however, still existed at least at the beginning of the first stage [of communism]" (Bertell Ollman). I'm losing faith in <strike>humanity</strike> Marxists.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't watch, read, or listen to huffpost in any form. I still don't know what kind of stuff they talk about. Not gossip, as far as I know. I link it because it has a very intelligent man who knows about a historical figure talking about this historical figure. keep in mind Reza is in no way an expert in Marx, so don't listen to his thoughts on Marx.

I am not saying elect some workers to the position of the Board of Directors. I am saying get completely rid of the board of directors and put their function of appropriating and distributing with the people who do the producing. The workers. Discussion for another thread.

Huffington Post gathers proponents of the US Democratic Party, along with some minor liberal cranks like anti-vaccination activists.

And I think the discussion should happen in this thread, because it concerns what socialism is. And what socialism is is the movement for the revolutionary abolition of capitalism, meaning the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production, generalised commodity production, and wage labour - and you want to keep all three, except the workers would own "their" enterprises. Which simply means that they take over the function of exploiting themselves, while all of the problems of capitalist society remain. That's not socialism, that is a particularly implausible strain of utopian liberalism.