Reformism/Parliamentary socialism

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

My dad is an intelligent man and is anti-US imperialism, third world exploitation, Iraq war etc and also sympathises with many left wing ideas.

However he is a great believer in kind of moderate socialism. He keeps bringing up the fact that he lived in a very poor family when he was a boy and has struggled all his life to get where he is (not that our family is wealthy - just average middle class). He admits that there are big bad corporations that exploit kids in the third world etc, but sees nothing wrong with "somebody having their own little business, their own little car, their own little house which they have worked bloody hard for".

He believes that socia reforms can be passed through parliament, or restricting the powers of corporations. He even tthinks there is famine in the 3rd world because there isnt enough Western investment there: "if only we could build them some little factories to work in, they wouldnt be starving *sigh* isnt it sad we cant help".

How can I argue my case here? Any arguments/ideas?

Thanks in advance

[KC]

However he is a great believer in kind of moderate socialism. He keeps bringing up the fact that he lived in a very poor family when he was a boy and has struggled all his life to get where he is (not that our family is wealthy - just average middle class). He admits that there are big bad corporations that exploit kids in the third world etc, but sees nothing wrong with "somebody having their own little business, their own little car, their own little house which they have worked bloody hard for".

The very fact that he had to work so hard for what he's got while other people get it without doing any work is a good point to bring up. Also, remind him of the difference between personal and private property.



He believes that socia reforms can be passed through parliament, or restricting the powers of corporations.

Society is in the hands of the ruling class. They will never voluntarily give up their power.


He even tthinks there is famine in the 3rd world because there isnt enough Western investment there: "if only we could build them some little factories to work in, they wouldnt be starving *sigh* isnt it sad we cant help".


That is somewhat true. However, most third-world countries have factories there. The problem is how poorly the workers are treated. It is better off than before the country developed, however it is still a bad condition to live in. The corporations will never treat these people fairly as they need to keep labour costs down in order to compete. They will keep these costs down by any means necessary.

[Zero]

You could debate on and on with certain people weather or not sweat shops are helping or hendering a country for hours. I know, because I have. Under the current system I believe a set of international working conditions should be erected, though that would hurt poor buisnesses in other countries... Again, you can debate on and on.

In the end, untill we raise the standard of living for every nation in the world, there will be no way to end corporate exploitation of comrades/workers in other countries, most noteably China, Taiwan, Mexico, and most of Africa.

Though bringing up China raises points in and of itself...

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Thank you comrade Lazar, i see what you mean. But the point he has misconceptions about is that capitalism works for the majority of people - i.e. most people in this country have a house, car and have worked hard for it, and he sees nothing wrong with that. The number of people that do nothing to get their money, he says, is relatively small

And what is the difference between private and personal property? Is personal like..a toothbrush or shoes and private is just land?

[Doshka]

You might want to point out that it is not that what he does it bad or immoral, but that the point is that such a life plays into the system. the capitalist system of greed and the good of the individual over that of the society, in which the human being becomes an object. a system in which officials become so wrapped-up in self-preservation and “doing their job” that the dehumanization of the individual concerned goes unquestioned. the same applies to businessmen. shove Brecht's "Mother Courage and her children" and Dario Fo's "accidental death of an anarchist" in his face. read out the song of capitulation in the former. Both plays reveal the mid-level officials who are so focused on preserving their positions and pleasing their superiors that the validity of legal accusations or the human factor involved is not their concern. The officials become tools to implement the political agenda that preserves the power and position of their superiors and the benefits they get, and the victims become mere objects used to achieve this. just as he and those like him have become tools to implement the economic and social agenda of capitalism. it is not the small business per se, but the system which such a business supports. Such a commentary on the dehumanizing nature of bureaucratic systems has been a recurrent theme of much twentieth century literature, famously in Kafka. Moreover, such a point has been a recurrent theme in the characterizations of both nation-states and capitalist societies: “alienation” in Marxist writings, or Max Weber’s characterization of modern society as an “iron cage”. Thus you can simultaneously make two points, i.e. in pointing out the unhealthy psychological repercussions of nationalism/capitalism, critique both the political system and the psychological demeanor of people under this system.

An overly simplistic interpretation your critique of capitalism is not possible in your debate with your father: the middle-class business man/ the government employee/ whatever else you can think of, is a low-level, salaried beurocrat who gets nothing out of the system in general, or the state in particular. He accepts a system that he gets nothing out of, just as the rest of the working class does. The statement thus becomes double-edged, critical of both the rulers who impose the system and the ruled who accept it. Thus, it is not simply the powerful who oppress the weak, but rather the weak who oppress themselves for the benefit of the powerful – in all cases these workers become part of a larger machine that grinds down human beings and their relationships. your father is one such worker. as is mine.

[More Fire for the People]

It is evident that some reforms really do benefit the working class (for instance, it is better to support universal health insurance now rather than have workers die from lack of health care) and even in the long-term but most reforms work to the advantage of both the working class and the bourgeoisie, and this "advantage" is not equal. In the end, the only way for the proletariat to conquer political power is revolution.

Ask your father, how did the bourgeoisie come to power? Did they not overthrow the feudal states? How did the feudal states coem to power, did they not overthrow the Roman slave-owning society?