A Couple Questions

[Hierro]

Well, I've become interested in Che Guevara, Huey P. Newton, Brown Berets, etc , but I'm very curiuos about certain things, so I decided to join up and expand my mind a bit more.

First, what does a red arm band mean? I've seen Zack de la Rocha wear one during live performances, but never fully understood what it represented. Then I'm fairly confident I know what it stands for, but I just want to confirm it, the red star. The Zapatistas (spelling?) used it on their flag during last few decades, right? What does it stand for though?

Are Anthrax, the thrash band, a racist band? I've heard a couple things that have made me question it, but I was told that I'd like them if I liked RATM and like Antrhax. RATM aren't racist, so could someone clear that up for me? Thanks.

I'm sure I have more questions, but none are coming to mind.

Thanks again.

[BreadBros]

Red is generally considered the "political colour" that represents the left-wing, in particular Socialism and Communism. Find out more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_colour . The star is just a symbol of the left as well, usually said to represent the five continents (Eurasia, Africa, Australia, N. America, S. America) or 5 fingers of a hand. I can't say EXACTLY why de la Rocha or the Zapatistas use it, but you can be assured it has to do with their allegiances to the left-wing of the political spectrum.

As for Anthrax, I'm not sure, never listened to them. What in particular makes you think that though?

[Hierro]

Hm, alright, makes sense. Thanks for clarifying bro.

On Anthrax, one of their band members, Scott Ian, has another band called Stormtroopers of Death and stormtroopers were a division of the army for the Nazi party. But Scott Ian is Jewish so it doesn't make sense that he'd be an anti-semetic. But yeah, I've mulled over it a bit and decided that it has nothing to do with the Nazi party at all. :)

One more question, I've noticed a lot of people on here saying that capitalism is bad. Why is that?

[Comrade Kurtz]

Socialism is the opposite of capitalism.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:07 AM
One more question, I've noticed a lot of people on here saying that capitalism is bad. Why is that?
Don't belong to this organization, but I love their FAQ-FAQ on Capitalism and Imperialism (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/faq.html#a)

Read that.

[Hierro]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 10 2006, 01:18 AM
Socialism is the opposite of capitalism.
Sorry if I'm being naive, but I thought communism was the opposite of capitalism? I'm taking Economics in school right now and it happens to be that we are currently starting the area where we learn the differences between Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism. I want to learn more about Socialism because it seems to be the best option of the 3 from what I've read and learned.


@Red Dali,
Thanks, that site explains a lot of the questions I had regarding Capitalism. :)

Sorry if I seem very uneducated in these matters, but I'm trying. :lol:

[YSR]

As a recent graduate of high school, let me assure you that h.s. political economics is bullshit. I was told that Communism means that the government owns everything.

Anyone who has even read the Manifesto can tell you this is not true.

[Hierro]

Mhm, my econ teacher seems relatively smart though, but I'm sure he won't be teaching leftist ideas. Would be an interesting year though.

I take it Manifesto explains communism very well?

[Comrade Kurtz]

Originally posted by Hierro+Sep 10 2006, 01:49 AM--> (Hierro @ Sep 10 2006, 01:49 AM)
Comrade [email protected] 10 2006, 01:18 AM
Socialism is the opposite of capitalism.
Sorry if I'm being naive, but I thought communism was the opposite of capitalism? I'm taking Economics in school right now and it happens to be that we are currently starting the area where we learn the differences between Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism. I want to learn more about Socialism because it seems to be the best option of the 3 from what I've read and learned.


@Red Dali,
Thanks, that site explains a lot of the questions I had regarding Capitalism. :)

Sorry if I seem very uneducated in these matters, but I'm trying. :lol: [/b]
Capitalism implies there is still some sort of regulating authority. Technically it is the opposite of socialism. The free-market (often synonymous with capitalism, albeit incorrectly) is the opposite of communism.

[Hierro]

Alright.

Are there are pure forms of capitalism? The US isn't a purely capitalist state because there is gov't involvement, right? I think I'm on the right track now.

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 05:21 AM
Are there are pure forms of capitalism? The US isn't a purely capitalist state because there is gov't involvement, right? I think I'm on the right track now.
No, there are no pure forms of capitalism now. As well as communism. If somebody says that Cuba, DPRK or USSR are/were communist, don't listen to that crap. It's the best demonstration of people's ignorance.

[Rollo]

I think the band actually refers to the stormtroopers of starwars as a part of another take back campaign.

[Darth Revan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 08:29 AM
I think the band actually refers to the stormtroopers of starwars as a part of another take back campaign.
yeah most likely
it seems that the empire in star wars has lot in common with Nazi Germany i take it that the emperor is Hitler and the Jedi are the Jews ?

[Rollo]

Yeah that's what I thought at first, because the empire had the jedi exteriminated.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:38 PM
Are Anthrax, the thrash band, a racist band? I've heard a couple things that have made me question it, but I was told that I'd like them if I liked RATM and like Antrhax.
They collaborated with Public Enemy. 'Nuf said.

As for SOD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.O.D.

[KC]

As a recent graduate of high school, let me assure you that h.s. political economics is bullshit. I was told that Communism means that the government owns everything.

Anyone who has even read the Manifesto can tell you this is not true.

You're right. That's socialism. ;)

[Hierro]

Ok thanks again guys. I really do appreciate all the feed back.

About the Capitalism stuff again, has there ever been a pure capitalistic government? Oh and what is a good example of the best socialist government around these days? Is Ireland a socialist country, I believe my AM Gov't teacher told me that it was?

[Comrade Kurtz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 08:24 PM
Ok thanks again guys. I really do appreciate all the feed back.

About the Capitalism stuff again, has there ever been a pure capitalistic government? Oh and what is a good example of the best socialist government around these days? Is Ireland a socialist country, I believe my AM Gov't teacher told me that it was?
Technically there really hasn't been a pure capitalist state (in that there are no governmental regulations). It is usually referred to as the free market, in that no taxes, tarrifs, laws, or regulations dictate business practices. This could take many forms; Anarcho-Capitalism (no government; only corporations) or laissez-faire capitalism (liberatrian; no government intervention, although it may still exist).

Communism is more difficult to define. Many believe that communism, true communism mind you, implies no ownership (everything is shared). Others believe in communal ownership. Still, some believe in local democracies maintaining their town's economy. The biggest consensus is that no classes exist (in that no one person has more power than another).

Remember, both are extremes. While this is a sweeping generalization, not to mention my personal opinion, neither will ever be practical. I use both of them as ideologies to branch off.

Socialism is a more realistic form of communism, whereas capitalism (a la the United States) is a more realistic version of neoliberalism (the free market). States using these two systems have existed. The aforementioned two have never been seen fully put into play.

[Comrade Kurtz]

Let me correct my above post: there hasn't ever been a socialist nation that has completely rejected capitalism. Why? Any worker's movements that have risen up never had democracy as a cornerstone principle.

Sweden is probably the most commonly cited "socialist" state, although it's more of a social democracy incorporating elements of capitalism. Venezuela is making leaps and bounds towards democratic socialism. Nicaragua's literacy programs and education system is fairly socialist in nature. And of course, Canadian health care is socialized.

Ireland, England, etc. were all nations that were approaching something of a socialist state back a few decades ago. You can thank Margret Thatcher for reversing those effects.

[Hierro]

Ok, I think I understand now. So basically we have been taught that a communist state is dangerous even though there has never been a state that fully embodies one? Interesting.

I can't see communism working to be honest. I hope I don't anger anyone, but I don't think humans are capable of handling it throughout a state. Maybe in small communities like a town or village though. Or is that how communism is ment to be performed?

Socialism, on the other hand, seems to be the way to go in this day and age. There is one part of your post that I was a bit mystified about:

"Any worker's movements that have risen up never had democracy as a cornerstone principle."


-So what you are saying is that there are no pure forms of any of these 3 types of states? All take parts from others to form modified governments. Makes sense as they all have their flaws, correct?

[Comrade Kurtz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 12:14 AM
Ok, I think I understand now. So basically we have been taught that a communist state is dangerous even though there has never been a state that fully embodies one? Interesting.

I can't see communism working to be honest. I hope I don't anger anyone, but I don't think humans are capable of handling it throughout a state. Maybe in small communities like a town or village though. Or is that how communism is ment to be performed?

Socialism, on the other hand, seems to be the way to go in this day and age. There is one part of your post that I was a bit mystified about:

"Any worker's movements that have risen up never had democracy as a cornerstone principle."


-So what you are saying is that there are no pure forms of any of these 3 types of states? All take parts from others to form modified governments. Makes sense as they all have their flaws, correct?
That's true. Any "socialist" states we have seen were either dilluted (Canada, Sweden, etc.) or degenerated (Cuba, although there is some question as to whether Fidel ever wanted a Marxist society to begin with).

The Soviet Union was an attempt at Leninism (a branch of communism) which failed miserably, as it left classes in existance. Mao's China was much the same way. The real "blots" of leftism that you commonly hear about were attempts at communism, not socialism. And as you astutely pointed out, communism is a human impossibility.

If it's socialism you wish to know about, democratic socialism that is, I'm happy to answer your questions as I am a democratic socialist myself. While this comment sounds, and probably is extremely biased, I truly do believe we embody a realistic and yet fair leftist system of economics.

[bezdomni]

Ok, I think I understand now. So basically we have been taught that a communist state is dangerous even though there has never been a state that fully embodies one? Interesting.

Don't listen to your economics teacher. High school economics classes are bullshit. First, they teach everything from a bourgeois "market economy" perspective...which is a seriously flawed perspective. Second, they teach Marxist economic theory from a terribly biased perspective. I can guarantee at no point in Capital does Marx say "there should be a one man management of a centrally planned economy" or anything of that nature.

Most of Marx's work was a criticism of capitalism, not a formulation of what communism "should be". In fact, the realization that communism is the inevitable result of social and economic development came out of Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism.

Have you ever heard of Dialectical Materialism, The Labor Theory of Value or The Materialist Conception of History in your economics class? Doubtful. This is why economics classes do not teach a fundamental understanding of what Marx and Engels wrote. If they can't even teach Marx and Engels, there is NO WAY they could teach Lenin or Mao or Trotsky!

Honestly, take everything you learn in economics with a grain of salt. It is mostly bullshit. If you have any economics questions, ask them here. Marxian economists base their observations in reality as opposed to nonsensical jibberjabber.



I can't see communism working to be honest. I hope I don't anger anyone, but I don't think humans are capable of handling it throughout a state. Maybe in small communities like a town or village though. Or is that how communism is ment to be performed?


And why do you think "humans can't handle it"? Is that just what you've always been told, or is this actually a point of view based out of an observation or resarch you've seen that has eluded millions of people for over a hundred years?

I think you don't understand what communism is.


Socialism, on the other hand, seems to be the way to go in this day and age.


Socialism is the phase after capitalism in which the working class owns and controls the means of production. The entire purpose of socialism is to establish communism, which is a stateless and classless international society in which all people own the means of production and there is democratic planning of the economy through worker's councils.



-So what you are saying is that there are no pure forms of any of these 3 types of states? All take parts from others to form modified governments. Makes sense as they all have their flaws, correct?


There are no "three types of states", only phases of society which exist in relation to the ownership and management of the means of production. For example:
Capitalism: The bourgeoisie own and control the means of production by exploiting the labor-power of the working class.

Socialism: The phase of society in which the working class has overthrown the bourgeoisie and has taken democratic ownership of the means of production. There is still a (democratic) state that encourages and assists revolutions in other parts of the world, distributes goods and keeps society running until communism can be established.

Communism: Once international socialism has been achieved and class divisions no longer exist, the communist phase of society begins. Democratic ownership of the means of production still exists and the state, no longer being necessary to mediate class division, withers away. There is no sate under communism, but there is still government through worker's councils (which would do things like plan production and distribution).

The entire basis for the Marxist mode of thought is class division and the irreconcilability of these divisions and inherent antagonisms. Social classes exist based on relationship to the means of production (owning and working). These social classes have inherent antagonisms based on their material conditions. The working class toils for the owning class to make a profit. Workers don't need the bosses, but the bosses need the workers. That is why socialism develops out of capitalism.

[Comrade Kurtz]

I never quite bought Marx's stage idea. While the technocracy theory about communism seems like it may happen, it's not something to count on. After all, we can't guarentee that x-amount of technology gets produced between now and 2100. It's too ambiguous.

Communists, at least those I have encountered, are so severely disconnected with reality it's disturbing.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Comrade Kurtz+--> (Comrade Kurtz)Sweden is probably the most commonly cited "socialist" state, although it's more of a social democracy incorporating elements of capitalism. [/b]

I just thought I'd step in here and clarify that Sweden in no way is, or ever has been, a 'socialist state'. It rather is a thoroughly capitalist one where the social democratic party made some impact in form of reforms and powerful trade unions before it sold out totally in the nineties.

It has since sold most public property to private businesses and is virtually ignorant to a high unemployment rate in the country. Not so socialist behavior if you ask me..


Hierro
I can't see communism working to be honest. I hope I don't anger anyone, but I don't think humans are capable of handling it throughout a state.

Socialist communists argue that the state should be used by the proletariat to oppress the bourgeoisie and will then wither away, while anarchists want to smash it completely as soon as possible.

None the less, a state is a tool of oppression and is so non-existant in communism, a classless society.

[Hierro]

Honestly, take everything you learn in economics with a grain of salt. It is mostly bullshit. If you have any economics questions, ask them here. Marxian economists base their observations in reality as opposed to nonsensical jibberjabber.

That's why I'm here. I want to learn more and try to better educate myself on these ideas. Though I do feel a lot of hostility coming from you, which isn't helping me much to be frank.


And why do you think "humans can't handle it"? Is that just what you've always been told, or is this actually a point of view based out of an observation or resarch you've seen that has eluded millions of people for over a hundred years?

I think you don't understand what communism is.

Well this is what I understand from reading here; communism makes everyone equal. That's the watered down, simplistic definition of communism, right? But aren't people greedy? Don't you think people will want more than what they are given? In the Workers' Council you spoke of, won't people want to give themselves a bit more than everyone else. How will the distribution be fair? Again, try to explain to me, with less hostility this time, why I am wrong or clarify where I may be missing a point or two.

Alright, I ment phases, but you got the idea. Well the socialism phase is the one that I can see working out the most easily.

Oh and one other thing, my American Gov't teacher has already came out bluntly and told us that he hopes he's off this earth before the US becomes a socialist state. So you can probably see the type of teacher I'm getting my info from. ;)


Originally posted by Comrade Kurtz
If it's socialism you wish to know about, democratic socialism that is, I'm happy to answer your questions as I am a democratic socialist myself. While this comment sounds, and probably is extremely biased, I truly do believe we embody a realistic and yet fair leftist system of economics.

Yeah, can you explain to me what exactly a democratic socialist is? Just someone who believes in socialism, but not communism?

@Sentinel, thanks for the input and clarification.

[bezdomni]

That's why I'm here. I want to learn more and try to better educate myself on these ideas. Though I do feel a lot of hostility coming from you, which isn't helping me much to be frank.
Heh. If I were being hostile I wouldn't have taken the time to write that post for your educational purposes, would I? :P

I just hate it when people say "communism can't work because of human nature" and think we haven't already thought of that and answered it. ;)

No worries.


Well this is what I understand from reading here; communism makes everyone equal. That's the watered down, simplistic definition of communism, right?
Everyone has equal representation in the economy, society, and stuff like that.


But aren't people greedy? Don't you think people will want more than what they are given? In the Workers' Council you spoke of, won't people want to give themselves a bit more than everyone else. How will the distribution be fair?
And what leads you to think that the people would allow others to take more than what they deserve?

When a society is democratic, there is a check by the people. If the people don't like what an elected offcial is doing, they can recall them immediately and replace them with a less corrupt individual.

In many socialist states throughout history, there have been laws which made it so that every elected offical was paid the same wage as the average worker. That way elected officals and workers have the same material interests.

People are only as greedy as they are allowed to be by other people.


Oh and one other thing, my American Gov't teacher has already came out bluntly and told us that he hopes he's off this earth before the US becomes a socialist state. So you can probably see the type of teacher I'm getting my info from.
Tell him he doesn't have to worry. The US will be the last country to go socialist.



Yeah, can you explain to me what exactly a democratic socialist is? Just someone who believes in socialism, but not communism?


Democratic socialists think you can vote socialism in through capitalism and there is no need for a worker's revolution. Democratic socialists advocate a style of government like you would find in Sweden or something. It's still capitalism, it just looks nicer.

[Comrade Kurtz]

That's far over simplified. But I have some work to do. I can explain it later on if you want, Hierro.

[Hierro]

@SovietPants, ok, that makes more sense now. But why do you think it'll be the last country to become socialist? Because there are a lot of corrupt politicians that won't allow it to happen? Or the short answer money?

@Kurtz, ya, that'd be nice. As I am interested in knowing a bit more about it.

I have gotten into a couple confrontations with my friends about religion and evolution, etc, but I'm not sure how to get my point across. I do not believe in God either. Are there any sites that can give me some hard facts or arguements that I can use so next time I don't run out of things to say? I usually try to keep it relatively friendly as they are good friends, so I use factual events such as bone findings or current evolutionary occurances, but they disregard them which gets frustrating.

Thanks.

[bezdomni]

@SovietPants, ok, that makes more sense now. But why do you think it'll be the last country to become socialist? Because there are a lot of corrupt politicians that won't allow it to happen? Or the short answer money?

Because of the material conditions in the US. The US benefits from imperialism more than any other country on Earth and therefore most Americans do not see the need for socialism as much as the rest of humanity.

Countries oppressed by imperialism will revolt before the imperialist countries do. It really just makes sense.

[Hierro]

That is relatively obvious now that you point it out, not sure why I haven't noticed it before.

What is your take on the whole Israel-Lebanon business?

[Sentinel]

I have gotten into a couple confrontations with my friends about religion and evolution, etc, but I'm not sure how to get my point across. I do not believe in God either. Are there any sites that can give me some hard facts or arguements that I can use so next time I don't run out of things to say?

Have you checked our Religion subforum in the OI out? There's this one pinned thread, Burden of Proof (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457), in which it is explained in an excellent way how it is, following basic debating 'rules', up to the theists to prove their point (the existance of 'god') in these kind of discussions since they are the ones making the positive assertion.

It may still be hard to explain that to the average theist, given their rejection of logic in favor of the 'supernatural', but basically here's how to do it. :)

[Comrade Kurtz]

Democratic socialism is the belief that *major* industries should be publically-owned but rather than other governmentally-owned economies, those in charge of overseeing industries are directly accountable to an electorate. This allows for the people to exert pressure on leaders to do what they feel is right in regards to economic matters.

Democratic socialists call for the creation of a welfare state, although not with completely equal wages. We have no illusions that certain jobs in which immense studying and schooling is required will require a higher paycheck for some time. However, the fact that industries are publically-owned prevents the bourgeois from ever re-developing into an economic power (capital cannot be used to purchase the means of production, as it is owned by the people). Also, a highly progressive income tax will prevent any "inequalities" in wages from becoming too large.

Finally, most democratic socialists are also syndicalists, in that we believe in the role of trade unions in businesses to create workplace democracy. This establishes that workers from a particular wing of an industry (heavily subdivided to prevent uninformed decisions) should vote on major issues and decisions taken by their group. Essentially, everyone is a CEO in that they have an equal voice in the decisions made for their workplace.

[Hierro]

I spoke to my dad about democratic socialists and he pretty much said exactly what you said. I think I could place myself in that category for the most part. Though I'm not completely certain on all of the views just yet, so it may be a bit hasty. But I do think a more socialistic state through revolution would work better.

Do you guys vote in elections? Or is that one of those things that you decide just isn't worth doing?

@Sentinel, thanks bro. It helped a little, but I still have a couple questions about it.

[Comrade Kurtz]

Yes, we vote in elections. As Eugene Debs once said (read his writings for a better knowledge of democratic socialism): “I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it, than for what I don’t want and get it.”

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 09:26 PM
Do you guys vote in elections? Or is that one of those things that you decide just isn't worth doing?
I vote, especially in local elections and propositions (like creating new taxes on oil companies, funding the library, etc.). In larger scale elections I vote also, but only for the left-most candidate that I can vote for (in state elections I can vote for socialists). They never win, but it's a way to make known my dissent. If you stay at home they might misinterpret it as laziness or apathy.

But ultimately voting won't bring about substantial change.

[Hierro]

Interesting. What about the parties you align yourselves with? Is there a socialist party in the states? It sounds silly to ask, but I really have never heard of a party similar to the democrates or republicans.

Good to hear that you do vote though, as it seems a bit anit-productive to not do so. :)

[Comrade Kurtz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 11:09 PM
Interesting. What about the parties you align yourselves with? Is there a socialist party in the states? It sounds silly to ask, but I really have never heard of a party similar to the democrates or republicans.

Good to hear that you do vote though, as it seems a bit anit-productive to not do so. :)
I personally align myself with the Democratic Socialists of America, for my sins at times. Their platform is probably the most true to democratic socialism of any leftist party and (despite much debate) I see them as the inheritors of the Debsian worker's movement. The problem with them is they tend to back Democratic candidates more often than I am comfortable with, albeit their logic is that spliting the leftist vote doesn't help anyone. They are the only American socialist movement to have a member currently in Congress (Bernie Sanders from Vermont).

To familiarize yourself with other democratic socialist movements, there is also the Socialist Party USA, which also believes to have inherited Deb's movement. They're a little too radical for my tastes and demand a more strict adherence to their policies. DSA isn't quite as rigid.

There is also a Social Democrat's Party but they don't have much prominance, and if you're genuinely interested in socialism they aren't aiming to bring about the kind of change you're looking for.

[Delta]

There isn't a socialist party on the ballot in most states. In California, we have the Peace and Freedom party (platform here (http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/summary.htm)), but they almost got knocked off the ballot this year because they didn't have enough people registered.

[Hierro]

Is there any party like that in Arizona?

And when you say 'they' you are hinting at the fact that you are not part of the party. How come? If you don't mind me asking.

Kurtz, I checked that party out, but they didn't really give much current information on themselves.

[Comrade Kurtz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:39 AM
Is there any party like that in Arizona?

And when you say 'they' you are hinting at the fact that you are not part of the party. How come? If you don't mind me asking.

Kurtz, I checked that party out, but they didn't really give much current information on themselves.
Arizona? I'm not sure. You may need to do some research on your own. I believe Florida has a Socialist Part USA candidate always running for governor.

On the note of DSA: You have to remember that while they are the biggest socialist movement in the US, they're still only comprised of about 100,000 people. Their youth wing has a lot more current news but don't get too concerned about the lack of updates. The truth of the matter is, socialism and the worker's movement is very limited in America. Without prominence in the media and without being considered as serious contenders, what are we really supposed to do?