Question on Marxism [Archive]

BobKKKindle$

2nd December 2008, 01:09

So EVERY Revolutionary society made the SAME mistake?

You've assumed that every revolutionary society was a total failure with no meaningful advances whatsoever whereas this is clearly not the case - for the first decade of its existence Soviet Russia was an example of what workers can do when they overthrow capitalism and take control of the productive forces - illiteracy was abolished within a few years of the proletariat taking power, women were given reproductive freedom and the same status as men in divorce proceedings and other legal disputes, workplaces were democratically managed by the workers themselves, employment laws were passed to control the length of the working day and ensure that workers would be entitled to a basic level of protection in the event of unemployment - these and a whole range of other reforms were passed and as a result the quality of life for the majority of the Russian population was dramatically improved despite external pressures in the form of invading armies as well as the poor internal situation. The revolution eventually degenerated not because the leaders were intent on destroying democracy and allowing the bureaucracy to take power but because the Bolsheviks had recognized from the beginning that the revolution would only be able to survive and lead to the successful attainment of a socialist society if it spread to other more advanced countries which would be able to protect Russian against external threats and raise the productive forces to the level required for socialism. In the case of other countries such as China and the states of Eastern Europe, a workers state never existed because workers did not have the leading role in the overthrow of the old regime.

And none from China

Actually, I do live in China for most of the year. However, almost the whole of the radical left with a few minor exceptions holds the view that China has become a capitalist country as the result of market reforms or was never a non-capitalist society in the first place, and so the fact that there are very few people from China posting on this site cannot be used as evidence to show that socialism has failed.

Hit The North

2nd December 2008, 01:33

You tend to keep asking this same question over and over again, Tom. ;)

Yea. I'm looking for a real answer.

Then you need to ask a better question.

It has already been pointed out to you that there is no such thing as - nor can there ever be - a "Marxist state".

So EVERY Revolutionary society made the SAME mistake? Over and over? In Hungary and Poland and Russia an Moldavia and Yugoslavia and Albania and Latvia, etc...They all made te SAME mistake?
No. What unites the above examples (except Russia) is these revolutions and subsequent post-revolutionary reconstructions were not conducted by the working class, but by various substitutional forces. In the Eastern bloc, the Red Army; elsewhere, intellectual strata at the head of large peasant armies.

Your question is predicated on the assumption that the above regimes were "communist" or "socialist" simply because they proclaimed themselves to be. This is not a very scientific approach to the problem.

Bud Struggle

2nd December 2008, 01:35

Great post.

You've assumed that every revolutionary society was a total failure with no meaningful advances whatsoever whereas this is clearly not the case - for the first decade of its existence Soviet Russia was an example of what workers can do when they overthrow capitalism and take control of the productive forces - illiteracy was abolished within a few years of the proletariat taking power, women were given reproductive freedom and the same status as men in divorce proceedings and other legal disputes, workplaces were democratically managed by the workers themselves, employment laws were passed to control the length of the working day and ensure that workers would be entitled to a basic level of protection in the event of unemployment - these and a whole range of other reforms were passed and as a result the quality of life for the majority of the Russian population was dramatically improved despite external pressures in the form of invading armies as well as the poor internal situation. I agree. It was a MAJOR adavance of society by the Soviets. And I have said before: Marxism is a viable alternative for backward societies to become firstrate instustrial powers in the world. then they throw off the yoke of Marxism.

The revolution eventually degenerated not because the leaders were intent on destroying democracy and allowing the bureaucracy to take power but because the Bolsheviks had recognized from the beginning that the revolution would only be able to survive and lead to the successful attainment of a socialist society if it spread to other more advanced countries which would be able to protect Russian against external threats and raise the productive forces to the level required for socialism. And this is where it falls apart for me, at least. Nationalism becomes more important than the communist movement--it seems. Or National-Communism Anyway--Communism moved to the very industrial East Germany--and took nothing from it. It's all corruption.

In the case of other countries such as China and the states of Eastern Europe, a workers state never existed because workers did not have the leading role in the overthrow of the old regime. And without democracy--they became slave states. The rejection of democracy in Communist countries is a major mistake. As in the case of Solidarity in Poland--workers were never icluded in the Communist party so they formed a party of their own. That is embarassing.

Actually, I do live in China for most of the year. However, almost the whole of the radical left with a few minor exceptions holds the view that China has become a capitalist country as the result of market reforms or was never a non-capitalist society in the first place, and so the fact that there are very few people from China posting on this site cannot be used as evidence to show that socialism has failed.

I do business in China and have visited ther four times. I see no difference in dealing with their companies than any American company. Same capitalist rules same Capitalist business. One billion three hundred million people--the one billion support the three hundred million so they could live like Americans.

synthesis

2nd December 2008, 01:37

Dust Bunnies

2nd December 2008, 01:44

Hit The North

2nd December 2008, 01:56

Because pre-modern economies require a centralized state.

Very few people will voluntarily do the difficult physical labor involved in producing food, clothes, and other necessities when such tasks are not automated to some degree or another.

That's why those economies need a powerful state, whether it be a kingship, an aristocracy, a military dictatorship or a farce of democracy - the people relegated to that physical labor are rarely satisfied with their lot in life, and force often must be used to keep them there.

In Western Europe, at least, the reverse is true. Feudal states were not centralised and had far less power over the ruled than modern capitalist states have.

Bud Struggle

2nd December 2008, 01:56

Because pre-modern economies require a centralized state. so itake it you are not a Libertarian? :lol:

Very few people will voluntarily do the difficult physical labor involved in producing food, clothes, and other necessities when such tasks are not automated to some degree or another. No but if the alternative is to starve--they get pretty good at it.

That's why those economies need a powerful state, whether it be a kingship, an aristocracy, a military dictatorship or a farce of democracy - the people relegated to that physical labor are rarely satisfied with their lot in life, and force often must be used to keep them there. Don't you think that Ronald Reagan economics are the BEST? You get what you work for--and little or no middle man.

Pre-modern economies are the ripest for authoritarian brands of socialism such as Leninism or Maoism for two reasons: first, they usually had authoritarian or colonial governments which preceded them, so there was a pre-existing social reliance on authority for stability; and second, their relatively poor standards of living tend to degenerate into revolutionary conditions when times get bad, far quicker than modernized economies. TRUE! But what about that little Marxian quibble about proletarian societies not the peasent societies being the ripest for Revolution?

Marx was writing for the European proletariat of his time, whether he recognized it or not. However, his advocacy of worker's revolution proved to be most appealing and most effective in those areas of the world where the level of technological, economic and sociopolitical progress was not ready for "real communism" - the democratic kind. I agree--but doesn't that make him WAY OFF in his predictions? What else could be wrong?

The real accomplishment of these socialist revolutions was usually the industrialization of their respective economies and political and economic autonomy from imperialism or neo-colonialism; sometimes it went the opposite direction, such as the deliberate de-industrialization of Maoism and the Khmer Rouge. Agreed there. And then after attaining first class distinctions the societies throw off Comminism.--that's "The TomK Caveat" to Das Kapital.

Does this answer your question? Wellllll..... Good answer, though.

[Edit] I'm not on anyone case or think bad of Communism--but these problems keep hanging on for me. The problem of "authoritarian government" seem to be the major why I'm leaning towrad Social Democracy thesedays.

synthesis

2nd December 2008, 01:57

I believe without a world wide revolution Socialism shall fail. I oppose the Treaty of Brest-Litovik (which if I am not mistaken ended war between the new USSR and the Central Powers). It may cost hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, maybe a couple billion, but as long as you leave a Capitalist nation standing it is a threat to the worker. It is all or nothing.

Err... the February and October Revolutions were predicated on opposition to Russia's presence in WWI. Without the Treaty, the Bolsheviks would have lost most of their base of support.

synthesis

2nd December 2008, 02:59

In Western Europe, at least, the reverse is true. Feudal states were not centralised and had far less power over the ruled than modern capitalist states have.

The feudal West wasn't centralized in the sense of a federal union (obviously) but the centralized state (as is relevant to this argument) was certainly present on a smaller scale, in the form of the aristocracy and their private armies keeping their serfs in line.

so itake it you are not a Libertarian?

Again, this is not ideology but historical fact.

Don't you think that Ronald Reagan economics are the BEST? You get what you work for--and little or no middle man.

I don't see what Reaganomics have to do with the topic at hand.

TRUE! But what about that little Marxian quibble about proletarian societies not the peasent societies being the ripest for Revolution?

What?

I agree--but doesn't that make him WAY OFF in his predictions? What else could be wrong?

The fact that Marx either could not predict the future or was way off on the ETA can't be used to invalidate all of his ideas.

Wellllll..... Good answer, though.

What more do you need to know?

TheCultofAbeLincoln

2nd December 2008, 06:35

I wonder, do Revolutionaries say to themselves: "Let's create a Marxist state--and let's do a really half assed version of it!!!" Or is Leninism-Staninism the best that can be expected of Marxism?

Yep.

Can we ever have a Marxist state without being a police state?

Nope.

We had Russia, China, Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia (let alone Indo-China,) Cuba (I've been there,) and maybe Albania. All with KGB's and Stazi's and such.

fuck all the people who idolize those leaders.

Never with any sort of real democracy. I know dead and gone--but why the screw ups?

Communism is the belief that the few know what's best for everyone. If everyone was given power, they might make a choie that will hurt them.

Therefore, they shouldn't be given the choie.

I believe without a world wide revolution Socialism shall fail. I oppose the Treaty of Brest-Litovik (which if I am not mistaken ended war between the new USSR and the Central Powers). It may cost hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, maybe a couple billion, but as long as you leave a Capitalist nation standing it is a threat to the worker. It is all or nothing.

The Bolsheviks got popular based on a peace platform (and bread and land). of course, they delivered none of those things to their people.

spetznaz:

i wonder how you guy dare to say marxism got nothing to do with ideology. when refering to marx, we are not only talking about economics but about social justice, imperialism, eguality etc.

if marxism was a pure economical things, then we would not care that much about the human side of it, but the only mathematical one.

Anyone who still thinks he's relevant proves Marx wrong.

If it were a purely economical thing, then Marx wouldn't have been necessary; The material conditions would have ensured socialism. However, it turns out that people (especially those damn poor) care about social issues more.

All he managed to do was frighten the elites of the more feudal nations (prussia/germany), then run away to a bourgeois nation which knew its populace was too smart and sophisticated for his BS. And so far, no bourgeouis nation has gone marxist (internally).

I don't understand what you're saying.

Marxism is an economic school of thought based around people's needs instead of the accumulation of wealth.

Apparently today you also have to be for abortion, gay marriage, and a whole host of other bullshit issues that have nothing to do with economic thoery.

There is no such thing as a "Marxist state", as Marxism is a school of economic and social analysis, not a mode of production or system of government. The countries you are referring to were indeed dictatorships but this was not the result of a conscious decision by the leaders of these countries, including Stalin in the USSR, and the dictatorship of a minority is certainly not something that any Marxist would ever support on a theoretical level. The Marxist conception of history seeks to uncover the role of material conditions in guiding the course of historical events, and in this context these countries degenerated as a result of the effects of economic underdevelopment and the failure of revolutions to spread to more advanced industrial states which would have been able to provide these countries with the means to raise their productive capacity and prevent the emergence of brutal dictatorships.

...So what you're saying is that every reolutionary marxist really, really wanted to build a better place...it's just that the nation fell into totalitarianism because of inherent flaws in the plan, chief among them not conquering any countries which were firmly bourgeois (not feudal). Shit, I'd argue that Stalin wanted power, seized power, killed millions, and enslaved Eastern Europe because he was evil.

We are not arguing about the "theoretical level" in this thread.

If any state qualifies as a "police state", it's the US. The police here has more power than in most places in the world. They bastards are almost untouchable.

Only if you're too stupid to know your rights.

Since most Americans, especially poor Americans, are fucking retarded, they deserve it.

Not to mention the 7 million adults in prison and on probation. That's over 3% of the adult population. Talk about a police state!

When it was found that the head of China's safety group for toys had accepted bribes a year ago, they executed him.

So much more effective...

I don't have a problem with someone defining their position as "Marxist-Leninist", "Trotskyist", "Anti-Revisionist", etc., just so long as they don't take their position to ultra-sectarian divides to the point where we can't get anything due to all of the splits.

First, we defeat and exterminate the Cappies.

Then, we all fight each other.

Yay for freedom!

JimmyJazz

2nd December 2008, 09:06

Tom, I'll give an answer you might find easier to swallow than some of these other answers: maybe they all made the transition from privately-owned capital to socially-managed capital too quickly. Like, way too quickly. Maybe they tried to do in decades what should take centuries.

If you think in those terms, maybe you'll finally be able to be a bit more objective about socialism as an economic-political proposal instead of always thinking about it in the back of your mind as a historical phenomenon. The historical phenomenon has its share of warts, but these seem to prevent you from ever examining the proposal itself: that those who work to increase capital should also be its owners and managers. See if you can find some problems with that.

If not, guess what--you're a Marxist. Marx didn't live to see a single one of the countries you named, so obviously all that Marxism meant for him was adherence to that idea, not endorsement of any of the regimes you named. And I don't think it's fair that today's Marxists are required to defend more than Marx himself ever did simply in order to call themselves after him.

Kwisatz Haderach

2nd December 2008, 09:23

I agree. It was a MAJOR adavance of society by the Soviets. And I have said before: Marxism is a viable alternative for backward societies to become firstrate instustrial powers in the world. then they throw off the yoke of Marxism.
Except that "throwing off the yoke of Marxism" in the Soviet Union and much of Eastern Europe resulted in a social and economic disaster, with skyrocketing unemployment, inflation and poverty, fast falling life expectancy, deteriorating public health, rampant crime... etc.

Communism moved to the very industrial East Germany--and took nothing from it.
Um, no, East Germany wasn't industrial at all after the war. If you're thinking of the industrial region of Silesia, that was no longer part of Germany after WW2.

And RevLeft's posters all seem to live in Capialist countries--and none for Korea. And none from Cuba. And none from China. I see a problem. How 'bout you?
Most RevLeft posters are from Europe or North America, because most English-speaking internet users are from Europe or North America.

So EVERY Revolutionary society made the SAME mistake? Over and over? In Hungary and Poland and Russia an Moldavia and Yugoslavia and Albania and Latvia, etc...They all made te SAME mistake?
Of course - and you already know what the mistake was, you've mentioned it yourself:

The rejection of democracy in Communist countries is a major mistake.
The mistake that got repeated over and over again was precisely this rejection of democracy. Or, to be more exact, the mistake could be better defined as "post-revolutionary vanguardism" - the idea that even after the revolution, even after the means of production are securely in the hands of a proletarian state, there is still a need for a disciplined, centralized vanguard party to lead the way to communism.

Lenin was correct about most things, but he made one fatal error: He assumed that a revolutionary party which represents the interests of the working class at one point in time will always continue to represent the interests of the working class after the revolution. He - and all who followed his model - gambled everything on the incorruptibility of the vanguard party. And lost.

Plagueround

2nd December 2008, 10:44

i wonder how you guy dare to say marxism got nothing to do with ideology. when refering to marx, we are not only talking about economics but about social justice, imperialism, eguality etc.

if marxism was a pure economical things, then we would not care that much about the human side of it, but the only mathematical one.

Because Marxism is also a social science. I know I've been saying this a lot lately, but his works are a large foundation for almost every school of thought in sociology. It is a scientific way of analyzing human interactions and the conditions that drive, influence, or create those interactions, as well as examining the interactions, influences, and drives that create the material conditions we surrounded by. Sentence intentionally confusing.

Speaking generally and not directing this at spetnaz, one of the main problems I have with the OI and the reason I haven't been posting much in this section of revleft is most of you, even the regulars, don't do enough of your own research. For people that constantly ridicule communists as people who don't want to work, you sure ask a lot of questions and expect a lot of perfect answers. I haven't seen much to suggest that any of you have actually read anything that might contain answers to the questions you pose, because you come here already determined communists don't have the answers. There are, of course, exceptions, but as my grandmother always said, "If the shoe fits, fuck you."*

As BobKindles correctly pointed out earlier, Marxism is not a form of government, it is not a blueprint for a future society, and it is most certainly not an attempt at controlling the world's population. It is a social and economic science that used historical analysis and observation of human interaction to demonstrate the path that humanity has taken, how we interact, and the possibilities of where we are going. If you're going to attack Marxism, why not at least do so scientifically and use other social or economic science instead of reducing it to "LOL USSR WAS EVIL"?

I know I've spent enough time reading through the works of people I view as opposing ideologies, but I don't see many of you doing the same. Time to step up your game.

*She really never said that. I've got to stop saying that.

Since most Americans, especially poor Americans, are fucking retarded, they deserve it.

P.S. If I had my way, obvious and unintelligent trolls, like TheThugofRonaldReagan here, would be outright banned from this site. You lower the quality of the discussion and reflect poorly on the OI.

danyboy27

2nd December 2008, 21:34

Mindtoaster

3rd December 2008, 01:18

i am looking for books about the left not related to marxism principles and it seem i cant find any.

all i find is pro marxism work and anti communism work, there no alternative i can pickup.

maybe i am gonna read some max webb writting.

Be sure to check out http://www.workerspress.com/ then. It has work from most major leftists theorists and its all sold for only a few pennies profit and with no shipping cost

Edit: i think I mistook the meaning of your post. I thought you meant different leftist theories.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

3rd December 2008, 04:45

TheCultofAbeLincoln

3rd December 2008, 04:50

P.S. If I had my way, obvious and unintelligent trolls, like TheThugofRonaldReagan here, would be outright banned from this site. You lower the quality of the discussion and reflect poorly on the OI.

If you are making this judgement on the last post, understand that i was soooooooooooooooo drunk last night.

If not, fuck you to.

PS:
Most Americans are fucking retarded. Just because we aren't all on the irrelevant-left doesn't mean we don't wish to see a better society.

Plagueround

3rd December 2008, 05:03

If you are making this judgement on the last post, understand that i was soooooooooooooooo drunk last night.

If not, fuck you to.

PS:
Most Americans are fucking retarded. Just because we aren't all on the irrelevant-left doesn't mean we don't wish to see a better society.

No, I make this judgement on the basis that you are an honest to god troll and an imperialist apologist/willing and knowing participant. By the way, I assure you most Americans aren't as stupid as you, something we can all be thankful for.

As for the irrelevant-left...our numbers are on the rise. I'm sure you'll remain dismissive and petty no matter what I say, but that's because, as I've said before, you are a troll.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

3rd December 2008, 05:20

No, I make this judgement on the basis that you are an honest to god troll and an imperialist apologist/willing and knowing participant. By the way, I assure you most Americans aren't as stupid as you, something we can all be thankful for.

I'm willing to argue with anybody about anything.

If that's trollish, then what the fuck is the point of a debate site?

Most Americans can't see beyond the hood of their [enter grossly over-sized vehical here].

As for the irrelevant-left...our numbers are on the rise. I'm sure you'll remain dismissive and petty no matter what I say, but that's because, as I've said before, you are a troll.

You should do something that makes it obvious that you can no longer be ignored. Until then, yes, the far-left is pretty irrelevant in the big scheme of things. I'm not saying that you should stop, just that, at the moment, despite recent growth, it's going to take a while. Or a major geo-political breakdown.

Shit, we just elected a mild-conservative and the huge worry was that he'd come off as too leftist.

Gleb

3rd December 2008, 06:17

Yea. I'm looking for a real answer.
And RevLeft's posters all seem to live in Capialist countries--and none for Korea. And none from Cuba. And none from China. I see a problem. How 'bout you?

I've actually seen some Chinese members rolling around and we actually have quite a bunch of people from third world, but anyways, this argument is silly. This is internet and this forum is for English-speakers - what do you expect?

Really--why should EVIL Capitalism be so much freer than even half assed Communism? Fair Question.It's not really that simple. In my personal opinion, eastern bloc didn't represent even half-assed communism*; the elitist power structure, the way how the workers' democracy was killed, bureaucratic centralism and especially the way it was used is enough for me to declare that Eastern European and Oriental Marxist-Leninist was barely even quarter-assed socialism where simple matters of welfare were quite badly done and whose government was of surprisingly reactionary nature.

That's just me though.

If you researched some more and searched out what "communism" means, you would pretty soon find out that things are much more complicated than they look to a non-communist. We certainly are not all cut of the same wood and there are some major differences among the revolutionary left when it comes to key ideological questions.

* = I'd also like to remind that no Marxist-Leninist society even claimed that they had reached communism. Remember all the fudge about socialism being the transition phase? Communism is meant to be the "final phase" where there is no classes, private propery has been abolished and all that utopian jazz.

So EVERY Revolutionary society made the SAME mistake? Over and over? In Hungary and Poland and Russia an Moldavia and Yugoslavia and Albania and Latvia, etc...They all made te SAME mistake?It might sound silly, but pretty much so. Of course, we are now ignoring all the short-lived successes such as Barcelona during the Spanish civil war and talking about those communist socities western media wants to talk about; the Marxist-Leninist East.

The whole argument of "Look how many times communism has been tried and look how many times it has failed!" is rather foolish. There has been only one or two efforts to actually build socialist socities but these attempts have been of massive scale and have reached over territories of multiple nations; whole Eastern Europe and large partions of the Orient. All these states, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Moldavia, Albania, Latvia (which was in the USSR tho') were based on the and same doctrines of political philosophy, they were ruled with same principles, following the example of their Russian/Chinese overlords.

In other words: All socialist states who were in existence; they weren't independent projects. "Socialism" in these countries was forced upon them by foreign military forces or they organized revolution themselves but still with support of the bolsheviks or Maoists and clearly after the Marxist-Leninist model of party and the state which has proven itself to be an utter failure by the history.

JimmyJazz

3rd December 2008, 07:36

I know this was addressed to Tom, but I have to ask, if it is to take centuries then what is the difference between Marxism and Social Democracy?

If publicization of everything should not happen immediately, then were does the Revolution fit in?

Social Democracy is welfare capitalism.

If you mean between Marxism and some kind more gradual kind of socialism, but one whose end goal is actual socialism, then it's a valid question. I suppose my answer would be that Marx thought the working class would seize state power relatively quickly, but that the economic reforms could be done as gradually as necessary. "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class" (quote from the CM, emph. added). In other words, a proletarian state need not necessarily make sweeping economic changes overnight in order to be following the path set out by Marx. And except in the context of a world revolution, it wouldn't be able to. But the very fact that a workers' state gets established means Marx's method is being followed to some extent.

Centuries may have been a stretch, admittedly.

You should do something that makes it obvious that you can no longer be ignored. Until then, yes, the far-left is pretty irrelevant in the big scheme of things.

Don't be stupid, the far left has essentially determined the course of the last century of world history (along with fascism, although fascism was more of a major flash-in-the-pan).

In fact it's only by ignoring the "big scheme of things", and focusing narrowly on fucking American electoral politics, that you could find the far left "irrelevant".

TheCultofAbeLincoln

3rd December 2008, 08:40

If you mean between Marxism and some kind more gradual kind of socialism, but one whose end goal is actual socialism, then it's a valid question. I suppose my answer would be that Marx thought the working class would seize state power relatively quickly, but that the economic reforms could be done as gradually as necessary. "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class" (quote from the CM, emph. added). In other words, a proletarian state need not necessarily make sweeping economic changes overnight in order to be following the path set out by Marx. And except in the context of a world revolution, it wouldn't be able to. But the very fact that a workers' state gets established means Marx's method is being followed to some extent.

Centuries may have been a stretch, admittedly.

This is a great response.

Everyone who has looked at the challenges we face realizes that the status-quo cannot last, and that, if nothing else, power will be more evenly distributed around the world. But revolution today, in the romantic American/French sense isn't possible anymore; nuclear weapons, especially those in places were the power to launch them rests with a single person who is isolated from the world (submarines) scares the shit out of me.

Also, one of the things which I believe was detrimental in both the Russian and Chinese revolutions was the zig-zagging of official policy instead of planning a gradual shift to a socialist (ableit only domestically) nation. What those shaky foundations resulted in seems to be two very Pro-Capitalist nations, one of which still clings to its red flag.

Don't be stupid, the far left has essentially determined the course of the last century of world history (along with fascism, although fascism was more of a major flash-in-the-pan).

One could argue that Fascism is merely a form of Capitalism, found in developed industrial nations in which the elites feared that communism may take power. However, you will never find a Cappie who equates fascism to capitalism in any way.

In fact it's only by ignoring the "big scheme of things", and focusing narrowly on fucking American electoral politics, that you could find the far left "irrelevant".

America is much more important on the Geopolitical scene than any other nation, and thusly should be given emphasis. Germans could elect Die Linke into office, but it wouldn't change the fact that tens of thousands of US military are stationed there, nor the fact that that nation is our stepping-stone to the Middle East. But if Americans chose a real Leftist (even a Kucinich leftist), the entire world order would change in a matter of minutes.

Will America's standing with the rest of the world change? Of course, quite possibly in as few as 5 years. Will the standing within America change at that time? Again, it's very possible (although, we can hope that we change our ways before outside stimuli force our hand).

spice756

3rd December 2008, 09:23

I wonder, do Revolutionaries say to themselves: "Let's create a Marxist state--and let's do a really half assed version of it!!!" Or is Leninism-Staninism the best that can be expected of Marxism?

If you anti-state run you a capitalist it does not matter what type of state.

Can we ever have a Marxist state without being a police state?

They where police states do to lack of democracy.

We had Russia, China, Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia (let alone Indo-China,) Cuba (I've been there,) and maybe Albania. All with KGB's and Stazi's and such.

I'm not going answer this.

Never with any sort of real democracy. I know dead and gone--but why the screw ups?

They where mess up do to lack of democracy that was not implemented from beginning.

Has for reform bills in China and Vietnam that was do to the isolation.Think about it your a poor country lack of trade ,factories, investment , business and no capitalists is going set up factory in your country to be state run , you got embargo so on.

By allowing a free market you get investment , business seting up factories in your country , trade ,money coming in ,industrization and the economy boom.

You can't have socialism in a poor country or you are going have poor socialism .You need advance country like the US ,Canada or UK. Also if you a socialist country and do not play by the rules by the capitalist they are not going do business with you.

If the USSR was still around chances are China and Vietnam would not have pass those reform bills.Like Cuba it just a matter of time.They cannot be isolated for so long by hostile countries and business that will not build factories and office building in Cuba to be state run.That alone business and countries that will bribe the leaders in Cuba to move to market base economy.

If every country in world was socialism but Canada and Canada was the only capitalist country in the world than yes we will be very poor .Amd have to pass reform bills.

spice756

3rd December 2008, 10:06

Anyway, the point I was making before I deleted it was that the totalitarianism all spawned from the state's inability to meet the material needs of the people (the bureaucracy didn't help either). All these nations were built on the foundations of an almost non-existent economy. When you collectivize a broken economy, you get a broken socialism. Likewise when you collectivize a strong economy, you get a strong socialism. In either case however, conditions improve greatly. That is a historical fact.

You got capitalistism that has more democracy like in Canada ,US and UK and capitalistism like in Mexico that lacks democracy and Africa that is totalitarianism in alot of areas .Has a rule not always the more advance country more democracy.But does not really metter if the USSR was rich or poor it lack democracy and corruption in the party was a big problem.

Marx talk about working class and capitalists the class struggle not thinking a take over of capitalists by a communist party the communist party can become corrupt.Any concentration of power and good taking over evile the good become evile is going happen.

I understand where anarchist view point of state is evile.The government will not represent the people no matter how many times we try communism do to concentration of power they will become corrupt. This is why anarchist hate government and the state.But people at revleft do not seem to understand government,communist party members and burecrats can be turn into instrument by the people with implementation in a democracy way.

That look at Bush he has major power but if he took money did robbery,killing ,stealing ,assault he will go jail .Why do to the constitution.If he will not step down on election day he will go to jail. :crying: This was not the case in China ,USSR or North Korea.But even US constitution is not that great.

Also US has freedom of speech in the constitution and the right to protest this not case in China ,USSR or North Korea.

Do not blame communism blame the way it was set up.

ZeroNowhere

3rd December 2008, 10:52

By our definition, there would be a state until the revolution was international. Marx was an anarchist. He did not in any way advocate authoritarian government.
Of course, the rise of capitalism in the so-called 'Marxist' nations through bourgeois revolution clothed in red flags did lead to industrialization, as did undisguised capitalism in many other countries. However, these now-industrial countries couldn't then ditch 'Marxism' for capitalism, because their supposed 'socialism' was just capitalism. However, the move from state capitalism to neoliberalism was generally part of a worldwide movement as to such, as Keynesianism lead to stagflation, and the US and New York investment banks tried to spread it, for example, through forcing Mexico to deregulate the economy in return for rolling over debts caused by the developing country borrowing heavily as encouraged by the US, at rates advantageous to New York bankers, though designated in US dollars so that rises in US interest rates could push countries into defaulting.
The purpose of socialism is not industrializing countries, it is abolishing slavery.

TRUE! But what about that little Marxian quibble about proletarian societies not the peasent societies being the ripest for Revolution?
It doesn't exist. Peasant societies are very ripe for revolution. Bourgeois revolution, that is.

Don't you think that Ronald Reagan economics are the BEST? You get what you work for--and little or no middle man.
Firstly, you don't. Secondly, neoliberalism is a tragedy, though that's not to imply that Keynesianism works, though it did have better effects, as it eventually just leads to stagflation crises.

The rejection of democracy in Communist countries is a major mistake.
It actually wasn't much of a problem in the Spanish communes, which were workers' states. Also, the rejection of democracy in capitalist countries is a major mistake.

i am looking for books about the left not related to marxism principles and it seem i cant find any.

all i find is pro marxism work and anti communism work, there no alternative i can pickup.

maybe i am gonna read some max webb writting.
Eh, I believe that we had a recent thread with lists of stuff from Kropotkin, Berkman, some trolls suggesting 'State and Revolution', etc.

Really--why should EVIL Capitalism be so much freer than even half assed Communism? Fair Question.
You mean 'Why should capitalism that calls itself capitalism be better than capitalism that calls itself communism'?
"Those who make revolution half way only dig their own graves."

In other words, a proletarian state need not necessarily make sweeping economic changes overnight in order to be following the path set out by Marx.
Well, Marx did say that they shouldn't abolish inheritance, etc, immediately, so that they would not disturb the peasants (though, he observed, most live in proletarian conditions anyway), but certainly a proletarian state, that is, the enforcement of proletarian class interests, could not co-exist with capitalism.

JimmyJazz

3rd December 2008, 19:24

Also, one of the things which I believe was detrimental in both the Russian and Chinese revolutions was the zig-zagging of official policy instead of planning a gradual shift to a socialist (ableit only domestically) nation. What those shaky foundations resulted in seems to be two very Pro-Capitalist nations, one of which still clings to its red flag.

That sounds about right.

America is much more important on the Geopolitical scene than any other nation, and thusly should be given emphasis.

Undoubtedly. But America has been the driving force behind global anti-communism since October of 1917. So when you say that the far left is irrelevant on the basis of it having no chance in American electoral politics, you're basically saying "look at the heart of the Empire--it's extremely conservative! The far left must be irrelevant". Well, irrelevant in what sense? In the sense that it doesn't have much intrinsic appeal to most people around the globe? Or in the sense that it doesn't have much chance against the American Empire, which will do everything it can to beat it back?

But if Americans chose a real Leftist (even a Kucinich leftist), the entire world order would change in a matter of minutes.

I sort of agree, since with someone like Kucinich or Nader in office, acting on his principles, the forces of the far left that are now latent would be unleashed all around the globe. This is not an outlandish statement; I can easily provide a tremendous amount of 20th Century history to prove it. (But I doubt you need me to).

Of course, someone like Kucinich or Nader in office would not be able to act on his principles. The power of the presidency may be expanding, but it is still extremely constrained, namely by the many entrenched groups who never stop aggressively asserting their special interests through government. That is the nature of capitalist parliamentarian ("representative") systems. I suggest this book (http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Rule-Investment-Competition-Money-Driven/dp/0226243176/ref=cm_syf_dtl_txt_25) for starters.

On that note, as knowledgeable Americans you and I both know that Obama will not be able to do anything spectacular even if he really does want to (which I'm skeptical about). His followers think he will be some super-progressive, unlike Democrats of the past. Well, let's look at history. Bill Clinton was extremely pro-market in both his rhetoric and actions, gutted our welfare system, and failed to achieve the slightest thing in his supposed favorite area for reform (healthcare); yet the Republicans in Congress shut down the government because they found him too liberal. Even Obama's supposed forebear, JFK, was as staunch an anticommunist as has ever sat in the Oval Office. One of the staunchest, as a matter of fact, since he was an opportunist, political asshole.

Capitalism cannot be reformed. Not in the U.S. more than anywhere else. And neither can the capitalist form of representative "democracy". I'm not saying that capitalism will be replaced in the U.S. anytime soon, but I am saying that it has to be. Until it is, we certainly cannot judge the appeal of the far left by its actual successes; we have to dig a little deeper, and see that at least half the countries on this planet have been overtly or covertly tampered with by the U.S. in order to kill far-left movements which otherwise had a very good chance of succeeding.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

3rd December 2008, 20:42

Undoubtedly. But America has been the driving force behind global anti-communism since October of 1917. So when you say that the far left is irrelevant on the basis of it having no chance in American electoral politics, you're basically saying "look at the heart of the Empire--it's extremely conservative! The far left must be irrelevant". Well, irrelevant in what sense? In the sense that it doesn't have much intrinsic appeal to most people around the globe? Or in the sense that it doesn't have much chance against the American Empire, which will do everything it can to beat it back?

Yeah, that's a good point. I have to go to work in a few minutes, and I'll respond the the rest later.

One thing I'll say now is that JFK was certainly a neo-con in many senses, but if he was pretty evil then it was Satan himself who followed him into office.

Pogue

3rd December 2008, 20:58

Marx-Leninism leads to a powerful elite holding power. Its not suprising what happens next.

Post-Something

4th December 2008, 00:11

The problem of "authoritarian government" seem to be the major why I'm leaning towrad Social Democracy thesedays.

If we manage to covert you to full-blown communism, what will you do with your capital? ;)

Also, if RevLeft manages to make an ACTUAL capitalist a Marxist, my year would be made.

Anyway, awesome thread, some really great discussion going on.

synthesis

4th December 2008, 00:29

I'm not on anyone case or think bad of Communism--but these problems keep hanging on for me. The problem of "authoritarian government" seem to be the major why I'm leaning towrad Social Democracy thesedays.

If anything, Communism as much as any other ideology was guilty of being a product of the times and places in which it was conceived and developed.

I think that's a good enough reason to view it critically, but you have to remember that authoritarian socialism was never the force that introduced authoritarianism into any one particular society. Again, that's historical fact.

From Czar Nicholas to General Batista to all the ways in which China got fucked in the ass by WWII, "successful" socialist revolutionaries always inherited deeply divided societies with pre-existing statist political structures.

Communists can't change entire societies overnight, and when all the effort that you have put into adapting socialist theory and practice to your society has had to go to the revolution, there's not only very little left for your specific plan of governance after the revolution, but you're also filling the power vacuum with the mentality of a hardened warrior, not the transitional figure you're supposed to be.

I hope you're able to see all the ramifications these things have had on previous socialist countries and how they are not necessarily inherent in the socialist paradigm - as much as anything, they are a product of circumstance.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

4th December 2008, 05:33

That sounds about right.

Wow, We agree......start the apocalypse countdown! :lol:

Undoubtedly. But America has been the driving force behind global anti-communism since October of 1917. So when you say that the far left is irrelevant on the basis of it having no chance in American electoral politics, you're basically saying "look at the heart of the Empire--it's extremely conservative! The far left must be irrelevant".

The US government was actively squashing labor movements here long before we went abroad, and I think a lot of leftists (though I'm certainly not accusing you) are ignorant of the rich labor history we have in this country. The Homestead and Pullman strikes, The Knights of Labor, and the Pinkertons (Fuck the pinkertons!) all weave a very interesting history, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I sort of agree, since with someone like Kucinich or Nader in office, acting on his principles, the forces of the far left that are now latent would be unleashed all around the globe. This is not an outlandish statement; I can easily provide a tremendous amount of 20th Century history to prove it. (But I doubt you need me to).

Of course, someone like Kucinich or Nader in office would not be able to act on his principles. The power of the presidency may be expanding, but it is still extremely constrained, namely by the many entrenched groups who never stop aggressively asserting their special interests through government. That is the nature of capitalist parliamentarian ("representative") systems. I suggest this book (http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Rule-Investment-Competition-Money-Driven/dp/0226243176/ref=cm_syf_dtl_txt_25) for starters.

First, the book looks like a very interesting read, but I do believe there are exceptions to the rule. For example, 2006 here in Dallas the incumbent GOP DA outraised the Dem 20-1, yet the Dem won. And it was sweet.

Second, our government was created to act very slowly. In some senses, this is a good thing as it prevents the mob from enacting quik reactions (kill all the arabs!). But in another sense, the sluggish pace is most frustrating. The civil rights campaign took decades (some may say it's not even over). The only times were this is changed is when Americans get scared, as was the case following 9/11...so much fear that most asked no questions before the war against Iraq.

At the moment, though, the Bush Administration is feverishly doing away with as many regulations and other impediments to big corporations as possible. Bill Moyers did a segment on it a little while ago, and it's most disgusting.

One example he gave was the cut in safety regulations companies need to keep in coal mines, a place were it is already painfully obvious that we lag behind and one of the damn stupidest fucking things to skimp on. Of course, if coal-miners strike they'll be portrayed as greedy savages who want to turn off your electricity :rolleyes:

On that note, as knowledgeable Americans you and I both know that Obama will not be able to do anything spectacular even if he really does want to (which I'm skeptical about). His followers think he will be some super-progressive, unlike Democrats of the past.

I believe he wants to. Will he be succesful? Probably not on all fronts, but hopefully, in 8 years, he'll have done a good enough job that the pendulum will keep going left instead of swinging back (drastically) as was the case after Carter.

What will probably happen if he's succesful in stopping the recession, ending the war, and getting us back on the "right track" is that....... Americans will completely forget about how horrible Bush is and remember how much they hate gay people, and vote accordingly.

Secondly, yeah, I know what you mean about most of his supporters. Man, the way Rolling Stone wrote about him....it made me hope McCain would win for a second. I am fully willing to admit that he hasn't done shit, and am not already proposing monuments to him as it seems many liberals are.

Well, let's look at history. Bill Clinton was extremely pro-market in both his rhetoric and actions, gutted our welfare system, and failed to achieve the slightest thing in his supposed favorite area for reform (healthcare); yet the Republicans in Congress shut down the government because they found him too liberal.

That just goes to show how fuckin crazy the GOP is. They honestly believed he was a communist...But yes, he was center-right through and through.

Even Obama's supposed forebear, JFK, was as staunch an anticommunist as has ever sat in the Oval Office. One of the staunchest, as a matter of fact, since he was an opportunist, political asshole.

To quote Hunter Thompson, "By the late 1960s, most of the politically active new wave saw Kennedy as nothing more than a glorious sellout. But next to none of them could deny that it was him who got them into politics."

Hopefully, Obama will have a similiar effect.

Capitalism cannot be reformed. Not in the U.S. more than anywhere else. And neither can the capitalist form of representative "democracy". I'm not saying that capitalism will be replaced in the U.S. anytime soon, but I am saying that it has to be. Until it is, we certainly cannot judge the appeal of the far left by its actual successes; we have to dig a little deeper, and see that at least half the countries on this planet have been overtly or covertly tampered with by the U.S. in order to kill far-left movements which otherwise had a very good chance of succeeding.

Capitalism has been reformed, otherwise it would have been smashed by the working class decades ago. The 40-hour workweek, ban on child labor, legalizing unions, etc, have all gone a long way towards preserving some form of Capitalism. You have to admit that the capitalism we have today barely resembles that which we had a century ago (domestically, of course).

America has done a lot of evil shit in the name of freedom. Nobody with half a brain can deny that (though one could argue that we've been a lot "nicer" than the world powers which preceded us). Though I am joining one of the main arms of enforcing our way around the world, it's not something that makes me proud to be an American. Do I think it allows us to help in situations were nobody else has the power to, such as in the aftermath of the tsunami or Kosovo? Yes. Does it also create a situation were we are perpetually caught up in global affairs and making sure everyone in the world does according to our wishes, while our schools go to shit? Again, yes.

JimmyJazz

4th December 2008, 06:31

I have to go to work in a few minutes, and I'll respond the the rest later.

Yes, you do. Your time is not your own when you are somebody else's employee. That's not just *****ing but an economic fact.

One thing I'll say now is that JFK was certainly a neo-con in many senses, but if he was pretty evil then it was Satan himself who followed him into office.

Meh, I guess. LBJ to me was the same as JFK and better than Nixon. I can have political disagreements with people (even fundamental ones) and believe they are decent people; but Nixon was truly soul-less.

Anyway...

The US government was actively squashing labor movements here long before we went abroad, and I think a lot of leftists (though I'm certainly not accusing you) are ignorant of the rich labor history we have in this country. The Homestead and Pullman strikes, The Knights of Labor, and the Pinkertons (Fuck the pinkertons!) all weave a very interesting history, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm quite aware. Interesting that you leave out the IWW. You should check out the preamble to their constitution.

In this post you remind me of myself a little over a year ago: interested in labor issues, aware that there's something there that's a bit radical, but not yet convinced that the self-emancipation of labor is necessary and/or that it is possible without creating some kind of totalitarian hellhole. I hope you'll keep reading (maybe check out some of these (http://home.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/R2FPY78BBD9TER)). I can still remember exactly where I was when the Labor TOV clicked for me.

First, the book looks like a very interesting read, but I do believe there are exceptions to the rule.

Sure. But it's still the rule.

And as my signature said for a while before I changed it, "a system based on four year election cycles and three month business cycles is fundamentally incapable of addressing the problems that threaten to destroy this planet." (paraphrased cuz I no longer have the quote).

Capitalism and capitalist democracy simply are not set up to deal with long term issues like militarism, the destruction of the ecosystem, global poverty and so on. That's not really why I advocate socialism, of course; I advocate socialism because I am opposed to class society and systematic social theft. But the side benefits of ditching capitalism are incalculable. That's something that I've come to through a lot of reading, but all of it having taken place since I began to advocate social ownership of the means of production, on the basic grounds that the existence of a class-based economy is fundamentally objectionable.

At the moment, though, the Bush Administration is feverishly doing away with as many regulations and other impediments to big corporations as possible. Bill Moyers did a segment on it a little while ago, and it's most disgusting.

Why? If you are ideologically capitalist, you have no theoretical footing whatsoever to oppose any actions by a corporation that you would not object to a small business owner doing. None, whatsoever.

Hopefully, Obama will have a similiar effect.

On...the politically active youth? This would just turn them towards conspiratorial leftism a la the Weather Underground. The majority of the population has a political memory of about 2 months, due in large part to factors like the media having a political memory of even less, so for the majority to get disillusioned by the breaking of four-year-old promises is virtually impossible. The system more or less assures that they won't remember--new things will be thrust in their faces to make them forget.

It's also a reflection of their alienation from this political-economic system in general.

As for your last stuff, you are right to point out that capitalism has not so much been reformed as preserved. Your argument on that is correct and it parallels Francis Fox Piven's in her book Regulating The Poor. Seeking to "reform" class society is like "reforming" a prison where all the inhabitants are innocent. It's not really a proposal that merits my time or serious thought.

But, what I was specifically saying there is that capitalism in the U.S. cannot be reformed to prevent us from acting as an imperial power towards all others. To pick an example out of a hat: the CIA overthrew Guatemala's populist (not even socialist) leader Jacobo Arbenz in a coup, directly at the behest of United Fruit. I've read that prior to that Guatemala was Latin America's oldest democracy; what followed is considered one of only a handful of genocides (http://www.yale.edu/gsp/guatemala/index.html) to have taken place in the last century. This was done for banana profits.

This has basically been the model of all U.S. interventions, with a few exceptions where anticommunism was sincerely the motivator and not just a rhetorical justification--the Allied intervention into the Russian Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War) comes to mind.

ZeroNowhere

4th December 2008, 08:59

I sort of agree, since with someone like Kucinich or Nader in office, acting on his principles...
...There may be a few problems with capital flight.

As for your last stuff, you are right to point out that capitalism has not so much been reformed as preserved. Your argument on that is correct and it parallels Francis Fox Piven's in her book Regulating The Poor. Seeking to "reform" class society is like "reforming" a prison where all the inhabitants are innocent. It's not really a proposal that merits my time or serious thought.
"In the words of the great essayist, 'The voice of great events is proclaiming to us, reform if you would preserve.'"
-Franklin Roosevelt.

JimmyJazz

5th December 2008, 06:35

...There may be a few problems with capital flight.

The topic was just U.S. foreign policy. However, yeah, as far as economics go that's a major reason why capitalism can't be reformed.

mikelepore

7th December 2008, 12:26

"In the words of the great essayist, 'The voice of great events is proclaiming to us, reform if you would preserve.'"
-Franklin Roosevelt.

The "great essayist" that Roosevelt that paraphrasing in his 1936 campaign speech was Thomas Babington Macaulay in a speech before the House of Commons in 1831.

M. Lepore, trivia collector

TheCultofAbeLincoln

8th December 2008, 06:02

Meh, I guess. LBJ to me was the same as JFK and better than Nixon. I can have political disagreements with people (even fundamental ones) and believe they are decent people; but Nixon was truly soul-less.

LBJ was a disgusting pig, though Nixon was worse, I agree.

At least LBJ was comparitively progressive on the domestic front while enlarging the war in Vietnam, while Nixon was a reactionary turd at home while expanding it to Laos and Cambodia.

I'm quite aware. Interesting that you leave out the IWW. You should check out the preamble to their constitution.

Quite right, how could I have forgotten the wobblies?! I think my great-grandfather was a member for a short period, back when it was for workers and not college students.

In this post you remind me of myself a little over a year ago: interested in labor issues, aware that there's something there that's a bit radical, but not yet convinced that the self-emancipation of labor is necessary and/or that it is possible without creating some kind of totalitarian hellhole. I hope you'll keep reading (maybe check out some of these (http://home.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/R2FPY78BBD9TER)). I can still remember exactly where I was when the Labor TOV clicked for me.

Eh I've been all over the political spectrum, swinging from far-left to center-right depending on the season.

Sure. But it's still the rule.

I'll concede this, though I can't feel all that sorry for the people when the most effective political commercials are less thought-provoking than nike ads.

And as my signature said for a while before I changed it, "a system based on four year election cycles and three month business cycles is fundamentally incapable of addressing the problems that threaten to destroy this planet." (paraphrased cuz I no longer have the quote).

Capitalism and capitalist democracy simply are not set up to deal with long term issues like militarism, the destruction of the ecosystem, global poverty and so on. That's not really why I advocate socialism, of course; I advocate socialism because I am opposed to class society and systematic social theft. But the side benefits of ditching capitalism are incalculable. That's something that I've come to through a lot of reading, but all of it having taken place since I began to advocate social ownership of the means of production, on the basic grounds that the existence of a class-based economy is fundamentally objectionable.

Maybe, though you're assuming that 'the people' care about things like our ecosystem.

Why? If you are ideologically capitalist, you have no theoretical footing whatsoever to oppose any actions by a corporation that you would not object to a small business owner doing. None, whatsoever.

This is a strawman. Just because one supports market economics does not mean on is a necessarily a libertarian.

If not, then the politicians who forced food companies to put Nutritional Information on their products must not be capitalists, correct?

On...the politically active youth? This would just turn them towards conspiratorial leftism a la the Weather Underground. The majority of the population has a political memory of about 2 months, due in large part to factors like the media having a political memory of even less, so for the majority to get disillusioned by the breaking of four-year-old promises is virtually impossible. The system more or less assures that they won't remember--new things will be thrust in their faces to make them forget.

It's also a reflection of their alienation from this political-economic system in general.

First, let me say that the 2 months rule only applies to those who aren't completly fucking ignorant of the forces which control them.

Second, I didn't mean in the sense of the Weather Underground so much as a very active SDS. Could you imagine what it'd be like if our peers didn't give a shit about their iPod, Plasma TV, Car, XBox, the logo on the clothes their wearing, and all that other bullshit they've been brainwashed to value as opposed to the world they live in?

Now that would be a revolution.

As for your last stuff, you are right to point out that capitalism has not so much been reformed as preserved. Your argument on that is correct and it parallels Francis Fox Piven's in her book Regulating The Poor. Seeking to "reform" class society is like "reforming" a prison where all the inhabitants are innocent. It's not really a proposal that merits my time or serious thought.

If you gave the prisoners enough pills, they'd never know they were locked up.

But, what I was specifically saying there is that capitalism in the U.S. cannot be reformed to prevent us from acting as an imperial power towards all others. To pick an example out of a hat: the CIA overthrew Guatemala's populist (not even socialist) leader Jacobo Arbenz in a coup, directly at the behest of United Fruit. I've read that prior to that Guatemala was Latin America's oldest democracy; what followed is considered one of only a handful of genocides (http://www.yale.edu/gsp/guatemala/index.html) to have taken place in the last century. This was done for banana profits.

Yeah, my dad lived in Guatemala for a couple years during the late 1970s, almost completely among the very poor indigenous population. Luckily, he moved to Mexico City before the scorched earth campaign against those groups began.

trivas7

10th December 2008, 01:52

When you collectivize a broken economy, you get a broken socialism. Likewise when you collectivize a strong economy, you get a strong socialism.
Name one collectivized "strong economy".

Robert

10th December 2008, 02:41

Nixon was truly soul-less.

I don't know if you're referring to his paranoid personality, his foreign policy, his domestic obstruction of justice or all three, but most presidents are complicated narcissists IMO and Nixon was no exception.

Employment quotas, desegregation, and affirmative action (assuming you approve) were advanced significantly under Nixon. He made no friends or profit in the process that I know of.

Bud Struggle

10th December 2008, 03:05

I don't know if you're referring to his paranoid personality, his foreign policy, his domestic obstruction of justice or all three, but most presidents are complicated narcissists IMO and Nixon was no exception.

Employment quotas, desegregation, and affirmative action (assuming you approve) were advanced significantly under Nixon. He made no friends or profit in the process that I know of.

He also ended the war in Vietnam and opened up China to the Free World.

synthesis

10th December 2008, 05:21

He also ended the war in Vietnam and opened up China to the Free World.

Of course, ending the war in Vietnam had nothing to do with its massive domestic unpopularity and the strategic inevitability of defeat.

And of course, Nixon's relations with China was not realpolitik, having nothing to do with exploiting the pre-existing Sino-Soviet split.

And it should be obvious to everyone that progressive anti-racist policies which were implemented during Nixon's reign were policies that he personally endorsed, because he was, of course, an entirely un-prejudiced voice of common sense.

:wub:

Dr. Rosenpenis

10th December 2008, 05:38

You don't have to tell me what's undemocratic about Cuba, but it's easily the most democratic country in the world today. By a fucking mile.

Robert

10th December 2008, 06:16

You don't have to tell me what's undemocratic about Cuba

You can tell me if you like.

JimmyJazz

10th December 2008, 07:53

This is a strawman. Just because one supports market economics does not mean on is a necessarily a libertarian.

If not, then the politicians who forced food companies to put Nutritional Information on their products must not be capitalists, correct?

Huh? I never said nor implied that you were a libertarian. I assumed from your posts and avatar that you're more liberal than anything. But my point was that if you favor the private ownership and management of capital, while merely wanting to tax away a lot of the profits from these private owners/managers of capital and funneling it to "good causes" (including, sometimes, bailing out *other* capitalists, for instance who make cars and run banks), then you have no theoretical right to talk shit about corporations. You favor the private ownership/management of capital, and corporations are what that system has produced and always produces, so on what grounds can you *****? Also, small business owners are just big corporations in waiting: wipe away Wal-Mart, and another Walton family corner shop will take its place in 10 years. Small business owners are no more accountable than large corporations, and the damage done by 100 unaccountable small capitalists is the same as the damage that can be done by 1 unaccountable giant corporation. Just because the impact is more dispersed doesn't make it any less.

Secondly, don't say you favor "market economics" as opposed to socialism. That is a strawman, a classic one. Socialism is not incompatible with prices. Socialist planners, in addition to being accountable to citizens and laborers through the normal political means of accountability (voting, recall), could also quite easily use a "market" to determine demand. I don't oppose markets, I oppose capitalism--private ownership of labor-employing capital. Capitalism is defined by who carries out production, and for what purpose--not how the produced goods get traded/distributed once they have been made. No one goes around calling himself an anti-marketist; we are anti-capitalists.

Could you imagine what it'd be like if our peers didn't give a shit about their iPod, Plasma TV, Car, XBox, the logo on the clothes their wearing, and all that other bullshit they've been brainwashed to value as opposed to the world they live in?

Now that would be a revolution.

I call bull on any attempt to put the burden of the blame for capitalism on the shoulders of the individual consumer. That's a tactic for expressing your elitist disgust with the system while guaranteeing it will continue.

Also, you've hit on something of importance to the market socialism idea. When you say that they've been "brainwashed to value" certain things, you are implicitly recognizing that capitalists do not simply respond to consumer demand. You're right to realize that this is a blatant lie perpetuated by capitalism's apologists. Capitalists don't respond to demand nearly as much as they create it, through advertising, planned obsolescence and other means.

You might have wondered, if socialist planners use markets to guide their decisions, how would their production choices differ from those of a bunch of aggregate capitalists? The answer is that a market socialist economy actually would, unlike capitalism, conform to the idealist theories that neoclassical economists have created and that many of them attempt to use to justify the capitalist ownership scheme (private ownership of the MoP). The apologists of capitalism paint a picture where capitalists merely respond to demand, but the fact is that they create it: there was no demand for ipods before there was an ipod. They don't respond to existing markets for existing products (most existing markets have already been carved up by a few stable players); in the entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism they set out to create new markets, new demand. They want my dollar and yours, and if we already have everything we need, well, they'll create some useless shit and try to sell that to us. They certainly won't put their money into a cure for Malaria, because that's a disease that only affects poor people. But in a market socialist economy, planners actually would be just responding to consumer demand--they'd have no motive to do otherwise. Their job would be to produce for need, not for profit.

Now, there's no question that the world would be a lot better off if a ton of the crap we now produce had never been produced, and the money that was used to produce it had been put into things like food and medicine for the world's poorest (or hell, even a public transportation system for the world's richest; I'd take a transcontinental high-speed railroad over all the Tickle-Me Elmoes ever produced, wouldn't you?). But then there's the question of exactly where to draw the line. Should the ipod never have been produced? I dunno. I have one, and I enjoy it very much. I think it's a cheap enough technology that reasonably close to everyone who wants one would be able to get one if we were producing for need. (If you doubt this, consider the fact that most people even in relatively poor cities, like Tijuana, do have cellphones). But would a market socialist economy be able to produce something like the ipod? If so, how? I mean, if the planners are only responding to need, and not creating it, then who is going to come up with the prototype of such a device--and why? I'm not exactly sure, and I actually plan on making a thread about this topic in the near future. I do think a socialist society needs to have a solid plan for producing new things, especially entertainment items. If it doesn't, that's when capitalism creeps back in and gains a foothold.

Creative art will always be created just for the sake of it without any profit motive, but these days a lot of cool entertainment can come from technology rather than any creative process, and I don't know if some engineer is going to cook up an ipod in his garage just for the love of it and out of his sheer desire to share it with the world (as artists will typically do with their art).

Anyway, back to the market socialism thing, you might want to check this out:
Lange Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lange_Model)

I'm not a straight-up market socialist, btw. I would definitely incorporate some council communist ideas. But there do also have to be central planners to coordinate things a little better than workers' organizations can do, even collectively. Needless to say, the planners need to be subject to extreme accountability (which is really just a matter of having the will to hold them accountable, since it's not a technically difficult problem--ideas like the instantly recallable delegate have been around for well over a hundred years, yet they still aren't in wide use in any so-called democratic country).

If you gave the prisoners enough pills, they'd never know they were locked up.

Well, I agree.

JimmyJazz

10th December 2008, 18:50

Quite right, how could I have forgotten the wobblies?! I think my great-grandfather was a member for a short period, back when it was for workers and not college students.

On this, btw, you are talking out of your butt. I belong to a branch of the IWW in a major city, and I'm not gonna lie, I feel out of place sometimes being a college grad. I think that some of the members probably don't have high school degrees (the branch's big campaign, which is underground so I can't write about it on the internet, is in an industry that has no educational requirement whatsoever). Few, if any, are college grads--although I assume the two RNs have nursing degrees, and one guy has a music degree, and yet another guy is working on a labor history degree, but only part time, because he works full-time in a grocery store.

Bud Struggle

10th December 2008, 21:03

Hell, I'm a member of the IWW, too. :blushing: :D

And I pay the MAXIMUM rate. :(

#FF0000

10th December 2008, 21:34

Name one collectivized "strong economy".

Name one strong economy that was ever collectivized. :confused:

Hit The North

10th December 2008, 21:50

Name one collectivized "strong economy".

Depends what you mean by collectivised. In a crucial sense all economies are the result of collectivised effort. The fact that private property underlines the legal forms of ownership of an economy, does not negate the development and presence of socialised labour. In fact, private accumulation depends upon it and it is one of the basic contradictions of the capitalist system.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

11th December 2008, 07:56

On this, btw, you are talking out of your butt. I belong to a branch of the IWW in a major city, and I'm not gonna lie, I feel out of place sometimes being a college grad. I think that some of the members probably don't have high school degrees (the branch's big campaign, which is underground so I can't write about it on the internet, is in an industry that has no educational requirement whatsoever). Few, if any, are college grads--although I assume the two RNs have nursing degrees, and one guy has a music degree, and yet another guy is working on a labor history degree, but only part time, because he works full-time in a grocery store.

If you are allowed to tell, are there a lot of members at your branch? Is there more than one brach in your city?

As for my great-grandad, it's the only way I explain their propoganda becoming family heirlooms.

More on the rest later.

JimmyJazz

11th December 2008, 09:23

Nah, there's only one branch. There were 16 people at the last GMB meeting, and the president of the local branch (that's not his real title, but I can't remember his real title) said there are about 3 times that many dues-paying members. That's the people who are a member of the local branch...I have no idea how many more people in my city might be online dues-paying members but have no connection with the local. And I guess it doesn't really matter, since they obviously aren't involved in organizing if they aren't hooked up with the local.

I think a mistake that people make (certainly one that I've made) is to think that the era of labor radicalism in the U.S. is long gone because union representation is so small as a percentage of the whole labor force. The reason it's a mistake is because, although the percentage has declined since the 70's or so, the percentage of the American labor force represented by unions has always been exceptionally small. That hasn't stopped American labor from being on the rather militant side at certain points in history though--more militant than a lot of other national working classes. My point is that if the present organizing efforts of the IWW seem insignificant, it's helpful to realize that numerically speaking they always were, even at the height of the organization's strength. Their importance has extended well beyond their member numbers or the numbers of workers involved in the actions they've organized.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

12th December 2008, 22:38

Huh? I never said nor implied that you were a libertarian. I assumed from your posts and avatar that you're more liberal than anything. But my point was that if you favor the private ownership and management of capital, while merely wanting to tax away a lot of the profits from these private owners/managers of capital and funneling it to "good causes" (including, sometimes, bailing out *other* capitalists, for instance who make cars and run banks), then you have no theoretical right to talk shit about corporations. You favor the private ownership/management of capital, and corporations are what that system has produced and always produces, so on what grounds can you *****? Also, small business owners are just big corporations in waiting: wipe away Wal-Mart, and another Walton family corner shop will take its place in 10 years. Small business owners are no more accountable than large corporations, and the damage done by 100 unaccountable small capitalists is the same as the damage that can be done by 1 unaccountable giant corporation. Just because the impact is more dispersed doesn't make it any less.

Mt point was that though I believe that, for the foreseeable future, the basic capitalist means of exchange should be preserved, that does not translate to a stance of 'all power to the corporation.' The government needs to take precedence over the interests of capitalists, as it has in the past (domestically, of course) by preserving national parks, forcing companies to tell consumers about the contents of the product, banning child labor, forcing automakers to install seat-belts, etc.

Take the automotive industry, for instance. The government failed to take a long look ahead and force necessary changes upon the industry via regulation and requirements, along with incentives, and, instead, got complacent with the money flowing in and all the "free market" bullshit went on and on....until those companies require us to bail them out now that they've proven they're incapable of doing so.

Secondly, don't say you favor "market economics" as opposed to socialism. That is a strawman, a classic one. Socialism is not incompatible with prices. Socialist planners, in addition to being accountable to citizens and laborers through the normal political means of accountability (voting, recall), could also quite easily use a "market" to determine demand. I don't oppose markets, I oppose capitalism--private ownership of labor-employing capital. Capitalism is defined by who carries out production, and for what purpose--not how the produced goods get traded/distributed once they have been made. No one goes around calling himself an anti-marketist; we are anti-capitalists.I'm sorry, until recently I thought you were an anarchist.

I call bull on any attempt to put the burden of the blame for capitalism on the shoulders of the individual consumer. That's a tactic for expressing your elitist disgust with the system while guaranteeing it will continue.I will, the individual consumers are the lifeblood of the status quo.

But I see your point and am not trying to argue about it.

Also, you've hit on something of importance to the market socialism idea. When you say that they've been "brainwashed to value" certain things, you are implicitly recognizing that capitalists do not simply respond to consumer demand. You're right to realize that this is a blatant lie perpetuated by capitalism's apologists. Capitalists don't respond to demand nearly as much as they create it, through advertising, planned obsolescence and other means.To a large extent yes, this is the case. However, it also highlights the inability of corporations to adapt to a swing in consumer demands. I would say that the Big 3 US automakers created, through advertising and the general culture, the need for big cars. Once this shifted those compaines are left holding the bag.

You might have wondered, if socialist planners use markets to guide their decisions, how would their production choices differ from those of a bunch of aggregate capitalists? The answer is that a market socialist economy actually would, unlike capitalism, conform to the idealist theories that neoclassical economists have created and that many of them attempt to use to justify the capitalist ownership scheme (private ownership of the MoP). The apologists of capitalism paint a picture where capitalists merely respond to demand, but the fact is that they create it: there was no demand for ipods before there was an ipod. They don't respond to existing markets for existing products (most existing markets have already been carved up by a few stable players); in the entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism they set out to create new markets, new demand. They want my dollar and yours, and if we already have everything we need, well, they'll create some useless shit and try to sell that to us. They certainly won't put their money into a cure for Malaria, because that's a disease that only affects poor people. But in a market socialist economy, planners actually would be just responding to consumer demand--they'd have no motive to do otherwise. Their job would be to produce for need, not for profit.But to use your example, there was a demand for more efficient way of holding music. The iPod merely made this more efficient. Capitalism does allow for a market in which improvement is welcomed, were every step towards greater efficiency is required in order to stay competitive. New technologies have been developed across the board in order to fulfill this never-ending need, which, of course, matters more in Capitalism than human needs. As for malaria, not unless you're talking abou Bill Gates, otherwise yeah, most with the means to help could care less.

Now, there's no question that the world would be a lot better off if a ton of the crap we now produce had never been produced, and the money that was used to produce it had been put into things like food and medicine for the world's poorest (or hell, even a public transportation system for the world's richest; I'd take a transcontinental high-speed railroad over all the Tickle-Me Elmoes ever produced, wouldn't you?). But then there's the question of exactly where to draw the line. Should the ipod never have been produced? I dunno. I have one, and I enjoy it very much. I think it's a cheap enough technology that reasonably close to everyone who wants one would be able to get one if we were producing for need. (If you doubt this, consider the fact that most people even in relatively poor cities, like Tijuana, do have cellphones). But would a market socialist economy be able to produce something like the ipod? If so, how? I mean, if the planners are only responding to need, and not creating it, then who is going to come up with the prototype of such a device--and why? I'm not exactly sure, and I actually plan on making a thread about this topic in the near future. I do think a socialist society needs to have a solid plan for producing new things, especially entertainment items. If it doesn't, that's when capitalism creeps back in and gains a foothold.I think the answer lies somewhere in between capitalism and socialism. I've stated this before, but take nationalizing the beef industry. All produce the same product, hopefully of the same general quality. I don't think it would be that complex to improve upon it and create more supply (if keeping $ up wasn't the driving factor behind production.) However, nationalizing all of the burger joints in the country would do nothing more than creating cafeteria-food across the board, which would suck.

We would definitely need something like the New Economic Policy in order to shift much of the manufacturing, agricultural, and infrastructure production to a more socialized status while allowing for small-entrepreneurs to develop products which can improve upon something and which they can be compensated for.

As for the iPod, it's hard to say. If anything, military research is the most realiable way of developing new technologies.

Creative art will always be created just for the sake of it without any profit motive, but these days a lot of cool entertainment can come from technology rather than any creative process, and I don't know if some engineer is going to cook up an ipod in his garage just for the love of it and out of his sheer desire to share it with the world (as artists will typically do with their art).I agree.

Anyway, back to the market socialism thing, you might want to check this out:
Lange Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lange_Model)Will do, though I don't have time at the moment.

I'm not a straight-up market socialist, btw. I would definitely incorporate some council communist ideas. But there do also have to be central planners to coordinate things a little better than workers' organizations can do, even collectively. Needless to say, the planners need to be subject to extreme accountability (which is really just a matter of having the will to hold them accountable, since it's not a technically difficult problem--ideas like the instantly recallable delegate have been around for well over a hundred years, yet they still aren't in wide use in any so-called democratic country).
Hey, remember Gray Davis :laugh:

Just kidding, I agree. Lenin also called for power of the recall,yet...

I will say that in many cases it's a good thing there wasn't a recall for a lot of people. If there was for all public positions, then the Civil Rights movement in the South would be at a much less developed place it is today. The judges who made the brave decisions would be recalled by a majority who disagreed with integration, for instance.

Though it would be nice in many cases.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

12th December 2008, 22:51

I think a mistake that people make (certainly one that I've made) is to think that the era of labor radicalism in the U.S. is long gone because union representation is so small as a percentage of the whole labor force. The reason it's a mistake is because, although the percentage has declined since the 70's or so, the percentage of the American labor force represented by unions has always been exceptionally small. That hasn't stopped American labor from being on the rather militant side at certain points in history though--more militant than a lot of other national working classes. My point is that if the present organizing efforts of the IWW seem insignificant, it's helpful to realize that numerically speaking they always were, even at the height of the organization's strength. Their importance has extended well beyond their member numbers or the numbers of workers involved in the actions they've organized.

Those are some very good points.

Do you think there's the potential for the left-Unions to have a revival with the recession and the way the UAW/AFL-CIO are only granting concessions to the monied interests? Shit, if I got laid off from a company like GM (ie mainly due to gross mismanagement by arrogant corporate leaders), I'd come back with an effigy of Wagoner hanging in the parking lot. But that's just me, it's most sad that people getting laid off these days seem to only show fear, and I was very glad to picket with the teachers getting laid off here. I was glad that they actually showed some anger about it and did not hold the "Well, I understand that it's hard times" position.

JimmyJazz

14th December 2008, 22:09

Mt point was that though I believe that, for the foreseeable future, the basic capitalist means of exchange should be preserved, that does not translate to a stance of 'all power to the corporation.'

Again, I think that "capitalist means of exchange" is a euphemism. Capitalism, as its name implies, is defined primarily by ownership relations in the process of production, not in the means for exchanging/distributing produced goods.

This (http://libcom.org/library/commodity-fetishism-fredy-perlman) essay is seriously a must-read, at least the first part of it. Marxism is built on a certain understanding of political economy. Political economy is a more fundamental question than economics. Mainstream economics does not deal with political economy, it presumes capitalist ownership as a starting point, then deals with the workings of markets (the "means of exchange").

As I've already stated, as far as I'm concerned, socialism has no inherent quarrel with markets when they are divorced from production-for-profit.

The government needs to take precedence over the interests of capitalists, as it has in the past (domestically, of course) by preserving national parks, forcing companies to tell consumers about the contents of the product, banning child labor, forcing automakers to install seat-belts, etc.

Take the automotive industry, for instance. The government failed to take a long look ahead and force necessary changes upon the industry via regulation and requirements, along with incentives, and, instead, got complacent with the money flowing in and all the "free market" bullshit went on and on....until those companies require us to bail them out now that they've proven they're incapable of doing so.

The problem with saying that the government "simply needs to be more far-sighted" is that it's wishful thinking, and takes no account of the actual nature of so-called representative democracies. The men who run the government have no interest in passing such long term regulations, or in making long term environmental adjustments, etc. They do have an urgent interest in getting re-elected two to four years from now, which most of the time requires that they put capitalist interests first; but what interest could they possibly have in taking the necessary long term actions? I suppose some diehard idealists might manage to sneak in the backdoor of congress, but really, they're an insignificant minority swimming against the overwhelming current.

As far as Keynsianism, which you seem to knowingly support, you ignore its fatal flaw: it can, and always will, be undone. It is a temporary measure to save capitalism. I'm sure you realize that every last shred of the New Deal has been completely undone. This didn't happen recently with the rise of "neoliberalism" or whatever, but has been going on since the American left was first co-opted into blindly patriotic support for anti-Hitler efforts in the 40's. Unions signed "no strike" agreements coinciding with wartime, and this total emasculation was made permanent, the minute the war ended, by the passing of the Labor-Management Relations Act (Taft-Hartley), which is still in effect. McCarthyism sent the far-left labor leadership into hiding for long enough that they effectively failed to transmit their ideas to the next generation of labor activists. And because unions are now so relatively useless to the average worker, union membership has declined since WWII from about 35% to about 12% (8% for the private sector).

This is all in line with common sense: as long as the means of production remain privately owned, there will be, by definition, powerful people with a strong motive (to say the least) to roll back any and all pro-labor/pro-social measures as quickly as they believe they can get away with doing it. There is always a rift of opinion in the capitalist class over how much they can get away with and how quickly they can get away with it, which more or less explains the divergent economic philosophies of the Republican and Democratic parties.

I'm sorry, until recently I thought you were an anarchist.

That's fine, I'm actually not sure how it's relevant though. I'm a socialist first and a Marxist second. Anarchism, Marxism and Social Democracy are just three different ideas of how to get from here (capitalism) to there (socialism). The first two are revolutionary. The latter two involve the existence a pro-labor state. But they all have socialism as their goal, so I don't really think my particular socialist philosophy has bearing on a discussion of socialist versus capitalist economies.

I will, the individual consumers are the lifeblood of the status quo.

But I see your point and am not trying to argue about it.

They are, and I don't deny that. I am just saying that they will continue to do what they now do, as long as the system in which they operate doesn't change. Individual believers are the lifeblood of religious cults, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't denounce cult leaderships, and even actively seek to undermine them when they lead members to harm themselves or others. Alcoholics are responsible for their own choices, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an intervention.

As for malaria, not unless you're talking about Bill Gates, otherwise yeah, most with the means to help could care less.

Charity is not really a part of capitalism, but a moral reaction to it. An entirely insufficient one, needless to say I think.

I think the answer lies somewhere in between capitalism and socialism.

But there is no middle ground. That is not rhetoric. Either the means of production remain privately owned or they do not. There is a fundamental difference between socializing an industry* and taxing away a greater percentage of the profits from an industry. The former is socialism, the latter is Keynsianism/welfaire capitalism. FDR did not seize one single industry. He did not create or promote workers' control anywhere. He was a capitalist, as all Keynsians are. He was conscious of this and he said it many times.

Capitalism vs. socialism is not a rough quantitative distinction, but a sharp qualitative one. Either capital is owned and managed by those who through their labor increase it, or it is owned and managed by some third party.

*nationalizing is the more familiar term from the mainstream media and mainstream academics, but it's a false one. There is a world of difference between socializing and (mere) nationalizing.

However, nationalizing all of the burger joints in the country would do nothing more than creating cafeteria-food across the board, which would suck.

I can't take this objection too seriously, sorry.

As for the iPod, it's hard to say. If anything, military research is the most realiable way of developing new technologies.

Well yeah, because military research is the only kind of research this capitalist (and imperialist) government cares about. And that's because a large section of its real constituents, the capitalist class, cares about it.

Hey, remember Gray Davis :laugh:

I voted for the guy with the funniest name.. can't remember him now. Trust me, it was funny. :lol:

JimmyJazz

14th December 2008, 22:23

Ernest Mandel's Intro to Marxist Economics (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1967/intromet/ch01.htm) is good reading too. (Although it should be called Intro to Marxist Political Economy).

TheCultofAbeLincoln

15th December 2008, 05:13

I only have moment, so I'm just going to respond to a couple things now, before I read the links you had.

As far as Keynsianism, which you seem to knowingly support,

I support Keynsianism today because we've had 30 years of neoconservatism, and I couldn't take anymore of it. I imagine that many aspects of neoliberalism will remain, at least in the short term, however.

Unions signed "no strike" agreements coinciding with wartime, and this total emasculation was made permanent, the minute the war ended, by the passing of the Labor-Management Relations Act (Taft-Hartley), which is still in effect.I agree. The ban on striking may have been necessary when production needs to be at 100% 24/7, wih no interruptions.

However, I think Taft-Hartley is unconstitutional. What the fuck gives the government the right to say that the leaders of any group (union or otherwise) can't be communists?

McCarthyism sent the far-left labor leadership into hiding for long enough that they effectively failed to transmit their ideas to the next generation of labor activists. And because unions are now so relatively useless to the average worker, union membership has declined since WWII from about 35% to about 12% (8% for the private sector).I agree with this somewhat, it seems that since FDR liberal issues, not labor issues, have been at the forefron of the Left. At least, here in the US.

which more or less explains the divergent economic philosophies of the Republican and Democratic parties.Yes, it's only a pendulum. The trick is judging when the momentum is swinging back to the left.

I can't take this objection too seriously, sorry.
All right, although I kinda have an understanding of the IWW, I don't want try to nail you to something and say "that's what you believe in."

My point was that "small businesses" should still exist. They may not exist in the same sense they do today or have the same relationship with their employees, consumers, and suppliers. But they are, in my opinion, necessary to bridge the gap between various socialized industries and individual consumers.

Maybe I'm not getting my point across or am arguing about fluff, but, to narrow it down, should there be only the Union Store (though this would merely involve socializing wal-mart) and the Union Reastaurant and the Union Bar, which oversees its products from conception to sale (like the soviet model, I guess)? Or a system in which individuals may be able to produce a good, or own a restaurant, in my example, and provide something which many people may prefer?

This, of course, would take many things for granted and open up new questions as to distribution, but I think that if someone has an idea for a finished product they should be able to produce it, outside of existing beauracracy, and be able to market it to consumers. And if consumers reject it, it should be allowed to fail.

Would this be possible in a world where the people own everything?

That's kinda what I was trying to get at the analogy, but I think I've done a pretty sloppy job of it both times. You've already stated you don't have a disdain for markets per se, but what I want to know is, should everything be nationalized? I understand the farms being nationalized, I don't get nationalizing every street-corner grocer.

Eh most sloppy.

I voted for the guy with the funniest name.. can't remember him now. Trust me, it was funny. :lol:Yeah, you don't come off like a Shwarzeneggarist.

JimmyJazz

17th December 2008, 05:11

That's kinda what I was trying to get at the analogy, but I think I've done a pretty sloppy job of it both times. You've already stated you don't have a disdain for markets per se, but what I want to know is, should everything be nationalized? I understand the farms being nationalized, I don't get nationalizing every street-corner grocer.

I am against wage labor, so yes--in principle I don't think that exploitation should occur 5 people at a time (corner grocery shop) any more than it should occur 50 people at a time (a Ralph's or Albertson's). My particular objection to the big store is in its use of wage labor, and this objection applies no less to the corner grocery store than to the big corporate one.

Others may have other reasons for objecting to big corporations, which may or may not apply equally to small private shops. But my objection applies equally to both.

That doesn't mean I have a detailed plan for socializing all grocery shops overnight. No one could some up with that on his own--even Einstein (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm) only gave a thumbnail sketch of his reasons for favoring socialism, with virtually no hint of how he expected to actually build it. But I'd be willing to dedicate a good amount of time and brain power to the problem, and if others smarter than me were willing to do the same, it would not be too difficult. Ending wage labor is not a technical problem but a problem of motivation.

What I don't have any problem with is true entrepreneurship and true artistry. If someone comes up with a great product using only their own brainpower and physical labor, I have no problem with them being somewhat "extravagantly" rewarded for their efforts. If Bill Gates can churn out a product on his laptop that sells millions of copies, he should get the money from that. If Kobe can entertain millions of people with the way he dunks, he should get the money from that. But Bill Gates should not be allowed to use that money to hire people. If he can't create the product on his own, I would advise him to cooperate with some people to produce it; but I wouldn't allow him to start exploiting them, i.e. paying them less than the full value of their labor and keeping the difference.

JimmyJazz

17th December 2008, 05:22

I imagine that many aspects of neoliberalism will remain, at least in the short term, however.

I would have agreed with this sentence if you'd said long term instead of short term. I feel much more certain about my ability to predict the long term than the short.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

17th December 2008, 08:58

I am against wage labor, so yes--in principle I don't think that exploitation should occur 5 people at a time (corner grocery shop) any more than it should occur 50 people at a time (a Ralph's or Albertson's). My particular objection to the big store is in its use of wage labor, and this objection applies no less to the corner grocery store than to the big corporate one.

But now we've gotten to the point where the big store in question (and in my opinion, one of few which will survive the next year, let alone expand), sacrifices a store if a union is formed. The benefits gained with the less efficient corporations, which shall be weeded out, are being drastically cut by the successful ones, not only here but in automotive workers who work for foreign companies as another example.

Anyway,

Others may have other reasons for objecting to big corporations, which may or may not apply equally to small private shops. But my objection applies equally to both.Yes, I see your point.

That doesn't mean I have a detailed plan for socializing all grocery shops overnight. No one could some up with that on his own--even Einstein (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm) only gave a thumbnail sketch of his reasons for favoring socialism, with virtually no hint of how he expected to actually build it. But I'd be willing to dedicate a good amount of time and brain power to the problem, and if others smarter than me were willing to do the same, it would not be too difficult. Ending wage labor is not a technical problem but a problem of motivation.First, let me say that essay he wrote was quite good. I haven't seen that before.

As for the second part, well, you're the college grad. If I can offer a suggestion, it's that I think people ought to come together fast, as opportunities like the ones which may be coming are rare.

Well, it'd take some money and a lot of people, but I think the political avenue is the way to go. Not CP-USA of anything like that but a genuine Social-Democrat party nominating a man who prays every night, smokes publicly, has a traditional family, and can get a bunch of workers to come out and scream in the cold like George Wallace* could. And if the workers are beaten and the party is crushed, then the revolution begins.

My biggest fear is that another golden opportunity will pass because, once again, that worker who is angry and had enough -but not yet ready to get the shotgun and start the revolution- will feel he or she has no alternative. And frankly, I can't blame them.

What I don't have any problem with is true entrepreneurship and true artistry. If someone comes up with a great product using only their own brainpower and physical labor, I have no problem with them being somewhat "extravagantly" rewarded for their efforts. If Bill Gates can churn out a product on his laptop that sells millions of copies, he should get the money from that. If Kobe can entertain millions of people with the way he dunks, he should get the money from that. But Bill Gates should not be allowed to use that money to hire people. If he can't create the product on his own, I would advise him to cooperate with some people to produce it; but I wouldn't allow him to start exploiting them, i.e. paying them less than the full value of their labor and keeping the difference.This makes things a lot clearer. However, I would add one amendment.

If Billy B makes a great computer, and he allows other people to join with him and together they make lots of great computers/money, at the end of the day it's still Billy B's Computer. He has a copyright on it, and when he retires the people who built on the technology he created and made more money owe him a piece of the pie, until he dies or sells those rights to the workers at an agreed upon price.

Honestly though, this description you've given has, I think, been an epiphany. I've never heard it explained so...that a brain as small as mine can understand it.

One other thing, I don't think that the idea of the corporation should be done away with. However, the money should be split up among employees based on the amount of time they worked with an equal pension and benefits for every worker. The idea is to have more than one "workers corporation" competing for a market share in their particular field, and allowing the ones which show the most efficiency and innovation to survive using market economics. Of course, social security would be greatly expanded so as to allow all the failed workers corporations unemployed to continue living life and purchasing at a decent rate.

*but not George Wallace, he was just the first example I thought of as to a person who can make a bunch of industrial workers feel angry. Eugene Debs would have been a much, much better example.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

17th December 2008, 09:01

I would have agreed with this sentence if you'd said long term instead of short term. I feel much more certain about my ability to predict the long term than the short.

Good point.

I think things are a gonna get changin soon though.

JimmyJazz

17th December 2008, 19:04

As for the second part, well, you're the college grad. If I can offer a suggestion, it's that I think people ought to come together fast, as opportunities like the ones which may be coming are rare.

I would make two quick points here: One, that all of my political-economic knowledge comes either from internet debating or reading books on my own, mostly internet debating. I never took classes in poli sci or any econ higher than intro level. Two, that imo it's dangerous as fuck for professional intellectuals to "figure out" what the working class wants at a time when the working class isn't making its own political demands; therefore I totally agree with you that organization and widespread discussion within the WC is the important thing.

That said, I don't consider the working class movement an end in itself. I won't rest until the WC is demanding an end to wage labor.

My biggest fear is that another golden opportunity will pass because, once again, that worker who is angry and had enough -but not yet ready to get the shotgun and start the revolution- will feel he or she has no alternative. And frankly, I can't blame them.

I don't share your feeling that "golden opportunities" are of much importance. Consciousness is really the only thing that matters. The working class can cease all production if it chooses, simply by refusing to work; it literally has the power to bring society to a grinding halt. So it gets whatever it wants. The only question is, why doesn't it want more? If we can raise consciousness of how capitalism operates and what profit really is (stolen value from peoples' labor), that's all that matters. The capitalist class is absolutely powerless to stop a sufficient mass of class-conscious workers, and a shotgun won't even be necessary.

This makes things a lot clearer. However, I would add one amendment.

If Billy B makes a great computer, and he allows other people to join with him and together they make lots of great computers/money, at the end of the day it's still Billy B's Computer. He has a copyright on it, and when he retires the people who built on the technology he created and made more money owe him a piece of the pie, until he dies or sells those rights to the workers at an agreed upon price.

Intellectual property rights are a sticky issue. I certainly think there's a need for some form of them for the immediately foreseeable future, in order to spur innovation.

Of course, in small groups, people contribute their best ideas simply for the social status and accolades this gets them, and the sense of pride in having contributed something great. I won't rule out the possibility that someday this kind of intrinsic, moneyless motivation could be replicated (to some extent) for a society with millions of people. But I don't naively think that this is a possibility for the near future, and frankly I won't be too upset if it never happens; it would be easy enough to reward people monetarily for their innovations.

Whatever society does decide to do to reward innovators, it shouldn't take the form of rewarding them with profit that is derived from others' labor. That's my only solid stand on intellectual property.

Honestly though, this description you've given has, I think, been an epiphany. I've never heard it explained so...that a brain as small as mine can understand it.

That's great. Then I've finally passed on the favor: someone did the same exact thing for me a little over a year ago in this thread (http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=217944). I'm the thread starter, and the socialist who owns me, Preno, is someone who occasionally posts here under a different name.

One other thing, I don't think that the idea of the corporation should be done away with. However, the money should be split up among employees based on the amount of time they worked with an equal pension and benefits for every worker. The idea is to have more than one "workers corporation" competing for a market share in their particular field, and allowing the ones which show the most efficiency and innovation to survive using market economics. Of course, social security would be greatly expanded so as to allow all the failed workers corporations unemployed to continue living life and purchasing at a decent rate.

Cool! Then it sounds like you're basically--in principle at least--opposed to wage labor. This is where everyone starts. (I'm not condescendingly trying to say that you're just "starting out"...but based on my own personal experience, you might be).

What you describe is really a cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative), not a corporation. Sun-kist is supposedly a growers' cooperative, although I know very little about how it operates, and I highly doubt the people actually picking the oranges are the ones splitting the profits (the oranges are probably picked by immigrants and the profits "cooperatively" shared by the white farm owners). Also, here's a really interesting article (http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706bowmanstone.html) from one of my favorite websites talking about how one of Hugo Chavez' major economic policies has been using the power of the state to promote workers' cooperative.

Soon after I got owned in that thread I linked to above, I started to consider myself a socialist. That was about a year and a half ago. And only recently did I arrive at a position where I am totally comfortable with the idea of seizing all capital and handing it over to the workers (i.e., revolutionary socialism). I am positive that workers' cooperatives could never on their own outcompete capitalist firms in a capitalist society. And even if they can't necessarily "outcompete" them in the context of a socialist society-that is, if socialism can't immediately outcompete capitalism-I still think that simple justice demands it. All current measures of economic productivity like GNP include crap that should never have been produced in the first place, new TVs and cars that replace perfectly functional old ones, etc. Meanwhile vitamin A supplements that would prevent thousands of third world deaths each week cost only a few cents to produce, yet producing them would add virtually nothing to our GNP because they are so cheap. So I don't put too much stock in measures of productivity as being any kind of measure of human material welfare. The man in your avatar (http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/faculty/michael.brandl/main%20page%20items/Kennedy%20on%20GNP.htm) made this point better than I can.

I also believe that a functioning socialist society requires high-level coordination and central planning (albeit central planning that is very accountable to the population). So I don't think that replacing the corporate form with cooperative forms is the only necessary step, but it's a hell of a first step. I also have come to the conclusion that social democracy, despite the fact that it favors cooperativism and is opposed to wage labor in theory, and despite its success at achieving reforms, has no solid plan for where the collectively managed capital is eventually going to come from! But anyway, these are all questions to be resolved by people who already agree that wage labor must go.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

20th December 2008, 06:38

I don't share your feeling that "golden opportunities" are of much importance. Consciousness is really the only thing that matters. The working class can cease all production if it chooses, simply by refusing to work; it literally has the power to bring society to a grinding halt. So it gets whatever it wants. The only question is, why doesn't it want more? If we can raise consciousness of how capitalism operates and what profit really is (stolen value from peoples' labor), that's all that matters. The capitalist class is absolutely powerless to stop a sufficient mass of class-conscious workers, and a shotgun won't even be necessary.

I find consciousness is best attained with an empty stomach. I honestly can't believe that everyone, or even a majority, will wake up one morning and decide to shake off the flies.

"Until they are conscious, there will be no Revolution; Until the Revolution, they will not be conscious."

That's great. Then I've finally passed on the favor: someone did the same exact thing for me a little over a year ago in this thread (http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=217944). I'm the thread starter, and the socialist who owns me, Preno, is someone who occasionally posts here under a different name.

You're welcome.

What you describe is really a cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative), not a corporation. Sun-kist is supposedly a growers' cooperative, although I know very little about how it operates, and I highly doubt the people actually picking the oranges are the ones splitting the profits (the oranges are probably picked by immigrants and the profits "cooperatively" shared by the white farm owners). Also, here's a really interesting article (http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706bowmanstone.html) from one of my favorite websites talking about how one of Hugo Chavez' major economic policies has been using the power of the state to promote workers' cooperative.

Wow that article on Venezuela is an eye opener. Not only that I didn't know that was going on there, but how applicable it could be in America, with our huge numbers of closing, or shuttered, factories for example.

Soon after I got owned in that thread I linked to above, I started to consider myself a socialist. That was about a year and a half ago. And only recently did I arrive at a position where I am totally comfortable with the idea of seizing all capital and handing it over to the workers (i.e., revolutionary socialism). I am positive that workers' cooperatives could never on their own outcompete capitalist firms in a capitalist society. And even if they can't necessarily "outcompete" them in the context of a socialist society-that is, if socialism can't immediately outcompete capitalism-I still think that simple justice demands it.

I don't know. We'll have the debate on Revolution in the 21st century first world later.

The man in your avatar (http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/faculty/michael.brandl/main%20page%20items/Kennedy%20on%20GNP.htm) made this point better than I can.

With all due respect to RFK, the man in my avatar is this dude (http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/Revolution/revolution.html)

I also believe that a functioning socialist society requires high-level coordination and central planning (albeit central planning that is very accountable to the population). So I don't think that replacing the corporate form with cooperative forms is the only necessary step, but it's a hell of a first step.

It would certainly be a solid foundation for another type of society.

A red flag goes up with 'central planning,' however.

I also have come to the conclusion that social democracy, despite the fact that it favors cooperativism and is opposed to wage labor in theory, and despite its success at achieving reforms, has no solid plan for where the collectively managed capital is eventually going to come from!

How would it be any different than Venezuela or, say, giving $700 Billion to co-ops instead of investors?

JimmyJazz

20th December 2008, 19:39

I find consciousness is best attained with an empty stomach. I honestly can't believe that everyone, or even a majority, will wake up one morning and decide to shake off the flies.

"Until they are conscious, there will be no Revolution; Until the Revolution, they will not be conscious."

That's absolutely true, to an extent. No amount of political economy is going to make people jump out of their seats and start a revolution. However, no amount of hunger is going to substitute for political economy, and a miserable personal lot doesn't show anyone the class way forward. Organization, and discussion, can. I think you need both in equal measure.

I mean, just look at the public response to the bailout: lots of people are turning to libertarian solutions ("just let the [banks/auto companies] fail"). It's totally impractical, yet it's totally understandable that people would be mad enough to say such things, given that the bailout is such an obvious heist of the working class for the capitalist class. Yet people don't see it in such terms; they just have a gut feeling that they're getting screwed.

Not only that I didn't know that was going on there, but how applicable it could be in America, with our huge numbers of closing, or shuttered, factories for example.

I hadn't even thought about that but you're right. In Argentina there's a grassroots movement of workers to take over closed factories and restart production on their own. Naomi Klein has written a lot about it (there's a DVD, I think called The Take, and a book called Sin Patron).

With all due respect to RFK, the man in my avatar is this dude (http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/Revolution/revolution.html)

A socialist! heh. You have to admit he does look a lot like Bobby Kennedy in that pic though.

A red flag goes up with 'central planning,' however.

As it should.

I also think, along with America's founding fathers (mostly the anti-Federalists), that a HUGE red flag should go up when there is any mention of creating a permanent standing army. BUT, that doesn't necessarily mean that PSA's aren't necessary for at least the next century or so (while the world is divided up into nations, all the rest of whom have large standing armies, in part a legacy of WWI, in part probably a product of other forces). Anyway, my point is that a red flag is a good thing, it keeps you on guard against necessary evils becoming just plain evils.

How would it be any different than Venezuela or, say, giving $700 Billion to co-ops instead of investors?

Well, I consider Chavez to occupy the netherland between social democracy and socialism. Certainly no European "social democratic" or labor party has ever used the wealth of the state to explicitly promote non-capitalist forms of economic organization like cooperatives. If they did, they'd be a whole 'nother thing in my view. All they've really done, in practice, is to fight for an expanded social safety net. They're basically welfare capitalists. The British Labour Party has degenerated so far, obviously, as to put Tony Blair in power and help lead the charge against Iraq.

So when I took a potshot at social democrats I was not including Chavez. He's pretty much forging his own way, one that AFAIK hasn't been tried before.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

23rd December 2008, 05:37

I mean, just look at the public response to the bailout: lots of people are turning to libertarian solutions ("just let the [banks/auto companies] fail"). It's totally impractical, yet it's totally understandable that people would be mad enough to say such things, given that the bailout is such an obvious heist of the working class for the capitalist class. Yet people don't see it in such terms; they just have a gut feeling that they're getting screwed.

Yes, and the sad part is there isn't even a real Leftist alternative available. People don't even know what a Leftist plan would be.

A socialist! heh. You have to admit he does look a lot like Bobby Kennedy in that pic though.

Yeah, he does.

I also think, along with America's founding fathers (mostly the anti-Federalists), that a HUGE red flag should go up when there is any mention of creating a permanent standing army. BUT, that doesn't necessarily mean that PSA's aren't necessary for at least the next century or so (while the world is divided up into nations, all the rest of whom have large standing armies, in part a legacy of WWI, in part probably a product of other forces). Anyway, my point is that a red flag is a good thing, it keeps you on guard against necessary evils becoming just plain evils.

Agreed, on all points.

Well, I consider Chavez to occupy the netherland between social democracy and socialism. Certainly no European "social democratic" or labor party has ever used the wealth of the state to explicitly promote non-capitalist forms of economic organization like cooperatives. If they did, they'd be a whole 'nother thing in my view. All they've really done, in practice, is to fight for an expanded social safety net. They're basically welfare capitalists. The British Labour Party has degenerated so far, obviously, as to put Tony Blair in power and help lead the charge against Iraq.

So when I took a potshot at social democrats I was not including Chavez. He's pretty much forging his own way, one that AFAIK hasn't been tried before.

So would you say, then, that political action, in nations which have universal suffrage can indeed be a constructive way forward?

JimmyJazz

24th December 2008, 00:58

Yes, and the sad part is there isn't even a real Leftist alternative available. People don't even know what a Leftist plan would be.

True. I proposed to a libertarian/ancap guy on another board (who also happens to be a real jerk and whose vision goes red at the word "socialism") that failing companies be socialized rather than simply bailed out. He shockingly agreed that it might work. He even said it would be OK if this arrangement resulted in "workers' control"--scare quotes his--of some sort(!).

The hardcore free-market types are pretty mad about the bailout too, so they're willing to give almost anything else a moment's thought.

I don't know if he fully comprehended that this would eventually result in all capital being socially owned, but whatever. You're right, the ideas simply aren't being put out there.

So would you say, then, that political action, in nations which have universal suffrage can indeed be a constructive way forward?

By political action, you mean electoral action?

Sure, it's fine. It's a pretty narrow definition of "political action" though. And: (1) I don't discount, in any way, the legitimacy of protest movements or extra-legal direct actions in order to achieve what should be basic civil and economic rights; (2) I think everyone should realize the limitations of electoral strategy--the most important being that capitalists will not ever let their capital be voted out of their hands. (They'll abandon democracy for some form of fascism or an anti-labor police state before they'll let this happen).

I became disgusted with Common Dreams' rather explicit support for Obama and stopped reading them back in late October, but I visited again today, and here is something I wrote as a comment on an article:

The strictly pluralist, electoral outlook is so absurd. It literally nullifies the entire history of extra-electoral collective action in this country's history, including: (1) war to free the slaves, (2) civil disobedience to gain black voting rights, civil rights, and integration, (3) striking and picketing by laborers, (4) protests to end imperialist wars in Vietnam and Iraq and elsewhere, (5) keeping a vigil in front of the Wilson White House by suffragettes demanding the universal right to vote...the examples go on and on and on. There really is nothing more mind-numbing in today's political discourse than this simplistic, dogmatic adherence to our rigged electoral system (rigged by the rich, for the rich) and to the "rule of law".

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/gtwebsite/MythFinalDraft.pdf

It gets very tiresome to hear so-called progressives continually adhering to this dogma in a way that effectively dismisses the *whole history* of progressive change in this country (and everywhere else, too) and insults the tactics universally responsible for getting us where we are today.

I may be comfortable with the idea of social revolution and a forcible redistribution--or rather un-distribution--of wealth, but trust me, I don't have some kind of violent revolution fetish. Violent revolution is not what I'm talking about anyway, I'm talking about social revolution. I'm all for utilizing the electoral route for as far as it can possibly take us. I'm all for winning as many allies as possible in the middle and upper classes (I actually think this is crucial). Ideally speaking I'd like the transformation to socialism to happen along syndicalist lines, with profit merely being "phased out" by ever-greater working class demands. But that final leap from production-for-profit to production-for-use isn't going to happen peacefully, or at all, if the government still belongs, or is in any way beholden, to the capitalist class. So it is necessary for there to be a workers' government in place (maybe like Chavez'?) as well as to have a radicalized working class. There needs to be someone with both the power and the willingness to give everything to the working class when they finally demand it. In other words, the working class must make political as well as economic demands if socialism is going to happen.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

26th December 2008, 20:29

The hardcore free-market types are pretty mad about the bailout too, so they're willing to give almost anything else a moment's thought.

I don't know if he fully comprehended that this would eventually result in all capital being socially owned, but whatever. You're right, the ideas simply aren't being put out there.

Yeah, it's so obvious that the US government only used that free-market argument when it suited the ruling class. Now they've dumped all that, now that it no longer beneficial.

I've met a lot of people who all agree we're getting fucked, of all political stripes. I would say a common-sensist of any stripe would be popular now.

By political action, you mean electoral action?

Sure, it's fine. It's a pretty narrow definition of "political action" though. And: (1) I don't discount, in any way, the legitimacy of protest movements or extra-legal direct actions in order to achieve what should be basic civil and economic rights; (2) I think everyone should realize the limitations of electoral strategy--the most important being that capitalists will not ever let their capital be voted out of their hands. (They'll abandon democracy for some form of fascism or an anti-labor police state before they'll let this happen).You're right. I just don't believe that the people have the power to overcome the military if it's firmly on the side of the fascists. However, if the people gained power via electoral action and then the fascists tried to seize power (as opposed to the righties getting elected like we have now) then the military may side with the Republic.

I became disgusted with Common Dreams' rather explicit support for Obama and stopped reading them back in late October, but I visited again today, and here is something I wrote as a comment on an article:Those are all really great points, but all I can say is don't take the media too seriously. Obama getting elected is not the biggest moment in World history, like people are already judging it to be and, as another example, the Blagojovich scandal is nowhere near the most despicable in our history. Not even close.

I may be comfortable with the idea of social revolution and a forcible redistribution--or rather un-distribution--of wealth, but trust me, I don't have some kind of violent revolution fetish. Violent revolution is not what I'm talking about anyway, I'm talking about social revolution. I'm all for utilizing the electoral route for as far as it can possibly take us. I'm all for winning as many allies as possible in the middle and upper classes (I actually think this is crucial). Ideally speaking I'd like the transformation to socialism to happen along syndicalist lines, with profit merely being "phased out" by ever-greater working class demands. But that final leap from production-for-profit to production-for-use isn't going to happen peacefully, or at all, if the government still belongs, or is in any way beholden, to the capitalist class. So it is necessary for there to be a workers' government in place (maybe like Chavez'?) as well as to have a radicalized working class. There needs to be someone with both the power and the willingness to give everything to the working class when they finally demand it. In other words, the working class must make political as well as economic demands if socialism is going to happen.I agree with this, and, if I may say, disavowing violent revolution as the only way forward (as seems to be the belief of many people on here) brings a lot of respectability to your positions (not that I don't respect them already or am trying to sound condescending, but, for example, if you check out the Non-Violence thread in politics you can see my point. Anyone who thinks violent revolution in the first-world is plausible or even desirable is a bit of a loony in my opinion. If the ruiling class won't give up without using every means necessary, then a violent revolution would be crushed mercilessly).

Robert

27th December 2008, 01:54

But Bill Gates should not be allowed to use that money to hire people. If he can't create the product on his own, I would advise him to cooperate with some people to produce it; but I wouldn't allow him to start exploiting them, i.e. paying them less than the full value of their labor and keeping the difference.

May I ask a couple of questions about this?

First, what legal mechanism do you foresee to enforce the prohibition on hiring? A constitutional provision? How about: "The hiring of labor in private commercial operations is hereby prohibited"?

Second, I take it that the "stateless" future society that some envisage is not compatible with a constitution or other form of legal prohibition on wage labor, correct?

Third, what do you about the young person who wants to learn plumbing or construction? How does he get started in the business? What if he is willing to work for less material reward than the enforcers of the new constitutional provision think is "fair"?

Finally, what happens if he disagrees with the state as to what constitutes "full value" of his own labor, and thus insists on maintaining the apprentice-master relationship over the objections of the state? Will he be punished if he shows up for work again? What's the penalty? How are you going to enforce all this?

Thanks.

RebelDog

27th December 2008, 03:11

First, what legal mechanism do you foresee to enforce the prohibition on hiring? A constitutional provision? How about: "The hiring of labor in private commercial operations is hereby prohibited"?Crude, but along the right lines. You must understand that a society with social ownership and control of production has no physical space or material allocation to allow private ownership to begin with and thus what is physically and materially impossible hardly needs to rely on law for redemption.

Second, I take it that the "stateless" future society that some envisage is not compatible with a constitution or other form of legal prohibition on wage labor, correct?This is semantics really. Are you trying to argue that sophisticated lawyers could bring down libertarian communism won through social revolution by using loopholes or something?

Third, what do you about the young person who wants to learn plumbing or construction?Let them.

How does he get started in the business?What does business have to do with learning the skills of plumbing or construction?

What if he is willing to work for less material reward than the enforcers of the new constitutional provision think is "fair"? By your ridiculous standard of analysis we might as well ask the question: what if he doesn't like the colour of his toolbox?

Finally, what happens if he disagrees with the state as to what constitutes "full value" of his own labor, and thus insists on maintaining the apprentice-master relationship over the objections of the state? Will he be punished if he shows up for work again? What's the penalty? How are you going to enforce all this?
More ridiculous questions. His master will no longer be a master and if your objections to change are so petty and backward that you demand the right of persons to be exploited, and the right of those to exploit him, then you are not even offering any sensible critique that any rational person could relate to or seriously debate.

Robert

27th December 2008, 05:09

Rebel dog, you'll never sell your ideas rejecting all honest questions by the unconverted as "ridiculous." Try to remember that we on OI are among the very, very few who will even listen to your ideas, never mind take them seriously. But to your points:

Crude, but along the right lines.

Okay, so let's hear your refined version. I hope you have one (?)

Are you trying to argue that sophisticated lawyers could bring down libertarian communism won through social revolution by using loopholes or something?

No. You concede my first point by agreeing that you will need some law that prohibits wage labor. No law, and you will have what we have now. Where there is law, there is government with police power. That isn't exactly "anarchy." Not that you are an anarchist. But it's not libertarianism either. There won't be "lawyers" bringing it down. What will bring it down are ordinary people quickly fed up with the bureaucratic morass you will have to create to consolidate the revolution's "gains." I realize that you don't foresee this problem of bureaucracy. I do.

Let them [learn skills].

This reminds me of Marie Antoinette's answer to the bread shortage in France. As you know, there are already workable mechanisms in the real world (law, contract, on the job training, tradition) for this skill acquisition process to occur. I understand that you don't approve of the mechanisms, but they are mostly mutually satisfactory, which is why the revolution is gaining so little traction.

What does business have to do with learning the skills of plumbing or construction?

Shirley, you jest.

His master will no longer be a master and if your objections to change are so petty and backward that you demand the right of persons to be exploited, and the right of those to exploit him, then you are not even offering any sensible critique that any rational person could relate to or seriously debate.

I see you still don't understand the problem and so are again reduced to angry insults, so let me spell it out for you: You and I may agree to some mutually satisfactory reciprocal arrangement that the enforcing authorities won't countenance. (Please don't say "there will be no need for enforcement." By acknowledging the need to outlaw wage labor, you concede that there will be.) If you are that much better skilled in your discipline than I am, which you will be if I have any interest in working "with" you, I may beg you to take me in as an apprentice. If you agree to teach me, it will not be without a very clear understanding of who is in charge of the work site, the tools, the work schedule, and so on. If the enforcement agents don't like our understanding, they will frustrate you and me in our purposes.

I concede that some limitations are already in place: we can't agree that I will work 20 hours a day at age 6 in a windowless cellar. What we can agree to should be subject first to arms length negotiation within democratically established limits. You apparently want to abolish those current limits, and I'd like to know your vision of what will arise in their place.