Thanks. Sanders is just a run of the mill social-democrat. I doubt it will affect the workers' movement significantly. Possibly, in the best case scenario, it encourages more activity, activity in which communists can operate.
I have to say, I looked around a bit more on Marxistpedia, and honestly, I am genuinely impressed. I have never seen a better introductory resource. The Marxist FAQ is seriously a work of fucking art. My only complaint is that it is not finished, that certain questions still need work. Please don't forget about it, this is an amazing resource for Marxists, new and old. Seriously, absolutely fantastic. It blows the truckloads of pamphlets, periodicals and statements about socialism and Marxism I've read out of the fucking water. This is an amazing community resource, thank you! Please keep adding to it, and make sure to save backups so that it will never cease to exist.
Also, though I realize you aren't American, perhaps you are familiar with Bernie Sanders? Would you mind sharing your thoughts on Sanders? I think it's fairly safe to say that he is a social democrat and that it ends with that, but can his emergence have any positive effect on the workers movement in the United States? What do you think the revolutionary left's position toward Sanders should be? Thanks again.
Thanks for your thoughts. Interesting link. What an extremely refreshing definition of communism and Marxism. Blows wikipedia out of the water. Keep up the good work.
I would stress that you can define socialism however you like if it has some historical continuity with the socialism of the nineteenth century. But the way liberals define socialism would fall within the category of the capitalist mode of production (they haven't appropriated that term), so you can then say that their definition of socialism falls 100% within the capitalist political spectrum. I would then assert that the best way to define social systems, etc., is by looking at the most fundamental characteristics, which would be the acquirement of the means of life. This then leads to a materialist definition, which is explained on this page (the part is based on a post I wrote on revleft): http://marxistpedia.mwzip.com/wiki/C...ety#Definition
Hello, I very much enjoy your posts, always on point. I'd like to ask you a question: With Sanders running for president in the United States, liberal appropriation of "socialism" has increased tenfold, I was hoping you might share your thoughts on the the notion that liberals put forward, "socialism is not communism" or "socialists are not communists". Suppose a liberal said this to you, what would you say to them?
Production units are part of an industry council and regional council, and beyond, to allocate resources. Production units interact with consumers' representatives to assess demand, taking into account the available resources. Producer's labour input is a measure for individual consumption from the share of the total product.
Thank you for your answers. I know it is hard to imagine how specifically the inner workings of socialist society will look, but how do you envision planned production in socialist society to be carried out most effectively? Would it not be ineffective and chaotic if all bodies of production acted autonomously from eachother?
Yes, a Soviet-styled command economy is inherently flawed, but it's worlds apart from planning under the conscious control of immediate producers and consumers, which is socialism. So basically: Central planning = state management and planning of capital Social planning = socialist production and distribution
Probably was just me misinterpreting what you wrote. I believe what you wrote was that command economy/planned economy was inherently flawed and resulted in low quality consumer goods, shortages, waste and stagnation and was insufficiently equipped to deal with wants sufficiently. Perhaps you were refering to state managed capitalism? What are your thoughts in general on planned economy/planned production in socialist society?
