Why are you not democratic socialists?

[graffic]

So perhaps you think that capitalism is wrong, eventually it will be overthrown. The system is unfair and workers are impoverished, i agree with this analysis for the most part. But Marxism itself is perhaps too ideological, too heavy and full of contradictions. Its too much philosophy and ideology, and all attempts to implement it so far have highlighted some serious dilemmas.

What convinces you so dogmatically that there needs to be a revolution? And that life will be better after that revolution in such a short space of time with just a limited amount of knowledge that only one human brain can possess.

[red cat]

So perhaps you think that capitalism is wrong, eventually it will be overthrown. The system is unfair and workers are impoverished, i agree with this analysis for the most part. But Marxism itself is perhaps too ideological, too heavy and full of contradictions. Its too much philosophy and ideology, and all attempts to implement it so far have highlighted some serious dilemmas.

What convinces you so dogmatically that there needs to be a revolution? And that life will be better after that revolution in such a short space of time with just a limited amount of knowledge that only one human brain can possess.

We don't claim that Marxism is completely correct. But our practice has shown that it leads to a system that is much better than capitalism, and it is only through further practice that we can continue developing Marxism.

[Morgenstern]

Why aren't we democratic socialists? I have a better question, why aren't you a communist?

If you're going to say we have contradictions and such then give proof. Also not all communists subscribe to Marx's thought. You just alienated the poor poor Anarchists.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So perhaps you think that capitalism is wrong, eventually it will be overthrown. The system is unfair and workers are impoverished, i agree with this analysis for the most part.

It's not just impoverishment but alienation from production. We work all day for a wage but we have no influence in what our labor produces and what is done with all the wealth we created - in general not individually.

But Marxism itself is perhaps too ideological, too heavy and full of contradictions.

Well I don't know about that - capitalism actually creates starvation from overproduction! Now THAT'S a contradiction. When industry produces too much then the product looses monetary value and instead of making things more widely available, business has to get rid of some of the production - so in depressions and recessions you see big companies buying up their competitors and then shutting down the "redundant" plants and factories.

Socialism is basically democracy in society and in production... I don't think there's much contradiction there.

Its too much philosophy and ideology

And if you want to talk about ideology - capitalists believe that "an invisible hand" of the market will just make everything ok all by itself... oops, child labor... oops, harmful working conditions... oops great depression!

all attempts to implement it so far have highlighted some serious dilemmas.

Essentially there was one conscious attempt at it in Russia and that failed in a year or two and became something else. Aside from "marxist-leninists" most of the rest of the radical left agrees on this.

What convinces you so dogmatically that there needs to be a revolution? And that life will be better after that revolution in such a short space of time with just a limited amount of knowledge that only one human brain can possess.

What is it that convinces you so dogmatically (I assume) to oppose slavery or fascism?

The short answer is that living life as a worker in capitalism convinces me of the need for change. History of various attempts at change convinces me of the need for revolution.

[Bud Struggle]

Well I AM a Social Democrat. And my problem wih Communism is----the Revolution. I think with SD you can gradually make the world more and more fair for the vast amount of people that live here.

Revolution is like throwing a deck of cards up in the air and expecting them to land in a neat deck all in numerical and suite order. A LOT of things could get in the way of a well meaning Revolution and a Communist world order--and a lot of things have gotten in the way of that world order when Revolution has bee tried.

I'm not saying that Communism is a bad thing--I just don't think we can get there from here.

[Dr Mindbender]

the reason why revolutions of yore have failed is twofold- firstly they were isolated and were crushed underfoot from the weight of foreign opposing ideolgies. Secondly, past marxist states in operation ran on the antiquated non-extraneous production methodology inherited from the previous system failing to discontinue or challenge the class system as its fundamental level; the heirarchy of labour.

Socialism can only succeed once the transfer from a low energy to a high energy society has also been successful and the cultural acceptance for human menial toll eradicated. You cant have a classless society composed of brain surgeons and of dustmen.

[Barry Lyndon]

'Democratic socialist' countries in Western Europe are able to afford their high standard of living because of centuries of colonial pillage in Africa and Asia. Even Sweden makes big bucks off of manufacturing weapons that are used in wars all over Africa.

You can stop your morally superior posturing right now. Your brand of 'socialism' backs imperialist wars(since the Second International backed World War I) but condemns the Marxists for using violence to end war and exploitation at home and abroad.

What convinces you so dogmatically that there needs to be a revolution? And that life will be better after that revolution in such a short space of time with just a limited amount of knowledge that only one human brain can possess.

Well, if you knew the actual history of Marxist revolutions, and not the bourgeois propaganda that social democrats so eagerly lap up, you would know that, in fact, life in many ways did dramatically improve after revolutions in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Laos, Nicaragua, etc. In every one of these countries there was a dramatic reduction in infant mortality, deaths from disease and hunger, a significant increase in life expectancy, major increases in literacy, and important advances in the rights of women and ethnic minorities. All of these changes occurred in countries that were never as rich as the capitalist nations and which were/are in a state of economic and military siege by the capitalist countries.

[#FF0000]

I think with SD you can gradually make the world more and more fair for the vast amount of people that live here.

Why

[Richard Nixon]

We don't claim that Marxism is completely correct. But our practice has shown that it leads to a system that is much better than capitalism, and it is only through further practice that we can continue developing Marxism.

What do you mean by practice? The implementation of communism in various nations?

Well, if you knew the actual history of Marxist revolutions, and not the bourgeois propaganda that social democrats so eagerly lap up, you would know that, in fact, life in many ways did dramatically improve after revolutions in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Laos, Nicaragua, etc. In every one of these countries there was a dramatic reduction in infant mortality, deaths from disease and hunger, a significant increase in life expectancy, major increases in literacy, and important advances in the rights of women and ethnic minorities. All of these changes occurred in countries that were never as rich as the capitalist nations and which were/are in a state of economic and military siege by the capitalist countries.

You seem to have left out Cambodia...

[Barry Lyndon]

You seem to have left out Cambodia...

You mean the genocidal psychopathic Khmer Rogue, which was overthrown by the communist Vietnamese army? And was then financed. sheltered, armed, and aided by Washington for over a decade afterwards out of spite over losing the Vietnam war? Yeah, I know of them.

[red cat]

What do you mean by practice? The implementation of communism in various nations?

Communism has not been implemented anywhere till now, but we have had socialist countries which made achievements that are impossible under capitalism. Our practice also includes various revolutionary struggles of today which demonstrate why violent revolution is necessary and what the alternative to the present system can be.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

There needs to be a revolution because the capitalists won't just give up their property. Look at America and how it's taking healthcare reform that's not even socialist! The corporations basically declared war on the government and so did the Tea Party movement. Now imagine if we actually tried to do socialist things. We would have another Civil War. It's inevitable, if it was possible we would go that way and we'll go down the path that's the most peaceful but somewhere at sometime it will have to get violent.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

So perhaps you think that capitalism is wrong, eventually it will be overthrown. The system is unfair and workers are impoverished, i agree with this analysis for the most part. But Marxism itself is perhaps too ideological, too heavy and full of contradictions. Its too much philosophy and ideology, and all attempts to implement it so far have highlighted some serious dilemmas.

Yet all experiences of capitalist society have been examples of an unequal, repressive society which works in the interest of the Capitalist class. Marxism is not something that has to be followed to believe in revolution.

What convinces you so dogmatically that there needs to be a revolution? And that life will be better after that revolution in such a short space of time with just a limited amount of knowledge that only one human brain can possess.

Capitalism can never work in the interests of working people therefore we need a revolution to overthrow this economic structure. No one believes that revolution is an instant change towards a communist society. Finally it is not dogmatic to believe in revolution, it is only a recognition of what capitalism is how to work within it offers nothing to the working class. There are people on here that have been active in the workers movement for 20+ years that will tell you that even those politicians who seemed to be ideologically sound betrayed the working class some way or another. There is no way to work within capitalism.

[Philzer]

Hi Barry Lyndon,

'Democratic socialist' countries in Western Europe are able to afford their high standard of living because of centuries of colonial pillage in Africa and Asia. Even Sweden makes big bucks off of manufacturing weapons that are used in wars all over Africa.

I agree with you. It is exactly according to my analysis of democracy.

If you are interested in this, look here:


http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-...250/index.html


Kind regards

[graffic]

We don't claim that Marxism is completely correct. But our practice has shown that it leads to a system that is much better than capitalism, and it is only through further practice that we can continue developing Marxism.

Can you prove that new founded socialist societies are "better" than capitalist societies? I think it depends on the context. There is a difference between a backward, feudal society that has huge, sharp in-equalities and a society that has smaller in-equalities and has relatively good social mobility and a welfare state. I don't think you can make a massive generalisation and say that orthodox marxism has led to better societies than capitalism unless you refer to a specific example.

I'm actually interested in elite theorists ideas like Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) and Gaetano Mosca (1858-1911). Although I think they were overly cynical about human nature I think they had a good point when they talked about the way in which in "all societies" an elite, a small minority of individuals with superior personal qualities , would monopolise power. I think thats a bold statement that probably goes to far, but I think they were onto something.

Even in the trotskyist/anarchist groups there is oligarchy.

Why aren't we democratic socialists? I have a better question, why aren't you a communist?

Because most communists I hear or meet are incredibly cynical about the world, life and society. Whilst they have a valid point about injustices, I don't find the prospect of spending my limited amount of time on earth on the fringes of society moaning and blaming everything that goes wrong on "the system" an attractive idea. Perhaps that is selfish, but i think we are all human and capitalists are mostly deluded, a revolution is not logical. Not everyone will always agree with communism, there will always be dissidents and conflict

[Richard Nixon]

You mean the genocidal psychopathic Khmer Rogue, which was overthrown by the communist Vietnamese army? And was then financed. sheltered, armed, and aided by Washington for over a decade afterwards out of spite over losing the Vietnam war? Yeah, I know of them.

Well they were closer than most other "communist" states in implementing the communist plan. They abolished money and essentialy created a totally new society.

So from the record it seems communism might work if it's mixed with capitalism.

[Dean]

So perhaps you think that capitalism is wrong, eventually it will be overthrown. The system is unfair and workers are impoverished, i agree with this analysis for the most part. But Marxism itself is perhaps too ideological, too heavy and full of contradictions. Its too much philosophy and ideology, and all attempts to implement it so far have highlighted some serious dilemmas.

Such as? I can't remember the last DotP to eat itself. Has this ever happened, and if so (as you seem to think), when and how?

What convinces you so dogmatically that there needs to be a revolution? And that life will be better after that revolution in such a short space of time with just a limited amount of knowledge that only one human brain can possess.

Past revolutions have almost always maintained prevalent power structures, only shifter their focus marginally. But it has only ever been revolutions that were able to actually change power structures.

We have seen in Thailand, the US and the UK that "peaceful revolutions" are not revolutionary at all, and rather maintain the same structural problems. The state of black and other oppressed populations in the US is a glaring highlight of this systemic failing.

[red cat]

Can you prove that new founded socialist societies are "better" than capitalist societies?

I am defending the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line. Take any country we consider socialist, and that will prove to be better than a capitalistic one in all aspects.

I think it depends on the context. There is a difference between a backward, feudal society that has huge, sharp in-equalities and a society that has smaller in-equalities and has relatively good social mobility and a welfare state.

What is preserving feudalism today? Imperialism of course. Thus capitalism is also responsible for the feudal system in third world countries now.

I don't think you can make a massive generalisation and say that orthodox marxism has led to better societies than capitalism unless you refer to a specific example.

There is nothing called orthodox Marxism that is applicable to any society. Marxist strategy and tactics always change according to the contradictions in a given society. Any socialist country is better than any capitalist country.

I'm actually interested in elite theorists ideas like Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) and Gaetano Mosca (1858-1911). Although I think they were overly cynical about human nature I think they had a good point when they talked about the way in which in "all societies" an elite, a small minority of individuals with superior personal qualities , would monopolise power. I think thats a bold statement that probably goes to far, but I think they were onto something.

I don't think we Maoists uphold the works of any such "elite" theorists.

[The Red Next Door]

I used to be a social democrat, i realize when I look at social democracy, it still be the same shit, but not as bad. Social Democracy really doesn't work from what, I had heard, because, the classes would end up exploiting one another. Someone tell me, If that wrong or correct?

[#FF0000]

Well they were closer than most other "communist" states in implementing the communist plan. They abolished money and essentialy created a totally new society.

So from the record it seems communism might work if it's mixed with capitalism.

That's a pretty vulgar understanding of the "communist plan" you have there.