Results 1 to 20 of 43
How realistic do you believe your goals are?
Hi. I am a liberal Democrat; essentially the type of voter that the Democratic party in America can always count on. My question for you all is, how realistic do you think your goal is? Of a classless, stateless, moneyless society? It seems like something so incredibly radical that I just don't see how you could ever come to see that happen in your lifetime.
In my case, I would like to see progressive candidates take office in the United States. I'd love to see someone like Bernie Sanders become president, but I realize he's a bit too far to the left to win over people closer to the American center and I will have to settle for someone like Clinton. I suppose I can live with that; better than a Republican...
But in your case, how could you ever be satisfied? In fact, victory will never really be achieved through an election. There would have to be some sort of radical uprising I would think. Do you think that could happen? If so, what steps are you taking to try and form such a movement (anything more than posting in this forum?) Also, can you give an example of a society in history that have successfully implemented these goals before? Is it actually possible?
Thanks
How realistic is your goal: begging the rich to throw crumbs of their success to the poor? Obviously your goals aren't working because the rich easily peel back reforms.
Is it really? Are the Democrats really all that better than Republicans? Consider the history. While Democrats do give into some of the demands of those who are egalitarian minded, consider that they do so only grudgingly. The Democrats are a centre-right party, and Republicans are now far-right.
So your logic is that we should aim for reasonable goals that fit into the neoliberal agenda? If you want the Republicans to win forever, then continue to be pragmatic.
I am a pessimist by nature. Many people can only keep on fighting when they expect to win. I'm not like that, I always expect to lose. I fight anyway, and sometimes I win.
--rms
While corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance in technology is an opening for them to further restrict its users.
--rms
AKA loonyleftist
I think that classless and moneyless society is just inevitable. In case of stateless society, the it depends on understanding of the word "state'. It's inevitable in my opinion, that authorities will cease to protect a private property ultimately. If you define a state (as we do) as a tool for a private property protection, then it will cease to exist sooner or later.
And why do I think so? Some societies have come to conclusions that some things must be free. Sometimes due to humanism (free education to some level) and sometimes because it's more comfortable (free buses to shopping centres). And as abundance of goods is growing as money will become more useless and uncomfortable. And when everything will be so cheap as salt today, money will become just obsolete.
"Property is theft."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"the system of wage labor is a system of slavery"
Karl Heinrich Marx
"Hi. I am a liberal Democrat; essentially the type of voter that the Democratic party in America can always count on. My question for you all is, how realistic do you think your goal is? Of a classless, stateless, moneyless society? It seems like something so incredibly radical that I just don't see how you could ever come to see that happen in your lifetime."
I don't think pure Communism is entirely realistic. But current power structures like the Democratic Party work for Wall Street, the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson. So, there is no way to implement change using existing power structures. Therefore, I hold the opinion they should be dismantled.
"In my case, I would like to see progressive candidates take office in the United States. I'd love to see someone like Bernie Sanders become president, but I realize he's a bit too far to the left to win over people closer to the American center and I will have to settle for someone like Clinton. I suppose I can live with that; better than a Republican..."
You had me on Bernie Sanders, the American equivalent of a Social Democrat, then you said that you support Hillary Clinton. One word: Fascist
"But in your case, how could you ever be satisfied? In fact, victory will never really be achieved through an election. There would have to be some sort of radical uprising I would think. Do you think that could happen?"
It's happening all over the world, it just needs more support and a better strategy.
"If so, what steps are you taking to try and form such a movement"
These movements already exist. In the United States, there is Occupy and the Wobblies for starters.
"Also, can you give an example of a society in history that have successfully implemented these goals before? Is it actually possible?"
As a poster with Anarchist tendencies, I have to go with societies reflecting Anarchist philosophy. Take for example, Anarcho-Syndicalist Spain (1936-1939), the Socialist Kibbutz communities in Israel, and functioning worker cooperatives throughout the world. (See Richard D. Wolff) Some people would also cite the Zapatistas, but I've seen some websites where they were denounced.
That's my contribution.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." (Fredrick Douglass)
´We want freedom by any means necessary. We want justice by any means necessary. We want equality by any means necessary.´ (Malcolm X)
´Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party — though they are quite numerous — is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.´ (Rosa Luxemburg)
I'm not saying liberalism is the perfect solution, but what I meant was that if I want a liberal candidate in power then I vote for him/her and encourage others to do so, and there's a pretty reasonable chance that he/she will make office, if not in the next election cycle. But how can you ever expect a communist to get elected? In fact if you want full communism it's not even about an election at all, is it?
I'm not really arguing that you should completely abandon your beliefs, since I probably couldn't convince you to do that - but why not take baby steps? Vote for progressive candidates and slowly inch further to the left, which I believe is the strategy of the CPUSA? (Truthfully, I don't think that would work either as I feel like most of society including myself would start to reject the movement once it moves too far to the left - but what I mean is that I can actually understand that strategy.) What is your strategy, revolutionary leftists?
And tuwix, if this ideal society is inevitable, then why fight? Why have revleft, if it's all going to happen anyway? Like Loony Le Fist implied, if anything we ('we' being my home country of America) have really only moved further to right in recent decades. I would like to see that change, although probably not to the extent of most people on this forum.
And I do wholeheartedly agree that some things must be free such as education, the same couldn't be said of luxury goods, such as jewelry or something.
I can't predict the future, and I doubt that people under feudalism could imagine capitalism. I might not live to see it, but I hope all our children or grandchildren will. I don't see any other way. Either socialism or barbarism like fascismSanders really isn't that "liberal"(in the American sense). Many progressive Democrats, who don't self-identify as socialist, are to the left of him. Clinton's to the right of Nixon, as are most of the modern Democratic Party. And the Democrats are only moving rightward. Not because of supposed centrist, but because capitalist(their masters) demands it. Hell, many of the Republicans in the 60's and 70's would be too liberal for the Democratic ticket.How is your position any more realistic? Vote Democrat and they'll suddenly become more left-wing or at least bring back some of the New Deal and Grand Society(that they've been dismantling since Carter, accelerated under Clinton)? They only put in progressive reforms due to pressure from people like us. No coincidence that with a drop in militancy and the fall of the Soviet threat, austerity and a war on the poor and workers has intensified.What steps will you take to get the Democrats to commit to social justice and end imperialist wars?If you mean all other socialist revolutions and how the were destroyed reactionaries, can you first name a success from DLC Democrats in permanent reform for "ALL PEOPLE", not just white, heterosexual, abled, cis-males Americans with money. Or one that will end imperialist wars?
With the environment going to shit, increased suppression of civil rights and perpetual warfare, the only possible way out is socialism, which will unite us all, rather than have us fighting each other under capitalism.
Capitalism is moribund. The bourgeoisie set in motion forces that it cannot control. The anarchic mode of production that we have today is the cause of overproduction, war, famine, etc. and every few years the contradictions come to the surface and capital convulses and shakes. Its instability and relentless drive for markets will result in an inevitable collapse- the question is: will it collapse into barbarism- constant war and slaughter- or will the working class bury it beneath their new world?
A bourgeois is a bourgeois, and when threatened the "democratic" and "progressive" bourgeoisie won't shy away from massacring workers and dispatching death squads. Have no illusions.
Last edited by Brutus; 23rd September 2014 at 18:02.
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti.
Socialism resides entirely in the revolutionary negation of the capitalist ENTERPRISE, not in granting the enterprise to the factory workers.
- Bordiga
First, you have to realise that communism, a stateless, moneyless, classless society, is not an abstract idea an sich. Some nice idea and we just have to convince the majority of its feasibility and appeal. If this were the case then the odds of it succeeding are next to nothing. Communism arises out of the conditions of capitalism, from socialised labour and class struggle. So we 'just' need the workers to conquer political (and economic) power. This is easier than convincing people of communism as abstraction, but still as massive massive massive task. One extra obstacle capitalism has thrown in our way is the diminishing of class contrast, the difference between working class and capitalist class appears fluid. This has lead some liberal-democrats to declare 'post-industrial' society a classless society.
So it's a massive and extremely difficult task and I may not see a successful communist revolution in my lifetime. But conditions can deteriorate, shift, reforge very quickly, so who knows?
pew pew pew
"realistic" is a strange word. it has a lot of inbuilt assumptions into it which means we kind of think the world works one way rather than another. The sense of 'reality' is actually different between liberals and communists.
For example; you walk past a homeless guy in the street; a liberal (or at least a mean-spirited one) sees someone who hasn't tried hard enough to get a job, was reckless with his money etc. As a communist, I walk past a see a victim of the 'system', someone who was punished for not being able to find a job, was indoctorinated into wanting more than they could afford etc.
The distinction between communism and liberalism is greater than say between conservatives and liberals. There is overlap between communists and liberals because they both follow a belief in the enlightenment, science, reason, progress etc, but the differences go much deeper into how we think about how the world works. If you're a liberal (atheist) and you talk to someone whose religious, it is self-evident that 'god does not exist' because 'science says so'. Communists look a liberals and when we hear the words 'market forces', 'public opinion' and 'human nature' feel exactly the same way; to us they sound like supernatural, mystical governing principles outside of human control and we don't share exactly the same concept of science either.
If your with a communist- it's best to think of it like religion and in it's bad ways, it resembles a cult and can bring out the worst in people. it affects every part of a person's personality and 're-writes' a lot of their behavior, emotions and thought patterns. This has very troubling over-tones of indoctrination, thought control, restrictions on free thought etc and yeah- after a period you respect that and realize you can't force this on to other people- but you realize it is also your own choice. So you go your own way against the grain of other people's opinions because it can be emotionally very rewarding, inspite of the difficulties and conflicts that get in your way.
The reason liberals and communists are at each other's throats over 'human nature' all the time (well, if you're actually around communists as their aren't many) is because it reflects these accute differences in the 'inner emotional experience'. it's difficult to describe unless you've been through something like a religious conversion, etc. we just don't think or feel the same, so it's not surprising when we act differently either. Half the problem of becoming a communist is learning to translate who you are to fit into a new ideological framework or conception of reality.
To be honest, I wouldn't mind if we had a capitalist system that 'worked' for the majority of people (as I'm middle class so I'm not automatically hostile to the system as ideologically I should be). I'm still debating is whether I think that's even possible given class divisions and antagonisms in society.
Liberals tend to believe that they can 'choose' how the world works. This is most self-evident when you look at the idea of the 'social contract' and 'government by consent'; the people 'choose' the system of government and who governs them.
Whereas, as a communist, I feel a much more diminished sense of control over these 'big things' because I realize it's not an individual choice- but a collective decision. And people didn't reach that decision by accident, it was a product of a underlying socioeconomic process. So in otherwords, no I don't think it's hugely realistic that I will see a communist society in my lifetime- maybe small steps and a few leaps into the dark if society get's into trouble. History can throw up a few surprises [Climate change is really going to screw things up].
The 'reward mechanism' of being a communist (at least in my case) is in self-improvement. When you learn it is possible to change yourself, you can start to see how it is possible that a society could change. the goal is to live up to your ideals, even if you live in a society which is ambivalent or hostile to them. it's a 'revolution' but on a personal level, fought out over long periods of time.
the 'radical uprising' is not simply a product of 'great men' influencing everyone through the 'power of ideas'. It's an underlying economic process; the more concentrated the ownership of capital becomes, the more power the capitalists have, the more they screw up society to make more money, the more they'll eventually piss everyone off.
The satisfaction comes by being a 'better' version of yourself; changing who you are. And as I said earlier- once you start changing yourself, you can start to see how it is possible for a society to do so. it's very intoxicating and satisfying [and yeah... the phrase 'power corrupts' is entirely relevant because you start to figure out ways to be free that just weren't possible before.] So even if I never saw a communist revolution during my life time- I would at least feel like "I've lived" and I can be happy with that.
Nope. Elections in the current political system (in the US) are simply a choice between two different puppets connected to different hands on the same person.
The only strategy is resistance. This doesn't necessarily mean physical self-defense either--though that should never be off the table. There will be no change through the parliamentary or political process because power always resists change. This is the reason why reformism is a failedism.
How else do you combat lies and propaganda? By giving in? By letting the adversary define you? Sorry, I don't play nice with those that want to crush me under their heel.
Socialism isn't about free stuff, it's about a change in the economic organization of society. Everything comes at a cost. The question is who bears that cost, and how it is borne. In the current organization of society a certain small group of individuals receives the benefits of costs borne by the greater whole. I don't care about giving everyone free stuff. I seek to change how society views economic exchange so that profit is no longer the prime mover.
I am a pessimist by nature. Many people can only keep on fighting when they expect to win. I'm not like that, I always expect to lose. I fight anyway, and sometimes I win.
--rms
While corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance in technology is an opening for them to further restrict its users.
--rms
AKA loonyleftist
Someone living in 1788 would have considered a bourgeois democratic republic "so incredibly radical" and all that. Given the decay of capitalism, only socialism or barbarism are possible - the indefinite continuation of capitalism is not, as capitalism constantly generates crises that provide an opportunity for either the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism or the destruction of the productive forces and human culture.
Keep telling yourself that, it's served you people (some of which, in fact, consider themselves "socialists" and "anarchists") so well, hasn't it? I'm sure Romney would be much meaner when bombing people than Obama.Originally Posted by coldcherry
Anyway, why tell us this? We don't want "progressive" bourgeois politicians (the only place we want them is the job centre or the guillotine, the same as with all bourgeois politicians), and we don't want a nicer capitalism.
Don't be naff, of course socialism is about free stuff. We kill the bourgeoisie and take all of their pies for ourselves. And profit wouldn't be a "prime mover", in fact it wouldn't be a "mover" at all as it wouldn't exist. You seem to be thinking of something that isn't really socialism.Originally Posted by Loony Le Fist
It's good that you know how to be sarcastic. I had no idea you had a sense of humor.
I am a pessimist by nature. Many people can only keep on fighting when they expect to win. I'm not like that, I always expect to lose. I fight anyway, and sometimes I win.
--rms
While corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance in technology is an opening for them to further restrict its users.
--rms
AKA loonyleftist
I'm being pretty serious though. If you're in "socialism" and profit is a secondary or tertiary or whatever mover, i.e. it still exists, and if the social product is rationed out instead of given freely, someone somewhere has fucked up massively.
It's good that you know how to be sarcastic. I had no idea you had a sense of humor.
Where did I make the claim that profit would continue to exist?
...
Oh yea, that's right! That's you imagining I said things I didn't again.
I am a pessimist by nature. Many people can only keep on fighting when they expect to win. I'm not like that, I always expect to lose. I fight anyway, and sometimes I win.
--rms
While corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance in technology is an opening for them to further restrict its users.
--rms
AKA loonyleftist
"I don't care about giving everyone free stuff. I seek to change how society views economic exchange so that profit is no longer the prime mover."
I don't see how you could possibly interpret this sentence in another manner. (And that's not even mentioning that you talk about economic exchange in socialism.) Why "prime" mover? When we say that something will no longer be a "prime" mover or concern or whatever we imply that it will still exist and be a factor, albeit a secondary one. Otherwise we would just say that it wouldn't be a factor, full stop.
Let me help you out. Definition:
prime mover [n] : an initial natural or mechanical source of motive power.
Prime mover is used as a noun here. You call the engine in a car the prime mover. There are no secondary movers. That is how I meant it. It's called a metaphor. Any other interpretation means you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I'm through derailing this thread if you are. Did you eat your Wheaties this morning?
I am a pessimist by nature. Many people can only keep on fighting when they expect to win. I'm not like that, I always expect to lose. I fight anyway, and sometimes I win.
--rms
While corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance in technology is an opening for them to further restrict its users.
--rms
AKA loonyleftist
certainly no less realistic than voting lib dem
This fight is called class struggle. It's just a feature of capitalism as oxygen is feature of life on Earth. People will always fight injustice and injustice is generated by capitalism.
And I think that luxury goods can and ultimately will be free too. Certainly, not in terms of permanent possession, but there can be organized system of booking to use luxury goods. You don't need to buy an airplane to fly.
"Property is theft."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"the system of wage labor is a system of slavery"
Karl Heinrich Marx
A classless society without a state is not at all realistic today. Its only precedents are hunter-gatherer societies from prehistory. Marx envisioned a stateless society with industrial technology but didn't say exactly how it would come about after capitalism is overthrown and a dictatorship of proletariat is installed. That doesn't make it impossible, given that classless societies have existed. But I think it will take 20 or 30 human generations to teach Communism to the point where it becomes a universal cultural norm.
And you're right. The revolution is not coming up this autumn in an election. Governments will have to be overthrown and people killed to bring about Communism just like it was 100 years ago. I would like to see it less violent next time, with more homework done on how revolutionaries plan to maintain civil order without terror. Historical conditions have to favor revolution, with most of the population ready to cooperate with it, or there's no point. I don't think it's time now, nor will I live long enough to see it. I don't advocate armed action against any government right now--it would be stupid.
But quite frankly, I think a day will come when most people become disgusted with capitalism, which is currently reverting to laissez faire approaches you also might have seen 100 years ago. The USA lifestyle can't be duplicated everywhere on the planet if only due to ecological limits. Even within the USA, income inequality is steadily increasing. The next serious recession will entrench a rich-poor division for the USA with doors to social advancement slamming shut. And the recession we had in 2007-2010 was not really a preview - I'm thinking of when we have tent cities all over the place and people lining up on the sidewalk for bread and soup again. When this happens, and it will, given enough time in our inherently unstable system, then the people will welcome a revolution.
You might think with "Obamacare" in the USA this country was actually getting more "socialized." No. Obamacare itself won't survive past 2017 if Republicans get the Oval Office and both houses of Congress - the Tea Party will romp on it. Social Security will privatize and turn into a national 401(k) stock market plan, without its redistributive provisions. Medicare will privatize as individual Health Savings Accounts. Why all this? Because the U.S. government lives on credit and fairly soon the creditors will pull the plug and demand payment, perhaps after a Tea Party really does force through a default. The government will lose its ability to underwrite the financial system as it has done through the postwar years, and its safety nets and regulation of banking will disappear. Public education may disappear or become so lousy that it's effectively worthless. If my little predictions here are wrong, they illustrate long-term trends.
Other forum members have different views than mine, which is okay with me. I don't yet know for sure which view is best. But it's not capitalism.
~
Last edited by Hatshepsut; 23rd September 2014 at 13:54.
Hr zj jSst r xAst Tn xmt n rmt "Why are you going to this land which is not known to the people?" (Urk. IV 324, 8-9)
It's sad but it really will be our own narrow political moves if the dollar is allowed to collapse or the country default on its debt.
The economy needed about a trillion more dollars pumped into it during the recession and we could have had almost all major infrastructure done cheaply. But instead we got distracted by irrational fears about the deficit when unemployment should have been the primary concern.
The biggest buyers of US debt are the fed and social security, and the effect of any country dumping its dollars would have little effect on the whole as the Asians will swoop that up in a heartbeat. If the asian countries decide to divest from the dollar in their reserves, then thank god. I am tired of the Chinese and their crap manufacturing getting an unfair advantage because of their artificially inflated currency. (whether we should be like the Japanese and limit how much a foreign govt can buy is debatable)
Interest rates were damn near zero and people were still rushing to buy up our debt. Despite our debt being a guaranteed loss we have had absolutely no problems moving it. And we were concerned about fucking inflation.
I'm sorry but we've been listening to republicans decrying hyperinflation for so long in order to justify the end of big government it irks me like no other. But hey, could be worse. Could be in the eurozone sucking Merkels dick to try and get some money moving so people in greece can at least afford their vaccinations.
Well I'm lookin real hard and I'm trying to find a job but it just keeps gettin tougher every day
