Questions to forum's socialists / communists

Thank you very much in advance.

Should capitalism be allowed to run it's circle ?
Should the left stand back and let it die out without offering any helping hand ?
Does this attitude makes sense as a form of stagism / Menshevik way ?
Should we oppose the policies that drive capitalism into it's elimination ?

Can the system voluntarily shift to socialism piece by piece by allowing popular reforms without the need for a revolution ?
Should the left push the socialist agenda through bourgeois institutions like parliaments ?
How we can promote the perks of the collective to modern individualists of the hive (nationalists , racists , religious fundamentalists , registered party members etc) without waiting for poverty , inequality and injustice to take their toll .

What are your thoughts on vanguardism and is it necessary in internet era ?
What do you think of Lenin and his belief in a centralised / egalitarian "core party" ?
What do you think of the Bolsheviks and war communism ?

 

I'm probably not the sort of poster you had in mind, but some discussion is better than none?

The downfall of capitalism is almost inevitable but I am not at all confident about how long off the time for that is, nor do I know what culmination of events will cause it to occur or even what kind of order will follow. The Left shouldn't focus entirely on the future - letting the ends they seek to ultimately achieve justify the utilization of underhanded or morally dubious means in the present. In my humble opinion, it is better to start by establishing and ardently defending an incrementally fairer set of ground rules for governing capitalism and the markets.

The advance toward socialism must be driven by the People. A shift in the their perceptions of reality and in the moral values they choose to emphasize is needed for them to see the Left's vision for society as preferable to what they have now. These are things political convictions are built upon; the rest is all rationalization and effort to bring ones policy prescriptions in line with their underlying, more intuitively-than-logically-developed values. If we do not take action there is no guarantee the masses will ever come around to and adopt any of our potential alternatives to the prevailing order.

Personally, I reject stagism in favor of what - if I am not mistaken - is Trotsky's position of the transition demanding different courses of action in each country based on their respective histories and cultures. What works for one nation may be unsuitable for many or even any others. The Left should be perceptive of what the People want, responsively weave their values and desires into the framework of their socialist vision, and strive to present a more compelling plan for building for a better tomorrow than their opponents (i.e., parties and their platforms must adapt to changing times).

I think so, aye. Changing the system involuntarily demands the utilization of violent, perhaps outright authoritarian strategies. Doing so requires a minority to force its will upon the many, in effect shattering the workers' chains only to affix to them an entirely new, perhaps just as oppressive set to be left in place henceforth. The real revolution is fought for the hearts and minds of workers using expression and reason to persuade. Only with the voluntary support and democratically-procured consent of the People can socialism justly be made a reality.

This can be achieved through the politics of image - the use of symbolic capital to influence the beliefs and attitudes of others. We have to become more proficient at framing issues in day-to-day deliberations over public policy, find a way to re-brand "socialism" as something brimming with excellent ideas and a positive message for how much more could be achieved with it as opposed to without, and letting go of attitudes that undermine the Left's success in politics. Class struggle, conspiracy theories regarding the bourgeoisie, nationalizations of firms, central planning, and vilification of the Right for instance are all toxic to our ilk - as is letting our plans be drawn from or even symbolically associated with those put forth by the Leninists, Stalnists, Maoists and so forth from yesteryear.

Without having a strong appeal to political moderates we are doomed to fail. Giving the far left and orthodox Marxists what they want in terms of ideological tenets and prescriptions for what is to be done will leave us marginalized, broken into squabbling factions, and unable to seriously challenge the established champions of reformed, welfare capitalism. The beliefs and ideas of many socialists are embarrassingly antiqued and it is time for us to learn from both our own mistakes and also from the triumphs and successes of political opponents.

Vanguardism is a great idea insofar as the Left really needs a highly-motivated core of elite professionals and intellectuals to organize and lead our cadres onward, yet at the same time dreadful in that these elites will become the fore-bearers of a new ruling class - one that will dominate a superficially "socialist" society from privileged positions of power and prestige in government, commerce, academia, the military, etc. - if we choose to retrace the path Lenin took in Russia. His democratic centralism and Soviet democracy were fatally flawed by both his and the Bolsheviks' many authoritarian policies. Power was too concentrated and did not get adequately constrained in defense against abuses.

I do not think the Bolsheviks are to be admired. War communism is a betrayal of the workers and Marxist-Leninism does not serve the best interests of all. Perhaps this is simply my liberalism shining through? We quite possibly approach this subject from very different perspectives.

Still, I see the thesis of capitalism and antithesis of socialism as capable of providing a synthesis within the ideology of liberalism - I see a form of market socialism in particular being quite compatible with notions of limited government, rule of law, equality before the law, constitutional republicanism, fixation on protecting individuals from harm via liberties and civil rights, representative democracy, federalism, and so forth. For me at least socialism is a tool for supplementing and even strengthening long-standing liberal values instead of replacing them.

 

I didn't started this thread for orthodox and unorthodox Marxists only

This is an interesting approach, specially the latest part ! As of course you know there is no way to "fix" capitalism , masking some of it's practices under a "fairer" legislation will only add to it's longevity . Why people are still talking about Marx and Gramsci today? because capitalism has failed them , if the system was fair (or as fair as capitalism can potentially be) what would be the reason to change ?.

I am not sure about how to take action , personally i prefer "showing the path" rather than try to convince the masses to walk it with me . Political parties are pro-active and usually ( in Europe at least ) what they bring to the table are old symbols and rhetoric and names nobody wants to hear about , in return they get like 5% of the vote and enjoy playing Stalin in parliament's back sits .

I am also very sceptical about people's morals and understanding of reality , they are corrupted by capitalism to the bone , they are usually members of hate groups that rationalising segregation , promoting self interest over group interest and generally applauding individuals for behaving badly . How you do light the left path for modern people without directly violating all their (constructed by others) personality ? I have my discussion groups where citizens consistently refuse to acknowledge the class they belong , refuse to accept that their interests are different from the party they vote for and by the way check my signature !
How do you shift them ?

The idea of Stagism is that societies can not jump from (say) feudalism to socialism without the intermediate stages with capitalism been a step , i think the concept does hold water if you think that today we are indeed growing out of capitalism and reforms can not offer anything radically different ( stagists believe that the revolution happens when the capacity for reforms is exhausted).
For sure we need a more compelling plan but it must be compelling when compared to what ? i mean it is easy to point out that socialism can bring for most of those living in poverty a better life but what happens when you have to go against stereotypes like mid-war Europe or America of the 50's ?
What (most) people want right now has nothing to do with the socialist ideals , in general they want more trophies than their neighbours . You know at the core socialism asks people to grow up , take responsibility , make decisions ; capitalism at the other hand provides parents and toys , how you convince people to grow up so far is beyond me .

We agree on that and you said it well so i have nothing to add .

Wait ! forgetting about class struggle nullifies everything socialism stands for and there is nothing conspiratory (sic) about the bourgeoisie cause everything they do is right on our faces . Ideologically exterminating the right is of most importance and working with them instead of against them will legitimise their practices . To bring you some historical examples the French and the Italian communist parties practically seized to exist after they participated in social democrat coalition governments so no never go there.

I don't see what we will get by appealing to political zombies , the moderates are brain dead conservatives that will gladly sit on their chair and watch tv until capitalism gets both the chair and the tv and the moderates have to chose either to sit on the ground and die or do something about it and join our ranks .
An influx of zombies political moderates will corrupt our movement changing our cause , we are revolutionaries not reactionaries and we want to change everything we will never do that taking conservatives / centrists into account , let them rot and die .
Marx and the rest of the crew gave us fine manuals about cause , effect and action ; we are among the very few movements that have such a rich bibliography to draw from and it will be a waste to leave everything behind and become 21st century hippies . I have nothing against revisionism and improvising along the way but how changing the very core of our beliefs into some vague centrist tolerating "thing" will make our cause succeed ?

It is commonly accepted that there are two brands of people : those who lead and those who follow . I have several uncertainties how the intelligentsia will hold off from turning followers into sheep and in general how we can avoid going into the common authoritative structure maintaining injustice and social stratification .
I do not trust centralisation , i believe that turning administrative hierarchy upside down decentralising everything may give communities a chance to organise and sufficiently run themselves , for sure many will fail but some will succeed becoming the compass for the rest . This also eliminates the need of a vanguard on a national scale and demotes it into local activism .

Trotsky and Khrushchev were Bolsheviks and they didn't betrayed any worker . Marxism-Leninism is not designed to serve the best interests of all , of course! but why it is not preferable to sacrifice the 1% for the good of the majority ?

I see it from a different perspective , constitutional republicanism can be a step towards socialism , even municipalism can.
I have nothing against self regulated markets but i have real trouble understanding what "liberal" means for someone , you see some see textbook fascist Obama as a liberal .

thanks for the reply and apologies for my limited vocabulary , English is not my 1st language .

 

As capitalism is made more humane its defenders will be in a better position to defend its merits, yes, but we too shall be in a better position to reason that the final push to socialism is a sensible course of action... not something extreme and unfamiliar to be feared. I agree with the social democrats and the Fabians when they call for incremental changes over many a year and decade. The transition could take many generations, and for that I am willing to be very patient. Even modest progress in my lifetime would be satisfying to see.

Such a strategy is more practical than trying to convince a majority of people to embrace radical change - especially in countries like mine where there is no severe crisis to erode the legitimacy of the current order. Roughly 1/3 of Americans think positively of socialism yet when they hear the word "socialism" what they actually think is "social democracy." No amount of debate is going to convince the workers of a country like the United States that their best interests would be served by supporting a radical transformation of their society. Perhaps the conditions present in other parts of the world make swift, bloodless revolutions more viable an option for the left... but over here it will not succeed.

Nonetheless, I reckon reforms can undermine the foundations of capitalism. Workplace democracy and ownership of firms by their workers may occur within the framework of capitalism, and if everyone becomes accustomed to companies being structured in such a way I believe there shall be more support from the general public to eventually codify the overarching values of these social enterprises and cooperatives into law. Improving living conditions will make the plans of laissez-faire capitalists unattractive to the masses. Instead of trying to fundamentally mold human nature into something better than it is now, over time we can show the people a socialist economy is completely compatible with individualism, self-interest, and a work ethic similar to that already in place.

Even if socialism does not become established, at least the form of capitalism in place (or whatever other economic system develops instead) could be a lot less exploitative and more responsive to the will of the workers than it is today. Either way, as a liberal I am more concerned with the People's values and interests being accurately reflected by public policy and keeping them free of what they consider oppression than I am with destroying the capitalist system. The way I see it, my ideas are in competition with those of many of people who - if they muster sufficient support from the public in a competitive process reasonably free of corruption - deserve to get their way in politics even if I strongly dissent.

Likewise in the United States, socialist factions tend to dwell on old symbols and rhetoric as well - though they are more focused on those in American history rather than those used in the Second World. The numerous, fragmented parties here in sum receive less than 2% of the vote and tend not to ascend into elected posts at the national tier of the federalist system. The only socialist in Congress today is independent of party affiliation and must collaborate with the predominately social democratic "Progressive Caucus" within the centrist Democratic Party to get anything done.

Showing the path is a respectable strategy. It is certainly less elitist than my approach!

To shift them we must learn to speak the language of capitalism and appeal to the beliefs people already have. We need to be positive, respectful, and present our ideas in a way which does not make people feel threatened. Otherwise they will surely dismiss us without consideration and harden in their support of the old ways whenever we try to turn them. I too encounter citizens who consistently refuse to accept that their interests are different from the party they vote for, and are convinced the present system is in their best interests. But I am also able to persuade even some of the conservative adherents to capitalism that my alternative is worthy of consideration and could be desirable if their values were different.

I do this by listening to them, incorporating some of their ideas into my vision for the future, discussing the benefits and problems with both their views and mine, explaining how goals they pursue with capitalist policies may be better reached by social democratic reforms or could someday be achieved by a socialist economy. I join them in condemning past harms done by self-described socialists and communists, explain how my convictions and plans differ from those of the Leninists and planned economists, and in doing so begin to break down the negative prejudices to which people adhere concerning the Left. Obviously we will not be able to do this with everyone, but many of the moderates I mentioned before could be persuaded to at least respect us... though perhaps this is more of an American dilemma than one experienced overseas? In the States there is a vicious stigma affixed to the label.

Whereas I, in contrast, believe societies can jump from any economic system to socialism without waiting for feudalism to naturally give rise to capitalism, which in turn would have to go through several stages of development and stagnation before socialism could be deemed a viable opinion for the people. Intermediate stages are needed in terms of gradual reforms which span in gradients of extremity from the current order to the desired alternative, but I do not agree with the stagists that feudalism naturally transforms into capitalism, capitalism will destroy itself and put in place conditions that will make socialism inevitable, or that socialism then in turn leads to communism. The current order is a product of culture.

To do so one must study the morals and values of the people, and appeal to those things. If many Americans for instance want to be highly individualistic, largely autonomous from the state, self-reliant, and exceptional among countries, there are ways of wording our vision to appeal to those things. Allow me to provide an example of one possible narrative targeted toward an American audience.

Socialism builds on the past successes of market competition and brings representative democracy to the workplace, with great potential to empower each individual to build up and steer their own fates in life while pursuing happiness with fewer obstacles set in their paths than ever before. It extends principles of the Founders' - concepts like separation of powers, checks and balances, constitutional government, and limited government - and extends them to the operation of firms in the economy. With socialism we still get to have limited government, competition in open markets, moderate rates of taxation, and the choice to elect capitalists back into office if we do not like the new system. Indeed, we can even emphasize the importance of self-sufficiency, discourage abuse of welfare benefits, respect rights to personal property, and pay people more or less than others based on the value of their labors!

You see, socialism is not a clean break from what has made the U.S. great. It is a step toward improving our living conditions, expanding our list of constitutionally protected liberties, strengthening the values that built this country, and giving the workers themselves - not the sprawling bureaucracy of some bloated, overbearing nanny state - more of a say in how to manage their own affairs in business. If the United States wants to be an inspiration for all of the peoples of the world, it must prove its commitment to excellence in individual freedom and civil rights by returning to the radical forefront of political theory from whence it was born - not resting, content, on its old achievements while other countries take on that bold, adventurous spirit of high idealism and political ingenuity - marching onward to a better tomorrow without us. Common decency, self-determination, and a level field of competition demand socialism.

In different countries the narratives for socialism will need to be different, and so too will the variants of socialism being proposed by the Left.

Respectfully, I would argue socialism stands for egalitarianism and decentralization of power through the transfer of most or all means of economic production into the ownership of the collective, general public, or the workers of each firm. I do not think the bourgeoisie are our enemies or have interests fundamentally different than those of the proletariat, want to work in solidarity with the rich in addition to the poor and those in-between to advance the interests of all, and passionately believe that diverse political and economic ideas are healthy for the the development of society. I do not want to exterminate the Right. I want to discuss a number of issues with them, gain wisdom from them, and compete with them in free and fair elections. Their existence is good, their perspectives often respectable, and I would never wish to be rid of them - despite how very frustrating and disheartening they may at times be.

And yes, radical parties can easily be destroyed by the corrupting forces of temptation ever-present in politics. Vigilance against betrayal of the workers by parties is important. Corruption seems to be the bane of all ideologies and campaigns of human development. It is a very difficult problem to address.

Without the electoral support of moderates we are but a minority of people trying to impose our will on the whole of society. I reckon a voluntary, non-violent transformation to socialism cannot occur without successfully appealing to millions of people who are not on the Left.

With all due respect, that attitude limits the Left to one bad outcome: the radicalism of the cause alienates centrists, making the non-violent establishment of socialism with consent from the people highly unlikely. With too much idealism the cause will never make a lot of progress in a democratic society and, with too much pragmatism, the cause will become meaningless. Finding a wise, temperate balance between the two might be our only hope.

That honestly depends on the cause one seeks to advance. I am not interested in making Marx's vision a reality. I am interested in using some of the features of socialism to make liberalism better - a consequence of which would be the development of a society which is neither socialist nor capitalist by the strictest of definitions but would more strongly resemble the former system than the latter.

To answer your last question, however, I think you need to make your core beliefs clear in a party's platform and express resolve to eventually reach a particular set of political goals in accordance with those beliefs, while also explaining what small and relatively moderate steps forward are being sought in the immediate future. Centrists will be drawn to those short-term goals and in giving the party votes will take you closer - bit by little bit - to your final objective. Otherwise, there will be no real opportunities for the party to succeed until the current order loses its legitimacy. In a country like Greece I could see that becoming a reality, whereas in the U.S. those conditions have not been present for over 70 years. :\

I do not agree, with all due respect, and am unwilling to forcibly sacrifice any person for the good of the majority.

It seems "liberal" is a word with many meanings, yes, and I do apologize for any confusion its use in my posts may present. Later I may elaborate on what I mean by using that word if you would like. For now, I am quite tired and have typed enough for one night. Thank you for posting such a thoughtful, timely response!

You are welcome! There is no need for apologies though. You communicate well in English and hopefully my style of writing is not difficult to interpret. Perhaps it should be me offering an apology for not being more plainspoken in these posts.

 

I start to believe that your vision of capitalism is as something that can be sustained for a time, charts show that it can not.
The more "humane" version is what Obama is trying to implement now by adoption European style social democracy but this is only a political trick. Even at it's best form social democracy is still heavily rely on the scraps that trickle down from bankster's hands . Seriously it is not difficult to demolish the establishment , look what is now happening in Cyprus , a bank run and the Eurocrat union is over . Capitalism has become too big to bail and soon fiat money will not be enough .

The answer to the above is not waiting for socialism to shine and make everyone understand it but undermine Capitalism to fail as soon as possible , i do not mean to take the arms but i am all from starting an online and media campaign and encourage people to take their money from the banks , not vote in any elections , strike , not pay taxes , not consume trash they don't need, stop obeying any laws that didn't pass from a referendum .
This is pro-action and revolutionary without being bloody .

Why you need to convince anyone? it is a waste of time and effort , just let the whole thing blow and give them your hand as they are drowning . Westerners mostly care about their silly money let them know that the "free markets" , financial industry and "makers" took them with the consent of the politicians . Today 1/3 of you understand what socialism is , 10 years ago 1/10 of you did , in my social media i have introduced tens of your nationals (and mainly Southerners) into what the left really is and although not all of them became communists they have moved on becoming municipalists , anacaps or even hardcore Maoists !
The flour is already here , we just need to water it to start making bread .

Corrupting the establishment from within is a long process that can either work or not , i am not rejecting this method but i would like more action. I find it strange that you are not font of stagism yet all you propose are reforms .
Socialism does not seek to change human nature but to promote one part of it (compassion and cooperation) over another (competition and selfishness) .
What you fail to see is your Republicans , yes their motivations are wrong but their rhetoric is on the spot yet they don't see the perks of socialism . They want less federal government which is socialist , they want decisions to be make on a state level which is socialist , they want to decide themselves if they can own guns which is as socialist as it can be , they don't want welfare charity which it is socialist , they are against immigration and believe or not although it is not socialist it is the way to go ! As you may know here in Greece we have a flood of immigrants than now make up like 20% of the population , all those immigrants are coming from less developed societies and they are conservative and on the top of that they are turning locals into conservatives and we don't want that.
Republicans are the most fertile soil to cultivate as there are fascists here , okay both hold some disgusting beliefs but those are of minor importance when you can convince them with the ultimate "in socialism you decide about everything" .

Yes i have already understood that you are a half baked liberal
People's interests and freedoms can only be guaranteed if they are the decision makers , in capitalism the few decide and even less are renting those who decide , end this! Corruption is the main ingredient of the capitalist system , end this as well.
End central government's control , decentralise , put communities / counties / municipalities / prefectures in charge .
Sorry for not making myself clear but i am not for party lines , central planned economy and bureaucracy , i am looking after true communism with the exception that i will support a central/federal government that it is not elected but made of technocrats , artists and philosophers and it's role is to run the military , supreme court , international relations , coordinate projects between communities and provide open source technology for free to everyone .

Your position is this of compromise, do you understand that you are compromising with a rotten dieing zombie ?

I would say that your Greens are a step forward , so forward that Mrs Stein got arrested for trying to appear in national TV

Your problem is that you are trusting people to change willingly and you have some minimum faith to the system .

Heh no , are you aware what is happening today? you work in a bank and people consider you a thief , you run big business and the majority think of you as corrupted , you are a parliament member and all you get in your facebook are people talking about your mother's sexual habits and this expands, more and more people are getting into this , yet as we agree without fully understanding what separates them from us . Using the language of capitalism will only make you a future target , we all saw how ridiculous and out of this world Mr Mitt sounded ..
Persuasion is one way to do it , the other is pointing the ills of the system and let them seek for an alternative , they will always come with a bad one like theocracy , fascism , or a mix of them , it is easy to cripple such rhetoric .

Your flexibility is commendable but i can not follow you there , i think you shouldn't subscribe to the concept that one man or one government can do everything right without some backlash or reaction but i guess this is an American thing.
Europe is general has a wider political spectrum from North America , there are various fascist parties and 10's of different communist ones and it is okay to be a member of them i guess . The only kind of a stigma is that people with party orientations are using the same language all over the continent , let's just say that i can understand a nazi or a commie after he speaks two sentences

We disagree on that , i think societies can only jump into something relevant to their level of development , i mean the Livonian Order could jump from theocracy to feudalism or even absolute monarchy but they could have never get into Florence or Venetian republic.
Stagists are right if you consider that where the stages were skipped projects failed miserably , you disagree that Tsarist Russia was the worst place to start a socialist revolution ?

WoW , where is this from ? and yes "great country" thing is a no no in Europe cause it brings Hitler in mind .

And this is how you erase everything you have said before , so what should i do , keep this and press DEL to everything else you posted ? gain wisdom from conservatives and reactionaries and working with the bourgeoisie , really ?
What is next , maybe say "thank you" every time a mosquito bites you ?

If i disregard the previous part of your post this shows some good knowledge over political theory , yes the whole science is based on assumptions because all fail to explain the nature of man because the nature of man is too liquid and too multilevel to be explained . Basic corruption is a reformed behaviour that takes place in one's or a group's mind without informing the others.
Capitalism you so much defending brings corruption to a new level by making everyone part of it ( you know...bail outs?)

Appeal is one thing , being the only credible solution in an era where the world is crumbling down is another .
I think that you shouldn't expect bourgeoisie institutions like parliaments and their elections to change the regime , you know even if we elect Stalin here in Greece or there in USA he will still have to run things inside the constitutional framework .

Again you assume that centrists are a big chunk of the demographic and we have to convince them of something.
Look who they are voting for! they are sheep that will follow anything that smells good .
Earlier i mentioned Republicans , those are the stock of people you want to talk with cause they are reactionary thus having a better understanding of the situation (although for the wrong reasons) , Obama flag wavers that cheer for gay marriage nonsense are a non factor . Here i am dedicating much more time talking to fascists than i do with social democrats , fascists are idealism heavy and we can find common ground and understanding plus we agree on the most urgent thing : neoliberals have to go.

Paint me interested on how this will slip away from authoritarianism .

HAHA don't worry because of the internet you will be attracted into this in no time .
I like your approach on this although the application seems a little tricky , because i live those developments allow me to have a bit more experience, right now there is a radical left party here in Greece that looks to appeal to the zombies by modifying their policies to be more brain dead ( like having communism but staying in the Eurozone) . Yes this may bring them more votes but it also moves the party towards the center where everything is rotten , i wouldn't be surprised if they start bleeding supporters left and right just after they win the elections.
Oh and another thing , having "clear cut" positions on political issues makes parties too rigid to deal with themselves ( not sure if you can understand that but this is as far as my English can go )

You are not sacrificing people's lives you are only confiscating material things that those who have them do not really need them.

This conversation is very interesting and it made me understand that US liberals are not dare devils and very reluctant to take steps , this is not an accusation , for sure you know better the society you live in and i sense that probably too much radicalism will put you in trouble .

 

This could indeed be an effective approach. My concern about it being attempted in a place like the U.S., however, is that the general population still has faith in capitalism. They merely believe its worst excesses are not being adequately reined in by the state. Campaigns via the internet to get people to stop participating in the system would only attract such a small number of supporters that its consequences would be insignificant. Most people would not even be aware of the campaign's existence, and a large number of those who are would not respond favorably - seeing it as an irrational, overly-radical response to the status quo. And without tens of millions of workers participating in the effort, all that would happen in practice is an active leftist presence in the existing institutions of government even smaller than usual.

How do you think people in liberal democracies like the U.S., U.K, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand could be convinced that destroying capitalism would be in their best interests? In most of Latin America and parts of Southern and Eastern Europe I could see how there might be a large enough pool of anti-capitalists to mobilize for the kind of campaign you describe to succeed, but I think you might be overestimating the extent to which folks in the most developed of advanced, capitalist economies think lowly of their system as a whole as opposed to lowly of some of that system's unpleasant side-effects. I do not believe many people in countries like the United States consider those problems inherent to capitalism. Rather, based on which variation of liberal ideology they embrace, these people tend to demand the government remedy the situation with either more or less regulation and intervention in the markets.

Perhaps you are right. Yet my experiences thus far compel me to believe capitalism alone is not going to destroy itself in my country and, if the system does for some reason collapse, a very large number of people will prefer a return to the relatively less restrained capitalism of classical liberal thought over the prospect of abandoning capitalism in favor of sort variation of socialism. To borrow your metaphor, I worry there is only the right kind of flour here in my homeland to make the bread of social democracy or Christian democracy - not of the bread of democratic or libertarian socialism. The efforts of persuasion I emphasize are intended to create latent potential for a successful leftist movement in the future, ceding that none have a chance of being successful in the States today for lack of popular support.

In discussions with other Americans I have been able to make some democratic socialists and social democrats out of social liberalists and convince some folk among the reactionary and conservative blocs of Americans that not all socialists resemble their prejudiced image of us all being Stalnists. Mind you... I have yet to meet any socialists in my community and the only self-described communist I know from my town is authoritarian, culturally imperialist admirer of Kim Il Sung and juche. It wouldn't surprise me to learn there are more neo-Nazis than democratic socialists in my area! Indeed, the vast majority of people on the Left I know herald from countries in Europe, where socialist schools of thought have an established place in mainstream politics. Conditions are not good for revolution here.

I do not consider it corrupting the establishment from within so much as agitating for public policies that deviate from conventional political thought - enacting those changes at whatever pace the People are willing to accept them. If I were to directly propose my radical vision for a new order, no centrists, no rightists, and a large majority of leftists would reject it. The only practical way for me to advance my perception of the common interest is to build consensus around ideas for reform. As a break from stagism, I do not want reforms that push capitalism closer to collapse - I want reforms that imbue capitalism with socialist characteristics until the former has transformed into the latter. No tumultuous crises inflicting widespread suffering are desired by me; it is better for society to grow and adapt than die and be reborn.

One of our differences in conviction may concern how tolerable capitalism is to leave in place. I do not consider it to be an innately immoral, irrational, or otherwise inferior system relative to socialism. Rather, socialism is more compatible with my subjective values and perception of the world than capitalism. The conflict of these opposing economic paradigms is one of an old order capable of imperfectly empowering the individual to pursue happiness in life free of oppression and a newer alternative that seems to have more potential for doing so but is nonetheless imperfect, too. To express this more succinctly, capitalism to me is like an old technology - one I would be pleased to eventually have replaced instead in pursuit of marginally increased performance forever.

Well, my perception of human nature is all people are selfish and most develop ideas about morality based on influences of culture and environment... but only within the bounds of certain genetic parameters. The potential for compassion and cooperation exists in nearly all people yet I do not think most can be made more altruistic, egalitarian in how they view others, and concerned with the collective than they are selfish, prone to stereotyping others and sorting them into hierarchies, and focused on their selves along with those few other folk who are most important or similar to them.

Though I believe folks are generally good rather than evil and that some of humanity's basest characteristics can be resisted and partially overcome through effort, a society completely devoid of classes or hierarchies of any sort seems almost impossible to me. Likewise, I do not think it is possible to abolish private ownership of all means of production because not all forms of capital are economic. I am more partial to Pierre Bourdieu's analysis on the forms capital can take, and so far as I can tell the existence of those other kinds of capital and the complicated contests betwixt actors competing for control of them underway in a multitude of different domains make it inevitable for social hierarchies to emerge in society. There will be unearned privileges, inequality of opportunity and actionable freedom among the people, an un-meritocratic allocation of resources, and so forth.

That is to say, while I sympathize a great deal with socialism at the same time I do not think it can actually achieve all the goals it sets out to accomplish because society does not seem to operate in the way Marxists believe, and the behaviors and attitudes of most individuals may not be as flexible as communists would need to establish and then maintain an order that has no money, state, or privately-owned means of production.

The problem with a lot of Republicans is not what they want so much as why they want it. You are absolutely correct that their desires for less federal government, more state-level decisions, self-determination on gun ownership, an end to the welfare state, and so forth are entirely compatible with socialism. Yet a great many Republicans are traditionalist, dogmatic, highly prejudicial, inclined to sort others into groups of inferior and superior status, value a certain measure of unconditional respect for and obedience to moral authority figures, and only demand the aforementioned policies because it was what they were taught to believe in. With all due respect to my comrades on the Right, many of them are exactly the same kind of people one would expect to be uncritical supporters of Marxist Leninism or Stalinism in Russia who criticize the state only because it has strayed from the policies and traditional values they associate with what they believe to be their homeland's Soviet golden age.

There are plenty of Republicans who are as you appear to suggest - yes - but perhaps even more of those American conservatives are among the least compatible with socialist attitudes one can find in the U.S. population. Likewise, many capitalist libertarians seem so driven by self-interest and so little by compassion and concern for the welfare of others that whatever form of socialism they could be swayed to support would probably not be one I could in good conscience, as well. In my humble opinion, the social liberalists, social democrats, Greens, and "progressives" are the most compatible with and have the most potential to be converted to socialism. Centrists are the only other group I suspect American socialists can effectively appeal to without adopting the socially authoritarian, nationalist, and traditionalist attitudes of conservatives or the opposition of libertarians toward the state having any role to play in imbuing the economy with fair, compassionate rules and regulations.

Your call for decentralization of authority is one I can enthusiastically support, although I do not want the most important decisions being made at the community level. There's no way to guarantee anyone the rights and freedoms they want, and there is no way to guarantee the interests of all (or even a large majority of) people drive public policy without in the process oppressing minority groups. I fear the best humanity is capable of in government is setting up systems that direct varied, self-interested individuals and groups into conflict with each other. It has to be inefficient at rendering decisions for the sake of minimizing the threat of any one person, group, or coalition of interests dominating society as a whole. A local or provincial government is barely less vulnerable than a federal government to be captured by corrupt interests intent on abusing their newly-acquired power.

For clarification, I do think power is too centralized in the U.S. federal government. While I agree with some of your sentiments on this issue, I'm also inclined to argue in favor of having the federal level of government limit the powers of all lower tiers of government through the provisions of a national constitution. Local government is great for officials being responsive to the desires of and accountable to the masses but without some limitations put in place from above could easily use their power to wrong and exploit those who wield the least influence over capital with widespread approval and support from the rest of the community.

That helps me better understand your position, thanks.

Well, I would describe the rotten dying zombie you speak of as a worthy rival in convictions that brings many rational points, respectable ideas, and sincere intent to help serve the best interests of all in society to political discussions. I am compromising with a large fragment of the People whose demands and worldviews differ from mine instead of striving to marginalize their interests and force upon them an order they would almost certainly consider oppressive. From what I have been reading here, you and I just follow different paths to obtaining support from the public to change economic systems. My approach demands doing more to accommodate the desires of ideological opponents, for better or worse.

In some respects, yes. The GPUSA is a little too corporatist in its policy prescriptions to be in alignment with my views, and at times uses rhetoric with which I strongly disagree, but I concur that Dr. Stein is a step forward compared to most of the politicians in mainstream U.S. politics. She also received my protest ballot in the 2012 Presidential Election.

Yes, this is probably a political weakness of mine in some respects, and perhaps a strength to some extent as well.

This exposes a tricky dilemma, I think. Do we use the language of the establishment to seem more familiar and trustworthy yet risk giving off an appearance of lacking a bold vision for the future and being out of touch with the People when it comes to their demands for change, or do we use the language of outsiders to display solidarity with the People in our shared disdain of the prevailing elites at the risk of looking like radicals who are inexperienced, overly idealistic, and out of touch with reality as it is perceived by the moderate plurality of citizens? Maybe that is a less difficult question to answer when hard times undermine the legitimacy of liberal and conservative factions, and enhance that of their radical and reactionary counterparts?

You pointed out that displaying the ills of the system raises alternatives like theocracy, fascism, etc. the Left must confront and defeat to become the most desirable choice to embrace. Yet in my admittedly limited experience, explaining to Americans the flaws of capitalism results in them arguing in favor of a different form of capitalism instead of a fundamentally different system. It is the only system they were taught to consider fair. If their faith in capitalism is shaken their response usually seem to be arguments of capitalism being desirable on grounds of having flaws less severe than those of other systems - e.g. socialism.

Absolutely! Though perhaps I am mistaken in saying so, the left appears to be take on some corporatist form of social democracy in Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The centre in all of these countries is a more-pragmatic-then-idealistic interpretation of social liberalism, whereas the right is a amalgam of classical liberal economic influences and support for legislating religiously-influenced social mores and traditions. In the U.S. the political spectrum is especially narrow, with there being no viable political factions for communists, socialists, left-leaning social democrats, Christian democrats, greens, staunchly anti-paternalistic liberals, anarchists, monarchists, or fascists... with the two major parties that do win elections being so opportunistic and vague in their stated goals that even social and culturally-conservative liberals who do get representation are often dissatisfied with the decisions of their leaders.

I agree that Tsarist Russia was a bad place to start a socialist revolution but disagree insofar as I believe it could have been an excellent place to set in motion a process of gradual reforms arching from monarchy and the remnants of feudalism to democratic socialism without going through intermediary stages of capitalism under liberal democracy. If the Russian people had been culturally prepared for a revolutionary leap to socialism, Lenin's vanguardism would never have been necessary and the People would never have tolerated the Bolsheviks' many authoritarian tendencies. The gradually process of reforms I favor are intended to establish a culture compatible with the new system being constructed.

I just made it up as I was composing my last response. And yeah, I'm not fond of nationalism either. The "great country" rhetoric appeals to the right and parts of the centre and left in the States who stress the importance of patrioism and believe the United States is an exceptional country. Such sentiments are still widespread in the culture here. If anything, being unwilling to revere and celebrate with national symbols, or partake in expressions of loyalty to country is frowned on to some extent. Not everyone does it of course but nationalism lacks the stigma here that it does in much of Europe - Germany serving as a prime example of that, eh?

Why is that? I learned from conservatives to break in my reasoning from Marxist orthodoxy, reject the corporatist tendencies of modern social liberal and social democratic parties, seek reforms to streamline functions of state, oppose unnecessary nationalizations of industry, regard many forms of state intervention in the functions of the market with skepticism, to start focusing on quality of process in the economy rather than endorsing racist, classist, sexist, and business-burdening measures as a result of fixating on quality of results, and learned from them to stop demonizing and always assuming the worst affluent folk, firms, and rightists. I realized after my interactions with many of them that class struggle is an antiqued strategy, the capitalism of today is less harmful than that of a century ago, unions can be just as corrupt and inclined to betray the interests of workers as businesses, and that there are limits to how far I can pursue a multiculturalist agenda before it threatens to undermine instead of enhance the individual's freedom and quality of life.

You've my sincerest of thanks and aye, I agree that the nature of humanity is too complex for us to fully explain! In regards to corruption in politics, I equate it to the Aristotelian explanation of a perverted government being one that advances the interests of a group or class instead of seeking to advance the interests of all. Capitalism is fundamentally corrupt since it disregards the good of all in favor of the good of whoever is most privileged in their possession or influence over the means of production. Capitalism is a perversion of market economics that benefits the upper classes, yet socialism as many choose to advocate for it seems to be yet another perversion - an economic order designed to advance the interests exclusively of the proletariat.

I find it is easier to avoid advocacy of corrupt policies when borrowing a conceptual tool of Rawls known as the veil of ignorance to devise principles and rules for governing a just society while assuming in the hypothetical to lack any knowledge of ones own social status, privileges, group affiliations, etc. To the greatest extent reasonably possible I want to have an ideology with prescriptions for public policy that are in the best interests of all people - not in the narrow interests of me as someone from an upper-middle class family in an affluent Western country who is soon to descend into the ranks of workers who are lower class by local standards.

This seems like a very strong point your have provided - especially in considering that the strategy I propose would require constitutional amendments to be considered legitimate in governing institutions of the present. No matter who I manage to help elect, they will lack authority to break out of the confines of conventional politics for so long as the opposition maintains enough minority support to keep the current constitution in place. The process of reforms I support would require in excess of 2/3 support for socialism as opposed to the roughly 1/3 support it might take for a minority of socialists to spark a successful revolution.

 

Republicans are great to communicate with for tempering tenets of ones own ideology, becoming aware of flaws in ones ideas that would be difficult to discover if surrounded by people with whom one already agrees, and for challenging negative stereotypes many of the conservatives propagate regarding the Left and socialism - stereotypes that poison centrists against anything labeled "socialism" in spite of the underlying sympathies many moderates and so-called Independents have toward left-of-centre stances on many economic issues. It may not be wise to go after conservative Republicans as prospective converts since many of them are stubborn adherents to conventional thought and have authoritarian tendencies that (at least in the U.S.) compel them to inflexibly consider the Left one of the public's many foes.

It would make sense for me to work alongside libertarians, classical liberals, an-caps, paleo-conservatives, greens, and other idealistic groups here with anti-statist currents if my goal was to smash the current system and then compete with them for influence as a new one is built from scratch. In contrast, the parliamentary route demands we form a majority coalition for change. Since there are not enough radicals to form such a majority, there's no incentive to align with idealists who are unlikely to ever agree with us on much of anything beyond a common dissatisfaction with the current establishment. We would want to pull public policy in different directions, argue to no avail on account of our fiery convictions, and ultimately fail to build consensus around which reforms to implement while in power. Do you agree?

An explanation cannot be offered succinctly, but if you are interested I could set aside some time later on to offer my proposal for a synthesis of the two systems.

Maybe not rotten so much as ideologically impure or blasphemous... but yes, I imagine you are correct.

Aye - the more detail a party goes into describing its goals the greater the number of people it will reveal political disagreements with. Those people will be alienated and less likely to vote for the party in question, leaving only a few enthusiastic cadres who agree with nearly all the party calls for. As an example of this problem, none of the communist and socialist parties in the U.S. are attractive to me because the positions they openly take are in clear conflict with those I prefer, which pushes me away from them and towards relatively moderate groups like the GPUSA and centre-left Justice Party.

I suspect the opposite problem can be seen in many social democratic and some socialist parties today. They have become so vague in their goals and compromised with relatively moderate factions so many times on so many issues that they have lost all sense of what they once stood for or simply succumbed to corruption. Since the 1980s the Left has more often than not been in retreat in the West, lacking a message that resonates powerfully with people in the 21st century and losing an embarrassingly large number elections to proponents of neoliberalism. Yet when someone tries to modernize socialism and give the movement new life it seems like the old guard often decries them as traitors and capitalists.

That makes sense to me then. I was under the impression you meant that the interests of the upper classes should be marginalized and go unheard, while people who used to be wealthy are stripped of their property and then rounded up for execution - a course of action I've heard proposed before. When I argue on behalf of serving in the interests of all part of that means treating people equally before the law and affording them the same set of social rights regardless of socioeconomic status, which I now suspect is something we agree on.

That is completely true, especially in light of how good the Republican Party is at framing issues and using symbolic capital to their advantage. It is safer in U.S. politics to espouse even reactionary views than to be radical. The only ideologies that seem to receive less respect from the public here than communism and socialism are Islamism and fascism, and even then a rather sizable number of folk seem convinced that fascism is a form of socialism!

 

Grillo did it in Italy and he did lied a lot specially when he was describing the situation in Greece . In difference with young capitalists in the Americas Italy has a long tradition in both plutocracy and aristocracy not to mention that the buga buga President was rewarded with 30% of the vote for sympathising with Mussolini .

People in the states are not idiots despite where they stand politically , the approval of your congress is at what 9% and like 95% of you want money out of politics , i think that they will mobilise against the establishment if they are presented with an alternative that seem to work . The scope of the campaign should not be the dissolution of capitalism but the crippling of the state in favour of the states at first and of the counties/municipalities later .
It is out of question that capitalism heavily relies in state sponsorship to operate , how about removing the state component and see how it goes for plutocrats ? So you want to do some fracking or build a pipeline ? convince the community that they need it instead of lobbying in Washington ! So you need to get big public business to push your insurances & pharmaceuticals sorry but government has no authority , now present your offer and let it pass through a local referendum !

Well capitalism is eating itself all around the world , some may argue that this is neoliberalism and not clear cut capitalism but i think that this is the final expression of the bloodsuckers so yeah sooner or later it will be history .
I think i was clear that people who can support a system that doesn't favour them have the potential to support anything ... heck they even believe in ...god ! if you are enough convincing they can take ideological leaps and i believe that there is nothing more convincing than limiting the power of central government who is responsible for all this misery .

Yes the difference is that not all Europeans are suffering from post McCarthist syndrome yet we do have our Stalinist parties ( like CP of Greece) with the average voter age at +60 . The uncertainty of the latest economy bust has created hordes of people looking for a daddy , this can be Obama or the teachings of Ho Chi Ming

I guess you do know the boom and bust circles of capitalism , no regulation or injected social ideas can remove them so some generations will indeed suffer . In my second post i made clear that i do not believe that capitalism can be fixed no matter how hard you try and it can never be kept alive with injections . Crises are part of the deal.

I don't think that this is one of our differences , socialism is an evolutionary step from capitalism in the same way capitalism was the evolution of feudalism , none can tell which is inferior or superior only that societies slowly grow out of older systems and into new ones.
What basically changes as societies move on is the ability to work in larger numbers , specialise and becoming more tolerant of new ideas, i can go into examples but i bet you already know how this works.
There is no question that since we became self conscious we all search for paradise taking different paths diverting course when one path turns into an impasse . Fascists and theocrats believe that re-taking roads we already exhausted will lead us elsewhere but we know that they will not , same with capitalism as it's path is reaching the end many will propose reforms and injections but we already know that this will only make us walk in circles

- - - Updated - - -

Though I believe folks are generally good rather than evil and that some of humanity's basest characteristics can be resisted and partially overcome through effort, a society completely devoid of classes or hierarchies of any sort seems almost impossible to me. Likewise, I do not think it is possible to abolish private ownership of all means of production because not all forms of capital are economic. I am more partial to Pierre Bourdieu's analysis on the forms capital can take, and so far as I can tell the existence of those other kinds of capital and the complicated contests betwixt actors competing for control of them underway in a multitude of different domains make it inevitable for social hierarchies to emerge in society. There will be unearned privileges, inequality of opportunity and actionable freedom among the people, an un-meritocratic allocation of resources, and so forth.[/quote]

This is not at all bad when you are looking into collectivism , after all it will put people who share neighbourhoods and probably ideas in charge . It is a win win situation where say suburb residents will be able to make decisions the way they like getting maximum satisfaction for good ones and minimising the damage when things go badly .
To implement "face control" and apply personal stereotypes is a fantastic chance for the collectives to develop different approaches both socially and economically .
To make it more clear let's think that a county in Louisiana goes theocracy while San Francisco becomes anarcho-communist , they will both run their places as they see fit and they can be successful or greatly suck but both will have to watch how others operate and what makes them better in one aspect and worst in another. With 100s of different communities running different systems ( some may want to stick with capitalism which is okay since one community will not be able to violate the sphere of another ) in time the good ones will shine and the bad ones will be abandoned .
Again the only thing you are abolishing is the social contract with the central authority

Today's people may be as you describe them but the direction we are moving is closer and closer to Marxist ideals , we still need to make steps tho our difference is that i am a bit more daring which can be good or bad , time will tell.

HAHA very well said . Yes their positions are a travesty and this makes them ideological weaklings that you can take advantage of .
They are also a dieing breed which can be used against them in rhetoric but they have the right idea that the ills are because of the government . Angry weaklings with the right ideas are the ideal stock to start a reformation and speaking about it Martin Luther used just this : anger and a lot of reason to drive the papist establishment away , it is not that the Germans were ready to jump off the catholic train Luther gave them a kick out of it .
I am not against self interest , after all inside a community people whose personal interests are coming in conflict with the majority will be marginalised and isolated or forced to move . Say city of Orlando consists of self interested Republicans that adore everything capitalist and they are all running the place with referendums , would they be forced to make concessions ? will they start screwing each other with the approval of the majority? will they worship those who screwed the community more or competed their rivals into poverty ? I don't think so .

Greens and progressives are either shy socialists or socialist lites in my opinion .

- - - Updated - - -

This is a common mistake , you think that 49% will always be a minority but in reality while you can indeed be 49% in one decision you will be 51% in another , there is a huge variety of policies you can agree or disagree with others and if by chance you are indeed a minority in everything you can always move in an area where people are more of your kind . Central government can uphold a skinned constitution no more than 5 pages that will codify the basic rights and obligations of people like for example that murder is a crime and all people born in country's soil get citizenship , local governments can be as discriminating as they like for as long as they can not commit murder .

Say that a community doesn't like white people , if they can pay for their relocation they should be able to get rid of whites . Personally i do not understand racial segregation but as you have already understand i am fascinated with the idea or simultaneously running 100 different socio-economical projects and i bet that racist communities will fail anyway.

We disagree on that , your federal and our national governments are there because small groups of people are easier (and cheaper) to corrupt , you think the bail outs would have pass a national referendum ?

Allow me to disagree on how rational is to maintain a shadow economy 10 times bigger than the real and expecting the public to save casino capitalists every time their designed to fail system fails . It doesn't freaking work ! it is like saying that Israel and Palestine are doing better by fighting the same stupid war for the last 70 years , they do not and they need to change course ! i am all for changing course while you want to give war a chance

I have guessed that you voted for the greens .

When people are looking for something new you are giving them new , drop all the textbook communist / conservative rhetoric and innovate , people want to listen about new possible solutions to real problems . Whatever we vote in either side of the Atlantic we get neoliberalism and everyone gets tired of the ping pong between the different sides of the same table , look what Grillo did under the campaign logo "F**k them" , he is not using either classic revolutionary or reactionary language but only exposing how the government should not decide for ourselves while sticking to a very vague political plan

It is post McCarthist syndrome but not everyone was alive in the 50's , younger people want to explore different possibilities despite their logo. I don't think that you have to confront core capitalist perceptions when speaking with the brain dead just explain that central government is the supreme evil and they will be far better deciding about their lives themselves .

 

Problem is that all around Europe the parties in power are like your dual overlords , basically one party with two or three names .
Luckily the crisis forced them to drop their masks and now people know better , from what i read this is the case in the US as well with the exception that it is too early for Obama 's cheerleaders to swallow it

On Russian's defence you can not wait for reforms when the king machine guns demonstrators but at the other hand one of their Tzars (forgive me but i do not remember his name) was assassinated just after giving them their 1st constitution .
I guess none can give a satisfying answer if Russian revolution could have gone better under a different social status , Cambodia had a less developed society and they completely screw it while Italy had a more advanced society that brought farmers on confrontation with communists ... one thing is for sure : when starting a revolution contain yourself from burning churches !

I guess this is because your history traces back to the colonies , i would still be a Greek without ever having an existing Greek state and this is common for all Europeans , would they be Canadians, Americans , Bolivians without Canada, USA and Bolivia ?

And all this bring you to say that the bourgeoisie are not our enemies , fascinating ... i guess this is why there can never be cooperation between socialists and liberals , for us you are part of the problem - as i guess we are for you- . Lesser evil is still evil and unacceptable.
You will probably argue that this approach is not pragmatic yet i will remind you that we are talking about people running hot air economy , in several cases like 11th century practices ( torture, serfdom , slavery ) and they are eager to act like sharks when they smell blood in the water .

So you find capitalism corrupt but you are okay working with capitalists , sorry but this only makes sense if you consider yourself enough corrupted to adjust in modern lifestyle . No argument that state socialism is a perversion , it is even a worst one short of f***ing for virginity .
And no the scope of socialism is to eliminate social stratification not to work for the benefit of the proletariat and against the interest of minorities .
You can never ever have polices that are good for different groups of people , it is impossible for any government to satisfy each and everyone specially when you have signed a social contract giving them monopoly in violence . I will not argue that authority corrupts so why not dividing the authority into small manageable pieces up close and personal?

Yes the establishment has blurred the lines of society in a way that everyone considers himself as "middle class" which has turned the average citizen into a gadget hoarder , eating more than he needs becoming obese and voting against his interests becoming poor , unemployed and homeless . But recently i see a big increase in social awareness and this pretty much explains the resurrection of zombie topics like narcotics, homosexuality, guns, abortions , pre marital sex and so on ; like arguing about contraceptives makes us different class with conflicting interests...
I am sure at the end people will show to be more wise than biting such awful baits.

- - - Updated - - -

The revolution takes place inside people's minds so the moderates stop being moderate , i don't care if they turn into fascism , nationalism , communism or theocracy but i do care to move them out of the brain dead center . To get your reforms you first have to put reform friendly people in place and how you do that? by rising your children to be progressives , revolutionaries or even reactionaries ! what all those groups have in common? they are pro-active and they read . The fascists i have met have each consumed over 1000 books , yes they got everything totally wrong but reading moved them out of apathy , opened their eyes to how unfair and unjust current regime is and they want it to go .
This brings me back to your previous post , it is not about the left taking charge of the revolution but to provoke it , in short we don't need to increase our popularity but only decrease establishment's appeal .

Hard nuts are easier to roll . In the US you already had a history defining revolution against the British capital , is it impossible to uncover that your federal reserve is still owned by those who own BoE and built on it ? I mean you have people claiming that 11/9 was "inside job" and lots of them...
Apologies but "left of the center" sounds more like the awful Eurosocialism , i would take a sworn Hitler sympathiser over a Eurosocialist any time of the day , "left of the center" is "center that will gladly whore itself with some leftist elements to keep the machine running" .

To make sure that we run in the same course here : centrists are the conservatives because they want to conserve, GW Bush was a spawn of the radical right , yes?

As my recent experience says in times of crises people will move to edge parties anyway , those parties even if in opposition can work together to solve immediate problems ( like for example Greece exiting EU) and then it is possible to diversify politics while keeping an open mind , some reactionary policies will work others will not and same goes for revolutionary ones . The threat of old corrupted parties coming back will keep them together, i hope.
I will again point you to Italy , anger is often enough to bring diverse people together outside of ideals and beliefs , M5S chose it's members and policies via internet referendums , for what i understand they have a trial and error approach in policies but they are 100% sure what they do not want and this is "a century long applied politics" .

It is a very common disease , the smaller the party the more hardcore orthodox they get because they don't care at all how many voters they will get . Communist parties specially have a huge bibliography in their arsenal and the effect of it's use is that it makes the average voter feeling the abysmal depth of his ignorance and hate them.

Social democrat parties are not vague at all , they are neoliberal and proud about it . Implementation of social democratic policies from established European parties resemble an old whore shaving her legs , they are godawful but people trust them because they are "tested" .

Thing is that you can not modernise socialism same way you can not take communism as a dogma , you understand where we are now , think of the ideal utopia you want to get and then build up the steps that will get us from here there . There are several propositions on how to do it but as you may know there are as many communist theories as there are communists . I know that the orthodox Marxists hate my revisionism buy hey Marx was not aware of Lenin

Again , post McCarthist syndrome and lack of education .
Thank you for the huge essay

 

Who's a socialist?

 

[MENTION=57858]Mr_Truth[/MENTION]: Isn't it deliciously ironic, given what she campaigns for?

I imagine this would work if voters were well-educated and thoroughly engaged in matters of politics.

It is certainly an interesting proposition - one which makes full use of the federalist phenomenon of "laboratories of democracy." I suppose one of the reasons I have a strong attachment to the social contract and central authority is an unwillingness to give each community the freedom to make such great changes and sharply contrast with one another. I've a slightly elitist determination to force all people to have the same basic framework for government and the same basic collection of social rights that can be expanded on further if communities prefer. I do not want provincial and local authorities being able to abandon that structure or forsake any of the aforementioned rights without going through difficult political procedures at the national level.

Many of the Greens do, yes. A lot of progressives seem to be social liberalists who have yet to realize social democracy would be more compatible with their beliefs. The lines between those schools of thought are very blurry in the Untied States. Perhaps in part because of the post-McCarthyism problem you mention, those "liberals" are reluctant to use labels refer to socialism in even a shy or "lite" way. Still, I think you are right, of course.

This matter directly pertains to one of my greatest concerns about thoroughly decentralizing power from the nation and provinces to communities. I want diverse people to mingle and coexist - I want to fight the urge many have to self-segregate into distant social groups. It may lead to social unrest and eventual devolution of states into smaller, fragmented pieces. In contrast, mine is a cosmopolitan plan to join states into increasingly large unions, eventually spanning whole continents or building up to one overarching government for all of humanity.

Though I agree that a small constitution is fine, I consider the prospect of having so many socio-economic projects underway very risky. The risk is not just to the survival of the Union, but to the individual who could face oppression in their community and be told that their only recourse is to violently lash out at their local leaders or flee as refugees to other communities - communities which may also have unjust laws. That assumes they even have enough resources to go someplace else, which I fear many would not. There are so many ways the provinces and municipalities could harm elements of their own populations.

Though to be fair I must say the potential to glean knowledge from so many social experiments is great!

Yes, I think they would have passed. Then people would have been furious later on when they learned what some of that money was used for. By then, alas, the damage would already have been done. I do not think most voters have a good understanding of what is going on in politics, despite their good intentions.

I don't know. It may be a matter of perspective. I feel as though a radical approach to socialism refusing to work with the capitalists is like pushing for either Israel's destruction or Israeli annexation of Palestine, whereas the moderate position is to work toward convincing the conflicting groups to accept a two-state solution.

I suppose you are correct, yes.

I certainly hope you are right about this!

I am sorry to hear that. Part of me keeps wanting to believe those Euro coalitions in parliaments aren't so bad. Alas, we have some similar problems hidden behind different disguises?

Yeah, pretty much! And in hindsight, I suppose Tzarist Russia is a terrible situation for me to attempt an application of non-violent reform for change - seeing as the Whites were going to marginalize and intimidate (if not kill?) the Reds instead of ever gradually compromising away their interests.

Part of the rift in perspective might be explained by the fact I do not think people strongly identify with or intentionally seek to advance the interests of their socioeconomic class. Knowing that a person is among the "bourgeoisie" tells me very little about what they value, what kinds of experiences he or she has, or whether that person is of virtuous character. I have a lot of political opponents, yet they are not sorted along lines of class. Different classes seem to give individuals different kinds of biases on account of their different themes in lifestyles. Beyond that, class seems as senseless of a reason for conflict to me as differences of race, ethnicity, sex, or religion.

I would prefer not to but do not like my alternative options. To some extent I must yield in my idealism and be willing to sacrifice my purity in service of the People. Though I strive to be a man of integrity and admirable character, I have done bad things in the past and - for better or worse - will probably do so again in the future even as I try to do what seems right. Maybe someday I will become better at living up to my highest principles than I am today.

If so, how can we eliminate stratification when social hierarchies are not based solely on possession of material, economic capital? It makes me wonder if socialism is impossible, and also what to call a system if the material, economic means of production are controlled by the workers but social stratification still exists. What are your thoughts on this?

My answer is authority corrupts regardless of whether it is up close and personal or distant and impersonal. Being oppressed by a mayor or governor is no better than being oppressed by a distant tyrant. The liberal strategy I favor for defending against these abuses calls for a decentralization of power that balances it amongst different tiers of government. Putting a lot of capacity and autonomy in the hands of any one government is a bad idea - even if it only has a jurisdiction that includes a few tens of thousands of people. We agree on the need to protect the population from state abuse while favoring different methods of seeing that done.

What frightens me about decreasing the establishment's appeal is the prospect of fascists, theocrats, classical liberals, an-caps, or some other cringe-worthy faction taking charge of the revolution and winning because they campaigned aggressively to become more popular while socialists remained marginalized and thanklessly toiled to make the revolution possible. Aside from that - and perhaps this is a competitive weakness - I have a very strong aversion to negative campaigning. I'm an enabler and counselor of others by the very nature of my personality. Making unconventional ideas look inspirational, attractive, and motivating holds more appeal to me than making conventional thought seem hopeless, ugly, and depressing!

Do you think this is just a cursory difference in personal style, or might it be a dangerous bias on my part?

It might be possible to do. The "truther" crowd sort of creeps me out though. xD

Or in my case, "left that will gladly whore itself with some centrist elements to gain access to tools for building a new machine." As for the Hitler sympathizer, he or she will want to kill me at some point down the path to power. They will be an enemy of mine even if we both oppose the prevailing order. At least a eurosocialist is likely to have goals I can relate to and respect, even if we must agree to disagree on a number of controversial political issues. :<

I consider the far-left to be radical, the centre-left reformist, the centre-right conservative, and the far-right to be reactionary. GWB is conservative but with pronounced authoritarian tendencies, exposing a weaknesses in using words like "right" and "left" to describe people because those labels do not imply a bloke is an anarchist, totalitarian, or anywhere specific in-between. From my point of view, the "centre" or "moderates" are people who balance the attitudes of the reformists and conservatives or - perhaps more often - are people who don't know enough about politics to strongly support any particular, coherent assembly of ideas.

My placement of GWB on the centre-right only works within the context of U.S. politics, of course. You would be accurate in describing him as a product of the far-right if we were to look at this from the perspective of the West in general.

This is interesting to hear about, and perhaps merits further investigation on my part!

My thanks to you for the insightful replies.

 

Our Founding Fathers wisely enumerated only sufficient socialism, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

Oh,BTW the oposition of socialism in its scientific form as distinct from the utopian form ,is the the crisis of capitialism is Systemic and beyond any governments control .

the forms of government are based on concepts that AT BEST ,have their historical roots in the 17th ,18th and 19th centuries .

good run ,yes we are post ,the American Imperialist century .with the economy of the blind "market forces 'still trying to function ,humanity itself is threatened with destruction ,WW3!Its that competivitve based thingy capitialism loves ,monopoly over free trade.drive your rivals out of the Market and corner it .

Now ,it would be a Utopia if a viable form of human social economic structure didn't exist already to replace the anarchy of the 'blind market ' well the 21st century has a Global economy.A planned Global economy which is more efficent because of its economy of scale and computerisation then any ,unplanned unconcious market.

Oh, proof ask yourself "when will the recovery Come ?

Oh the triple dip recession we economists call DEPRESSION of european states like ,Greece ,Spain ,Portugual ect ect..........SYSTEMIC and general breakdown of capitalist 'nationally based Markets in everything'yesterday and the Trans-national corporations Know it.

yes,Capitialism itself is an outmoded form of economic and social organisation ,for proof stick your head out the window and smell the decay in all aspects of social life.

if you are wondering why the Working Class is the decisive force in history ,well its that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain as wage slaves ,taking control as those presently in charge and I include ev ery government of every Nation ,DO NOT HAVE A CLUE what to do and are litterally making it up as they go .

for proof turn on your TV ,in any Nation and every government seems INSANE!

Thats another thing that Unites the workers of the world ,total loathing and hatred and mistrust of all brands of capitialist government .

that in and of itself does not constitute a concious or organised opposition ,thats where the revolutionary political party of the working Class comes in ,and Lenins genius is still relevant.

represented because of the defence of marxism against all forms of class comprimise and betrayal by ,social reformisist and stalinist political formations .

cheif stalinist organisation still functioning is not Nth korea's government ,vietnam or china for the matter ,No ,its the United nations ,formed by agreement between the 2 "super powers " that emerged after WW2,the Stalinist government of the USSR,and US Imperialism fresh from the defeat of i8ts Imperialist rivals ,Japan and germany and dripping in the blood of millions .WW2= Approx,90-100 million dead.

The continent of europe in ruins and japan bombed into submission with Nukes.

The only political party that stood against Stalinism and Imperialism ,the 4th International ,the Socilaist Equality Party 's being its expression in National Political life .No other political formation except the ICFI ,Internation Committee of the 4th International can claim to be the legitimate continuity of marxism and the revolutionary traditions of the International working Class.

www.wsws.org

PS,Scientific Socialism predated the formation of the USSR,and has outlived it don't believe all the Capitilist Pudits when the prematurely pronounced the "death of socialism",and the "End of history "back in 1991.

 

Your reference to me as a "she" is a stupid thing to do and obviously the product of a mindless loser whose warped views have been defeated by the Truth. Could also be a projection of personal sexual insecurity. Do yourself a favor and keep your insults to yourself.

 

You do not know me, and I was referring to Sarah Palin as the "she" in question. What are you going on about?

 

First of all apologies for being so late in replying , i had way too many distractions to concentrate in a big post .

I think this is a trust issue you have , the central government will hold the framework / constitution so for example no community can go as far as trading slaves .You think people are political babies and in several cases you are not wrong ...we all see some posts in this forum... yet the question is why they are babies? maybe because the only political choice they made is casting a ballot once a year ? maybe because this choice can be denied and someone else takes the blame if things go badly ? maybe both?
As i said in a previous post people need to grow up and take their cities on their hands , decide and face the consequences , there is no other way to adulthood. Yes they will make mistakes , sometimes horrible ones but nobody learns without errors.

People discriminate because they consider themselves to be right over an assumption , what i am proposing is to let them experience what it means to be wrong . Cosmopolitanism is a very old concept and it was created in eastern Mediterranean where people could travel the sea and observe others doing better , Egyptians had a script , Phoenecians made excellent textiles and bronze works, Greeks had philosophy , Romans could administrate large areas , Persians had the first form of what you call "obamacare" . None of those nations became known just for their special ability but how they used the mix of everything .
We can work fine in large groups but first we must take a step back , untie ourselves from the central baby sitting and experiment .

Of course they can harm themselves , that's exactly the point ! trial and error , i never said that it will be easy after all growing up never is but under this system there is no deus ex machina , people have to sit on their butts and solve the problems themselves , accumulate experience adapt and innovate . Of course it is dangerous but i am sure that adults can work things out cause nobody wants a civil war in his hood .

Later like 6 months later not 5 years
The problem are the media not the voters but inside a community citizens can decide that "you lied to us , you are no longer licensed to broadcast here" and be done with them .

You never work with the capitalists , you always work for the capitalists. Since you brought the case of Israel i bet you know that both sides are reactionary , what they need is a revolution like you know ban any expression of both islam and judaism outside homes and temples and enjoy everyone rioting for the same purpose ( like jews and muslims did against circumcision ban in Germany) , let this become the main issue and never solve it
Moderation does not solve problems , never.

Well yes , with the exception of Bush (radical right) all the rest are the same , in Europe we only use more fancy names like for example previous Cypriot government had a Eurozone / fiscal consolidation friendly communist party on the head

They had several different sides to a degree that the Bolsheviks had to execute the tzar and his family to secure that they will not fall / become the puppets of another faction . In Turkey Ataturk was playing alone , he destroyed the corrupted empire , repelled the imperialists , exterminated the minorities , introduced a secular state and be done with that, Russia was too big and diverse for Lenin to do the same.

Sorry for not being clear, we are talking about classes here not people , i know wealthy communists and poor self centred morons without class consciousness and i am sure you do too . Where people stand will become clear when they are asked to take sides .

Sincerely good luck with that .

With materialism out and under the form of self-government a hierarchy in modern world can be based on physical or psychological traits, leadership , charisma and in general personal attributes that die when the person(s) who has/have them die(s) , there are no classes attached to them . I think that the only stratified there can be schools of thought dominating one another but yet under a flexible political system everything is put on test and to be dominant you have to be right . OK i have no problem if there is indeed a low class of people who are consistently wrong but again none is as stupid as this.
In another scenario class can be made out sexes , races , religions and so on , systems based in those forms of segregation will always fail because they are not moving forward fast enough to keep with the others... you saw what happen to the fossils calling themselves GOP

The system you describe is like the late Spanish aristocracy where the high born were dirt poor and they had to "relegate" themselves into conquistadors where their common thuggery shone .

No argument on mayors or local governors but i don't see how a community where everyone dedicates 1 hour per day to read , propose and vote over the internet can oppress itself . With the introduction of robotics and other new technologies we will have more free time in our hands to dedicate on state matters . Think of the French model where in paper the president governs through referendums (ok they have screwed that but it was intentional , in communism as you know the power to remove an officer is as important -if not more- as the power to install one.

You are right other factions will take charge but with the exception of anacaps (who well, they are a slightly less pragmatic version of neoliberalism ) all the others are old failed systems where the establishment will seek refuge and they will very soon collapse .
We have a fascist resurrection here in Greece because people are hopeless but (the vast majority of) women will never side with those chauvinist pigs so they are a dead case , same with theocrats

I think your style is kind of limited , of course i am not judging i just prefer patience . You know if we jump from now to our personal utopias we will not recognise them because the "what if" questions will always be there while deconstructing the available "what ifs" will makes us know that this path was correct.

Left with "centrist elements" is no longer left . It looks like you know very little about eurosocialist scum , usually people are not able to talk with them because the scum are stealing their breaths .

Ok so we agree although we have different perspective because we live in different continents .
Yes right and left are too generic as terms and it is funny how Obama came out as a "leftist" but at the other hand other famous leftists like Pol Pot would love the idea of drone killing their citizens.



Thanks for the replies and out of curiosity what are you reading if you are reading right now ?

 

What can be the form of this global planned economy ? even if i doubt it's efficiency i can not argue that it is more pragmatic from casino capitalism but yet how you jump from today to tomorrow with the current social traits?

HaHa yeah but this is how humans work since forever

To some parts yes but Lenin was himself a vanguardist taking decisions in locked rooms together with his friends , those things will not fly tomorrow cause people want access to decision making .

True Trotskyists did stood against Stalinism yet as i posted earlier Marx did made concessions with the bourgeois .

 

The last pertinent book I read was Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. I've also been writing a book on political theory for a few years, and the readings I digest while working on the project are mostly scholarly journal articles. The pieces I've been reading as of late have been on subjects of welfare capitalism, ordoliberalism, social markets, and variants of anarcho-capitalism.

A few days ago I picked up some books from the local library, so to further answer your question I'm about to start reading Noam Chomsky's How the World Works (containing What Uncle Sam Really Wants; The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many; Secrets, Lies and Democracy; and The Common Good), Isaac Kramnick's The Portable Edmund Burke, and The Little Book of Economics: How the Economy Works in the Real World by Greg Ip!

 

Socialism?

Why are the forum **********s to concede that Obama is the best president they ever had???