Socialism |OT| The Dawn of a Red Era

House_Of_Lightning · Dec 3, 2017

Mezentine said:
You have, in various ways, but I would specifically appreciate a refresher on what you think "self described socialists" currently should be doing, as tangible actions. If you wouldn't mind?

Look at what life has been like under the world's greatest upheavals and revolutions. Wouldn't it be better to be able to recall adjunct and essential skills that aid in surviving revolutionary times than it would be to simply quote Lenin?

You seem to imply that workers will come to the correct conclusions on their own.

Yes. You can not dictate a solution to a group's struggles. There isn't an idea to be built towards.

What do you say when the working class adopts fascist ideas then?

There will always be the danger of reactionaries who support Capital as it removes the facade of formal democracy and uses violence to discipline revolutionary elements. Fascism is no different than any other examples of violently authoritarian Capitalism.

There is no "answer" to how to prevent the reactionary element and every revolutionary situation is constrained by its own material condition, so there can simply not be one single answer. We live in a bourgeois and Capitalist society, theoretical ideas are marked by our bourgeois and capitalist way of thinking. We think of Revolution and worker's movements as something that requires a milestone to be set and then "managed". That is bourgeois and incompatible with a society that exists outside of these social structures.

The revolution will see victories and defeats until the real Party and the real Vanguard is developed and theoretically sound.

If you want to read some more, then:

http://libcom.org/library/activism-amadeo-bordiga

the people like me who are active socialists are part of the working class.

When describing your personal ideals above not a single one of them was "part of the working class" and that your future career is one of the intelligentsia. So please forgive me if I take that at face value and assume you are not part of the working class.

I can't believe you honestly view those revolutions as playing out with the influence of no politics whatsoever.

I didn't say that they were carried out without the influence of any politics. I said that those Revolutions were not Maoist, Bolshevik, or Liberal. Those Revolutions were Proletarian and the politics were Proletarian.

The fact you've gotten so angry at me for actually pointing out that you probably have no involvement in genuine political struggle is telling.

You're a Liquidationist Trot and the only reason you're involved in these "political struggles" is to assuage your own bourgeois guilt.

Playing the game of "who's more Revolutionary" like "Do you even Lift Bro?" There's that Liberal/Identity Lifestylism.

Anyway almost all of your arguments seem to lend towards the working class not needing any form of working class organisation and just coming automatically to their own conclusions.

Yes, because I don't think the working class are morons who need to be disciplined into following the correct political path.

Sorry that's not even a correct use of the term "Liquidationist"

Liquidationism is the ideological liquidation of the revolutionary character of the Vanguard Party when the Party loses it's revolutionary roots to the working class. Stalinism, Trotskyism, Etc.

The issue I see here is that is completely ahistorical

Every Revolution is the result of the working class democratically revolting, not because some bourgeois party that calls itself Socialist demanded it happen.

and also seems to ignore the fact that the bourgeoisie themselves have organisation and hegemony over the working class

Yeah, it's called The State.

but I'm also convinced you are a troll, because I've seen your ideas on the internet and there's nothing original about them

You Trots and Stalinists have been spouting the same ideas for over 100 years and have a success rate of Zero. It's a failure and the working class has turned against you so your only excuse is to assume that the working class are just stupid and need to be disciplined. You don't get to call someone else unoriginal. Your program of failure has remained the same for a century.

Lafiel · Dec 3, 2017

House_of_lighting a lot of what you just wrote is just the typical sectarian nonsense that's a plague on the radical left, alongside creating a bunch of strawmans of my own politics, like I'm not even a trot and to imply I'm only involved in activism for my own bourgeoisie guilt is funny because i'm poor as fuck and my whole family is as well. I'm a socialist because i want to be part of the struggle to make the world a better place nothing more, and your accusation of me being part of the intelligentsia is silly left posturing, people's class is defined by their relationship to the means of production and the question of whether you live off someones wealth or have to work for wage labor. I don't think there's anyone here on this site that doesn't fit in that latter category.

There will always be the danger of reactionaries who support Capital as it removes the facade of formal democracy and uses violence to discipline revolutionary elements. Fascism is no different than any other examples of violently authoritarian Capitalism.

There is no "answer" to how to prevent the reactionary element and every revolutionary situation is constrained by its own material condition, so there can simply not be one single answer. We live in a bourgeois and Capitalist society, theoretical ideas are marked by our bourgeois and capitalist way of thinking. We think of Revolution and worker's movements as something that requires a milestone to be set and then "managed". That is bourgeois and incompatible with a society that exists outside of these social structures.

The revolution will see victories and defeats until the real Party and the real Vanguard is developed and theoretically sound.

Again everything you write here just seems to imply that the revolution will just spring forth automatically and there's no point of any left-wing activist to participate in political activity or to intervene into any political movement. Personally I'm more interested in the question of how we can advance the struggle here and today, and have no presumptions about my own political ideas (or my own party) being the ultimate answer to this question, but I think the most important thing is to be active, broad, non-sectarian and work in the most productive way matter with what forces are available and see how we can advance the interests of our class from there. None of which anything you've posted here seems to provide a simple concrete way forward.

In my experience I've seen social movements stop two road projects, defend a public housing estate from being sold off to private developers, a right-to-work IR scheme being stopped in it's tracks and CSG being effectively banned in the state of Victoria in Australia (where I live). The organised left has played a key role in strengthening and supporting those movements from how small and marginal they are whilst learning from the developing consciousness of working class people coming together in those struggles.

Personally my basic philosophy of politics is to be involved and be part of the struggle and figure out what the best way to advance the interests of the working class from there. I really just want to see you provide something concrete on how that is done, otherwise everything you write here is just posturing about how non-bourgeoisie you are compared to everyone else.

sphagnum · Dec 3, 2017

House_Of_Lightning said:
Look at what life has been like under the world's greatest upheavals and revolutions. Wouldn't it be better to be able to recall adjunct and essential skills that aid in surviving revolutionary times than it would be to simply quote Lenin?

Would I be correct in assuming then that your ideal socialist organization would be one that primarily focuses on theoretical and martial training rather than inserting itself directly in ongoing politics?

I read the Bordiga article you linked and while I think he made a lot of cogent points about how activism can become an end in and of itself separating the activist from the socialist cause, I couldn't shake the feeling that at the same time he was being defensive about being on the outside looking in, relatively speaking, at that point. "It doesn't matter how small the organization is or how involved it is in the actual workplace, what matters is that we're analyzing things with correct theory as a set up for the future!" Well, that's true, and it is a form of labor, but it also doesn't speak too well about the health of that tendency.

sphagnum · Dec 4, 2017

On this day in 1969 Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were murdered by the FBI and CPD. RIP comrades!

Mezentine · Dec 4, 2017

Excellent thread I stumbled on about Communism, Socialism, and the long tail of Colonialism and various fronts of friction

Hat22 · Dec 4, 2017

Mezentine said:
Excellent thread I stumbled on about Communism, Socialism, and the long tail of Colonialism and various fronts of friction

I think she is wrong to argue that western ideas are bad by virtue of being western or that her own people's ideas are better by virtue of being her people's ideas.

Mezentine · Dec 4, 2017

Hat22 said:
I think she is wrong to argue that western ideas are bad by virtue of being western or that her own people's ideas are better by virtue of being her people's ideas.

Whoops sorry I'm referring to his long commentary thread in reaction to hers, read his tweets below the linked one

Hat22 · Dec 4, 2017

Mezentine said:
Whoops sorry I'm referring to his long commentary thread in reaction to hers, read his tweets below the linked one

I've always found it interesting how many communists reject nation-states and ethnic nationalism but are in favor of these things when it comes to indigenous peoples. That seems to be a very universal thing.

Anyway, I'm not well read on this but I think the Americans lack of focus on native rights and colonialism comes down to the ideas of racial harmony that took fire during the 1970s. Native people are to be part of the whole as far as they are concerned. In Mexico it's the same with that "cosmic race" thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Raza_Cósmica

If anything, the reaction to her post is not eurocentric but universal. They want socialism to be united, not divided along racial categories. I think this mostly comes from Marx not being all that nuanced when talking about the great clash of classes and from pure idealism.

Also, it's not like the left has ignored native-rights in the Americas. In Canada, these issues are dominant and in the US the left has rallied to aid tribes against oil companies on many occasions.

House_Of_Lightning · Dec 4, 2017

sphagnum said:
Would I be correct in assuming then that your ideal socialist organization would be one that primarily focuses on theoretical and martial training rather than inserting itself directly in ongoing politics?

I read the Bordiga article you linked and while I think he made a lot of cogent points about how activism can become an end in and of itself separating the activist from the socialist cause, I couldn't shake the feeling that at the same time he was being defensive about being on the outside looking in, relatively speaking, at that point. "It doesn't matter how small the organization is or how involved it is in the actual workplace, what matters is that we're analyzing things with correct theory as a set up for the future!" Well, that's true, and it is a form of labor, but it also doesn't speak too well about the health of that tendency.

Sure, if I need to be boxed into an "ideal", then a primary goal of a decent Socialist organization should be the criticism of other Organizations that stray from the Socialist line by participating in bourgeois politics and thus becoming a bourgeois party themselves. They should argue against liquidationism, statism, opportunism, and lifestyleism. Most importantly, arguing from a psoition of being within the working class and not from outside or as a professional Party apparatchik. If they want to get more involved then education is a good place to spend your time. However, merely teaching someone isn't unique to Socialism.

But ultimately, as stated before, good Socialists should be involved in minority struggles. The issue is when Socialist groups participate in activism and substitute it for Socialism or the Socialist Movement.

"The Fight For 15" is a noble cause, but it's a Capitalist Solution within the Capitalist Framework. And the reason that substituting this type of Activism for Socialism itself is that you end up with false divergencies that purport the Capitalist Welfare State as being synonymous with Socialism. You end up with Statist charades like Bernie Sanders becoming the public face of Socialism. Or, worse yet, Statist's like Stalin. Trade Unions are not Socialist and shouldn't ever be conflated with Socialism. As mentioned above about "merely teaching someone isn't unique to Socialism". Capitalism is perfectly fine with fulfilling worker's needs as a means to pacify the worker's movement and keep itself in power. It will adopt or cast off minority and worker issues as it sees fit.

but it also doesn't speak too well about the health of that tendency.

I don't see my view points as a tendency. Like Marx himself wasn't describing "Socialism" through the lens of an ideology but describing a process that occurs in the natural world so should Socialists be describing the Socialist current in the working class and making a distinction between a legitimate Socialist Program and simple Capitalist Opportunism.

House_Of_Lightning · Dec 4, 2017

Hat22 said:
I've always found it interesting how many communists reject nation-states and ethnic nationalism but are in favor of these things when it comes to indigenous peoples. That seems to be a very universal thing.

A "Nation of People" and a Nation State/Ethnic Nationalism are two different things. Nations of People are congregations and examples of a people's natural culture and way of life. The Nation State was the bourgeoisie replacement for political representation. When Feudalism was destroyed there needed to be a national character to replace the national identity lost with the fall of the Aristocracy. That identity became the Nation State.

"Leftist" and "Communist" support for Nation States and Petite Bourgeois movements in the third world is a Stalinist tactic used by Stalinist parties and other parliamentarian, fraudulent, "Socialist" parties post WW2.

sphagnum · Dec 4, 2017

House_Of_Lightning said:
Sure, if I need to be boxed into an "ideal", then a primary goal of a decent Socialist organization should be the criticism of other Organizations that stray from the Socialist line by participating in bourgeois politics and thus becoming a bourgeois party themselves. They should argue against liquidationism, statism, opportunism, and lifestyleism. Most importantly, arguing from a psoition of being within the working class and not from outside or as a professional Party apparatchik. If they want to get more involved then education is a good place to spend your time. However, merely teaching someone isn't unique to Socialism.

But ultimately, as stated before, good Socialists should be involved in minority struggles. The issue is when Socialist groups participate in activism and substitute it for Socialism or the Socialist Movement.

"The Fight For 15" is a noble cause, but it's a Capitalist Solution within the Capitalist Framework. And the reason that substituting this type of Activism for Socialism itself is that you end up with false divergencies that purport the Capitalist Welfare State as being synonymous with Socialism. You end up with Statist charades like Bernie Sanders becoming the public face of Socialism. Or, worse yet, Statist's like Stalin. Trade Unions are not Socialist and shouldn't ever be conflated with Socialism. As mentioned above about "merely teaching someone isn't unique to Socialism". Capitalism is perfectly fine with fulfilling worker's needs as a means to pacify the worker's movement and keep itself in power. It will adopt or cast off minority and worker issues as it sees fit.

I don't see my view points as a tendency. Like Marx himself wasn't describing "Socialism" through the lens of an ideology but describing a process that occurs in the natural world so should Socialists be describing the Socialist current in the working class and making a distinction between a legitimate Socialist Program and simple Capitalist Opportunism.

I don't disagree with any of this tbh.

Mezentine said:
Excellent thread I stumbled on about Communism, Socialism, and the long tail of Colonialism and various fronts of friction

I read that LANDS article he referred to, and it was interesting - gave me a better understanding of the theory behind New Democracy at least - but I've always been confused about how exactly a Third Worldist would want to approach criticism of movements they support. Like, in the pdf, the writer rants about how it's improper for western leftists to criticize Venezuela or the DPRK as "not socialist" because western leftists don't have skin in the game in comparison to non-first-worlders, but come on. North Korea ain't socialist. It doesn't even pretend to be anymore. I understand the author's frustration with relatively (sometimes completely) well off first worlders armchair revolutionizing but that doesn't absolve a tyranny of its tyrannical actions.

Mr.Mike · Dec 4, 2017

I guess Maduro is a bitcoin guy now.

sphagnum · Dec 5, 2017

Mr.Mike said:
I guess Maduro is a bitcoin guy now.

How is this even supposed to work when a huge amount of Venezuelans don't have steady internet access?

CannonFodder52 · Dec 5, 2017

Hey, nice thread

sphagnum · Dec 5, 2017

In case anyone was wondering what happened with all that money that DSA members raised for Charlottesville victims, this dude on Reddit seems to have found the answer:

OK, I just got off of a conference call with Maria Svart and some other people about an hour or so ago. I asked her specifically about this towards the end, and she addressed it:

She said that the Anchorage Chapter set up the fund without calling National, which she said that while she admired their pro-activity, they kind of blind-sided National and once it went viral, National didn't know what to do with the $250,000+ that was raised.

They convened and considered several option, including giving it to the DSA Charlottesville to directly hand out, but decided against it because there would "be no paper trail" as she put it, which I took to mean there would be no accountability (in other words, whoever was managing the money in the Cville chapter could just take the $250,000 and bounce, which would be the worst possible outcome and probably totally destroy the DSA as an institution once word got out to the media that "we" had stolen a quarter-million dollars of donations for victims of the Cville terrorist attack.

They were also weary about just giving it to the Charlottesville city government or some non-profit, for fear that "they would use the money to build a memorial or community center instead of giving it to the people who need it."

So, they found a group called the National Compassion Fund (NCF), and decided it was best to give the entire nut to them so that they could distribute it among the community. I was under the mistaken assumption from Twitter that the NCF is a part of the DSA. They are not, they are a completely different organization with no ties to the DSA. She said they chose the NCF because "they set up distribution centers the area, and distribute the money directly to the victims."

So, to sum it all up, the DSA no longer has the ~$250,000 of donations. They've given it all to the National Compassion Fund, who are in the process of setting up distribution centers in Charlottesville to deliver the money directly to the victims. If the slowness of the process is frustrating you (as it is me), we have to take it up with the NCF, because the DSA no longer has control over how quickly the funds are given out.

I have to admit, I may have been duped by the @maydayRVA Twitter post. I don't know if he's intentionally smearing the DSA or what, but it turns out his "facts" and accusations are all inaccurate and baseless. Maria was happy to explain exactly what's going on, and why they did the things they did, and what to expect to happen next. She was completely transparent with me, and I'm sure that a simple phone-call to National by ANYONE would've cleared it up just as easily.

https://www.reddit.com/r/demsocialists/comments/7gnuuw/national_still_hasnt_released_the_250k_they/

Deleted member 721 · Dec 5, 2017

Idk If this was posted before its Very good
LoL
3 Pages only
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/210

Shy · Dec 6, 2017

Eylos said:
Idk If this was posted before its Very good
LoL
3 Pages only
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/210

Fucking lmao.

House_Of_Lightning · Dec 6, 2017

Vladimir Lenin and his Bolsheviks imagined a world completely remade, on the principles of justice, equality, and solidarity. They imagined a world where everyone works together for the common good, free from the class divisions that tore Russian apart, and continue to tear the world apart. The workers would no longer have to obey their bosses, women would no have to obey their husbands, and everyone would live in true freedom and equality. They imagined a state that was controlled by the common workers, not the powerful property owning elite.

Oh thank God Lenin and the Bolshevik's came along and spread ideas like "common good" and "classless society" and "justice". Man, if it hadn't been them and their welfare State the worker's would never know what to do with their lives.

Today we are taught that we cannot imagine a new form of society, only make minor, superficial changes to what we have.

Lenin imagined a new society. This author just imagines the same society but with only minor, superficial, changes like authoritarian Capitalist welfarism.

Oh, and also, let's not put Stalin in charge next time.

Author's authoritarian Capitalist Welfarism requires a Stalin.

sphagnum · Dec 6, 2017

House_Of_Lightning said:
Author's authoritarian Capitalist Welfarism requires a Stalin.

This seems like a bit of a leap. All states are authoritarian technically, but that doesn't mean they would all necessarily require a total dictatorial figure.

Deleted member 721 · Dec 6, 2017

Idk If i post this video on leftist YouTube,

House_Of_Lightning · Dec 6, 2017

sphagnum said:
This seems like a bit of a leap. All states are authoritarian technically, but that doesn't mean they would all necessarily require a total dictatorial figure.

A Literal Stalin as a single personality cult figure or an Ambiguous "Stalin" as an origin of ideological authoritarianism. Whichever floats your boat.

Mr.Mike · Dec 6, 2017

Eylos said:
Idk If i post this video on leftist YouTube,

So would the state be forcing people to send some of the value of their labour to help people out elsewhere? Or can we just be confident that that people would choose to do so? I do agree that people would do so. Largely because many already do. But that would seem to contradict his point that a capitalist would never donate to the needy.

How much of these stats are caused by capitalists making choices where they value their profits more than people? Certainly many. But also many of these countries suffering from extreme poverty don't really have strong property rights, or capital, or people working for people who own capital. Is that capitalism? It would seem to really stretch the definition to basically anything you don't like.

There's also an assumption that if only enough wealth was put towards helping the poor that this all could be solved, but I'm very skeptical. There is a already a lot of money spent of foreign aid. Certainly far more than the BadMouseProductions says would be enough to eradicate hunger or lack of access to clean drinking water. So what gives? Are aid organization so amazingly incompetent? Or is there more to these issues than a lack of money being thrown at them?

Deleted member 721 · Dec 6, 2017

Mr.Mike said:
But also many of these countries suffering from extreme poverty don't really have strong property rights, or capital, or people working for people who own capital.

???
The property rights is very well protected in the third world, more than life. Which country you are talking about that property IS not secured? 7 Million are starving in my country, and its a very capitalist country... 9th economy in the world. So there's capital.
And you are forgetting that many of the owners of the third world are in the First world.

House_Of_Lightning · Dec 6, 2017

So would the state be forcing people to send some of the value of their labour to help people out elsewhere? Or can we just be confident that that people would choose to do so? I do agree that people would do so. Largely because many already do. But that would seem to contradict his point that a capitalist would never donate to the needy.

Taxes.

Mr.Mike · Dec 6, 2017

Eylos said:
???
The property rights is very well protected in the third world, more than life. Which country you are talking about that property IS not secured? 7 Million are starving in my country, and its a very capitalist country... 9th economy in the world. So there's capital.
And you are forgetting that many of the owners of the third world are in the First world.

Plenty of counties where the economy is largely subsistence agriculture. I'm not really sure how that's capitalism.

House_Of_Lightning said:
Taxes.

Are taxes compatible with socialism?

House_Of_Lightning · Dec 7, 2017

Deleted member 721 · Dec 7, 2017

Mr.Mike said:
Plenty of counties where the economy is largely subsistence agriculture. I'm not really sure how that's capitalism.

Are taxes compatible with socialism?

There's colonialism and neo colonialism. All third world countries economy is not subsistense agriculture, this would be a big pain to research, because i think you are talking about Africa, and for that you must forget, colonialism, slavery, exploitation of the past and see which countries are not neo colonies today.

Deleted member 721 · Dec 7, 2017

Hahaha This meme is good now

Deleted member 721 · Dec 8, 2017

Argentinian congressman injured by the police when helping Workers in a Strike that occupied the factory, workers injured, three in jail.

I dont have an english source.

sphagnum · Dec 8, 2017

Pretty brutal looking injury there, good on the congressman though.

sphagnum · Dec 8, 2017

Some interesting stuff here, Verso asked a number of academics about their opinions on the return of fascism:

https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3514-is-fascism-making-a-comeback

House_Of_Lightning · Dec 8, 2017

Chiara Bottici's first two paragraphs gave me a headache.

sphagnum · Dec 8, 2017

House_Of_Lightning said:
Chiara Bottici's first two paragraphs gave me a headache.

It's written pretty badly.

Mezentine · Dec 8, 2017

sphagnum said:
It's written pretty badly.

I swear leftist writing has such a high quality delta. You get brilliantly constructed stuff and poorly written stuff and seemingly not a ton of middling work. Still, reading through the piece to pull out a few ideas

Lunar Wolf · Dec 9, 2017

So I know religion doesn't really mesh well with Socialism but if you were to use a Roman/Greek goddess as a symbol to represent a socialist society, what would it be? I'm thinking a counterpart to Lady Liberty.

(Currently writing a short story where an independent California is edging closer to a socialist society and want a statue to represent its difference as a contrast to the East Coast, New York, Wall Street, Neoliberalism etc.)

sphagnum · Dec 9, 2017

The Gunslinger said:
So I know religion doesn't really mesh well with Socialism but if you were to use a Roman/Greek goddess as a symbol to represent a socialist society, what would it be? I'm thinking a counterpart to Lady Liberty.

(Currently writing a short story where an independent California is edging closer to a socialist society and want a statue to represent its difference as a contrast to the East Coast, New York, Wall Street, Neoliberalism etc.)

Nike, because communism will win.

(Irony points for association with shoe branding)

Deleted member 721 · Dec 9, 2017

This is the mix of catholic theology + marxism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

Idk about greek good thought, maybe one that takes Care of the poor and workers?

Hat22 · Dec 9, 2017

House_Of_Lightning said:
A "Nation of People" and a Nation State/Ethnic Nationalism are two different things. Nations of People are congregations and examples of a people's natural culture and way of life. The Nation State was the bourgeoisie replacement for political representation. When Feudalism was destroyed there needed to be a national character to replace the national identity lost with the fall of the Aristocracy. That identity became the Nation State.

"Leftist" and "Communist" support for Nation States and Petite Bourgeois movements in the third world is a Stalinist tactic used by Stalinist parties and other parliamentarian, fraudulent, "Socialist" parties post WW2.

They're pretty big into blood when it comes to admitting new people into their nations. Even conceding that, it seems like people are just making a random exception.

Eylos said:
Idk If i post this video on leftist YouTube,

Attributing deaths to whole ideologies never made sense to me. The way we allocate which deaths count is very arbitrary.

Does Pol Pot count towards communism or is that nullified by Communist Vietnam ending the nightmare or by the fact that US kinda kickstarted the whole mess through its illegal bombings? Or was that just not real communism? Do deaths from inactivity count? How about the deaths caused by the embracing of Lysenkoism or suicides caused by the stresses of capitalism? Does fascism count under capitalism's death toll? Even the Grenfell tower example is hard to gauge because it was public housing run by what I understand is a crown corporation.

Lunar Wolf · Dec 9, 2017

Eylos said:
This is the mix of catholic theology + marxism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

Idk about greek good thought, maybe one that takes Care of the poor and workers?

I tried looking for an egalitarian goddess and came upon Aequitas but seems too capitalist to me:

Aequitas or Equitas is the deified personification of equity or fairness. She is most often depicted holding a pair of scales to represent fair dealings and equality. She is shown in a dignified pose, wearing a diadem and holding a scepter or staff, and sometimes She is also given a cornucopia, the symbol of abundance and wealth. She represents true fairness, a different concept from justice—for justice is under the law, and must follow it to the letter. Equity, however, is beyond the laws made by humankind, which, however fairly intended, must always be imperfect. Equity is what allows the law to be modified in circumstances that could not have been foreseen by the original lawmakers; with honesty and conscience, the concept of equity has played a role in shaping justice systems through the ages. This is shown in the definition given for the Latin word aequitas,which, besides "fairness" and "impartiality", also means "symmetry and evenness", eloquently represented by Her balancing scales.

Some have seen in Her a Goddess of honest merchants and fair dealings in contracts, negotiations, and other merchant-related endeavors; by this definition the cornucopia is seen as a symbol of the wealth to be gained through fair enterprise.

Bonen no Max'd · Dec 9, 2017

I had no idea Mao tried to kill all of China's birds. That owns so hard, I'm a Maoist now.

Lafiel · Dec 9, 2017

On the topic of "communism" supposed crimes I don't think there's a need to whitewash it, but I think there is no doubt that people who push this agenda of "Communism killed 100 million people" always tend to overlook the constant injustice that occurs under capitalism and in a way condescendingly put down the whole idea that we should strive for a better world that's not uh capitalism.

Also the analysis esp what is applied to the Bolsheviks as being utopian idealists is nonsensical and not a honest portrayal of what the Bolsheviks represented.

Lunar Wolf · Dec 9, 2017

Another question: Can one be a socialist and yet not be part of the proletariat? Like say they're part of a wealthy family and do not work.

sphagnum · Dec 9, 2017

Bonen no Max'd said:
I had no idea Mao tried to kill all of China's birds. That owns so hard, I'm a Maoist now.

Deleted member 721 · Dec 9, 2017

The Gunslinger said:
I tried looking for an egalitarian goddess and came upon Aequitas but seems too capitalist to me:

Aequitas or Equitas is the deified personification of equity or fairness. She is most often depicted holding a pair of scales to represent fair dealings and equality. She is shown in a dignified pose, wearing a diadem and holding a scepter or staff, and sometimes She is also given a cornucopia, the symbol of abundance and wealth. She represents true fairness, a different concept from justice—for justice is under the law, and must follow it to the letter. Equity, however, is beyond the laws made by humankind, which, however fairly intended, must always be imperfect. Equity is what allows the law to be modified in circumstances that could not have been foreseen by the original lawmakers; with honesty and conscience, the concept of equity has played a role in shaping justice systems through the ages. This is shown in the definition given for the Latin word aequitas,which, besides "fairness" and "impartiality", also means "symmetry and evenness", eloquently represented by Her balancing scales.

Some have seen in Her a Goddess of honest merchants and fair dealings in contracts, negotiations, and other merchant-related endeavors; by this definition the cornucopia is seen as a symbol of the wealth to be gained through fair enterprise.

Penia - goddes of the poor
Ponos - god of hard labor

House_Of_Lightning · Dec 9, 2017

The Gunslinger said:
Another question: Can one be a socialist and yet not be part of the proletariat? Like say they're part of a wealthy family and do not work.

As long as you're not a reactionary and are on the progressive side of history, sure.

Mezentine · Dec 9, 2017

Hat22 said:
Attributing deaths to whole ideologies never made sense to me. The way we allocate which deaths count is very arbitrary.

Does Pol Pot count towards communism or is that nullified by Communist Vietnam ending the nightmare or by the fact that US kinda kickstarted the whole mess through its illegal bombings? Or was that just not real communism? Do deaths from inactivity count? How about the deaths caused by the embracing of Lysenkoism or suicides caused by the stresses of capitalism? Does fascism count under capitalism's death toll? Even the Grenfell tower example is hard to gauge because it was public housing run by what I understand is a crown corporation.

Here's how I've been...trying to wrestle with these sorts of questions lately: we need to be very specific about how we define the word "responsible" in these conversations.
Capitalism is absolutely "responsible for" the suffering, inequality, and preventable harm that has occurred under it over the last few centuries in the sense that, as the dominant economic structure, it is responsible for both everything, good and bad, that has occurred. When you hold all the power and bad things happen, the buck stops with you. And of course we can ascribe some malicious, or at the very least greedy, agency to those at the top who use it in full knowledge of how they gain from exploitation.

On the other hand, we should not allow ourselves to frame suffering, death and harm under capitalism as unique phenomenons, and capitalism as a unique malaise. I think it becomes easy to lean this way sometimes given how directly capitalism negatively effects many of our lives, but its important not to forget both the ways in which previous attempts at communism went violently wrong and, almost more importantly, how really shitty life was for 95% of the population of the planet since people started building villages.

All of us, or most of us, believe that socialism is a vision of social organization that is fairer, more equitable, and results in less suffering for everyone compared to capitalism. That doesn't make capitalism a perversion of prior human life though. While it is true that prior to capitalism most people were not alienated from their labor, it is also true that their labor was almost universally sustenance farming.

House_Of_Lightning · Dec 9, 2017

Socialism isn't about moral or ethic highgrounds. Playing "who killed who more?" is the arena of the politically bankrupt.

Also, now how I was all "Identifying as a Socialist doesn't mean anything?" in a few pages in this thread? Pol Pot is a shining example right there.

Mezentine · Dec 9, 2017

Come election day, Alabamians will have the sacred honor of participating in the democratic process by voting for either a child rapist or a weak-kneed white blob in a suit to go work on Capitol Hill for some unknown corporate donor. Personally, I can't say that I will be taking part.

Stuff like this is why my attitude towards the DSA remains one of...hopeful observation, than active solidarity.
I'm not going to say that her critiques of Doug Jones are invalid, although I might quibble with how some things are framed, but if you want to enact change through the mechanism of public elections, and the DSA largely sets itself up as an organization that wants to use public elections as a significant tool for enacting change, then you have to actually play the game of public elections and act strategically.

If your attitude is that public elections in the USA are pointless, or hopelessly compromised, or structurally unsound for any kind of revolutionary change, that's a different conversation we can have, but if you would consider casting your vote for "the right person" if they came along, if you do still believe that voting people into power is a way to accomplish goals then, IMO, you have a duty to consider the utility of your actions, including the utility of abstention.

Lafiel · Dec 9, 2017

Reading that quote is completely correct, I'm not sure what other position the author of that article should be taking. In fact given DSA and their history of being soft on the democrats this is a welcome progression for them and gives me confidence of their potential as a alternative left current in the future of US politics, and unlike say the ISO which has a problematic position on running in elections despite their correct assessment of the democrats, the DSA is at least running candidates that are winning positions of power so this comes off as more than just posturing.

Edit: Although one thing to note and I think we both we made this mistake I wouldn't necessarily see a medium article written by a DSA member as being reflective of the position of the DSA as a party itself.

House_Of_Lightning · Dec 9, 2017

Here, let me critique her Not-Left-Wing Analysis of Doug Jones from the Actual Left POV:

The problem with Doug Jones is revealed not when you point out what he hasn't done that Roy Moore has, but rather when you look at what Doug Jones says he plans to do, or, as is often the case, not do. At a time when the already abysmal American healthcare system is at threat of being outright gutted by congress, Doug Jones has repeatedly shied away from supporting Bernie Sanders's Medicare For All plan, and has not backed single-payer healthcare(an immensely popular policy proposal) despite the fact that his very own website states that he believes "Health care is a right, not a privilege limited to the wealthy and those with jobs that provide coverage."

Bernie Sanders is garbage, Medicare is a garbage solution, and Universal Healthcare isn't a long term fix for what is essentially and will remain rationed healthcare.

Jones has also shied away from dedicating himself to supporting a $15 livable wage, again, despite the fact that his own website says that he "strongly support ensuring working Alabamians receive a living wage for their hard work." And, in a time when the college debt crisis is racking up in the trillions of dollars, he has not endorsed any sort of tuition-free college education program, despite — and I know this is getting tiresome — his own website stating that "Providing a quality education to all children is the key to a long-term thriving economy."

Like the author of this piece Doug Jones is also probably a petite bourgeois opportunist. But I won't hold it against Doug Evans for not constantly, publicly, putting a bottom line dollar amount on a person's worth.

America's college system is garbage and siphoning off working class wages to prop up what is basically a complete and utter joke is the last thing a reasonable person should want.

Clicking the "Priorities" section immediately greets you with a phrase that thrusts into your face Jones's nauseating fetishization of respectability politics: "Bring integrity back to Washington".

Wait... I thought getting rid of the Trump Embarassment and the GOP's Reality TV theatrics was something we wanted to get away from?

Moving on from the meaningless blurb that is that sentiment is the "Economy" section of this page which starts out with the very telling phrase "Small businesses are truly the backbone of the American economy". This, despite the fact that workers, not businesses, are the backbone of any economy, and that American workers are continually laboring longer and harder for less and less pay while the capitalists who own these businesses are making more and more, is what Doug Jones feels is most important to state first in his campaign website's "Economy" section.

I'm sure that the working class is incredibly happy to hear that OP wants them to forever remain the working class and never transcend the class boundary and instead will simply get paid a little bit more for their wage slavery. All the while commodity prices will just increase to compensate.

Personally, I can't say that I will be taking part.

Just write in Bernie Sanders and then continue to feel good about your garbage politics.

edit

Sorry, bit of a grump today, but taking it out on DSA holier-than-thou big heads is a good outlet.

Socialism |OT| The Dawn of a Red Era

What tendency/ideology do you best align with?

Anarchism

Marxism

Marxism-Leninism

Left Communism

Democratic Socialism

Social Democracy

Other

Self-requested ban

Self-requested ban

Self-requested ban

User-requested account closure

Self-requested ban

User-requested account closure

Self-requested ban

User-requested account closure

Self-requested ban

Self-requested ban

User-requested account closure

User-requested account closure

User-requested account closure

Self-requested ban

User-requested account closure

User-requested account closure

Self-requested ban

Self-requested ban

Self-requested ban