At least maybe then we won't be called Nazis anymore.I don't think such a topic would really work since it's more or less impossible for socialists to agree on anything themselves.
At least maybe then we won't be called Nazis anymore.I don't think such a topic would really work since it's more or less impossible for socialists to agree on anything themselves.
I don't think such a topic would really work since it's more or less impossible for socialists to agree on anything themselves.
Well, if we want to simply use the Wiki definition of Libertarian Socialism:
Libertarian socialism (or socialist libertarianism) is a group of anti-authoritarianpolitical philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy.
Socialism supersedes an economy, a state, and centralization. So if we want to roll with that as a general idea, I don't see why they would be discredited as that's a pretty solid basis for a post state, post ownership, post capital society.
I agree with your second and last statements, but I'd argue that... hrm. I'd argue that you're not quite off-base with the first comment, but that it really depends. Like, queer anarchists are all about social revolution, just attacking different issues in a different order. As are some insurrectionary anarchists. Transhumanist anarchists are an odd bunch, but their entire belief system is predicated on the possibilities of radical social change produced by radically changing technologies. Anarcho-primitivists can be on that shit, or they can instead go in the reverse direction and go screaming off blindly into the night, it's a crapshoot. Anyways, what I mean to say with this is that a huge chunk of anarchists emphasize social revolution and destroying capitalism through recontextualizing structures. You're correct in that abolition of hierarchy tends to come first, which is why I tend to think of anarchism as a useful modality through which action can be taken. I tend to like the idea that hierarchies should have to perpetually be proving their use to exist.The issue with anarchism is that, as a whole, the movement is focused on the destruction of hierarchy and not the destruction of capital or the actual social revolution of man kind. If your politics are similar to the above "Libertarian Socialist" but you call yourself an Anarchist then it is a moot point. The content of your political outcome trumps the form of it. Behavior trumps what you choose to call yourself.
Agreed on the first statement. We should really just tell people that Marx meant "Religion is the Advil PM of the masses." And I argue that showing people that it's not just not inconsequential but a big next step to show that religious socialists can be and are a big thing. A lot of people are like me in that they're religious, with a strong leaning towards social justice, who feel upset at the traditional religious status quo ignoring that so much in favor of... whatever fundamentalism is in favor of even, anymore, it's hard to keep track. Reaching out to these people and helping to connect them with textual resources that speak to their issues and their views of what their faith could be seems like an opportunity worth taking. Early Christianity's creation of a communal style of living to follow Jesus's ideals should serve as an inspiration to a lot of these younger believers as to what was possible even with the resources of the time. And the Islamic movements of the 70's can serve as a similar example of what the faith could be to younger Muslims. We've got a lot more of those people on Era than you'd expect.It is inconsequential. "Religion is the opiate of the masses" was taken so wildly out of context and weaponized that it's saddening. There is much to be said about religion being a reactionary and conservative political movement, and that political movement itself will need to be cast off along with every other "traditional" political structure, but that doesn't mean people aren't free to believe what they want to believe. Religion existed along side primitive communism and religious beliefs are, largely, separate from society's production.
Oh, of course! But for one, I think that there are ideas in some parallel movements like the Paris Commune that we could really learn from (such as the concept of communal luxury) and that taking the focus away from Marx is a good way to maybe get people to stop and reconsider if they really know as much as socialism as they think they do. Something like critical theory can have a lot more applicability to our current day but it's hard to get people to accept the premise that they aren't just extensions of Marxist thought, especially when they haven't read critical theory, without first showing that socialism as a broad-based movement takes inspiration from more places than Marx.We can presuppose a Socialist society all day, but how silly would our world be if Capitalism in 2018 merely came to reflect the imagination of a feudal serf in the 1200s? The modern credit slash gig slash gift slash advertising slash etc economy of today is simply a completely alien and infeasible concept to a human of a different epoch in time.
Well, to my knowledge (which I'll admit is incomplete), many of these movements were nowhere near as radically repressive as the actual Soviet Union-- so that's a start for reasons attention should be brought to them, as evidence of the reality that socialism doesn't have to go that way. Secondly, because their modes of failure were heavily influenced by outside forces, which tends to speak to the reality of the fact that even these state capitalist institutions were more than just pipe dreams in terms of stability. They didn't end in a total collapse without groups with way more resources, experience, and time gunning for them hard. They, even as incomplete examples, refute this idea that socialist ideas inevitably backslide into repression.What about them is anything other than a historical curiosity at this point? What should we talk about when we discuss the Khrushchevist/Stalinist State Capitalism that was the Congo, Angola, Benin, Ethiopia, Somalia, or Mozambique? Their rise and fall all aligned in similar fashion, with similar goals, and similar failure.
The kind where all industry is wholly worker-owned but uses the market in place of central planning. That's one brand of socialism that doesn't get enough play.
Like, queer anarchists are all about social revolution, just attacking different issues in a different order. As are some insurrectionary anarchists. Transhumanist anarchists are an odd bunch, but their entire belief system is predicated on the possibilities of radical social change produced by radically changing technologies.
No such thing.
If I suddenly own the 7/11 down the street but still rely on factory workers making shit, to sell to me, for me to sell to you, it doesn't matter that I own the store. It's still capitalism. Socialism is "worker's democracy" or "worker owned industry" is a misnomer.
I don't think such a topic would really work since it's more or less impossible for socialists to agree on anything themselves.
I'm not sure if you're referring to the ideologies I've named or if you're referring to me. But, like... these are discreet communities of often-impoverished people trying to produce radical social change in society by emphasizing particular directions. They are all banded together based on their desire to abolish the state and capital. They approach that end goal from different methods. I... am not sure to what extent these people are picking and choosing what they like best so much as they are creating a base and tradition of literature based on their shared experiences and beliefs. Not that there aren't bougie anarchists who just like the aes and don't really walk the walk, but I'd say these groups are a bit more than just bougie trash. Particularly queer anarchists. That distinct group was made because a lot of the time a bunch of leftist and socialist groups just weren't... practically speaking, looking out for the concerns and protection of LGBT individuals.All this stuff here? This is a byproduct of Pepsi Generation Bourgeois thought. You aren't a Socialist or an Anarchist no matter how much you advertise yourself as one. The "supermarket of ideology" concept where you just stroll down the aisle and put on airs of what you find appealing is no more Socialist than deciding whether you like Dr. Pepper or Mr. Pibb better.
Have you tried not being the Socialist Thought Police and stop saying how everyone who disagrees is not a True Socialist? Your attitude is a perfect example why the left is losing everywhere.No such thing.
If I suddenly own the 7/11 down the street but still rely on factory workers making shit, to sell to me, for me to sell to you, it doesn't matter that I own the store. It's still capitalism. Socialism is "worker's democracy" or "worker owned industry" is a misnomer.
All this stuff here? This is a byproduct of Pepsi Generation Bourgeois thought. You aren't a Socialist or an Anarchist no matter how much you advertise yourself as one. The "supermarket of ideology" concept where you just stroll down the aisle and put on airs of what you find appealing is no more Socialist than deciding whether you like Dr. Pepper or Mr. Pibb better.
Central planning is not a market is not a parecon, and yet every single one of those has called itself market socialism or some derivative thereof.
During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the "consolation" of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it.
and I'm interested to know if you have any that fit in with your eschatology or if it's something that reveals itself at the time of said eschatology arriving.
"Being your own boss" is a cornerstone promise of Capitalism. It's not the beginning of Socialism.
If me simply pointing out that "Capitalism with a Human Face" is still Capitalism amounts to "tearing into their jugular" then I dunno. Maybe don't wrap your sense of self worth into it. It's not an identity. "Lifestyle" is a product of Capital in itself.
You know that your rejection of sociolism as an ideology is a minority opinion and likely a form of disinformation, right?
Which is why fascism has always won. Because we're too busy infighting.Part of why I hate even getting involved with "socialists" is that so many are so mentally disordered that arguments in good faith are difficult. It's heavy on denunciation and light on anything useful.
I don't know if that's true. Fascism isn't a next-order reorganization of the management of the productive forces as much as it's a modern reinterpretation of classic oppression. It plays on traditional, nationalistic, and sometimes religiously based biases against certain groups of people.Which is why fascism has always won. Because we're too busy infighting.
It's not cringy to me, Lafiel. UBI could be the difference between homeless or not for me. Because things already get quite bad, quite often for me. So if it got introduced here, it would be godsend. (as well as for other people on the bottom, like me)and it's why a lot of this current discourse around UBI is plain cringeworthy to me.
What was the reason the Soviet Union denied Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution and promoted Lysenkoism (essentially repackaged Lamarkianism)?
was genetics seen as a threat to socialist ideology?
So, and I don't mean this as a callout to you or anything but it was a perfect example of a case where this happens, I do think we need to rethink our idea of "the workers" to not be ableist and to cover people who, well, can't work. This is not a new problem in the slightest, but it is a very specific issue I have with various described visions of socialism that do over-emphasize the action of "work" (by, say, organizing completely around the idea of worker syndicates or composing social councils with workers from various industries) and its a large part of why I waffle back and forth between describing socialism as "when the workers own the means of production" and "when the means of production are publicly owned". Just something I'd like people to be mindful ofPersonally I think the most important theoretical point about the idea of socialism is it's defined most simply as working people like ourselves and the people who work are the ones who run society and the important question for socialists is how we can reach that goal, and the ultimate realization of it all is that we don't concede anything to the capitalists, the problem with a lot of these reformist ideas is i think it's important to acknowledge that we need to fight and organise ourselves to win reforms, especially in the context that current industrial relations laws within capitalism are absolute garbage, but a nicer capitalism with a human face is never ever going liberate the working class, plus everything about the history of social democracy and the subsequent rise of neoliberalism has basically proven to me that you can't ever keep nice things under capitalism, and it's why a lot of this current discourse around UBI is plain cringeworthy to me.
So, and I don't mean this as a callout to you or anything but it was a perfect example of a case where this happens, I do think we need to rethink our idea of "the workers" to not be ableist and to cover people who, well, can't work. This is not a new problem in the slightest, but it is a very specific issue I have with various described visions of socialism that do over-emphasize the action of "work" (by, say, organizing completely around the idea of worker syndicates or composing social councils with workers from various industries) and its a large part of why I waffle back and forth between describing socialism as "when the workers own the means of production" and "when the means of production are publicly owned". Just something I'd like people to be mindful of
Because the idea that people arn't pure blank states that are shaped by the environment, society, ideology is a direct threat to communist ideology. Genetics is thatThe Soviets believed - actually quite rightly as Lysenkoism ironically proved - that science, being like any other field of work, was not necessarily "pure" but could be influenced by the ideological beliefs of a given society. Genetics was taken to be an example of that, a pseudoscience promoted by social Darwinists in capitalist society who believed in nature rather than nurture. Lysenkoism went the opposite way, and it fit with the whole "struggle" idea of socialist society. It was also stupidly wrong.
Because the idea that people arn't pure blank states that are shaped by the environment, society, ideology is a direct threat to communist ideology. Genetics is that
Would you say lysenkoism is the most disastrous form of pseudo science or was eugenics worse?Well, it's a threat to Soviet ideology. Communism is just an economic system based on stateless non-market distribution. Genetics aren't incompatible with that. People and things can be shaped both by nature and nurture.
I'd argue we're still seeing the bad aftereffects of eugenics and people are still stanning for eugenics (see The Bell Curve) so probably Lysenkoism is still second place.Would you say lysenkoism is the most disastrous form of pseudo science or was eugenics worse?
Eugenics seems to keep cropping up even after we think we've squashed it so its definitely the more pressing concern to meWould you say lysenkoism is the most disastrous form of pseudo science or was eugenics worse?
But many would say the Ukrainian and Chinese famines were a result of LysenkoI'd argue we're still seeing the bad aftereffects of eugenics and people are still stanning for eugenics (see The Bell Curve) so probably Lysenkoism is still second place.
But many would say the Ukrainian and Chinese famines were a result of Lysenko
It has been. It's saved lives, including my own.Has minimum wage been such a rousing success that we're ready to adopt a minimum life?
Did any of you guys check out the Black Panther documentary i linked ?
It has been. It's saved lives, including my own.
It's not any better here. But even as low as it is. It's still helped stayed me from being homeless. (as i'm sure others)Are we talking about the US?
Minimum wage in the US is poverty and starvation wages.