What's it say ?
And i don't about politics being cooler over here. We're just ask fucked as you guys.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
What's it say ?
And i don't about politics being cooler over here. We're just ask fucked as you guys.
As i see socialists are weak in usa, Australia, canada, and some Europe places
In canada and Australia It looks Stronger than usa. In most Europe, latin America, part of Africa, parts of asia there's quite big socialists groups even If you dont take the Tankie groups or pseudo socialists.
In canada and Australia It looks Stronger than usa. In most Europe, latin America, part of Africa, parts of asia there's quite big socialists groups even If you dont take the Tankie groups or pseudo socialists.
Anyone else following what's going on Iceland? Apparently the newly elected far left PM (Dem soc, anti military, healthcare expansion, aggressive on climate change, all the good stuff) apparently immedietly formed a political alliance with the recently disgraced party from the recent child sex ring scandal?
It sounds fucking bonkers
It sounds fucking bonkers
Thanks for the link.
*side eyes guy in the article*
Fuck sake.
Anti-police sentiment is...eh, I don't share it as enthusiastically as some leftists but its true that police are largely operative in oppressive ways. I'm less confident in "community based" solutions to violent crime, but violent crime is also such a small amount of what's considered "crime" that I'm able to largely align myself with anti-prison people. I figure by the time we actually reach "okay but what do we do with the sexual predators?" we'll have already solved a bunch of other very important problems
Agreed with the concern about the community based police force. As i feel it would end up being a mob rule, like this.
Also a volunteer wouldn't be able to deal with crimes of psychopathy (serial killers and the like)
I still believe in a professional police force. But completely reformed.
Serial killers are another case of "like a tenth of a tenth of a percent of criminals if that" so I don't concern myself with them, but yes, there's lots of sexual assault that still happens even if people's material needs are met.
In a broader sense "community organization" as an answer to social needs is still something that I just...
The level of fundamental reorganization that would be required from current patterns of human organization across the globe is so large that while its not at all impossible it does seem out of the reach of anything we can plan for. If you're upending the very structure of major metro areas enough that "localized communities managing reasonably autonomous existences" is viable you're way beyond what we can practically work towards as political goals, IMO
OP
OP
They made an alliance with two liberal parties instead of the other social democratic party...?
I must be missing some logic here.
I haven't found a good news story on it yet, I just know because I follow an Icelandic guy who talks about this stuff and he's livid
OP
OP
Correct, diversification and experiences are required for the correct democratic program. But "the Black American" experience in and of itself doesn't mean anything in regards to Socialism.
While a good Socialist should always fight for minority rights and equal inclusion, minority rights and issues are unique to minorities and those rights can be reformed within Capital and exist (or not exist) wholly within Capitalism. Racism, sexism, bigotry, have existed in every mode of production in history and fighting for minority rights, even if it is a fight against the existing power structure, isn't specifically a fight for Socialism.
The liberal phrase of "prejudice plus institutionalized power" are what enable the existence of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry. Socialism is the negation of the idea of an institution itself.
The reason Socialism differs is because the power structures that enable bigotry no longer exist when the institution of the State no longer exists, when property no longer exists, and we all have the "luxury" of free association.
I don't think this detracts from the minority struggle at all, as no decent Socialist is a bigot.
Then by that logic, a whole community doesn't mean anything to socialism.
That's not racist at all -_-
Again. If socialism doesn't take this a core principle to fight for those issues going forward, then it deserves to fail. As it doesn't give a damn about everyone.
Racism, sexism and bigotry will continue to exist even in a socialist society, and has nothing do with capitalism.
I don't think that's quite his point although... I'm not sure I entirely agree with what I think his point is. At the very least, on a broad level, the "black American experience" might foster anti-capitalism more than the average white American experience
Socialism isn't a religion. It isn't a Christ figure to "give a damn" about you. The sooner people figure that out, the better. It is the movement of the working class and is manifest when both the world's proletariat can no longer endure its present situation and when the existing power structure can no longer sustain itself. It is an authoritarian, total, act of violence.
Correct, these things exist separate from the concepts of production.
If there is no state to enforce scarcity there is no "they took our jobs" populism for White America. If there is no state to siphon surplus value in the form of taxes there is no "my wages are going to lazy people who don't want to work" dog whistles for White America. If there is no State reinforcing one religion over the other there is no "they want us to live under sharia!" fearmonger excuses for White America.
If there is no State enforcing the totalitarian falsehoods of race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc... if there is no State at all, then there is no White America.
Socialists can be an ally and should be. You, me, anyone in this thread as (white men) people should be allies to the minority struggle. But minority rights and the minority struggle is their own struggle to bear and we can only be allies and we shouldn't call that struggle Socialism.
Some people have taken their experience as Americans of Color and extrapolated it to the larger picture of Capitalism and Socialism. But the inverse is just as often a result as well, if not more likely. As an example the Stalinist liberation movement never resulted in Socialism, it only resulted in Capitalism with a National or Ethnic character on a wide scale. Aka just regular old Capitalism.
Capital still requires centralization, hierarchy, accumulation, and exploitation. Let's use China as an example: Once they rid themselves of the White Western political yoke they simply replaced the White Oppressor with a local oppressor. China is no more free now than it was before it adopted the reactionary, bourgeois ideal of "the Chinese Nation".
I never thought for a moment that it's a religion.
But if it's a movement that leaves behind, and forgets about large swathes of people in it's quest to overthrow the current structure. Then it's no better than which it hopes to replace.
Even in a post-scarcity society, bigotry will still exist. Because it has nothing do with class or the state, as would "white America"
I'm not white.
But here's the thing, it must be part of Socialism, because the working class is made up of those very minorities who struggle on a daily basis. And you can not, and should not ignore them.
I hope i'm not putting words in your mouth. But you seem to take a very abstract view of the movement, forgetting about the human side that comprises it.
It's very strange. Socialists want to get rid of all private gun ownership and the police. I don't get it at all.
American socialists used to be fanatically in favor of gun ownership. Same with the rest of the world.
Anti police sentiment depends on the country, of the relation of the police and the left.
Over here the comunists, syndicalists, got tortured and killed by the police and they still act violent in protests of the left, so the anti police sentiment its kinda big. And i think in any liberal country the police use most of the force against poor people, and Black people...
The problem is the police as instrument of liberal democracy, that in some countries its almost fascist, and liberals are ok since its not white middleclass people the victims of repression.
I dont think most socialists are against the existence of police during the transition state, but against police as its today.
Over here the comunists, syndicalists, got tortured and killed by the police and they still act violent in protests of the left, so the anti police sentiment its kinda big. And i think in any liberal country the police use most of the force against poor people, and Black people...
The problem is the police as instrument of liberal democracy, that in some countries its almost fascist, and liberals are ok since its not white middleclass people the victims of repression.
I dont think most socialists are against the existence of police during the transition state, but against police as its today.
Last edited:
The police in all forms are manifestations of the State.
Smash the state.
'Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.'
On the question of racism and sexism etc - I don't think there's a need to be abstract about it, and for every new member with educational I always say this as socialists it's important to challenge racism and sexism not only because they are terrible things in themselves that are reproduced through the capitalist mode of production but when it comes to the question of building a united working class movement that can overthrow capitalism, we are never going able to achieve it unless we are able challenge the divisions that capitalism imposes on us, and fighting for reforms that make things better for minorities like affirmative action, against racial discrimination in the workforce is very important and very much part of that struggle of striving for a united working class.
Gun ownership is a more tricky and complex topic and whether we argue for or against it depends entirely on circumstances of the particular country.
But it's basic Marxist analysis that the police are the armed guard of the state whose entire purpose is the uphold the status quo, so of course radicals want to abolish the police at some level. There's no such thing as a "good" cop.
Gun ownership is a more tricky and complex topic and whether we argue for or against it depends entirely on circumstances of the particular country.
There have actually been a lot of intra-left arguments over this of late, particularly since Charlottesville.
I'm still firmly on the gun control side, personally.
I have a very concrete idea of Socialism.
It isn't a movement. It isn't activism. It isn't an ideology. It isn't a substitute for religion. It isn't something that is "built" in political circles. It isn't a lifestyle. It isn't an opinion, which all of these previous things are.
Socialism is the advent of a new mode of production, a social revolution when the proletariat can no longer endure its current way of living and the ruling class can no longer sustain itself.
I'm curious How do you guys turned into commies? This is a question i usually ask to other people, its a question i find interesting
A thought that's been on my mind lately is the intersection of Communism and social conservatism, like remembering that homosexuality was a felony in the Soviet Union or the racism rampant in North Korea (i recall an anecdote of an Afro-Cuban diplomat who nearly got lynched in Pyongyang when some locals took a disliking to him), or this wiki article saying that gay rights actually got *worse* in Cuba initially during the Batista-Castro transition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Cuba#Homophobia_and_labor_camps_during_the_1960s
I know the social issues/economic issues gap is one of the defining gaps in the current Democratic party for the US left, but what are the thoughts on this? Is this a case of "No True Scotsman" that the racism, gender norms, and homophobia of some of these institutions of socialism part of why they were not true, should they be judged more lightly by the standards of their times? How do you reconcile some of the more oppressive stances Socialism has embraced in the past?
I know the social issues/economic issues gap is one of the defining gaps in the current Democratic party for the US left, but what are the thoughts on this? Is this a case of "No True Scotsman" that the racism, gender norms, and homophobia of some of these institutions of socialism part of why they were not true, should they be judged more lightly by the standards of their times? How do you reconcile some of the more oppressive stances Socialism has embraced in the past?
OP
OP
lol
HOL, you've said that you judge socialist organizations by their actions but what exactly do you want them to do? I must admit, I'm rather confused about what you think good praxis would be for someone who is living prior to The Revolution but still wants to see socialism enacted (I've purposefully avoided calling such a person "a socialist" here since that would be an identity, which you have made clear you think is a bourgeois proposition, unless I'm misreading you).
You are supportive of progress within the liberal paradigm but so not believe in reformism. That's fine, nothing controversial there; plenty of people believe socialism can only be achieved through complete overthrow. But you've also said that it's presumptuous and arrogant to think that people on the working class would need to be taught about socialism because they already know their condition, and you've also stated that The Revolution will happen of its own accord without regard to any planning, which indicates that there's no need for planning. I would agree with the second in that I don't think a vanguard should be trying to direct the proletariat to some specific project to be built, but I think the first statement only gets halfway to the point. People may be aware of class conflict in a very general sense but they are usually not aware of the intricacies how capitalism actually functions or may idolize capitalists for their wealth.
You also clearly do not want a state, which is also what most of us ultimately want, but you've spoken rather positively of Lenin and Trotsky who were certainly supportive of a workers' state as a transitional form even if it was out of necessity.
So if a socialist organization is not supposed to educate, is not supposed to plan, and is not supposed to reform, what the hell is it supposed to do? Hide out in the mountains learning survival tactics and teaching people how to fight a protracted people's war but not actually pushing for it, just waiting until the day comes where a revolution is actually feasible? And what about in a country where revolution simply IS NOT feasible like the US?
I mean, to me its just as simple as: social issues and economic issues exist on a very complex topography. Sometimes they align, sometimes they're completely orthogonal. I don't think any of those past movement should be "let off the hook" in the slightest, nor do I think they imply anything fundamental about socialism or communism "being racist" or "being homophobic". Ultimately all it means is: progressive movements, revolutionary movements, all of them, are still capable of bigotry and oppression because they have blind spots or because they represent only certain interests. We must aways be on guard and always remain vigilant and never think that because "we're on the right side" our people are incapable of bad things
Last edited:
Homossexuality was a felony in a bunch of countries in the past, but Thats true beginning with Stalin, during Lenin you had divorce, gay marriage, abortion, women vote. Then comes Stalin with social conservatism.
Thats why there's internal critics that we shouldnt only fight against, racism, sexism ,homophobia after a revolution. That exists this conservatism even in commies. Even If you consider, maoism, castrism, stalinism as true socialist forms, the critic must be made. (And to fight against this on groups of Trots, lenists, Luxemburguists, gramscists etc etc)
Btw Its better today in Cuba, they have gay pride and laws against homophobia in Workplace
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32679658
OP
OP
I initially became interested in socialism in 2007. I used to be a neoconservative but Bush's totally failed second term and my acceptance of the Iraq War as a disaster drove me to a place where I felt like I had to reassess what I really believed about politics.The recession also blew my notions about capitalism wide open. Marx was always taboo to me because I came from a Reaganite household, and when I first tried to read him (or any socialist writer) it made no sense. But when I finally got it, it hit like lightning.
That was all purely an intellectual interest though, middle class white guy roleplaying. I didn't really commit until I got out of college and joined the work force as a legitimate low level proletarian, which just made everything so real and obvious.
It was the history channel that got me interested in Bolshevism but it was "The Gulag Archipelago" that pulled me out of tankie-ism, and just following Obama that brought me back to capitalist leftism (then Piketty who sent me forward to "soak the rich"-ism)
This is kind of surprising. Obama wasn't even really a leftist, he worked to privatize education and tried to make large scale cuts to the welfare state. What about Obama drew you back to capitalism?
OP
OP
Would I be a commie? IDK, ask again later lol (haven't read deeply enough to my satisfaction to opine on what system would be more or less agreeable, outside of extremes).
What I know is that I've long (privately) admired socialism, even during my beginnings as a deeply conservative fundamentalist. My long-held skepticism about its viability has eroded over many years, especially in light of the cascading (and worsening) failure cycle capitalism has created. I've seen it in the headlines, but I've also seen it working with fellow min-wagers. We consume and replace product and people like they're infinite in the pursuit of infinite growth, and that cannot be sustained. Many suffer needlessly to uphold that impossible world, and our own extinction is on the table if we cannot go beyond capitalism. The past few years have underlined in red and brought into focus everything that has gestated a long time: socialism must be the future, or we won't have one.
This is completely abstract and sounds like someone who has never being involved in a actual social movement or a union. Socialism is a movement - people have to be active and win people to the perspective to build the case for socialism. This kind of stuff happens in your trade union where you are in a position where you have to challenge union bureaucracy or win your fellow workers to the case that we need to take collective action and not rely on the law or the bosses good-will. It happens in a social movement where you are up against the influence of liberalism where individuals make the case that the demands of the movement be watered down to accommodate the interests of the capitalist and argue against any kind of mass action strategy that involves mobilizing and empowering significant layers of the working class. Like everything you write here just sounds like a economic-deterministic perspective that denies any sense of agency to the working class. Unfortunately we aren't going overthrow capitalism with such passivity.
I've always been left-wing and actually contribute it partly to hanging out a lot on the other site for years and watching shows like The Wire along with reading books that covered a general working class perspective then I came across a socialist group at a welcome refugees lunch back in 2013 that they played a role in helping organise I signed their contact list, agreed to help out for their election campaign (because I agreed with all of their policies) then I quickly joined up with them after going to a refugee rights rally with their contingent, got really active in the refugee rights campaign through them, received lots of education in the form of introduction to socialism and marxism collective discussions as a party member, did lots of reading of my own whilst participating in party activities and later attended a youth conference organised by the party at the end of the year I joined, then gradually became fully convinced of socialist politics and let go out of all the liberal views I used to have and since then I've gotten elected on my parties national executive, convene the branch in my city, and made a significant material sacrifice on my part to be a party organiser and held off completing my teaching degree to carry out that role.
Mostly just seeing the legislative process at work. I was young and less well-informed in the hardcore socialist phase.
It wasn't that i agreed with all of his philosophies, but more that it was the first time in my political awareness that i could watch D-D-D government at work and that sort of thing helped inspire me to believe that the process can work.
Not that i've dropped my plans for stuff like taxing the churches or 99% taxation on fortunes in excess of $10 million. Or banning private jets for anything other than cargo work.
My hate towards capitalism, started when my father moved to a Far away small town because of work, he got a disease there, we didnt have money to transfer him to a better hospital, then he died there. My mom was unemployed, with me and my brother, we had no money, house and car, it was tough.
But How I turned into a commie was dumb and nothing to be proud, i was in college then a beatiful girl was a commie, i started to participate in the commie group, and read marxists theory to impress the girl.... yeah...
After a time in the group i realized i was a commie.
But How I turned into a commie was dumb and nothing to be proud, i was in college then a beatiful girl was a commie, i started to participate in the commie group, and read marxists theory to impress the girl.... yeah...
After a time in the group i realized i was a commie.
Get off of your high horse.
Why do you think your fellow workers are stupid? Why do you think it is up to you to educate them like they're some stupid and ignorant mook happy to go about the daily business until some "woke" liberal decides to drop some knowledge on them?
Get off of your high horse.
Your Party isn't the movement.
There has never been one single social or political Revolution that was overthrown by a "trade union". Trade unions and various splinter "Leftist" parties have never lead a Revolution. The Proletariat unites in every single Revolutionary situation because they are proletariat and in spite of the various, conflicting, contradictory, "Leftists" groups that all vie for political power. Russia wasn't a Bolshevik Revolution. Spain wasn't a PCE Revolution. The uprisings in China were't Maoist Revolutions. Cuba 1959 wasn't a Castro-ist Revolution. Hungary 1956 wasn't a Liberal Revolution. They were Proletarian revolutions.
It's telling where you see yourself in relation to the working class.
You're purposefully conflated the Socialist Social Movement with your extracurricular activities. You don't get to lecture me on denying the "agency of the working class" when you deliberately place yourself and "socialists" and "socialism" as something abstract and alienated from "the working class" which must be educated to them. Where the working class doesn't adopt your particular "flavor" of social activity so you accuse them of lacking "class consciousness" and needing to be educated.
The working class is capable of assessing it's needs and current situation and revolutionary potential. Not only do they have control over their sense of agency, but the working class is able to assert its own interests without the need for your reactionary and traditionalist notions of formal democratic structures and bourgeois political parties.
The Proletariat are the Socialists and the working class movement is the Socialist movement.
Get off of your high horse.
Not a single one of your examples of "how I became a Socialist" involve actually being working class. It's literally playing on the internet, watching mass Capitalist media, joining an organization where you help them participate in liberal non Socialist politics, eventually becoming a career Party flunky yourself. Your interest is in your Party, not the working class. You're a Liquidationist. You're not proletariat, no wonder you see yourself estranged from the working class and struggling to understand the proletarian movement.
I've addressed most of these questions previously in this thread.
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?
I'd like to see you answer my question. You seem to imply that workers will come to the correct conclusions on their own. And there's no ideological battle to be fought here.
What do you say when the working class adopts fascist ideas then? you seem to almost create this weird idea that the working class will just adopt socialist ideas without intervention, but at the same time you have this really funny way of trying to disconnect the socialist movement from the working class despite the fact.. the people like me who are active socialists are part of the working class.
I can't believe you honestly view those revolutions as playing out with the influence of no politics whatsoever. And my example there actually doesn't even involve the question of a party being involved, but a political perspective being forwarded and debated in the context of a active social movement. Also your slight against unions is telling, considering they are the main institution right now playing a role of politicizing and mobilizing the working class at this point for all of their limitations and problems (with how marginal socialist parties are including my own party).
Sorry that's not even a correct use of the term "Liquidationist" you are just throwing random words out there and thinking that people will not call you out on it. 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. The irony is despite your condescension you probably learned all of your ideas from a academic source anyway, and didn't automatically come to all of these conclusions through being part of the working class.
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. The issue I see here is that is completely ahistorical and also seems to ignore the fact that the bourgeoisie themselves have organisation and hegemony over the working class, 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, but the practical fruit of what they bring forth is they basically inspire no practical activity and just seems to be a way to condescendingly attack other leftists which you've just done to me! :P
Thanks for the link.
*side eyes guy in the article*
Fuck sake.
This is not really true. The father, a well known businessman, of the party leader signed a doc vouching for a pedophile, who had already been released, so he could get a job. There are some ethical questions about who knew what when but no laws were broken.
The new PM tried at first to get a leftist government but the 5 parties needed couldn't agree on terms and it would've been a majority of one if I recall correctly.