Socialists Can Be Very Ideological

[DocWatts]

@LfcCharlie4 Noam Chomsky (a libertarian socialist) had an interesting response when confronted by a self professed Leninist during a Q &A session following one of his lectures.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2021 by DocWatts

[Fleetinglife]

19 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Market socialism is quite promising in the ways in which it proposes to fix many of the issues inherent to capitalist economies, yet at the same time I'm able to recognize that because this system hasn't really been implemented on a large scale anywhere in the world there are going to be inherent challenges that will need to be worked out for it to translate in to real world policy and economics.

20 hours ago, DocWatts said:

 

20 hours ago, DocWatts said:

 

Yugoslavia? Vietnam? Mondragon Corporation in Basque? Coop in Italy?

''A number of market socialist elements have existed in various economies. The economy of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is widely considered to have been a form of market-based socialism, based on socially-owned cooperatives, workers' self-management and market allocation of capital.

Policies similar to the market socialist proposal of a social dividend and basic income scheme have been implemented on the basis of public ownership of natural resources in Alaska (Alaska Permanent Fund) and in Norway (the Government Pension Fund of Norway).''

Edited November 25, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[AdroseAkise]

2 hours ago, Rilles said:

I wish there was something better, but at this moment it is the best we got, atleast for developed countries. 

Yes there is something better, support actual parties and movements (maybe even revolutionary ones) which promise to abolish the Capitalist wage system.

[DocWatts]

25 minutes ago, Fleetinglife said:

Yugoslavia? Vietnam? Mondragon Corporation in Basque? Coop in Italy?

''A number of market socialist elements have existed in various economies. The economy of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is widely considered to have been a form of market-based socialism, based on socially-owned cooperatives, workers' self-management and market allocation of capital.

Policies similar to the market socialist proposal of a social dividend and basic income scheme have been implemented on the basis of public ownership of natural resources in Alaska (Alaska Permanent Fund) and in Norway (the Government Pension Fund of Norway).''

Those are excellent case studies for the purposing of demonstrating that market socialism can work, but because the system hasn't been adopted on a country wide scale in a large developed nation like Germany or the US, there are still several unknowns and it behooves those of us who see merit in such a system to be honest about that.

One can't just assume there won't be difficulties scaling this system up. That doesn't mean it's not worth advocating for, rather that we should use case studies that exist to inform how Market Socialism could be implemented in other contexts. Achieving such a system within a democratic framework is going to different than doing so within a relatively isolated nondemocratic country.

Which is why I myself see gradual and measured implementation as a better path forward, most likely within the frame of a Social Democracy.

Edited November 25, 2021 by DocWatts

[AdroseAkise]

A one party state may actually be beneficial in the sense that it outlaws reactionary anti worker Capitalist/Conservative parties from having a say in the Government, ensuring that the only party that can make decisions for the public is the Working class Party. 

[DocWatts]

1 minute ago, AdroseAkise said:

A one party state may actually be beneficial in the sense that it outlaws reactionary anti worker Capitalist/Conservative parties from having a say in the Government, ensuring that the only party that can make decisions for the public is the Working class Party. 

Can't see any way how that could be abused *cough*

If your proposed system can't be implemented within a pluralistic democratic framework it's probably not worth advocating for.

[Rilles]

23 minutes ago, AdroseAkise said:

A one party state may actually be beneficial in the sense that it outlaws reactionary anti worker Capitalist/Conservative parties from having a say in the Government, ensuring that the only party that can make decisions for the public is the Working class Party. 

The problem is that the party can decide and define for themselves what they think is "anti-worker" and that can lead to alot of devilry. How do you stop that from happening? Eventually any criticism could be seen as "anti-worker" or "capitalist propaganda".

"What this means is that the Khmer Rouge cadres would often target someone who they considered to be an ‘enemy’ based on very little, it could be a small infraction, a suspect biography, being accused of wrongdoing, associated with another suspect individual… anything that led to a perception that someone was ‘anti-revolutionary’. One thing that someone may have looked for would be a stereotype such as wearing glasses, or sometimes (as seen in the film the Killing Fields) checking someone’s hands to see if they were well worn or soft. This would supposedly indicate whether they were suitable to the manual labour of the regime or whether they had an educated (which was the same as being an elite) background. Remember this is a peasant revolution, and to the peasants class in Cambodia there was little difference between being ‘educated’ or being ‘rich’, both of these classes looked down upon you – but not in the new revolutionary society."

Edited November 25, 2021 by Rilles

[DocWatts]

11 minutes ago, Rilles said:

The problem is that the party can decide and define for themselves what they think is "anti-worker" and that can lead to alot of devilry. How do you stop that from happening? Eventually any criticism could be seen as "anti-worker" or "capitalist propaganda".

Also a system that's held afloat by suppressing a large chunk of the political spectrum is going to have substantial negative consequences and necessarily be authoritarian in nature.

For Market Socialism to work the population needs to consent to its implementation and be willing to defend it within a democratic framework. Which probably necessitates a societal center of gravity at or near Green to be sustainable.

But the attractors in developed countries are moving towards Green, so it's far from an unrealistic or unattainable prerequisite.

Edited November 25, 2021 by DocWatts

[Rilles]

14 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Also a system that's held afloat by suppressing a large chunk of the political spectrum is going to have substantial negative consequences and necessarily be authoritarian in nature.

For Market Socialism to work the population needs to consent to its implementation and be willing to defend it within a democratic framework. Which probably necessitates a societal center of gravity at or near Green to be sustainable.

Absolutely!

But the attractors in developed countries are moving towards Green, so it's far from an unrealistic or unattainable prerequisite.

And if Socialism is implemented in developed countries at Green it will be a very different system from the the ones in the 20th century, with strong regulations and laws against corruption and authoritarian power grabs, a super-democracy. The problem arises when people want old-school communism. IF and I mean IF... I would agree to Socialism it would have to be something we have never had, something MORE democratic and something MORE free than capitalism or old-school communism, a bottom-up approach rather than top-down authority. 

 

[Fleetinglife]

8 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Noam Chomsky (a libertarian socialist) had an interesting response when confronted by a self professed Leninist

On 11/24/2021 at 6:59 PM, DocWatts said:

 

On 11/24/2021 at 6:59 PM, DocWatts said:

 

Luxemburg though had more sympathy to the Bolsheviks in her time (she saw their struggle and successes in Russia connected with the struggles and duty of the German socialists to lead and to set the foundations to carry out a revolution of the German proletariat in a developed capitalist country such as Germany at that time following the one in Russia in classical Marxist sense), even though she criticized their regime heavily and advocated for the adoption of revolutionary socialist democracy in Germany (or the concept of Luxemburgian democracy in Marxism as some movements such as PCInt in Italy lead by left communist Marxist theorist Amadeo Bordiga adopted in opposition to the policies of the Soviet Union which he described as state capitalist similiar in the sense that Lenin used at the begining of the consolidation of the RSFR in Russia) and opposed the implementation of top down one party bureaucracy in Russia but was even more merciless to the German Social Democrats because of their capitulation and going along with voting on the war credits for the German government in the outset of WWI and accusation of social chauvinism for fomenting national prejudices within the German proletariat versus the proletariat in other countries:

''The Bolsheviks have certainly made a number of mistakes in their policies and are perhaps still making them – but where is the revolution in which no mistakes have been made! The notion of a revolutionary policy without mistakes, and moreover, in a totally unprecedented situation, is so absurd that it is worthy only of a German schoolmaster. If the so-called leaders of German socialism lose their so-called heads in such an unusual situation as a vote in the Reichstag, and if their hearts sink into their boots and they forget all the socialism they ever learned in situation in which the simple ABC of socialism clearly pointed the way – could one expect a party caught up in a truly thorny situation, in which it would show the world new wonders, not to make mistakes?

The awkward position that the Bolsheviks are in today, however, is, together with most of their mistakes, a consequence of basic insolubility of the problem posed to them by the international, above all the German, proletariat. To carry out the dictatorship of the proletariat and a socialist revolution in a single country surrounded by reactionary imperialist rule and in the fury of the bloodiest world war in human history – that is squaring the circle. Any socialist party would have to fail in this task and perish – whether or not it made self-renunciation the guiding star of its policies.

There is only one solution to the tragedy in which Russia in caught up: an uprising at the rear of German imperialism, the German mass rising, which can signal the international revolution to put an end to this genocide. At this fateful moment, preserving the honour of the Russian Revolution is identical with vindicating that of the German proletariat and of international socialists.''

https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/09/11.htm

''Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of "justice" but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when "freedom" becomes a special privilege. [...] But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism.''

https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch06.htm

 

Edited November 25, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[DocWatts]

@Fleetinglife Awesome and informative write up.

The idea of a revolutionary vanguard is mercifully left in the past, though it's somewhat understandable why it arose within the context it did. Not surprising at all that SD-Red / Blue ended up winning that power struggle, considering the desperation of the Survival Conditions at that time. 

It's an interesting counter factual to ponder how things could have turned out had Kerensky's Provisional Government been able to build enough of a basis of legitimacy to transition in to a social democracy, or had one of the other ideological wings been better at playing the political game than Lenin.

Edited November 25, 2021 by DocWatts

[Opo]

3 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Generally it's a small handful of people making these decisions, and it's much harder to imagine how an organization that's run democratically and with transparency could condone half of the evil shit that many of these transnationals are up to.

You might have low imagination. 

Try talking to manual workers about the third world. They'll look at you like you're off. 

Most of them are at blue/orange.

Since they can't empathize with the world I don't know why do you expect them to vote against their own interests. 

[DocWatts]

24 minutes ago, Opo said:

You might have low imagination. 

Try talking to manual workers about the third world. They'll look at you like you're off. 

Most of them are at blue/orange.

Since they can't empathize with the world I don't know why do you expect them to vote against their own interests. 

I don't necessarily disagree, which is why a societal center of gravity at or near Green is a prerequisite for this type of system to be sustainable. Both for the reasons you mention, and because the population needs to be willing to defend it within the framework of a pluralistic democracy.

I wouldn't expect someone within an Blue / Orange paradigm to have an expansive enough circle of concern to care about the well being of people in the third world.

A social context where ordinary people are secure enough in their livelihoods to not be operating with a scarcity mindset would also seem to be a prerequisite as well.

Not at all that surprising when we consider that people in a privileged position have more freedom to self actualize and expand their circle of concern.

All this is to say that Green Social Democracy is better suited to measured implementation of aspects of Democratic Socialism than societies at earlier stages of development.

Edited November 25, 2021 by DocWatts

[Fleetinglife]

41 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

The idea of a revolutionary vanguard is mercifully left in the past, though it's somewhat understandable why it arose within the context it did. Not surprising at all that SD-Red / Blue ended up winning that power struggle, considering the desperation of the Survival Conditions at that time. 

Yes, I basically agree with this notion for the developed capitalist world today and that it made more sense in a more industrializing and Fordist oriented disciplinary society of vertical chain of command for production in short while the global economy today is situated more in most of the developed world along post-Fordist and Toyotist with more horizontal chain of production lines dispersed globally.

Edited November 25, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[Opo]

1 hour ago, DocWatts said:

I don't necessarily disagree, which is why a societal center of gravity at or near Green is a prerequisite for this type of system to be sustainable. Both for the reasons you mention, and because the population needs to be willing to defend it within the framework of a pluralistic democracy.

I wouldn't expect someone within an Blue / Orange paradigm to have an expansive enough circle of concern to care about the well being of people in the third world.

A social context where ordinary people are secure enough in their livelihoods to not be operating with a scarcity mindset would also seem to be a prerequisite as well.

Not at all that surprising when we consider that people in a privileged position have more freedom to self actualize and expand their circle of concern.

All this is to say that Green Social Democracy is better suited to measured implementation of aspects of Democratic Socialism than societies at earlier stages of development.

Yea, I agree. 

Do you think that if the people were green those problems would solve itself in whatever the system or that capitalism would stop it. 

Edited November 25, 2021 by Opo

[DocWatts]

15 minutes ago, Opo said:

Yea, I agree. 

Do you think that if the people were green those problems would solve itself in whatever the system or that capitalism would stop it. 

I think the challenge would be to develop a viable alternative to capitalism within a pluralistic democratic framework, while leaving room for other worldviews to co-exist without threatening the survival of the entire system.

It's a challenging problem because even in an SD Green society you're still going to have some amount of Blue and Orange that are going to want (and have a right) to express themselves politically. So a relatively high degree of social solidarity around basic egalitarian values seems like a requirement, similiar to how both the Left and Right in many places agree on the basic principle of a national healthcare system.

[Fleetinglife]

6 hours ago, Fleetinglife said:

Luxemburg though had more sympathy to the Bolsheviks in her time (she saw their struggle and success in Russia connected with the struggles and duty of the German socialists to lead and to set the foundations to carry out revolution of the German proletariat in a developed capitalist country such as Germany at that time following the one in Russia in classical Marxist sense), even though she criticized their regime heavily and advocated for the adoption of revolutionary socialist democracy in Germany (or the concept of Luxemburgian democracy in Marxism as some movements such as PCInt in Italy lead by left communist Marxist theorist Amadeo Bordiga adopted in opposition to the policies of the Soviet Union which he described as state capitalist similiar in the sense that Lenin used at the begining of the consolidation of the RSFR in Russia) and opposed the implementation of top down one party bureaucracy in Russia but was even more merciless to the German Social Democrats because of their capitulation and going along with voting on the war credits for the German government in the outset of WWI and accusation of social chauvinism for fomenting national prejudices within the German proletariat versus the proletariat in other countries:

Damn this is sad. Like an ending of a tragic epic and drama:

Despite the criticism, Lenin praised Luxemburg after her death as an "eagle" of the working class:

''But in spite of her mistakes she was – and remains for us – an eagle. And not only will communists all over the world cherish her memory, but her biography and her complete works (the publication of which the German communists are inordinately delaying, which can only be partly excused by the tremendous losses they are suffering in their severe struggle) will serve as useful manuals for training many generations of communists all over the world. 'Since 4 August 1914, German Social-Democracy has been a stinking corpse' – this statement will make Rosa Luxemburg's name famous in the history of the international working class movement.

In later years, Trotsky frequently defended Luxemburg, claiming that Joseph Stalin had vilified her. In the article Hands Off Rosa Luxemburg!, Trotsky criticized Stalin for this despite what Trotsky perceived as Luxemburg's theoretical errors, writing: "Yes, Stalin has sufficient cause to hate Rosa Luxemburg. But all the more imperious therefore becomes our duty to shield Rosa's memory from Stalin's calumny that has been caught by the hired functionaries of both hemispheres, and to pass on this truly beautiful, heroic, and tragic image to the young generations of the proletariat in all its grandeur and inspirational force.''

Immense love of the people - l'amour du peuple as the French socialists would say.

Edited November 25, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[AdroseAkise]

*forum was being autistic and repeated my comment three times*

Edited November 26, 2021 by AdroseAkise

[AdroseAkise]

*forum was being autistic and repeated my comment three times*

Edited November 26, 2021 by AdroseAkise

[AdroseAkise]

When Ba’athist Iraq had 80% public GDP, they were the most prosperous of all the Arab Nations. State/Public ownership of industry is a large part of why Northern European countries are so successful. 
 

It’s no longer a question of should or should not the Capitalist system should end, but rather when will it.