|
So uh, how can I get these guys on the ballot in any state, much less 50 of them?
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:13 |
|
|
Public transit and communications are just crazy yo. It's much better to live in a world where billionaires can destroy entire media enterprises by bankrolling professional wrestlers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Wikkheiser posted:Then it's got some crazy stuff like centralizing the means of transport and communication into the hands of the state ur rite, that is loving insane m8, wait till u hear about what marx wanted to do with the factories, itll blow ur mind
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:The Manifesto contains ten planks of a platform for the political party for which he wrote it. It's not so much a blueprint for socialism so much as a list of things a communist party in power could immediately work towards. This is clear from context, as immediately before this list it says: as someone who's finally trying to take the time to officially learn all this poo poo, this makes a lot of the things i was confused about click. ...which probably sounds stupid and probably should have been obvious to me but oh well at least it makes sense to me now. but yeah i'm still very uneducated and underinformed outside of liking the general concepts of things like marxism, socialism, etc etc. i've been lazy about learning all the details of it because the text surrounding these concepts is usually pretty dense and very academic in tone (or at least, in my experience), but it's something i'm going to try and remedy over the summer, since i have time now. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Classic Comrade posted:as someone who's finally trying to take the time to officially learn all this poo poo, this makes a lot of the things i was confused about click. ...which probably sounds stupid and probably should have been obvious to me but oh well at least it makes sense to me now. philosophy is very hard especially if you're just reading on your own. you should see if there's a socialist reading group in your area because it really helps to talk through that stuff with other people
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Classic Comrade posted:as someone who's finally trying to take the time to officially learn all this poo poo, this makes a lot of the things i was confused about click. ...which probably sounds stupid and probably should have been obvious to me but oh well at least it makes sense to me now. the best/coolest thing about marxism vs other political theory is, it's expressly designed to be understood and followed by the masses. so unless you're digging into deep academic marxism there's a wealth of pamphlets and pieces written specifically for busy workers. the manifesto is the most famous example but the soviets wrote TONS of stuff that's easily digestible. lenin was good about that and i can link some stuff if you want
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:the best/coolest thing about marxism vs other political theory is, it's expressly designed to be understood and followed by the masses. so unless you're digging into deep academic marxism there's a wealth of pamphlets and pieces written specifically for busy workers. the manifesto is the most famous example but the soviets wrote TONS of stuff that's easily digestible. lenin was good about that and i can link some stuff if you want you should definitely link some of that stuff
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
butt
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
wait wrong thread
Mr. Lobe fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Classic Comrade posted:as someone who's finally trying to take the time to officially learn all this poo poo, this makes a lot of the things i was confused about click. ...which probably sounds stupid and probably should have been obvious to me but oh well at least it makes sense to me now. A lot of this stuff seems obvious in hindsight, but can be obtuse at first glance, especially when you're dealing with historical works. For example: one of the biggest challenges people seem to have in evaluating the Communist Manifesto is a tendency to interpret it through the lens of what they know about 20th century Communism. If they've never really studied the history of this stuff before, that's probably the the most familiar point of reference for what "Communism" is and so makes the most sense to interpret everything in light of it. But this results in thinking about the subject "out of order," trying to understand an idea by later elaborations on it rather than the original expression of it in context. They have some vague idea of a sweeping utopian project that had a whole lot of detailed plans about reforming every aspect of society (in other words, a mix of stereotypes and reality), and they look at this thing, which was a call to immediate action addressed to a contemporary audience that already basically agreed with it in principle, and start asking about why it doesn't take a whole bunch of things into account. These things are usually either points of theory or asking about how communism as laid out in the Manifesto would deal with certain problems. In both cases, they're drawing on their limited knowledge of 20th century Communism in theory and practice, but the Manifesto wasn't primarily a work of theory and didn't set out to address issues that would only become apparent 100 years later. It's really very difficult for people to forget about all the stuff that they know happened later and understand a work in its context. Basically all I'm saying here, anyway, is don't beat yourself up about it. It isn't necessarily obvious. Glad I could help, assuming I didn't actually gently caress up my interpretation royally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
socialism is great and hexplainer should link his socialism stuff so I can read it
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
helpful tip: if you want to start reading about Marxism-Leninism, or communism in general, dont start with "the communist manifesto"; State and Revolution, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and Foundations of Leninism are all good poo poo and really easy to get into.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
I prefer kid a and the bends myself
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Kudaros posted:So uh, how can I get these guys on the ballot in any state, much less 50 of them? Hello. You should PM me or any other PSL member, and we can put you in contact with those who are putting state petitioning together. Alternatively, go here http://www.glorialariva4president.com/volunteer The campaign has won the Peace and Freedom primary in California and is on the ballot in Vermont. Most of the period between now and the end of the year is petition work and phone calls, which can honestly be done by anyone with an hour to kill. Its an easy way to support a socialist campaign, even if we all know it won't bring about the rev. Urbandale fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Jun 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is one of the most retarded ideas in history. The idea that an authoritarian state would just fade away into anarchist paradise ignores everything we know about human beings and power politics. Violent revolution rarely results in peaceful, stable states with one major exception. I'm not an expert or anything, but I live in a very socialist enviornment. A close member of my family was active in the Communist Party and the marxist-leninist movement. I'm not a marxist-leninist but I do have sympathies for the movement, even if I think it has its fundamental flaws. Here's just my personal take on things regarding authoritarianism and socialism. Keep in mind I'm constantly labelled as a revisionist and so I can't claim to represent socialists at large. The successful establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat relies on the fundamental revolution within not only the state but society itself. Everything relies on the class conciousness of the proletariat: The ability of the working class to understand the underlying forces which oppress them. Namely, capitalist exploitation. A vanguard movement is necessary but only in so far as it promotes class consciousness. A revolution without class consciousness is doomed to fail because it does not have the have necessary mandate from that class which the vanguard represents. In my opinion, the vanguard cannot continue with any revolutionary action without an organizational consensus among the proletariat to commit to those actions. This takes a long rear end time. A super long rear end time. Decades, maybe centuries. Who knows, maybe a millenia. This also requires a sufficiently developed society that has gone through the motions of industrialization and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Workers have to experience the pains of capitalist exploitation and alienation before they can fight against it. If the vanguard party takes a feudal, agrarian society and decides that it can ram through industrialization and consciousness through state power it is doomed to fail. Moreover, the working class is not confined to borders. The working class is a world class, and societies globally have to be developed enough to take advantage of any potential revolution. Socialism in One Country is a joke. Especially since, get this, socialism isn't as efficient as capitalism. Capitalist economies may have tough slowdowns but when they boom they boom hard. Socialism may be better for the environment, it may be in its best form without exploitation, but a socialist society will never outproduce a capitalist one. So, revolution must be backed by class consciousness and it must be global or sufficiently close to it. Such as, for example, if all the major economies had one at once or in quick succession. Does this sound like it's a lot to ask for? That's cause it is. But here's the bonus: I believe non-violent revolution is a possibility but not a given. The kind of mass movement it would take for a successful socialist revolution would shake the very core of the bourgeoisie. And guess what? The current upper class we have now are major cowards. What point am I getting at? The dictatorship of the proletariat is not authoritarian in nature. It can be and quite possibly necessarily is a mass organizational, democratic movement. The only reason why it is called a dictatorship is because proletarian ideals will rule supreme. Inclusivity instead of division, common ownership instead of greed. From each according to their ability, and to each according to their need. Disputes settled not through the blood of workers but negotiation and the common understanding that the proletariat stand united rather than apart. Within this framework the state will gradually become no longer necessary, and in the end all class distintions will become meaningless. The dictatorship of the bourgousie requires division and exploitation, the only problem is we're going to have to live with it for a while longer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
I'm so glad these debates haven't died, they add so much to the discussion every time. One of the things that attracted me to the PSL initially was Richard Becker answering a question which basically boiled down to Trotsky v Stalin and where the party stood. His response was essentially that we didn't think the question was really that important to the question of actually building revolution. At the same time, the PSL does support the Leninist idea of national liberation for black, chican@ and native nations inside the United States. So where the Trotsky v Stalin question actually becomes important, you study its relevance and make decisions based off that and the context you find yourself in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:A lot of this stuff seems obvious in hindsight, but can be obtuse at first glance, especially when you're dealing with historical works. For example: one of the biggest challenges people seem to have in evaluating the Communist Manifesto is a tendency to interpret it through the lens of what they know about 20th century Communism. If they've never really studied the history of this stuff before, that's probably the the most familiar point of reference for what "Communism" is and so makes the most sense to interpret everything in light of it. But this results in thinking about the subject "out of order," trying to understand an idea by later elaborations on it rather than the original expression of it in context. They have some vague idea of a sweeping utopian project that had a whole lot of detailed plans about reforming every aspect of society (in other words, a mix of stereotypes and reality), and they look at this thing, which was a call to immediate action addressed to a contemporary audience that already basically agreed with it in principle, and start asking about why it doesn't take a whole bunch of things into account. These things are usually either points of theory or asking about how communism as laid out in the Manifesto would deal with certain problems. In both cases, they're drawing on their limited knowledge of 20th century Communism in theory and practice, but the Manifesto wasn't primarily a work of theory and didn't set out to address issues that would only become apparent 100 years later. It's really very difficult for people to forget about all the stuff that they know happened later and understand a work in its context. Basically all I'm saying here, anyway, is don't beat yourself up about it. It isn't necessarily obvious. Glad I could help, assuming I didn't actually gently caress up my interpretation royally. Another thing about the Communist Manifesto that especially critics tend to ignore is that Marx wrote it rather early on. He kept on researching and writing for more than 3 decades, revising and expanding on earlier work as well as writing and ellaborating about issues he hadn't previously included in his work. (Russia being one famous example). I've met a lot of people online who claim to be experts on Marx though it ususally turned out that most of them had merely glanced over the Communist manifesto at best. Yet these people will lecture you about how Marx was a complete idiot. They will then proceed to lecture you regarding how their own bias and prejudices constitutes some sort of self-evident truth. In short: Marx is cool and good, and while a lot of intelligent criticism has been put forth against some of his theories, most internet critics of Marxism are just mouth breathing morons who mistake their own personal flawed interpretation of the world as an absolute truth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
The Communist Manifesto is pretty funny, so it's worth reading even if you disagree with the politics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:Within this framework the state will gradually become no longer necessary, Yay Anarchy, my favorite!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Any socialist goons in the Philadelphia area this next month should check out the Socialist Convergence at the DNC. PSL is one of the endorsers. Gonna be dope! https://www.facebook.com/events/1531565457152888/?active_tab=posts
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
why do we need two socialist parties?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why do we need two socialist parties? lol reminds me of how there's a 'communist' party here that is like.... not communist. at all or something like that
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
democratic centralism.
R. Guyovich fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Nov 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:cpusa got blown apart by cointelpro and the second red scare and never recovered. they still have their primo manhattan real estate but only make the news when they endorse democrats lol ah, okay. drat that's a little 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
wolf blitzer you dumb idiot
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
blood simple posted:wolf blitzer you dumb idiot um i think you mean "Jake" blitzer
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
blood simple posted:wolf blitzer you dumb idiot it baffles me how anyone respects that man, let alone decides he should be a star ""news"" anchor
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Classic Comrade posted:lol reminds me of how there's a 'communist' party here that is like.... not communist. at all You've just described practically every CP under the sun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:You've just described practically every CP under the sun. homework explainer knew what i meant 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
o drat https://twitter.com/NKVDemon/status/752167681822826496
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Classic Comrade posted:homework explainer knew what i meant Yes and so did I, if you think the CPUSA is unique or even uncommon in this then your in for a shock. H E also gave you a heavily edited and bias answer the CPUSA had major splits that were brought on by its relationship to the USSR and had a strategy of supporting the Democrats on and off since the thirties and its terminal decline began after Khrushchev's secret speech and the decades long leadership of Gus Hall (from around 1960-2000 when he died) who had been a founding member. Here's the history of the party from founding to Webb http://spartacus-educational.com/USAcommunist.htm
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
oh i'm definitely not trying to paint myself as some kind of expert here btw. quite the contrary
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Are criminals constitutionally eligible to be elected prez?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:Are criminals constitutionally eligible to be elected prez? Eugene Debs picked up 3.4% of the vote while he was a political prisoner in USP Atlanta, so yes
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:Are criminals constitutionally eligible to be elected prez? there's nothing in the constitution that says a criminal record of any kind is disqualifying. you could be a literal serial murder convict and still be eligible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
you might say every re-elected president ever was a huge criminal... a war criminal!!   oh man NOBODY could have seen THAT twist coming!!!!    
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:13 |
|
|
After all the Corbyn stuff and the dem primary it's become obvious to me that I was holding a false hope for a long time. The democrats will never become more leftist, and capitalists are unrepentant shitbags that will happily spit on the less fortunate, left or right. If we tried to actually pull the dems leftward they would sabotage our attempts just like labour is currently and the dems did back during McGovern.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 12:47
|
|