Socialism in the United States: A Discussion Thread for Then and Now

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Socialism in the United States: A Discussion Thread for Then and Now

«‹›25 »

CelestialScribe: Jan 16, 2008

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

again, literal Joseph Stalin recognized that was a pointless waste of effort when you could just have some controlled opposition to beat up on at regularly scheduled intervals

when you need your opponents to be more authoritarian than Stalin in order to argue against them, perhaps this is a hint you're reaching for a caricature to argue against.

The USSR is not the only socialist government. Plenty have banned opposition's political speech.

# ? Dec 6, 2018 23:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 02:35

CelestialScribe: Jan 16, 2008

Phi230 posted:

Deffo not the first but he's up there

If you can't tolerate non-violent political opposition then you're going to have end up killing a lot of people.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Dec 6, 2018 23:30

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

CelestialScribe posted:

My point proven.

Yes, you've proven that you argue in bad faith, well done.

Coming into the thread with :qq:

"But the socialists want to KILL ME because I make slighty above average income!" :qq:

told us all that from the get go, though.

# ? Dec 6, 2018 23:34

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

Part II: Organized Labor Upholding White Supremacy at the Expense of Solidarity

Part 2 of Jacobin's multi-part series on the 1968 Ocean Hill-Brownsville strike in New York is written by Stephen Brier, titled "The UFT�s Opposition to the Community Control Movement."

quote:

The New York teachers� union in the 1960s was stridently anticommunist and embraced an elitist sense of professionalism � producing an obsessive opposition to community involvement and black nationalism and the 1968 Ocean Hill-Brownsville strikes.

Brier tells the story of how the union got to 1968, starting with the founding of the first American teacher's union in 1916 and how they challenged anti-socialist political activity during World War I. Unfortunately, the Communist Party-organized teachers' union collapsed during McCarthyism, and the UFT was created from the ashes as a social democratic, anti-communist replacement largely as a self-defense mechanism.

When the communist teachers' union collapsed and was replaced by the UFT, the union was recognized by the New York board of education and they began to accept collectively bargained contracts. The first contract was in 1961, and covered topics such as pay, teacher transfer procedure, and firing procedure. This was significant because it showed that the union had been accepted by the mainstream institutions of New York, because it had kowtowed to the ideological demands of the United States in the '50s and the '60s.

quote:

The UFT won its first formal contract in 1961 at a moment in which the demographics of the NYC public schools were dramatically changing and the school system was becoming increasingly racially segregated and inequitable. The overwhelmingly white and largely Jewish unionized teaching workforce taught an increasingly black and Puerto Rican student population that constituted almost half of the one million public school students in the NYC public schools by the late 1960s.

NYC�s students of color were forced to attend inferior, decaying, and racially segregated neighborhood schools. Despite lip service paid to the ideal of integration by both the NYC Board of Ed and the UFT, the city schools were, if anything, becoming more segregated rather than less as the decade of the 1960s unfolded.

Fed up with repeated failures to integrate the city�s public schools and/or equitably distribute educational funding, community advocates � black, white, and Puerto Rican � argued that the only way neighborhood schools could finally be improved was for parents to determine who taught in and administered their schools, what subjects were taught, and who should assess the quality of the teaching. With support from city leaders and powerful philanthropic organizations (especially the Ford Foundation), three demonstration districts in East Harlem, Manhattan�s Lower East Side, and Brooklyn�s Ocean Hill-Brownsville (OH-B) neighborhood were established in 1967 and governed by boards of elected parent representatives.

The relationships between working class movements and institutions and capitalist institutions was complicated in 1960s New York schooling. Both the parents' organizations and the teachers' union had some degree of institutional support. Indeed, initially, the UFT supported the parents' movements for community control of the schools. However, the relationship between the parents' and teachers' unions collapsed in 1967 when parents' opposed a UFT strike action and collective bargaining deal for its failure to address how 'disruptive' children (disproportionately children of color) were treated and disciplined by teaching staff in schools.

In May of 1968, the community board for Ocean Hill-Brownsville dismissed 19 teachers in violation of their union contract. The group was mostly white teachers who were vocally in opposition to the community control board. In response, for ten weeks, the UFT went on strike in September, leading a group of 50,000 teachers to protest the firings and violation of the union contract.

quote:

The primary cause of the polarized and increasingly hostile relationship between unionized teachers and communities of color before, during, and after the 1968 strike was directly tied to the tactical and ideological decisions the UFT made in these years and the long-term implications that those decisions had on ongoing union/community relations.

The rest of the article is somewhat more complex and nuanced and I think it speaks for itself, but that I think is an effective summary and introduction.

# ? Dec 6, 2018 23:35

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

CelestialScribe posted:

The USSR is not the only socialist government. Plenty have banned opposition's political speech.

indeed. why, I hear those fuckers in weimar banned the socialist and communist parties, after which the liberals gleefully handed over power to the nazis out of fear that the next election would go badly for them otherwise. great story. hilarious punchline.

suppression of hostile ideologies is a function of government, CS. the questions are which ideologies will be suppressed, and how. we hold that "murdering people who look like they can successfully advocate for racial equality" is a poor answer to both questions. do you concur?

# ? Dec 6, 2018 23:35

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Lightning Knight posted:

Part II: Organized Labor Upholding White Supremacy at the Expense of Solidarity

Part 2 of Jacobin's multi-part series on the 1968 Ocean Hill-Brownsville strike in New York is written by Stephen Brier, titled "The UFT’s Opposition to the Community Control Movement."

Brier tells the story of how the union got to 1968, starting with the founding of the first American teacher's union in 1916 and how they challenged anti-socialist political activity during World War I. Unfortunately, the Communist Party-organized teachers' union collapsed during McCarthyism, and the UFT was created from the ashes as a social democratic, anti-communist replacement largely as a self-defense mechanism.

When the communist teachers' union collapsed and was replaced by the UFT, the union was recognized by the New York board of education and they began to accept collectively bargained contracts. The first contract was in 1961, and covered topics such as pay, teacher transfer procedure, and firing procedure. This was significant because it showed that the union had been accepted by the mainstream institutions of New York, because it had kowtowed to the ideological demands of the United States in the '50s and the '60s.

The relationships between working class movements and institutions and capitalist institutions was complicated in 1960s New York schooling. Both the parents' organizations and the teachers' union had some degree of institutional support. Indeed, initially, the UFT supported the parents' movements for community control of the schools. However, the relationship between the parents' and teachers' unions collapsed in 1967 when parents' opposed a UFT strike action and collective bargaining deal for its failure to address how 'disruptive' children (disproportionately children of color) were treated and disciplined by teaching staff in schools.

In May of 1968, the community board for Ocean Hill-Brownsville dismissed 19 teachers in violation of their union contract. The group was mostly white teachers who were vocally in opposition to the community control board. In response, for ten weeks, the UFT went on strike in September, leading a group of 50,000 teachers to protest the firings and violation of the union contract.

The rest of the article is somewhat more complex and nuanced and I think it speaks for itself, but that I think is an effective summary and introduction.

on the other hand, it seems pretty clear that there's a direct line from the community control of this to the development of charter schools

# ? Dec 6, 2018 23:42

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

on the other hand, it seems pretty clear that there's a direct line from the community control of this to the development of charter schools

Either the next part or the part after will be about the problems with the parent organizations and their role in the mess.

But yes, I agree.

# ? Dec 6, 2018 23:46

Ruzihm: Aug 11, 2010; Group up and push mid, proletariat!

While we're giving out resources, if someone wants an okay video introduction to the concepts in Capital, this video series is alright.

Edit: The supercut video linked above is over three hours long so a transcript might be a bit much.

Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Dec 7, 2018

# ? Dec 7, 2018 00:10

Doktor Avalanche: Dec 30, 2008

I unreservedly apologize for calling the comrades who told CelestialScribe they'd kill him "dumb as gently caress".

# ? Dec 7, 2018 02:22

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

Ruzihm posted:

While we're giving out resources, if someone wants an okay video introduction to the concepts in Capital, this video series is alright.

Edit: The supercut video linked above is over three hours long so a transcript might be a bit much.

That's ok, I put it in the OP.

# ? Dec 7, 2018 02:31

Ruzihm: Aug 11, 2010; Group up and push mid, proletariat!

Actually, here's a transcript of the very first part

quote:

An economic crisis is also a time of ideological crisis. It�s a time when people start to reevaluate their ideas about the world, questioning some of the most basic assumptions they once had. Every capitalist crisis in history has brought about a rethinking and regrouping of mainstream economic thought. Interestingly this rethinking has always happened within the context of some sort of radical challenge to the economic order.

Marginal Utility theory, which still serves the basis of modern mainstream economic theory, emerged from the Great Depression of the late 1800s (yes there was another Great Depression prior to 1929) as an answer to the challenge of Karl Marx�s thorough critique of capitalism. Keynesianism emerged from the Great Depression of the 1930�s as a response to the failures of liberal economics, the challenge of a successful Bolshevik revolution and strong worker movements in the Western world. Neoliberalism emerged from the crisis of the 1970�s both as a backlash against the failures of Keynesianism to manage crisis and as an assault against the growth of large popular left-movements like the anti-war, student, civil-rights and women�s movements and the power of entrenched labor.

Alan Greenspan:

�Remember that what an ideology is is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one� to exist you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not. And what I�m saying to you is: Yes, I�ve found a flaw- I don�t know how significant or permanent it is but I�ve been very distressed by that fact.�

With such admissions of failure from the neoliberal establishment we can�t help but begin to question the dominant economic ideas of our time. Yet it is not clear that we are entering this ideological crisis in the context of any viable challenges to the economic order. The failures of centrally-planned Soviet-style economies have largely purged the idea of alternatives to capitalism from the popular consciousness. At such a time in may be useful to re-exmine the ideas of Karl Marx, to see what exactly he was trying to say in his critique of capitalism- not because we have some desire to repeat the political experiments of Lenin, Mao, Stalin or any of the others who claimed to embody the ideas of Marx, but because Marx presents a systematic, and thorough critique of capital that is wholly different, wholly unique in the history of economic thought. Such radical ideas are crucial in our search for a new understanding of our present condition and possibilities for social transformation. A society without the ability to critique itself is a dangerous society to live in, especially as it enters a long period of crisis.

There is a crucial difference between all the great bourgeois economists and Marx. They all saw crisis (except Keynes maybe) as something that came from outside of capitalism, disturbing the natural equilibrium of the market. When confronted with the reality that capitalism was prone to inequality, exploitation and crisis- that is, when it becomes apparent that there is a discontinuity between their theories and reality- bourgeois economists always blame reality for not conforming to their models. Reality has been poisoned by invading external forces, they say, in the form of state intervention, labor-movements, human greed, etc. We see this same reactionary approach today in rising right-wing populism which blames the invasive influence of foreigners, left-intellectuals, homosexuals, non-Christians, and black presidents for the problems of society.

Marx takes the opposite approach. He sees the social antagonisms of capitalism as internal to the system. These social antagonisms are so basic to the system that they drag all other parts of society into their gravitational field.

Bourgeois economists have always seen the market as a realm of great freedom and equality. The fact that there is so much inequality, crisis and unfulfilled freedom in market societies is seen as an imperfection in reality, not theory. Contrary to what some lay people think, Marx does not start with an analysis of these social bads and then proceed to a critique of market relations. Marx doesn�t begin by talking about monopoly, poverty, exploitation, or state violence. He begins with this same realm of market freedom that his bourgeois critics are so enamored with, and then shows how all of these social antagonisms spring out of this basic productive relation. For Marx it all starts that the fact that capitalist production is production for market exchange. This basic form of production takes on law-like properties that he calls �The Law of Value�.

The Law of Value

What did Marx find so interesting about capitalist societies? It wasn�t just the freedom to buy or sell anything you wanted. It was the fact that in order to participate in the social life of a market society one has to buy and sell things. In order to survive, in order to participate in society, one has to enter the market to buy things and to sell the products of their own labor. This is a distinctly different organization of society than previous societies where working people largely supported themselves with their own labor- that is, they labored to make things for their own use. (Or more specifically, laboring classes supported themselves with their own labor and supported the ruling class.) In a capitalist society people don�t make things that have any use for themselves at all. They produce things in order to exchange them. Thus the coordination of the social labor process happens indirectly through exchange.

In a society of private producers, coordinated indirectly through the market, the social relations between these people take the form of relations between things, of commodity relations. The relations between people become value relations expressed in commodity prices. Economically, people can only relate to each other through money prices, through value. This world of commodity relations takes an independent form, outside of the control of individuals, that acts back upon and directs the flow of human affairs. Adam Smith called it the �hidden hand of the market.� Marx calls it �the law of value.�

What is the law of value? It is the impersonal, blind forces of the economy exerting their influence upon society. It is unique to a society in which the dominant form of labor is production for market exchange. The relations between people become value relations between commodities. And these value relations become impersonal forces which have unexpected consequences for society. For instance, we get capital:

People have always used tools and other resources in their labor. These are called �means of production�. In a capitalist economy means of production become capital. Tools, machines, materials, and even workers are all commodities with values. This makes it possible to buy means of production in the market and sell the products of those means of production for a profit. That is, a person can invest money in production merely for the sake of getting more money. The pursuit of value as an end in itself becomes the dominating force in the society. This is what capital is, the expansion of value for its own sake, regardless of the social cost. Capital takes the form of a class that owns the means of production and another that must produce the profit for capital.

Capital is inherently asymmetrical, great poles of wealth and poverty spreading out from it in geographical and economic space. Capital is also self-negating. Although it represents an impersonal force above society, dominating the worker, it also relies on the worker to create profit for it. There is a social antagonism at it�s root. This social antagonism leads to periodic crisis and constant instability.

All of these radical implications and many more are part of Marx�s theory of value.

This video series will cover various topics in Marx�s theory of value: The difference between use-value, exchange value and value, the relation of supply, demand and price to value, abstract labor, exploitation, crisis, socially necessary labor time, and even what an understanding of value can tell us about changing the world. It is hoped that they can contribute to a better appreciation of the importance of value theory to radical movements today as they seek ideas with which to articulate their demands and strategies.

How much do you know?

Many people, supporters and opponents of Marx, think that they already know all there is to know about Marx�s theory of value. Let�s take a brief quiz to find out how much you know. Here are 10 True or False questions. Take out a paper and pencil and keep track of your answers. I�ll give the answers at the end.

True False Quiz:

1. Marx�s theory of value holds that any human labor creates value.

2. Marx�s theory of value is intended to be a theory of market prices.

3. Marx�s theory of value is the same as his predecessor David Ricardo.

4. Marx didn�t believe the forces of supply and demand were relevant to explaining value.

5. Marx�s theory of value is a theory of what workers should get paid.

6. Marx�s theory of value was a theory about how a communist society should be run.

7. Marx didn�t think consumer demand played a role in prices, value or other economic phenomena.

8. Marx�s theory of value doesn�t work in free markets.

9. Marx�s theory of value can�t explain why useless things like mudpies don�t have value.

10. Marx hated babies.

The answer to all of these questions is �FALSE�! If you answered �True� to any of them then perhaps you don�t know enough about Marx�s theory of value to actually make an informed judgement about it. If you are interested in understanding one of the most thorough theoretical critiques of capitalism ever created then perhaps this video series might be a good starting point. If you already know that you are going to hate Marx�s analysis then perhaps watching this video series would be a good starting point in educating yourself so that you don�t sound like a total idiot when you go mouthing-off all over the internet.

How you should watch these videos

The internet has given us access to more information than any generation before us. It has allowed for a great leveling of our access to information, allowing everyone to contribute to the sharing of information. But this hasn�t necessarily made our culture better informed, more intelligent, or better at critical thinking. In our rush for instant information we are losing our ability to properly contextualize information, to synthesize ideas, and to discern what sources of information we can trust. Let�s face it- in our consumer-culture we are conditioned to want instant gratification for no effort. We want easy answers that don�t require any personal sacrifice. (Neo, matrix, downloading information into his brain.)

You can�t learn everything you need to know about capitalism from a YouTube video. On the internet any fool can and will explain their inarticulate and half-formed personal theories into a web cam. These videos are not like that. They don�t represent my ideas at all. I am trying, to the best of my ability, to explain a complex body of intellectual work that spans a long history of debates as people grappled with these ideas. By acquainting ourselves with the history of ideas we can make sure that we don�t repeat the mistakes of the past, and that we are aware of the implications of our arguments.

But a video or a blog cannot substitute for the real thing. I am dealing with complex, difficult ideas and I am not perfect. I may make mistakes. I may leave things out. If you really want to understand Marx you must go to the source.

We should also be aware of the ability of video to manipulate us on an emotional level. Images, tone of voice and background music can all be helpful in helping us understand things. But they can also evoke emotional responses that are not necessarily rational. We should be aware of the way media effects our understanding of material and not let this get in the way of rational intellectual thinking. There is already enough of a shortage of rational thinking in our society.

There are a lot of ideas in each of these videos. One viewing may not be sufficient to absorb everything. That�s why I post the full text on my blog. The blog sometimes also contains tangents and side-arguments that were cut from the video as well as references and suggestions for future reading. I hope that the references on my blog might be a good starting point for people who are interested in learning more.

As we move through these different topics in the Law of Value our understanding of the Law of Value will deepen. At the end of each video there is a summary of the new layer of meaning we have added to the law of value. It would be wise to keep returning to this basic question as we progress through these videos: What happens when the relations between working people take the form of value relations between commodities?

# ? Dec 7, 2018 02:45

Infinite Karma: Oct 23, 2004; Good as dead

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

indeed. why, I hear those fuckers in weimar banned the socialist and communist parties, after which the liberals gleefully handed over power to the nazis out of fear that the next election would go badly for them otherwise. great story. hilarious punchline.

suppression of hostile ideologies is a function of government, CS. the questions are which ideologies will be suppressed, and how. we hold that "murdering people who look like they can successfully advocate for racial equality" is a poor answer to both questions. do you concur?

Why do you keep trotting out this strawman about murder? Very, very few political murders take place in modern democracies. Not zero, but not very many. And zero are state sanctioned. Even if you don't like my facts, nobody is saying that killing ideological opponents is okay now, or in the future.

Do you think that people advocating for capitalism in your hypothetical utopia are going to have a capitalist revolution out of the blue if their ideas aren't suppressed? Like, the means of production will suddenly be given to 0.001% of the population and everyone else will be serfs? Or do you think that capitalist ideas can be usefully discussed without betraying the core principles of socialism? Socialism is a robust enough philosophy to weather some scrutiny. A constitution guaranteeing founding principles that the majority can't alter on a whim means that the important things aren't changing, and if they are... that's what the people being governed want. Aside from advocating violence or disenfranchisment, what ideology is so dangerous it needs to be banned?

# ? Dec 7, 2018 05:04

Grand Prize Winner: Feb 19, 2007

Infinite Karma posted:

Why do you keep trotting out this strawman about murder? Very, very few political murders take place in modern democracies. Not zero, but not very many. And zero are state sanctioned.

Yeah all those BLM leaders are just turning up dead at random; no police collusion at all I'm sure

# ? Dec 7, 2018 05:09

Ruzihm: Aug 11, 2010; Group up and push mid, proletariat!

Infinite Karma posted:

Very, very few political murders take place in modern democracies.

If that's your point of comparison, I don't think anyone in this thread expects that a society where the socialist mode of production has been established for several generations would require laws against pro-capitalist speech any more than we need laws against pro-serfdom speech today.

I thought the conversation was about a society which is in the process of transforming their mode of production or which is still entrenching it. In that case, a more apt point of comparison would be the period of the French revolution, which featured a lot of repression of pro-serfdom speech, organization, and activity.

# ? Dec 7, 2018 05:46

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Infinite Karma posted:

Why do you keep trotting out this strawman about murder? Very, very few political murders take place in modern democracies. Not zero, but not very many. And zero are state sanctioned. Even if you don't like my facts, nobody is saying that killing ideological opponents is okay now, or in the future.

Do you think that people advocating for capitalism in your hypothetical utopia are going to have a capitalist revolution out of the blue if their ideas aren't suppressed? Like, the means of production will suddenly be given to 0.001% of the population and everyone else will be serfs? Or do you think that capitalist ideas can be usefully discussed without betraying the core principles of socialism? Socialism is a robust enough philosophy to weather some scrutiny. A constitution guaranteeing founding principles that the majority can't alter on a whim means that the important things aren't changing, and if they are... that's what the people being governed want. Aside from advocating violence or disenfranchisment, what ideology is so dangerous it needs to be banned?

this entire post bends double under the weight of the great, unspoken asterisk after "in modern democracies."

*that Infinite Karma, personally, cares about.

if only Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, or Donald Trump, had known about a series of mysterious activist deaths the police were unwilling to investigate, they would have stepped in to stop it, right, friend?

if only the Tsar knew!

# ? Dec 7, 2018 06:25

Infinite Karma: Oct 23, 2004; Good as dead

Grand Prize Winner posted:

Yeah all those BLM leaders are just turning up dead at random; no police collusion at all I'm sure

How many is "all those"? I've heard of a very small number. So, really educate me if I'm misinformed? The fact that the police kill people with impunity is a massive, massive injustice, but even those deaths aren't targeted killing. And even if they were, they aren't state sanctioned... they're rogue elements working outside their official capacity.

Cops are corrupt as hell and are a vicious tool of oppression in this country. Even that isn't the same as the Gestapo.

Ruzihm posted:

If that's your point of comparison, I don't think anyone in this thread expects that a society where the socialist mode of production has been established for several generations would require laws against pro-capitalist speech any more than we need laws against pro-serfdom speech today.

I thought the conversation was about a society which is in the process of transforming their mode of production or which is still entrenching it. In that case, a more apt point of comparison would be the period of the French revolution, which featured a lot of repression of pro-serfdom speech, organization, and activity.

The conversation seems like it's just "full communism now". It's weird that the unsuccessful authoritarian parts of communism are being praised instead of the ones that are meaningfully different from capitalism. If socialism is better for most people (and it is), then it can stand on its merits in a populist sense - there are more people who will benefit than who will lose wealth, if they just cut through the propaganda and suppression. Stuff like class solidarity is a weird hill to die on when the point is, most Americans don't know how to identify class in the first place.

# ? Dec 7, 2018 06:39

Ruzihm: Aug 11, 2010; Group up and push mid, proletariat!

Infinite Karma posted:

The conversation seems like it's just "full communism now". It's weird that the unsuccessful authoritarian parts of communism are being praised instead of the ones that are meaningfully different from capitalism. If socialism is better for most people (and it is), then it can stand on its merits in a populist sense - there are more people who will benefit than who will lose wealth, if they just cut through the propaganda and suppression. Stuff like class solidarity is a weird hill to die on when the point is, most Americans don't know how to identify class in the first place.

okay, so when "more people who will benefit" tell the other guys what to do, what do you think that looks like? In the french revolution it looked like guillotines.

# ? Dec 7, 2018 06:47

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Infinite Karma posted:

The fact that the police kill people with impunity is a massive, massive injustice, but even those deaths aren't targeted killing. And even if they were, they aren't state sanctioned... they're rogue elements working outside their official capacity.

I must say that as a Filipino, it is extremely uncomfortable to me that you're engaging in the same apologia as the Duterte government does, in that extra-judicial killings do not exist simply because no written orders were ever issued and that the killings are never politically motivated.

Infinite Karma posted:

The conversation seems like it's just "full communism now". It's weird that the unsuccessful authoritarian parts of communism are being praised instead of the ones that are meaningfully different from capitalism.

The authoritarian parts of communism were put together because communism was under assault both internally and externally. If you understand that communism needs to "cut through the propaganda and the suppression", please also understand that what is generally perceived (or, indeed, propagandized) as totalitarianism by communist nations were enacted for perfectly cogent reasons.

# ? Dec 7, 2018 06:49

Doktor Avalanche: Dec 30, 2008

Infinite Karma posted:

If socialism is better for most people (and it is), then it can stand on its merits in a populist sense

Hahahaha what world do you live in?

# ? Dec 7, 2018 06:49

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Ruzihm posted:

Two paragraphs into Willie and he's already wrong. Communism is about the abolition of capital (and therefore its accumulation) entirely.

He may be right that china is better at capitalism than the US, though!

There is the possibilty that the problem is systems related, this is to say that when one maximizes for a single component of a system, one might cause the failure of that system. Marx is right about capitalism ( and that might be provable!), but that idealistic utopians don't offer a viable solution.

# ? Dec 7, 2018 06:49

Infinite Karma: Oct 23, 2004; Good as dead

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

this entire post bends double under the weight of the great, unspoken asterisk after "in modern democracies."

*that Infinite Karma, personally, cares about.

if only Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, or Donald Trump, had known about a series of mysterious activist deaths the police were unwilling to investigate, they would have stepped in to stop it, right, friend?

if only the Tsar knew!

I'm comparing the U.S. to non-democracies like the PRC, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. It's a good faith argument, do you not see the difference between the rights people have in the U.S. and the least free places in the world?

Trump and Sessions are pieces of poo poo, but luckily we don't follow strongman "leaders" in lockstep. Do you think it's the job of the president or the attorney general to investigate individual murders, anyway? Do you think they were consulted in any way, or have some kind of control over local cops? They're not monsters because they make these things happen... they're monsters because they don't care, and it's supposed to be their job to care. Two fascists don't define our country, and we all want them gone and prevented from harming more people.

# ? Dec 7, 2018 06:57

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Infinite Karma posted:

I'm comparing the U.S. to non-democracies like the PRC, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. It's a good faith argument, do you not see the difference between the rights people have in the U.S. and the least free places in the world?

Trump and Sessions are pieces of poo poo, but luckily we don't follow strongman "leaders" in lockstep. Do you think it's the job of the president or the attorney general to investigate individual murders, anyway? Do you think they were consulted in any way, or have some kind of control over local cops? They're not monsters because they make these things happen... they're monsters because they don't care, and it's supposed to be their job to care. Two fascists don't define our country, and we all want them gone and prevented from harming more people.

it seems you agree your government, democratic capitalism, has sanctioned these murders, friend. regardless of the opinions of its people. on the grounds that the dead had it coming, for questioning their place in the capitalist racial caste structure.

and your proposed solution to this is putting nicer people in charge of adjudicating disputes relating to it.

you understand why people find this unsatisfactory, yes

# ? Dec 7, 2018 07:06

Infinite Karma: Oct 23, 2004; Good as dead

gradenko_2000 posted:

I must say that as a Filipino, it is extremely uncomfortable to me that you're engaging in the same apologia as the Duterte government does, in that extra-judicial killings do not exist simply because no written orders were ever issued and that the killings are never politically motivated.

I'm sorry to come off that way... I don't agree with Duterte and I don't think extra judicial killings are okay. I'm saying it sounds like a conspiracy theory to say that these were politically motivated. And it would literally be a conspiracy if they were. Maybe they are! I don't actually know, isn't it a big assumption to say that nationwide, cops are being organized to secretly kill activists, and nobody can catch them? I'm not trying to make excuses... there aren't any. Activists should be safe, and they're not, and I don't personally have the power to end the killing. The solution is still disarming cops and fighting white supremacists.

quote:

The authoritarian parts of communism were put together because communism was under assault both internally and externally. If you understand that communism needs to "cut through the propaganda and the suppression", please also understand that what is generally perceived (or, indeed, propagandized) as totalitarianism by communist nations were enacted for perfectly cogent reasons.

Current authorisation regimes imprison or kill political enemies. Not in order to have a revolution at all, but in order to stifle change and legitimate grievances. I take issue with that. I want my revolution to avoid the purges of France and Stalin and Mao. Maybe I'm naive for hoping it doesn't have to be violent or oppressive - the whole point of this is to end oppression, not to just change which team is doing the oppressing.

Infinite Karma fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Dec 7, 2018

# ? Dec 7, 2018 07:14

Ruzihm: Aug 11, 2010; Group up and push mid, proletariat!

Infinite Karma posted:

Current authorisation regimes imprison or kill political enemies. Not in order to have a revolution at all, but in order to stifle change and legitimate grievances. I take issue with that. I want my revolution to avoid the purges of France and Stalin and Mao. Maybe I'm naive for hoping it doesn't have to be violent or oppressive - the whole point of this is to end oppression, not to just change which team is doing the oppressing.

I'm not saying that the purges of the FR were desirable or good. Obviously, choosing a more peaceful, bloodless, and decorous transformation of the mode of production, all other things the same, would be the ethical choice--if such a choice can be made.

I'm only pointing out that historically speaking, things get tumultuous, and that is a reason to expect another change to be tumultuous again.

BrandorKP posted:

idealistic utopians don't offer a viable solution.

Infernot made a good post about this.

Infernot posted:

RuanGacho posted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Harmony,_Indiana

quote:
This historical situation also dominated the founders of Socialism. To the crude conditions of capitalistic production and the crude class conditions correspond crude theories. The solution of the social problems, which as yet lay hidden in undeveloped economic conditions, the Utopians attempted to evolve out of the human brain. Society presented nothing but wrongs; to remove these was the task of reason. It was necessary, then, to discover a new and more perfect system of social order and to impose this upon society from without by propaganda, and, wherever it was possible, by the example of model experiments. These new social systems were foredoomed as Utopian; the more completely they were worked out in detail, the more they could not avoid drifting off into pure phantasies.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htm

Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Dec 7, 2018

# ? Dec 7, 2018 07:33

Infinite Karma: Oct 23, 2004; Good as dead

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

it seems you agree your government, democratic capitalism, has sanctioned these murders, friend. regardless of the opinions of its people. on the grounds that the dead had it coming, for questioning their place in the capitalist racial caste structure.

and your proposed solution to this is putting nicer people in charge of adjudicating disputes relating to it.

you understand why people find this unsatisfactory, yes

I understand you're trying to put words in my mouth. I don't want to defend cops, so it's insane that you have me making excuses.

Do you have a magical way of making sure nobody ever commits a murder? Do you have a way of eliminating prejudice? We can't always physically stop people from doing things we don't like, that's the whole point of laws and rules. So yes, my solution is finding better people to adjudicate the law. And better laws while we're at it. Hopefully much better ones who actually protect people instead of killing them.

Infinite Karma fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Dec 7, 2018

# ? Dec 7, 2018 07:41

enki42: Jun 11, 2001; #ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!

Attempt at a topic change.

What do people think the most realistic path to socialism is in the United States? Is revolution a necessary element of instituting socialism, or is reform possible?

It seems to me like there's a large swell of support of reformist, democratic socialism in the United States (as an outside observer). There's lots of support for Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a socialist, although from my perspective he seems pretty solidly social democratic. Do you think it's possible that he or someone with similar politics could manage to introduce socialist elements into the United States, possibly by nationalizing at least to some degrees industries like healthcare? And if this were to happen, is it possible that more significant parts, or even the majority of the economy could be converted to a socialist mode of production all within the governmental structure that exists today?

# ? Dec 7, 2018 15:08

Epicurius: Apr 10, 2010; College Slice

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

indeed. why, I hear those fuckers in weimar banned the socialist and communist parties, after which the liberals gleefully handed over power to the nazis out of fear that the next election would go badly for them otherwise. great story. hilarious punchline.

That's not exactly what happened. The Center Party voted for the Enabling Act after Hitler came to power and the Reichstag fire, and Hitler used the power that gave him to ban the Communist and Socialists (and Center Party), for that matter, but the vote took place under circumstances of such violence and intimidation (Communist delegates had been arrested before the vote, armed SA men were taking notes and threatening delegates on the floor, speeches were being shouted down, etc) that it wasn't a normal situation and it's hard to say thar banning the parties was really the Center Party's goal.

Throughout the Weimar period, the Center Party and the SPD were members of the "Weimar coalition", and generally worked well together. If you're interested in looking at the rise of the Nazis, it's worth checking out Benjamin Carter Hett's "The Death of Democracy: Hitler's Rise to Power" I don't want to get involved in your thread's overall argument (because I'm scared of you all) but the rise if Hitler tends to be a much misunderstood thing, and people tend to oversimplify it in the cause of grand narratives

# ? Dec 7, 2018 15:24

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

enki42 posted:

Attempt at a topic change.

What do people think the most realistic path to socialism is in the United States? Is revolution a necessary element of instituting socialism, or is reform possible?

It seems to me like there's a large swell of support of reformist, democratic socialism in the United States (as an outside observer). There's lots of support for Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a socialist, although from my perspective he seems pretty solidly social democratic. Do you think it's possible that he or someone with similar politics could manage to introduce socialist elements into the United States, possibly by nationalizing at least to some degrees industries like healthcare? And if this were to happen, is it possible that more significant parts, or even the majority of the economy could be converted to a socialist mode of production all within the governmental structure that exists today?

social democracy is a dead-end, and its inevitable failure will only embolden reactionary elements of society, as we can see in, for instance, the reaction to immigration in Scandinavia

# ? Dec 7, 2018 15:40

enki42: Jun 11, 2001; #ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

social democracy is a dead-end, and its inevitable failure will only embolden reactionary elements of society, as we can see in, for instance, the reaction to immigration in Scandinavia

OK, but can social democracy be a stepping stone? Forgetting about the merits of social democracy in and of itself, is it possible to transition to a socialist mode of production in a significant way through reform and working within the system?

As for your point about Scandinavia, I'd be interested to hear why you think (and it's come up here and there in this thread) that nationalism is intriniscally tied up with capitalism. It certainly seems to me that racism and nationalism are present in any example of a socialist country I can think of (I'm not saying for what it's worth whether it's better or worse than non-socialist countries, just still present), and there's nothing about socialism in and of itself that would necessarily eliminate nationalism as far as I can see.

If Scandinavia was more or even fully socialist, what would be different that would prevent the negative reaction to immigration?

enki42 fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Dec 7, 2018

# ? Dec 7, 2018 15:49

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

social democracy is a dead-end, and its inevitable failure will only embolden reactionary elements of society, as we can see in, for instance, the reaction to immigration in Scandinavia

All forms of government fail over time and have flaws. I could just as easily say "revolutionary socialism is a futile daydream that distracts from actually possible social progress". Marxist and fully communist states have also had racist government policies; racism can happen in any government made up of human beings.

# ? Dec 7, 2018 15:55

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

There's never been a fully Communist state, for obvious reasons

# ? Dec 7, 2018 16:03

enki42: Jun 11, 2001; #ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!

OK, but what is it about a fully communist state that prevents nationalism or racism?

# ? Dec 7, 2018 16:05

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Given the significant militarization of police and the massive military we maintain domestically, and the heavy right wing leanings of both groups, I would hold that revolution in the sense of a mass armed uprising to violently overthrow the government from the Left is practically impossible.

If revolution is meant in a broader sense, such as the abolition of the Senate or other significant changes to the Constitution that result in our system of government functioning significantly differently than it does today, I would say that such a thing is possible in the future, but that we can get there is not guaranteed.

# ? Dec 7, 2018 16:06

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Azathoth posted:

If revolution is meant in a broader sense, such as the abolition of the Senate or other significant changes to the Constitution that result in our system of government functioning significantly differently than it does today, I would say that such a thing is possible in the future, but that we can get there is not guaranteed.

In that sense though . . . you're basically talking about democratic socialism. You're talking about structural reforms to the democratic system, achieved democratically.

enki42 posted:

OK, but what is it about a fully communist state that prevents nationalism or racism?

Or a partly communist state, for that matter.

# ? Dec 7, 2018 16:08

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

enki42 posted:

OK, but what is it about a fully communist state that prevents nationalism or racism?

Well for one ,"ffully communist" and "state" are incompatible

# ? Dec 7, 2018 16:10

enki42: Jun 11, 2001; #ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!

OK, what is it about full gay space communist utopias that prevents nationalism or racism?

# ? Dec 7, 2018 16:11

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

the gulag

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Dec 7, 2018 16:16

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

the gulag

then the commandant of the gulag is your State

# ? Dec 7, 2018 16:22

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

It's my understanding that the reason you want to engage in democratic socialism (or social democracy, as the case may be) is that the material conditions for revolution might not be favorable yet, and in the meantime you do want to salve the most grievous wounds of capitalism, and the kind of solidarity and organizing that is involved with participating in electoralism helps prepare the base for whatever revolution might come in the future.

That said, it's not a pathway to socialism because whatever concessions you can wring out of the capitalists are always going to be things that they allow themselves to lose in the meantime, but there's always going to be a point where they're going to draw the line and go no further.

You can't "reform" capitalism into socialism because the capitalist powers-that-be are not going to let you, because it's not in their material interests to do so. Eventually one class has to overthrow the other.

# ? Dec 7, 2018 16:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 02:35

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

gradenko_2000 posted:

It's my understanding that the reason you want to engage in democratic socialism (or social democracy, as the case may be) is that the material conditions for revolution might not be favorable yet, and in the meantime you do want to salve the most grievous wounds of capitalism, and the kind of solidarity and organizing that is involved with participating in electoralism helps prepare the base for whatever revolution might come in the future.

That said, it's not a pathway to socialism because whatever concessions you can wring out of the capitalists are always going to be things that they allow themselves to lose in the meantime, but there's always going to be a point where they're going to draw the line and go no further.

You can't "reform" capitalism into socialism because the capitalist powers-that-be are not going to let you, because it's not in their material interests to do so. Eventually one class has to overthrow the other.

What happens if the material conditions for revolution never become favorable?

# ? Dec 7, 2018 16:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Socialism in the United States: A Discussion Thread for Then and Now

«‹›25 »