Socialism, Communism and General Leftism (An Explanation and Discussion)
95 replies, posted
The trick is to convince yourself that your own particular politics is less oppressive than the rest
[QUOTE=MangoJuice;41702303]Marxist Communist here, good OP. I read his work ages ago but needed a little brushing up.[/QUOTE]
If your looking to brush up on Marxist literature then i recommend the following:
[URL="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm"]Socialism: Utopian and Scientific[/URL]
[URL="http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm"]The Principles of Communism[/URL]
[URL="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm"]Manifesto of the Communist Party[/URL]
[URL="http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-manifesto-study-t174438/index.html?p=2498371#post2498371"]Study Guide[/URL]
[URL="http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm"]Wage Labour and Capital [/URL]
[URL="http://www.revleft.com/vb/wage-labor-and-t175780/index.html?p=2524296#post2524296"]Study Guide[/URL]
[URL="http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/"]Value, Price and Profit[/URL]
[URL="http://www.revleft.com/vb/value-price-profit-t175215/index.html?p=2514024#post2514024"]Study Guide[/URL]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41674249]thread music:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk69e1Vcmvg[/media][/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;PBm9NQ9kxRE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBm9NQ9kxRE[/video]
superior rendition
Great OP, looking forward to your future posts.
[QUOTE=DrasarSalman;41684739]I'm not a radical left wing supporter, but I'm quite interested in functioning socialistic models like the Scandinavian ones focused on labor rights and welfare. The Norwegian one is a great example, because of our huge income through the oil industry which is all "given to the people".
Though, I don't really understand how a "anarchistic communistic" state would function, because the government having control of its citizens and economy is what made countries like China, North Korea and Soviet function. If everyone had the right to do whatever they wanted, it would require absolutely every citizen to be complete idealists who would be willing to work practically for free without a single selfish thought in their heads. I understand that some people would consider this form of ideology to be viable, but I would need a functioning example to be convinced.[/QUOTE]
This post shows perfectly how the terms [I]socialism[/I] and [I]communism[/I] have been [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recuperation_(politics)"]recuperated[/URL] to mean Milquetoast social democracy, like the Scandinavian states, and state capitalism respectively. Not only is modern leftism haunted by infighting - sometimes justified (fuck Trotskyites), sometimes not -, and a shady past (thanks Mao), it also has to deal with the fact that cooky capitalists just love to use our words. Libertarianism went from being a blanket term describing non-authoritarian types of socialism, to meaning what it means now, i.e. the go-to political philosophy, for lack of a better term, for privileged white dudes who think the free market is a good substitute for a government. Hell, even the term anarchism [URL="http://flagpole.com/blogs/in-the-loop/posts/athens-congressman-calls-himself-anarchist"]is now being contended[/URL]. Cultural Marxism now means political correctness for some stupid reason.
Not that it matters much in discussion, as pretty much every person that takes part in socialist gatherings or discussions knows what these words actually mean but it does make outreach and education somewhat harder since a lot of people seem to think they have a pretty good grasp on what socialism or communism or any of those other terms mean, but their definitions are completely wrong.
Also, to add to the reading list (because if you want to be serious about it, you gotta read some books):
[URL="http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/"]This[/URL] is a really good reading guide of Das Kapital. You don't [I]have[/I] to read it to call yourself a socialist, but it's a pretty good read. David Harvey also wrote some pretty good books himself, A brief history of Neoliberalism is definitely worth reading, though probably not relevant to the thread.
Also Gramsci, go read Gramsci he is cool.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;41705199]The trick is to convince yourself that your own particular politics is less oppressive than the rest[/QUOTE]
What if you don't give a shit about how oppressive your politics is and rather how much it prevents people from doing bad things.
That works too, at least if you're an authoritarian.
I think if you ascribe the term "authoritarian" to yourself how oppressive you are would be the furthest thing from your mind
[editline]4th August 2013[/editline]
you'd be thinking about how well wheat production has gone up since collectivisation and simultaneously confused at all the people starving in the wheat producing areas
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;41707882]I think if you ascribe the term "authoritarian" to yourself how oppressive you are would be the furthest thing from your mind
[editline]4th August 2013[/editline]
you'd be thinking about how well wheat production has gone up since collectivisation and simultaneously confused at all the people starving in the wheat producing areas[/QUOTE]
Not if you let the producers take a reasonable portion of their own product. I was talking about social policy, anyway.
For those interested in some history of the USSR around the 1960s (and looking at reasons for why it ultimately failed), I recommend Red Plenty.
[URL]http://www.redplenty.com/Red_Plenty/Front_page.html[/URL]
[editline]4th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gallus;41707207]Not only is modern leftism haunted by infighting - sometimes justified (fuck Trotskyites),[/QUOTE]
The worst of all the Trotskyists are the Stalinists.
Here's a story from a Marxist who joined a Trotskyist group in a university and described his experience with them: [URL]http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Sectariana/ISO.html[/URL]
Also here's an article where Emma Goldman takes Trotsky to absolute pieces (I have noticed that some Trotsky groups seem to revere him almost to sainthood): [URL]http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1938/trotsky-protests.htm[/URL]
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41708684]
Also here's an article where Emma Goldman takes Trotsky to absolute pieces (I have noticed that some Trotsky groups seem to revere him almost to sainthood): [URL]http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1938/trotsky-protests.htm[/URL][/QUOTE]
This actually is pretty typical of all socialists criticizing each other, honestly. Trotsky shot the same criticisms (or rather equivalents) to Goldman and her anarchists and continued the argument after this point. We still see this today, for instance between Chomsky and Zizek which is happening currently.
[QUOTE=Gallus;41707207]This post shows perfectly how the terms [I]socialism[/I] and [I]communism[/I] have been [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recuperation_(politics)"]recuperated[/URL] to mean Milquetoast social democracy, like the Scandinavian states, and state capitalism respectively.[/QUOTE]
Following on from this, consider the word [I]revolution[/I] now. Its become such a meaningless word to the point that car manufacturers have started using it to describe their yearly upgrades to car models, almost as if they reinvented the wheel when they just slapped in motion sensors and called it a day
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;41715264]Following on from this, consider the word [I]revolution[/I] now. Its become such a meaningless word to the point that car manufacturers have started using it to describe their yearly upgrades to car models, almost as if they reinvented the wheel when they just slapped in motion sensors and called it a day[/QUOTE]
Language changes, often whenever people like it or not.
I think it's become a weaker term, for I find no problem with using it to describe say the "industrial revolution" or the "agricultural revolution".
Those of course being my two favorite revolutions.
Great OP.
I think one of the problems people have with Socialism, Communism and Generally more "out there" leftist policy is that they come from a background and socioeconomic setting where the ideas espoused in socialist thought aren't really that important to their survivial or continuing prosperity.
One thing that I find from most people who flat line are "anti" communist or socialist are people who are already benefiting and prospering in their current preferred system, so often the arguments put forward about exploitation (in marx for example) don't hold any weight because that person either a) doesn't realise they are being exploited or b) are in a position where they have some small power to exploit workers / line employees themselves.
That's just my limited experience anyway, especially at University. People who espoused radical and extreme free market-eering and no safety nets were the people from a privileged background who's general approach was "why should I pay taxes for something I don't benefit from".
All in all, I'm sure this thread will inevitably be derailed by free marketeers who want to espouse that human entrepreneurs in the 1st iteration beget an indefinite priviledge to exploit generations of workers because "they build the factory or bought the machines in the first place", whilst failing to mention that a lot of the residual wealth that allowed many early "entrepreneurs" to flourish was collected through pillaging of foreign arts and culture, colonialism and exploitation of slavery and mass religious genocide and piracy in the preceding centuries. But hey ho, capitalism is the best.
[QUOTE=Benf199105;41759393]All in all, I'm sure this thread will inevitably be derailed by free marketeers who want to espouse that human entrepreneurs in the 1st iteration beget an indefinite priviledge[/quote]
I hate free marketers as much as you do. They peddle economic theories as unworkable as those of Marx.
[quote]to exploit generations of workers because "they build the factory or bought the machines in the first place", whilst failing to mention that a lot of the residual wealth that allowed many early "entrepreneurs" to flourish was collected through pillaging of foreign arts and culture, colonialism and exploitation of slavery and mass religious genocide and piracy in the preceding centuries. But hey ho, capitalism is the best.[/QUOTE]
This isn't actually how the industrial revolution was funded. The people who made money from slavery, religious genocide (I'm not even sure how you can make money from that), pillaging foreign arts/culture (this is very vague), and piracy were not the same people who funded the first steam engines or factories. Many of these early industrialists rose out of nothing building steam engines in their sheds. They didn't have the wealth of great plantations to draw upon.
Ironically enough, the Liberal capitalists who were on the up in the late 18th century were mostly responsible for much of the drive behind anti-slavery movements, and got rid of the corn laws, which reduced the price of food immensely and made it much easier for the worker to get his bread.
Anyways, capitalism is not inherently responsible for genocides or colonialism. Capitalism didn't even emerge until the late 18th century when state control of industry and trade went into decline. All of these genocides or empire building are actually done on the behalf of states operating on mercantile principles. They thought that economics was a zero sum game, and that building up reserves of gold, minimizing imports, and maximizing exports was ideal.
This lead to wars over control of resource rich areas, trade routes, commissioning privateers or allowing piracy to discourage competitors, etc.
Of course, such a system is utterly unworkable, and its own failures in driving economic growth was behind its downfall. Capitalism more or less replaced it with the end of price controls.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41762724]I hate free marketers as much as you do. They peddle economic theories as unworkable as those of Marx.
This isn't actually how the industrial revolution was funded. The people who made money from slavery, religious genocide (I'm not even sure how you can make money from that), pillaging foreign arts/culture (this is very vague), and piracy were not the same people who funded the first steam engines or factories. Many of these early industrialists rose out of nothing building steam engines in their sheds. They didn't have the wealth of great plantations to draw upon.
Ironically enough, the Liberal capitalists who were on the up in the late 18th century were mostly responsible for much of the drive behind anti-slavery movements, and got rid of the corn laws, which reduced the price of food immensely and made it much easier for the worker to get his bread.
Anyways, capitalism is not inherently responsible for genocides or colonialism. Capitalism didn't even emerge until the late 18th century when state control of industry and trade went into decline. All of these genocides or empire building are actually done on the behalf of states operating on mercantile principles. They thought that economics was a zero sum game, and that building up reserves of gold, minimizing imports, and maximizing exports was ideal.
This lead to wars over control of resource rich areas, trade routes, commissioning privateers or allowing piracy to discourage competitors, etc.
Of course, such a system is utterly unworkable, and its own failures in driving economic growth was behind its downfall. Capitalism more or less replaced it with the end of price controls.[/QUOTE]
When i posted i intended on putting "inb4 Sobotnik". It's like a dinner bell rings in your house whenever someone posts something that isn't pro capitalist.
Sincerely I really don't care enough about the slant you occupy to debate. The idea that free market liberal thinkers have freed the people and were "responsible" for the drive behind anti slavery is pretty ironic. Let's stop forcing these people to work for us with an iron fist, and instead force them to work for us by trapping them in a cycle of wage slavery and surplus value which 1 in 100000 might escape if they get lucky and don't get cholera or some for of debilitating disease from working in the mill for 18 hours a day, or down the mines. Remember they are free to find employment elsewhere, or free to starve, the only true freedom.
Furthermore contra to your point that liberal capitalists were behind the anti slavery movement, there were many pro slavers inside of society at the same time, especially in Plantation country and the south of the USA, but I'm sure you already know that.
But I take your points, the same societies which were happy enough to kidnap and exploit black slaves a few decades before for their own profit, helping to build factories, plantations, railroads and infrastructure, sowing the seeds for further industrialisation and aggregation of wealth; got behind the movement in the end, so well done to them.
But hey, they decided that was bad after they'd enjoyed a rich and plentiful life at the expense of worthless black subhumanoids. So we can give them a pat on the back for that.
How is capitalism not responsible for colonialism? Colonialism wasn't about profit? it was about "building gold reserves, importing less and exporting more...".
Ah Why would anyone want to export more than they import? There must be some reasoning behind that? So exporting more and importing less isn't about profit... It's about something else...
Anyway, I won't indulge you any further as I know you'll need no encouragement to try and thread shit and turn this into a Communism vs Capitalism thread. (i'm aware of the irony of indulging you in this post) but I won't continue any further.
I'm thinking of attending socialist meetings at my university in the coming weeks. Not that I am leftist and want to join the movement; as I'm definitely much more right leaning than the average member here. But insight never hurts; I always try to keep an open mind on things and I just want to see what they're about. One of my older brothers went to one of their meetings and said they're extremely radical (at least the younger members, the old timers are actually reasonable he said) but it doesn't deter me. I'm thinking I should avoid mentioning that I'm a student of the school of commerce and follow Keynesian economics lol.
Sobotnik please don't reply to Benf and yeah I'm glad you realised the irony of indulging him Benf, but yeah there would be another time and place to argue about that stuff, and if you happened to find one I'd happily argue with you about it. I've been following this thread for a while and it's been pretty civil so it'd be shame if it ended up being a stupid left versus right debate.
[QUOTE=Benf199105;41763912]When i posted i intended on putting "inb4 Sobotnik". It's like a dinner bell rings in your house whenever someone posts something that isn't pro capitalist.[/quote]
I am interested in debating these sort of things. Even thought there is a ridiculous use of strawmans where you somehow conflate me with Free-Market Libertarians when I'm actually in for a considerable deal of government intervention into the economy and extensive social nets.
Of course, it makes sense to also understand how the world truly operates as well, and so one must try to understand the drivers behind forces that brought about the modern world, such as the industrial revolution. For this reason, I will be largely concentrating on what you have said which is demonstrably wrong. I.e that which tells us HOW and WHY things happen, and not how we would wish it to.
[quote]Let's stop forcing these people to work for us with an iron fist, and instead force them to work for us by trapping them in a cycle of wage slavery[/quote]
Wages offered in the cities were higher than on the farms. This resulted in the movement of peoples to the cities. Yes, it is an empirical fact that this happened, and wages did rise.
When you speak of how terrible life was in the city, you have to remember two facts:
1. It was much worse beforehand.
2. It was gradually getting better, this is the point of economic growth.
[quote]and surplus value[/quote]
Surplus value is well known to be completely false on economic, empirical, and philosophical grounds.
[quote]which 1 in 100000 might escape if they get lucky and don't get cholera or some for of debilitating disease from working in the mill for 18 hours a day, or down the mines.[/quote]
This is also false. Wages rose the fastest in most heavily industrialized areas (so Northern England or London). Out in the countryside in the farms, wages lagged behind the rest of the nation.
16 hours was actually the maximum worked by most people, and even then, legislation and economic growth started forcing the max working hours down during that century anyways.
[quote]Remember they are free to find employment elsewhere, or free to starve, the only true freedom.[/quote]
But humans had been starving if they didn't work throughout much of history. What makes capitalists any special?
[quote]But I take your points, the same societies which were happy enough to kidnap and exploit black slaves a few decades before for their own profit, helping to build factories, plantations, railroads and infrastructure, sowing the seeds for further industrialisation and aggregation of wealth; got behind the movement in the end, so well done to them.[/quote]
On the whole, industrialization was good. The human race is better off in an industrialized society than an agrarian one.
[quote]How is capitalism not responsible for colonialism? Colonialism wasn't about profit? it was about "building gold reserves, importing less and exporting more...".[/quote]
That was mercantilism. Don't confuse capitalism and mercantilism, they were different beasts.
[quote]Ah Why would anyone want to export more than they import? There must be some reasoning behind that? So exporting more and importing less isn't about profit... It's about something else...[/quote]
Mercantilism is common sense applied to economics. Unfortunately, it doesn't work.
Finally, I wish to ask you, which economics or history books have you been reading? Do you have the full perspective? Do you understand the concept of marginalism for instance?
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/UtilityQuantified.svg[/img]
If you don't I am happy to explain.
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;41767838]Sobotnik please don't reply to Benf and yeah I'm glad you realised the irony of indulging him Benf[/QUOTE]
fuck i already made the post
not that I'm saying I disagree with your points Sobotnik, but now shit's about to go down lol
[QUOTE=Antdawg;41767838]I'm thinking of attending socialist meetings at my university in the coming weeks. Not that I am leftist and want to join the movement; as I'm definitely much more right leaning than the average member here. But insight never hurts; I always try to keep an open mind on things and I just want to see what they're about. One of my older brothers went to one of their meetings and said they're extremely radical (at least the younger members, the old timers are actually reasonable he said) but it doesn't deter me. I'm thinking I should avoid mentioning that I'm a student of the school of commerce and follow Keynesian economics lol.
Sobotnik please don't reply to Benf and yeah I'm glad you realised the irony of indulging him Benf, but yeah there would be another time and place to argue about that stuff, and if you happened to find one I'd happily argue with you about it. I've been following this thread for a while and it's been pretty civil so it'd be shame if it ended up being a stupid left versus right debate.[/QUOTE]
it's sad that "radical" is seen as a dirty word or insult. the difference between a radical and a moderate is simply how much a person believes the electoral system or legislature can implement their ideas. a moderate socialist joins a socialist party and believes socialism can come about through laws that implement it. a radical socialist joins insurrection groups and believes that social revolution and force applied to the economic/government structures are most effective at pushing for socialism.
radicals are needed to push society forward.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41768321]it's sad that "radical" is seen as a dirty word or insult. the difference between a radical and a moderate is simply how much a person believes the electoral system or legislature can implement their ideas. a moderate socialist joins a socialist party and believes socialism can come about through laws that implement it. a radical socialist joins insurrection groups and believes that social revolution and force applied to the economic/government structures are most effective at pushing for socialism.
radicals are needed to push society forward.[/QUOTE]
Not when radicals believe that people have to be killed to 'push society forward' or become so entrenched in their beliefs that they reject all criticism of their ideologies (which is why I always try to keep an open mind on everything and as a capitalist I do recognise its valid criticisms).
[QUOTE=Antdawg;41768448]Not when radicals believe that people have to be killed to 'push society forward' or become so entrenched in their beliefs that they reject all criticism of their ideologies (which is why I always try to keep an open mind on everything and as a capitalist I do recognise its valid criticisms).[/QUOTE]
those things aren't exclusive to radicals(moderates can use the legal system to kill people), and aren't a prerequisite of radicalism(i am a radical who thinks killing is bad).
Antdawg go to a Fabian society meeting if you want non-radical socialists
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41768468]those things aren't exclusive to radicals(moderates can use the legal system to kill people), and aren't a prerequisite of radicalism(i am a radical who thinks killing is bad).[/QUOTE]
Generally I noticed, it tends to be the far left and far right who seem to advocate force more, whilst the moderates tend to use the existing political system, sacrificing ideals in favour of pragmatism, and trying to bring about their preferred worlds through gradual changes in laws and policy.
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;41768513]Antdawg go to a Fabian society meeting if you want non-radical socialists[/QUOTE]
Oh I quite like the Fabian socialists.
sometimes you confuse me Sobotnik
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41768053]On the whole, industrialization was good. The human race is better off in an industrialized society than an agrarian one.[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone except perhaps for delusional Fascists and Pol Pot would disagree with that
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;41768543]sometimes you confuse me Sobotnik[/QUOTE]
How comes?
I'm even in favour of a basic income, whereby taxes would go to fund a basic income, so that it would be possible to live without working, although you'd be pretty bored and unable to buy a new telly when you wanted so you'd need to a get a job for when you wanted to buy things beyond food/rent/electricity/etc.
You seem to hate teleological or determinist politics/ideology yet like the fabians
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;41768621]You seem to hate teleological or determinist politics yet like the fabians[/QUOTE]
Well I focus on what they have already done. To me they are a reformist organization that helped extensively with many welfare reforms.
It doesn't matter what their goals are, as long as they advocate policies or implement things I am in favour of or see as good.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41768515]Generally I noticed, it tends to be the far left and far right who seem to advocate force more, whilst the moderates tend to use the existing political system, sacrificing ideals in favour of pragmatism, and trying to bring about their preferred worlds through gradual changes in laws and policy.
[/QUOTE]
pragmatism and gradualism have the potential to cause more death than violent revolution.
Whereas violent revolution is guaranteed to cause death
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;41768672]Whereas violent revolution is guaranteed to cause death[/QUOTE]
funnily not nearly as many as using the existing legal system.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41768468]those things aren't exclusive to radicals(moderates can use the legal system to kill people), and aren't a prerequisite of radicalism(i am a radical who thinks killing is bad).[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying that those are characteristics of all radicals, but they do exist and are 'loud' amongst radical groups. I don't think you'll find moderates going around saying people should be killed, I suppose which is why we automatically call them moderates. But no my post you quoted (and probably this one too) are probably very badly worded haha. Psychology (or sociology?) isn't my thing so I'm probably talking shit anyways.
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;41768513]Antdawg go to a Fabian society meeting if you want non-radical socialists[/QUOTE]
I don't think there are any Fabian society meetings at my university, maybe there is but I haven't come across it yet.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.