Socialism, Communism and General Leftism (An Explanation and Discussion)
95 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Antdawg;41769244]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]
I don't think there are any Fabian society meetings at my university, maybe there is but I haven't come across it yet.[/QUOTE]
this is basically how i feel about the socialists who go around saying we need to have a violent revolution to implement socialism/communism.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMoQYbfj59s[/media]
(holy shit i posted a crass video i think i'm officially a stereotypical anarchist)
Big words, considering that every step anarchists have taken forward towards real progress comes at the hand of a violent revolution.
We aren't going to peaceably reform and we aren't going to legislate to socialism. It will come at the barrel of a gun or it won't come at all. That's the reality of the situation.
And when it comes to government, I'd prefer the chips fall with the libertarians, with as little of it as possible. Kronstadt resolution as a model, or the CNT-FAI as a model, but those were governments nonetheless though libertarian ones. You can call for peace and freedom all you want but it does a fat lot of good in capitalism. You won't see socialism without a government and you won't see socialism without a violent struggle.
violent struggle cannot implement libertarian socialism in any form because the whole idea of libertarian socialism requires a populace that knows how to organize themselves democratically in the workplace. this is not an easy task and cannot simply be done with rebel groups.
even if we won a civil war we would have a very large populace that has never had experience with self-management and will have no idea how to do it. this ends with the system either reverting back to capitalism(since it's what we know), or having a very strong central authority(which isn't libertarian).
the revolution isn't some romantic civil war that will free us all; the revolution is the constant education/agitation of the working class.
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
it isn't that "violence"(as people generally see it) won't happen in a revolution, it's that it won't be the central thrust of the revolution.
Socialism, in my opinion, has it's positive side, and it's negative side.
Janitors, in my opinion, do a quite important job, and deal with dirty things, and work hard to remove them.
At present time, they are underpaid, and if they were for example, payed more, they would be more likely to do a better job.
If you want my political opinion, it's this: People's pay should be determined by the quality and toughness of the job they do.
[QUOTE=Blackfire76;41771742]Socialism, in my opinion, has it's positive side, and it's negative side.
Janitors, in my opinion, do a quite important job, and deal with dirty things, and work hard to remove them.
At present time, they are underpaid, and if they were for example, payed more, they would be more likely to do a better job.
If you want my political opinion, it's this: People's pay should be determined by the quality and toughness of the job they do.[/QUOTE]
This isn't really socialism, though.
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41769858]violent struggle cannot implement libertarian socialism in any form because the whole idea of libertarian socialism requires a populace that knows how to organize themselves democratically in the workplace. this is not an easy task and cannot simply be done with rebel groups.
even if we won a civil war we would have a very large populace that has never had experience with self-management and will have no idea how to do it. this ends with the system either reverting back to capitalism(since it's what we know), or having a very strong central authority(which isn't libertarian).
the revolution isn't some romantic civil war that will free us all; the revolution is the constant education/agitation of the working class.
[editline]9th August 2013[/editline]
it isn't that "violence"(as people generally see it) won't happen in a revolution, it's that it won't be the central thrust of the revolution.[/QUOTE]
Organizing themselves democratically in the workplace gets us nowhere if we never break free from capitalism. We can organize all we want, and should, but unless there's the fight for liberation then we never put it into practice. Makhnovia, CNT-FAI, UGT, EZLN, Paris, Kronstadt- they all came out of violent struggles for liberation. You can't reform capitalism, at some point there will and must be a violent struggle or they is really no struggle at all as it would amount to nothing. Of course the revolution would need to be sided by a conscious working class that is willing to work for the new system, but if we have no way to get rid of the old then it's not worth shit.
[QUOTE=Blackfire76;41771742]If you want my political opinion, it's this: People's pay should be determined by the quality and toughness of the job they do.[/QUOTE]
This is almost how it operates in real life. However, we must take into account the number of people wanting to do that job.
Generally if a lot of people want to do that job (or are capable of it), the wage drops. The opposite also holds true.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41772483']
Organizing themselves democratically in the workplace gets us nowhere if we never break free from capitalism. We can organize all we want, and should, but unless there's the fight for liberation then we never put it into practice. Makhnovia, CNT-FAI, UGT, EZLN, Paris, Kronstadt- they all came out of violent struggles for liberation. You can't reform capitalism, at some point there will and must be a violent struggle or they is really no struggle at all as it would amount to nothing. Of course the revolution would need to be sided by a conscious working class that is willing to work for the new system, but if we have no way to get rid of the old then it's not worth shit.[/QUOTE]
i don't believe in reformism either. you are right, you can't reform capitalism. however, a violent struggle won't eliminate capitalism without the working class being properly organized. it's a complex issue. i just think that capitalism will require less violence to eliminate when people have the skills and desire to no longer participate anymore.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41774826]i don't believe in reformism either. you are right, you can't reform capitalism. however, a violent struggle won't eliminate capitalism without the working class being properly organized. it's a complex issue. i just think that capitalism will require less violence to eliminate when people have the skills and desire to no longer participate anymore.[/QUOTE]
I consider myself a syndicalist, and as such I believe that a federation of workers unions and organizations could out-compete or counterpower to capitalist economic and political institutions. I would prefer this be the case. But no matter how you look at it, either the capitalists act against the syndicate or the workers need to act against the state. There's gonna be a violent revolution, a violent struggle. The old powers aren't simply going to give up.
This is a good demonstration on the tendencies of socialism and their interaction. Let me make it more realistic by saying that by refusing to promote a violent struggle, you are basically giving capitalism way to continue and are being counter-revolutionary.
What do you two think of Market Socialism?
I think that it's the most feasible implementation of such a system, in particular, the Hungarian system operated during the 60s through 80s. In my view it was the best off communist country, and better equipped to survive the collapse of the Soviet bloc in the late 80s.
i don't promote violent revolution. violent struggle can be in the context of a social or more peaceful revolution. a violent revolution, on its own, will either end with capitalism or authoritarianism.
If one was going to have a revolution in order to implement socialism, whether violent or peaceful, there would have to be some degree of authoritarian proletarian control anyway to ensure that bourgeois control is suppressed.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41779982]i don't promote violent revolution. violent struggle can be in the context of a social or more peaceful revolution. a violent revolution, on its own, will either end with capitalism or authoritarianism.[/QUOTE]
Just like the way the CNT-FAI violently revolted against the Republic and ended up as authoritarian and/or capitalist, right? Except they didn't end up like that.
Of course the revolution must be backed by the working class or we'd have to rely on a vanguard and run the risk of authoritarianism. But the revolution must be violent, there is no way out of it.
[editline]10th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;41780505]If one was going to have a revolution in order to implement socialism, whether violent or peaceful, there would have to be some degree of authoritarian proletarian control anyway to ensure that bourgeois control is suppressed.[/QUOTE]
There would have to be some sort of state. I'm not willing to let the bourgies go the way of the kulaks in Russia and simply command the same power they had and spread their culture and propaganda because they were given the liberty to opt-out of the workers' state/society. There would need to be coercion at some level, some sort of authority, but I'd rather it be minimal.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41780920']Just like the way the CNT-FAI violently revolted against the Republic and ended up as authoritarian and/or capitalist, right? Except they didn't end up like that.
Of course the revolution must be backed by the working class or we'd have to rely on a vanguard and run the risk of authoritarianism. But the revolution must be violent, there is no way out of it.[/quote]
the cnt-fai revolution didn't succeed. it is impossible to tell what would have happened if they had won. but not only that, but the catalonian population was already fairly organized from what i have read.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41780949]the cnt-fai revolution didn't succeed. it is impossible to tell what would have happened if they had won. but not only that, but the catalonian population was already fairly organized from what i have read.[/QUOTE]
Yes, they were fairly organized, but if it's any indicator, then the CNT-FAI's revolution would have been a success. Fars I'm concerned, it was, the only thing stopping it was the whole communist backstabbing and fascist liquidation.
[I]you'd know alot about that your counter-revolutionary[/I]
Oh shutup and work together you spergs
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41780982']Yes, they were fairly organized, but if it's any indicator, then the CNT-FAI's revolution would have been a success. Fars I'm concerned, it was, the only thing stopping it was the whole communist backstabbing and fascist liquidation.
[I]you'd know alot about that your counter-revolutionary[/I][/QUOTE]
the cnt-fai were the real counter-revolutionaries by trying to involve themselves in the republican government. if they hadn't become collaborators they might have had more success.
[editline]10th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;41781027]Oh shutup and work together you spergs[/QUOTE]
it's too late the fpsu(facepunch socialist users) have now split into the yawmwenist libsoc party(ylsp) and the seed eating socialist party(sesp)
choose your side wisely fellow socialists.
reminds me of a joke i heard the other day.
what happens when you put 3 anarchists in the same room? 4 splinter factions. (seed eater this joke needs to be in the anarchist thread)
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41781072]the cnt-fai were the real counter-revolutionaries by trying to involve themselves in the republican government. if they hadn't become collaborators they might have had more success.
[/QUOTE]
They also would have failed sooner, because they would be left with no equipment, no aid from the state, nothing from the communists, the soviet union, or the international brigades, and no influence in the running of things outside of Catalonia and Aragon. While I don't like the collaboration any more than the CNT-FAI itself did, fact of the matter is that the collaboration with the Republic kept it alive for as long as it did, because it then had access to foreign support against the Fascists as well as national supplies and transport. For being counter-revolutionaries, they sure were the bearers of the revolution to the end.
Progressive socialism in the USA may be a far-fetched idea, but what about the rest of the developed world? I think many welfare states, particularly outside the anglosphere, have the potential to grow into socialist (although, at least initially, extremely statist) societies. Of course, as I see it, it could easily go in the other direction too, mainly due to the strong desire to compete on international markets.
I'm in the non-violence camp, yet while I like anarchism I think of it as a very long-term goal, hence I'm not really in the yawmwen camp either :v:
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;41781314]Progressive socialism in the USA may be a far-fetched idea, but what about the rest of the developed world? I think many welfare states, particularly outside the anglosphere, have the potential to grow into socialist (although, at least initially, extremely statist) societies. Of course, as I see it, it could easily go in the other direction too, mainly due to the strong desire to compete on international markets.
I'm in the non-violence camp, yet while I like anarchism I think of it as a very long-term goal, hence I'm not really in the yawmwen camp either :v:[/QUOTE]
I'm of the camp that progressivism as a political method is not going to get you to workers' control. At best welfare states empower the state and simply patch the holes in capitalism, which keeps it afloat. While it's fine on paper, all it is is the state filling in the shortcomings of capitalism, a dual danger to a libertarian.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41780920']I'm not willing to let the bourgies go the way of the kulaks in Russia[/QUOTE]
Just a heads up, the kulak was more or less entirely a soviet propaganda creation.
Despite the efforts of the last tsars in land reform (particularly under Stolypin), very little land was turned to commercial agriculture even by 1914. The 7 years of war and then the NEP did not see these figures change very much at all. For all intents and purposes, agriculture was only just recovering to pre-war levels by the time Stalin got into power. His efforts threw back agriculture in Russia for a century, especially with the Soviet states heavy promotion of psuedoscientific biology.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41781368']I'm of the camp that progressivism as a political method is not going to get you to workers' control. At best welfare states empower the state and simply patch the holes in capitalism, which keeps it afloat. While it's fine on paper, all it is is the state filling in the shortcomings of capitalism, a dual danger to a libertarian.[/QUOTE]
yay something we can agree on
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41781403]yay something we can agree on[/QUOTE]
So, what is the best way to organize the workers?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41781370]Just a heads up, the kulak was more or less entirely a soviet propaganda creation.
Despite the efforts of the last tsars in land reform (particularly under Stolypin), very little land was turned to commercial agriculture even by 1914. The 7 years of war and then the NEP did not see these figures change very much at all. For all intents and purposes, agriculture was only just recovering to pre-war levels by the time Stalin got into power. His efforts threw back agriculture in Russia for a century, especially with the Soviet states heavy promotion of psuedoscientific biology.[/QUOTE]
Kulaks were a real thing, and well before the Soviets. Trotsky's father was a kulak. Any landowner who employed labor was more or less a kulak. And the kulaks became a greater problem under Stalin because the shift from nationalization of property to individual ownership of property, in conjunction with the industrial subsidization by agriculture (scissor crisis etc etc), lead to a system where individuals with land were willing to sell or lease their land to those with income coming in (paid for by gov't for use in cities) and who could afford to pay for laborers, land, and wages, effectively recreating the kulak condition of serfdom, though in a capitalist manner. One person owned the land, and other people worked it. That person sold product at a subsidized price to the government who used it to feed industry. Then they paid the landowners, who generally lived on the land they no longer owned.
I think that you underestimate just how open the USSR was at time at documenting its fuckups, even under Stalin. Trotsky talks at length about the situation in the first few sections of [I]the Revolution Betrayed[/I], where he, I think, gives a pretty balanced view on the economic progress and shortcomings of the USSR, and even gives himself and the actions that he supported a good criticism at times too. As an aside, he also fully admits and details why the USSR managed to fuck up its agriculture and regress, like you said.
Fact of the matter is that the kulak as a concept may have been invented as a propaganda tool but it was an actual class that had actual holdings, both historically and during the economic crisis of the USSR under Stalin and the late Lenin years. Similarly, OWS used "the 1%" in the same way. Was it an invention for the use of propaganda? Yea, but it's representative of a real "class" and a real problem.
[editline]10th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41781503]So, what is the best way to organize the workers?[/QUOTE]
This is less of a concern as actually getting there to me, but my preferred method is trade-union syndicalism, as I've explained in depth with you before.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41781508']Kulaks were a real thing, and well before the Soviets. Trotsky's father was a kulak. Any landowner who employed labor was more or less a kulak.[/quote]
Yet their numbers were tiny. The Stolypin reforms barely added 2 million private landowners (and then most of them vanished during the 7 years of war). 16% of the peasantry owned land in 1911, which was mostly concentrated in Poland, the Baltic states, and Finland.
[quote]And the kulaks became a greater problem under Stalin because the shift from nationalization of property to individual ownership of property, in conjunction with the industrial subsidization by agriculture (scissor crisis etc etc), lead to a system where individuals with land were willing to sell or lease their land to those with income coming in (paid for by gov't for use in cities).[/quote]
That was entirely the fault of the Soviet government and the civil war. Manufactured goods were costly as hell, and nobody really imported them either. Classical Soviet inefficiency was paramount as well (such as the infamous Petrograd telephone factory making 20,000 telephones a day for the bureacracy). Combine this with the deflation of food prices as agriculture recovered faster than industry, and lack of trade (since states are utterly incompetent at setting prices, and doing such a thing is mathematically and physically impossible), meant that most farmers didn't want to grow food for export to the cities.
[quote]and who could afford to pay for laborers, land, and wages, effectively recreating the kulak condition of serfdom, though in a capitalist manner. One person owned the land, and other people worked it. That person sold product at a subsidized price to the government who used it to feed industry. Then they paid the landowners, who generally lived on the land they no longer owned.[/quote]
I don't really see the problem with this. The NEP introduced some market interaction, and it was a godsend. Economy recovery was swift during this time period, and had it not been for Stalin, under NEP the USSR would have recovered to pre-war conditions by the 1930s.
A scissors crisis is often in industrializing countries, and the response by Stalin was a complete fuckup.
[quote]Fact of the matter is that the kulak as a concept may have been invented as a propaganda tool but it was an actual class that had actual holdings, both historically and during the economic crisis of the USSR under Stalin and the late Lenin years. Similarly, OWS used "the 1%" in the same way. Was it an invention for the use of propaganda? Yea, but it's representative of a real "class" and a real problem.[/quote]
They weren't a problem nor were they a numerous, let alone powerful class. Most of them were farmers barely operating above subsistence level. The Soviet rulers then attacked these people who were doing the most to improve agriculture in the Soviet Union.
What was the result? 15 million starved to death, every former Soviet bloc country that wants nothing to do with Russia classed it as a genocide, agriculture has yet to recover [b]even by 2013 in many regards[/b], and he then kept up this stupid act of arresting kulaks for many years despite their liquidation.
What exactly would one who is for general Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, etc identify as?
[QUOTE=matt000024;41921295]What exactly would one who is for general Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, etc identify as?[/QUOTE]
A traitor to the revolution.
[QUOTE=matt000024;41921295]What exactly would one who is for general Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, etc identify as?[/QUOTE]
a leftist
far-left more accurately. The whole spectrum is pretty fluid so you get lots of uncomfortable things under one roof
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.