Changing times: Socialist Kshama Sawant wins council seat in Seattle - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897620]A contradiction of terms You can't be a catholic and a socialist at the same time. Hey, maybe I read too much marx and I might have missed some other cool bros which make new turns and stuff. I wonder how you can reconcile individualism with collectivism.[/QUOTE] Well, you can be an individualist in the abstract sense and a collectivist in the concrete sense. Like in my post, if one reads individualism in a mutualist sort of perspective then you can easily reconcile the philosophies. Also about your other post- the thing about rights is that rights aren't natural. Socialists don't really prescribe rights from a moral perspective or from nature, like "human rights", that's a liberal concept. Socialists may hold the position that human rights should be a thing, or be upheld as a concept, but since socialists see all things built from economic incentives or conflict or whatnot, then we understand that rights are, as you said, a creation of the moral superstructure of the time.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897641]I doubt any socialist has read Marx. EDIT: Most socialists.[/QUOTE] cool response i dont see what that means but ok socialism doesnt require marxism

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897620] So, saying that you can't ask how the world and men came to exis tbecause you would be abstracting yourself and then ceasing to exist, is not fucked up? Or claiming that the world is created by man because the first action/praxis is to know it?[/QUOTE] wow so much materialism so marxist so wow

[QUOTE]Well, regardless of what Socialism is, do you really think Capitalism is about your own individual freedom? Do you think people working under unlivable wages paycheck-to-paycheck is caring about the individual? Do you think people constantly struggling to afford college so that they might be able to get a decent middle-class job is caring about the individual? That's not caring, that's leaving people in the cold. Can you call that 'freedom'? [/QUOTE] If you ask about my freedom, im quite free. about other's freedom, then, we could disagree. The same could be asked inside a socialist system. What would you say to the ironworks guy who only accesses the most basic stuff while the party guy is enjoying it all? Sweden is capitalist, right? USA, also, right? Would you ask the same things in sweden? [QUOTE]Well, you can be an individualist in the abstract sense and a collectivist in the concrete sense. [/QUOTE] Could you please elaborate? [QUOTE]wow so much materialism so marxist so wow [/QUOTE] That's what marx said, don't blame me.

Can I just sit quietly in the corner, advocating for a negative income tax?

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897672]If you ask about my freedom, im quite free. about other's freedom, then, we could disagree. The same could be asked inside a socialist system. What would you say to the ironworks guy who only accesses the most basic stuff while the party guy is enjoying it all? Sweden is capitalist, right? USA, also, right? Would you ask the same things in sweden?[/QUOTE] Probably not, but I wouldn't say the corrupt 'party man enjoying all the privileges' is inherent to Socialism.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897620]A contradiction of terms You can't be a catholic and a socialist at the same time. Hey, maybe I read too much marx and I might have missed some other cool bros which make new turns and stuff. I wonder how you can reconcile individualism with collectivism. [/QUOTE] collectivism the way i endorse it requires individualism. the opposite of individualism is not collectivism, the opposite of individualism is subjugation. the opposite of collectivism is not individualism, the opposite of collectivism is alienation. there is more out there than marx. kropotkin is a good start.

Yeah Sweden is great!

Combined with the elimination of welfare. . . -edit fucking hell you guys-

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897672]If you ask about my freedom, im quite free. about other's freedom, then, we could disagree. The same could be asked inside a socialist system. What would you say to the ironworks guy who only accesses the most basic stuff while the party guy is enjoying it all? Sweden is capitalist, right? USA, also, right? Would you ask the same things in sweden?[/QUOTE] Hold on let me fix this statement for you [QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897672]If you ask about my freedom, im quite free. about other's freedom, then, we could disagree. The same could be asked inside a LENINIST/MARXIST-LENINIST/CENTRALIZED COMMAND system. What would you say to the ironworks guy who only accesses the most basic stuff while the LENINIST VANGUARD/BLANQUIST VANGUARD is enjoying it all? Sweden is capitalist, right? USA, also, right? Would you ask the same things in sweden?[/QUOTE] Now we can talk about the same thing :)

-snip, useless argument

[QUOTE]Probably not, but I wouldn't say the corrupt 'party man enjoying all the privileges' is inherent to Socialism. [/QUOTE] I didn't say it was inherent....it just happens to be that that's the case with every country in which the ownership of the means of production was placed into the hands of the proletariat, represented by the state.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897712]I didn't say it was inherent....it just happens to be that that's the case with every country in which the ownership of the means of production was placed into the hands of the proletariat, represented by the state.[/QUOTE] the means of production were not in the hands of the proletariat in the ussr or china, the means of production were in the hands of the vanguard party/state. they claimed to use the means of production on behalf of the working class but that didn't exactly pan out.

[QUOTE]collectivism the way i endorse it requires individualism. [/QUOTE] I ask you this. If the majority of the society accepts private property, would you still oppose it? [QUOTE]the means of production were not in the hands of the proletariat in the ussr or china, the means of production were in the hands of the vanguard party/state. they claimed to use the means of production on behalf of the working class but that didn't exactly pan out. [/QUOTE] Exactly, "REPRESENTED" by the state. But if we go all democratic decisions inside factories, we end up like the spanish, with fuck ups all over the place.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897737]I ask you this. If the majority of the society accepts private property, would you still oppose it?[/QUOTE] no because majority rule on institutional violence is still institutional violence.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897672] Could you please elaborate? That's what marx said, don't blame me.[/QUOTE] If your reading of Marx and your understanding of his thought over time is the same as Fitzhugh's concept of socialism then sure. Elaboration: Since individualism is a loose philosophy dealing with the individual as the center of political, philosophical, or economic focus, then we can in the loosest definition define individualism, abstractly, to be any philosophy or ideology advocating for the wellbeing and central focus of the individual. Collectivism, at its core and most concrete political stance, is a means and method of applying the social, economic, and/or political capital and institutions in such a way that they are the focus and control of the collective, of society, of the community, in the most direct way. The ideas can be reconciled by holding the position that collectivism for the sake of individual emancipation is some bastardization of individualism.

private property violates the ideals of both collectivism and individualism(as i endorse them) and it cannot exist in any system that views these things as necessary.

[QUOTE]no because majority rule on institutional violence is still institutional violence. [/QUOTE] But you are implying that private property is yes or yes institutional violence. Yet if that majority decides to choose socialism/means of production for all, then you wouldn't oppose it.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897737] Exactly, "REPRESENTED" by the state. But if we go all democratic decisions inside factories, we end up like the spanish, with fuck ups all over the place.[/QUOTE] mind telling me what spanish had the fuck ups? idk what you're talking about.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42897758]mind telling me what spanish had the fuck ups? idk what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] The anarchist revolution inside the civil war.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897753]But you are implying that private property is yes or yes institutional violence. Yet if that majority decides to choose socialism/means of production for all, then you wouldn't oppose it.[/QUOTE] because socialism isn't an idea of institutional violence(inherently, at least). if the majority decide they want to segregate black people, is that alright? of course not, because it would be a system of institutional violence that should be opposed.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897712]I didn't say it was inherent....it just happens to be that that's the case with every country in which the ownership of the means of production was placed into the hands of the proletariat, represented by the state.[/QUOTE] --->represented by the state<--- When you put the state as the prime focus of the new institutions then this is what you geeeet

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897763]The anarchist revolution inside the civil war.[/QUOTE] from my readings the collectivization that happened in catalonia/aragon was fairly successful. it had problems, but it was a fairly optimistic system. but either way it's hard to fairly analyze revolutionary catalonia and the policies of the cnt/fai because they had no long term results to analyze due to being eventually defeated by the nationalists.

[QUOTE]because socialism isn't an idea of institutional violence(inherently, at least). if the majority decide they want to segregate black people, is that alright? of course not, because it would be a system of institutional violence that should be opposed.[/QUOTE] So forcing things upon others MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be institutional violence. Is not right, but not because institutional violence should be opposed. Its wrong for other reasons. But hell, why institutional violence should be opposed? we go back to the moral and philosophical discussion which I first brought up.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897763]The anarchist revolution inside the civil war.[/QUOTE] You mean the one that streamlined the economy in Barcelona for war production, saw an increase in wheat production, and saw the milk industry producing beyond its levels in capitalism?

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42897793']You mean the one that streamlined the economy in Barcelona for war production, saw an increase in wheat production, and saw the milk industry producing beyond its levels in capitalism?[/QUOTE] I wonder how they fared in other areas.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42897800]I wonder how they fared in other areas.[/QUOTE] Considering the war and the internal sabotage by the communists in the liberal government fairly well. Then again, we won't know just how far it would go or how well they did in the long run, because the experiment was so short, but honestly to call the anarchist revolution there an economic fuckup is conjecture and evidently wrong.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42897793']You mean the one that streamlined the economy in Barcelona for war production...[/QUOTE] You call that success?

$15 minimum wage sounds neat.

[QUOTE=person11;42895943]This is amazing. The United States needs an actual left wing voice. The ideal would be having two parties or more having different ideologies, instead of two liberal capitalist parties sharing power. I wish for her success in this early stage of the resurrection of the American left.[/QUOTE] Good lord it's a city council seat. All sorts of loons get elected