[SolarCross]

I think the big problem is that years of right wing propaganda have made it very hard for leftists to appeal directly to the people, especially in America. We do need to keep trying, but silly ideas about the American dream and independence have made it much easier for rightist a to approach people. Here at least.

If you want to compete with capitalism, you gotta offer people paying work, investment opportunities and cool products they want to buy. Simple. Now get out there and show those capitalists how it is done.

[Vera Politica]

I think the big problem is that years of right wing propaganda have made it very hard for leftists to appeal directly to the people, especially in America. We do need to keep trying, but silly ideas about the American dream and independence have made it much easier for rightist a to approach people. Here at least.

Right, but the left must take most of the blame here. The left does not speak to ordinary working people precisely because it has become decadent and elitist. Most Leftists cringe at the values of ordinary working people, often belittling these values as 'ignorant, intolerant, out-of date', etc. They have become less speakers for the working class, and mostly become ignored preachers if that. Most of the time, leftists are only talking amongst themselves. I am not sure what things look like on the ground, but there is a significant vacuum of respectable left intellectuals. The vast majority of left intellectuals are elitists and disconnected. This vacuum has been ripe for populist voices and filled by libertarians and fascists who are speaking to the concerns of ordinary workers. They do not shy away from voicing their frustration and fostering an unproductive, reactionary hostility.

[KurtFF8]

Right, but the left must take most of the blame here. The left does not speak to ordinary working people precisely because it has become decadent and elitist. Most Leftists cringe at the values of ordinary working people, often belittling these values as 'ignorant, intolerant, out-of date', etc. They have become less speakers for the working class, and mostly become ignored preachers if that. Most of the time, leftists are only talking amongst themselves. I am not sure what things look like on the ground, but there is a significant vacuum of respectable left intellectuals. The vast majority of left intellectuals are elitists and disconnected. This vacuum has been ripe for populist voices and filled by libertarians and fascists who are speaking to the concerns of ordinary workers. They do not shy away from voicing their frustration and fostering an unproductive, reactionary hostility.

Absolutely. And while there should be at least some room for "high theory" in Left circles, this focus on it (especially with "post modern" thinkers) has been quite detrimental and self defeating for the Left as a political project. On top of that, many Leftists have focused on "recruiting" or at least seeking an audience not amongst "average" working or oppressed people, but other intellectuals who want to read the next piece of theory.

This is why Left groups must focus not on bashing each other's lines and the like, but rather should focus on building their organizations amongst those who aren't organized.

[SolarCross]

So what you blokes don't have anything to offer that is better than capitalism? Maybe you should try something else.

[AuContraireVoltaire]

Communism is not dead, it just smells funny

[KurtFF8]

So what you blokes don't have anything to offer that is better than capitalism? Maybe you should try something else.

What on earth are you talking about?

[SolarCross]

What on earth are you talking about?

Communism is dead right? I offered the below as some good advice how on how you can get back in the game. -v

If you want to compete with capitalism, you gotta offer people paying work, investment opportunities and cool products they want to buy. Simple. Now get out there and show those capitalists how it is done.

Can you do that or not?

[KurtFF8]

Communism is dead right? I offered the below as some good advice how on how you can get back in the game. -v

Are you even addressing any of the actual posters here or just having a conversation with an imaginary poster?

quote\If you want to compete with capitalism, you gotta offer people paying work, investment opportunities and cool products they want to buy. Simple. Now get out there and show those capitalists how it is done./quote]
Can you do that or not?

This simply doesn't make any sense

[SolarCross]

Are you even addressing any of the actual posters here or just having a conversation with an imaginary poster?

yes I was addressing Leninists argument that lefties are failures because their propaganda isn't as good as right wing propaganda. If I may elaborate further, what you need to do is not just bullshit propaganda but propaganda of the deed. So capitalism delivers quality goods at a reasonable price, paying work for those that want it, and opportunities to invest surplus assets into some productive capacity. And that is why sensible people like capitalism better than socialism. When socialism can deliver these things too instead of just making a mess of things then people might show some interest.

[KurtFF8]

yes I was addressing Leninists argument that lefties are failures because their propaganda isn't as good as right wing propaganda. If I may elaborate further, what you need to do is not just bullshit propaganda but propaganda of the deed.

The term "propaganda of the deed" is actually quite specific and doesn't mean the same thing that you're implying here.

So capitalism delivers quality goods at a reasonable price, paying work for those that want it, and opportunities to invest surplus assets into some productive capacity. And that is why sensible people like capitalism better than socialism.

Are you implying that under socialism that people aren't paid for work? If so then you're just wrong there. Most of your comments here just aren't making sense though. You claim to be comparing socialism and capitalism but either you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what socialism is, or you're intentionally misrepresenting it.

[SolarCross]

The term "propaganda of the deed" is actually quite specific and doesn't mean the same thing that you're implying here.

Regicides and such is one way of propaganda of the deed, sure. I would argue that if you think capitalism doesn't pay workers well enough and doesn't produce goods of sufficient value for money then you will convince no one if all you can do is say we would do it better. When you do it better there is no need to say anything people will see for themselves and jump aboard. Okay you want to keep the term "propaganda of the deed" narrowly just for people who throw Molotov cocktails, fine by me. All the same you got nothing until you can make a better car than VW or Ford can and pay those workers better than VW and Ford can. I don't see socialists doing anything productive for anyone, its all just aggressive begging and bullshit.

[Piccolo]

@taxizen,

If I understand you right, you are arguing that when push comes to shove capitalism delivers the goods, right? But what about the failures of capitalism? The unemployment, the periodic crashes, inadequate wages etc.?

I would not say that socialists lack an economic model that could compete with capitalism. There is a reason why many Eastern Europeans are nostalgic for communism. For all its faults, the planning system worked better than it is given credit for. Even those who have done well under capitalism recognize that much was lost when the Berlin Wall fell. See http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 34122.html

The problem with the modern Left is exactly what Vera Politica has been discussing. The organized Left is elitist and spends most of its time on trendy social issues like multiculturalism, ultra-feminism, sexual orientation, etc., when they should be spending their time hammering away at “kitchen table” issues. The only groups that are really seriously attacking neoliberalism are on the Far Right. See the rise of France’s National Front for a good example of how the populist Right is succeeding while the Left is failing: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/o ... onal-front

[KurtFF8]

I would argue that if you think capitalism doesn't pay workers well enough and doesn't produce goods of sufficient value for money then you will convince no one if all you can do is say we would do it better. When you do it better there is no need to say anything people will see for themselves and jump aboard.

Again this just doesn't make any sense. Socialism isn't about a lifestyle or a small community coming together to do things a little differently, but rather the goal of socialists and communists is to transform the entire capitalist system of production along different lines. In other words, it isn't about setting up a food co-op next to a Walmart super center, but rather it's about expropriating the wealth and the means of production (and thus distribution) themselves and placing them in the hands of the working class.

Again, you seem to either be confused here or are intentionally misrepresenting the socialist argument and reducing it to a straw man so you don't actually have to address the points that socialists make.

Okay you want to keep the term "propaganda of the deed" narrowly just for people who throw Molotov cocktails, fine by me. All the same you got nothing until you can make a better car than VW or Ford can and pay those workers better than VW and Ford can. I don't see socialists doing anything productive for anyone, its all just aggressive begging and bullshit.

This is a good example of what my last point was: you clearly don't really understand the argument of socialists. Your point is really a non point and doesn't make sense in the context of this conversation.

[Cromwell]

The problem with the modern Left is exactly what Vera Politica has been discussing. The organized Left is elitist and spends most of its time on trendy social issues like multiculturalism, ultra-feminism, sexual orientation, etc., when they should be spending their time hammering away at “kitchen table” issues. The only groups that are really seriously attacking neoliberalism are on the Far Right. See the rise of France’s National Front for a good example of how the populist Right is succeeding while the Left is failing: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/o ... onal-front

I will concur whole-heartedly with this. I wish more people understood it.

[SolarCross]

Piccolo - I am saying if you can do better then lets see it. The market is hampered by dimwit government types and criminal types but it is still the well spring of prosperity, nothing matches it.

The article you linked to doesn't say anything on the relative merits of state monopoly versus a decentralised market, it only presents some anecdotal evidence that some people of the east berlin wall don't see their old government as much worse than the their new one. Well I am not surprised at that; all governments are basically the same whatever their colours or ideological flim flam.

Had it occurred to you that the new socialists are banging on about weird stuff like "multiculturalism, ultra-feminism, sexual orientation" precisely because they have lost all pretense of knowing anything about economics and they know it? They lost that battle so they trying to find other things to get into a fight over.

[KurtFF8]

Piccolo - I am saying if you can do better then lets see it. The market is hampered by dimwit government types and criminal types but it is still the well spring of prosperity, nothing matches it.

This doesn't make any sense! What on earth do you even mean? You continue to argue with an imaginary straw man instead of actually engaging in real people typing posts here.

Well I am not surprised at that; all governments are basically the same whatever their colours or ideological flim flam.

This is an absurdity that I doubt even most anarcho-capitalists believe.

Had it occurred to you that the new socialists are banging on about weird stuff like "multiculturalism, ultra-feminism, sexual orientation" precisely because they have lost all pretense of knowing anything about economics and they know it? They lost that battle so they trying to find other things to get into a fight over.

What are some actual examples of socialists doing this? I challenge you to actually point to concrete cases of this.

[Piccolo]

Piccolo - I am saying if you can do better then lets see it. The market is hampered by dimwit government types and criminal types but it is still the well spring of prosperity, nothing matches it.

I would agree that market capitalism has proven superior to historical socialism in the delivery of consumer goods. However socialism outperformed market capitalism when it came to eliminating unemployment and recessions and providing a large degree of security to workers.

It all depends on what you value most. Neither historical system was without negatives aspects and I am not really an advocate of a complete return to Soviet-style communism. I just think that socialists have some important historical successes and they should not be ashamed to trumpet them.

Also, I would point out that the most successful capitalist systems have been the more "socialistic" ones seen in North America and Western Europe. The post-war era was the golden age of capitalism even though it was relatively more "statist" and interventionist and less laissez-faire.

The article you linked to doesn't say anything on the relative merits of state monopoly versus a decentralised market, it only presents some anecdotal evidence that some people of the east berlin wall don't see their old government as much worse than the their new one. Well I am not surprised at that; all governments are basically the same whatever their colours or ideological flim flam.

I posted a link to the article on East German nostalgia because many of these folks lived under both historical systems and many apparently prefer socialism. As for governments, I think we are stuck with them, unfortunately. I am skeptical about anarchist alternatives as I believe that some powerful non-state actor will eventually become the de facto government.

That being said, I think the size and duties of the state are always up for debate and there are some areas where government intervention is onerous. Not all governments are the same because some are worse than others.

Had it occurred to you that the new socialists are banging on about weird stuff like "multiculturalism, ultra-feminism, sexual orientation" precisely because they have lost all pretense of knowing anything about economics and they know it? They lost that battle so they trying to find other things to get into a fight over.

My understanding is that the New Left and the reorientation toward social issues occurred in the West prior to the collapse of the USSR. Eurocommunism, for example, began in the 1970s.The New Left and its obsession with social liberalism is a largely Western phenomenon and I blame Western liberalism for this reorientation. Generally speaking, communists outside of the West are still mostly concerned with economics.

Organizationally, the Western Left switched to social liberalism because the party leadership became monopolized by comfortable middle-class professionals who were not as personally motived by economics. This might change as well-educated workers are being progressively squeezed and feel the same pain that their less-educated fellows started to feel over thirty years ago.

[Leninist]

Right, but the left must take most of the blame here. The left does not speak to ordinary working people precisely because it has become decadent and elitist. Most Leftists cringe at the values of ordinary working people, often belittling these values as 'ignorant, intolerant, out-of date', etc. They have become less speakers for the working class, and mostly become ignored preachers if that. Most of the time, leftists are only talking amongst themselves. I am not sure what things look like on the ground, but there is a significant vacuum of respectable left intellectuals. The vast majority of left intellectuals are elitists and disconnected. This vacuum has been ripe for populist voices and filled by libertarians and fascists who are speaking to the concerns of ordinary workers. They do not shy away from voicing their frustration and fostering an unproductive, reactionary hostility.

You don't give the right wing and corporations enough credit. The fact is that in my country (USA) we are still recovering from years of anti-Soviet propaganda being shoved down the public's throat. Many older people view communism like it is synonymous with Satan. They pushed us down, and we were not strong enough to stop them. Our crime is that we have not gotten up.

And one other thing, be careful not to associate liberals and communists. Whatever the propaganda might say, we are not the same. Most of the American "left" as it currently stands is liberal, which might be better termed as progressive. They aren't socialist in any way shape or form, they mostly just serve different corporations than the right and ask for higher taxes.

[Leninist]

If you want to compete with capitalism, you gotta offer people paying work, investment opportunities and cool products they want to buy. Simple. Now get out there and show those capitalists how it is done.

I intend to, all communists do. Sadly, it's not just a matter of walking up to the White House and saying "Hey can I have a turn, I think I have some good ideas?"

So what you blokes don't have anything to offer that is better than capitalism? Maybe you should try something else.

We have something to offer, we just need to be louder and or persistent about offering it.

Had it occurred to you that the new socialists are banging on about weird stuff like "multiculturalism, ultra-feminism, sexual orientation" precisely because they have lost all pretense of knowing anything about economics and they know it? They lost that battle so they trying to find other things to get into a fight over.

You actually aren't completely incorrect with this bit here, which must be a nice change of pace for you. We lost the Soviet Union, it was, mostly, a failure, and leftists have been apologizing for it for the past 20 years, and trying to push things which didn't go into economic areas. But the truth is that we aren't wrong, the fall of the Berlin wall wasn't the disproving of communism, it was the fall of another authoritarian empire. The USSR fell precisely because it tried to couple an authoritarian style of leadership (Stalinism) with an economic system which is supposed to be democratic (Marxism). That's why communism has up to this point failed. (Actually there were also some cases where the capitalists just overthrew democratic Marxists, because it turns out its hard to be a free system when there's a super power trying to bury you.)

I don't apologize for the USSR. Whenever anyone asks me about its fall, I simply say, "Politics is a science, and in science, there are no failures, only opportunities to learn. And just because one experiment is not what you had hoped, does not mean you abandon the concept, but rather that you look at what went wrong and try again."

[SolarCross]

I intend to, all communists do. Sadly, it's not just a matter of walking up to the White House and saying "Hey can I have a turn, I think I have some good ideas?"

Why would you go to the whitehouse? All they have is a monopoly on violence and mountains of bullshit how can they help you?

We have something to offer, we just need to be louder and or persistent about offering it.

At the moment all you have to offer is promises that one day you will have something to offer and that is a hard sell. What you need to do is demonstrate a working prototype. Communists are not particularly numerous these days but there are surely enough of you to organise some kind of functioning enterprise that demonstrates communism as a viable way to produce and distribute the goods that people desire. As a suggestion, since you are mostly interested in helping the poorest with basic necessities, why not a have your prototype businesses focus on affordable housing, food production and insurance?

You actually aren't completely incorrect with this bit here, which must be a nice change of pace for you. We lost the Soviet Union, it was, mostly, a failure, and leftists have been apologizing for it for the past 20 years, and trying to push things which didn't go into economic areas. But the truth is that we aren't wrong, the fall of the Berlin wall wasn't the disproving of communism, it was the fall of another authoritarian empire. The USSR fell precisely because it tried to couple an authoritarian style of leadership (Stalinism) with an economic system which is supposed to be democratic (Marxism). That's why communism has up to this point failed. (Actually there were also some cases where the capitalists just overthrew democratic Marxists, because it turns out its hard to be a free system when there's a super power trying to bury you.)

I don't apologize for the USSR. Whenever anyone asks me about its fall, I simply say, "Politics is a science, and in science, there are no failures, only opportunities to learn. And just because one experiment is not what you had hoped, does not mean you abandon the concept, but rather that you look at what went wrong and try again."

I am encouraged by this. You may not believe this but I have a soft spot for communism and its concerns. The USSR did go wrong in some respects, as you say, but in the 20th century the mistakes were understandable. The 20th century was the century of hyper-statism, the taking and wielding of state was the holy grail for all, capitalists, communists, ethno-communitarians (fascists), all were jumping over themselves to get the state. In the context of the 20th century the Leninist doctrine was appropriate. But we are in a different century now and the state as the last remnant of feudalistic thinking is waning. The market people, the people you call capitalists, already know this and more and more they are dumping it and circumventing it rather than attempting to control it. You need to catch up on your thinking, and evolve a new doctrine fit for the 21st century, one that does not focus on wielding the destructive power of the state.