[Mikolaj]

...there would have to be conditions that bring it about.

For example, people start thinking seriously about socialist views if the conditions - poor pay, bad working conditions, and a huge gulf between classes appear. This was what happened back in the 19th and 20th centuries. They turn to such views - or progressive politics in general - out of necessity. Few people sit around and think long and hard about what economic or political system would be best. Furthermore, for these views to translate into a revolution, things would have to be so chaotic that people would risk their lives for a belief. That's an extreme situation. It is very hard to do under normal circumstances.

In a sense, a window for socialism has closed, because capitalism has evolved to address the conditions that left unchecked would lead to socialism. This took the form of social programs and basic labor laws. If this safety net failed, mainstream society would look for alternatives because they would have to.

But this is complicated by the fact that your average person equates socialism with government ownership and failed Stalinist states, as opposed to decentralized common ownership from below.

The question then is, who would want things to get so miserable for people just to advance an ideology, no matter how noble it is? Secondly, how would people reexamine socialism and look beyond the false choice of Stalinist totalitarianism and capitalism?

I'm not sure how.

Thoughts?

[Zyx]

Mikolaj, The Immortal Goon and I were debating this very matter. I may have conceded too early, but it's because he's much better versed in Marxism than I am.

All the same, the matter is mostly to do with the bourgeoisie's control of the media. In all reality, the typical bourgeoisified proletarian is ignorant of capitalism and merely repeats whatever the mainstream media (MSM) offers up. What would raise class consciousness then would be an elucidation of the crimes of capitalism and these crimes more clearly than ever.

The Immortal Goon touched on the inherent downfalls of capitalism, the occasional recession and depression and so forth, but with Capitalism, there are workers who live harshly and this is what should be made clear for the proletarian to see. For instance, did you see in the Africa subforum the thread on Pfizer's behavior in Nigeria? Not only that, but very clearly, like in the Law forum, one can make the claim that our justice system is an industry for profit. These are facts not included in MSM that were workers informed, they would not be considered the reactionary lot that we know them as.

As to socialism compared against capitalism, the school of thought that I am following just made a report on how socialism, compared against capitalism, can improve even the lives of the proletarians of exploiter nations by making their dietary habits less influenced by profits or making their healthcare and education free and beneficial.

The matter is to raise the class consciousness of the masses, and that means letting them know of imperialism and what it takes for their life to be as it is. Not everyone will turncoat, but the side for revolution will be emboldened with each person whose eyes are opened to the truth of our criminal system.

[QatzelOk]

I think you can get far more people onboard with the idea that our economy should be self-run cooperatives than you can with central planning.

That was the problem with both socialism and capitalism: central planning. Wal-Mart, Kmart, and five-year plans... for an entire continent.

It just doesn't get any less democratic than continental governments/industrialists with the same formula for every corner.

But separate cooperatives managed by the workers themselves... now there's a concept.

[Gommi]

If this safety net failed, mainstream society would look for alternatives because they would have to.

All throughout the world, both in the industrialized West and in developing nations, the neo-liberal movement has systematically dismantled welfare states to facilitate a free exchange of capital within a global economy. As governments withdraw their services, cost of living increases and it becomes more difficult for the middle and working class to support themselves. Could this create the desperate conditions necessary for a return of the left to occur?

I hope so. Although if progressive ideas were to gain influence again, I wish they would be more respectful of democracy and individual freedom than they were in the early twentieth century.

[Michaeluj]

All throughout the world, both in the industrialized West and in developing nations, the neo-liberal movement has systematically dismantled welfare states to facilitate a free exchange of capital within a global economy. As governments withdraw their services, cost of living increases and it becomes more difficult for the middle and working class to support themselves. Could this create the desperate conditions necessary for a return of the left to occur?

Good lord, that is contrary to both basic economics and actual reality.

[Cartertonian]

Good lord, that is contrary to both basic economics and actual reality.

Are you in a position to substantiate your astonishment?

I ask for the purposes of my own education in this matter.

[El Gilroy]

Fellow far-lefties, join my valiant struggle for the complete automatisation and centralisation of all industries and as much of the remaining economy as is possible!

[Michaeluj]

Are you in a position to substantiate your astonishment?

Yes, for one, how does spending more money on lazy non-workers increase employment? It's a contradiction: money should be spent on productive enterprizes, not unproductive people, to make more jobs.
And also, welfare has indeed gone up in the developed world: The US spends as much on public health care as all of Europe at half of the population, Regan did nothing to help create Neoliberalism because after he left office, the dent he made in the regulations was automatically wiped out, you would be an idiot to say that Europe is a Neoliberal continent without welfare, Thatcher decreased regulations that kept the already failing system moderetly together and then created a welfare state despite her proclamations, in the "neoliberal" countries of the 40s-60s, there was no practical amounts of welfare, and so on, etc, done.

[Gommi]

And also, welfare has indeed gone up in the developed world: The US spends as much on public health care as all of Europe at half of the population, Regan did nothing to help create Neoliberalism because after he left office, the dent he made in the regulations was automatically wiped out, you would be an idiot to say that Europe is a Neoliberal continent without welfare, Thatcher decreased regulations that kept the already failing system moderetly together and then created a welfare state despite her proclamations, in the "neoliberal" countries of the 40s-60s, there was no practical amounts of welfare, and so on, etc, done.

Your claim that all Western conservatives were in fact statists is dubious, however something you failed to mention at all was the developing world. For years, institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have ensured that any aid or investment into third world economies are always accompanied by free market reforms, including the dismantling of the welfare state. The neo-liberal movement is a phenomenon that political scientists and economists have observed for decades, and its impact on the world has been profound.

[Michaeluj]

Now you're saying that it's despotic countries with the worst poverty in the world and the most statist systems getting "liberalized", according to the utmost broadest definition, one that's basically 'One eensy, meensy, bit smaller'. Face it, while total state control in many countries has lowered, regulations and welfare have increased dramatically, and I mean dramatically. I mean: COME ON, Europe is not a giant welfare state to you?!! And America is the bastion for the free market(Even Singapore is considered more free market than the US, and that's by default: The government owns like half of the economy, yet it competes with the private half and works almost purely for the profit motive, moreso-apparently-than in the US or in practically all of Europe)!!?? If stateism to you is just outright government ownership of buisnesses, then there is practically no stateism, but you are a fool, a half-wit perhaps, to state that "the neo-liberal movement has systematically dismantled welfare states", because they never left: they grew. Medicare and Medicaid grew, Thatcher's welfare has grown, and Europe is just one giant liberal blob: there is no lack of welfare! It's only lacking in places where no-one can bother to afford it, like in Africa, which never had it in the first place!
Here's spending: http://forum.belmont.edu/cornwall/archi ... ending.jpg

Here's size of regulation--start reading from the bottom, if you have to: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=104018

[Zyx]

Michaeluj, you do realize that neo-liberalism is not "liberalism," correct?

[Michaeluj]

Yes. Your post is irrelevant. The impact of the 'neoliberal movement' is a sham perpetrated by liberals and socialists to explain all of the misery in the world and to make more exuses for larger welfare states and more regulations.

[Gommi]

The impact of the 'neoliberal movement' is a sham perpetrated by liberals and socialists to explain all of the misery in the world and to make more exuses for larger welfare states and more regulations.

And the idea of "false conservatives" are used by the right to explain the failures of their policies.

[Michaeluj]

I see that you have no proper response to the points that I have made. Well done, what with you trying to avoid admitting that you've got nothing to throw at me.

And the idea of "false conservatives" are used by the right to explain the failures of their policies.

Not at all: your average conservative is just barely away from fascism and is virtually identical to liberals on all but these issues: socialized health care(And only Universal Care: SS and piggy-backing on private companies are not problems), abortions, and war. Real conservatives are libertarians, and they are in such a minority. Anyway, this is getting pointless: you are just trying to avoid the subject which you brought up, trying to shift to it being 'who is blaming what the most". There is no neoliberal movement.

[Gommi]

your average conservative is just barely away from fascism and is virtually identical to liberals on all but these issues: socialized health care(And only Universal Care: SS and piggy-backing on private companies are not problems), abortions, and war.

The fact that mainstream conservatives oppose liberals and progressives on such fundamental issues as healthcare and education reform, social security, and taxation, is enough to draw clear ideological distinctions. Your inability to differentiate modern conservatives from socialists suggests an extreme bias; one that is uncompromising and radical.

Real conservatives are libertarians, and they are in such a minority.

I will not deny that Libertarians remain a marginal political group, however many conservative politicians do share their values. I would argue that while mainstream conservatives admire Libertarianism, they must maintain a more moderate position to appeal to voters. Does that sound fair?

[Michaeluj]

Enough of this: you bascially lost the argument.

[Kasu]

It's already happening, the socialist movement is going to gain wide support, and there will be revolution, there's no doubt.

There's even a Marxist summer school at the University of Michigan this week, by the Socialist Equality Party and ISSE, where David North and various other party members are talking about dialectical materialism, the philosophy of Marxism, carefully going over Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, the history of subjective idealism and solipsism, its petty-bourgeois origins, and its use in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

Over 200 people from all over the world are coming to Michigan to attend this school. With the amount of insight we gain, from just 2 days so far of the summer school, there will be discussions, people will start to talk about these things. Philosophy is the foundation for every revolutionary movement.

With the events that are unfolding, the economic crisis, the wars, the attack on our most basic democratic rights, people will begin to question everything, and search for the answer. And with the amount of information that's available these days, and how quickly you can communicate over large distances, revolution is right around the corner. It's just a matter of time.

[El Gilroy]

There's even a Marxist summer school at the University of Michigan this week

That's your even? A marxist summer school? That's all the socialist left has, while the capitalist right has the entire global economy to back it up?

[Gommi]

It's already happening, the socialist movement is going to gain wide support, and there will be revolution, there's no doubt.

If leftist ideas experience a revival it will not be in the form of revolutionary Marxism. People would rather support incremental, democratic reforms.

Enough of this: you bascially lost the argument.

Hold on. You were trying to convince me that the world is "one giant welfare state", an idea I thought a little absurd. Without any context that graph you provided is not really sufficient evidence that worldwide spending has increased. And if your claims are true, why have privatizations and government cut-backs been such a common occurrence in the last couple of decades?

Lest me say Michaeluj that after reading your post I examined some statistical evidence and realized that you may actually be correct in some respects. One site I saw indicated that social spending in America is the highest it has been in twenty years. I will concede that some industrialized countries have retained large welfare states while others have reduced social spending dramatically. The third world has been denied the right to construct welfare states entirely.

[Michaeluj]

Without any context that graph you provided is not really sufficient evidence that worldwide spending has increased. And if your claims are true, why have privatizations and government cut-backs been such a common occurrence in the last couple of decades?

Government as a total never shrinks, unless the people get so pissed off, they start a revolution and it's wiped out. And no, the only substantial privatizations were from failing socialist states that desperetly needed trading because they were incapable of self-sufficiency. Anyway, general privatizations means nothing, since you are specifically talking about welfare states: not socialist states; welfare has been rising in leaps and bounds for the last few decades to the point where the sheer financies involved in the developed world cannot disagree with you, and the only socialist companies that were privatized were mainly production and retail, not welfare; not even the amount of spending has changed, except for short periods of time after dramatic socialist cutbacks that led to welfare revolutions or just plain angry people that have to be kept down via the military. Either change your language from 'welfare' to 'socialist' or agree with me.

I will concede that some industrialized countries have retained large welfare states while others have reduced social spending dramatically. The third world has been denied the right to construct welfare states entirely.

Name those countries. And no, welfare states cannot function in poverty, for you cannot give what you cannot have, and you cannot pay people to not work when the entire population is basically like that.