How did you become a socialist? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14977356
@SSDR

I have been reading a good part of your discussion here, and unfortunately I have to say that there is no consistency in the points you are making. On the one hand, you’re calling yourself a Socialist seeking ‘Pure Socialism’, but also are ‘for’ the ‘Nation States’ constituted of the people of the same ‘biological heritage / blood / genes’ (in your own words).

Firstly, Pure Socialism is a novelty, it’s a phrase known only to be referenced by yourself; therefore it is your job to give a clear definition of it - Logically and to the point; and not made of rhetoric and unjustified slogans.

Secondly, the idea of ‘Nation States’ does not have a socialistic basis – based on the principles defined by its original advocates. Your arguments in defence of the theory of Nation States are debased; made of expressions with racial and fascistic tendencies, and contradictory. Therefore, you feel the need to announce here and there loudly: that ‘I am not a Fascist’, ‘I am not a Racist’ and so forth. Look here for instance:

SSDR wrote:Biological social planning is part of a true socialist process. Socialism cannot work for everyone. Socialism cannot work for people who need family to motivate them to work. Socialism cannot work for people who need bribery and money to motivate them to work. Socialism cannot work for people who need barbed wires and guns to prevent them from committing crime and social decay. Socialism cannot work if people need religion to inspire them to be good people. And socialism certainly cannot work if people need slave owners to point knifes at them to work. Socialism is for the advanced people (I mean in scientific terms, not belief because that could be racist. Also, I am not mentioning any race because that too in this case would be racist). Socialism is for people who don't need religion, money, or family. Socialism is for individualistic people. Socialism is for strong, independent minded women.


In the first underlined sentence, you have made a direct reference to the people’s belief systems, whilst the second underlined sentence makes a logical reference to your racist attitudes / thoughts - by your ‘own definition’.

Let me make a suggestion here, why don’t you change the word ‘Everyone’ in “Socialism cannot work for everyone.” To ‘Anyone’, then add ‘but for the most advanced and strongest people, at the end of it. That would be exactly like this:

“Socialism cannot work for anyone, but for the most advanced and the strongest people.” Then, you can also add: “The less developed, weak people deserve to be deported to their countries of their origins and / or immigrate to an isolated island (such as Madagascar); because that is what they really deserve.

This would make a better and clearer statement for the message you’re actually trying to send across. Also, what your true advocate, Adolf Hitler referenced in his book ‘Mein Kampf’ explaining what the ‘weak’ persons really deserve. He also made it known in the same book, that by getting rid of ‘the weak’ he sought to provide the proper space and purity for the ‘strong’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

Socialism is not for a group of people, a special race or nation, because they are better than the rest and so they deserve to get the best; but is for everyone as human beings. As the human race, in whole, deserves that its basic needs to be met – namely: Food, shelter and freedom. That is what Socialism is really aiming for: the fulfilment of the basic material needs, for as long as the majority of the people on this planet are being deprived from them.

The development of minds and cultures come second to those; as once the basic needs of the individuals are met, and everyone has equal access to the fundamental necessities of life, then everyone will also have the opportunities to develop their potentials and to grow.

A Socialist revolution does not happen because everyone has advanced herself / himself fully, and knows exactly what the society should be heading for (it would be great if that was possible), but it happens due to the peoples wants, sufferings and being repressed. The contradictions inherent in Capitalism, drive the realities to a point where such thing as a revolutionary change will be inevitable for the survival of the oppressed. Therefore, people will rise up, with all their weaknesses, their issues; and of course their strength which is contained mainly in their numbers – in unity – and the collective experience and knowledge they will gain in the process.

These are reflections on the realities of life in the existing societies; not some abstract theories made because some people want them to be so.

SSDR wrote:I have talked to fascists who support a socialist economy. But why would a fascist support a socialist economy is far than for why I would support a socialist economy. To me, socialism is liberation. To a typical fascist who supports socialism, socialism is national unity and helps national glory rise.


Well, so far you have stated that you are for a special kind of socialism, have referenced ‘purity’ and have defended in the strongest terms ‘nationalism’. Now, just how do you distinguish the socialist economy which those Fascists were defending, from yours..?

SSDR wrote:What I mean by eugenics is that since different workers have different internal desires and standards, what determines those personal, internal desires and standards? Why do certain races and nationalities like lesser clean communities (Arabia, India, etc.) while some like more cleaner communities (Nordics, Germany, etc.)? I never said that it is good or bad, because if I did, then I would be racist in this case.


No indeed, you never said that in precise words; but any child knows which one is ‘good’ or ‘bad’: Clean or dirty?
This is another example of your reference to the importance of the ‘genes’ or ‘biological structures’ in determining how advanced, or good or bad people become. And, also being contradictory in what you actually and clearly say; and what you announce / call yourself to be. You see, you simply wouldn’t need to do so, if your ideas (as a system) were in consistency with each other, and each part would actually promote and re-inforce the other, instead of opposing / negating it.

SSDR wrote:TROTSKY IS A REVISIONIST!
Overall, progressive and ghetto are different. And, the Antifa is one of my biggest enemies.


So, what does that make you..?
#14977458
SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, What you said wasn't a process, it was a definition of socialism. You can't compare a definition to a process. What, and how, are two different questions. If you can't see that, then there's no way your politics are straight. Also, socialism is a scientific process because it can't happen spontaneously.

The Diggers were a step forward, but they were not real socialists.



You have no reason to even *use* the term 'socialism', since you're not an internationalist.


SSDR wrote:
AI is not required for socialism, as we can see in history. But, you're wrong on saying that socialism cannot have any AI coordination. AI are not humans, and socialist programmed AI would have no profit motives.



People are rightly suspicious of new technologies because of their *knock-on effects* on everyone's lives -- nukes have already killed people, and could wipe out all life on the planet, for example, but the same technology could also provide effortless free energy for everyone, particularly if workers are allowed to control all aspects of such technology.

Regarding AI, it would be putting the cart before the horse at this point because the world is *still* under class rule, and the actual real-world implementation of any AI would still be based on returns on capital investments, or sheer profit-making -- the *best* time to implement any kind of artificial intelligence would be once the workers of the world have social production securely under control, and would then be thinking about *refinements* in how a collectivist society uses and produces energy, etc.


SSDR wrote:
Crime has strongly risen when socialism collapsed in Eastern Europe after the early 1990's. There's more crime today than there was 50 or 60 years ago. But, either way, you can't prevent crime. Crime will always exist.



Image


No, again, there's been a clear *drop* in crime, starting in the late '90s, as seen in the graph above.

And, no, crime and capitalism do not *have* to exist, if we can get to a world in which crime and profit-making would offer no material advantage to anyone, because everything that everyone needs and wants is already effortlessly provided-for with today's (and beyond) technologies.

This isn't just pie-in-the-sky political *marketing* -- it's feasible and realistic because of the never-ending rate of *increasing returns* from the use of newer and newer technologies, for production. Under capitalism new technology causes *layoffs*, of course, which is *bad* for the working class, but, once a proletarian revolution is made to *overthrow* the world's system of private-property-based production, such highly-leveraged technologies, like AI robots, could become the ubiquitous laptop-like personal tech of the future, to relieve everyone from *all* tedious manual tasks, forever.

Again from Wilde:



Now as the State is not to govern, it may be asked what the State is to do. The State is to be a voluntary association that will organise labour, and be the manufacturer and distributor of necessary commodities. The State is to make what is useful. The individual is to make what is beautiful. And as I have mentioned the word labour, I cannot help saying that a great deal of nonsense is being written and talked nowadays about the dignity of manual labour. There is nothing necessarily dignified about manual labour at all, and most of it is absolutely degrading. It is mentally and morally injurious to man to do anything in which he does not find pleasure, and many forms of labour are quite pleasureless activities, and should be regarded as such. To sweep a slushy crossing for eight hours, on a day when the east wind is blowing is a disgusting occupation. To sweep it with mental, moral, or physical dignity seems to me to be impossible. To sweep it with joy would be appalling. Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt. All work of that kind should be done by a machine.

And I have no doubt that it will be so. Up to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants. Were that machine the property of all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense advantage to the community. All unintellectual labour, all monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery. Machinery must work for us in coal mines, and do all sanitary services, and be the stoker of steamers, and clean the streets, and run messages on wet days, and do anything that is tedious or distressing. At present machinery competes against man. Under proper conditions machinery will serve man. There is no doubt at all that this is the future of machinery, and just as trees grow while the country gentleman is asleep, so while Humanity will be amusing itself, or enjoying cultivated leisure – which, and not labour, is the aim of man – or making beautiful things, or reading beautiful things, or simply contemplating the world with admiration and delight, machinery will be doing all the necessary and unpleasant work. The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralising. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends. And when scientific men are no longer called upon to go down to a depressing East End and distribute bad cocoa and worse blankets to starving people, they will have delightful leisure in which to devise wonderful and marvellous things for their own joy and the joy of everyone else. There will be great storages of force for every city, and for every house if required, and this force man will convert into heat, light, or motion, according to his needs. Is this Utopian? A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.



https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/



---


SSDR wrote:
"The less punishment, the less crime?!" I strongly disagree with that. Punishments lower crime. Areas that are more strict tend to have lower crime rates. The criminals of "today" are criminals. Rapists, murders, slackers, and cruel people are criminals. Child abusers, and cruel people will always exist. You need to have punishment for criminals. Criminals can and did exist within socialism.



Socialism has *never* existed in world history, so all of your contentions here are baseless. You're showing more interest in the functioning of the *capitalist state* than in anything about the working class.


SSDR wrote:
Non socialists who live in socialism are traitors subconsciously, and need to be re educated (like you).



As I said, you're 'Stalin 2.0' with authoritarian-Stalinist lines like this one.


SSDR wrote:
A global, workers' controlled economy maybe the best result, but that doesn't mean that socialist states that exist in a world full of non socialist states; are not socialist.



Those states are not socialist because socialism by definition has to be *worldwide*, and has to show control of social production by the world's *working class*.


SSDR wrote:
Age and gender are both social constructs in pure socialist words. A 10 year old can work at a factory. A 10 year old can fight in a war. A 10 year old can drive a car (I know a guy who started driving box trucks when he was nine years old). There are mature young people. What's next, you're against 12 year olds smoking and having sex? When I was younger, I knew 12 year olds at the time who had sex and smoked. In a pure, workers' controlled socialist economy, a younger person working is not oppression.



Again you're conflating *lifestyles* (culture) with society's *necessary production* -- a 10-year-old should not be put to work because that's an age that's better for *learning* and *doing from one's own volitions*, and not being exploited for the sake of private profit-making interests. Children shouldn't have to smoke, but it's one way that people deal with stress -- leave children out of adult work roles and they won't be stressed to the point of having to smoke cigarettes.


SSDR wrote:
"Nationalistic warfare?" What does that have to do with someone fighting for their society? China defending their northern lands against the USA during the Korean War is NOT imperialism. The USA was the imperialist force during the Korean War.



Okay, this is a specific example of an anti-imperialist / national-liberation type of defense, which was justified. You're correct here on your historical assessment.


SSDR wrote:
If a socialist society is attacked, many people need to defend it as much as possible. I am anti imperialist. But, imperialism was a progressive force that helped liberated regressive societies from extreme poverty, child abuse, rape cultures, and sexism. Imperialism also helped globalize the world you dumbass. But yeah, I am strongly against Americanization which is imperialist.



Watch the name-calling -- I've said nothing in support of hegemonic Western imperialism, and your historical assessment is correct again.


SSDR wrote:
Personal property does exist in capitalism. Personal property exists in both capitalism and socialism.



Well, no, it doesn't, because all property -- even hoarded wealth and productive equipment -- is lumped-into the category of 'private property', under capitalism.


---


SSDR wrote:
so you're using that as a manipulative tool. When I was talking about crime, I meant homicides, rape, arson, personal property theft (someone stealing your toothbrush), beatings, torture, animal abuse, domestic abuse, or slackation.



ckaihatsu wrote:
This is yet another piece of evidence showing you to be a Stalinist authoritarian -- you're far too concerned with *enforcing* some kind of nationalistic work policy, which is politically problematic.



SSDR wrote:
What does rape, arson, or domestic abuse have to do with "Stalinist nationalism?" It's not a "nationalistic work policy." Rape and arson are bad. Without that "nationalistic work policy" (which is really crime prevention in common sense words), you would get beaten up and your mom would get raped.



No, you keep thinking that only a *state* formulation / organization would be capable of dealing with anti-social individuals, potential crime, and crimes against the person. I think, given full co-administrative social powers, the *workers* themselves / ourselves, and the larger population, could readily deal with any individual-type, personal-type problems that may arise despite all social relations being fully collectivized.

You're still not being convincing that such crimes would even *exist*, post-capitalism, because there would be *no social basis* for such -- a prevailing social culture and ethos of egalitarianism would greatly *mitigate* such anti-social acts, certainly far more than in today's existing social environment.


SSDR wrote:
"conceivable re-proprietization of collective property would confer no advantage in a post-commodity social order" This has nothing to do with nurse care workers abusing disabled elders.



You make such transgressions sound *inevitable*, but you're not convincing, and I think you're using *scare tactics* to carve-out a contrived "political" need for your favored state-apparatus-approach to social order.


SSDR wrote:
"Yes, automated mechanized productive machinery *does* have to exist, post-capitalism, because such machinery massively increases *productive capacity*, or material productivity." Well I guess you're not a socialist, because you're now claiming that in order for socialism to exist, technology HAS to be automated. You're claiming that without automated technology, workers need money to motivate them, which is anti socialist. This also doesn't relate to your "socialism can exist before 1917" due to the lack of automated technology in the early 20th century.



I'm *not* arguing for the use of money -- I explicitly want the proletarian revolution to *eliminate* all currency and exchange-values *as soon as possible*, preferably *immediately*, even at the cost of a somewhat shrunken material economy of available goods and services, fully decommodified.

I *am* a socialist, and it's part of revolutionary socialism and communism to *call for* full automation so that humanity can benefit directly from fully automated industry and production, arising out of proletarian-revolutionized social relations, worldwide.

Socialism could *well* have existed before 1917, optimally, because the Western countries, like Germany, were already industrialized by then -- the Bolsheviks were trying to get Germany out of the war at the time, and were trying to spread the Russian (October) Revolution to there and to the rest of Europe.


SSDR wrote:
"Your concern with 'slacking' is *moralistic*, and Stalinistic-authoritarian -- it's misplaced because not *everyone* would have to arbitrarily be *commanded* to contribute labor on an ongoing basis. You're already showing tendencies towards the *corruption* of your vaunted Stalinist state apparatus." You can't stop slackation, so how would you handle slackers in a socialist economy? Your reply makes no sense, nor does it relate to how to handle slackers. And you're against morals? Have fun getting beaten up for no reason. Have fun seeing innocent women getting raped. And have fun getting attacked for breathing.



Yeah, right, as if those are the activities I do to have fun. You're incredibly *dramatic*, to the point of sensationalism and alarmism.

'Slacking' is a *moralistic* (idealist) term because it connotes that there exists a formal, known *threshold* of work inputs that need to be done, and are *not* being done. The term also ignores the material-leveraging that machines do, to convert nominal, high-level 'control' efforts, such as programming, into fully-automated tangible social benefits, using machinery.

You're also a moralist lifestylist because you think that people *need* to actively be involved in mandated work, or else will just be idle and anti-social -- this is a pernicious *stereotype* of the working-poor. Wouldn't it be better for there to be *social services* that can address these 'charity cases' on a one-by-one basis, to provide social *solutions* for such?

You're *choosing* to be alarmist instead of applying *politics* to address such situations proactively -- you'd rather be *reactionary* and carve-out a reactionary alarmist kind of social politics of your own, obviously.


SSDR wrote:
"your moralist authoritarian Stalinist state machinery." Shit man how would you handle the mass abuse of society in your economy? People bullying and harassing each other on a constant basis. You sound like you support a fuckin zoo. Hence, you would need drugs to cope with the extreme immorality of your society.



You're *purporting* to support a socialism-type of politics and outlook, but you keep showing yourself to prefer *opportunism* by *stopping* a socialist ethos, in favor of your own 'brand' of assumptions and reactionary alarmism. Your facile opinionating has no political value whatsoever.


SSDR wrote:
The reason why I am talking about how to handle slackers in a socialist economy is because this proves to you that an "elitist" state (elite in your perspective) NEEDS to exist, TO PREVENT shit like that.



No it doesn't, and there's no 'proof' provided by you.

You're being downright *patriarchal* with your mindset that only sees elitist-legitimized social roles, such as for work, with all nonconformists stereotyped into the 'anti-social' and 'dangerous' category, automatically. This is about as far from socialism as one can get, and is definitely a *reactionary* political outlook.


SSDR wrote:
"Fully-automated mass industrial production is the *goal* of socialism / communism, because the realization of such would mean that people could commonly benefit from such ultimately laborless mechanical 'work', without having to supply any liberated-labor whatsoever." Based on what you said, socialism is a technological, scientific process. But what if technology is not advanced enough for full automation? You're claiming that socialism can't exist if that's the case?



No, I'm saying that that's the *goal*, ultimately, because that would be the realistic *optimization* of mechanical productive capacity, to where *zero* human labor is required for social production.

Certainly the *social relations* can be revolutionized at any time, and even before 1917, when technological prowess was much less than it is today. Global human society can revolt against private ownership of social productive capacity, and, without full automation such implements under collective workers control would certainly be materially sufficient to provide a socially humane life to everyone in the world, with the goal of full automation being a later 'fine tuning' of such.


SSDR wrote:
"'slacking' would be a non-issue because all anyone would have to do would be to put a work order into a computer" What if someone doesn't want to put a "work order" into a computer?



Maybe someone else would consent to do it for them.


SSDR wrote:
"No, abuse would be virtually *impossible* because no one would be *stuck* anywhere -- they could simply *leave* whatever abusive situation and their life and livelihood would be *guaranteed* anywhere they go, due to abundant and always-freely-available social production, no matter the particular geographical location." But what if EVERYONE was abusive? Due to having no morals. Especially since you're against morals.



Sounds like a movie script -- better get on that right away.... (heh)

I'm actually against *moralism*, which is a political program that's based on concepts from a fixed, idealism-type view of the world.

For example you've already acknowledged that not all work roles are the same in function and social-benefit (picking herbs vs. laying down new railroad tracks), yet you idealistically think that 'idleness = dangerous anti-social behavior', and you're opportunistically ready to jump-in with your state-collectivist Stalinistic-authoritarian politics to *criminalize* and *police* such a social dynamic.


SSDR wrote:
Neo-Nazi and Islamic terrorists who would rebel against an ideal, global socialist society can exist within socialism. Your replies are not answering my points. It's like I'm asking you what one plus one is, and you're replying "computers are comfortable."



Whatever. You're lazily misconstruing my politics, yet again, and not-understanding the *political basis* behind sectarian acts, which would *have no* basis in a workers-collectivist egalitarian socialism type of social order.


SSDR wrote:
As long as a group of anti socialists have some weapons, such as guns or flammable gasoline, terrorism can potentially exist.



No, you're incorrect, and you misunderstand.

These kinds of acts -- like what ISIS did -- are sectarian-private *bids* for separatist hegemonic control of society, at a small-scale, as within the terrain of the former Islamic State. Once all of social production is in the hands of the collective working class, there would *be no* advantage to any top-down power plays because the constituent people would no longer be disadvantaged *anywhere* -- they wouldn't stay with a *political* abuser / opportunist, any more than they would with a *physical* abuser, and would opt to move to another place of individually-empowering material abundance, away from the abuse.


SSDR wrote:
FUCK THE ANTIFA. THE ANTIFA IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST ENEMIES OF SOCIALISM.



No, you're wrong, even despite your use of all-caps. (heh)

You can't lump Antifa (antifascism) in with separatist-propertarian groups like Islamist, fascist, and ultranationalist ones because Antifa *counters* those kinds of sectarian politics, in favor of more-*socialist*-type politics that are *left*-wing and not right-wing.


SSDR wrote:
You going against state socialism makes you sound like an anarchist!



Again, I'm *for* a workers state, but only as a transitional (dotp) *vehicle* against existing bourgeois-class rule. You make it sound like a workers state would have to be *permanent*, even after the overthrow of the class divide, when it *wouldn't be*. At that point there would no longer be a class foe, and humanity would then be collectively empowered to control society and socially-necessary production *directly*, without requiring a state apparatus ever again.


SSDR wrote:
You're an opportunist because you call for 'socialism', while actually meaning *anarchy* and *Trotskyism*.



No, I'm *not* an anarchist. And Trotskyism just means *internationalism* for socialism.


SSDR wrote:
You stay off the Internet and type your ridiculous Trotskyist, anarchist political lines into a text editor, save them, and keep them to yourself.



You're just making up bullshit here and falsely ascribing it to me. Stop it. You're on the verge of being a wantonly antagonistic *contrarian*.


SSDR wrote:
"If you "prefer" a global socialist society then why are you content for it to *not* be fully worldwide, and instead confined to individual nation-states? Which *is* it that your politics advocate-for: Worldwide socialism and international workers solidarity, or nation-state-constrained state-collectivist bureaucratic-elitist Stalinistic authoritarian administrative hierarchies?" This has nothing to do with claiming that socialist states within a world composed of socialist and non socialist states aren't socialist.



You're not even addressing the question -- it's obvious that your politics are one of state-separatist *opportunism*, especially since you haven't mentioned the international proletariat even once.


SSDR wrote:
It was the *Antifa* who corrupted the socialist movements around the world and watered-down the revolutionary politics to just the scope of promoting anarchy. There's no such thing as the Antifa being socialist, by definition, socialism is mature and does advocate to prevent crime and social decay, while the Antifa promotes crime and social decay.



No, Antifa deserves all left-wing support because it's *anti-fascist*, which means countering the far-right politics of race-baiting and anti-immigration.


SSDR wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Left-W ... e_Disorder

Go read a book you fuckin anarchist.



Still not an anarchist. Good try, though.


SSDR wrote:
"Also people don't 'oppress themselves' -- they're / we're oppressed from *without*, by private-property-based social relations, and bourgeois rule. That's why a fully-global proletarian revolution is objectively required." Giving personal sensitive information about oneself, like how people do on social media, is a great example of one oppressing themselves. Because they're snitching on themselves, and they're losing some power.



You think 'power' happens on an *individual* basis -- ? -- !

You're *definitely* not a socialist with *this* immense misunderstanding of how the world works.


SSDR wrote:
You're immature for calling me a Stalinist.



No, it's not about *me* -- I'm simply pointing out that your politics is one of state-separatist *opportunism*, and is *not* socialist in any way.


SSDR wrote:
"No, I'm not trying to be manipulative, and you're *not* correct. Your moralist lifestylism is causing you to regress to your *cultural* perspective on politics, which is misguided at best." So you support drug usage, dirty living, domestic abuse, social decay, and ghettoness? There's a difference between progress, and social decay. You're regressive for supporting social decay, since your reply to this isn't answering the question directly, assuming that you do support drug usage and dirty living.



You're making careless *assumptions* about my politics -- I already stated, above, that such social ills require *supportive interventions*, and *not* criminalization by any kind of state, for the betterment of the individuals concerned. Best of all would be a proletarian revolution that would *seize* mass industrial implements, to at-once provide for everyone's biological and social needs *directly*.


SSDR wrote:
"Also you seem to be trying to *personalize* (onto me) matters of politics, which are *not* inherently personal, but instead apply to entire *populations* of people, all the way up to social dynamics that are *worldwide* in scale." Yeah I don't know every single fuckin person, but I usually talk about the majority.



Well it's a plus that you're at-least *recognizing* the appropriate scale of dynamics here.


SSDR wrote:
"Your critique here of multiculturalism is politically from-the-*right*, so now you're being outright *reactionary* in your politics, regarding matters of social policy. If anyone has problems with drug abuse / dependency, they should be able to access *help* and physiological rehabilitation for such, at public expense." What does this have to do with economic socialism?



You were just talking about 'multiculturalism', so either stay on-topic, or don't.


SSDR wrote:
"'Social decay' is alarmist and reactionary." Ghetto, and NOT progressive.



I'm saying that you're not attempting to address 'social decay' / social-ills with your politics -- maybe you're unable to, or unwilling, but whatever the case you're not actively dealing with social policy, when that's exactly what politics is for.


SSDR wrote:
Canada is more progressive, while the USA is more ghetto.



Yeah, I'd agree that Canada tends to have more-progressive social policies than the U.S.


SSDR wrote:
TROTSKY IS A REVISIONIST!



Incorrect. *Stalin* was the *first* revisionist, with his capitulation to the Western, bourgeois-type nation-state formulation for his disastrous, misnamed 'socialism-in-one-country' politics and policies.



Stalin was now the party's supreme leader,[296] although was not the head of government, a task he entrusted to key ally Vyacheslav Molotov.[297] Other important supporters on the Politburo were Voroshilov, Lazar Kaganovich, and Sergo Ordzhonikidze,[298] with Stalin ensuring his allies ran the various state institutions.[299] According to Montefiore, at this point "Stalin was the leader of the oligarchs but he was far from a dictator".[300] His growing influence was reflected in the naming of various locations after him; in June 1924 the Ukrainian mining town of Yuzovka became Stalino,[301] and in April 1925, Tsaritsyn was renamed Stalingrad on the order of Mikhail Kalinin and Avel Enukidze.[302]

In 1926, Stalin published On Questions of Leninism.[303] Here, he introduced the concept of "Socialism in One Country", which he presented as an orthodox Leninist perspective. It nevertheless clashed with established Bolshevik views that socialism could not be established in one country but could only be achieved globally through the process of world revolution.[303]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_St ... %80%931927



---


SSDR wrote:
Overall, progressive and ghetto are different.


SSDR wrote:
And, the Antifa is one of my biggest enemies.



Whatever.


SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, The Antifa should be supported the same as a rope supporting a hanged man. Fuck the Antifa.



Who / what group do you think would be better for the neutralization of fascism, and fascist attacks, then?
#14977460
One Degree wrote:We are Socialist by nature. We are communal beings. The problem with Socialism is believing what is good for a community is good for a world. World Socialism or National Socialism does not work because it is not a 'true community '. Local Socialism and World Capitalism is the compromise we should pursue.


Given the realities of how people behave. I think this is reasonable.

This is the Communism with Chinese Characteristics that Xi Jingping talks about. I agree.
#14977463
One Degree wrote:
We are Socialist by nature. We are communal beings. The problem with Socialism is believing what is good for a community is good for a world. World Socialism or National Socialism does not work because it is not a 'true community '. Local Socialism and World Capitalism is the compromise we should pursue.



viewtopic.php?p=14839317#p14839317



Rancid wrote:
Given the realities of how people behave. I think this is reasonable.

This is the Communism with Chinese Characteristics that Xi Jingping talks about. I agree.



This is *inconsistent* in approach, and thus is *not* socialism -- it's *revisionism*.

If, as socialists, we're so against the market system of capitalism, why would we allow the 'invisible hand' / hands-off market mechanism to provide the interconnections *among* nation-states?

This is no better than the anarchist approach of allowing market economics / exchange values to operate among a patchwork of *communes* -- this is the same, but at the inter-nation-state level instead.

The best would be workers control internationally, to 'wither away' *all* nation-states since the working class doesn't require this kind of arbitrary political entity, nor communes either.
#14977470
ckaihatsu wrote:This is no better than the anarchist approach of allowing market economics / exchange values to operate among a patchwork of *communes* -- this is the same, but at the inter-nation-state level instead.

I don't see a problem with this.

ckaihatsu wrote:The best would be workers control internationally, to 'wither away' *all* nation-states since the working class doesn't require this kind of arbitrary political entity, nor communes either.


Socialism doesn't require nation-states, but people seem to desire/want them.
#14977472
Actually, capitalism doesn't require nation-states either. Capitalism would theoretically do better with no nation-states. Less stuff to get in the way of the free market.

Yet, we have nation-states.

Were you implying that nation-states are a byproduct of capitalism?
#14977479
Rancid wrote:Actually, capitalism doesn't require nation-states either. Capitalism would theoretically do better with no nation-states. Less stuff to get in the way of the free market.



This is true. Which is why most Ancaps and Libertarians support absolute free-trade and open-borders (in their opposition of government).


What you choose to buy and whom you choose to invite over are solely your prerogative as a property owner on the open market.
#14977483
ckaihatsu wrote:
This is no better than the anarchist approach of allowing market economics / exchange values to operate among a patchwork of *communes* -- this is the same, but at the inter-nation-state level instead.



Rancid wrote:
I don't see a problem with this.



Your meaning is unclear -- are you saying that a patchwork of nation-states should interoperate using capitalism's market mechanism?

If so, then the problem is that it's not full socialism -- it's a patchwork of state-capitalism. Rank-and-file workers can certainly handle co-administrative tasks as an additional component to their liberated labor that provides for socially-necessary needs, so that would be *international* labor determinism, with *zero* reliance on any market mechanism.


Rancid wrote:
Socialism doesn't require nation-states, but people seem to desire/want them.



That's beside the point -- this isn't *populism*, to be catered to by a quasi-socialist politics. Either the international workers are *in control* of production, or they're not.


Rancid wrote:
Actually, capitalism doesn't require nation-states either. Capitalism would theoretically do better with no nation-states. Less stuff to get in the way of the free market.

Yet, we have nation-states.

Were you implying that nation-states are a byproduct of capitalism?



Yes, I was implying that because the markets certainly can't operate *without* a state. Consider the market crash of 2008-2009, when the U.S. government stepped in to bail out the bad debt. If it *hadn't* done that the markets would have remained unperforming, and capitalism would have mired deeper into a fatal crisis. (Not to mention militaristic imperialism for the geopolitical global order, etc.)



The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase toxic assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was passed by a Democratic Party controlled Congress and signed into law by Republican Party President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 created the TARP program. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed into law in 2010, reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By October 11, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion, and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $24 billion.[1]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_ ... ef_Program



---


Victoribus Spolia wrote:
This is true. Which is why most Ancaps and Libertarians support absolute free-trade and open-borders (in their opposition of government).



This *propertarian* position is merely *reformist*, at best. It's not socialism, either, because it's not about overthrowing class rule, to hand socially productive roles over to be controlled by the working class itself.


Victoribus Spolia wrote:
What you choose to buy and whom you choose to invite over are solely your prerogative as a property owner on the open market.



This, too, is underwhelming. It's basically status-quo, and not socialism since private property relations remain untouched.
#14977484
ckaihatsu wrote:Your meaning is unclear -- are you saying that a patchwork of nation-states should interoperate using capitalism's market mechanism?

If so, then the problem is that it's not full socialism -- it's a patchwork of state-capitalism. Rank-and-file workers can certainly handle co-administrative tasks as an additional component to their liberated labor that provides for socially-necessary needs, so that would be *international* labor determinism, with *zero* reliance on any market mechanism.





That's beside the point -- this isn't *populism*, to be catered to by a quasi-socialist politics. Either the international workers are *in control* of production, or they're not.





Yes, I was implying that because the markets certainly can't operate *without* a state. Consider the market crash of 2008-2009, when the U.S. government stepped in to bail out the bad debt. If it *hadn't* done that the markets would have remained unperforming, and capitalism would have mired deeper into a fatal crisis. (Not to mention militaristic imperialism for the geopolitical global order, etc.)







---





This *propertarian* position is merely *reformist*, at best. It's not socialism, either, because it's not about overthrowing class rule, to hand socially productive roles over to be controlled by the working class itself.





This, too, is underwhelming. It's basically status-quo, and not socialism since private property relations remain untouched.


You seem to be arguing we should pursue a specific textbook idealism of socialism rather than one people may actually want or that is workable. You are forgetting it is about evolving and should not be restricted by idealism. What does it matter if it fits your definition if it is closer to what ‘natural man’ wishes?
#14977485
ckaihatsu wrote:This *propertarian* position is merely *reformist*, at best. It's not socialism, either, because it's not about overthrowing class rule, to hand socially productive roles over to be controlled by the working class itself.
ckaihatsu wrote:This, too, is underwhelming. It's basically status-quo, and not socialism since private property relations remain untouched.


1. I wasn't talking to you.

2. I am not a socialist.

3. I wasn't talking about socialism.

4. Try reading what people actually say before responding.

5. *quit* using asterisks so much, it makes you look autistic.
#14977489
ckaihatsu wrote:
This *propertarian* position is merely *reformist*, at best. It's not socialism, either, because it's not about overthrowing class rule, to hand socially productive roles over to be controlled by the working class itself.


ckaihatsu wrote:
This, too, is underwhelming. It's basically status-quo, and not socialism since private property relations remain untouched.



Victoribus Spolia wrote:
1. I wasn't talking to you.

2. I am not a socialist.

3. I wasn't talking about socialism.

4. Try reading what people actually say before responding.

5. *quit* using asterisks so much, it makes you look autistic.



1. It doesn't matter -- I was responding to the content on this thread.

2. Yet you're in the 'Socialism' section.

3. Ditto.

4. Yeah, I even *quote* them, as a matter of discussion-board etiquette.

5. I use them for the purpose of *pacing*. Don't complain at me so much.
#14977494
One Degree wrote:
You seem to be arguing we should pursue a specific textbook idealism of socialism rather than one people may actually want or that is workable. You are forgetting it is about evolving and should not be restricted by idealism. What does it matter if it fits your definition if it is closer to what ‘natural man’ wishes?



'Evolving' doesn't cut it, because the capitalist system will remain unchanged with that kind of passivity.

Many on this board conflate / confuse *bourgeois revolutions* of the past, with what's required for overcoming and erasing the *class division* itself, for the *future*. Past bourgeois revolutions were simply one power faction replacing another, with the class system remaining intact. What a *socialist* revolution requires is a *seizing* of society's productive machinery by the *working class*, which is historically unprecedented worldwide.

It's certainly not about "my" definition, either -- this stuff was around well before I was even born, and I'm not suggesting anything fundamentally different to the outline of a classless, socialist world.

Based on your last statement here you seem to think that proletarian revolution is based on some kind of consumer-type wishfulness, which is *far* from the case.
#14977498
ckaihatsu wrote:'Evolving' doesn't cut it, because the capitalist system will remain unchanged with that kind of passivity.

Many on this board conflate / confuse *bourgeois revolutions* of the past, with what's required for overcoming and erasing the *class division* itself, for the *future*. Past bourgeois revolutions were simply one power faction replacing another, with the class system remaining intact. What a *socialist* revolution requires is a *seizing* of society's productive machinery by the *working class*, which is historically unprecedented worldwide.

It's certainly not about "my" definition, either -- this stuff was around well before I was even born, and I'm not suggesting anything fundamentally different to the outline of a classless, socialist world.

Based on your last statement here you seem to think that proletarian revolution is based on some kind of consumer-type wishfulness, which is *far* from the case.


As you point out, the definition you use is about 100 years old. We no longer live in that world as was insightfully pointed out in another thread by @JohnRawls which was basically ignored by socialists/communists. The ‘socialists’ today hate ‘the workers’. They are ‘textbook socialists’ and most would never be considered ‘workers’ 100 years ago. Their revolution is just the same as you pointed out in the past, they want to ‘be the elite’.
So, in this world today, how do you accomplish socialism? I suggested ‘real socialism’ is ownership of your community. How that evolves internationally should begin with cooperation, not central control. I admit I am not a Marx scholar, but I don’t understand how a community can remain socialist if decision and planning is removed from the community. If you don’t have socialist communities, then international socialism is just a facade for authoritarianism. I don’t believe your view of socialism can be anything other than a self contradictory fantasy.
#14977502
One Degree wrote:
As you point out, the definition you use is about 100 years old. We no longer live in that world



You're wrong on this point -- the class division has *not* gone away, so that's the biggest barrier to a full realization of socialism. Socialism *means* the overcoming of the ruling class, by the working class.


One Degree wrote:
as was insightfully pointed out in another thread by @JohnRawls which was basically ignored by socialists/communists. The ‘socialists’ today hate ‘the workers’. They are ‘textbook socialists’ and most would never be considered ‘workers’ 100 years ago. Their revolution is just the same as you pointed out in the past, they want to ‘be the elite’.



You're describing the politics of SSDR, who is an authoritarian-Stalinist.


One Degree wrote:
So, in this world today, how do you accomplish socialism? I suggested ‘real socialism’ is ownership of your community.



This is bullshit class-collaborationist 'civil society' politics that conveniently ignores private property ownership -- with this line you sound like some hanger-on to whoever holds a property title deed.


One Degree wrote:
How that evolves internationally should begin with cooperation, not central control.



So you're a proponent of international communitarianism, or an *anarchist*, basically.

Just as with the state-capitalist types you're content to allow capitalist markets to continue for all inter-entity matters, which certainly isn't international workers solidarity and control of social production, or socialism.


One Degree wrote:
I admit I am not a Marx scholar, but I don’t understand how a community can remain socialist if decision and planning is removed from the community.



It's because decision-making and planning needs to be on the material basis of *productivity*, such as non-commodity products that help people in their lives and living -- 'socially-necessary production', in short.


One Degree wrote:
If you don’t have socialist communities,



You're too fixated on the 'community' formulation which is *vague* and class-collaborationist in composition.


One Degree wrote:
then international socialism is just a facade for authoritarianism. I don’t believe your view of socialism can be anything other than a self contradictory fantasy.



That's okay, you don't have to 'believe' in it -- it's simply how the world is. The working class has distinct interests of its own that are diametrically *against* private-property interests, as for the continued exploitation and oppression of workers.

There's nothing *wrong* with authoritarianism, as long as it's in the interests of the workers -- we've certainly seen authoritarianism (as from Stalin) in the interest of the nation-state entity, but that's *not* synonymous with working-class interests.

I'm still reading the following article, but this point was immediately notable since it well sums-up the situation here on this particular political discussion board:



26. Left populism is not merely a repetition of the Popular Front politics of the 1930s. While bearing certain similarities to the politics of popular frontism—particularly in its subservience to the capitalists—it has no historical, let alone political, connection to the working class. It specifically opposes, in the words of Mouffe, those “who keep reducing politics to the contradiction of capital/labor and attribute an ontological privilege to the working class, presented as the vehicle for socialist revolution.” That is, it repudiates the entire foundation of Marxist politics.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/0 ... s-j03.html
#14977508
Also, here's a good treatment on Maoism, in the comments section of the same article:



Me at home Zalamander • 11 hours ago

I support the Chinese revolution of 1949 because as a Chinese person, life improved under Mao's halfhearted socialism (49-78) than any 30 year period of comprador KMT rule (1912-49).

However, the Trotskyist analysis of the subsequent tragedy and betrayal is entirely true. The China-US deal of 1972 (which set the stage for Deng's "reforms") represent not only a betrayal of the Chinese working class and Maoism, it was entirely predicted by Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" given the nationalist framework of Maoist "socialism in one country" and the inevitable national contradictions that arose between China and the USSR (and later with both Vietnam and DPRK).

More critically, Trotskyism helps understand this tragedy in rational, not emotional, fashion. Maoists (in China and the West) too often reduce the 49-78 experience as a morality play where Mao was "good" and Deng was "bad". The repeated purges within the Party and the "capitalist roaders" must be examined in materialist fashion. Such elements persisted within the Party because Mao relied on them as commanders and leaders after the Long March. Once Japan invaded, Mao adopted the tactics of the Popular Front, openly inviting petty-bourgeois and nationalists to join the Party. Given this class heterogeneity, the willingness to endure and remain loyal to the Party became the unifying feature of the CCP and was valued over actual adherence to or understanding of socialism. The ranks of the careerists were bolstered after 1949 when Mao offered clemency to KMT defectors with full retention of their previous rank and office for those who had not committed any "crimes against the people". This naturally meant the retention of the petty-bourgeois mode of production among the CCP-loyal "red capitalists and national bourgeoisie", providing material strength for the "capitalist roaders" within the Party. Mao could not exterminate them; all he could manage, after much struggle, was to establish the supremacy of the state sector over the private sector. This struggle for the soul of the party culminated in the Cultural Revolution, but even that was only the victory of the sections of the bureaucracy loyal to Mao. What forced the acquiescence of the other sections of the bureaucracy has nothing to do with the Western/Dengist propaganda of "state terror" and "cult of personality" but Mao's counterrevolutionary crushing of the working class uprising of 1968. The Shanghai Storm, initially stirred up by Mao's factional rivals, soon escaped all official restraints: factory workers removed the corrupt city and factory officials and took over the city. Many other industrial centers soon joined Shanghai. Mao dispatched the PLA and drowned them all in blood, even though many of them openly praised Mao and the Cultural Revolution and believed he would listen to them, This was China's 1968 and it terrified the Chinese ruling elite, causing them to mostly close ranks behind Mao. To ensure no such eruption would happen again, the CCP offered massive concessions (the expansion of the working class and socialist economy and the attempt to reorganize social resources to meet the needs of the peasant majority), i.e. the actual socialist policies of the Cultural Revolution. Sadly, like the reforms in bourgeois states, when the working class does not rule both the factory and the state, the gains were short-lived and soon erased.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/0 ... s-j03.html
#14977517
You're wrong on this point -- the class division has *not* gone away, so that's the biggest barrier to a full realization of socialism. Socialism *means* the overcoming of the ruling class, by the working class.


Really? Tell me who the workers are today and what it is they have in common?



You're describing the politics of SSDR, who is an authoritarian-Stalinist.

This seems like a deflection and is not what I am describing. Any pyramid form of governing, even if it starts with a bottom to top authority, will evolve into a top to bottom authority (authoritarianism). The cause is not in the ideology, but the structure.




This is bullshit class-collaborationist 'civil society' politics that conveniently ignores private property ownership -- with this line you sound like some hanger-on to whoever holds a property title deed.

I said ‘community ownership’. I never mentioned private ownership, so you are deflecting again. However, there is nothing wrong with private ownership as long as it is subservient to the community.




So you're a proponent of international communitarianism, or an *anarchist*, basically.

No, I call myself a local autonomist because a community should be free to choose any type of government they want. How can you say they own their community if you won’t even let them decide their own form of government?

Just as with the state-capitalist types you're content to allow capitalist markets to continue for all inter-entity matters, which certainly isn't international workers solidarity and control of social production, or socialism.

Communities trading with one another does not require capitalism, but it seems like a possible method of communities getting the lowest price.




It's because decision-making and planning needs to be on the material basis of *productivity*, such as non-commodity products that help people in their lives and living -- 'socially-necessary production', in short.

Cooperation of communities accomplishes the same thing without any centralized planning and control. Each community is capable of deciding what other communities need that they can provide. Basing it on necessities is outdated in today’s world. Why in the world would we want to return to a controlled international economy based upon necessities?



You're too fixated on the 'community' formulation which is *vague* and class-collaborationist in composition.

How is a community owned equally by all citizens creating class division? Any divisions would be the choice of the community.




That's okay, you don't have to 'believe' in it -- it's simply how the world is. The working class has distinct interests of its own that are diametrically *against* private-property interests, as for the continued exploitation and oppression of workers.

Not in today’s world they don’t. Again, who are the workers and what do they have in common?
There's nothing *wrong* with authoritarianism, as long as it's in the interests of the workers -- we've certainly seen authoritarianism (as from Stalin) in the interest of the nation-state entity, but that's *not* synonymous with working-class interests.

What is wrong with it is it denies freedom of choice. Freedom to change one’s mind. Where is the community ownership with authoritarianism? If you don’t make the decisions, then any ownership is a delusion.
#14977540
One Degree wrote:
Really? Tell me who the workers are today and what it is they have in common?



Sure -- now, as then, it's anyone who has to sell their labor-power for a wage, for the materials for life and living. Here's a diagram:


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



---


One Degree wrote:
as was insightfully pointed out in another thread by @JohnRawls which was basically ignored by socialists/communists. The ‘socialists’ today hate ‘the workers’. They are ‘textbook socialists’ and most would never be considered ‘workers’ 100 years ago. Their revolution is just the same as you pointed out in the past, they want to ‘be the elite’.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're describing the politics of SSDR, who is an authoritarian-Stalinist.



One Degree wrote:
This seems like a deflection and is not what I am describing. Any pyramid form of governing, even if it starts with a bottom to top authority, will evolve into a top to bottom authority (authoritarianism). The cause is not in the ideology, but the structure.



I'll have to disagree, because there are *larger* dynamics at-play, as well -- I would *support* SSDR's authoritarian workers state kind of formation if it was *directed* at overthrowing the bourgeois ruling class, at which point there would no longer be any more class divide and humanity would be unencumbered and would readily supersede that revolutionary-workers / vanguard / organization / party / state vehicle, and would be able to freely coordinate all over the world for the sake of socially-necessary production, for human / humane need (and want).

So just because a workers-vanguard-type hierarchical structure may be utilized, the structure itself isn't the determining factor for its lifespan -- it would be the issue of whether the world's working class would be able to self-organize for its own social production, or not.


One Degree wrote:
I said ‘community ownership’. I never mentioned private ownership, so you are deflecting again. However, there is nothing wrong with private ownership as long as it is subservient to the community.



The problem I have with 'community' politics / ownership is that it's inherently too small-scale, petty, and pointless -- why not just redirect "community" attentions to the greater commonality of the world's proletariat, to fight bourgeois class rule and overthrow it, so that everyone everywhere can have a commonality of *liberation* from exploitation and oppression -- ?

Today's 'community ownership', anyway, *must* be grounded in *someone's* private ownership, otherwise there's no place to meet and organize. And if 'community ownership' doesn't extend to productive assets (factories), for the provisioning of human need, then what's the point? (!) It would be more like a social *club* than anything else, and today we have Internet discussion boards for such conversations, and better, like this one, PoFo.


One Degree wrote:
No, I call myself a local autonomist because a community should be free to choose any type of government they want. How can you say they own their community if you won’t even let them decide their own form of government?



I'm not *against* any community formation, wherever it may be -- I'm saying that such is politically *insufficient*, ultimately, because it doesn't *generalize* / centralize such similar struggles at any and all *other* local contexts sufficiently -- it's *so* small-scale that it could easily turn into a *separatist-nationalist* kind of politics instead of expanding *outward* to *generalize* the same kind of struggles elsewhere.


One Degree wrote:
Communities trading with one another does not require capitalism, but it seems like a possible method of communities getting the lowest price.



Again, *whatever*, but such consumer-sided market participation isn't even challenging bourgeois class rule at all.


One Degree wrote:
Cooperation of communities accomplishes the same thing without any centralized planning and control. Each community is capable of deciding what other communities need that they can provide. Basing it on necessities is outdated in today’s world. Why in the world would we want to return to a controlled international economy based upon necessities?



'Return-to' -- ??

This is how the world *is*, and *has been* while you've been lost in a communitarian political daydream -- note that you're still not addressing how a society produces a *surplus* on-the-whole, and who *benefits* from that working-class production of that surplus. It certainly isn't the *working class* that benefits from the workers' own surplus-production.


One Degree wrote:
How is a community owned equally by all citizens creating class division? Any divisions would be the choice of the community.



Hey, I'm not making this shit up -- the world has a *class division*, *now*, between those who have to sell their labor-power for a wage, to secure the necessities of life and living, and those who own *capital* and use it to *exploit* that labor-power, for private gains. This is *anywhere* you may want to go, to survey living and working conditions.

'Community' is just a buying-club, basically, by your description -- good luck to anyone who doesn't have the means / money to be *in* such a club.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
That's okay, you don't have to 'believe' in it -- it's simply how the world is. The working class has distinct interests of its own that are diametrically *against* private-property interests, as for the continued exploitation and oppression of workers.



One Degree wrote:
Not in today’s world they don’t. Again, who are the workers and what do they have in common?



(See the diagram.)

A *quick* way of describing it is 'those who don't control the revenue from a business.'


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
There's nothing *wrong* with authoritarianism, as long as it's in the interests of the workers -- we've certainly seen authoritarianism (as from Stalin) in the interest of the nation-state entity, but that's *not* synonymous with working-class interests.



One Degree wrote:
What is wrong with it is it denies freedom of choice. Freedom to change one’s mind. Where is the community ownership with authoritarianism? If you don’t make the decisions, then any ownership is a delusion.



Hmmmm, you're not getting it -- the *goal* is simple, and universal -- overthrow bourgeois ruling-class control over social production so that workers can do such for themselves / ourselves. Then the rest is just means-and-ends, meaning that *authoritarian*, bourgeois-suppressing *means* can readily be used to get the yoke off our back. Simple, see -- ? It's not a consumers' club.
#14977547
@ckaihatsu , you didn’t tell me what these ‘international workers’ have in common other than they are not ‘owners’. Do you honestly see a ‘worker’ in the US having common goals with a worker in Bangladesh?
There is no ‘international brotherhood’. It’s a fantasy.
Is a doctor making $500,000 a year and owning a million dollars in stocks a worker or an owner?
If a worker, what does he have in common with an apple picker? Do you honestly think they would belong to the same ‘class’ just because you paid them the same and/or the government owned everything?
Show me a socialist society without classes? How many people in the world will strive to get a doctorate if it brought them nothing more than picking apples.
No, socialism as an international brotherhood of workers is not what people want or how they want to live. People are communal, but only if the community is small enough to be recognized as a community. It becomes a delusion on a large scale that the average person simply will not accept. No one refers to their country or even their state as their community because they are too large and diverse to consider as such.
International socialism assumes a bond that does not exist.
#14977551
ckaihatsu wrote:Sure -- now, as then, it's anyone who has to sell their labor-power for a wage, for the materials for life and living. Here's a diagram:


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



---











I'll have to disagree, because there are *larger* dynamics at-play, as well -- I would *support* SSDR's authoritarian workers state kind of formation if it was *directed* at overthrowing the bourgeois ruling class, at which point there would no longer be any more class divide and humanity would be unencumbered and would readily supersede that revolutionary-workers / vanguard / organization / party / state vehicle, and would be able to freely coordinate all over the world for the sake of socially-necessary production, for human / humane need (and want).

So just because a workers-vanguard-type hierarchical structure may be utilized, the structure itself isn't the determining factor for its lifespan -- it would be the issue of whether the world's working class would be able to self-organize for its own social production, or not.





The problem I have with 'community' politics / ownership is that it's inherently too small-scale, petty, and pointless -- why not just redirect "community" attentions to the greater commonality of the world's proletariat, to fight bourgeois class rule and overthrow it, so that everyone everywhere can have a commonality of *liberation* from exploitation and oppression -- ?

Today's 'community ownership', anyway, *must* be grounded in *someone's* private ownership, otherwise there's no place to meet and organize. And if 'community ownership' doesn't extend to productive assets (factories), for the provisioning of human need, then what's the point? (!) It would be more like a social *club* than anything else, and today we have Internet discussion boards for such conversations, and better, like this one, PoFo.





I'm not *against* any community formation, wherever it may be -- I'm saying that such is politically *insufficient*, ultimately, because it doesn't *generalize* / centralize such similar struggles at any and all *other* local contexts sufficiently -- it's *so* small-scale that it could easily turn into a *separatist-nationalist* kind of politics instead of expanding *outward* to *generalize* the same kind of struggles elsewhere.





Again, *whatever*, but such consumer-sided market participation isn't even challenging bourgeois class rule at all.





'Return-to' -- ??

This is how the world *is*, and *has been* while you've been lost in a communitarian political daydream -- note that you're still not addressing how a society produces a *surplus* on-the-whole, and who *benefits* from that working-class production of that surplus. It certainly isn't the *working class* that benefits from the workers' own surplus-production.





Hey, I'm not making this shit up -- the world has a *class division*, *now*, between those who have to sell their labor-power for a wage, to secure the necessities of life and living, and those who own *capital* and use it to *exploit* that labor-power, for private gains. This is *anywhere* you may want to go, to survey living and working conditions.

'Community' is just a buying-club, basically, by your description -- good luck to anyone who doesn't have the means / money to be *in* such a club.


---








(See the diagram.)

A *quick* way of describing it is 'those who don't control the revenue from a business.'


---








Hmmmm, you're not getting it -- the *goal* is simple, and universal -- overthrow bourgeois ruling-class control over social production so that workers can do such for themselves / ourselves. Then the rest is just means-and-ends, meaning that *authoritarian*, bourgeois-suppressing *means* can readily be used to get the yoke off our back. Simple, see -- ? It's not a consumers' club.


It is interesting how difficult it is for people who have been wage workers most of their lives that never understand the concepts of being an international socialist workers socialist and how they might be going about organizing against the ruling elite is discarded. Brainwashed in the extreme people I would say.

I liked that diagram you put up. You are a wealth of information on socialism.

Can I ask you what category of socialism would you self-identify yourself as?
#14977555
50% of Americans own stock. 92% of the top 10% own stock. Your division of workers and owners is an abstraction today. It is meaningless. Socialism needs redefined or it is just an academic’s wet dream.
Again, @johnrawls started a thread on this and it was avoided. I think the reason is because you know your textbook view is an anachronism.

Edit: I didn’t want to argue this. I wanted to see the socialists/communists discuss it. Who are the workers and owners today?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 14

Here I quote a few sentences from the post in the […]

Turn, turn, turn

The timelines have not gotten much attention in t[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

Old friend. What are you doing to me! SARCASM. […]

Will Russia interfere or will China butt in? Chi[…]