Biden is no socialist

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Guy Marsh, Dec 12, 2020.

  1. pitbull

    pitbull Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    6,149
    Likes Received:
    2,857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay, I appreciate your reply and your effort to keep Marxism out of the realm of eternally failed ideologies.

    You say Marxism is evolving. Has there been any progress to date?
    Can we try it again these days, or will it end up catastrophically again?
     
  2. Guy Marsh

    Guy Marsh Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2020
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Within this thread's 269th post, I wrote: "Finally, all of this shows that, contrary to the Right's desperate assertions, Marxism is no religion, for, unlike religion, scientific socialism is open to change. Like all other sciences, it is continuously evolving."

    In the post listed above, pitbull writes:

    Respectfully, I will say that Marxism is not a failed ideology, for that which merely appears in print cannot fail. Instead, in revealing specific social scientific realities hitherto buried beneath layers of ideological obfuscation, Marxian social science has opened up new vistas for workers and thus the (possibility) of self-emancipation from the now highly antisocial capitalist system. Whether or not a sufficient number of workers ever chose to act upon that possibility remains to be seen. But, if not, it will not be the fault of Marxism itself.

    I'm not confident that I understand your query, pitbull. Yes, as I briefly outlined within the post to which you responded, Marxism has evolved and will continue to do so. But, again, I'm not sure of the meaning of your question. And for that, I apologize. Perhaps you could rephrase your question in a subsequent post. Thank you, pitbull.

    Given that the U.S. is a fully developed capitalist society, yes, establishing the suppositional "American Socialist Commonwealth" could be undertaken.
    And that brings us to something that I needed to have accomplished earlier relative to this discussion, to wit, explaining (why) a socialist society has yet to exist anywhere on Earth.

    In keeping with the fact that hunter-gatherer society gave way to feudal society, feudal society gave way to mercantile society, and mercantile society gave way to capitalist society, for a socialist society to come to fruition, it must come about within the context of a fully industrialized capitalist society. That is because the mass of workers would then be able to hold and administer the means of production democratically once society takes ownership of those means of production. Otherwise, without a fully industrialized backdrop, society's ownership and administration of the means of production would be impossible. This brings us to the likes of Russia.

    1917 Russia was a semi-agrarian society. 1948 China was mostly an agrarian society. And Cuba of 1960 was an agrarian society. As such, these societies ' mostly geographically dispersed peasant populations were unable to organize themselves to the point where they could have held and managed their respective means of production. But even that is a moot point because none of the societies' possessed fully-industrialized means of production.

    Therefore, the failure of these revolutions was apparent before they began. Marx and Engles emphatically warned against attempting a socialist revolution in agrarian and semi-agrarian, for no substitute for a fully industrialized society can be found. Indeed, Marx and Engles singled out Russia as a society where a socialist revolution would fail should it be attempted within its mostly agrarian nature. That was the reason why Lenin hatched his "vanguard of the proletariat" or simply "Vanguardism." He thought it would serve as a substitute for Russia's lack of a widespread and advanced industrial base. As Marx and Engles could have told him had they been alive to do so, Lenin was mistaken. And so, too, were Mao, Castro, etc., mistaken.

    *****

    Guy Marsh
    Member (since 1990):
    Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
    http://www.slp.org/

    What is socialism?
    http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

    www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

    deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm

    Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
    Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
    Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

    Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV:
    https://freespeech.org

    Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
    http://www.pacifica.org/
     
  3. Mike12

    Mike12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    4,563
    Likes Received:
    2,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know, i like to analyze how you socialists think, it's interesting.

    Reading the link you post above is like reading the definition of a utopia.. It's the epitome of fantasy..

    I particularly enjoy how it is even sold as ending racism, poverty and everything bad. It is impossible to take any of this seriously, this theoretical, never proven, never seen in history of man kind since the existence of homosapiens. Do you not think that man could've made this utopia work by now? Man has had thousands of years to try it and implement it. Let me tell you why it hasn't worked, it's a fantasy.

    To begin with, socialism, as defined in this link goes against human nature. Look at the history of man or even history of all living things. It's a history of wars, conflict and inequality. This the nature of man, you cannot fight it and force an unnatural existence on man, it will inevitably fail. Human beings are competitive and will always gravitate towards a merit system with inequality at it's core. By nature, a hard working, talented, innovative man/woman will never accept to be in the same class as a lazy, unproductive human being who doesn't even want to work. You try and make these groups equal and it will NEVER WORK. A lazy, unproductive person deserves to be poor and a hard working, talented, productive person deserves to be rich. Life is not supposed to be fair, men are not supposed to be equal.

    Your utopia world will never work, it falls flat on it's face on basic principles of humans and every living thing actually. Look around, where do you see equality and fairness in animal kingdom.. it's brutal, unfair.. the strong survive..evolution. We think of ourselves as human beings and special, cause we have a 'soul', we have self-awareness, we can imagine things... but truly, we share a lot with all other animals, same instinct - survive, procreate and compete.

    Let me tell you a story. The story of someone i know. Incredibly driven, always had a goal - build a technology company, providing software to financial industry. He worked as a salaried employee, with a wife and kids but driven to be his own boss, have his own company. He quit his job and gave it shot. for 5 years, he was stressed, didn't sleep, worked all w/e... not knowing how the future will look. He kept fighting, losing sleep, working... eventually, he landed some big clients. Eventually, the word spread and he ramped up the marketing engine. 15 years later, his company is worth over 50 million dollars and he is, yes, rich. He has around 30-50 employees, they make less than him but they have a job, jobs he created and they make good salaries.

    This is a capitalist society.. this man deserves to be a millionaire and it is the capitalist system which initially sparked the fire in him, allowed him to succeed and differentiate himself, rise in the class ranks. This is human nature, this is how it's supposed to be... your utopia of equality is just that, an utopia... will never work. Instead, what you should be advocating for is a better capitalist society, one that preserves the current inequality (because it's human nature and people with unequal work ethic and talent should not reap same rewards) but try to ensure everyone has the same opportunities at birth (will never be perfect but can be improved upon) and then those who don't work and don't produce, they can be poor, those who work hard and produce, they can be rich.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2021
  4. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except that socialists aren't profit seeking. Profit is fundamentally at odds with the model.
     
  5. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It only fails if someone tries to torque it into politics.
     
  6. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The race to the bottom (aka, wealth divide) is not the product of the Right. It's a product of the Left's cunning abuse of The Welfare State to consolidate the position and power of the elites.

    The Right wants power (via property and nil debt) back in the hands of the People. The Left wants those things taken out of the hands of the People altogether.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2021
    Idahojunebug77 and drluggit like this.
  7. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great post, Mike! Couldn't possibly agree more .. and I'm a socialist :p

    The gargantuan elephant in the room is the grotesque INequality of the 'equality' desired by Marxists.

    The only equality in a world of hard physics and jungle laws, is MERIT. Will and determination cost nothing at all, and are available to every last one of us. As you say, the provision of the same opportunities to all (free education and healthcare) are the most we can and should do. It excludes no one, and leaves no one behind. Every one of us can use those opportunities to secure the future, or choose 'starvation' if that's our preference. No force, no obligation, no brutality, no inequality - and democracy/freedom is preserved.
     
  8. Mike12

    Mike12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    4,563
    Likes Received:
    2,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Equality WILL NEVER WORK... It is not in our nature. That is failed from the start...

    The capitalist system has it's flaws but we should all strive to correct those flaws where we can. It is NOT unfair for a person who plans, sets goals, takes risks, works extremely hard, innovates, produces to be much richer than a person who is lazy, has no goals, takes no risks and doesn't produce. In fact, if they were forced to be in same class, THIS would be unfair. The economic system needs to provides the incentives for people to work hard, take risks and a capitalist system provides the strongest incentives. The friend i'm talking about would've probably never taken the risks he took, worked as hard as he did without seeing himself as potentially becoming a millionaire. For those who didn't, they don't deserve the same rewards, that freaking simple.

    Having said the above, there are problems in today's capitalist society we need to address. A person born in the ghetto, to bad parents cannot compare to a person born to rich parents in a nice neighborhood. The odds are against the former and all opportunities with he latter. It is still possible for the poor kid in the ghetto to outperform the rich kid but on average, odds not too good. The rich kid will be taught better values by parents, go to a better school and most importantly will have a more active social life during off school periods. It has been studied and shown that one of the biggest perks for rich kids is what parents do for them during off-school periods, like summer. The poor kids just take the summer off and participate in family activities, the rich kids are taking summer courses, participating in more social events.. they grow with a sense of entitlement. Their social and educational learning never stops, even during summers.

    What we should work towards is a capitalist society where inequality is at it's core, a necessity but should be more and more based on merit and less and less based on a large variation of opportunities, merely due to circumstances present at birth.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2021
  9. pitbull

    pitbull Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    6,149
    Likes Received:
    2,857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Socialism has no place in reality.

    We can try again in one million years.
    Perhaps another human race then lives who can deal with it. :)
     
  10. Pred

    Pred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    24,355
    Likes Received:
    17,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do you take the politics out of Socialism?
     
  11. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not in it, to take out. Socialism is an economic model, not a political model.

    Real socialists come in all political varieties. Anarchists, Libertarians, Leftists, Rightists, etc etc.
     
  12. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet it's the reality which underpins all social mammal 'societies'.
     
  13. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agree. But Govt can't change the parameters for ghetto kids. It's on each set of new parents to determine to do better, and follow through. It doesn't take advantage (40% of students at a NYC academically selective high school are from low income households), it takes determination.

    Incidentally, the majority of those low income kids mentioned above, come from non-white migrant families. Proving the lie of the Progressives, once again.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  14. Guy Marsh

    Guy Marsh Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2020
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Within this thread's 286th post, crank wrote:

    May I ask how old you are, crank? Thank you, sir.
     
  15. Guy Marsh

    Guy Marsh Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2020
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Within this thread's 278th post, and in an indirect response to a message of mine (post #277), Mike12 wrote:

    With all respect due to Mike12 personally, if what I advocate is "the epitome of fantasy," then one would think he could eviscerate my writings point-by-point. However, as it now stands, Mike12 has yet to produce a response to any of my comments. So we can safely assume that never will he post a point-by-point retort. On the other hand, I have responded to (each) of his remarks at some length, and, I will assert, quite effectively.

    To Mike12's point, though, the epitome of a utopian belief is that which puts forth the proposition that this society's social fabric can withstand the fact that fifty-nine capitalists have more (worker) produced economic wealth than 164 million other Americans combined. ( https://nypost.com/2020/10/08/just-59-americans... ) Common sense should dictate that such an imbalance will eventually lead to catastrophic social consequences. But the band plays on for those who lack critical analysis of the capitalist system.

    You know, Mike12, I am soon to begin my sixty-fourth year of life. I am, therefore, given to the not-so-rare slip of the mind. Would you please help refresh my memory by pointing out that that which is "sold as ending racism, poverty, and everything bad"? Thank you, sir.

    (See the final four paragraphs in this thread's 277th post.)

    Yes, sir, you already mentioned that.

    However, war and (gross) inequality are not intrinsic to humankind. Yes, the last 12,000 years, roughly since the Agricultural Revolution, have been replete with conflict and gross inequity. But human beings, in their modern form, have existed for approximately 200,000 years. Between the advent of human beings and the agricultural revolution, those roughly 188,000 interceding years, people lived cooperatively. There existed little conflict, and, perhaps most telling, humans worshipped female "gods" or, more to the point, "goddesses." Matriarchy, rather than patriarchy, was how societies were organized.

    However, all of that came to an end with the Agricultural Revolution's dawning some 12,000 years ago. Food began to be needlessly locked away. Artificial food shortages began to appear. And "goddess" worship was soon replaced by the worshipping of "gods." All of this was conducive toward the institution of patriarchy from which war and injustice spring.

    (Related reading: "The Chalice and The Blade: Our History, Our Future" by Riane Eisler, Metropolitan Books, 1987)

    First of all, Mike12, what do you think my idea of equity is, some abstract and absolute state of equality?

    Secondly, in light of American workers being by far the world's most productive workers, Mike12's intimation that there are a large number of lazy workers who holdback productive workers is unfounded. Chronically "lazy" individuals are rare, and their indolence is most often associated with chronic depression, schizophrenia, which often goes undiagnosed, and other afflictions. The majority of workers are, of course, very hard-working people. A high percentage of poorer members of the working class work at two and sometimes three jobs simultaneously. So the assertion that such individuals are poor because they are "lazy" is inaccurate, born of reactionary "thinking," and insulting.

    Moreover, I'm wondering whether Mike12's concern with unproductive people extends to the likes of, say, Paris Hilton, who lead opulent lifestyles despite never having performed an hour's worth of productive labor. These people live off the surplus-value extracted from other human beings' labor power and intellectual power. These human beings are rarely considered lazy because the capitalist culture has conditioned the masses to "think" otherwise.

    Conflating human beings with animals is silly and thus not worthy of a response.

    In reality, his workers (produce) more wealth than he does. Nonetheless, they have much less money because they are paid back, in the form of wages and salaries, only a small fraction of the wealth their labor power and intellectual power produce. The lion's share of the wealth (they) make is stolen by your friend through a bourgeois system of legality known as private profit or, in Marxist terminology, surplus value ( https://www.britannica.com/topic/surplus-value ). It is the basis of the antisocial capitalist system and, ultimately, the impetus to nearly every social pathology under the Sun. Again, common sense dictates that no society can withstand a situation in which an infinitesimally small number of people control most of a society's socially produced economic wealth. With workers at one another's throats artificially competing against one another for the few economic crumbs left to them by capitalists, America will eventually fall into a state of industrial feudalism previously unimagined. It will be, short of our dissolving the capitalist system, a, if you will, Mad Max-like scenario come to life.

    "Marxism is "the definition of utopia ... the epitome of fantasy." Utter nonsense.

    Before I respond to that, I need to know what it is that Mike12 thinks my conception of equality is.

    Inequality is, to reiterate, not a part of human nature. And the perverse assertion that "a better capitalist society" lies in preserving inequality is just that - perverse. As I demonstrated earlier in this post, humankind existed mostly harmoniously for roughly the initial 188,000 of its existence. That the capitalist culture has needfully concealed that history beneath laminations of philosophical stupefactions is unfortunate, but it doesn't alter reality. Mike12 and the many like him harbor what they believe about human nature because capitalist society desperately needs them to "think" in such a manner. Nevertheless, the archaeological, anthropological, and sociological record renders them mistaken. They do, of course, enjoy the right to believe as they please. But their "thinking" is based upon anti-scientific and therefore faulty notions fed to them by capitalism's thought regulators. At the risk of appearing arrogant, few if any of these individuals are well-educated, otherwise sophisticated, or especially intelligent. Mired in "might makes right" and other patriarchal perplexities, right-wingers regurgitate what they have been conditioned to believe by those with vested interests to push such twaddle.

    Given the all but omnipresent nature of capitalist culture, people of all political persuasions tend to hold such paternalistic credences. But there is something incredibly irritating about the political Right's relentless determination to cling to such idiotic conceptions of human nature. They "know it all" while knowing virtually nothing. And they dutifully lack any semblance of intellectual curiosity that might lead them to think otherwise. Tis an excellent thing that I have neither the time nor the inclination to spoon-feed them the scientific information that might cause them to develop and adhere to science-based thoughts.

    *****

    Guy Marsh
    Member (since 1990):
    Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
    http://www.slp.org/

    What is socialism?
    http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

    www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

    deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm

    Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
    Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
    Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

    Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV:
    https://freespeech.org

    Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
    http://www.pacifica.org/
     
  16. Mike12

    Mike12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    4,563
    Likes Received:
    2,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    thanks to those people, we have large corporations and institutions providing jobs and salaries to people. Thanks to those people, the poor are better off than they would be in a socialist country. I have yet to hear your thoughts as to why the avg. poor person in the U.S is richer than the avg. Chinese or avg. Venezuelan or Cuban. You have yet to counter the fact that in a prosperous capitalist society, sure, there is inequality but even the poor are better off than they would be in a socialist country, not a theoretical place but socialism in practice. Take it from a person who immigrated from a real poor country.... i know what poverty is. In the United states, the the avg poor person is quite well off compared to the avg. citizen of Russia, China, South America, Africa, Cuba.. and i'm just talking about the poor. I'm from south america and the poor from my country live in huts and have to grow their food.. The poor here, drive cars, have TVs, attend sports events... they only complain because there are ultra rich at the top, humans always want more and never compare themselves to the worst off, only the better off.



    you are beginning to discredit yourself as it's on your link we are supposed to read to understand what 'true' socialism is and what socialists will do for us.

    'You are needed in the ranks of Socialists fighting for a better world—to end poverty, racism, sexism, environmental disaster and to avert the still potent threat of a catastrophic nuclear war.'







    So let's end civilization as we know it and go back to being hunter gatherers? conflict has been in our DNA... Btw, hunter gatherers were in conflict too but you miss a very basic point, the spread of the human species. 100k years ago, there were around 10-300k humans, they had limitless resources and didn't compete for much. Unless i'm mistaken they didn't fight over religion. Were there Christians, muslims 100k years ago?? were they fighting for land, oil? Modern civilization saw human species grow exponentially, from 100k back 100k-200k years ago to 8 billion today and war has been a constant, this IS human nature in an environment where population $'s and diversity of race, religion, culture are present. The more humans and the more diversity, conflict is inevitable. Now i hope you are not asking us to go back to hunter gatherers to see proof that your socialist system may actually work?

    it's called modern civilization and population growth. Again, are you really saying we should go back 100k years ago to hunter gatherers to see what human nature is or to look for evidence to support why socialism could work? Then you would need to exterminate around 7 billion people, erase culture, religion... and our knowledge.





    NO, lazy people are not rare, they are common and no, their laziness is not due to mental disorders, there are hard working successful people with mental disorders. Some lower class people do work hard but those are usually much better off than the ones who choose to not work, resort to life of crime and self gratification. There are many degrees of laziness.... you somehow try to make it seem everyone has the same work ethic, you are beginning to discredit yourself severely.

    If you are going to use Paris Hilton as the face of the rich people, then let me pick a poor person as the face of the poor people. Charles Manson or even let's use George Floyd. Happy?



    It's not. We are animals, just smarter animals but share many of the same instincts.



    No, they all have better salaried jobs and careers because of him. With a company worth over 50mm, they are all making good money, the owner (who created the company via risk taking, hard work, talent and innovation) makes much more, the company providing these workers with good pay only exists because of him. But this is a prime example on how easy it is to expose socialists. All these employees who you think are exploited are actually better off than they would be if my friend had never created this company. They work there because the company provides them with a better job than other options, they are not forced to stay. My friend may be worth 30mm but the employees, let's say, making 100-250k each, in salary. They would otherwise be making much less. This is a dagger straight through the heart of socialism, you socialists prefer less inequality and workers who are worst off, than see inequality with workers who are actually better off. You would rather these workers make less elsewhere than make more in my friend's company JUST BECAUSE my friend is a multi-millionaire for creating the company providing these workers a better life. It's a twisted plot...



    there has never been quality, never will there be equality.
    Hunter gatherers, walking naked with spears.
    it's common sense and pragmatism, not utopia fantasy.
    those who think are more intelligent than others are usually less intelligent

    When you have to go back to 10k-200k years to hunter gatherers roaming naked, with spears and stones to back up how your socialist utopia fantasy may work, i'm not sure anyone can better discredit themselves as you have here. To dismiss everything in modern civilization and go back to pre-historic homosapiens to advance socialism in today's world, are you trolling now? is this a comedy?
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2021
  17. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm no sir, and I'm in my mid 50's. Why?
     
  18. Guy Marsh

    Guy Marsh Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2020
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, just curious. Be well, madam?
     
  19. Guy Marsh

    Guy Marsh Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2020
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Related reading: "The Politics of Socialism: An Essay in Political Theory" by John Dunn, Penguin Books, 1984
     
  20. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think that ultimately, where socialism fails is its fundamental failure to understand law. More to the point, socialism ignores basic relational constructs, ie, contracts that define performance. Socialism doesn't seem to understand that productivity contracted isn't a wealth disadvantage for those who contracted their labor. For anyone who can't see this demonstrated in practice, watch the technology market. For those who have the will to disentangle themselves from contracting their services for pay, there are innumerable examples of those who have set up start ups for their success. Their risk then becomes their platform for future success and their success may include the inclusion of contracted labor that assists their success. These are cyclic legal relationships that define expectations and outcomes that might produce success. Obviously, there is no condition of success absent collaborative legal relationships. But that is never the same as government directed economic goals. The success of which are never an expectation.
     
    Idahojunebug77 and crank like this.
  21. Guy Marsh

    Guy Marsh Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2020
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Codicil:

    "A guide to Marx’s theory and politics | International ... "
    https://isreview.org/issue/82/guide-marxs-theory-and-politics

    "For Marx, the key question was not whether the economy was controlled by the state, but which class controlled the state. A society can only be socialist if power is in the hands of workers themselves."

    That statement serves to undergird that which makes socialist thought very political - indeed necessarily political. Moreover, everything is political. Athletic shoes, as an example, are political.

    *****

    Guy Marsh
    Member (since 1990):
    Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
    http://www.slp.org/

    What is socialism?
    http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

    www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

    deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm

    Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
    Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
    Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

    Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV
    https://freespeech.org

    Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
    http://www.pacifica.org/
     
  22. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No thanks. I'm not reading anything on socialism, when penned by a privileged capitalist. I have nothing against privileged capitalists mind ... I love them. But they have no business talking about socialism other than in critique.

    Once again, socialism is an economic model. A LIVED model of property, collective common purse, nil profit, nil buying/selling labour. Socialists come in every variety of politics.
     
  23. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The power IS in the hands of the workers - it's been in our hands since the industrial revolution.

    That the vast majority of First Worlders don't want that power, is quite beside the point. They have it, they just don't want to use it.
     
    Idahojunebug77 likes this.
  24. Guy Marsh

    Guy Marsh Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2020
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Huh? John Dunn is not a capitalist. He is Professor Emeritus of Political Theory at King's College and an author.

    From a utopian "socialist" standpoint, that is mostly correct. But it has nothing to do with Marxism.

    I see. So there are Republican socialists. Fascinating.

    *****

    Guy Marsh
    Member (since 1990):
    Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
    http://www.slp.org/

    What is socialism?
    http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

    www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

    deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm

    Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
    Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
    Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

    Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV:
    https://freespeech.org

    Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
    http://www.pacifica.org/[/QUOTE]
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2021
  25. Guy Marsh

    Guy Marsh Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2020
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    I wrote: "A society can only be socialist if power is in the hands of workers themselves."

    In reaction, and in this thread's 297th post, crank wrote:

    In reality, and ostensibly, the Constitution provides that power - political power is in the hands of "the people." But said document mentions nothing about power in the workplace. After all, the fifty-five white, mostly wealthy framers of the U.S. Constitution were not interested in empowering workers within their workplace.

    Within the capitalist system, workers have no more control and thus power over the means of production than did chattel slaves in the antebellum South. Under capitalism, the workplace is a dictatorship, not a democracy, and the Constitution reinforces that dictatorial relationship.

    So, yes, politically and technically speaking, "the people" have the power. But never was the Constitution intended to afford "the people" power in their workplaces.

    Presently, workers have no voice respecting industrial processes, nor do they decide the dispensation of the economic wealth derived therefrom. They are indeed, wage slaves.

    (This is what a democratic and, therefore, worker-empowered workplace would look like www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf ).

    *****

    Guy Marsh
    Member (since 1990):
    Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
    http://www.slp.org/

    What is socialism?
    http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

    www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf

    deleonism.org/industrial-government.htm

    Former member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990)
    Former member: Democratic Party (1982-19-eighty-eight)
    Former member: California Republican Party (1976-1982)

    Watch non-commercial, viewer-sponsored Free Speech TV:
    https://freespeech.org

    Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio:
    http://www.pacifica.org/
     

Share This Page