Marxists?

Post Reply New Topic

OK I'll bite. I'd say I'm a socialist.

Socialism seems to be working pretty damn good in Northern Europe. Better anyway then what we have here in the US where the 1% keeps getting richer and richer, and the 99% just keep getting poorer. Its like a giant international game of Monopoly.

I have a feeling that socialism will be getting a lot more popular in the future, as more and more people lose the Monopoly game.

Honestly, I hate when states with better welfare systems and social structures are called "socialist", and the reason for that is because it generates conceptual confusion, especially given that "socialism" was also the term for the USSR, and things like that. Socialism originally has meant that the people(and/or state) control the methods of production. That's not Europe. In fact, if you look at Sweden on the Heritage Institution's Economic Freedom Index, and compare it to the US, you have to realize that Sweden does BETTER on many of the conservative Heritage organization's market-oriented definitions of freedom than the US, they just tax more and have more labor regulations, even with that, they still are "mostly free" by their measure.

Meanings change. This definition of socialism was that of Marx et al. After orthodox marxist predictions failed to happen in the late 19th, there was a new revisionnist current with a more reformist stance. With the Russian Revolution, the term "communist" came to be and was used by those who followed the old orthodox line, while the reformists kept the name "socialist".

Not really.

Check out the figures for the years between those parameters you gave. I think you'll find a very pronunced dip after the departure of Gorbachev.

The main reason for the recent upturn you mention was the election of Putin (himself a former communist) who started reversing Yeltin's policies.

Here, i've saved you the effort.

Its democratic socialism. But thats the problem. Most people who hate on communism, or hate on socialism don't even comprehend that there is a difference between the two. They just lump it all together. Which kind of proves that their dislike for it is based on ignorance, not on any logical reason. Like right-wingers who consider the Democratic Party to be left-wing socialists.

Anyway, I don't think capitalism has any more future then communism does. There has got to be a balance in the middle. I don't see any scenario where democratic socialism wont replace capitalism. Its just a matter of time, and the right-wingers will be dragging their feet every step of the way, as usual.

FAIL. Nothing on that chart shows any drops by 10 years ever. A drop by 10 years from 1991 would = 53.41 (male) 64.23 (female). That would be off the bottom of the chart. As for the small dip you are talking about. It seems to mostly relate to males. Which would lead me to believe that it was probably some type of temporary social issue. Hardly remarkable.

well given that the subject matter is a disputation regarding issues surrounding marxism it would seem prudent to actually maybe bring some marx into the mix no??

By the definition I gave of socialism, the ownership of the means of production by the people and/or state(the latter is complicated and full of much to argue) what you are talking about is clearly NOT socialism. The conceptual confusion I am talking about is that traditionally socialism had EVERYTHING TO DO with production. Even further, what distinguishes socialism from capitalism? When does a "capitalist" system become properly labeled "socialist". The reason I ask is because there is no real line that I see. Is the US socialist by having a welfare system? Would it be socialist by having a national healthcare system? I mean, somehow I don't think the two terms are really contrasting if one term rightly refers to the means of production being privately owned, and the other simply refers to a specific set of governmental interventions that still allow private ownership of the means of production.

Also, there is no difference. Do you know what the USSR stands for? It's an acronym for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, so the center of "communism" is a union of "socialist republics". Did they misname it? Did Marx speak wrongly when he called his idea "scientific socialism"? Or did the meaning of words change so dramatically that within a generation it became erroneous? Either one is an absurdity, and to this absurdity I think the fault lies with people like you who use the term "socialism" in a manner of such total disagreement with the historical meaning of the term, a historical meaning in which socialism is an effort to radically change the very functioning of the economic system away from private ownership. So, talking about how people don't "even comprehend the difference", seems to betray your ignorance of historical realities, NOT the ignorance of the right. The ignorance of the right is to fail to recognize the difference between running the economy from Washington DC, and letting the bureaucracy take care of an additional function and so conflating the issues. Your usage doesn't *help* though, as it creates additional confusions instead of adding clarity, and that's because you're taking a baggage laden language, and giving it a meaning that makes little to no sense and that is not even distinct from the thing you think it should be distinct from.

For you information, there has been quite a lot of Marx.

Either you answer the original post (or any other, with explicit reference), or you read the thread. Although many people threw in the usual uninformed comments (as always in PPR), several interventions were very accute and interesting. Don't just come in and say that people are off-topic/ignorant.

The problem with the language is there doesn't seem to be a word representing the degree of cooperative/collectivist elements vs. competitive/individualist elements in an economic system. If the origin of the words "socialism" and "communism" have such rigid connection to the specific theories of Marx/Engels in connection with dialectical materialism maybe it's time for modern leftists to come up with a better term. I also think its possible to embrace ideas that have their roots in Marxism without treating the writings as a kind of secular dogma the way it has been by various radicals historically. I think the unfortunate thing is that as a revolutionary ideology, historically Marxist socialism has always required a rather cynical kind of dogmatic indoctrination of the populous to push forward it's aims.

Marshall, I can see your problem with words. I think that we can express the same meaning with "social democracy", "mixed economy" and possibly even "third way"(though I think it's fallen out of favor) without using socialism in the ahistoric way.

Socialism isn't rigidly connected to Marx, but it is very connected to the ideological background that Marx was in. Marxism was a socialist idea, and it just happened to be a very dominant one, but the other theories were themselves actually literally opposed to capitalism. They had different approaches, but the terms were not confused in that time period.

I don't see why leftists would ever want to be connected to socialism. The baggage is so plainly evident that the right has been using "socialism" has a smear for years. I mean, the rational direction isn't to take the term socialism, but rather to attack conservatives for being idiots for using "socialist" for programs that intend to reform capitalism and make it more livable. At least in America. Other places around the world, which have "socialist parties" that are entrenched into the prevailing political system may have their own issues.

I agree with your perspective on Marxism. I am not tying much of my point to Marxism, it's just very clear that Marxism was labeled "socialism".

As a socialist (in the Marxist sense of the word) I believe that leftists should be associated with the word, even in America where it is used in smear campaigns to attack the "left."

IMHO, a major issue is the lack of an organized left-one based around a party or similar organizational-type.

Sure, there is the C.P.U.S.A. and other parties, but at least in the case of the C.P.U.S.A. it urges socialists to vote for the democrats.

Those parties are far from revolutionary. If we, as socialists, seek to change all existing social conditions (political, economical, etc.) then an organized revolutionary party or group should exist.

During the outbreak of WWI, the Second International dug it's own grave by telling their party cadre to strap on combat boots and fight.

Within those parties were certain radicals whom broke from the old mold, forming new parties. With the advent of the Third International after WWI, these parties grouped around an organized center based in Moscow. The Second International was dead.

Now the Third International is dead too.

The C.P.U.S.A, once a member of the Third International was for a short while for revolution and was persecuted as such. Now it's just as much a part of modern American politics as the Democratic or Republican parties are.

I think this thread deserves a serious discussion of Marxism. No, I do not care about living standards in modern Russia in comparison to the USSR. It doesn't matter. What matters is a real debate, a fresh analysis of Marxism and so forth.

Feel free to go into the Marsh if you want to-I won't stop you as you are free to do so!

Seriously? Marxism is unscientific balderdash. It has never, ever worked in the real world. However Marx did bring up a good point and one we must deal with. The wages paid to labor for their part in the production of goods are insufficient to clear the market of those goods. There will always be a portion of the goods that don't sell because there wages paid to labor are insufficient. In which case those surplus goods must either be destroyed or given away. I prefer the latter to the former.

ruveyn

Yes, it has. Even the Soviet Union, with its focus on hyper-centralization, was a "working" example of socialism.

Reach further back, and the Paris Commune comes to mind. Both examples were either crushed and thus prevented from "working," or were severely handicapped for similar reasons.

Every time a country came along that was even remotely socialist, it was crushed or paralyzed. That's what annoys me when people blurt out "It doesn't work and never will!"

You have to keep in mind though that socialists have a different definition of capitalism than market-liberals. Market-liberals have an all-encompassing view of capitalism as the embodiment of individual ownership and voluntary trade of goods and services. Socialists oppose a specific mode of the market-driven economic system that only appeared as a consequence of modern industrialization and mass-production. They oppose a subset of the market system where private ownership is seen as exploitative. So not all socialists believe that the end of capitalism entails the end of free-markets and private property in general.



I don't think there's really any way around the smearing of anyone who questions the moral legitimacy of the current arrangement. Far leftists will be seen as a threat to the right no matter what they choose to call themselves.

You could tell how well it was working by the amount of time people stood in line to buy sparse cheesy goods.

ruveyn