Socialists: Revolution, or reform?

How does one "implement" socialism without a revolution, in a nation whose basic founding documents, principles and prevailing opinions are anti-socialism?

And who does the "implementing"? And what about those who prefer not to go along with the program?
 
Falcon said:
How does one "implement" socialism without a revolution, in a nation whose basic founding documents, principles and prevailing opinions are anti-socialism?

And who does the "implementing"? And what about those who prefer not to go along with the program?
Click to expand...

Wow. Those are the big questions, now aren't they? There's a pretty large body of literature on this topic, but I'll do my best to give you my opinion - remember, that's all it is, and I'm one of many.

The constitution isn't anti-socialist. Really nothing explicitly prohibits the policies of reformist DemSocs. Plus, our principals aren't anti-socialist. Remember the Republican Party under Lincoln? Well, one of it's big policies was that wage labor was equivocal to slavery. The southerners used it as a way to say "you're no better" to the north. And the northern free presses were hugely against it as well. Then there's the hippies, the anti-war movement, pre-McCarthy leftism, Trotskyism (which ended up becoming Social Conservatism), Occupy, modern academia, the public's reaction to the financial crisis, so on. Socialism is deeply intertwined in our country's culture.

As for how it should be put in place? Probably an NRA/Trotskyist format reformist party. It would be fairly passive, just organizing on the local level, until another national crisis, when it steps into the national spotlight. I think the left could learn a lot from the NRA.
 
Falcon said:
How does one "implement" socialism without a revolution, in a nation whose basic founding documents, principles and prevailing opinions are anti-socialism?

And who does the "implementing"? And what about those who prefer not to go along with the program?
Click to expand...

Socialism is gradually implemented in nations with democratic elections by bribing the masses with government socialist programs financed by extorting taxes from the most productive in society. In America that’s unconstitutional, but the vast majority of America’s Constitution has been long since trashed by both the left and right in government and their “Good Ole Boy” patsy mouthpieces on the benches of the Courts.
 
Threedee said:
Trotsky died in Mexico. How exactly did his school of communism become "social conservatism?"
Click to expand...

Hawk foreign policy and the idea that a state can steer history are where the two ideologies have common ground. There have also been allegations that many Trotskyists gave up on communism and underwent a radical theoretical shift, still maintaining some of the core tenets, though.

And Trotsky had a really big following in the United States. Mainly consisting of communists who, when Stalin began his regime, became disenchanted with the Union.
 
Didn't Stalin have the Soviet Union and press invent a mischaracterization of Trotsky and sell it? I've always heard American leftists claim that Trotsky was the true communist reformer and his fallen legacy a Stalinist plot.
 
Threedee said:
Didn't Stalin have the Soviet Union and press invent a mischaracterization of Trotsky and sell it? I've always heard American leftists claim that Trotsky was the true communist reformer and his fallen legacy a Stalinist plot.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe that was the case, but it doesn't take away from the more profoundly negative aspects of Leon Trotsky's communism. By idealizing Trotsky, leftists just make themselves sound delusional. This man was a brutal military leader, an imperialist, and someone who had no problem with large scale coercion. When he was a journalist in Europe, he published countless articles outlining his belief in rule by a democratic, centralized political party. He supported Lenin through his policy shift towards BC, execution of religious opponents and imperialism. Not to mention the Machiavellian inklings expressed in his writings. Excuse me, but this was not a man who'd be hugely positive force for the Union. Perhaps communism would have worked under him, but only with an authoritarian state preceding it.
 
Also, to tie up the argument, Trotsky was in favor of a one party state - and sent the Kronstadt sailors who opposed it to disappear in a northern labor camp.

Brilliant thinker, brilliant writer, but a leader who decided the possibility of achieving communism justified killing and oppression.
 
Rose Captain said:
Perhaps communism would have worked under him, but only with an authoritarian state preceding it.
Click to expand...

Communism is a profound folly and totally unworkable under any human condition because it is totally contrary to human nature. Every nation that has adopted communism either saw the light of the folly or became a virtual prison for its population like North Korea and to some extent Cuba. Communism only promotes a ruling class of criminals that abuse human rights and vast poverty for the people. The only surviving communist countries aside from North Korea and Cuba remaining have adopted the virtues of capitalism like China and Vietnam. Even the Hippies of the 60’s discovered the folly of communal living and quickly abandoned it.
 
What part of human nature prohibits it? Opposition to rulers? Self preservation? Self interest? Mutual aid? Desire to express individuality?

And if capitalism is so natural, then why, may I ask, has it taken states to enforce it and ward off socialism? I'll give you the answer. Because it's not. Capitalism violates almost everything we know about the needs and wants of human beings.
 
"...but I'll do my best to give you my opinion - remember, that's all it is, and I'm one of many."

Thanks. That's what I'm after.

"The constitution isn't anti-socialist."

Not explicitly. But the Constitution falls all over itself to limit the role of government, whereas Socialism all about handing over immense power to the state for the good of the citizens. Though every form of government has the power to coerce, Socialism has massive power to coerce and does coerce massively (remember the old saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely"?), regardless of its good intentions. You simply can not have robust human rights, individual rights, freedoms of expression and many other freedoms we enjoy and which lead to such a dynamic society, with Socialism. They are wholly, entirely incompatible.

Which is why the question of "what to do with the guy who doesn't want to get with the Socialist program?" is so pertinent. In our current government you have every right to collectivize with your neighbors and friends in many different ways, independently, share work and resources, etc. That's great.

"...Plus, our principals aren't anti-socialist. Remember the Republican Party under Lincoln? Well, one of it's big policies was that wage labor was equivocal to slavery. The southerners used it as a way to say "you're no better" to the north. And the northern free presses were hugely against it as well. Then there's the hippies, the anti-war movement, pre-McCarthy leftism, Trotskyism (which ended up becoming Social Conservatism), Occupy, modern academia, the public's reaction to the financial crisis, so on. Socialism is deeply intertwined in our country's culture."

What you are describing are not founding principles, but reformers and reform movement who've been interested in mitigating the negative effects of unbridled capitalism and individualism. Those efforts are as old as the Republic and during our founding many of those reforming impulses were expressed by Christian organizations (orphanages, anti-slavery, e.g), and later by labor groups and even explicit big "S" Socialists like Eugene Debs (who wanted a very different form of government). Please acknowledge how excellent our system is that it allowed these vibrant movements to exist and reform and shape our society! The Founders were running an experiment to see how little government could people live under. Their bet was that the smallest possible government is what allowed individuals and societies the greatest chance to thrive. Their offer was "you may": Socialism's demand is "you must!"

"As for how it should be put in place? Probably an NRA/Trotskyist format reformist party. It would be fairly passive, just organizing on the local level, until another national crisis, when it steps into the national spotlight. I think the left could learn a lot from the NRA.[/QUOTE]

We needed, still need, and will always need, those reformers you spoke of. But let's work within the system. Why go backwards to an authoritarian state? My argument with people like Classic Liberal is not fundamental, it's about degrees. We've already tried your system and it was very, very ugly. And it's anything but progressive.
 
I think that, for the right in America, socialism is simply equivalent to the boogie man. Everybody on the right sees socialism behind every tree, lurking, waiting to pounce and infiltrate everything about our wonderful country... and they use the spectre of socialism to scare their base. But... Is the local fire department an example of socialism? How about the municipal water district... is that socialism? What about monopolistic electric utilities... socialism? It seems that the right is all worried about what they see as socialism, and simultaneously nonplussed about things that might also actually be socialism sneaking into our way of life. Odd, eh?

Sign seen at a teabagger rally: "Keep your socialist hands off my medicare"..... pure comedy gold. you can't make that stuff up!
 
Falcon said:
"...but I'll do my best to give you my opinion - remember, that's all it is, and I'm one of many."

Thanks. That's what I'm after.

"The constitution isn't anti-socialist."

Not explicitly. But the Constitution falls all over itself to limit the role of government, whereas Socialism all about handing over immense power to the state for the good of the citizens. Though every form of government has the power to coerce, Socialism has massive power to coerce and does coerce massively (remember the old saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely"?), regardless of its good intentions. You simply can not have robust human rights, individual rights, freedoms of expression and many other freedoms we enjoy and which lead to such a dynamic society, with Socialism. They are wholly, entirely incompatible.

Which is why the question of "what to do with the guy who doesn't want to get with the Socialist program?" is so pertinent. In our current government you have every right to collectivize with your neighbors and friends in many different ways, independently, share work and resources, etc. That's great.

"...Plus, our principals aren't anti-socialist. Remember the Republican Party under Lincoln? Well, one of it's big policies was that wage labor was equivocal to slavery. The southerners used it as a way to say "you're no better" to the north. And the northern free presses were hugely against it as well. Then there's the hippies, the anti-war movement, pre-McCarthy leftism, Trotskyism (which ended up becoming Social Conservatism), Occupy, modern academia, the public's reaction to the financial crisis, so on. Socialism is deeply intertwined in our country's culture."

What you are describing are not founding principles, but reformers and reform movement who've been interested in mitigating the negative effects of unbridled capitalism and individualism. Those efforts are as old as the Republic and during our founding many of those reforming impulses were expressed by Christian organizations (orphanages, anti-slavery, e.g), and later by labor groups and even explicit big "S" Socialists like Eugene Debs (who wanted a very different form of government). Please acknowledge how excellent our system is that it allowed these vibrant movements to exist and reform and shape our society! The Founders were running an experiment to see how little government could people live under. Their bet was that the smallest possible government is what allowed individuals and societies the greatest chance to thrive. Their offer was "you may": Socialism's demand is "you must!"

"As for how it should be put in place? Probably an NRA/Trotskyist format reformist party. It would be fairly passive, just organizing on the local level, until another national crisis, when it steps into the national spotlight. I think the left could learn a lot from the NRA.
Click to expand...


We needed, still need, and will always need, those reformers you spoke of. But let's work within the system. Why go backwards to an authoritarian state? My argument with people like Classic Liberal is not fundamental, it's about degrees. We've already tried your system and it was very, very ugly. And it's anything but progressive.[/QUOTE]

There seems to be a big misunderstanding here. I, along with many other socialists, are anti-state. There are state socialists, but most of us nowadays either want to shrink the government, or slightly increase it's use. Just as a free market capitalist is different from a Keynesian, socialism consists of countless schools - ranging from Marxist-Leninism, to outright anarchist communism.

Personally, I'm a kind of reformist social democrat who wants to dismantle the private sector, decentralize the state, and the leftover national authority as a tool to aid localities. There's a lot more to it, but that's it in simple terms.
 
I don't understand the nods to Trotsky and Castro, then, since they certainly were not proponents of less government. (See the very quote you provide from Fidel himself.)

I personally greatly admire many communal livers such as the hippies, Quakers, Amish, etc., and the desire not to make a God out of profit. I especially admire that they chose to live the way they live and have no desire to impose their way on others. I think it's great they live in a country which allows them to live that way, while others can be capitalists.

But unfortunately Socialism - Trotsky and Castro-style - are all about imposition, and top-down management. I dont' know how you "dismantle the private sector" without forcibly abolishing it.
 
Falcon said:
I don't understand the nods to Trotsky and Castro, then, since they certainly were not proponents of less government. (See the very quote you provide from Fidel himself.)

I personally greatly admire many communal livers such as the hippies, Quakers, Amish, etc., and the desire not to make a God out of profit. I especially admire that they chose to live the way they live and have no desire to impose their way on others. I think it's great they live in a country which allows them to live that way, while others can be capitalists.

But unfortunately Socialism - Trotsky and Castro-style - are all about imposition, and top-down management. I dont' know how you "dismantle the private sector" without forcibly abolishing it.
Click to expand...

Well, socialism requires an intense, difficult lead up. You dismantle the private sector by a number of means. It can be from below, through worker strikes, which are often violent and put pressure on politicians. Using a political party is also an option. But I think the NRA's model is the best. You take a cause, express it in a national organization, and begin organizing at the local level. From there, you have enough counter-hegemony to shift the country's collective consciousness, enough money and enough power to hold protests that you can sway politicians, and from there it can have a snowballing effect. A socialist's option is mass propagation, which, combined with a national crisis, can give influence to organizing bodies.

As for Trotsky and Castro? I have enormous respect for them, despite disagreeing with their politics. Trotsky was what you'd consider a fallen ideologue. A brilliant writer, and a man devoted to the working class, he ended up becoming a Machiavellian figure, who realized his dream was unattainable.

Castro was a overall positive force for Cuba - far better than Batista, and a man who proved that socialism could be a reality. I would, however, argue that his policies could have worked better with elections.
 
Rose Captain said:
I generally don't use that kind of distinction. I was using the blanket definition.
Click to expand...

Falcon said:
There is "socialism," socialism and Socialism. The original poster is referring to Socialism.
Click to expand...

maineman said:
I think that, for the right in America, socialism is simply equivalent to the boogie man. Everybody on the right sees socialism behind every tree, lurking, waiting to pounce and infiltrate everything about our wonderful country... and they use the spectre of socialism to scare their base. But... Is the local fire department an example of socialism? How about the municipal water district... is that socialism? What about monopolistic electric utilities... socialism? It seems that the right is all worried about what they see as socialism, and simultaneously nonplussed about things that might also actually be socialism sneaking into our way of life. Odd, eh?

Sign seen at a teabagger rally: "Keep your socialist hands off my medicare"..... pure comedy gold. you can't make that stuff up!
Click to expand...


There really is no blanket definition these days.....there are certainly degrees and types of socialism.....Asia has their brand, Europe has theirs and now with rise of progressive
Democrats in the US, we have our form....and 'strawman' like mm just created with this Medicare crap, will be rampant with them trying to avoid the label of socialist.

We pay for bridges, roads, social security, firemen, policemen, public water and sewer, etc.....according to mm's logic, all that could be characterized as socialist...or should I say mis-characterized. Of course, by the same token, we have those that pay nothing toward the infrastructures upkeep or toward their old age benefits, etc....for
them it is all socialistic....they are strictly parasites that contribute nothing but enjoy just about everything....

Even under socialism, someone has to pay the freight, and they just get what the're already paying for, no freebies....and the managers of this type of socialist system just skim
off the top to live on the highest tier for make believe work....
 
I doubt ignorant teabaggers know about the average socialist family in frace having more weath than the average American family!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top