Imagine you could pass any law or regulation in a capitalist society in order to make it more socialist.

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

The problem is that you have in your mind all the wrong conceptions spread by the US ruling class against communism and socialism, and you can not leave behind those ideas, it is a  heavy backpack that you must throw away. The US ruling has done a tremendous job of distortion in the minds of the USA  workers. . . 

Sorry, but you've already mentioned that I know nothing and their is no other choice besides your magic wand that will make everyone on the planet spontaneously agree with you about what capitalism is and what socialism is and what communism is and then you'll use your magic wand to make everyone agree with your view.  Have you heard the story of the 5 blind wise men describing the elephant in the room?  Youi're looking like one of those wise blind men to me.  I didn't bother reading your links in this comment since I expect it to be more of the blather you wrote in the comment.  Perhaps you could read a book on how to win friends and influence people?  You're kind of influencing me to appose whatever you write with this comment.  I hope that wasn't your intent. Also, you're off topic.  this isn't a conversation about how best to put down others ideas and change the subject, which seems to be all you can offer here. Everybody should contribute to this topic according to their ability, but maybe you're ability to contibute on this topic is lacking? seems that way to me.ps. let me show you what's in my backpack. . . I'm a big fan of Noam Chomsky and approve of his social libertarianism.  wikipedia identifies adherents to the social libertarianism as falling into two groups, the violent and non-violent kind.  this discussion is intended to explore the non-violent approach.  here's wikipedia on it for your reference.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Violent_and_non-violent_means 

[Anonymous]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

The problem is that you have in your mind all the wrong conceptions spread by the US ruling class against communism and socialism, and you can not leave behind those ideas, it is a  heavy backpack that you must throw away. The US ruling has done a tremendous job of distortion in the minds of the USA  workers. . . 

Sorry, but you've already mentioned that I know nothing and their is no other choice besides your magic wand that will make everyone on the planet spontaneously agree with you about what capitalism is and what socialism is and what communism is and then you'll use your magic wand to make everyone agree with your view.  Have you heard the story of the 5 blind wise men describing the elephant in the room?  You're looking like one of those wise blind men to me.  I didn't bother reading your links in this comment since I expect it to be more of the blather you wrote in the comment.  Perhaps you could read a book on how to win friends and influence people?  You're kind of influencing me to appose whatever you write with this comment.  I hope that wasn't your intent. Also, you're off topic.  this isn't a conversation about how best to put down others ideas and change the subject, which seems to be all you can offer here. Everybody should contribute to this topic according to their ability, but maybe you're ability to contibute on this topic is lacking? seems that way to me.ps. let me show you what's in my backpack. . . I'm a big fan of Noam Chomsky and approve of his social libertarianism.  wikipedia identifies adherents to the social libertarianism as falling into two groups, the violent and non-violent kind.  this discussion is intended to explore the non-violent approach.  here's wikipedia on it for your reference.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Violent_and_non-violent_means Som

You are only citing the introduction of the commentary, the  rest is related to the topic. Well,  You are in a forum that its main objective is to propagate socialism, therefore, that is the only thing  that we can propagate, we are not going to worship Saint Capitalism, we have being  doing that for more than 100 yearsSo, you do not believe in the influence of the bourgeois ideology in the minds of the workers ?  The whole capitalist society is influenced by one single ideology, even sciences are influenced by that ideology. A USA philosopher ( He  was a hillbilly ) said: In order to understand this society, we must break away from this society, I have read that book that you have mentioned, but it does not help me in the class struggle, and in the ideological struggle. I have read hundreds  of books in my life,  and I can read in four languages. I have many friends and I have never needed that book, because it is a friendship based on principles,not in bourgeois idealismThe word Backpack in this case is metaphoric, we are talking about the ideology that we have in our heads.Noam Chomsky is another left wing reformists, supporting the Libertarian it is like supporting capitalism. He is just a good books seller He spend the whole year calling himself an anarchist, and then, at the end,  he ends supporting state capitalism, and state capitalists leaders,  and calling workers to vote for the Democratic Party which is one of the party of the USA ruling class. He is just a political pendulum, he is not a threat to capitalismRichard Wolf, despite  all his mistake, he is doing a much better job than Noam Chomsky

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

. . . You are only citing the introduction of the commentary, the  rest is related to the topic. Well,  You are in a forum that its main objective is to propagate socialism, therefore, that is the only thing  that we can propagate, we are not going to worship Saint Capitalism, we have being  doing that for more than 100 years . . .

@malcome1, the thread topic is "Imagine you could pass any law or regulation in a capitalist society in order to make it more socialist."Doesn't seem like you want to stay on topic.  Nothing you've said so far has been anythign other than disruptive.  please contribute positively according to your ability. if you can't contribute positively, then no contibution is better than a negative contribution.  

[Anonymous]

Matt wrote:

Imagine you could pass any law or regulation in  the jungle  in order to tame tame lions into behaving  like gazelles?Capitalism can not be reformed.

---

". If money, according to Augier, “comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,” Capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt."

---

following your analogy. . .consider it a topic on what kind of traps to set for the lions?  Since you appose tooth and claw, maybe a harmless trap like a pit, followed by anethesia and then while the lion is unconcious removal of it's claws and teath.  Or some sort of political social analog to that idea?Or perhaps your solution is to burn down the jungle in order to rid yourself of the lions? whatever you're plan is it seems like it must be happening soon since you have no interest in techniques or strategies to defend against lions, which is what this discussion is in my mind. Let me know when you've solved our lion problem.  Or if you want to join us gazelles in planning escape routes that follow rivers, then lets hear it.  Just telling us gazelles the lion can't be avoided or tamed is pretty mean spirited and discouraging.  I guess in a world of unlimited surplus the lions would get fresh meet delivered to them and would all get fat and lazy and not  bother to chase and eat gazzels anymore? If you're solution is simply to wait for the unlimited surplus to arrive, that's fine. Capitalism seems to be progresing towards Artificial Intellegence and Machine production of resources for consumption so maybe just surviving till then would be enough.   ps. why do you think is a discussion about reforming capitalism instead of a discussion about subverting it? 

[Anonymous]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

. . . You are only citing the introduction of the commentary, the  rest is related to the topic. Well,  You are in a forum that its main objective is to propagate socialism, therefore, that is the only thing  that we can propagate, we are not going to worship Saint Capitalism, we have being  doing that for more than 100 years . . .

@malcome1, the thread topic is "Imagine you could pass any law or regulation in a capitalist society in order to make it more socialist."Doesn't seem like you want to stay on topic.  Nothing you've said so far has been anything other than disruptive.  please contribute positively according to your ability. if you can't contribute positively, then no contribution is better than a negative contribution.  

I am answering to your off topic commentaries. If you read others commentaries, you will see  that I have said that nobody can establish socialism by legal decree, and then you came with a bunch of bourgeois argumentation, which do not prove anything,  and Matt expressed that capitalism can not be reformed, and you tried to give a lecture to him.The expression that he said is totally  correctly, because socialism can not be established thru reforms, and trying to patch the capitalist society., and that is what you are trying to demonstrate.Lenin who had a brilliant mind, and wrote 52 volume in political sciences, also tried to reforms capitalism from the spheres of the state and it did not work, and some experienced left wingers have not understood that concept either. Capitalism can not be established within the frame of a capitalist society, it must be overthrown. PeriodYou are the one who has to prove that your argumentation is correct. You are trying to give us a lecture in a topic that we have been covering for many years. In another commentaries I said that short cuts is something that has been tried by several left wings government and all have failed. It is nothing new PS Capital letter in discussion forums means: Shouting, therefore, you do not have to shout

[Subhaditya]

mcolome1 wrote:

He spend the whole year calling himself an anarchist, and then, at the end,  he ends supporting state capitalism, and state capitalists leaders,  and calling workers to vote for the Democratic Party which is one of the party of the USA ruling class. He is just a political pendulum, he is not a threat to capitalism

Someone explained it as to those converted he tells them to aim for the end goals i.e. anarchy while those still believing in capitalism and trying to decide between the 2 parties he tells them to vote for the pro poor party…. maybe after noticing the behavior of the pro poor party for a while they will lose faith in it became disillusioned and finally start looking for the alternatives.  Maybe this is what Chomsky is upto ?

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

. . .You are the one who has to prove that your argumentation is correct. You are trying to give us a lecture in a topic that we have been covering for many years. In another commentaries I said that short cuts is something that has been tried by several left wings government and all have failed. It is nothing new. . . PS Capital letter in discussion forums means: Shouting, therefore, you do not have to shout

Sorry if I shouted, it was unintentional.  The idea I'm proposing is that laws can set the stage for comunism or set the stage to prevent communism.  I'm not claiming what we have with some few laws we can suggest here is everythign and the only thing needed for comunism or socialism.  I'm just asking what laws in the currently dominant capitalist economy would help or would speed up the process.  It seems like you're saying laws are irrelevant and that's nonsense since in theory it's possible to make a law that ends this website and that wouild certainly be relevant.  Anyway, this is more of a brainstorming device than map for a final solution like you seem to be focused on.  So you see the only way to a socialist society is violent revolution? I think that's been tried and failed too, but please correct me with a link to when it's worked if you have one,  In fact everythign that's been tried has failed from what some of the commenters here tell me.  Maybe that means it's impossible or maybe you need to check your assumptions?  I choose to believe you need to check your assumptions.Or, If your really convinced a violent revolution to overthrow the state is required, then maybe you could suggest a law that gives every citizen the right to own a gun, a tank and some C4 explosives. plus a law that says every citizen can enter any public or government building at any time without being searched.  Or maybe a law that makes every persons net worth public information so you'd know who to shoot at when your revolution starts.  I think those would be laws very hard to get passed, but at least it's a start to get your ideas going.  

[Anonymous]

Subhaditya wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

He spend the whole year calling himself an anarchist, and then, at the end,  he ends supporting state capitalism, and state capitalists leaders,  and calling workers to vote for the Democratic Party which is one of the party of the USA ruling class. He is just a political pendulum, he is not a threat to capitalism

Someone explained it as to those converted he tells them to aim for the end goals i.e. anarchy while those still believing in capitalism and trying to decide between the 2 parties he tells them to vote for the pro poor party…. maybe after noticing the behavior of the pro poor party for a while they will lose faith in it became disillusioned and finally start looking for the alternatives.  Maybe this is what Chomsky is upto ?

I think both of you need to check your interpetation of chomsky. google "chomsky endorses hillary". what he said was closer to admitting that in a capitalist system in a state with a close race it might matter a little bit who you vote for and that trump was worse than hillary and since it only takes a half hour or so to vote, then it's time well spent.  Personally, I think trump would be a better choice for president because he's likely to cause so much popular dissatisfaction that the public reaction to him would be beneficial while hillary is just business as usual with new window dressing. If you're really of the opinion, like some commenters, that a revolution is the only way to achieve socialism, then trump seems more likely to give peope a reason to revolt than hillary, who I see as continuing the slow creeping encroachment of corporate power over peoples freedom.   

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

.  The idea I'm proposing is that laws can set the stage for communism or set the stage to prevent communism.  I'm not claiming what we have with some few laws we can suggest here is everything and the only thing needed for communism or socialism.  I'm just asking what laws in the currently dominant capitalist economy would help or would speed up the process.  It seems like you're saying laws are irrelevant and that's nonsense since in theory it's possible to make a law that ends this Website and that would certainly be relevant.  Anyway, this is more of a brainstorming device than map for a final solution like you seem to be focused on.  So you see the only way to a socialist society is violent revolution? I think that's been tried and failed too, but please correct me with a link to when it's worked if you have one,  In fact everything that's been tried has failed from what some of the commenters here tell me.  Maybe that means it's impossible or maybe you need to check your assumptions?  I choose to believe you need to check your assumptions.Or, If your really convinced a violent revolution to overthrow the state is required, then maybe you could suggest a law that gives every citizen the right to own a gun, a tank and some C4 explosives. plus a law that says every citizen can enter any public or government building at any time without being searched.  Or maybe a law that makes every persons net worth public information so you'd know who to shoot at when your revolution starts.  I think those would be laws very hard to get passed, but at least it's a start to get your ideas going.  

 Steve I think you are kinda missing the point here  and by the way, just for your information, the SPGB does not advocate "violent revolution to overthrow the state" and thats not what Marcos was suggesting.  Personally, I think that it would be suicidal to take on the armed might of the state – and utterly counterproductive. The means determine the end rather than justify them.  War brutalises and requires an authoritarian chain of command.  Its outcome will be a brutalised authoritarian society far removed from socialism This thread is about the potential for laws to facilitate or hinder the implementation of socialism.  The "anti legalistic" stance that has been expressed does not at all derive from any conviction that we must use violence to bring about socialism but rather is linked to the SPGB.s opposition to "reformism" which is not the same as opposing or indeed supporting individual reforms.  You need to understand this distinction in order to fully appreciate where SPGBers are coming from.  Certainly in theory there are laws we can think of, or dream up, that could facilitate the implementation of socialism and benefit workers but from the SPGB's standpoint the opportunity costs of pursuing or pressing for such legislation would be the watering down and eventual abandonment of the goal of socialism itslef. There are certainly historical precedents to support this position.  The parties of the Second International in the late 19th early 20th centuries – the largest of which was German SDP – pursued both a maximum programme (socialism as we understand it) and a minimum programme of reforms.  Predictably the former disappeared like the Cheshire cats grin as these parties succumbed to the opportunism of attracting workers on the basis of reforms and in due course all of these parties became straightforwardly pro -capitalist organisations and nothing more. There is also the sociological argument that can be traced back to people like Emile Durkheim that laws tend to reflect the social outlook rather shape that outlook and that consequently are only as effiicacious as the social environment itself permits.  Hence the primary emphasis on trying change the social environment through the dissemination of socialist ideas which is the hallmark of the SPGBs approach. I have a lot of sympathy for this approach although I do think it has its weaknesses.  One is that it is based on an insufficiently nuanced formulation of "reformism".  The whole argument against reformism is that capitalism cannot be run in the interest of workers – which is quite true – but here capitalism is conceived of as an economic construction.  In this sense these reforms are directed at (futilely) modifying  the economic base.  However there are other reforms that are directed at modifying  aspects of the superstructure (in terms of Marx's "base superstructure" model).   For instance, reforms than enhance political democracy like the extension of the franchise.  These reformsdo  not strictly come under the category of reformism in my book and to be fair the SPGB does talk about struggling to secure basic democratic rights in those parts of the world where these do not exist. That is to say, it presses or campaigns for certain kinds of laws to be implemented The other drawback  in the SPGB-s approach is it curiously agnostic attitude towards institutions and practices that fall outside the money economy.  So for instance the idea of setting up a commune is routinely pooh-poohed on the grounds that this has all been tried before and has singularly failed  which is really not the point at all or is  missing the point altogether.  True the "unconscious communism" that we all practice in our daily lives is no guarantee that it will deliver a communist society.  But the whole point is that it needs to be joined or coupled with the "conscious communism" of abstract propagandism that the SPGB practises in order to enable the former to assist the latter.  Its is like an engine that has been wilfully switched off waiting idly and in vain for the day it can help power the spread of socialist ideas. Some of us it would seem  are determined to do everything by hand rather than make use of the machinery that could enhance our productivity. if you follow my drift. But as I say the core of the SPGBs approach is, for all that, quite correct.  You cannot have socialism without socialists and you cant get socialists without actively disseminating the idea of socialism itself.  It is crude mechanistic cum deterministic nonsense to suggest that "material conditions" per se  or on their own will somehow deliver a flourishing movement for socialism.  This ignores the key role of creativity in the historical pricess

[Anonymous]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

. . .You are the one who has to prove that your argumentation is correct. You are trying to give us a lecture in a topic that we have been covering for many years. In another commentaries I said that short cuts is something that has been tried by several left wings government and all have failed. It is nothing new. . . PS Capital letter in discussion forums means: Shouting, therefore, you do not have to shout

Sorry if I shouted, it was unintentional.  The idea I'm proposing is that laws can set the stage for communism or set the stage to prevent communism.  I'm not claiming what we have with some few laws we can suggest here is everything and the only thing needed for communism or socialism.  I'm just asking what laws in the currently dominant capitalist economy would help or would speed up the process.  It seems like you're saying laws are irrelevant and that's nonsense since in theory it's possible to make a law that ends this website and that would certainly be relevant.  Anyway, this is more of a brainstorming device than map for a final solution like you seem to be focused on.  So you see the only way to a socialist society is violent revolution? I think that's been tried and failed too, but please correct me with a link to when it's worked if you have one,  In fact everything that's been tried has failed from what some of the cementers here tell me.  Maybe that means it's impossible or maybe you need to check your assumptions?  I choose to believe you need to check your assumptions.Or, If your really convinced a violent revolution to overthrow the state is required, then maybe you could suggest a law that gives every citizen the right to own a gun, a tank and some C4 explosives. plus a law that says every citizen can enter any public or government building at any time without being searched.  Or maybe a law that makes every persons net worth public information so you'd know who to shoot at when your revolution starts.  I think those would be laws very hard to get passed, but at least it's a start to get your ideas going.  

 You started your own topic, but it looks like you are not following the argumentation, and you jump from one idea into another idea. Why did i ask to read our  pamphlet about the parliament ? Did you read it ?  Have you followed the conversation in regard to the  Commune of Paris ?  Did you follow the argumentation in regard to the Blanquist stand of Marx and Engels before the appearance of the general suffrage ?   Why do you think that the Socialist Party participate in the electoral process, what is the purpose ?All these questions indicate that in order to understand socialism, some theoretical knowledge is required, we do not learn that  thru osmosis. We do not support violence, we do not think that a minority of workers would be able to establish society, and we do not support the concept of socialism in one country, we do not support the so called revolutionary war of the Leninists,  we do not support the concept of the so called workers state. Our principles have already been expressedWe are not reformist, but are not against any reforms that might benefit the working classWe must pass thru the pain and suffering in order to obtain the knowledge, therefore, if you do not read the argumentation in the proper way, and you do not read all the articles written about these, you will never answer your own questions. .I already did my homework many years ago,  I am going to make it  more difficult. There is not, repeat, there is not,  any president, or any politician, or any congress,  able to change the economical base, on the contrary, it is the economical base who change them.Every president and every politician has their own boss. Any state can pass a law as you say that cancel this forum, but there is not congress able to eliminate the economical base. No ruling class is going to shoot itself.The only one who has the historical task of establishing a new society, is the working class of the whole world, it is the only revolutionary class that exist in our societyRevolution is not a war, revolution is to replace one economical system for a new society, and if the vast majority of the workers have the desire to do that, there is not need to use a water pistol. In some places the ruling class is going to resist therefore, the working class in that particular case is not going to distribute flowers and chocolate.We asked  you to read the chapter on Capital in regard to the original accumulation of capital. Did you read it ?  Did capitalism start in a peaceful way or thru violent ?  There are so many question that you must answer to yourself, it is not the other  way around

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The other drawback  in the SPGB-s approach is it curiously agnostic attitude towards institutions and practices that fall outside the money economy.  So for instance the idea of setting up a commune is routinely pooh-poohed on the grounds that this has all been tried before and has singularly failed  which is really not the point at all or is  missing the point altogether.

We don't 'just' diss those Robin. We do acknowledge they may seem to have immediate benefits for some workers at the time.The problem is their inevitable failure, like all reformist failures are laid at our door and labelled as 'socialist' failures.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

It is crude mechanistic cum deterministic nonsense to suggest that "material conditions" per se  or on their own will somehow deliver a flourishing movement for socialism.  This ignores the key role of creativity in the historical process

And yet this 'nonsense' is precisely what you argue about the production of knowledge, robbo.Or, your notion of 'the key role of creativity' is necessarily a 'role' conducted by an elite.That is, your (I accept unconscious) political basis is Leninist.

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

.  The idea I'm proposing is that laws can set the stage for communism or set the stage to prevent communism.  . . .

 Steve. . .This thread is about the potential for laws to facilitate or hinder the implementation of socialism.  The "anti legalistic" stance that has been expressed does not at all derive from any conviction that we must use violence to bring about socialism but rather is linked to the SPGB.s opposition to "reformism" which is not the same as opposing or indeed supporting individual reforms.  You need to understand this distinction in order to fully appreciate where SPGBers are coming from.  Certainly in theory there are laws we can think of, or dream up, that could facilitate the implementation of socialism and benefit workers but from the SPGB's standpoint the opportunity costs of pursuing or pressing for such legislation would be the watering down and eventual abandonment of the goal of socialism itslef. There are certainly historical precedents to support this position.  The parties of the Second International in the late 19th early 20th centuries – the largest of which was German SDP – pursued both a maximum programme (socialism as we understand it) and a minimum programme of reforms.  Predictably the former disappeared like the Cheshire cats grin as these parties succumbed to the opportunism of attracting workers on the basis of reforms and in due course all of these parties became straightforwardly pro -capitalist organisations and nothing more. There is also the sociological argument that can be traced back to people like Emile Durkheim that laws tend to reflect the social outlook rather shape that outlook and that consequently are only as effiicacious as the social environment itself permits.  Hence the primary emphasis on trying change the social environment through the dissemination of socialist ideas which is the hallmark of the SPGBs approach. I have a lot of sympathy for this approach although I do think it has its weaknesses.  One is that it is based on an insufficiently nuanced formulation of "reformism".  The whole argument against reformism is that capitalism cannot be run in the interest of workers – which is quite true – but here capitalism is conceived of as an economic construction.  In this sense these reforms are directed at (futilely) modifying  the economic base.  However there are other reforms that are directed at modifying  aspects of the superstructure (in terms of Marx's "base superstructure" model).   For instance, reforms than enhance political democracy like the extension of the franchise.  These reformsdo  not strictly come under the category of reformism in my book and to be fair the SPGB does talk about struggling to secure basic democratic rights in those parts of the world where these do not exist. That is to say, it presses or campaigns for certain kinds of laws to be implemented The other drawback  in the SPGB-s approach is it curiously agnostic attitude towards institutions and practices that fall outside the money economy.  So for instance the idea of setting up a commune is routinely pooh-poohed on the grounds that this has all been tried before and has singularly failed  which is really not the point at all or is  missing the point altogether.  True the "unconscious communism" that we all practice in our daily lives is no guarantee that it will deliver a communist society.  But the whole point is that it needs to be joined or coupled with the "conscious communism" of abstract propagandism that the SPGB practises in order to enable the former to assist the latter.  Its is like an engine that has been wilfully switched off waiting idly and in vain for the day it can help power the spread of socialist ideas. Some of us it would seem  are determined to do everything by hand rather than make use of the machinery that could enhance our productivity. if you follow my drift. But as I say the core of the SPGBs approach is, for all that, quite correct.  You cannot have socialism without socialists and you cant get socialists without actively disseminating the idea of socialism itself.  It is crude mechanistic cum deterministic nonsense to suggest that "material conditions" per se  or on their own will somehow deliver a flourishing movement for socialism.  This ignores the key role of creativity in the historical pricess

thanks that was well written.  you mentioned that SPGB does campaign for certain kind of laws to be implemented.  Is it convenient for you to just link to a list of those and that would satisfy my goals for your contribution on this topic? 

[Anonymous]

Matt wrote:

Quote:

The other drawback  in the SPGB-s approach is it curiously agnostic attitude towards institutions and practices that fall outside the money economy.  So for instance the idea of setting up a commune is routinely pooh-poohed on the grounds that this has all been tried before and has singularly failed  which is really not the point at all or is  missing the point altogether.

We don't 'just' diss those Robin. We do acknowledge they may seem to have immediate benefits for some workers at the time.The problem is their inevitable failure, like all reformist failures are laid at our door and labelled as 'socialist' failures.

So can I take this as an argument that your rejection of proposing laws is that they should not be percieved or represented as comming from socialism. And that you acknowledge some laws might help or hurt the cause of socialism, but if they are percieved as being orginated by socialism, then they are going to hurt sociallism.  If so perhaps I can satisfy you by asking. . . what laws, if originating from and being percieved as comming from capitalism and in support of capitalism would most hurt the perception of capitalism in the opinon of most people?  In other words, we need a law originated by capitalist and endorsed by capitalist and an expression of capitalism that ends up hurting the reputation or hindering the success of capitalism.   Therefore, fans of socialism can not and should not engage in discussion of laws because in the media and perceptions the socialist will always be blamed for any failures and never receive any prestige?  This is a form of arguing "we can't be percieved as interfering with capitalism and only capitalism can defeat itself" isn't it? is that what you're arguing? This reminds me of the agreeable argument that the US should not engage in peacekeeping activites in other nations because it invariably irritates other nations and the failures are labeled as american failures.  Other nations don't percieve or accept it as peacekeeping and foreign intervention can only ever hurt the nation that intervenes.  (ps. this is just an analogy, so please don't get sidetracked into arguments about whether america is a beneficial or benevolent in it's foreign interventions.  Personally, I don't subscribe to that view). I'm trying to understand your point of view on this, so please indicate what part of my restatement of your argument you agree with and which you disagree with if you can do that without violating your princple of plausible non-responsibility. 

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

We are not reformist, but are not against any reforms that might benefit the working class

 the part I quoted above is all I really need to know.  I skimmed read some of your links. I read a book on marx and some marx in college long ago and forgot most of it. It doesn't seem relevant to my goals. and I think it was brilliant for it's time and place in history, but less relevant and missing a lot compared to our knowledge today.  I compare marx to freud in that both were brilliant lateral thinkers who opened the world  up by introducing some brilliant ideas, but they got more wrong than they got right based on our understanding of today. I'm more of a socialist libertarian than socialist and my skill set is in discovery and promotion of reformative capitalist ideas.  I'm the guy who looks for the store that will sell the rope to a capitalist that will be used to hang another capitalist, and perferably I like to pitch the idea to a capitalist with a way to show the capitalist who buys the rope and hangs the other capitalist will make a profit doing it.  I focus on working within the capitalist system to encourage and promote ways for capitalism to eat itself.  I don't do this for a love of socialism, I do this because I'm a believer that it will happen eventually and I want to promote progress and get to a more advanced society quicker.   having socialist to chat with is beneficial to my goal because socialist claim to have realized the criteria and structure of a what I consider only one of many possible society scale evolutionary determined outcomes of competition and evolution.  So I think a lot about how laws and society evolve over time and look for ways to accelerate that in whatever direction it leads.  If socialist theories about communism being the end state of capitalism are correct then our end goals are the same and even our means might be the similar, but the moral imperative for me is definitely irrelevant. Or more precisely, I consider the moral imperative to be non-constant and a variable on the society scale with the defintion of what is morally good to be a changing understanding over time. Western American society used to think slavery of blacks is good and now we don't. that seems to be a natural progression and evolution of poitics and economics to me that I would seek to accelerate if I were living in times when there was slavery. And I would seek to accelerate it because it's "progress" as I understand it to accelerate faster the evolution of society.   Will we one day think of capitalism like with think of racial based slavery in america?  I think the answer is yes and so does marx from my understand and I'd like to get to that state of society sooner as I think marx would agree with.  Manipulation of laws and ideas is one of my solution brainstorming strategy to achieving that goal.  I could perhaps have this discussion in a capitalist based forum, but they have aversion to the idea that socialism might be an end state of anything and an instinctive aversion so socialism in general, so they aren't much use in comming up with ways to reach that end state sooner.  I consider capitalist to be typically very short sighted and effectively blind to the evolutionary track that capitalism will follow and therefore not much use to me in coming up with ideas to advance faster along that path.  So this is a better place for me to mine for ideas.

[Author]

Posts