Socialism not Communism
- This topic has 70 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 11 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
” I’m sure if I put you all into one room you’d spend forever arguing amongst yourselves.”
So, the very opposite, then, of the mindless cult of followers you suppose us to be!
No, not at all. You’d all agree on the objective, you’d fight amongst yourselves on how it would be achieved, because remember you have no leader so it’s a free for all.
OK, basic question time.
1. If nobody is voting for your ideas, how do you propose to bring about this revolutionary change?
2. Can I and the other eight billion really have everything we want? Or is there a get out clause that says subject to availability, terms and conditions apply?
3. Currently, people work to earn money. If everything is free why would anyone want to work?
4. Who gets the top jobs to organise, manage and distribute in the biggest bureaucracy the world has ever seen? Call it a government, or a people’s collective, they’re both the same thing.
5. How do you convince those with individual wealth, even if it’s only a little, to give it up voluntarily and not by force?
6. What will replace human self-interest and the desire for personal reward? Without them, where is the incentive to progress, or put effort into anything.
Pick one, Short answers based on reality and not beginning with, Marx said …
But Grandpa is obviously stuck in a groove he’ll never get out of. So is it worth persisting?
I hope so, Howard. At least it provides an opportunity to deal with the kind of knee-jerk opposition to the concept of a socialist society that is unfortunately very widespread…
When you’ve persuaded me, you only have a few million more to convince. Come on,n you love it. Gets all that pent-up anger out and gives you a chance to get a bit of Marxist theory out.—————————————————–
It is not Marxist theory; it is Marxian theory, and the main core of Marxian theory is not the dictatorship of the proletariat. That false argument was created by Lenin; his main basis is the materialist conception of history, the labour theory, and the class struggle.
We have said that without Marx and Engels we would have created our own definition of socialism, and that statement is totally correct because we have made contributions way beyond the contributions made by Marx and Engels, and we have actualised several of their conceptions; the socialist party is a university on socialism.
Karl Marx never called himself a Marxist; that is a piece of history that you must read too. It started with Bakunin at the First International, and some close friend of Marx and Engels, and he did not create a concept known as Marxism.
You have not answered any of the messages that we have posted here with any valid substance. https ps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2020s/2021/no-1404-august-2021/what-is-marxism/
About the Gulag, you are again repeating the same argument: we have said that in a socialist party we would not have a state or a government, or a repressive apparatus, and you continue with the same false argument: a socialist society would not need a police system; a police system is part of the nature of the capitalist state; therefore, you must read and study the history of the state, how it emerged in our society, and what is the purpose of the state in this society and Marx and Engels are the best sources to understand that and the contributions made by the socialist party, most leftwings organizations are based on the wrong conception on Lenin about the state.
But in any way, during WW2 the Allies knew about the existence of the Gulag, and they made alliances with Stalin and the soviets; as well, they knew about the concentration camps, and Western corporations made alliances with the Nazis a, nd they did not care about the existence of the prisoners; they hypocritically cared when the Cold War started. Several ships with Jews running away from the Nazis were rejected by the USA government, and they were sent back, and many of them were killed; ironically, only a dictator in Latin America accepted many of them.
.
The point is not that one individual was in the Gulag; the point is that most people did not know that they were living in a capitalist system, and they called the Soviet Union socialist; therefore, they were repeating the same thing said by the soviet and the Western powers; therefore, they did not know the reality. Most people who left those nations did not know that they were living under a capitalist society because they did not have the theoretical knowledge to understand it, but we knew it since 1917, and we opposed everything because we had the foundation to understand the situation; as well, we did not support the patriotic war of the soviet union, and we opposed all war, and never supported inter-capitalist disputes.The Gulag was not the only jail system that existed in the world; the School of the Americas trained many military personnel to run similar types of jails in Latin America and Africa, and most of them did oppose capitalism because many of them were members of socialist and communist organisations. There were Gulags in the Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, and Chile, and many opposition leaders were killed in Africa and placed in jail, where they were tortured. In the USA, several members of the Communist Party were executed and wrongly accused, and the Nazis had socialists, communists, and anarchists in the concentration camps.
In Guantanamo, the USA government also has a gulag where prisoners are tortured and kept in limbo without any legal proceeding, and most of them are innocent people wrongly accused; lawyers who tried to defend them in court were accused of collaborating with terrorists.
In the Cuarenta, the USA had a gulag where opponents of its atrocities were sent to those prisons, and many were killed and tortured, and most of them were members of revolutionary organisations. In Chile, the USA kept a jail system after they overthrew Allende, and thousands of opponents were killed; most of them were involved in politics, and they were socialists or members of leftist organisations. They were thrown from a helicopter down to the sea to kill them, as well in Argentina the USA government kept jails to torture opponents.
Capitalism does have a history of terror and horrors, but socialism does not have a history because it has not been established yet.
We have given you enough information to spend a couple of years digesting it
ttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2020s/2021/no-1404-august-2021/what-is-marxism/You have mentioned cultural Marxism, but you do not where it comes from and the real meaning. This is the correct explanation
I don’t need someone else to tell me what Cultural Marxism is. Gramsci was never part of the Frankfurt school. He discovered the answer to Lenin’s question of why the workers in the west weren’t rising up and overthrowing the system (Prison notebooks). His answer was use the minorities instead as a revolutionary cadre and it’s what you can see in the street protests today. It’s why the term cultural as opposed to classical.
I suppose the point is don’t blindly believe what someone else says because that’s just their opinion. Don’t believe me either, you have the Internet at your fingertips.
But back to the above questions? Do I hear a deafening silence? You won’t find the answers to those in the SPGB.
We’ve already answered. What about you attending to our points made?
No you haven’t. You’ve given me theory of what should be from what someone else told you, not your how it would be implemented, because that’s where all this nonsense falls flat. How do you argue against beliefs? If you believe so shall it be, but don’t hold your breath. If you can’t answer the questions just say so instead of waffling.
You do not know what Cultural Marxism is; Gramsci has nothing to do with Cultural Marxism, the message does not mention Gramsci, the message shows the real meaning of Cultural Marxism, and Cultural Marxism is a theory that has been largely promoted by right-wingers. The central point of Gramsci was hegemony.
You have not explained what Cultural Marxism really is either; you mentioned it attacking Marx, and Marx is not part of that theory.
The Frankfurt School was not integrated by socialists, and some of them tried to mix Marx and psychoanalysis, or Freud, which can not be mixed, and we have written extensively about that
You are always escaping from the real issues; you are a perfect fit to be called a sniper.
The protest on the street has nothing to do with culture vs classical; we live under the culture of the capitalist class. The protest on the street has to do with the character of the capitalist society, and the press only shows the part that is for the convenience of the capitalist mode of production. To confuse the workers.
We have written about protests, and we have indicated that the working class cannot spend their whole life protesting; that class consciousness is more important than protest, because protest promotes reforms.
Gramsci was a Leninist, and he supported the concept of the vanguard party to lead; he did not believe in the self-consciousness of the working class; he was never able to abandon the concept of leadership. And we have given conferences on Gra.m. sc. i
You do not even know the real point of Gramsci.
The message shows the main ideas of Marxism versus your concept of Marxist theory, which is wrong; the correct term is Marxian theory, and the message explained that it came from Bakunin. There are two links in the message (which you did not read), and both are related to the concept of Marxism, which is also a wrong conception because Marx did not create any concept known as Marmoreovern mor; he said that he was not a Marxist, that it was anti-dialectical. You are escaping from the real issue and ending with a question instead of answering, and you cannot do that because you do not have the theoretical background to do so. Gramsci was not a socialist; he was a Leninist.
He doesn’t bother to read our links because he assumes we slavishly follow what the SPGB says, although we are the SPGB, not followers. He also never refers to our points in our own posts here, no matter how much energy and effort we put in to replying to him. It is rude, actually.
He supports the capitalist class, not his own, working class, witness his praise of Têng Hsiao-p’ing who butchered workers.
Grandpa
It is true what others here say. You blithely ignore the points made in this debate and just carry on regardless.
An example is your absurd claim that the various so-called socialist regimes “abandoned capitalism”. When we use the term capitalism, we use the Marxian definition of this as a synonym for a system of generalised wage labour
You were presented with a list of quotes from people like Lenin who explicitly argued for instituting state capitalism. But instead of addressing this point, which effectively refutes your claim about the “abandonment of capitalism”, you just ignore it.
Likewise, your absurd characterisation of a post-capitalist society as being dependent on individuals being entirely driven by altruistic motives. You argue that workers are driven by self-interest, and that this makes such a society unattainable. If that is the case, why then do workers continue to support a capitalist society that exploits them and works against their interests? It would surely be in their interests to overthrow such a society and establish a socialist society in which they are no longer exploited.
Again, we have no response from you. Zilch. Why is this?
Of course, we understand all too well that support for a socialist society is minuscule (though not zero, as you suggest). What is the point of pointing this out if it’s not just to gaslight us?
However, I’m afraid that’s not going to work on us. You don’t judge the validity of an idea by the degree of support it attracts. Its validity rests on logic and empirical observation.
500 years ago, 99.9 per cent of the population believed that the sun revolved around the earth. To question this dogma, the few brave souls who advanced a heliocentric view risked being burnt at the stake.
Your position in this debate is structurally equivalent to that of the Church authorities in that debate. You presume to have a crystal ball that has revealed to you with absolute certainty that socialism is not on the cards — that is, a utopia. Many others have said similar things, including that it was impossible—out of the question—that human beings would ever one day fly. It’s against our “human nature”, innit?
I prefer to go along with what Oscar Wilde said on the subject:
A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not even worth glancing at. Progress is the realisation of Utopias
He doesn’t bother to read our links because he assumes we slavishly follow what the SPGB says, although we are the SPGB, not followers. He also never refers to our points in our own posts here, no matter how much energy and effort we put into replying to him. It is rude, actually.
——————————————————-
He has not read that the SPGB has had public debates with different people or organisations.
The SPGB has had public discussions with Nazis and fascists, things that are not done by other organisations, including capitalist organisations, and in this forum members of the party also have their own personal views different to the SPGB.
We have had members of other organisations in this forum who have answered and analysed our articles because they are open-minded.
He is just a waste of time, or probably he is just a troll.
He is picking everything from Wikipedia and from AI publications
Looks like someone has been playing with AI!
If this person wants to debate, we are happy to do so, but on the basis of our party’s case, not some imagined or isolated points.
Just one more thing – yes we use socialism and communism interchangeably – get over it!————————————————–
You are correct; he has already shown his underwear. He is using Wikipedia and AI writing; those headings are from AI
Ciudanado, can you tell me which is the work where Stalin shows he knows what real socialism is? Is it “Marxism and Problems of Linguistics”?
Ciudanado, can you tell me which is the work where Stalin shows he knows what real socialism is? Is it “Marxism and Problems of Linguistics”?
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm.
On linguistics, he is trying to prove that languages are not part of the ruling class, but the colonialist imposed their language in the colonies
https://www.marxists.org/espanol/stalin/obras/oe15/Stalin%20-%20Obras%2001-15.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawVSrBxleHRuA2FlbQIxMABwZG9mAWJyaWQRMWphSG1XdUZ6TGdjWVdZWDVzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEfDhAPNN2lgwi9N0QN4Xim0CfGjKU-XxgHQUV2rbJRSM8x282NBBBVg6gxX9c_aem_X_PBF_yeNLH8koF3HDlN3w. It is on his foreign language publications, and it looks like the Latin America stalinist have not read it yet
No wage slavery, no market system, common possession of the means of production; therefore, he knew the real definition of socialism
The study groups only teach Leninism and the Opposition, and Lenin: what is to be done? : imperialism, state, and the revolution and national question
I’ve got to agree with you Grandpa, it doesn’t look to me like you are using AI. I come across a lot of AI through work and although your contribution has a look of it, you’re grammar has some pretty obvious flaws.
—————————————————————-
He does; sometimes the re-posting creates errors on WordPress
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.