An Open Letter/Casting Call to Socialists
- This topic has 12 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Read the links from the post above and I must say this person makes some pretty hefty assumptions. I might in fact think, that Socialism can be brought about peacefully but I do not know how this makes me a pacifist. As I am most assuredly not. It is folk like this, who do not realise how truly powerful class consciousness and the concommitant understanding, really is! Nota Bene. Stevie C.
Yes, only cursory view so far, but first response is we are not ready yet. Many more people, globally, have to get on board. It doesn't have to be violent, or probably not much. I am also not a pacifist, but want lasting success. A violent overthrow would only set us up to be ruled again (by the people with the weapons).It's easy to be impatient and want change now (and I'm a tired, middle-aged woman, not testosterone filled young man), especially when all the horrors have been in my face the last few days, but success is more important.We have to convince the lulled, the religious looking to god and the pacifists, tho they can participate and not have to violate their ethics. Then there are people who haven't much concept of freedom and human rights. Much more to do.
That's why I'm exploring things.When will we be "ready"? What conditions must exist to convince the "religious and the pacificts" to take action? And how can it be brought about peacefully? What actions would be taken? Have any of those actions been taken thus far? If so, how much closer have they brought us to socialism?
center_of_north wrote:When will we be "ready"?All socialists can do at the moment is to convince other members of the working class of the need for socialism and how it will solve many of our problems: war, hunger, poverty, crime etcWhen a majority understand and want socialism we will be able to take democtratic action by organising to take control of the state via elections. It is difficult to be specific as we do not know what the conditions will be. In general we wil transfer the means of production and distribution of wealth from capitalist ownership to common ownership and we will organise production democratically to meet our needs. Socialists are not pacifists – A socialist majority will use the state – if necessary – to carry this transformation out, but we do not envisage any serious opposition. Without capitalism the state will have no use and will be dismantled.
So given your first paragraph, does that mean the conditions and consequences of capitalism we are currently experiencing are at tolerable levels?Taking control of the state "via elections" is next to impossible in America, at least. Particularly at the federal level. We have a 2 party system where each representative/senator represents any number of lobbying interests, campaign funders who can afford them.Do we really have time to "convince … the working class of the need for socialism"? At what point does this need become urgent and/or reach crisis levels? And why do we tolerate any measure of it to begin with?
Do we really have time to "convince … the working class of the need for socialism"? At what point does this need become urgent and/or reach crisis levels? And why do we tolerate any measure of it to begin with?Well, let us put it this way, unless the "working class" are convinced of the need for Socialism and moreover understand the need for it and cooperate in bringing it about, it will never happen. What is "your" proposal, to deal with this "urgent crisis"? Violent revolution, where the fighting is done by someone else, but the "Leaders" shout encouragement from the rear! From the rear of the fighting or from the leaders rear ends is a moot point.So given your first paragraph, does that mean the conditions and consequences of capitalism we are currently experiencing are at tolerable levels? Nowhere, in Vin Marattys first paragraph, is there any inference of "tolerable levels" of whatever! within Capitalism. Stevie C.
I don't have many answers. That's why the majority of what is penned is a series of questions, in modern context.I don't know what to do. But I know that sitting around thinking we're going to use the state to our advantage – a pervasive thought that's existed for some years now – is absurd, especially when we acknowledge that this same state is bought and paid for, and no longer has the interests of the public in mind, preferring the private.I ask that question regarding tolerance because, whether we like it or not, we have been willingly working in the system(s) we hate. With sporadic demonstrations, sit-ins, solidarity movements… but the light those actions bring to their issues quickly fades and is consequently turned off, courtesy of an equally obedient media, or "3rd estate."Yes, my suggestion is perhaps to put pacifism and peace TEMPORARILY aside. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the position from which we take all actions toward goals of socialism, but rather that it remains an option.Given current circumstances, given how wealth and power and resources are becoming increasingly beyond reach and inaccessible, do you think, and I know it's speculation, still we can look at trends, the system is accessible and can be changed democratically? If the working class aren't "convinced of the need for socialism" why would they elect socialist candidates?Seems like the strategy you support is to use electoral politics. Yes, that could work. But what kind of timeline are we dealing with here? How much more destruction, decimination and decadence can we take?I've been a peaceful resistant person for as long as I could stand it. And that's what I was trying to point, for every 1 step forward, there are 4 steps back.I just feel like socialists, at least in america, have become so sensitized to this system, and compare our experience here with the 3rd world, we're inured, we don't care anymore. Activists have just given up. It's funny and ironic because it indicates of level of ethnocentrism.I did kind of lay out some alternatives to revolution HERE
I'd like to add another question: so does this mean under no circumstances you would entertain direct action, possibly physical violence (for containment, not necessarily attrition) to ensure a sustainable socialist economy?There has to be some point where we say enough is enough, we organize the working men and women and all the victims to fight before they find themselves in inescapable bondage, right? We all know that's the outcome of such a system.
Would it not be hypocritical and contradictory of a socialist party to argue that capitalism cannot solve war, poverty, oppression, hunger and exploitation and then advocate reforms that leave capitalism intact? Having said that, you can rest assured that socialists do not oppose people struggling for survival within capitalism.
I don't think that any kind of violent action will serve to increase the ranks of socialists at present. It will just serve to give socialism even more of a bad name.I see the biggest danger of violence arising when the socialist movement has gained more momentum but is nowhere near a majority. Say 5-10% of the population. It's then that the state will see it as a real threat, rather than something of a joke, but will still have the power to curtail or even crush it by various means. In the more 'civilised' countries this could mean a curtailment of liberties, which in itself would give rise to bitter struggles. In the more volatile or 'repressed' countries it could mean severe police and army brutality, even assuming that some members of the police and armed forces wouldn't take part, or would take the socialist side. In such circumstances socialists may well be drawn into violence, but even then would be unlikely to be the instigators.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.