"socialism" popular in the US
- This topic has 169 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The only socialist party that exists in the USA is the World Socialist Party, the rest of the so-called socialists/communists parties they are just social democrats, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Enverists, and left wings of all tendencies. Their aim is state capitalism or a humanized capitalist society which is also impossible to be established. For more than 100 years the World Socialist Movement has laid down what socialism/communism really is, and that socialism/communism has never been tried, and whatever has not been tried it can not have a history. Since 1917 the WSM/SPGB have denounced the capitalist characters of the ex-Soviet Union, the Eastern Europeans countries, Albania, China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Ecuador
My point was to highlight the membership numbers not the content of the ideology.
Our own success has been a mirror of an increased popularity of the left such as the immediate post-WW2 Britain and later the 60s and 70s.
These periods offered us an opportunity to grab on to the shirt-tails of a growing leftwing trend and boost our own numbers. Our diminishing influence is also an echo of the decline in the Left.
We have debated if we should break this correlation and appeal to the wider, broader audience or focus our campaign on a smaller but a supposedly more receptive one.
It has been a discussion we have held a few times in the past but IMHO, one that has not been fully resolved.
https://www.theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/alternative-capitalism-adam-buick-and-john-crump-1987
Theory and practice. Alternative to capitalism. Socialism is not an economy
However, socialism is more than just not an exchange economy; it is not an economy at all, not even a planned economy. Economics, or political economy as it was originally called, grew up as the study of the forces which came into operation when capitalism, as a system of generalised commodity production, began to become the predominant mode of producing and distributing wealth. The production of wealth under capitalism, instead of being a direct interaction between human beings and nature, in which humans change nature to provide themselves with the useful things they need to live, becomes a process of production of wealth in the form of exchange value. Under this system, production is governed by forces which operate independently of human will and which impose themselves as external, coercive laws when men and women make decisions about the production and distribution of wealth. In other words, the social process of the production and the distribution of wealth becomes under capitalism an <i>economy</i> governed by <i>economic</i> laws and studied by a special discipline, <i>economics</i>.
Economics.
Up to the late nineteenth century it had the more accurate name of Political Economy, but since then capitalist economics has become mainly concerned with price formation. Marxian economics on the other hand explains how, under capitalism, wealth production is governed by forces based on exchange value which operate independently of human will. These forces impose themselves as external, coercive laws when people make decisions about the production of wealth. In other words, the social process of wealth production under capitalism is an economy governed by economic laws and studied by a special discipline, economics.
Socialism will re-establish conscious human control over wealth production. Therefore, socialism will abolish capitalism’s economic laws and so also ‘the economy’ as the field of human activity governed by their operation.
Hence socialism will make economics, including Marxian economics, redundant. (My italics & emphasis. M.C.)
Reading B. Sarkar & A. Buick, Marxian Economics and Globalisation, 2009
Another article promoting the DSA and Sanders
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/06/28/many-young-people-socialism-american-apple-pie
what does democratic socialism mean? Does it mean, you know, real socialism, or just Scandinavian social democracy? No, I think democratic socialism actually means fighting for socialism, and fighting to preserve democracy and expand democracy through socialism. Democratic socialism, in case people are wondering, actually, is not a term that means halfway to socialism. And it doesn’t mean nicer, gentler socialism. It’s a term that actually just is intended to differentiate our contemporary movement from the 20th century authoritarian socialism of Stalin and Mao.
“Another article promoting the DSA and Sanders”
Sorry, but I fail to see the benefit of sharing articles which promote organisations which are not socialist, particularly when no attempt is made to differentiate their confused ideas from the genuine article.
Stalin and Mao did not represent oxymoronic “20th century authoritarian socialism” but brutal state-capitalism.
These sort of posts do the socialist movement no favours whatsoever.
I’m sorry if you don’t subscribe to the idea that you have to understand what motivates your political rivals. As for not highlighting the non-socialist elements, i see little need when the exchange is within this forum, frequented by mostly members and sympathisers who surely don’t require disclaimers and caveats.
But as i said, with very limited resources, we have to decide who we should be aiming our message at.
Should we focus upon any particular sector of our fellow-workers? If so, which? If so, how?
For our organisation it has been an almost eternal question and we should not cease addressing the issue and including references to those who claim to be socialists and are having a certain amount of success with those claims.
With the WSPUS having stagnated for decades, we see some small signs of progress but they need a target for their campaign.
With the WSPUS having stagnated for decades, we see some small signs of progress but they need a target for their campaign.
There is a constant trickle of new contacts being added to the WSPUS database. Its not rocket science to see how or why this is happening. It is by pushing links to the WSM on the social media notably political forums, using the free trial offer of the SS as the “bait”
If we want to to target our campaigning then I suggest this should be a major part of our approach. It is proven to work and I am genuinely perplexed that very few members seem to want to get involved in this
Robbo, What i am careful about is that when i placed a link to WSPUS in comments it is not spamming or trolling but i ensure it is relevant to the article.
I think one area which we have been slightly amiss is the actual history of socialism in the USA which many American politicos are not too sure about. They do not perceive an evolution of thought or understand the variety of ideas.
It is as if Marxist Archive website was not there.
Whereas Debs is sometimes cited, De Leon is invariably invisible. The IWW pioneers are often forgotten about. Keracher is unknown.
Of the Trots, Shachtman, Cannon and Draper are never mentioned by the DSA activists or progressives. (some of their articles are helpful insights for various periods of labour history, imho, ) as if they never existed. Even modern writers like Mattick and Bookchin are not well-known.
Too often when it comes to contemporary political commentaries i find it is all about re-inventing the wheel.
We have to honestly acknowledge our miniscule size but just as just one sole writer can have a place in theory, we should present the WSPUS in its rightful position of influence.
I Rab’s biography is a useful book to cite from. Less so i think being Sam Leight’s two books of radio shows but some may disagree and suggest they could be re-edited.
DarrenO’s and ALB’s next project could be doing what they are doing with the Socialist Standard and when finished do the same with the Western Socialist…i know …it is demanding too much but can only hope.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/07/27/system-change-basic-primer-solidarity-economy
I think this article sums up what we are up against when it comes to an understanding of socialism and what many American progressives believe it is.
And how they re-name their version of “socialism” as the Solidarity Economy
Even an increase in a confused understanding of socialism has the American capitalist in fear
“…Whether Millennials actually use the word “socialism” properly — as government ownership of the means of production — is moot. More likely, they simply want better public policy that addresses their specific problems. Even then, however, they often fall prey to political snake oil such as rent controls or wealth taxes…It would be tragic if we survived the pandemic only to find ourselves living in true socialism, which in practice has always robbed societies of prosperity and individuals of freedom. To avoid that fate, all generations should offer Millennials a fairer — a liberal — deal.”
(Hat-tip to Libcom for link)
Roosevelt was pushed by a coalition of pseudo socialists, communists and anarchists to put in practice all those bourgeois reforms and the capitalists approved them without any fear, and then, they implemented McCarthyism to eliminate all of them
Due to those wrong definitions of socialism, the SPGB has spent more times explaining of what is not socialism, instead of promoting socialism. The worst thing that ever happened to the history of socialism is the creation of the Soviet Union, and Leninism, with them, socialism did not advance one inch
An article on how anti-socialism remains strong even if they cannot find a correct definition.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.