You're viewing part of a thread.
-
If electoralism will not establish Socialism, what is the point of recommending a candidate? The best candidate you can vote for is Claudia De La Crúz, but she can't get 270 votes to win, because she isn't on enough state's ballots. Stein will not establish Socialism, she's a Social Democrat, and Harris is firmly right-wing. Trump is Trump, obviously he isn't the answer either.
Your desire for a simple "vote for this person and everything will be alright" does not exist.
-
The thing is there is nothing actionable at all in that rhetoric. There's a lot of Marxist jargon and a lament that voting can never work, but the only guidance is "establish socialism" with no suggested actionable moves because we can't just wave a wand and make that the case. If you can't envision and recommend a democratic strategy to get there, you aren't going to get anywhere near your objectives.
-
The answer is to join revolutionary orgs like the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) or Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO). Only through organization outside the electoral system does the Proletariat have any hope of steering the ship and seizing the reigns.
There is no electoral strategy to get to Socialism because it's nearly impossible, just like asking the board of directors to hand the reigns of the company to you.
-
You advocate for letting others chose the government while just sitting out and protesting and hoping the people formally being given power by the voting system you say not to meaningfully participate in would heed those protests?
Or are you saying that such groups shall go beyond their stated methods and go to violent revolution, in which scenario I'd ask for a single example of "socialism" achieved through such ends that didn't install a pretty terrible authitarian regime that merely took advantage of social unrest to seize power?
-
I am saying there is no electoral path to Socialism.
As for Socialism's historical record, I suggest you read Blackshirts and Reds. Cuba, China, Russia, etc. all dramatically improved conditions for the people following revolution as compared to the fascist slaver Batista regime, the nationalist Kuomintang regime, and the brutal Tsarist regime.
-
I am saying there is no electoral path to Socialism.
That smells of voter suppression, like you are trying to talk people out of even trying to exercise their voice in the political system. The refusal to specifically spell out which described path you advocate for suggests you want violent insurrection, which is absurd, either doomed to be outgunned or doomed to be exploited by leaders with ulterior motives. If you can't get the votes to your position, then things are going to be very bad if you try to get your way.
None of your examples started from a vaguely functional democratic state. For all the fawning over Cuba, somehow they are a big source of refugees. The Soviet Union fell apart under well understood conditions that their flavor of 'communism' did not fix. China has an awful lot of forced labor, laborers stuck dorming in factories, and capitalist billionaires for a 'communist' state, and they have an ethno state with some other problematic human rights behaviors. While they may have been better than prior regimes in their contexts, I don't think the end state in any of those is better than the current state of affairs in the US.
-
I specifically spelled out my call to action earlier in this very comment chain. Organizing with leftist parties like PSL and FRSO, revolutionary parties. Revolution is necessary, electoralism cannot work.
None of your examples started from a vaguely functional democratic state. For all the fawning over Cuba, somehow they are a big source of refugees.
Most of these refugees were historically land owning slavers, fascists, and Capitalists.
The Soviet Union fell apart under well understood conditions that their flavor of 'communism' did not fix.
Communism fixed a great deal of problems with Russia, why do you believe the USSR was dissolved?
China has an awful lot of forced labor, laborers stuck dorming in factories, and capitalist billionaires for a 'communist' state, and they have an ethno state with some other problematic human rights behaviors.
The PRC is a Socialist Market Economy. The model is described as a birdcage, the CPC allows markets to naturally develop but only along their guidelines, and increases ownership as competition creates these new monopolist syndicates. Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism is a good article going over China’s economic model. The CPC has the power it has as a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it needs that power to maintain supremacy over their bourgeoisie. Communism is achieved by degree, not decree.
While they may have been better than prior regimes in their contexts, I don't think the end state in any of those is better than the current state of affairs in the US.
Why are you comparing developing countries to the current Imperialist hegemon? Do you think if you adopt Socialism, everything is magically fixed overnight? Have I ever implied that?
A good primer is Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" an excellent article that goes over materialist examinations of AES states vs idealist examinations. Another good reference is Blackshirts and Reds. AES is by no means perfect, but it does and did work.
-
-
-
-
The answer is to join revolutionary org
Why? When is the revolution going to happen? Where and when are we supposed to gather?
-
I already answered the why. The where and when depends on organization, right now orgs aren't as strong as they need to be, hence the importance of joining. The where is wherever your local org gathers, the when is whenever they meet and based on what they need you to do.
-
These organizations have been around for decades, yes? Seems like there's never going to be a when.
-
That's the same logic as saying there's never going to be a cure for cancer because research has been done for decades.
As Capitalism gets older, it trends towards monopolization, increasingly complex production methods take increasing amounts of investment to compete, killing the ability of smaller competitors to exist. The Rate of Profit shrinks the less human labor is involved with production, which is only temporarily countered by consolidation, even further monopolization! Wealth concentrates in fewer and fewer hands, Capitalism reaches a moribund stage.
What is undeniable is that this disparity is increasing further and further, and monopolization is increasing further and further. The revolutionary potential of the Proletariat is held at bay through further exploitation of the Global South, which appears to be weakening over time.
While nobody can name a date, I find it even harder to believe that someone could meaningfully believe that the trends I listed are going to reverse themselves and have Capitalism last forever.
-
Except lots of cancers now have cures, and there are vaccines for others, so no it isn't.
-
Yes, and there have been successful Socialist revolutions, you're only weakening your point.
Do you believe the remaining cancers will never be cured because they currently aren't?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
You keep on proving my point.
De La Cruz is unknown to 99.999% of the voters.
AOC, a NY Congress member is known to almost all voters. Everyone has heard of the Squad.
I've watched Socialists/Communists talk about the revolution since I was in middle school, and it's always "just around the corner."
Like I said, why not try to get some people elected in the next cycle?
-
Because electoralism cannot establish Socialism. The Squad are not Socialists, they are Social Democrats. The only Socialist you can vote for is Claudia De La Crúz, and she cannot win because she cannot get 270 votes.
I am not "proving your point," it is physically impossible to do what you're suggesting.
-
Guess what? 99.9% of the people in the country would be happy with having FDR's New Deal back in place.
Again, you prove my point. You'd rather dream about an ideal Socialist state then work to make things better right now.
-
They aren't dreaming, they laid out very clearly what they believe and how they believe it can be achieved.
You just keep saying "I'm rubber, you're glue".
What's your actual point? That you think the person you are replying to is stupid? That would say more about you than them in my opinion.
-
how they believe it can be achieved.
that's the part I'm missing.
Like I said, I've been hearing people talk about this giant change for years, and never seen anything like an advance.
Meanwhile there are more billionaires every day, and they are getting more entrenched.
If there's an actual workable plan I've yet to see it.
-
I've been hearing people talk about this giant change for years, and never seen anything like an advance.
Because we're still in a period of decay.
There's a reason why AES projects are mostly started in underdeveloped regions: once capitalism is established as the dominant system, it is impossible to escape it through democratic means. Capital has captured the democratic process, and it won't allow for its own destruction
If revolution doesn't happen, America will eventually fall to fascism or collapse under its own late-stage capitalism completely. Doesn't matter if you find it impractical, that's just what the analysis points to.
You can suggest your own analysis if you disagree with ours.
-
My analysis is that we should do things now instead of waiting.
Look at the marriage laws from 1950s to today. Interracial couples and same sex couples were banned from getting married. Heck, women couldn't have their own bank accounts in may places.
Change is possible.
You're tellign people who are suffering now that the only thing they can do is await a possible revolution.
-
Your analysis is just vibes, bud, it doesn't have any eye or consideration for any systems or material relations
If tomorrow we passed a law protecting trans and minority rights, the next election the reactionary forces will push back and make it harder - if not impossible - to run on protecting them again.
Why do you think it's so hard for Harris to run on Palestinian liberation, or immigration reform, or trans rights? Because she'd lose, because the American voter base is frothing at the mouth and becoming more reactionary every election cycle, and your 'analysis' doesn't even bother to see or acknowledge that trend, let alone address it.
-
Yeah , it's almost as if you have to rally the troops and get out the vote in every single election.
FDR's New Deal held together for decades, until Ronald Reagan got in.
-
Lmao, it's literally all vibes
"people stop wanting progressive policies because we stop pushing for them" is a take that's completely divorced from physical reality. You have to be completely blind to how people's material and cultural reality relate to each other if you're to believe this.
FDR’s New Deal held together for decades, until Ronald Reagan got in.
If it wasn't Reagan, it would have been another reactionary politician. Looking at history as if individual men/women dictate our reality as if in a decontextualized vacuum is maddeningly idiotic. Reagan represented a popular movement of reactionary conservatism - he didn't invent it out of whole-cloth. There has never been a social-democratic government that hasn't eventually been privatized or been subject to increasing austerity measures, and that pattern can be studied and rationalized as a dialectic.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
And yet Bernie, promising FDR style reform, did not get elected, nor would that stop fascism, just delay it. I am telling you that the way forward requires revolution. This isn't because of an "ideal," but because mechanically it is the only way forward.
-
-
-
-