Socialism Is The Future

You doubt it???
Now you don't have to:
https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/

 

So am I - what of it ???

 

Think about it, man!
If I "look it up" chances are high I'll read something very different from your understanding, therefore we'll be talking different things while not realizing it. If you want to debate, we'll have to agree on definitions. What is your contention on the premise?

So are you saying we should be ashamed of and/or somehow compensate the rest of the world for the random advantage of having been born in the most successful country (so achieved via capitalism)???

Don't we already gift tons of money to other countries, taken from our individual earnings as income tax?

 

Where? Show us. https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

 

So, do you think socialism is the future? Pretty sure tish doesn’t think socialism is the future. Has he given a solution that leads to a better solution? Have you for that matter? I have said what is happening in the USA under Obama happened 40 + years ago under pierre trudeau. It is not the answer and is definitely, socialism communism driven.

my solution is be careful what you wish/vote for. The utopian society doesn’t exist. Look to history, and not some book that Pierre Trudeau publisheD In order to maintain his lies in writing, which was ego based and to make people believe his lies. As he stepped down and bankrupt us then ran with his tail between his legs as a wealthy man and poor people.

 

Trud

But you might gain some understanding at the moment you don’t have any because you seem to be to lazy to put in the work.

That is evasion it doesn’t answer the question – again - How does a bady gain 'by the sweat of its brow' the advantage of been born into advantage?

And it just raises more questions.

Why ashamed?

And in what way is the US the most successful country?

What do you mean by capitalism I suppose slavery is one form of capitalism and there were parts of the US that did gain from that but is that something to celebrate?

 

No, not Pierre Trudeau, Karl Marx, Vladimir Illich Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Anthonio Gramsci among others.

 

"Gain understanding" by reading about a buzzword?
That's laughable.
If you're so rich in understanding, How does a bady [sic] NOT gain 'by the sweat of its brow' the advantage of been born into advantage?

 

Beach

Don’t you see that makes my point for me?

You, like so many on the right, have no actual solutions you don't even seem to have given any thought to what the solutions might be, you have no vision, you have no idea on how to improve thing you are just hollow, empty of any real political worth.

 

trud

LOL if you think one of the major economic theories of the late 20th century is a buzzword it just highlights your ignorance of the subject – I’d really wouldn’t take you long so why are you so reluctant to do the work?

That doesn’t even make any sense – do you genuinely think a baby can work to choose where and to whom they are born?

Wow the questions keep building up and you keep refusing to answer them - in what way to you think that is honest debate?

 

They changed their website as well. It did talk of the black liberation army, I will have to find it in the archives website, which will take a little digging to show you it. I ‘know it is there and will take time to dig up for you. They still state they are marxists. Calling one another comrades... etc... One of the founders grew up in Oakland During the rise of the black panthers and the black liberation army in Oakland.

 

Then they and I are your worse nightmare because we are all Marxists.

 

We'll wait for you to dig it up. But of course, that raises the question why any of it is relevant. One of the founders grew during the rise of the Plack Panthers. I grew up in a Red State during the rise of Bush '48.. Does that make me a Republican? But the big problem I see in all of this is that it's irrelevant to the topic. If you can show that BLM is Marxist, what would that have to do with the price of tea in China or the topic of this discussion. Does the syllogism go: BLM is Marxist. Marxists are a kind of Socialism. Therefore... What? BLM is bad? Socialism is bad? All Socialism is Marxism? All Marxists are BLM? Socialism leads inevitably to BLM? The whole line of discussion is off the rails.

 

Thing is that left wingers even Marxists want to create a better future, I’m not sure communism can do that but at least they have the vision the desire.

But many right wingers don’t seem to have any vision for a better future.

All they seem to do is bitch and moan and hate – it seems to me that right wing views as a philosophy does not attract people that want to build a better future.

 

Meanwhile, while waiting for BBLB, let me expound on what I think are important distinctions to keep in mind when talking about the merits or demerits of Socialism. Socialism comes in many forms and sizes, and it does no good to attack one form in the expectation that it will take care of the others. In modern history, Socialism made its debut as Utopian Socialism of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, etc., involving the belief in voluntary surrender of property to achieve ownership of the means of production--without class struggle or revolution. This turned out to be, in a word, utopian--although there are small-scale remnants in some of the surviving communes in the U.S. and elsewhere. Then there is Anarcho-syndacalism, inspired by Proudhon which the workers would take over the factories and run them through unions or committees. It took hold in Italy and Spain until it was crushed by fascism. It was criticized by anarchist Murray Bookchin as too preoccupied with the interests of the working class, as opposed to society as a whole. There is also what I'd call Third World Socialism, exemplified by countries like Bangladesh, Tanzania, and Algeria, which are essentially socialist by default. The government took over basic industries because there was no indigenous entrepreneurial class at the time of independence to do so, or have nationalized industries run by foreign corporations. They're probably doing the best they can, as an alternative to neo-colonialism.

Then we come to Marxism, emphasizing class struggle, revolution and a "scientific" understanding of history based on dialectical materialism. The revolution was to come about almost spontaneously, when the proletariat became so large and discontented it would rise up and overthrow the capitalist order. Then what? As BBLB told us, Marx didn't talk about Socialism, but rather expected communism by degrees in a manner he left fuzzy. But he didn't expect state control of the economy. Mrxism is essentially a secular religion, giving the faithful a sense that they have a special insight into the nature of reality and faith in a bright and happy future. And of course it subordinates the individual to the collective. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, many of the faithful thought the revolution was at hand. But Marx didn't anticipate the ability of capitalists to take the pressure off by reforms like the New Deal or diversionary tactics like Fascism, appealing to nationalism. Marxism-Leninism (aka, Communism) adds to the Marxist framework by introducing Socialism as a transitional form to communism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat as a means to eliminating capitalism. The revolutions would be guided by the vanguard of the proletariat, aka., the Communist Party, which would guide the course of the revolution and the government that would follow. After the revolution, a Dictatorship of the Proletariat would be established in which the last vestiges of capitalism would be eliminated, thereby achieving a classless society. The results were the most ruthless totalitarian systems the world has ever seen (yes, worse than Hitler), costing 20 million (in the case of the USSR) to 40 million lives(in the case of China) and an economy run by apparachiki claiming to be "toiling intelligentsia". The Chinese variant has morphed into state capitalism, with the world's most billionaires, and party bureaucrats getting a piece of the action. It is understandable that right wing critics of Socialism like to emphasize this form. But it of course is fallacious to do so, or to pretend that all attempts at Socialism will end up that way.

Then there is so-called Democratic Socialism, found in the platforms of Socialist parties in industrial countries, and occasionally put into operation when these parties take over as a result of elections: the Labour government of Clement Attlee in the U.K. after World War II which nationalized some 20% of the economy, the government of Francois Mitterand in France from 1981 to 1995 (the longest in French history) which brought initial state control over nine industrial groups, and the present governments of Greece and Portugal. Atlee's government struggled under postwar conditions and lasted six years. Mitterand was forced to backtrack on socialism because of inflation. Greece is a basket case. But Portugal seems to be doing well.

Finally, there is Social Democracy, often confused (even by Bernie) with Democratic Socialism. This is best exemplified by the Scandanavian countries, which Six-eyed Shaman likes to tell us are not Socialist. I'd agree, they're welfare states. As I've argued, the hallmark of Socialism is nationalization of industry and the means of distribution and exchange, but right-wing critics like to denounce every social welfare program in the U.S. and Canada as "Socialism". The Scandanavian countries leave industry in private hands but use extensive taxation and regulation to redistribute the wealth through welfare programs. Opinion polls find that the people there are the happiest in the world, and if Aristotle was right about happiness being the primary goal of human existence, that's saying something.

Anyhow, you may agree or disagree with these distinctions, but I thought making them might get us away from the dead end of attacking Socialism by bashing Communism and Black Lives Matter.

 

She's not Native or Canadian.

 

Sure they do... the 1860's-1890's...

Except without immigration...

because, foreigners=bad.

 

The right has a habit of accusing Democrats of doing what the right itself is actually doing. The goalposts have been moved so far right many mainstream Republicans are abandoning ship “log cabin Republicans“ for example. I thought the off-the-wall McCarthyism was gone long ago, but nope. Some see imaginary communists behind every bush. As for Marxists, they pointed out the contradictions of Capitalism which seem to be rising again as they did in the 1800’s.

 

Your vision is with zero incite. I have a vision with incite which can be found in history. Your dream is a pipe dream. You follow a dictate that is found with extremist far left supporters of Marxist/Leninist Pretending to be moderate. . I suppose you will say Lenin never murdered anyone. That Russia has it right, that Cuban dictator Fidel Castro is a good guy, like obama . That the weather underground is good. Like blm and obama agree upon.

 

from blm website. Brown coats for the left, Marxist Leninist promoting and encouraging violence.

Strange Fruit, Revolutionary Violence, and a Love on Fire | Black Lives Matter