Byron In Exile
Frederick Fucking Chopin
- Joined
- May 3, 2002
- Posts
- 66,591
Socialism
- Thread starter Peregrinator
- Start date
Peregrinator
Hooded On A Hill
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Posts
- 89,482
Maybe. Or maybe the word gets flung around when it doesn't apply by people who see it as some sort of evil.
philosophygirl
Fresh brains wanted.
- Joined
- May 5, 2009
- Posts
- 13,299
*spanks Neci*
*spanks Byron and Neci*
The question I have is...
Can you call it true socialism without this element?
To me it would be akin to trying to play basketball with a hockey puck....and still calling it basketball.
The game has changed...the field is different. No denying that.
We have to grow and change....or be left behind.
Or as an old dude once said...
I say we should be ruled by evil super smart space alien cats...they would be fair.
An interesting question -- regardless of whether you view it as disaster averted or opportunity lost -- is why socialist politics got such a greater foothold among the general public in Europe, Australia, Canada, etc., than in the U.S. There are "Communists" -- using that name, whatever it means now -- elected to the French National Assembly and many others. There are also "Socialists" and they get far more representation. In the U.S., Communist and Socialist parties are . . . websites. RWs will say that is because American culture is inimical to socialism. There is something to that, but the story is much more complicated. The best treatment of that question I have read is It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States, by Seymour Martin Lipset and Gary Marks. They believe it resulted from a combination of factors:
1. American political culture is uniquely antistatist, individualist and libertarian, even compared with other English-speaking countries.
2. Leaving out the systematic submergence of certain ethnic and racial groups, there has never been a rigid social (as distinct from economic) class system in the United States, such as characterized the societies of Marx's Europe.
3. Unlike their counterparts in Western Europe and elsewhere, American socialists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries failed to build a power base in the labor unions, which were mostly concerned with bread-and-butter issues like wages, hours and working conditions.
4. Unlike their foreign counterparts, American socialists failed to build alliances with traditional religious believers, and in fact alienated them, to the point where the American Catholic clergy became openly hostile to socialism.
5. In the early 19th century, European socialists got their foot in the door, and established their political presence as defenders of the people, by campaigning for such things as press freedom and universal suffrage. Although these were radical ideas in Europe at the time, they were well established (at least, press freedom and universal white male suffrage were established) in the United States from earliest decades of the republic, which deprived American socialists of the opportunity to fight for them here and reap political benefits thereby.
6. The winner-take-all, first-past-the-post system marginalized American socialists, compared with other countries that had proportional-representation systems. This systemic barrier, however, has marginalized all American third parties of all ideologies.
7. The American federal system prevents Congress, if it ever had a socialist majority, from enacting any thoroughgoing program of socialism on a national scale. However, this cuts both ways: The federal system also provided socialists with more opportunities to contest and win elections at the state and local levels. (See below.)
8. Although American socialists won important offices at the state and local level in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and even controlled the governments of some cities, socialist leaders at the national level failed to build on these achievements. In fact, such non-revolutionary municipal reforms local socialist leaders were able to achieve were dismissed and derided as "sewer socialism" by national party leaders.
9. Compared with more practical and compromise-oriented socialists in other countries, American socialists were unfortunately given over to extremism, sectarianism, and splitting over minor points of doctrine. (That's kind of a socialist thing, but mainly it's an American thing. It runs all through our history, like the New England Puritans splitting into smaller sects and exiling the losers. Once you have a cause, you have to be extreme and self-righteous about it; and you have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you.)
10. The ethnically diverse character of the American working class led American workers to identify with their ethnic group before their class, inhibiting the development of "class consciousness" here. White American proles, for instance, have never wanted to think of themselves as being in the same social class as the blacks.
11. The Socialist Party made the crucial mistake of opposing U.S. entry into World War I. This made the party much more popular among German-Americans, but it also drove a lot of Anglo-Saxons out of the party, especially in the Midwest.
For some reason, Marks and Lipset end their analysis with the 1930s and '40s -- the period when much of the Socialist Party's agenda was co-opted by Roosevelt in the New Deal; the party became even more marginalized by sectarianism; many of the Communist Party members, on Stalin's orders, hid their party affiliation while they sought positions of influence in government and the labor unions, and indeed went so far underground that those who escaped the McCarthy-era purges got caught up in their new careers gradually lost interest in being Communists at all; and the Cold War taught Americans to identify the idea of socialism with treason.
But nothing at all is said about the political upheavals of the '60s and '70s. Apparently, in Marks' and Lipset's view, those apparently do not even merit discussion as lost opportunities for socialism in America.
1. American political culture is uniquely antistatist, individualist and libertarian, even compared with other English-speaking countries.
2. Leaving out the systematic submergence of certain ethnic and racial groups, there has never been a rigid social (as distinct from economic) class system in the United States, such as characterized the societies of Marx's Europe.
3. Unlike their counterparts in Western Europe and elsewhere, American socialists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries failed to build a power base in the labor unions, which were mostly concerned with bread-and-butter issues like wages, hours and working conditions.
4. Unlike their foreign counterparts, American socialists failed to build alliances with traditional religious believers, and in fact alienated them, to the point where the American Catholic clergy became openly hostile to socialism.
5. In the early 19th century, European socialists got their foot in the door, and established their political presence as defenders of the people, by campaigning for such things as press freedom and universal suffrage. Although these were radical ideas in Europe at the time, they were well established (at least, press freedom and universal white male suffrage were established) in the United States from earliest decades of the republic, which deprived American socialists of the opportunity to fight for them here and reap political benefits thereby.
6. The winner-take-all, first-past-the-post system marginalized American socialists, compared with other countries that had proportional-representation systems. This systemic barrier, however, has marginalized all American third parties of all ideologies.
7. The American federal system prevents Congress, if it ever had a socialist majority, from enacting any thoroughgoing program of socialism on a national scale. However, this cuts both ways: The federal system also provided socialists with more opportunities to contest and win elections at the state and local levels. (See below.)
8. Although American socialists won important offices at the state and local level in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and even controlled the governments of some cities, socialist leaders at the national level failed to build on these achievements. In fact, such non-revolutionary municipal reforms local socialist leaders were able to achieve were dismissed and derided as "sewer socialism" by national party leaders.
9. Compared with more practical and compromise-oriented socialists in other countries, American socialists were unfortunately given over to extremism, sectarianism, and splitting over minor points of doctrine. (That's kind of a socialist thing, but mainly it's an American thing. It runs all through our history, like the New England Puritans splitting into smaller sects and exiling the losers. Once you have a cause, you have to be extreme and self-righteous about it; and you have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you.)
10. The ethnically diverse character of the American working class led American workers to identify with their ethnic group before their class, inhibiting the development of "class consciousness" here. White American proles, for instance, have never wanted to think of themselves as being in the same social class as the blacks.
11. The Socialist Party made the crucial mistake of opposing U.S. entry into World War I. This made the party much more popular among German-Americans, but it also drove a lot of Anglo-Saxons out of the party, especially in the Midwest.
For some reason, Marks and Lipset end their analysis with the 1930s and '40s -- the period when much of the Socialist Party's agenda was co-opted by Roosevelt in the New Deal; the party became even more marginalized by sectarianism; many of the Communist Party members, on Stalin's orders, hid their party affiliation while they sought positions of influence in government and the labor unions, and indeed went so far underground that those who escaped the McCarthy-era purges got caught up in their new careers gradually lost interest in being Communists at all; and the Cold War taught Americans to identify the idea of socialism with treason.
But nothing at all is said about the political upheavals of the '60s and '70s. Apparently, in Marks' and Lipset's view, those apparently do not even merit discussion as lost opportunities for socialism in America.
Last edited:
Peregrinator
Hooded On A Hill
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Posts
- 89,482
That's a great question. From what I'm seeing, no, you can't.
Great post, Orf, thanks.
I have another question of my own:
Why is it that when someone proposes an idea, no matter what the idea is, the charge of "that's socialist" can be levied at it as if it were automatically assumed that socialism is a bad thing?
Example: Obama and the Dems come up with a universal healthcare plan.
Someone on Lit inevitably says it's socialism.
Well, maybe, or maybe not, but so what? The argument becomes whether or not Obama is a socialist, rather than whether it's a good plan. It's as if simply posting "Obama is a socialist" is enough to show the universe why he's a lousy president.
Someone explain that to me.
Explain it? There are several answers to that question and every single one of them is painfully obvious.
Well, you can, kinda, depending on your definition of "socialism" but also depending on your definition of "private property." As George Orwell (best-known for his satires on Soviet Communism, but a self-ID'd Socialist until the day he died) wrote in 1941:
philosophygirl
Fresh brains wanted.
- Joined
- May 5, 2009
- Posts
- 13,299
That's a hard one dear as that was a big problem and a strong sticking point for socialism...defining private property.
But going by the definition you have provided, which is a nice straight forward one...do you think that only meeting one or two of the criteria is enough to make it complete?
I think socialism in today's world is no more than a label. The ruler people use to measure is outdated.
I don't care for labels on my clothes and even less when it comes to politics.
Purity in political ideologies, I think, has died and is a rotting body in the middle of the room.
Any society has to have concern for the general welfare of the masses and economic stability...these can not be seperated.
Otherwise you are just putting tiny bandages on a gaping wound.
Peregrinator
Hooded On A Hill
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Posts
- 89,482
I thought so, yeah. I'm wondering if any of the people here who do it constantly are going to step up and act like grownups.
Peregrinator
Hooded On A Hill
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Posts
- 89,482
That's an interesting definition. I guess what I need now is for the next idiot that uses the word as a pejorative here to define it, so we can have a conversation about it.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
OK
If a doctrine is defined by its goals, then Socialism is Communism. There is no difference between the two beyond the path taken to achieve the objectives.
As far as 'who' is a Socialist/Communist, well, anyone who is in agreement with the goals.
Ishmael
Peregrinator
Hooded On A Hill
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Posts
- 89,482
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
And just how else could one possibly define a doctrine? Seriously Perg, that was not a very well thought out question on your part.
Ishmael
Peregrinator
Hooded On A Hill
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Posts
- 89,482
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
None of which are core constructs of Socialist doctrine. High sounding words with little content behind them. Those are political terms, words to make the heart soar and bring tears to the eyes. When delivered by a truly gifted orator they really do cause men to weep.
The wise man begs the question, "How you gonna get us there?" And it the answer to that question that exposes all.
Ishmael
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
None of which are core constructs of Socialist doctrine. High sounding words with little content behind them. Those are political terms, words to make the heart soar and bring tears to the eyes. When delivered by a truly gifted orator they really do cause men to weep.
The wise man begs the question, "How you gonna get us there?" And it is the answer to that question that exposes all.
Ishmael
What would you consider core constructs of socialist doctrine?
Peregrinator
Hooded On A Hill
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Posts
- 89,482
Why do you log in to Lit at all?
I didn't say they were, obviously. They are, however, ideals of various political schools of thought, and as such, legitimate means of judging those schools. You asked "And just how else could one possibly define a doctrine? " I answered with ideals espoused by political movements. If you say you're a "zlotist" and I ask you what it means, if your answer is "I think individual liberty is a great evil," then I don't need to ask about your goals or methods. Your philosophical underpinning is enough.
"The wise man begs the question, "How you gonna get us there?" And it the answer to that question that exposes all."
The methods used by a lot of political groups are almost identical; make large contributions to elected officials, bribery, promise the idiots bread and circuses, appeal to the emotions, etc, etc. I don't think your yardstick is sufficient.
And anyway, is it the goal, or "how you gonna get us there?" Pick one. Or revise your earlier question about how else to judge doctrine.
Joeybagadonuts
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Posts
- 9,202
I thought Obama was a fascist, nazi, Muslim!
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
Never confuse 'ideals' with goals. Often they are mutually exclusive when you think them through.
Ishmael
Have no idea why you even think that's any of your business...
...but evidently it really gets to you.
Enough that you continue to be so inspired that you post to yourself...
...and tag my un to it.
So...
...that's beginning to be a very entertaining reason.
Keep it up...
...coach.
MOMMY!
They're calling me a socialist again!
