Socialist United States

kowalskil

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
62
Reaction score
2
Location
New Jersey, USA
M. Soltysik, one of the leaders of SPUSA (Socialist Party of the USA), was recently interviewed by M. Bonanno, as reported in an OpEdNews article:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/LA-Socialist-Party-Local-H-by-Michael-Bonanno-101220-602.html

After briefly commenting on that interview, I wrote my own PoEdNews article:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Socialist-United-States-by-Ludwik-Kowalski-101222-350.html

What follows is a summary of my article.

1) M.S. wants us to discuss socialism without linking it with the USSR, the first socialist country in the world. I objected to this. I think Stalinism must be studied in order to avoid Soviet mistakes and Soviet crimes.

2) Referring to capitalists, M.S. said “fat cats have had fun at the expense of the working class for way too long.” What should be done with them? Are all fat cats parasitic? Was Henry Ford parasitic? Is Bill Gates parasitic? What fraction of “his” billions is invested in “our” economy, rather than consumed? What fraction is used in scientific research? I suspect that private consumption is below 1%, including luxury homes, private jets, etc.

Why was the Soviet agricultural system, based on collective farms, much much less productive than our own system? What should be done with American agricultural capitalists? Should they be treated as kulaks were in the Soviet Union? Who will run our airline companies, our TV stations, our restaurants and our barber shops? Why is the SPUSA program silent on this? Do you agree that the Soviet experience should not be ignored in answering such questions?

3) The program of SPUSA, at www.socialistparty-usa.org , displays the party emblem. It calls for unity of proletarians of the world. I know this slogan very well; it was always displayed on the first page of the main Stalinist newspaper, Prawda, till 1942. What is wrong in my suspecting that the SPUSA is a Marxist-Leninist party in disguise?

4) The party program contains this statement: “The Socialist Party is committed to full freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion, and to a multi-party system." How can anyone dislike such proclamations? The question is how to proceed without creating something that is much worse than what we already have in America. Similar promises were made by Lenin, in 1917, and we know what happened. How to avoid similar disasters?

5) The program also states that “socialists struggle for the full freedom of women and men to control their own bodies and reproductive systems and to determine their own sexual orientation." That is good. Will this struggle be easier under socialism? Those who oppose abortions will still exist. Yes, I am thinking about “freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion” mentioned in point 4 above.

6) What do the SPUSA leaders mean by “democratic revolution”? Speculating about the future, and trying to turn dreams into reality, are attractive but sooner or later, as before, idealists will be pushed aside, by revolutionary leaders, due to “practical necessity.” Soldiers do not win wars by discussing orders; they win by obeying orders. In my opinion evolutionary social reforms are more desirable than revolutions. Do you agree? I do not wish anyone to experience another proletarian dictatorship.

7) Socialism as a vision of paradise on earth? Yes indeed. But not via proletarian dictatorship! My father was a communist. But he died in Kolyma, the worst corner of GULAG, at the age of 36, about two years after being arrested in Moscow. His two letters from Kolyma, to my mother and me, are in this free ON-LINE autobiography (the link should appear below the signature).

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA
.
.
 

PinkAmy

New kid, be gentle!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
2,758
Reaction score
423
Location
Philadelphia
I don't think most people in the USA know the difference between socialism, dictatorship and hitler. They lump the two together, at least in politics. Your bring up many important points.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Don't get distracted by labels.
Robert A. Heinlein said:
Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
 

shawkins

Ahhh. Sweet.
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
2,739
Reaction score
848
Location
The business end of a habanero pepper IV
Don't succumb to the temptation to oversimplify, either.

[quote="J. Wagoner";]
For every problem, there exists a simple and elegant solution that is absolutely wrong.
[/quote]

I don't know much about socialism, but I suspect there's more to it than can be tidily summarized by a knee-jerk dismissal. It's also worth noting that Heinlein himself ran for office and lost.
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,114
Reaction score
8,867
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
the problem with most views of socialism is the notion of it as discrete system in and of itself.

socialism exists in nearly every modern society at some point on the continuum.

most problems arise from those on the right who condemn any vestige of socialistic policy and those on the left who see every aspect of life through the prism of socialist doctrine.
 
Last edited:

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
So you're saying that Heinlein eventually realized he was wrong?
I once thought the state was what it claimed to be, too, but after close examination of the facts changed my position. Kinda along the lines of the scientific method. What's your point?
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
I once thought the state was what it claimed to be, too, but after close examination of the facts changed my position. Kinda along the lines of the scientific method. What's your point?

The same point I've made in the past, when you've posted that same quote: it's nonsense. It's not true and therefore useless.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
What David Brin said to me in an elevator at a science fiction convention in the mid 90s is probably more accurate, although not completely so:

We're all libertarians. We're just divided into happy libertarians and unhappy libertarians.
 

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
40,775
Reaction score
5,947
Location
Some personalized demiplane
socialism exists in nearly every modern society at some point on the continuum.

most problems arise from those on the right who condemn any vestige of socialistic policy and those on the left who see every aspect of life through the prism of socialist doctrine.


I could say more, but Haskins' hit the nail on the head here.
 

citymouse

fantasy dweller
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
1,316
Reaction score
140
There have been many threads on socialism on AW, however, here is Lawrence O'donnell's "rewrite" on sports socialism in the USA. I have to say I never thought about it in quite this way. Never mind one one may think about pro-sports or the Super Bowl in particular, just hear O'donnell out. The segment I refer to is the 5th one down on the right of the page.

http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/
 

Noah Body

Entertainment Ronin
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,799
Reaction score
375
Location
No Longer Styling in Shinjuku
What David Brin said to me in an elevator at a science fiction convention in the mid 90s is probably more accurate, although not completely so:

We're all libertarians. We're just divided into happy libertarians and unhappy libertarians.

If Brin had told me that back during our meetings in LA in 2002, it likely would have stopped our long-running argument dead. :D
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
What David Brin said to me in an elevator at a science fiction convention in the mid 90s is probably more accurate, although not completely so:

We're all libertarians. We're just divided into happy libertarians and unhappy libertarians.
Brin's done some great stuff. Here's the essay where he expressed that statement more fully. And here's an excerpt: (bolding mine)
Ah, but then there's Cheerful Libertarianism. (Or perhaps it should be called Maturationalism. Under this Look-Forward zeitgeist, the future era of freedom will come about for one simple reason.

Because if we make a future world in which all children grow up healthy and well educated and free-minded, they will naturally, and of their own free will, choose a society free of coercion. Because that is what any person in his or her own right mind would want!

Mature, knowledgeable and satiable people will tend to approach the near-ideal society of our fairy tale from nearly any starting point, since almost any unafraid adult will deem it the only decent way to live. Absence of fear is key, persuading individuals to forsake ruthless predation in favor of fair competition.

Pragmatism is why I say that anyone for more freedom and less government is a fellow traveler. Philosophically, I believe we have to be careful not to lose sight of that future by compromising our way into the hands of those who want to reverse that flow toward freedom.

I certainly err sometimes in the direction of philosophy over pragmatism. I personally believe that's safer than erring in the other direction. If I'm not convinced we're heading toward an era where children are more free-minded than their parents, better educated than their parents, and where the standard of living will continue to improve for each generation, I'm going to speak up and do what I can to get the car moving in the right direction again. Those are the conditions I see today, and IMO they're more pronounced since 9/11, not less. When I see those conditions reverse, I'll break out the pom-poms and be a happy libertarian. YMMV.

Oh, and in the essay, Brin also makes a solid case for Heinlein being one of those pragmatists... as well as Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and F. A. Hayek. (Keynes and Krugman are conspicuously absent) ;)
Also in the pragmatist camp we find Robert Heinlein, whose famed works emphasized the desired future outcome -- people who are increasingly smart and capable and, above all, more free. Such people will be able to think for themselves. In other words, our formidable descendants will probably be libertarians -- (and environmentalists and non-racists) -- not because of ornate philosophical incantations but because that is how anyone with more than a gram of sanity and sense would want to live.
A damn good read. Well worth a little time.
 
Last edited:

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
10,793
Reaction score
1,728
Pragmatism is why I say that anyone for more freedom and less government is a fellow traveler. Philosophically, I believe we have to be careful not to lose sight of that future by compromising our way into the hands of those who want to reverse that flow toward freedom.

I certainly err sometimes in the direction of philosophy over pragmatism. Oh, and in the essay, Brin also makes a solid case for Heinlein being one of those pragmatists... as well as Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and F. A. Hayek. (Keynes and Krugman are conspicuously absent) ;)

I think any political ideology, functioning at the apex of its pure and most idealist form, works, and certainly would have the loyalty of subsequent generations. The problem is the "problems" inherent in any political ideology which does not function at its apex - as none do - but at the level of common human connivance. . . .
 

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
There are many kinds of socialist movements that are wildly different from each others, and some of those socialist movements are fully democratic and "liberal". I direct you to the social democrats in Europe, for instance. They do not espouse revolution as an ideal, but want to achieve socialism through democracy and respect for the individual. Social democracy has ruled in many parts of Europe for decades. I direct you to Labour in the UK, or the Social democrats in Scandinavia, or in Germany.

You have the many bits in that kaleidoscope of movement called "the fourth international" which espouse anarchic socialism, from the Syndicalists to the Trotskijists. The Syndicalist variant of socialism is very strong in say France and Italy. While the Palinites of the world will sneer at any kind of socialism as Marxist-Leninist, that only shows their shallow knowledge about the subject. Things have moved on since 1917 and there have been many icepick moments that divide the socialists up into different clans and loyalties and philosophies.
 
Last edited:

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
I think any political ideology, functioning at the apex of its pure and most idealist form, works,

I think any political ideology, functioning at the apex of its pure and most idealist form, goddamn certain doesn't work.. .

The sooner ideologues are strangled by the entrails of bureaucrats, the better the world will be.
 

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
10,793
Reaction score
1,728
I think any political ideology, functioning at the apex of its pure and most idealist form, goddamn certain doesn't work.. .

The sooner ideologues are strangled by the entrails of bureaucrats, the better the world will be.

All right, well, give me an example. Here's the thing, Bbird. Political philosophies are always sold to the populace in glowing terms, and indeed, they are generally written in glowing terms. The idea behind Marxism - for example - was to benefit the masses. I'm not talking about religion now, but political ideologies. . . .