Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 76

Thread: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

  1. #41
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by Londinium View Post
    Then you don't understand what anarchism is. As I said read the article. Anarchism is a very broad school of theory, what you keep referring to is Liberal Anarchism, there exists other forms such as the aforementioned Socialist (or Social) Anarchism. Mikhail Bakunin is considered one of the most prominent Anarchist thinkers and he proposed a very social form of anarchism.
    Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.
    It means no government, and I cannot see how "socialist" society has anything to do with no government.

    Socialist Anarchism is just Communism pretend to be Anarchism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  2. #42

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    It means no government, and I cannot see how "socialist" society has anything to do with no government.

    Socialist Anarchism is just Communism pretend to be Anarchism.
    Indeed the central core of anarchism is 'no government' but it doesn't mean that you can't include the 'social.' Again you're looking at a very liberal anarchism, aka the absence of a government allows me to act the way I want to and thus I am truly free. However this ignores that we all live in societies and groups, be it the family unit (father/mother/child), the wider family unit, our street or our town. All socialist anarchism talks about is removing the government but at the same time recognising these social groupings and using them to ensure equality and freedom.

    Essentially a liberal anarchist society = no government, no laws, everyone out for themselves. Somewhat similar to Hobbes' state of nature although not exactly.

    Socialist Anarchist Society = many small groupings of people working together without the imposition of a government to oppress them. This may vary from families working together to small village groups to a multitude of independent towns. The key point is although it posits working together and stresses social networks, it doesn't advocate the setting up of a government to facilitate this. A village could work in social anarchist theory but only so long as things are done based upon people's agreement and co-operation rather than a government of any type forcing things upon people who don't want to follow them.

    Bakunin was quite prominent in Socialist Anarchist thought and when you look at Imperial Russian society it's not particularly surprising. The idealised concept of the independent Russian 'mir' scattered throughout Russia operating according to social norms and agreement but without an outside government imposing itself is quintessentially socialist-anarchist.

    Anarchism is freeing the people from the tyranny of the government, it doesn't have to be everyone operating individually. Thus why it can be spun in both Socialist and Liberal ways. Whether it's possible in practice is up for debate, I personally think Socialist-Anarchism (and Liberal-Anarchism for that matter) is as stupid empirically as Communism but remember we are just discussing theory here.
    Last edited by Londinium; February 25, 2011 at 11:51 AM.

  3. #43
    Border Patrol's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Irvine, California
    Posts
    4,286

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    A forced cooperation is a government of a different name. Even in theory it wouldn't be anarchism.

  4. #44

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Puritans in the Americas were some of the first people in the world to embrace universal suffrage, compulsory education, and republicanism.
    This is so far from the truth it is not even amusing.

    1. Puritans did not believe in universal suffrage. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay company established a government by which landowning men who were also full church members could vote for candidates to government. This was by design not all0inclusive, as women, children, and non-church members could not vote.

    2. Compulsory education was effected because the 1st generation of Puritans believed the 2nd generation to be wholly unworthy. They specifically barred the 2nd generation from achieving full church membership because they did not believe the 2nd generation was truly having conversion experiences, a judgment that which directly went against long standing Puritan belief. They sought to take charge of the new 3rd generation away from their parents in the Massachusetts School Laws of 1642 and 47.
    3. The government was not in any way shape or form a republic. Take, for example, the position of Governor.
    Fundamental to Puritan understanding of the world was the idea of “the calling.” This was a basic personal innateness for each individual as to what their ideal job in the community would be, and was in fact a God given aptitude. One would, through trial and error through life, come through experience to understand what their mission in life was. It was also a hierarchical system. Those more given to the role of governor, men like John Winthrop, who was one of the top land owners in the colony, were who truly were called by God to fill the position of Governor. In effect, the choices for voting were very, very small, and consisted almost entirely of the most elite of the colony. This was two-fold. For one, prosperity in the world indicated to the Puritans favor from God. This was essentially a belief that those who achieved and earned more through their lives understood their calling and God’s will for them. In the case of the Governor’s position, this meant that those who were eligible for governor were a very small minority, and for the majority of the first 20 years of the Massachusetts colony, the role usually came to John Winthrop. In the colony Winthrop was among the most successful, and held property equating to about 500 acres. While not a tremendous land owner in the scale of the great nobles of England, Winthrop owned more than enough to live comfortably and to be secure in his own fortune to have the time to dedicate himself to governorship. Not many in the colony could afford to travel all about the colony to deal with various issues that arose. Fundamentally, the elections that were maintained by the government of Massachusetts were means by which the Puritan settlers of Massachusetts could show their piousness and their understanding of God’s Covenants, and to show that they were on the right side. It was not designed for the colonists to express their political beliefs, but to show to others that they understood who was ordained by God for governance. Besides, by the 1640s the first generastion of Puritans was actively barring the 2nd from voting. This was no republic, and certainly not proto-communism. Whoever says it was is someone who has never actually read a damn thing from the Puritans, or about them for that matter.
    Last edited by 43rdFoot; February 25, 2011 at 12:38 PM.

  5. #45

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by Border Patrol View Post
    A forced cooperation is a government of a different name. Even in theory it wouldn't be anarchism.
    ...

    It's not a forced co-operation. It's a co-operation based upon social links. Are you forced to co-operate with your neighbour? no you're not. However if you get on with them you're probably likely to help them with things like looking after their children, DIY, give them advice on areas of things you know about, help them ensure the safety of their house etc.

    Thus there is a co-operation without a government. This is what Socialist-Anarchism is about. It's about the lack of a government and being able to do whatever you want and not to be oppressed. However it also recognises that humans are social creatures and we are able to work and co-operate in social environments without the need for a government to monitor and regulate our interactions.

    There is no force used at all. It's just based upon a positive outlook on human nature, like much of Socialist-Communist thought is. Liberal-Anarchism is a negative thing in a political sense, it's 'I'm going to do this and you can't stop me nor does anyone have the right to, especially governments', Socialist-Anarchism is 'We work better together and without a government telling us what is best for us because we as a social group know what is best for us.'
    Last edited by Londinium; February 25, 2011 at 12:30 PM.

  6. #46
    Border Patrol's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Irvine, California
    Posts
    4,286

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Wiki
    Where individualist forms of anarchism emphasize the individual and his/her will over any kinds of external determinants such as groups, society, traditions, and ideological systems, social anarchism sees "individual freedom as conceptually connected with social equality and emphasize community and mutual aid."
    So what is their free will subservient to then?

  7. #47
    ★Bandiera Rossa☭'s Avatar The Red Menace
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    6,237

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    Fundamentally Anarchism has different principle than Communism; Communism is based on the existence of a community, hence we can say it is one of collective consciousness, while Anarchism is based on if there is no organization at all, hence there is no such collective consciousness existing. So yes, please don't mix Anarchism with that petty Communism.
    I'm not sure how serious you are...so I will just say that Anarchists are usually socialists, and do in fact support organization.

    Quote Originally Posted by Border Patrol View Post
    I don't accept that as Anarchy just as you don't accept creationism as science.
    Most of the first Anarchists were socialists...some of them were communists...Individualist Anarchism didn't come around until after the failures of Owenism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Croccer View Post
    ''Coercive force''? For 's sake, you're a Communist, there's no need to use obtuse Liberal terminology. What do you mean with ''coercive force''?
    Liberal terminology?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Lenin
    The state is a “special coercive force". Engels gives this splendid and extremely profound definition here with the utmost lucidity. And from it follows that the “special coercive force” for the suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, of millions of working people by handfuls of the rich

    Quote Originally Posted by 43rdFoot View Post
    This is so far from the truth it is not even amusing.

    1. Puritans did not believe in universal suffrage. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay company established a government by which landowning men who were also full church members could vote for candidates to government. This was by design not all0inclusive, as women, children, and non-church members could not vote.

    2. Compulsory education was effected because the 1st generation of Puritans believed the 2nd generation to be wholly unworthy. They specifically barred the 2nd generation from achieving full church membership because they did not believe the 2nd generation was truly having conversion experiences, a judgment that which directly went against long standing Puritan belief. They sought to take charge of the new 3rd generation away from their parents in the Massachusetts School Laws of 1642 and 47.
    3. The government was not in any way shape or form a republic. Take, for example, the position of Governor.
    Fundamental to Puritan understanding of the world was the idea of “the calling.” This was a basic personal innateness for each individual as to what their ideal job in the community would be, and was in fact a God given aptitude. One would, through trial and error through life, come through experience to understand what their mission in life was. It was also a hierarchical system. Those more given to the role of governor, men like John Winthrop, who was one of the top land owners in the colony, were who truly were called by God to fill the position of Governor. In effect, the choices for voting were very, very small, and consisted almost entirely of the most elite of the colony. This was two-fold. For one, prosperity in the world indicated to the Puritans favor from God. This was essentially a belief that those who achieved and earned more through their lives understood their calling and God’s will for them. In the case of the Governor’s position, this meant that those who were eligible for governor were a very small minority, and for the majority of the first 20 years of the Massachusetts colony, the role usually came to John Winthrop. In the colony Winthrop was among the most successful, and held property equating to about 500 acres. While not a tremendous land owner in the scale of the great nobles of England, Winthrop owned more than enough to live comfortably and to be secure in his own fortune to have the time to dedicate himself to governorship. Not many in the colony could afford to travel all about the colony to deal with various issues that arose. Fundamentally, the elections that were maintained by the government of Massachusetts were means by which the Puritan settlers of Massachusetts could show their piousness and their understanding of God’s Covenants, and to show that they were on the right side. It was not designed for the colonists to express their political beliefs, but to show to others that they understood who was ordained by God for governance. Besides, by the 1640s the first generastion of Puritans was actively barring the 2nd from voting. This was no republic, and certainly not proto-communism. Whoever says it was is someone who has never actually read a damn thing from the Puritans, or about them for that matter.
    1. Many Puritan factions did - An Ideological legacy of the Diggers and Levellers. Thomas Hooker in particular was an advocate of "universal Christian suffrage" and was successful in extending these rights of suffrage to many people.
    2. I never stated the reason the education was set up...only that it was. Remember - this is a critical writing, I do not necessarily agree with everything the various groups I am writing about represent.
    3. Do you mean Republicanism in the sense of popular rule, or rule by representatives? The second is the most "legit" meaning, and what I was referring to (The method for choosing a representative need not be democratic) but democracy did exist in puritan society, particularly on the local level.

    "In Connecticut the electoral body consisted, from its origin, of the whole number of citizens; and this is readily to be understood, when we recollect that this people enjoyed an almost perfect equality of fortune, and a still greater uniformity of opinions. In Connecticut, at this period, all the executive functionaries were elected, including the Governor of the State. The citizens above the age of sixteen were obliged to bear arms; they formed a national militia, which appointed its own officers, and was to hold itself at all times in readiness to march for the defense of the country." (de Tocqueville, Democracy in America., pp. 37-8.)
    Of course, it must be conceded that not all dissidents in Connecticut were Puritans.
    Last edited by ★Bandiera Rossa☭; February 26, 2011 at 03:58 AM.


  8. #48
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Yet I see my own beloved Republic falling under the same spell, despite the almighty status it has achieved throgh capitalism, free trade and the fundamental right to life, liberty and property. May the spirit of the Renaissance liberate man from the Marxist menace before he learns the hard way, once again, that authoritarian leftism FAILS.
    That, sir, is because of the historical dialectics. No matter how much you believe in capitalism by closing your eyes to reality...this struggle will continue unless humanity finds a new alternative. Socialism is the next stage, and it will always be an issue as long as capitalism exists.

    "All things contain within themselves internal dialectical contradictions, which are the primary cause of motion, change, and development in the world. It is important to note that 'dialectical contradiction' is not about simple 'opposites' or 'negation'. For formal approaches, the core message of 'dialectical opposition / contradiction' must be understood as 'some sense' opposition between the objects involved in a directly associated context."

    As a believer in capitalism, you do not see every thing in the world in a motion related to EACH OTHER...
    THe individual progress capitalsim brings only applies to minority in the world. So long as the oppressed become aware, your fear of socialism will have to grow. Get used to it.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  9. #49

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    "Distribution of wealth" is a politically correct term for "inciting class warfare." Governments that heavily tax wealthy constituents only end up reaping short term benefits in tax revenue; but eventually will harm the economy in the long term as investors and businessmen are driven overseas to more favorable climates. (As a side note, I was pleasantly surprised to see this fact acknowledged on ETW. Crank upper-class taxes up all the way and on high advice, the nice young lady advisor will appear and tell you this.) In a free-market system, it is the wealthy who employ and invest large amounts of capital, and in todays banking system this idea of free-flowing capital and credit is the backbone of the global economy (hence when a nation's credit market suffers, so does its economy as a whole. See US recession of 2008). Liberalism is a messy business. Occasionally it will produce wonders like the United States, but usually it will fail quickly and be replaced by a strongman.



    Centrism and Leftism in Central and South America has its own definition as it is viewed through an inherently leftist lens. That is why the majority of these areas are viewed by the rest of the world as extremist and, separately, why they are in such a mess. The only major economic growth in these areas, as far as I have heard, is made through substantial exports of beef and oil to the US. As a side note, this makes me wonder how any nation, in the Middle East and Central and South America especially, would fare if the US decided to stop shipping billions of tons of food to these regions each year. But forgive me, back on topic.



    I know. The OP however did allude to "primitive communism" in his reference to the native americans, so I simply addressed the broader issue.



    Where are you from? Eastern Europe, for example is democratic socialist but vary wary of communist elements, as they suffered under the Soviets for decades. They are usually very supportive of UN and US actions against extremism. In fact, the Polish military played a major role in the coalition liberations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The point I was making here is that Marxism only works in a world where man is not man; rather, he is some sort of collectively-minded creature, like an ant or a honey bee. And no wonder, for the philosophy was developed by a clinically insane, self-hating Jew; some of whose writings are easily confused with Mein Kampf. Yet this is the man a whole movement of people so fervently believes on? It is truly cult-like, devoid of all reason, and in direct defiance of the most basic human nature. The latter is my overall point, despite how closely I attempted to focus on the OP.

    Also, please provide some examples of successful Marxist countries? China could be considered one, though her economy is sustained entirely by exports of the west, and the fact that the US owes her trillions of dollars. However, her people suffer in silence, and any media coverage of the country by the west is pure propaganda from the Party foreign ministry. This is no surprise, as Adolf Hitler and Mussolini were heralded in the 1930s as the greatest leaders of modern times by all the civilized world outside Germany and Italy. Those living in these countries knew the truth: that the Nazi and fascist regimes rivaled the USSR as the most oppressive of the day, however these regimes so masterfully controlled media attention that they were regarded as the most enlightened in history by foreigners. Hitler even was named Time Magazine's Man of the Year (I don't recall which) in the 1930s. Only after WW2 were the horrors unveiled.

    Similarly, communism and Marxism today utterly depends upon propaganda. Man loves to wallow in self pity and to blame his problems on others. Gather a few thousand ignorant folk and march down main street carrying red flags and chanting "Workers of the World, Unite!" and soon you will have a revolution. Afterwards those in power do whatever they wish. This is the illustrious, global aim of Marxism? If the latter is so desirable, why do tens of thousands risk death and torture each year to flee from communist nations and into western countries like the US, Canada and Britain?


    Yes i agree with you, however, in case of Brasil the exports are not only to US. but manny to China as well, and they begining a new coopration with Portuguese speaking African Countries as well. I think you must put Brasil example on a diferent note then other south american countries on this matter. It is on pair with India, and South Africa a Rising world economy since, for manny years ago. It has is internal social issues though.
    I did said i dont agree with a centralized comunist goverment, from the begining, i realize its inpracticalities and its flaws, i only mention there are some ideials ( policies), who should be taken in consideration in our democratic capitalistic societies, the liberal capitalism should be better controled with better rules for instance. In my coutry for instance we have more to gain, if the State protect the small, and medium companies then the big ones, since are the small ones who are the backbone of the economy, however, this isnt what happen at all.
    There isnt one sucessufull comunist state in the world, at least on good terms,but im not defending it,im only defend what good these ideias bring, and some should be taken in consideration. I said i lived a small scale comunitarism, in a Small village, and it is quite wonderfull, and it works very well. The problem is only you extrapolate to a bigger population. Or a State.
    Im Portuguese btw.

  10. #50

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    That, sir, is because of the historical dialectics. No matter how much you believe in capitalism by closing your eyes to reality...this struggle will continue unless humanity finds a new alternative. Socialism is the next stage, and it will always be an issue as long as capitalism exists.

    "All things contain within themselves internal dialectical contradictions, which are the primary cause of motion, change, and development in the world. It is important to note that 'dialectical contradiction' is not about simple 'opposites' or 'negation'. For formal approaches, the core message of 'dialectical opposition / contradiction' must be understood as 'some sense' opposition between the objects involved in a directly associated context."

    As a believer in capitalism, you do not see every thing in the world in a motion related to EACH OTHER...
    THe individual progress capitalsim brings only applies to minority in the world. So long as the oppressed become aware, your fear of socialism will have to grow. Get used to it.
    If you believe Marx's claptrap that is. Doesn't seem to have worked for Russia and China who actually went backwards (in regards to Marxist dialectics) from Communist/Socialist societies to capitalist. In China's case it actually massively benefitted the country.

  11. #51

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by ★Bandiera Rossa☭ View Post
    1. Many Puritan factions did - An Ideological legacy of the Diggers and Levellers. Thomas Hooker in particular was an advocate of "universal Christian suffrage" and was successful in extending these rights of suffrage to many people.
    Thomas Hooker was one man in a small colony. He does not embody the bulk of the non-separating Congregationalists who left for New England. In fact, he is the exception that proves the rule. The bulk of Puritans in the new world only advocated for male, church-member suffrage. And the first generation Puritans were quick to deny church membership and therefore voting rights.
    2. I never stated the reason the education was set up...only that it was. Remember - this is a critical writing, I do not necessarily agree with everything the various groups I am writing about represent.
    You still stated that it was "compulsory education" without at all clarifying what that meant. All it entailed was learning to read so one could actively engage in bible study. That is a far cry from what Communists demand.

    3. Do you mean Republicanism in the sense of popular rule, or rule by representatives? The second is the most "legit" meaning, and what I was referring to (The method for choosing a representative need not be democratic) but democracy did exist in puritan society, particularly on the local level.
    You've missed the entire point. The governments on New England were not representative. They did not endorse differing viewpoints (which there were plenty of in New England), and instead only functioned as a means by which individuals could show their piety by electing certain "godly" people, regardless of whether they agreed with them or not or whether they were representative. Also remember that Charles remained their Sovereign until he was executed. That is a far cry from a true republic.




    Of course, it must be conceded that not all dissidents in Connecticut were Puritans.
    Tocqueville was writing about a small part of the New England colonies and that text is 180 years old. As a modern secondary source it is not very good. It does not truly grasp the reality of 17th century non-separating Congregationalist Puritanism and he colonies they created.

  12. #52
    ★Bandiera Rossa☭'s Avatar The Red Menace
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    6,237

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by Londinium View Post
    If you believe Marx's claptrap that is. Doesn't seem to have worked for Russia and China who actually went backwards (in regards to Marxist dialectics) from Communist/Socialist societies to capitalist. In China's case it actually massively benefitted the country.
    Only Stalinists claim that "Socialism was achieved" in Russia, and the Stalinists were themselves critical of the Maoists...Lenin, Trotsky, and most of the other Bolsheviks believed Socialism was impossible in Russia unless other countries had a revolution and were able to link their economy to Russia's.

    Quote Originally Posted by 43rdFoot View Post
    Thomas Hooker was one man in a small colony. He does not embody the bulk of the non-separating Congregationalists who left for New England. In fact, he is the exception that proves the rule. The bulk of Puritans in the new world only advocated for male, church-member suffrage. And the first generation Puritans were quick to deny church membership and therefore voting rights.

    You still stated that it was "compulsory education" without at all clarifying what that meant. All it entailed was learning to read so one could actively engage in bible study. That is a far cry from what Communists demand.


    You've missed the entire point. The governments on New England were not representative. They did not endorse differing viewpoints (which there were plenty of in New England), and instead only functioned as a means by which individuals could show their piety by electing certain "godly" people, regardless of whether they agreed with them or not or whether they were representative. Also remember that Charles remained their Sovereign until he was executed. That is a far cry from a true republic.



    Tocqueville was writing about a small part of the New England colonies and that text is 180 years old. As a modern secondary source it is not very good. It does not truly grasp the reality of 17th century non-separating Congregationalist Puritanism and he colonies they created.
    Winthrop is a better source - in his sermon "A Modell of Christian Charity" he called for equality, "solidarity", and faith as pillars of Puritan ideology. Later on he wrote "The History of New England" in which he described the practices and eventual degeneration of Puritan "communism" and their fusion with the other congregationalists.
    Last edited by ★Bandiera Rossa☭; February 26, 2011 at 03:29 PM.


  13. #53
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by Londinium View Post
    If you believe Marx's claptrap that is. Doesn't seem to have worked for Russia and China who actually went backwards (in regards to Marxist dialectics) from Communist/Socialist societies to capitalist. In China's case it actually massively benefitted the country.
    Come on, please do better than this.
    None of those places went backwards although they did not achieve what he really wanted. Both countries formed new schools of socialist philosophy(Maoism and Stalinism) and both did contributed to socialism in one way another.
    Soviets Union proved that planned economy can turn an agrilculture based poor state into a giant industrial and technological center with a much more developed economical standards.
    China too greatly changed its production relations and built its roots which caused it to become a giant today(not socialist today)
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  14. #54

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Only Stalinists claim that "Socialism was achieved" in Russia, and the Stalinists were themselves critical of the Maoists...Lenin, Trotsky, and most of the other Bolsheviks believed Socialism was impossible in Russia unless other countries had a revolution and were able to link their economy to Russia's.
    This is the ultimate Socialist-Communism straw man though. No matter how much empirical evidence you show them, they will always claim that 'Socialism was never achieved.' Well maybe it's time to accept that socialism can't be achieved at least along the lines that Marx and others desired. Plenty of people have tried and plenty have failed.

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    Come on, please do better than this.
    None of those places went backwards although they did not achieve what he really wanted. Both countries formed new schools of socialist philosophy(Maoism and Stalinism) and both did contributed to socialism in one way another.
    Soviets Union proved that planned economy can turn an agrilculture based poor state into a giant industrial and technological center with a much more developed economical standards.
    China too greatly changed its production relations and built its roots which caused it to become a giant today(not socialist today)
    Since when has a planned economy been solely a socialist invention? if you knew your Russian history you'd understand that Witte was performing acts rather similar to Stalin's Five Year Plans in the 1890s under a capitalist Imperial Russian regime. Also having much the same effect without the massive human disaster that was Stalin's industrialisation and collectivisation of the Russian economy.

    Also Mao's rule over China was an absolute disaster and certainly did not lay the roots for China's current growth, you can attribute that to the arch pragmatist Deng Xiaopeng and his introduction of the market to China in limited areas first and then expanding outwards. China has become successful precisely because it has adopted and embraced the market rather than it's baffling experiment with Communism.

  15. #55
    ★Bandiera Rossa☭'s Avatar The Red Menace
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    6,237

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by Londinium View Post
    This is the ultimate Socialist-Communism straw man though. No matter how much empirical evidence you show them, they will always claim that 'Socialism was never achieved.' Well maybe it's time to accept that socialism can't be achieved at least along the lines that Marx and others desired. Plenty of people have tried and plenty have failed.
    I'm not sure you even understand what a straw man is - but either way, the facts of the matter are that Marx formulated his theories with the premise that revolution would take place in an advanced country which could help support and develop poorer countries - the first national revolution that attempted to build socialism in fact happened in Russia, a country in which Capitalism did not really even exist yet. Lenin out of necessity adapted Marx's theories to the situation in Russia and decided that the Soviet Union would face bureaucratic deformation, and eventual capitalist restoration unless it was able to link forces with revolutions in other countries. With the failure of the German revolution he came to believe that the Soviet Union was doomed unless another revolution happened subsequently. He thought their only choice was to "hold on" to that which had been won by the revolution (democracy, a planned economy, etc) until a 1st world revolution could save them. As Leon Trotsky explained in "Revolution Betrayed" - the backwardness of Russia led to a bureaucracy which came to possess interests separate from the working class. This bureaucracy came to control the state, which is why Trotsky believed a political revolution was necessary to return the power of government to the people.


  16. #56
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by Londinium View Post
    Since when has a planned economy been solely a socialist invention? if you knew your Russian history you'd understand that Witte was performing acts rather similar to Stalin's Five Year Plans in the 1890s under a capitalist Imperial Russian regime. Also having much the same effect without the massive human disaster that was Stalin's industrialisation and collectivisation of the Russian economy.
    There is a very distinct difference between capitalist and socialist PRODUCTION RELATIONS and the way resources are handled.
    And yes I'm not very fond of Stalin's practical moves as opposed to his theory.

    Also Mao's rule over China was an absolute disaster and certainly did not lay the roots for China's current growth, you can attribute that to the arch pragmatist Deng Xiaopeng and his introduction of the market to China in limited areas first and then expanding outwards. China has become successful precisely because it has adopted and embraced the market rather than it's baffling experiment with Communism.
    I'm not proud of peasent move of Mao and his practice much either, I see them only as experiments which did in one way or another created some lessons for socialism.
    However both the examples you gave were not hundred percent socialist and not communist at all. (so is Cuba, i'm not even going to mention Korea)
    This does not mean communism never happened. All of these were more like experiments that in certain ways improved socialism but did not achieve communism.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  17. #57
    ★Bandiera Rossa☭'s Avatar The Red Menace
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    6,237

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    There is a very distinct difference between capitalist and socialist PRODUCTION RELATIONS and the way resources are handled.
    And yes I'm not very fond of Stalin's practical moves as opposed to his theory.


    I'm not proud of peasent move of Mao and his practice much either, I see them only as experiments which did in one way or another created some lessons for socialism.
    However both the examples you gave were not hundred percent socialist and not communist at all. (so is Cuba, i'm not even going to mention Korea)
    This does not mean communism never happened. All of these were more like experiments that in certain ways improved socialism but did not achieve communism.
    Good point - communism was one of the original (if not the original) ways in which primitive humans and even many other intelligent animals organized themselves as it allowed for the optimum health of the group/pack/tribe and allowed for the best use of limited resources. This is not the same as the conception of Marxist communism, but it is one of the inspiring ideas.


  18. #58

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Later on he wrote "The History of New England" in which he described the practices and eventual degeneration of Puritan "communism" and their fusion with the other congregationalists.
    How about some specifics? Where in in Winthrop's writings does he identify or advocate anything approaching proto-Communism? Can you provide specific quotations?

  19. #59
    ★Bandiera Rossa☭'s Avatar The Red Menace
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    6,237

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by 43rdFoot View Post
    How about some specifics? Where in in Winthrop's writings does he identify or advocate anything approaching proto-Communism? Can you provide specific quotations?
    Quote Originally Posted by Winthrop, A Modell of Christian Charity
    Quest. What rule must wee observe and walke by in cause of community of perill?

    Ans. The same as before, but with more enlargement towards others and lesse respect towards ourselves and our owne right. Hence it was that in the primitive Churche they sold all, had all things in common, neither did any man say that which he possessed was his owne. Likewise in theire returne out of the captivity, because the worke was greate for the restoring of the church and the danger of enemies was common to all, Nehemiah directs the Jews to liberallity and readiness in remitting theire debts to theire brethren, and disposing liberally to such as wanted, and stand not upon their owne dues which they might have demanded of them. Thus did some of our Forefathers in times of persecution in England, and soe did many of the faithful of other churches, whereof wee keepe an honorable remembrance of them; and it is to be observed that both in Scriptures and latter stories of the churches that such as have beene most bountifull to the poore saintes, especially in those extraordinary times and occasions, God hath left them highly commended to posterity, as Zacheus, Cornelius, Dorcas, Bishop Hooper, the Cuttler of Brussells and divers others. Observe againe that the Scripture gives noe caussion to restraine any from being over liberall this way; but all men to the liberall and cherefull practise hereof by the sweeter promises; as [Page 39] to instance one for many, Isaiah 58. 6. Is not this the fast I have chosen to loose the bonds of wickedness, to take off the heavy burdens, to lett the oppressed go free and to breake every yoake, to deale thy bread to the hungry and to bring the poore that wander into thy house, when thou seest the naked to cover them; and then shall thy light brake forth as the morning and thy healthe shall growe speedily, thy righteousness shall goe before God, and the glory of the Lord shalt embrace thee; then thou shall call and the Lord shall answer thee &c., Ch. 2. 10. If thou power out thy soule to the hungry, then shall thy light spring out in darkness, and the Lord shall guide thee continually, and satisfie thy soule in draught, and make falt thy bones, thou shalt be like a watered garden, and they shalt be of thee that shall build the old wast places &c. On the contrary most heavy cursses are layed upon such as are straightened towards the Lord and his people, Judg. 5. Cursse the Meroshe because he came not to help the Lord. Hee whoe shutteth his eares from hearing the cry of the poore, he shall cry and shall not be heard; Math. 25. Goe ye curssed into everlasting fire &c. I was hungry and ye fedd mee not, Cor. 2. 9. 16. He that soweth sparingly shall reape sparingly. Haveing already sett forth the practice of mercy according to the rule of God's lawe, it will be useful to lay open the groundes of it allsoe, being the other parte of the Commandment and that is the affection from which this exercise of mercy must arise, the Apostle tells us that this love is the fullfilling of the lawe, not that it is enough to loue our brother and soe noe further; but in regard of the excellency of his partes giueing any motion to the other as the soule to the body and the power it hath to sett all the faculties on worke in the outward exercise of this duty; as when wee bid one make the clocke strike, he doth not lay hand on the hammer, which is the immediate instrument of the sound, but setts on worke the first mouer or maine wheele; knoweing that will certainely produce the sound which he intends. Soe the way to drawe men to the workes of mercy, is not by force of Argument from the goodness or necessity of the worke; for though this cause may enforce, a rationall minde to some present act of mercy, as is frequent in experience, yet it cannot worke such a habit in [Page 40] a soule, as shall make it prompt upon all occasions to produce the same effect, but by frameing these affections of loue in the hearte which will as naturally bring forthe the other, as any cause doth produce the effect.


  20. #60

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    That part of his essay is little more than an expounding upon the words of Christ. In using that as evidence of your claims, you are basically acknowledging the Bible as a proto-Communist tract. The fact is that whatever John Winthrop wrote, there was still property differences in the Mass. Bay colony. Winthrop himself owned about 500 acres, and most Freemen about 50. Personal prosperity was viewed by the Puritans as signifying salvation, and Puritans were very conscious about their own personal prosperity and sanctification. Hardly Communistic. "From hence it appears plainly that noe man is made more honourable than another or more wealthy &c., out of any particular and singular respect to himselfe, but for the glory of his creator and the common good of the creature, man..." (A Modell of Christian Charity, 1630, Reas. 3)

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •