Rethink Socialism

Well, I feel their intentions are sincere and I would consider anarchists to be allies in the anti-capitalist movement. As a Marxist, I too am anti-state. However, I believe anarchism is flawed. Entering into conflict with the state by means of direct action with the intention of abolishing the state overnight is unrealistic and futile. To abolish the state, the working class must first capture the state, and transform it into a tool for the revolutionary struggle. I’m willing to entertain the ideas of anarchism, I just haven’t been convinced that the bourgeoisie, wielding the full power of the State, will be able to be overcome without the capture and use of said state power.

Well, both.

It started with purely economic reasons.

My teacher was discussing the bailout of the auto industry and financial institutions. He called it socialism. He started blabbing on about the free market, pulling yourself up from the bootstraps, and small government. Just the way he talked when speaking about this subject sickened me, and I could easily deduce that what he was saying was baseless propaganda. I then went home and did my research.

After a few long nights of reading I arrived at the conclusion that capitalism essentially creates the problems that it later tries to circumvent, this to me was an absurdity. Rather than fixing the problems once and for all, capitalism seeks to get around them until the next crash. Boom makes way for bust, and vice-versa. I realized that historically, governments intervene to stabilize and facilitate the growth of capitalism —not only because pure capitalism is miserable—  but because the concentration of capital and globalization made our economy and the world depend on key economic institutions. If these failed, the people would suffer. To me capitalism became, “Privatize profits, socialize negative externalities.” From then on it was a matter of time before I was reading everything I could get my hands on, anyone from Marx to his critics. Through this journey I began to understand capital as a social power for creating wealth by the exploitation and oppression of others, etc. From then on it was only a matter of days before I knew myself to be anti-capitalist. After years of internal debate, I arrived at the ideological position I advocate today, a position that still fluctuates constantly.

Well, in terms of what is good for the people of North Korea, it’s hard to say. Just because their “dear leader” is gone, doesn’t mean the oppressive regime is. His son, who will probably succeed him, could be worse. There could be an awakening among the people now that he is gone, or things could stay the same.

As for my overall feeling on the subject, “Dear Leader” had it coming to him.

I do agree with your statement in some respects, however I would not say there is an underlying law that creates economic and social order out of chaos. What we see when looking at a certain period of history is a mere ‘social reflection’ of the underlying material (think economic structure) world, and order/change comes from a dialogue between the two. This dialogue is class struggle. Social capitalism only arose from class struggle to ease the antagonisms of the time, or as Engels put it, “to cheat the socialists out of the expected social catastrophe.” 

In an abstract sense, we could look at capitalism as a tool for creating the conditions necessary for the birth of a better, more ordered structure. These conditions are as follows: class consciousness, economic and social infrastructure, development of the means of production, and so on…

Capitalism is a necessary evil in the evolution of economic and social justice.

I disagree with your first statement. The second on other hand— is precisely why the USA may not always be capitalist. The capitalist class has continually maintained its status at the expense of the working class. Repression of leftist movements and oppression of the working class is the only way the rich can constantly circumvent their most formidable barrier to capital accumulation (political difficulty with labor), and with that comes the impoverishing of the lower classes. Besides the economic instability of capitalism, the working class and what little they have left will continue to be plundered by the people who need the least. This is just something I cannot see happening forever. Maybe I have too much hope, but I believe the working class will someday decide enough is enough. The only way the United States will always remain capitalist, is if members of the working class continue to say and believe the United States will always be capitalist.

Well, the dictatorship of the proletariat is essentially the true embodiment of democracy, seeing as the vast majority of society is the working class. What form it will take, I cannot say. 

What I can say, however, is what the dictatorship of the proletariat is not. The proletariat being an entire class within society, necessitates that this dictatorship cannot be of one person or a small group of people. In the case of Stalin, the term ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ was used to justify a dictatorship of the literal kind. Marx and Engels, as well as many other Marxist scholars have made it abundantly clear that a proletariat dictatorship by no means refers to the abolition of democracy. 

“This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. This dictatorship must be the work of the class, and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class — that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.” — Rosa Luxemburg

Some socialists/communists have proposed that a true dictatorship of the proletariat can only arise out of direct democracy or some sort of syndicalist organization of society, while others maintain the view that the dictatorship of the proletariat can and will be realized through a democratic republic. Both however, require a class conscious proletariat. Thus, a social revolution must precede the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Well, I think the answer is rather simple— the best propagandist is one with money. Why would those with massive accumulations of wealth want to support views that inherently contradict the nature of their class? The reason the Tea Party has gained so much attention is because large ‘PACs’ (Political Action Committees) like “Americans for Prosperity” are essentially owned and operated by the capitalist class themselves. They are HUGE lobbyists and propagandists. They stop at nothing to bash any policy or person deemed “left”.

I read a lot of Marx and Engels followed by Noam Chomsky, David Harvey, and other more obscure political authors. I also enjoy reading essays written by Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and other famous activists/theorists. I don’t limit myself to just reading about socialism and communism, I read a lot about anarchism and other political theories/philosophies too.

I am very much in love right now, we’ll have been together for three years on the 22nd of this month. She is the most intelligent/beautiful person I’ve ever met. I am definitely the luckiest man in the world.

Strictly speaking of reforming the society we live in, I think there are many options that would help, though it could never get rid of the basic exploitative nature of the society we live in now.

For politicians— Strict term limits on all members of Congress, abolish corporate lobbying and make corporate campaign donating illegal. I’d suggest lowering the salaries of the members of congress, too.

Also, considering it is so hard to become elected without giving in to corporate interests (you need a lot of money for campaigning and advertising… just getting your name out costs a lot) I think it would be beneficial to allow free access to different kinds of advertising to people running for office. 

Basically, get rid of any reason to be a politician besides the pure desire to help people. I don’t know how all of this would be imposed/work, but it seems like that would help.

As for police, that’s a hard one… I really don’t have many ideas. Besides changing laws (even throwing some out in the first place) I would suggest that police be more of a “defensive force”. Not defensive of the state but defensive of those that want their help. I’m not very knowledgeable on police power or how it works, so my answer is probably bad… sorry about that. Hahaha