05-16-2013, 10:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2013, 02:27 AM by FireIceTalon.)
Thanks for sharing that Plymouth link, interesting. Although in the very same article there are historians listed that debate whether the Plymouth Bay Colony was actually socialist or not. The colonists came there thinking they were going to have certain resources available to them (gold in particular) and it turns out they were wrong. One of the historians listed brings up a good point by calling it a "contract company", and that you couldnt call it socialism because it would be like calling Halliburton socialist, hehe. At any rate, even if it was collectivist in nature, which is debatable, it just shows once again that it does not work in SMALL SCALES since such communities would inevitably be shut out from global markets. Socialism is a beautiful idea, and it can work. Socialism in ONE country or on any sort of smaller scale however, CANNOT work (despite what Stalinist apologists will preach). Also you have to consider the context of the times - during colonial times feudalism was still the predominant mode of production on a global level, early capitalism was just beginning to develop in Western Europe at the time. Socialism back then likely would have been impossible since the resources and technology needed weren't around yet, or at least not nearly plentiful enough yet. A lot of Marxists will probably disagree with me on this, but capitalism IS to some degree a necessary development for socialism to be possible in my very humble opinion. Regulation and reforms in capitalism are futile, because 1.) the exploitation of the workers still takes place, even if the system seems like its made more "fair", and 2.) it is all too easy for reforms to be rolled back at a later time, as we see now with all the austerity going on. All reforms really serve to do is strengthen the capitalist system more than it does help the workers in the big picture.
And yea, we disagree on how to solve the problems of capitalism for sure, but I'm pretty sure the source of that disagreement comes from our radically different perception of human nature. This is pretty much the root cause for all differences and disagreements between all political ideologies it seems.
I think we are already at the fascist stage, if we aren't we will be soon. Though it certainly has more characteristics of Mussolini's fascism than Nazism. Whatever it is, its fucked
As far as my political leanings go, I can see why you would think I'm an Anarchist, cause of my anti-authoritarian views, and Marxism and Anarchism do indeed have many things in common. And what both ultimately want is the same thing, yet we disagree greatly on how to achieve that goal. If I were any farther to the left I probably could be considered anarchist, but I still think a dictatorship of the proletarian is necessary before socialism could be realized - and any anarchist is going to strongly disagree with this. And as mentioned before, I'm a big fan of DM as a method for analysis, something anarchists also generally aren't interested in, or at least do not use in their analysis of class. This is pretty much what puts me in the Marxist category. Of course, Marxism has its own political paradigm as mainstream politics does, and on the Marxist scale I am very far to the left (Leninists would be center right, and Stalinists and Maoists very far right). Even by communist standards, I'm exceptionally radical in my politics, because capitalism has become so engrained within society to the point of it being a religion, it is disturbing really. I think some sort of radical cultural 'enlightenment' is probably going to be necessary before workers can even consider themselves a relevant political factor again, much less an actual driving force for social change.
To answer your first question, I'd say the Paris Commune was a pretty good example, though as both Marx and Lenin later on noted, they weren't aggressive enough because they didn't finish off the counter-revolutionaries, who came back and crushed the Commune.
And yea, we disagree on how to solve the problems of capitalism for sure, but I'm pretty sure the source of that disagreement comes from our radically different perception of human nature. This is pretty much the root cause for all differences and disagreements between all political ideologies it seems.
I think we are already at the fascist stage, if we aren't we will be soon. Though it certainly has more characteristics of Mussolini's fascism than Nazism. Whatever it is, its fucked
As far as my political leanings go, I can see why you would think I'm an Anarchist, cause of my anti-authoritarian views, and Marxism and Anarchism do indeed have many things in common. And what both ultimately want is the same thing, yet we disagree greatly on how to achieve that goal. If I were any farther to the left I probably could be considered anarchist, but I still think a dictatorship of the proletarian is necessary before socialism could be realized - and any anarchist is going to strongly disagree with this. And as mentioned before, I'm a big fan of DM as a method for analysis, something anarchists also generally aren't interested in, or at least do not use in their analysis of class. This is pretty much what puts me in the Marxist category. Of course, Marxism has its own political paradigm as mainstream politics does, and on the Marxist scale I am very far to the left (Leninists would be center right, and Stalinists and Maoists very far right). Even by communist standards, I'm exceptionally radical in my politics, because capitalism has become so engrained within society to the point of it being a religion, it is disturbing really. I think some sort of radical cultural 'enlightenment' is probably going to be necessary before workers can even consider themselves a relevant political factor again, much less an actual driving force for social change.
To answer your first question, I'd say the Paris Commune was a pretty good example, though as both Marx and Lenin later on noted, they weren't aggressive enough because they didn't finish off the counter-revolutionaries, who came back and crushed the Commune.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)