RAZD wrote:
"We don't debate other websites here (see forum guidelines), so if you want to discuss this, post your salient points - or better still pick your best shot.
Personally I don't see a problem with socialist type programs per se ibeing implemented by elected governments to provide for the pursuit of happiness by the population being served.
Is there some particular aspect of "socialism" (and how do you define it?) that you have trouble with?"
====================================
1) My "silent point" is that the program of SPUSA (Socialist Party of USA) is not clear to me. I was asking for clarifications. That was the essence of my post. Details can only be meaningful in the context in which they were presented.
2) The word "socialism," by the way, means different things to different people. Politicians often take advantage of this. Let me share an item I once wrote about this. They show good things and they hide bad things.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
A) The term Marxist means different thing to different people. My tentative definition is shown below, Do you agree with it?
How to distinguish a Marxist from a non-Marxist? Everyone who believes that proletarian dictatorship is needed, after the overthrow of capitalism, to improve social conditions, is a Marxist. The idea of proletarian dictatorship unites all kinds of communists: Stalinists, Trotskyites, Leninists, etc. Anarchists are not Marxists because they are against any form of state (capitalist or proletarian). But all communists are Marxists and all Marxists are communists. These social engineers, like Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, form parties that are said to be "the vanguards of proletariat."
The failure of Bolsheviks, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, is a very powerful argument against Marx's idea of proletarian dictatorship. But some disagree, saying that the theory is good but was not applied properly. They blame an individual--Stalin. This implies that communist ideology is not falsifiable. Facts consistent with the theory are used to validate it while facts that are not consistent are attributed to something else. A theory that is not consistent with reality must be either revised or rejected. Marx, if he were alive, would not miss an opportunity to compare his theory of proletarian dictatorship with the results of its implementations.
B) The term Socialism also means different things to different people. When I was young I was taught that Socialism is proletarian dictatorship. It was introduced to us (in Poland) as the transitional system between capitalism and communism. But that is not how the term is used in America today. My impression is that American Socialists reject Marx’s idea of proletarian dictatorship; they believe that social conditions can be improved via progressive reforms (not by revolution). In other words, they are not Marxists. Is this impression correct?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My own evolutions, from one extreme (being a devoted stalinist) to another (being an active anticommunist) is described a free ON-LINE book. The link to this short autobigraphy is:
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html
in case someone might be interested. I am also a socialist by I am not going to vote for SPUSA; the emblem of that party is "proletarians of the world unite." I do not wish anyone to experience proletarian dictatorship.
Ludwik Kowalski
Edited by kowalskil, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2