“Socialism is a gorgeous idea, and I know it doesn’t work perfectly, or that people understand what the word actually means,” she continued. “For me, it’s taking care of each other. If I have more money, I can spend more money on other people.”
or that people understand what the word actually means
For me, it’s taking care of each other. If I have more money, I can spend more money on other people.
i know it makes us cringe a bit, but the mainstreaming of the word is a good thing! even if most people currently think it means social democracy/“when the government does stuff,” it gives socialists an opening to have further conversations. we gotta channel comrade
a bit and not give ourselves permission to say “we are tired of explaining.”like, doing PSL outreach, in a previous era saying “hi, i’m PowerLurker, an organizer with the Party for Socialism and Liberation” i imagine would’ve sent many, many people running for the hills or into an aggro rage. but in the current moment, people generally respond with a gentle curiosity to learn more (this will ofc vary for our USian comrades based on where in the country they live, but still! Bernie and Zohran managed to be the most popular politicians in the country while using the term).
I agree with you, but the explaining has to happen. It does no good (actually, it’s probably worse) for “socialism” to become popular, but exclusively as imperialist social democracy with vague “helping people” characteristics.
but in the current moment, people generally respond with a gentle curiosity to learn more (this will ofc vary for our USian comrades based on where in the country they live, but still! Bernie and Zohran managed to be the most popular politicians in the country while using the term).
This is encouraging, but as you say, we must never stop explaining.
yeah agree! it can also go the direction of co-opting the term without the right interventions/education. a pithy way to summarize how we approach outreach in
is “always meet people where they’re at…but don’t leave them where they’re at” (i.e., make sure they walk away from a convo having been eased a step or two toward the right answers/analysis)This is good. She doesn’t need to do the explaining.
Agreed, it’s good, but the explaining has to be done for that good to be realized. Not by her, you’re right. By communists.
We can’t all be Jane Fonda.
Jane Fonda couldn’t even be Jane Fonda, she walked that back and then left Vanessa Redgrave out to dry when she was being genuinely radical.
I hope the increasing normalization of the word leads to actual resurrection of a leftist movement in the US that doesn’t keep getting co-opted by libs.
even the brainless can see why kids love socialist toast crunch!
Seyfried then went on to draw a parallel between Ann Lee’s 18th-century communal utopian lifestyle and the aftermath of 9/11.
Shaker communes in America: good example of the historical evolution of socialism.
Jingoistic fervor against Muslim scapegoats from the blowback of American foreign policy: not a good example of the historical evolution of socialism.
“I know it doesn’t work perfectly” then you do not what it is.
This kind of utopian idealism is anti materialist and as Marxists we must fight it at every opportunity. Socialist experiments around the world have won extraordinary victories for working and oppressed peoples, but to call them perfect is idealist nonsense. When looking at the history of actually existing socialism, it is readily apparent to all but the most dogmatic that class struggle is not resolved, but rather continues and in many cases intensifies in socialist societies after the revolution. It should be equally apparent that socialism is not an perfect endpoint, but rather just one step forward in the historical advancement of the class struggle by the proletariat. This intensification of the class struggle under socialism has in many cases also resulted in excesses and mistakes in socialist societies, which as Marxists we should not ignore, but rather seek to learn from so as to advance our struggle. We do ourselves absolutely zero favours in pretending that socialism or socialist societies are “perfect”.
I don’t think the issue is that socialism is perfect (you’re right about that), I think the issue is that 100% of the time someone says it “doesn’t work perfectly” (or “works in theory”, or anything like that), they don’t have any idea what it is and what they mean is Stalin Ate The Grain and we need Nordic Social Democracy.
The phrase definitely does get used in that way, however I would hope that those on this site have the ability to realize Stalin did not eat the grain with the big spoon without jumping to the other extreme of claiming that actually existing socialism is perfect. It’s just a nonsensical position to take, if socialism is perfect then there is no need for a progression to the next historical stage, there is no need for communism. I hope that hexbears are better than that.
Agreed.
saying socialism works perfectly doesn’t say any of that and unless you want to point out the inherent flaw in the social ownership of production then im going to say yes it does work perfectly
What exactly is “socialism works perfectly” supposed to mean then? That it works perfectly as the necessary stage to move from capitalism to communism? You could just as easily say capitalism “works perfectly” as a transition from feudalism to socialism.
what is imperfect about not having private ownership of capital, you’re the one making that claim dawg
Good grief this is unbelievably nonsensical. Ignoring the absurdity of calling a certain relationship of production “perfect”, ignoring the absurdity of reducing socialism to said relationship in a vacuum, failing to recognize that this relationship can only be created through the extraordinarily complex task of winning, maintaining, and advancing the political power of the working class in the complex conditions of the real world, ignoring all this, I have just one question for you. Why are you a communist then? If socialism is perfect, there is no need for advancement to the next historical stage of class struggle, I.E. communism. Those living in socialist societies can rest easy, put down the red flags, and roll up the banners. I wonder why they haven’t done that. Don’t they know they’re already living in a utopia?
sigh
what’s nonsensical is responding to a post like mine with a post like this but tell me more about how a communist society wouldn’t have social ownership of capital because it’s “not perfect” (hint: it would, and jk im not going to read your response anyway)
Yeah I agree. Reading or something would probably be a more productive use of our time than this argument. I recommend Engels’ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htm
