LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[Democratic Communist Federation]

So what do you guys think of the strawmen anti communist arguments like “communism killed [insert ludicrous number here]” or “communism = no food lololol”.

Check out this website.

[Northern Davincia]

So what do you guys think of the strawmen anti communist arguments like “communism killed [insert ludicrous number here]” or “communism = no food lololol”.

Check out this website.

What are we supposed to find in there?

[Democratic Communist Federation]

What are we supposed to find in there?

The website is a large repository of common arguments and fallacies concerning Marxism.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Here is my review of Marxist economist Richard D. Wolff:

American Richard D. Wolff’s (born 1942) proposes workers’ self–directed coöperative enterprises. On the other hand, I was disappointed when, in 2016, he supported the presidential candidacy of a social democrat, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, and repeatedly referred to him, erroneously by standard academic criteria, as a socialist. Why would a communist do that? Although completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, to quote Yul Brenner’s character in the disturbingly Americocentric movie, The King and I, Wolff’s campaigning, or effective campaigning, for Sanders was, from my perspective, a “puzzlement.” Sanders did more harm to socialism than the most extreme right–winger. Due to his popularity, I only refer to myself as a communist these days, never as a socialist. Meanwhile, a generation of social democrats now defines itself as socialist.

Ṣạdiyqiym Bərẹsəlōḇ–ʿẠkkō of Democratic Communist Federation (Spartakusland)

[Northern Davincia]

What are we supposed to find in there?

The website is a large repository of common arguments and fallacies concerning Marxism.

Is communism and Marxism synonymous now?

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Is communism and Marxism synonymous now?

Wolff claims to be a communist. In fact, he has developed his own approach to communism on this site I referenced. He is associated with a movement called Rethinking Marxism. Personally, I have never been impressed by their work, but that's just me.

[Thanatttynia]

Here is my review of Marxist economist Richard D. Wolff:

American Richard D. Wolff’s (born 1942) proposes workers’ self–directed coöperative enterprises. On the other hand, I was disappointed when, in 2016, he supported the presidential candidacy of a social democrat, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, and repeatedly referred to him, erroneously by standard academic criteria, as a socialist. Why would a communist do that? Although completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, to quote Yul Brenner’s character in the disturbingly Americocentric movie, The King and I, Wolff’s campaigning, or effective campaigning, for Sanders was, from my perspective, a “puzzlement.” Sanders did more harm to socialism than the most extreme right–winger. Due to his popularity, I only refer to myself as a communist these days, never as a socialist. Meanwhile, a generation of social democrats now defines itself as socialist.

Ṣạdiyqiym Bərẹsəlōḇ–ʿẠkkō of Democratic Communist Federation (Spartakusland)

Caring more about gatekeeping terms than actually winning elections is unfortunately why the left has been such a weak political force, at least in the US and the UK, since the mid-20th century. Sanders pushed the Overton window in the US to the left and we leftists should be thankful for that. Socialist-inspired ideas are now gaining a lot of traction in the political mainstream, where they can actually help people.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Caring more about gatekeeping terms than actually winning elections is unfortunately why the left has been such a weak political force, at least in the US and the UK, since the mid-20th century. Sanders pushed the Overton window in the US to the left and we leftists should be thankful for that. Socialist-inspired ideas are now gaining a lot of traction in the political mainstream, where they can actually help people.

Like the majority of communists, I am not interested in elections. When many communist parties put forward a candidate, it is usually a part of a tactic called entryism. In other words, they are using the candidate, even though s/he generally has no ballot access in any U.S. state, as a method to attract people to the party. I am not opposed to entryism, in principle, but I think it needs to be recognized for what it is. Almost no communist realistically expects to win most elections. Those who have won a few local elections belong to social democratic parties (usually Trotskyist) which are communist in name only.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Caring more about gatekeeping terms than actually winning elections is unfortunately why the left has been such a weak political force, at least in the US and the UK, since the mid-20th century. Sanders pushed the Overton window in the US to the left and we leftists should be thankful for that. Socialist-inspired ideas are now gaining a lot of traction in the political mainstream, where they can actually help people.

Like the majority of communists, I am not interested in elections. When many communist parties put forward a candidate, it is usually a part of a tactic called entryism. In other words, they are using the candidate, even though s/he generally has no ballot access in any U.S. state, as a method to attract people to the party. I am not opposed to entryism, in principle, but I think it needs to be recognized for what it is. Almost no communist realistically expects to win most elections. Those who have won a few local elections belong to social democratic parties (usually Trotskyist) which are communist in name only.

In what world are social democrats Trotskyists?

[Proctopeo]

Like the majority of communists, I am not interested in elections. When many communist parties put forward a candidate, it is usually a part of a tactic called entryism. In other words, they are using the candidate, even though s/he generally has no ballot access in any U.S. state, as a method to attract people to the party. I am not opposed to entryism, in principle, but I think it needs to be recognized for what it is. Almost no communist realistically expects to win most elections. Those who have won a few local elections belong to social democratic parties (usually Trotskyist) which are communist in name only.

In what world are social democrats Trotskyists?

Isn't Trotsky around the same political space as Stalin, but with greater ambitions and slightly less genocide?

[Northern Davincia]

In what world are social democrats Trotskyists?

Isn't Trotsky around the same political space as Stalin, but with greater ambitions and slightly less genocide?

Yes.

[Proctopeo]

Isn't Trotsky around the same political space as Stalin, but with greater ambitions and slightly less genocide?

Yes.

Hardly a social democrat.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Yes.

Actually, no one knows for sure, since, although he did work with Lenin, he was never head of state. People often change when those new responsibilities are thrust upon them.

[Northern Davincia]

Yes.

Hardly a social democrat.

Given enough time I'm sure social democrats will fall in line with tankies.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Given enough time I'm sure social democrats will fall in line with tankies.

Evidence please. Social democrats are people who support FDR's New Deal. They have been around for a long time and have never become Stalinists.

[Thanatttynia]

Caring more about gatekeeping terms than actually winning elections is unfortunately why the left has been such a weak political force, at least in the US and the UK, since the mid-20th century. Sanders pushed the Overton window in the US to the left and we leftists should be thankful for that. Socialist-inspired ideas are now gaining a lot of traction in the political mainstream, where they can actually help people.

Like the majority of communists, I am not interested in elections. When many communist parties put forward a candidate, it is usually a part of a tactic called entryism. In other words, they are using the candidate, even though s/he generally has no ballot access in any U.S. state, as a method to attract people to the party. I am not opposed to entryism, in principle, but I think it needs to be recognized for what it is. Almost no communist realistically expects to win most elections. Those who have won a few local elections belong to social democratic parties (usually Trotskyist) which are communist in name only.

If most communists aren't interested in elections I would have to question the real motivations behind their communism. Is it to effect real change or is it for the thrill of being a political contrarian opposed to the mainstream? Barring a revolution, democratic election is the best way we have to help the most vulnerable in our society. Not entering democratic elections is your prerogative, but to then criticise those on the left who do choose to enter these elections is pretty indefensible; they certainly have a much greater chance of actually improving society than people who abstain out of some ideological conviction and wind up pissing their life away having seen capitalism grow only more rampant and callous.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

If most communists aren't interested in elections I would have to question the real motivations behind their communism. Is it to effect real change or is it for the thrill of being a political contrarian opposed to the mainstream? Barring a revolution, democratic election is the best way we have to help the most vulnerable in our society. Not entering democratic elections is your prerogative, but to then criticise those on the left who do choose to enter these elections is pretty indefensible; they certainly have a much greater chance of actually improving society than people who abstain out of some ideological conviction and wind up pissing their life away having seen capitalism grow only more rampant and callous.

I have no objections to piecemeal reforms which will help the proletariat and the subaltern. However, those are short-term fixes. Ultimately, the only objective of communism is revolution, which distinguishes communists from social democrats. The point is, I don't think that capitalism can be fixed. That is communism in a nutshell.

[Thanatttynia]

If most communists aren't interested in elections I would have to question the real motivations behind their communism. Is it to effect real change or is it for the thrill of being a political contrarian opposed to the mainstream? Barring a revolution, democratic election is the best way we have to help the most vulnerable in our society. Not entering democratic elections is your prerogative, but to then criticise those on the left who do choose to enter these elections is pretty indefensible; they certainly have a much greater chance of actually improving society than people who abstain out of some ideological conviction and wind up pissing their life away having seen capitalism grow only more rampant and callous.

I have no objections to piecemeal reforms which will help the proletariat and the subaltern. However, those are short-term fixes. Ultimately, the only objective of communism is revolution, which distinguishes communists from social democrats. The point is, I don't think that capitalism can be fixed. That is communism in a nutshell.

I respect that, but don't you have a preference between a less or more damaging capitalism? Communist revolution might be the goal but it isn't likely happening any time in the near future in the West, why not advocate for possible reform?

[Northern Davincia]

Given enough time I'm sure social democrats will fall in line with tankies.

Evidence please. Social democrats are people who support FDR's New Deal. They have been around for a long time and have never become Stalinists.

How often do they mention FDR's internment camps?

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I respect that, but don't you have a preference between a less or more damaging capitalism? Communist revolution might be the goal but it isn't likely happening any time in the near future in the West, why not advocate for possible reform?

As I said, I have no objection to piecemeal reforms. However, to me the contrast “between a less or more damaging capitalism” assumes that capitalism, in any form, can be less damaging. I am totally unwilling to make that assumption. It seems to me, and you can tell me if I am wrong, that you are arguing for something like social democracy, not communism. The two have nothing in common.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

How often do they mention FDR's internment camps?

FDR wasn't perfect, and I am the last person alive to defend the New Deal, but what does that have to do with social democracy as practiced throughout the world? You seem to be conflating the personal failings of an individual with a global economic policy.

[Northern Davincia]

How often do they mention FDR's internment camps?

FDR wasn't perfect, and I am the last person alive to defend the New Deal, but what does that have to do with social democracy as practiced throughout the world? You seem to be conflating the personal failings of an individual with a global economic policy.

Shall I deem Stalin's gulag system as a personal failure?

[Thanatttynia]

I respect that, but don't you have a preference between a less or more damaging capitalism? Communist revolution might be the goal but it isn't likely happening any time in the near future in the West, why not advocate for possible reform?

As I said, I have no objection to piecemeal reforms. However, to me the contrast “between a less or more damaging capitalism” assumes that capitalism, in any form, can be less damaging. I am totally unwilling to make that assumption. It seems to me, and you can tell me if I am wrong, that you are arguing for something like social democracy, not communism. The two have nothing in common.

You're right that I'm not a communist, I'm just a plain old socialist. You really don't think capitalism is less damaging in, to beat the social democrat drum here for a second, Norway than it was in the throes of the Industrial Revolution? I can accept that it is still damaging, but to draw an equivalence between these two forms of it and say they are the same amount of damaging seems very reductive.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Shall I deem Stalin's gulag system as a personal failure?

You have lost me. Sorry.

This is my last comment in this discussion. Social Democracy is a global economic system, not limited to FDR. Stalin's gulags are one of the failings of Stalinism in the USSR.

[Kubra]

FDR wasn't perfect, and I am the last person alive to defend the New Deal, but what does that have to do with social democracy as practiced throughout the world? You seem to be conflating the personal failings of an individual with a global economic policy.

Shall I deem Stalin's gulag system as a personal failure?

I mean, you should, what's the point of work camps if they don't turn a profit? thing was just workfare for otherwise unemployable NKVD guards.