How to save socialism in the US (and other western countries

[SD_Film Artists]

IMO the problems with socialist parties are;

1: They're too stuck in the past by acting as if the economy is about factory owners vs factory workers. In the UK, workers' union membership is at an all-time low and the very idea of a 'working man's club' sounds like a relic from the 1970s.

2: Socialism needs to be more nationalist (NOT to be confused with National Socialism ie Nazism). Even today the UK media was talking about how Keir Starmer (new left-wing party leader) was wise to take a hard line on the alledged Russian involvement with elections, as Labour previously lost a lot of trust with the public when Jeremy Corbyn was consistantly half-hearted on matters of national defence.
Where are the pro-military socialists? You don't have to be a raging interventionist, but at least have some respect for the country that you're a part of. Perhaps it's due to living on a news-diet made from media groups like the Morning Star which loves to hold the double standard of protesting against "western imperialism" yet has no problems with imperialism or hedgemoney from non-western nations.

On a related issue, why the focus on Palestine? It's neither socialist nor progressive.

[Mirjt]

IMO the problems with socialist parties are;

1: They're too stuck in the past by acting as if the economy is about factory owners vs factory workers. In the UK, workers' union membership is at an all-time low and the very idea of a 'working man's club' sounds like a relic from the 1970s.

2: Socialism needs to be more nationalist (NOT to be confused with National Socialism ie Nazism). Even today the UK media was talking about how Keir Starmer (new left-wing party leader) was wise to take a hard line on the alledged Russian involvement with elections, as Labour previously lost a lot of trust with the public when Jeremy Corbyn was consistantly half-hearted on matters of national defence.
Where are the pro-military socialists? You don't have to be a raging interventionist, but at least have some respect for the country that you're a part of. Perhaps it's due to living on a news-diet made from media groups like the Morning Star which loves to hold the double standard of protesting against "western imperialism" yet has no problems with imperialism or hedgemoney from non-western nations.

On a related issue, why the focus on Palestine? It's neither socialist nor progressive.

A great number of socialists and leftists of all kinds are opposed to all forms of oppression, not just capitalism.

Socialists and leftists tend not to support the military because the military is oppressive in and of itself, it tells working class people in one country to kill, maim, traumatize, die, be injured, and traumatized against and by other working class people in other countries. Many socialists and leftist understand that the militaries of capitalist countries are used to intervene and disrupt socialist movements around the world. Socialism at its core is about democracy and self-determination, so military intervention and imperialism goes against those values. Even the structure of standing militaries are very authoritarian and disciplinarian. Socialist and leftists tend to support switching to reserve militaries, temporary militaries, and militias and may support having these institutions be decentralized.

The focus on Palestine is because the Palestinians are being oppressed, their people killed, their people driven from their homes, their people being relegated to second class citizens, their monuments and places of worship being destroyed, etc... The BDS movement against Israel is not to say Israel should not exist or to attack Israel, it is to force Israel to honor their agreements with Palestine, honor the human rights of the Palestinians, and to push Israel to the negotiating table (with Israel willing to make real compromises and negotiations). Socialists and leftists fight all forms of oppression (though our focus tends to be what we consider the largest and most destructive form of oppression, capitalism), that also includes in countries that are not explicitly socialist.

[Cisairse]

If a political movement is doing poorly in a democratic society it's almost always due to the fault of the movement and it's representatives.

This is a naive look at the situation and ignores the very real structural and systemic barriers to socialist movements, particularly in the United States.

[SD_Film Artists]

IMO the problems with socialist parties are;

1: They're too stuck in the past by acting as if the economy is about factory owners vs factory workers. In the UK, workers' union membership is at an all-time low and the very idea of a 'working man's club' sounds like a relic from the 1970s.

2: Socialism needs to be more nationalist (NOT to be confused with National Socialism ie Nazism). Even today the UK media was talking about how Keir Starmer (new left-wing party leader) was wise to take a hard line on the alledged Russian involvement with elections, as Labour previously lost a lot of trust with the public when Jeremy Corbyn was consistantly half-hearted on matters of national defence.
Where are the pro-military socialists? You don't have to be a raging interventionist, but at least have some respect for the country that you're a part of. Perhaps it's due to living on a news-diet made from media groups like the Morning Star which loves to hold the double standard of protesting against "western imperialism" yet has no problems with imperialism or hedgemoney from non-western nations.

On a related issue, why the focus on Palestine? It's neither socialist nor progressive.

A great number of socialists and leftists of all kinds are opposed to all forms of oppression

And yet all hard-left countries (not including small or short-lived things like the Paris Commune) require oppression to exist. I'm trying not to derail this into another 'socialism bad' thread but you're not making it easy. Saying that leftists are against oppression is like saying that they stand for 'hope' or 'virtue'; meaningless without context.

Socialists and leftists tend not to support the military because the military is oppressive in and of itself

By oppressive you mean 'strict and hierarchical'? Of course, as good soldiers are disciplined soldiers.

it tells working class people in one country to kill, maim

No love for the middle-class soldiers? Anyway that's generally how you stop the foe, either that or....

traumatize

Routing the undisciplined enemy.

die, be injured

"War isnt' about dieing for your country, it's about making the other motherf***er die for his!"

and traumatized

Then they're just a coward? (no I don't include PTSD in that, as it's a legitimate mental health issue and not cowardice)

against and by other working class people in other countries.

Against the working class people choosing to invade your people's land.

Many socialists and leftist understand that the militaries of capitalist countries are used to intervene and disrupt socialist movements around the world.

That's the work of politicians, not the military. Also, that was mainly the US army during the 'red scare'.

Socialism at its core is about democracy and self-determination, so military intervention and imperialism goes against those values.

What if you bring a backwards chiefdom into the fold of a democratic socialist federation? The only person having their self-determination being taken away is the chief. Besides, human unity is a vitue in itself.

Even the structure of standing militaries are very authoritarian and disciplinarian.

As said earlier, good soldiers are disciplined soldiers. If the army isn't disciplined then it'll become a victim of the "trauma".

Socialist and leftists tend to support switching to reserve militaries, temporary militaries, and militias and may support having these institutions be decentralized.

And yet that's not what socialist countries do.

Socialists and leftists fight all forms of oppression (though our focus tends to be what we consider the largest and most destructive form of oppression, capitalism), that also includes in countries that are not explicitly socialist.

See first point.

[Adamede]

If a political movement is doing poorly in a democratic society it's almost always due to the fault of the movement and it's representatives.

This is a naive look at the situation and ignores the very real structural and systemic barriers to socialist movements, particularly in the United States.

Or maybe it's a symptom of the failure of socialists in America and elsewhere to reach out to the voters in such a way that sways them to their side.

[No State Here]

If a political movement is doing poorly in a democratic society it's almost always due to the fault of the movement and it's representatives.

This is a naive look at the situation and ignores the very real structural and systemic barriers to socialist movements, particularly in the United States.

Good. I like food

[Cisairse]

This is a naive look at the situation and ignores the very real structural and systemic barriers to socialist movements, particularly in the United States.

Good. I like food

What?

[-Astoria-]

Good. I like food

What?

He's referencing the tired old trope of "SoCiAlIsM BaD; MaKeS EvErYoNe StArVe".

[Diopolis]

If a political movement is doing poorly in a democratic society it's almost always due to the fault of the movement and it's representatives.

This is a naive look at the situation and ignores the very real structural and systemic barriers to socialist movements, particularly in the United States.

The largest of these structural and systemic barriers is sheer incompetence on the part of socialist movements.

[Rightonrighton]

Anti-theoretical perspective in practice means a capitulation to bourgeois ideology. Romanticization of “direct action” and cult of violence lends itself to reaction as with the fascist movements highly influenced by syndicalism. Lacks the Bolshevik discipline needed to win a class war. The IWW is a syndicalist group with an honorable record.

Now, I know that this was posted a while ago, but I have been bothered by this post for ages now. I don’t mean to be rude, but are you possibly confusing Syndicalism with National Syndicalism? (Obviously the IWW is a Syndicalist organization, but some of your criticisms seem to be directed towards National Syndicalism rather than Revolutionary Syndicalism. It would be grossly unfair to claim that both are the same)

Possible. I do think the IWW would benefit from a more democratic-centralist leadership. But as I said they are an admirable organization as are some of the historical syndicalist groups in Spain, France, etc.

[Slavakino]

This is a naive look at the situation and ignores the very real structural and systemic barriers to socialist movements, particularly in the United States.

Good. I like food

Funny I laugh. Tfw Yugoslavia industrialised rapidly and failed to starve because everyone was a farmer and had too much food

[Indian Empire]

If you ask me, step one is to not call yourselves/ourselves socialists. The word still has quite a bit of stigma in the western world, and as much as I like Bernie Sanders, he wasn't much of a help in this regard.

[Phoenicaea]

the ‘pendulum’ has gone wide, so before you had more houses. it means, while a party enlarged in some neighbor countries, it was thin elsewhere.

nowadays, all these distances become closer, so you have got this feeling. labour may become again majority in all these, after.

still, present economic policies much ‘socialist’ in some way.

[-Astoria-]

If you ask me, step one is to not call yourselves/ourselves socialists. The word still has quite a bit of stigma in the western world, and as much as I like Bernie Sanders, he wasn't much of a help in this regard.

This; & also given its popular association with countries that... weren't exactly the best, to put it horrifyingly simply.

[Mirjt]

If you ask me, step one is to not call yourselves/ourselves socialists. The word still has quite a bit of stigma in the western world, and as much as I like Bernie Sanders, he wasn't much of a help in this regard.

So instead of saying market socialism, we should just say cooperatives (and other institutions within market socialism).

So instead of saying socialized medicine, we should just say Medicare for All.

[Indian Empire]

If you ask me, step one is to not call yourselves/ourselves socialists. The word still has quite a bit of stigma in the western world, and as much as I like Bernie Sanders, he wasn't much of a help in this regard.

So instead of saying market socialism, we should just say cooperatives (and other institutions within market socialism).

So instead of saying socialized medicine, we should just say Medicare for All.

Basically, yes. Explain the stances without using the word "socialist" and it'll get quite a bit further. Polling data has shown before that the policies advocated for tend to be pretty popular, but when the people advocating for them are called "socialists", it makes implementation much harder than it could be otherwise.

[SD_Film Artists]

If you ask me, step one is to not call yourselves/ourselves socialists. The word still has quite a bit of stigma in the western world, and as much as I like Bernie Sanders, he wasn't much of a help in this regard.

So instead of saying socialized medicine, we should just say Medicare for All.

Please don't. IMO it goes too far the other way by normalising the US corporate healthcare system and giving a catchy brand name to something which should be a basic civil right.

[Temple State]

Stop aiming for completely state-planned centralized economies. Respect private property of small business owners and instead aim for antitrust laws. Basically, just scrap Socialism and settle for Distributism, Corporatism and/or National Syndicalism.

[Zedeshia]

Stop aiming for completely state-planned centralized economies. Respect private property of small business owners and instead aim for antitrust laws. Basically, just scrap Socialism and settle for Distributism, Corporatism and/or National Syndicalism.

Not all Socialist and left-wing ideologies call for a completely centralized state economy. There are various ideologies, such as the various left-wing forms of Anarchism, Guild Socialism, Syndicalism, etc. that wish to establish a much more decentralized system of economics. To claim that all socialists wish for a state-run economy is simply absurd. Not only that, but doing what you suggest still leads to the inherent issue that socialists wish to solve: exploitation of the average worker for the personal gain of others.

[Nuroblav]

Stop aiming for completely state-planned centralized economies. Respect private property of small business owners and instead aim for antitrust laws. Basically, just scrap Socialism and settle for Distributism, Corporatism and/or National Syndicalism.

Basically this:

Not all Socialist and left-wing ideologies call for a completely centralized state economy. There are various ideologies, such as the various left-wing forms of Anarchism, Guild Socialism, Syndicalism, etc. that wish to establish a much more decentralized system of economics. To claim that all socialists wish for a state-run economy is simply absurd. Not only that, but doing what you suggest still leads to the inherent issue that socialists wish to solve: exploitation of the average worker for the personal gain of others.

Some of us - like me - see a centralised state-planned economy as being a bad idea as well, and advocate for decentralised alternative. Distributism - while it could be worse - fails to properly solve what bothers us about capitalism - working class exploitation.

Still, there's always this...

[FutureAmerica]

Socialism has never existed in the US. Move to Cuba or North Korea.

[Kowani]

Socialism has never existed in the US. Move to Cuba or North Korea.

North Korea
Socialist

Bit of a contradiction there, mate.

[Stellar Colonies]

Socialism has never existed in the US. Move to Cuba or North Korea.

The US is already partially socialist.

Not very socialist, but a little bit.

[FutureAmerica]

Socialism has never existed in the US. Move to Cuba or North Korea.

The US is already partially socialist.

Not very socialist, but a little bit.

All countries are partially socialist. The US has never been even close to being labeled a Socialist country.

[FutureAmerica]

Socialism has never existed in the US. Move to Cuba or North Korea.

North Korea
Socialist

Bit of a contradiction there, mate.

You don't understand Socialism or North Korea do you? North Korea is a classical Socialist State according to Marx.