In defense of Liberal Marxism

[Cisairse]

During the RNC, Joe Biden was slandered as a "liberal Marxist"

Well Joe Biden is not a liberal marxist. But I am. And I'd like to start a discussion about what liberal Marxism should look like.

I believe that the ideals of free expression and individual liberty, as expressed in unqualified language within the Declaration of Independence, require a system wherein workers are not slaves to surplus-value theft and the horrifying indignity of the capitalist mode of production. Liberalism cannot exist without socialism, because capitalist enslavement of workers extinguishes all so-called "Freedoms" before they could ever be manifested or exercised. For evidence of this see all of history.

Also, so-called "libertarian socialists" are plainly misguided. Despite the utopian claims of Kropotkin, if socialism accompanies an abolition of the government, any anarchist socialist society which controls substantial resources will immediately be invaded by all global powers. All known anarchist socialist societies exist only because they either (1) are currently being propped up by great powers or (2) control no notable resources and are not self-sustainable anyway.

Therefore, I posit that liberal marxism is not only the only true manifestation of liberalism, but also the only viable alternative to Marxism–Leninism for socialist systems.

I would very much like to hear NSG's opinions on this idea.

[Stylan]

yikes

[Ravenstva]

quite cringe if I'm going to be honest with you fam.

[Zeritae]

I disagree, or in more modern terms: Unbased.

[Khoronzon]

haha l*beral

[Bombadil]

There's a guy who decided to give everyone in his company the same salary, including himself, and by doing so managed to give everyone $70K a year from receptionist to executive. Rush Limbaugh said he hoped that company would fail because socialism doesn't work, the company has since grown 10x because everyone feels in it together, equal and valued.

There may be examples of unbridled capitalism driving stronger growth but growth isn't the be all and end all and, frankly, 70K is more than enough for anyone especially if it makes for a pleasant, equally owned, working environment.

It's possible, and probably better.

[Stylan]

There's a guy who decided to give everyone in his company the same salary, including himself, and by doing so managed to give everyone $70K a year from receptionist to executive. Rush Limbaugh said he hoped that company would fail because socialism doesn't work, the company has since grown 10x because everyone feels in it together, equal and valued.

There may be examples of unbridled capitalism driving stronger growth but growth isn't the be all and end all and, frankly, 70K is more than enough for anyone especially if it makes for a pleasant, equally owned, working environment.

It's possible, and probably better.

socialism isn't when everyone is paid the same

[Grenartia]

There's a guy who decided to give everyone in his company the same salary, including himself, and by doing so managed to give everyone $70K a year from receptionist to executive. Rush Limbaugh said he hoped that company would fail because socialism doesn't work, the company has since grown 10x because everyone feels in it together, equal and valued.

There may be examples of unbridled capitalism driving stronger growth but growth isn't the be all and end all and, frankly, 70K is more than enough for anyone especially if it makes for a pleasant, equally owned, working environment.

It's possible, and probably better.

socialism isn't when everyone is paid the same

Neither is it when the government owns everything.

[Bombadil]

There's a guy who decided to give everyone in his company the same salary, including himself, and by doing so managed to give everyone $70K a year from receptionist to executive. Rush Limbaugh said he hoped that company would fail because socialism doesn't work, the company has since grown 10x because everyone feels in it together, equal and valued.

There may be examples of unbridled capitalism driving stronger growth but growth isn't the be all and end all and, frankly, 70K is more than enough for anyone especially if it makes for a pleasant, equally owned, working environment.

It's possible, and probably better.

socialism isn't when everyone is paid the same

Sure it is, everyone has equal ownership as a community, and equal reward.. within that company it's a socialist means of working. It could easily be extended, GDP per person in the US is some 62K, and if everyone was equally invested in raising that then I imagine economies would move along nicely.

'Socialism doesn't work' is bullshit spouted by vested interests who buy influence to spread that message.

[Cisairse]

There's a guy who decided to give everyone in his company the same salary, including himself, and by doing so managed to give everyone $70K a year from receptionist to executive. Rush Limbaugh said he hoped that company would fail because socialism doesn't work, the company has since grown 10x because everyone feels in it together, equal and valued.

There may be examples of unbridled capitalism driving stronger growth but growth isn't the be all and end all and, frankly, 70K is more than enough for anyone especially if it makes for a pleasant, equally owned, working environment.

It's possible, and probably better.

W-what?

[Stylan]

socialism isn't when everyone is paid the same

Neither is it when the government owns everything.

I don't think that, do you assume that because I call myself a tankie?

Also, that phrase is a tad ubiquitous, because if the state/government are the workers, and the workers are the state, and the state owns everything, that is very much Marxist in practice and socialist.

[Stylan]

socialism isn't when everyone is paid the same

Sure it is, everyone has equal ownership as a community, and equal reward.. within that company it's a socialist means of working. It could easily be extended, GDP per person in the US is some 62K, and if everyone was equally invested in raising that then I imagine economies would move along nicely.

'Socialism doesn't work' is bullshit spouted by vested interests who buy influence to spread that message.

I'm a tankie mate. I am not opposed to socialism.

That isn't socialism; we need a vanguard party, a brief transition state before going into post-scarcity full communism.

[Ravenstva]

socialism isn't when everyone is paid the same

Neither is it when the government owns everything.

Socialism is when the government does stuff. The more stuff it does, the more socialister it is, and when it does a real lot of stuff then its communism.

[Stylan]

Neither is it when the government owns everything.

Socialism is when the government does stuff. The more stuff it does, the more socialister it is, and when it does a real lot of stuff then its communism.

What's that Cenk Uyghur quote again?

"Socialism is when the government does some stuff, and the private sector does some stuff. Communism is when the government does everything. The U.S. is a socialist state. It won't lead to Marxism."

- Cenk Uyghur

[Grenartia]

Neither is it when the government owns everything.

I don't think that, do you assume that because I call myself a tankie?

Also, that phrase is a tad ubiquitous, because if the state/government are the workers, and the workers are the state, and the state owns everything, that is very much Marxist in practice and socialist.

The workers aren't the state if there is only one party and no free and fair elections. And even if there were no such thing as political repression in the USSR and its puppets, state ownership of the means of production is vastly different from (arguably inefficient and inferior to) the workers directly owning the MoP.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat wasn't meant to be taken literally (not that the Soviet-aligned dictatorships were ever truly of the proletariat in the first place), and 1984 isn't an instruction manual.

[Ravenstva]

Socialism is when the government does stuff. The more stuff it does, the more socialister it is, and when it does a real lot of stuff then its communism.

What's that Cenk Uyghur quote again?

"Socialism is when the government does some stuff, and the private sector does some stuff. Communism is when the government does everything. The U.S. is a socialist state. It won't lead to Marxism."

- Cenk Uyghur

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgiC8YfytDw

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

Not only do I believe nothing you said was right, you also say that the way you think is the only right way to think. I can name a lot of bad people who thought that way, and no, a worker in a capitalist society is not a slave, the US just has an interesting way of going with capitalism. My honest opinion? Your idea is cringe, and the only people who would approve of it are edgy teenagers who know nothing about Stalin but praise him anyways.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

socialism isn't when everyone is paid the same

Sure it is, everyone has equal ownership as a community, and equal reward.. within that company it's a socialist means of working. It could easily be extended, GDP per person in the US is some 62K, and if everyone was equally invested in raising that then I imagine economies would move along nicely.

'Socialism doesn't work' is bullshit spouted by vested interests who buy influence to spread that message.

Wealth isn't income. Wealth is made of income you save or invest.

I really wonder what Marx would make of 401(k)'s and online investing. His beloved proletariat owning shares in the means of production. It's a viable model for future communism, but only if everyone somehow has equivalent investment wealth.

[Bombadil]

Sure it is, everyone has equal ownership as a community, and equal reward.. within that company it's a socialist means of working. It could easily be extended, GDP per person in the US is some 62K, and if everyone was equally invested in raising that then I imagine economies would move along nicely.

'Socialism doesn't work' is bullshit spouted by vested interests who buy influence to spread that message.

I'm a tankie mate. I am not opposed to socialism.

That isn't socialism; we need a vanguard party, a brief transition state before going into post-scarcity full communism.

Sure, a good degree of government as community driven regulation and social services such as education and healthcare remain important. Essentially vested interests use 'freedom' and 'socialism' as wedge points to drive two things, lower regulation and lower taxes so they can make more profit - it doesn't need to be that way and it's creating a highly divisive population.

[Cisairse]

Not only do I believe nothing you said was right, you also say that the way you think is the only right way to think. I can name a lot of bad people who thought that way, and no, a worker in a capitalist society is not a slave, the US just has an interesting way of going with capitalism. My honest opinion? Your idea is cringe, and the only people who would approve of it are edgy teenagers who know nothing about Stalin but praise him anyways.

I'm not a teenager but okay

[Grenartia]

Sure it is, everyone has equal ownership as a community, and equal reward.. within that company it's a socialist means of working. It could easily be extended, GDP per person in the US is some 62K, and if everyone was equally invested in raising that then I imagine economies would move along nicely.

'Socialism doesn't work' is bullshit spouted by vested interests who buy influence to spread that message.

I'm a tankie mate. I am not opposed to socialism.

That isn't socialism; we need a vanguard party, a brief transition state before going into post-scarcity full communism.

What happens when the "vanguard party" refuses to cede its grip on power to make room for actual socialism or communism, and the "brief transition state" becomes a totalitarian regime just as bad as the capitalist regimes it claims to oppose?

[Kowani]

Sure it is, everyone has equal ownership as a community, and equal reward.. within that company it's a socialist means of working. It could easily be extended, GDP per person in the US is some 62K, and if everyone was equally invested in raising that then I imagine economies would move along nicely.

'Socialism doesn't work' is bullshit spouted by vested interests who buy influence to spread that message.

I'm a tankie mate. I am not opposed to socialism.

That isn't socialism; we need a vanguard party, a brief transition state before going into post-scarcity full communism.

Yes. This has worked.

[Cisairse]

Sure it is, everyone has equal ownership as a community, and equal reward.. within that company it's a socialist means of working. It could easily be extended, GDP per person in the US is some 62K, and if everyone was equally invested in raising that then I imagine economies would move along nicely.

'Socialism doesn't work' is bullshit spouted by vested interests who buy influence to spread that message.

Wealth isn't income. Wealth is made of income you save or invest.

I really wonder what Marx would make of 401(k)'s and online investing. His beloved proletariat owning shares in the means of production. It's a viable model for future communism, but only if everyone somehow has equivalent investment wealth.

Engels discussed illusory self-management in The Housing Question

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

There's a guy who decided to give everyone in his company the same salary, including himself, and by doing so managed to give everyone $70K a year from receptionist to executive. Rush Limbaugh said he hoped that company would fail because socialism doesn't work, the company has since grown 10x because everyone feels in it together, equal and valued.

There may be examples of unbridled capitalism driving stronger growth but growth isn't the be all and end all and, frankly, 70K is more than enough for anyone especially if it makes for a pleasant, equally owned, working environment.

It's possible, and probably better.

Although that’s not 100% what socialism is I can see what you’re hinting at, but if you ask me you just proved why capitalism works.

[Stylan]

I don't think that, do you assume that because I call myself a tankie?

Also, that phrase is a tad ubiquitous, because if the state/government are the workers, and the workers are the state, and the state owns everything, that is very much Marxist in practice and socialist.

The workers aren't the state if there is only one party and no free and fair elections. And even if there were no such thing as political repression in the USSR and its puppets, state ownership of the means of production is vastly different from (arguably inefficient and inferior to) the workers directly owning the MoP.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat wasn't meant to be taken literally (not that the Soviet-aligned dictatorships were ever truly of the proletariat in the first place), and 1984 isn't an instruction manual.

The party will be inseperable from the workers, OR the party will be the best and most educated in the party.

And yes, Russia and the USSR were de facto state capitalists, but that was correct and required for the transition into communism. Russia was still feudal. The MoP needed to be developed properly to allow for communism.