Ask a Red, Second Edition
- Thread starter Cheezy the Wiz
- Start date
- Status
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
I'd like a quick run-down of what the Socialist views of the ideals of Liberalism are versus the Socialist views of the ideals of Socialism. Not an overview of each, but an overview of both with respect to the other.
Or: what's the difference?
Or: what's the difference?
aelf
Ashen One
I'm not sure what you're looking for, really. The differences between liberalism and Marxism are fundamentally philosophical, particularly where the latter's dialectical materialism (and, by extension, its Hegelianism) is concerned. More politically, there's the obvious thing about liberals tending to support property rights (Rawls isn't hung up on that, though - he has other priorities) while Marxists don't. Other than that, socialism isn't really in opposition with liberalism.
EDIT: Another thing is some liberals subscribe to negative liberty, whereas Marxists (and therefore socialists) would have to subscribe to positive liberty.
EDIT: Another thing is some liberals subscribe to negative liberty, whereas Marxists (and therefore socialists) would have to subscribe to positive liberty.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Can you possibly explain what the subtle difference thereof is? I have seen Cheezy in other threads brush on the matter ever-so-lightly.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Negative liberty is freedom from external restraint, or from interference from other people. Positive liberty is freedom from internal restraints, which means access to the resources required to fulfill one's potential. I always understood them to operate hand-in-glove, though, not as mutually exclusive things.
Isaiah Berlin wrote a great article about the two, from which the following is exerpted:
"It follows that a frontier must be drawn between the area of private life and that of public authority. Where it is to be drawn is a matter of argument, indeed of haggling. Men are largely interdependent, and no man's activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'; the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others."
Isaiah Berlin wrote a great article about the two, from which the following is exerpted:
"It follows that a frontier must be drawn between the area of private life and that of public authority. Where it is to be drawn is a matter of argument, indeed of haggling. Men are largely interdependent, and no man's activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'; the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others."
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
I see. I believe that is a concept I have had a passing awareness of, but could never express it in such explicit terms. Thanks!
Thanks, I'll move there.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
From what I know of them, they sound pretty awesome, but I don't know enough about them to give an in-depth analysis of their methodology and activities. Probably better if one of my European counterparts answer this one.
muhtesem insan
Amateur Revolutionary
(I couldn't read all the thread i used search and couldn't find them, but if these questions are asked apologies up front)
1) Being a communist in USA? Do you feel discrimination on government level? Does it change people's feelings towards to you?..etc (you know the drill)
2) What position does take communists in elections? Do they vote their candidates even though they know they're not gonna eleceted? Or boycott the elections finding it pointless? Or choose lesser of the evils?
3) In Turkey left fractions fight with each other more than they fight with fascism? Is it same over there (aka. trotskysts vs leninists)
1) Being a communist in USA? Do you feel discrimination on government level? Does it change people's feelings towards to you?..etc (you know the drill)
2) What position does take communists in elections? Do they vote their candidates even though they know they're not gonna eleceted? Or boycott the elections finding it pointless? Or choose lesser of the evils?
3) In Turkey left fractions fight with each other more than they fight with fascism? Is it same over there (aka. trotskysts vs leninists)
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
It's not something I make public very often, but I have to be careful with what I say around some of my friends, because they work for the government and it could compromise their security clearance if they were known to associate with "subversive elements."
And there are always those Cold Warriors, and the "kill a commie for mommy" types, which I do not trust.
I was told once in no uncertain terms that if I continued with efforts to organize a union in my company, I would be fired and blacklisted, so I also have to be careful about what I say at work, and who is listening.
The Party (CPUSA) runs its own candidates for Presidential elections, but I believe party members are generally strategically instructed to vote Democrat where there is risk of some hard-core conservative entering office, rather than for party candidates.
This strategy would get you precisely nowhere in America.
Yes and no. There is certainly a rivalry between Trots, Maoists, and M-Ls, and verbal sniping at people, but at the same time there's a general understanding that the enemy is to the Right. I do not think there is much of a chance of a united Left though, running candidates and cooperating as a coalition.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Do American communists generally want a one-party government, as was the case in soviet Russia, or a democratic communist state with multiple parties, democratic institutions, etc.?
muhtesem insan
Amateur Revolutionary
1) How do you, CPUSA and other political movements see armed guerilla movements such as FARC, EZLN ...etc
2) How about Cuba? Is it seen as a dictotarship or last of hope of socialism?
2) How about Cuba? Is it seen as a dictotarship or last of hope of socialism?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
The general consensus is that "USSR was awesome, but we can do so much better." The citation you will generally get is a line from the Manifesto, where Marx notes the United States as one of the places where firmly-rooted democracy may make violent revolution unnecessary to achieve socialism. The Party is firmly rooted in the support of labor unions, so any sort of mass-action would most likely come in the form of general strikes. Lenin had a saying during the Provisional Government days: "patiently explain, and we will have our majority*," this is essentially our maxim.
I think the general expectation is that, through a continuous bombardment of criticism and undermining of capitalist myths, our legitimacy will be made clear when the internal contradictions of capitalism bring the system to its own knees for us. General strikes and mass-exodus from the big parties will sound the death knell.
The Party claims to be Marxist-Leninist, but they aren't really. I would say they have returned to a more orthodox Marxist position, which is smart, since large parts of Leninism (like the vanguard party) are intended for an infant industrial country like Russia was in 1917, and not really applicable to a modern, industrial country like the United States. Here we have an educated populace, firmly rooted in the traditions of democracy and liberal freedoms, and permeated at all levels by the mass-production of commodities. The cottage industry is erased, which is highly important for us. Along these lines, the Party supports "Bill of Rights" socialism, which guarantees all the liberal freedoms imbued in the Constitution that we so treasure.
So it should be very clear given the above information that American socialism would not be a totalitarian, one-party state. No one wants to recreate the USSR.
*In the Petrograd Soviet
I know that there are some who support them. It is the party's position not to support violence, including terrorism. I personally think the FARC has long since lost their mission and purpose. Now they're just another militant group no better than the people they fight, and often worse.
This whole "hang on forever in the mountains and one day we'll sweep it all away" attitude is really a Maoist position. In other words, a waste of time.
It's a pretty cool place, for what it's been though and still struggles with. Compared with the state most of Latin America has been left in, no thanks to American meddling, Cuba's socialist experience shines as a reasonably successful story. There are always calls for expansion of personal freedoms, and I think the trend is going in that direction.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Interesting, but you're only talking about the transition from capitalism to communism. What about after communism is firmly established?
On one hand you say that you don't want to see a one-party state, but then you refer to "The Party"
What sort of system do you envision? Communism written into the constitution and multiple parties vying for democratic attention?
On one hand you say that you don't want to see a one-party state, but then you refer to "The Party"
What sort of system do you envision? Communism written into the constitution and multiple parties vying for democratic attention?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Supposedly with the advent of communism, political parties, and the need for them, will disappear.
I should reassert that we will transition from capitalism to socialism, and then from socialism to communism. It's become common Western parlance to refer to "that thing that's not capitalism" as communism, but that's incorrect and the difference is important.
It's just a term. I dislike acronyms so I generally don't write CPUSA every time. I think the CPUSA has the correct approach and will be the leader in the events to come, but not that other parties will be outlawed or forced to merge with the CPUSA. My ideal situation would be a united socialist coalition, since there are probably a dozen parties of various stripes that would probably do much better united than divided. If the equally bitter labor and trade unions could unite into the few large ones we have today, then why can't we?
I think it will require a new Constitution, one that codifies the principles of socialism, just as we required a constitution to codify the principles of liberalism to protect it against despotism.
The Paris Commune.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Cheezy said:
So the system wouldn't be democratic at all then, if there aren't political parties? How would leaders, ministers, etc. be selected and by whom?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
It would not be parliamentary, but rather direct democracy. All politics is local anyway. Once again, this is a very long way off. If there were an overthrow of capitalism tomorrow, and I lived to a hundred years old, I would never see communism. Perhaps my kids would not either. It took hundreds of years for capitalism and liberalism to replace feudalism and pre-modern mentalities.
- Status
