Ask A Red: The IVth International

[ReindeerThistle]

I've asked this before: whether "reds" believe in the abolition of private property and I think I've gotten differing opinions on the matter. I've heard some say that by "abolition of private property" it is meant that no one, not even the average guy on the street is allowed to have possessions and I've heard (perhaps more moderate "reds") say that it would only apply to things like industry and institutions that serve the public. As someone who has many comforts in life, I guess this is a facet of being "red" that most concerns me.

Now, I believe it has been said in some sense by Reindeerthistle that a lot of people who contribute to charity and things of that sort are probably more "red" than they think they are. That is possibly true, but when it comes to something like radical abolition of private property I just think you reach a point where at least 70% of the population just won't go for it. The 30% who might support it would be mostly made up of the homeless and extremely poor.

I'm sorry to belabor an old topic but it seems to be a central one to being a "red". Is the abolition of private property really an essential component of "red" theory and ideology? Can a person believe in only socializing large public institutions but not all property and still be a "red"? Or maybe I have it all wrong? Is there any "red" who believes in abolition of all private property?

If I had to identify a most pivotal topic of "red" theory I would choose "abolition of private property". Maybe I'm mistaken but I can't think of anything more central or fundamental to "red" ideology than that so I guess I'll belabor the point a bit (no pun intended).

EDIT: If "reds" yourselves out there had to identify something most pivotal and fundamental to your beliefs what would you say was most important in "red" thinking and ideology? On a somewhat similar vein what aspect of being a "red" most attracts you to the movement?

I defer again the Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto. They were talking about the eventual abolition of the private ownership of the means of production. (cf my posts from Ask a Red III and IV). This may not happen all at once. As for individual ownership of consuer goods, or indivdual-use property, speaking as the "Resident Marxist-Leninist" of the Panel, I can assure you that we do not seek to take away houses, cars, iPods, etc.

Still hope that helps. I am, by the way, no moderate, simply looking at the application of Marx, Engles, Lenin, Stalin, et al to a N. American revolution in the 21st century.

 

[Traitorfish]

Now, I believe it has been said in some sense by Reindeerthistle that a lot of people who contribute to charity and things of that sort are probably more "red" than they think they are. That is possibly true, but when it comes to something like radical abolition of private property I just think you reach a point where at least 70% of the population just won't go for it. The 30% who might support it would be mostly made up of the homeless and extremely poor.

Today? Obviously enough. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation, we'd be throwing up barricades. But today is rarely tomorrow, and even more rarely the day after that. The world changes, necessarily and inexorably, and more often in rapid jolts than with a gentle, moderately-paced stroll. What people think today, or what people think they think today, has very little authority over what they'll think in ten, twenty, fifty years time.

I'm sorry to belabor an old topic but it seems to be a central one to being a "red". Is the abolition of private property really an essential component of "red" theory and ideology? Can a person believe in only socializing large public institutions but not all property and still be a "red"? Or maybe I have it all wrong? Is there any "red" who believes in abolition of all private property?

I'd say that you're taking a too-flattened view of "private property". Private property, following Marx, is not simply an institution, it's the institutional form of certain modes of social practice. It's not a case of having "more" or "less" private property, as if it was a natural phenomenon which we might seek to restrain or promote, but to overturn the nature of our social practice such that the terms of private property make no sense, and in which no institutional forms might replace it.

For Marx, concrete social practice- that is, what people actually do with themselves on a day-to-day basis, individually and collectively- is fundamental to any society, thus any theory of society. Legal, social, religious and political institutions exist to, and only insofar as, they structure social practices. They aren't natural phenomena, and they possess no duration independent of human activity, which means we must constantly reproduce them through activity which is in accordance with their structural logic. Therefore, their abolition lies not in unmaking them, but in ceasing to make them at all.

If I had to identify a most pivotal topic of "red" theory I would choose "abolition of private property". Maybe I'm mistaken but I can't think of anything more central or fundamental to "red" ideology than that so I guess I'll belabor the point a bit (no pun intended).

That's quite reasonable! Marx himself asserted that "[t]he theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property", so you're in good company on that count.

 

[Gary Childress]

I defer again the Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto. They were talking about the eventual abolition of the private ownership of the means of production. (cf my posts from Ask a Red III and IV). This may not happen all at once. As for individual ownership of consuer goods, or indivdual-use property, speaking as the "Resident Marxist-Leninist" of the Panel, I can assure you that we do not seek to take away houses, cars, iPods, etc.

Still hope that helps. I am, by the way, no moderate, simply looking at the application of Marx, Engles, Lenin, Stalin, et al to a N. American revolution in the 21st century.

You mention Stalin in the same breath (as it were) with Marx Engels and Lenin. I've heard plenty of "reds" denounce Stalin as a monster and I'm sure there is no contention there. I can, however, appreciate the fact that Stalin managed to transform the Soviet Union from a third world, backwater country into a world power almost overnight. But the cost in human misery and lives was horrendous.

Do you think there is anything important to be gleaned from Stalin? Any important lessons or insights or anything of that nature? Can "reds" lay claim to any kind of kinship at all with Stalin? It seems to me that whenever anyone brings up communism or socialism the first thing their opponents do is point to Stalin and say, "is that what you want our society to be like." I don't doubt that you think Stalin did horrible things but do you think Stalin made any lasting contributions to the "red" movement that weren't detrimental? Can Stalin be included in such a list of major contributors to the "red" movement?

 

[Gary Childress]

Today? Obviously enough. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation, we'd be throwing up barricades. But today is rarely tomorrow, and even more rarely the day after that. The world changes, necessarily and inexorably, and more often in rapid jolts than with a gentle, moderately-paced stroll. What people think today, or what people think they think today, has very little authority over what they'll think in ten, twenty, fifty years time.


I'd say that you're taking a too-flattened view of "private property". Private property, following Marx, is not simply an institution, it's the institutional form of certain modes of social practice. It's not a case of having "more" or "less" private property, as if it was a natural phenomenon which we might seek to restrain or promote, but to overturn the nature of our social practice such that the terms of private property make no sense, and in which no institutional forms might replace it.

For Marx, concrete social practice- that is, what people actually do with themselves on a day-to-day basis, individually and collectively- is fundamental to any society, thus any theory of society. Legal, social, religious and political institutions exist to, and only insofar as, they structure social practices. They aren't natural phenomena, and they possess no duration independent of human activity, which means we must constantly reproduce them through activity which is in accordance with their structural logic. Therefore, their abolition lies not in unmaking them, but in ceasing to make them at all.

So here is where I see some contention which I usually see in "reds" and that is over the issue of private property. As we both seem to admit, as things stand today, radical abolition of private property is something the majority (including myself) can't seem to handle intuitively. And I think as soon as someone stands up on their soap box at a gathering and proclaims the abolition of private property, the majority of people would clear the room and go somewhere else. It's not there aren't examples in history of people sharing things communally, tribal societies or other societies where humans have been very close to each other and have dependended more intimately on each other for their well being have done it since the beginning of time.

Also, I don't think any of us has a crystal ball that foretells the future. I can't really look in any microscope and see a tell tale trail from today's society to a propertyless one ten or fifty years from now. So what brings anyone to the conclusion that the abolition of private property is inevitable? And if it is not inevitable, then what makes it desireable as opposed to, say, a kind of "moderate" form of socialism where only major public institutions are "socialized".

I mean, life seems pretty good now for me. I have a computer, an internet connection and some time on my hands to use those things. Sure, there are people out there who don't have the same comforts, but maybe that's nothing more than a matter of somehow extending those comforts to them as well. Maybe the government should establish free Internet cafes or something? I don't know but like I say my way of life now seems fairly happy. Maybe simply extending my lifestyle to the less fortunate is more desireable for us all than abolishing private property?

But as I say I have a hard time picturing what a propertyless state of affairs would be like. I think in another post I said when I think of abolition of private property I think of people walking in and out of the house taking whatever they want and occasionally me fighting over something I deem valuable enough to squabble over.

EDIT: To be fair, I guess I am able to imagine myself without private property but being able to gain free access to borrow things I need. It would be a whole new way of life for me. I suppose if I got accustomed to it, I might enjoy such a life.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Watch the spamming, Gary, you can respond to multiple quotes in one post (I have been criticized for this myself)

Do you think there is anything important to be gleaned from Stalin?...Can Stalin be included in such a list of major contributors to the "red" movement?

Yes. Stalin wrote the book on the National question (Marxism and the National question which is in use by China, today, as it nurtures and protects its national minorities. I know and have met members of both the Chinese government and of Chinese national minorities and they agree China has followed Stalin's method and it is working for everyone.

Stalin also added hundreds of thousands of party members from the ranks of the working class -- and in spite of what "non-reds" and "Reds" here will say about him, no one person murders 20 million people -- any more that Hitler did all of the atrocities he did. Nazi invaders killed 20 million or more Soviets, not Stalin. The negative things attributable to Stalin are still in debate today, but 28 million communist cadre in Russia are still evoking his name, citizens want to rename Volgograd into Stalingrad and the Chinese still study his works.

I do not believe "Stalinist" tactics will work in the 21st century and I am not a Stalinist. His Foundations of Lenism is still used as a primer for learning communism by many parties, not just my own.

...I mean, life seems pretty good now for me. I have a computer, an internet connection and some time on my hands to use those things. Sure, there are people out there who don't have the same comforts, but maybe that's nothing more than a matter of somehow extending those comforts to them as well. Maybe the government should establish free Internet cafes or something? I don't know but like I say my way of life now seems fairly happy. Maybe simply extending my lifestyle to the less fortunate is more desireable for us all than abolishing private property?

But as I say I have a hard time picturing what a propertyless state of affairs would be like. I think in another post I said when I think of abolition of private property I think of people walking in and out of the house taking whatever they want and occasionally me fighting over something I deem valuable enough to squabble over.

EDIT: To be fair, I guess I am able to imagine myself without private property but being able to gain free access to borrow things I need. It would be a whole new way of life for me. I suppose if I got accustomed to it, I might enjoy such a life.

This is the United States, our GDP alone would make everyone a comfortable living, and still have plenty to develop the rest of the world with. I have more to say, but really, in Venezuela, they are giving more access to internet and assistive technology without taking anything. I'll edit this later.

 

[Takhisis]

Yes. Stalin wrote the book on the National question (Marxism and the National question which is in use by China, today, as it nurtures and protects its national minorities. I know and have met members of both the Chinese government and of Chinese national minorities and they agree China has followed Stalin's method and it is working for everyone.

Does not compute.

Stalin also added hundreds of thousands of party members from the ranks of the working class -- and in spite of what "non-reds" and "Reds" here will say about him, no one person murders 20 million people -- any more that Hitler did all of the atrocities he did. Nazi invaders killed 20 million or more Soviets, not Stalin. The negative things attributable to Stalin are still in debate today, but 28 million communist cadre in Russia are still evoking his name, citizens want to rename Volgograd into Stalingrad and the Chinese still study his works.

The rest aside, don't you think it's a contradiction that communists want a classless society and there's a working class?

This is the United States, our GDP alone would make everyone a comfortable living, and still have plenty to develop the rest of the world with. I have more to say, but really, in Venezuela, they are giving more access to internet and assistive technology without taking anything. I'll edit this later.

No, you don't have the right to develop the rest of the world for them. You'd be no better than previous US governments if you did that.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'd say that you're taking a too-flattened view of "private property". Private property, following Marx, is not simply an institution, it's the institutional form of certain modes of social practice. It's not a case of having "more" or "less" private property, as if it was a natural phenomenon which we might seek to restrain or promote, but to overturn the nature of our social practice such that the terms of private property make no sense, and in which no institutional forms might replace it.

Just to make this a bit clearer for Gary (I heartily agree with everything you've said): yes, private property describes property with a social nature. It is not your toothbrush or your laptop or your car, those things are personal property. They are not used to make money, or to oppress others, so we don't care about them. Private property such as we are concerned with is capital goods: machinery, buildings, land, money, and I suppose intellectual property like patents. Private ownership of these things will be actively sought by communists to be made into community ownership. This will obviously take a while. It will obviously destroy the utility of money. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[Mouthwash]

Have you ever considered that you might be... well, completely wrong?

 

[Gary Childress]

Stalin also added hundreds of thousands of party members from the ranks of the working class -- and in spite of what "non-reds" and "Reds" here will say about him, no one person murders 20 million people -- any more that Hitler did all of the atrocities he did.

Hmmm. But it seems to me that any leader who presides over 20 or however many million deaths must have some culpability, whether he pulled the trigger or not. Couldn't he have issued stern directives that the abuses be stopped at the very least? I mean, if I stood up in the middle of a town in Israel and proclaimed that Hitler wasn't all that bad a guy, they'd probably lynch me on the spot? Granted, no single human being can control what goes on all around him or her, the behavior of all his or her subjects and deputies even if s/he was President of the United States. Heck, for all I know, maybe Stalin was a really nice guy to know personally but just couldn't keep his deputies in line or something. I suppose it is a bad habbit of us humans to blame our leaders for everything. Maybe they are ultimately just convenient scapegoats at times?

So if we absolve Stalin of most responsibility for the attrocities that occured under his leadership, where does that leave us? That would seem to leave us with 20 million or however many deaths to somehow account for. Do we conclude that those 20 million deaths were the result of what happens when ordinary people try to implement the ideas of Marx, Lenin and Stalin? Maybe bringing on "hundreds of thousands of party members from the ranks of the working class" was a bad idea? Maybe that was the problem? Maybe that's what happens when you take from the lowest rungs of society and put them in positions of power and responsiblity? You get a humanitarian disaster?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Have you ever considered that you might be... well, completely wrong?

Certainly.


But I do not think so.

 

[ace99]

@Reindeer: So what do you account for the purge of the Communist party members, Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries and others? Yezhovshina?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Does not compute.

The rest aside, don't you think it's a contradiction that communists want a classless society and there's a working class?

No, you don't have the right to develop the rest of the world for them. You'd be no better than previous US governments if you did that.

Watch us, that's all I have to say....

"The international working class shall be the human race.". However, you cannot jump from a society rife with class contradictions into a classless society any more than you can come out of the trees and develop currency and banking.

Also, it is wrong not to assist the world with the resources you have. The current US policy is for investment for extraction of surplus value. Cuba has next to nothing and they send volunteer doctors all over the world, and Venezuela and Petrocaribe distribute low cost oil -- not investments to extract surplus value.

We can use the vast human and natural resouces of this country for great good, but we do not.

 

[Mouthwash]

Hmmm. But it seems to me that any leader who presides over 20 or however many million deaths must have some culpability, whether he pulled the trigger or not. Couldn't he have issued stern directives that the abuses be stopped at the very least? I mean, if I stood up in the middle of a town in Israel and proclaimed that Hitler wasn't all that bad a guy, they'd probably lynch me on the spot? Granted, no single human being can control what goes on all around him or her, the behavior of all his or her subjects and deputies even if s/he was President of the United States. Heck, for all I know, maybe Stalin was a really nice guy to know personally but just couldn't keep his deputies in line or something. I suppose it is a bad habbit of us humans to blame our leaders for everything. Maybe they are ultimately just convenient scapegoats at times?

So if we absolve Stalin of most responsibility for the attrocities that occured under his leadership, where does that leave us? That would seem to leave us with 20 million or however many deaths to somehow account for. Do we conclude that those 20 million deaths were the result of what happens when ordinary people try to implement the ideas of Marx, Lenin and Stalin? Maybe bringing on "hundreds of thousands of party members from the ranks of the working class" was a bad idea? Maybe that was the problem? Maybe that's what happens when you take from the lowest rungs of society and put them in positions of power and responsiblity? You get a humanitarian disaster?

In the laboratory of history and real-life experience capitalism has revealed itself to be every bit as much of a failed experiment as the pseudosocialism of the now defunct Soviet system. In fact, having gone global, having spread exploitation, sweatshops, debt, and financial crises across the entire planet; having produced a plutocracy that now rules most of humanity and makes a hollow fraud of democracy; and having incurred worldwide climatic consequences that will eventually destruct our so-called civilization and return a fractional remnant of survivors to a Palaeolithically hand-to-mouth existence; well, having earned such a rap sheet one can arguably say that capitalism has proven to be a much worse disaster than the counterfeit communism of Messrs. Stalin and Mao.

 

[Takhisis]

Watch us, that's all I have to say....

"The international working class shall be the human race.". However, you cannot jump from a society rife with class contradictions into a classless society any more than you can come out of the trees and develop currency and banking.

Also, it is wrong not to assist the world with the resources you have. The current US policy is for investment for extraction of surplus value. Cuba has next to nothing and they send volunteer doctors all over the world, and Venezuela and Petrocaribe distribute low cost oil -- not investments to extract surplus value.

We can use the vast human and natural resouces of this country for great good, but we do not.

With the last statement I do agree, but Cuba has never done anything for free and neither has Chávez.

Anyway, as for the US suddenly 'assisting' the rest of us, well, there's plenty of resources to go around, and you can't force this assistance on use. Also, progress is just things happening faster, not necessarily the right ones. Not everybody wants or needs to live in a Westernised 21st-century society.

 

[Gary Childress]

In the laboratory of history and real-life experience capitalism has revealed itself to be every bit as much of a failed experiment as the pseudosocialism of the now defunct Soviet system. In fact, having gone global, having spread exploitation, sweatshops, debt, and financial crises across the entire planet; having produced a plutocracy that now rules most of humanity and makes a hollow fraud of democracy; and having incurred worldwide climatic consequences that will eventually destruct our so-called civilization and return a fractional remnant of survivors to a Palaeolithically hand-to-mouth existence; well, having earned such a rap sheet one can arguably say that capitalism has proven to be a much worse disaster than the counterfeit communism of Messrs. Stalin and Mao.

Well stated Mouthwash! I'd say the passage above would make a fine quote for a contemporary history book somewhere!

But this seems to take us back to a position contradictory to what Reindeerthistle takes. You seem to be saying that Stalin was not a true communist and perhaps not worthy of any sort of following. I mean, that's the way I would tend to see things with regard to Stalin but I admittedly don't know anything about Stalin's personal life or writings. So which is the case? Was Stalin an asset to the "red" movement or was he not?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Mouthwash is not a communist, and not permitted to answer questions in this thread. If you wish to discuss things with him, please do so in a separate forum. If you wish to ask a red this question, then please direct your question to one of us.

 

[Gary Childress]

Mouthwash is not a communist, and not permitted to answer questions in this thread. If you wish to discuss things with him, please do so in a separate forum. If you wish to ask a red this question, then please direct your question to one of us.

OK. Well then the questions I asked which Mouthwash answered still stand then. I invite any of the approved authorities to answer. How does Stalin fit into the scheme of things for the "red" movement? I've heard some "reds" say before he was a monster and not a real communist and now others like Reindeerthistle seem to say otherwise.

Can Stalin be held responsible for what happened under his lead? If not then who/what/where does the responsibility lay? I don't think I would want to live in Stalinist Russia. If God popped down from heaven and gave you a choice between either living in "capitalist" Europe or America versus living in Stalinist Russia, which would you choose and why? I think I would choose the former.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

With the last statement I do agree, but Cuba has never done anything for free and neither has Chávez.

Anyway, as for the US suddenly 'assisting' the rest of us, well, there's plenty of resources to go around, and you can't force this assistance on use. Also, progress is just things happening faster, not necessarily the right ones. Not everybody wants or needs to live in a Westernised 21st-century society.

Correct. It is not for any social system of any nation to force itself on another. And I challenge you to find evdence of China or Cuba peddling influence or "politicizing" because of the trade they do or the good works they perform.
I challenge you to find a single investment Cuba has made. As for Chavez, he gives away millions of dollars in oil, even to the US, so that point is incorrect.

As a point of fact, the first and best thing a socialist government in the US can do it cut off aid to Egypt, Israel, Colombia and cut funding for NED and all of the crap -- as well as close all of its military bases overseas. See how long it will take for progressive elements in these natios to take and hold power.

World conditions favor socialism and are unfavorable to capitalism. How many more financial crises can we stand? More to come.

EDIT: It's the end of my day and I ditched the mobile for the laptop, so here goes:

Hmmm. But it seems to me that any leader who presides over 20 or however many million deaths must have some culpability, whether he pulled the trigger or not. Couldn't he have issued stern directives that the abuses be stopped at the very least? I mean, if I stood up in the middle of a town in Israel and proclaimed that Hitler wasn't all that bad a guy, they'd probably lynch me on the spot? Granted, no single human being can control what goes on all around him or her, the behavior of all his or her subjects and deputies even if s/he was President of the United States. Heck, for all I know, maybe Stalin was a really nice guy to know personally but just couldn't keep his deputies in line or something. I suppose it is a bad habbit of us humans to blame our leaders for everything. Maybe they are ultimately just convenient scapegoats at times?

So if we absolve Stalin of most responsibility for the attrocities that occured under his leadership, where does that leave us? That would seem to leave us with 20 million or however many deaths to somehow account for. Do we conclude that those 20 million deaths were the result of what happens when ordinary people try to implement the ideas of Marx, Lenin and Stalin? Maybe bringing on "hundreds of thousands of party members from the ranks of the working class" was a bad idea? Maybe that was the problem? Maybe that's what happens when you take from the lowest rungs of society and put them in positions of power and responsiblity? You get a humanitarian disaster?

I am not absolving Stalin of the atrocities of which you speak, because you are referring to my quote, that is, I said that 20 million Soviet citizens died at the hands of Nazi aggression. Are you suggesting that Stalin is culpable for the Nazi invasion of Russia? As a matter of fact, Stalin did take ultimate responsibility for the defense of the USSR and there is a Tavern thread for that here.

Stalin also acknowledged the war crimes committed by both sides during the counteroffensive into the West and the Battle of Berlin. War is ugly and terrible, but it was Nazi aggression, not Marxism-Leninism, that killed those 20 million.

@Reindeer: So what do you account for the purge of the Communist party members, Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries and others? Yezhovshina?

Do you want me to be frank? Those purges saved the USSR.

However, I do not approve of executions as political purges. Purges are necessary, per the 21 Conditions, but this was meant to rid the party of reformist elements that cling itself to the party, not party founders or party members who agreed to the discipline of a Marxist-Leninist party, paid dues and supported the program. There are other ways to address dissent in the Party ranks, the most serious of which is expulsion, not capital punishment. I will not comment on this further, as it was an internal party matter of a party that is not under my jurisdiction.

OK. Well then the questions I asked which Mouthwash answered still stand then. I invite any of the approved authorities to answer. How does Stalin fit into the scheme of things for the "red" movement? I've heard some "reds" say before he was a monster and not a real communist and now others like Reindeerthistle seem to say otherwise.

Can Stalin be held responsible for what happened under his lead? If not then who/what/where does the responsibility lay? I don't think I would want to live in Stalinist Russia.

Well, Stalin cannot be held responsible for anything anymore, as he died in 1953. He accepted responsibility for his actions and died in service to the revolution. Kruschev did his service as well, as he was a war veteran and political commissar whose leadership made the difference at the Battle of Stalingrad. But as we say in my business, if you like Jane Goodall, you have to like the chimps. So, I take responsibility for my position on Stalin's role in the movement: he laid out a superlative treatise on nationalities and he wrote several works that I use as a basis for my body of theory: Marxism and the National Question, Foundations of Leninism, Armed Insurrection and our Tactics and Dialectical and Historical Materialism. I also accept that what Stalin did was in the best interest for the movement, warts and all. Stalin is not the sole basis for my theoretical beliefs -- just the one non-reds and other reds atttack me for and I accept that.

Revolutionaries are not saints. Jefferson owned slaves, Ben Franklin was a womanizer, Sam Adams was a smuggler. Does this make the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States any less viable documents as a basis for government? Hell, no. I swear by them myself.

If God popped down from heaven and gave you a choice between either living in "capitalist" Europe or America versus living in Stalinist Russia, which would you choose and why? I think I would choose the former.

That reminds me of a joke:

Spoiler :

God is talking to Satan one day in 1924 and asks how the new inmate is doing.
"Lenin?" says Satan, "The guy is nothing but trouble! The brimstone workers are on strike, the fire stokers want weekends off and I have not been able to get a demon up to earth to snatch ONE SOUL -- they all want power!"

"Send him to me," God says

2 weeks later, after Satan has not heard from God, Satan calls.
"Hello?" God answers.
"Hi, God," said Satan. "I hadn't heard from you since I sent Lenin up -- how are things going?"

"First of all," God said "It's Comrade God. Secondly, I don't exist."

I don't think the kind of choice you speak of is realistic. If you live in the US, you live in an advanced industrial nation that has huge economic problems the likes of which we have not seen before, where millions of homeowners are underwater and, literally, were underwater after Sandy hit and thousands have not been able to rebuild, in spite of billions in aid promised -- legally promised. We have 50+ million without health coverage and those with coverage are often denied. There are millions of workers not protected by existing labor laws, and millions more who work under the table just to put food on the table and undergo terrible abuse at the hands of unscrupulous employers. Utility companies manipulate regulatory agencies to gouge rate payers who then have to choose between paying the bills and buying food.

I did not choose to live in this country, but I do. I love my country and my most patriotic act is to build a strong organization that can fight for and make lasting change. That change has to be towards socialism.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Does this make the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States any less viable documents as a basis for government? Hell, no. I swear by them myself.

Upholding, in present time, documents written by the bourgeoisie, with the goal of regulating a capitalistic, bourgeois-dominated society?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Upholding, in present time, documents written by the bourgeoisie, with the goal of regulating a capitalistic, bourgeois-dominated society?

Please don't tell me what TO believe. I am an American, and the Constitution is the law of the land. It also happens to be quite revolutionary -- as is the Declaration of Indepedence --and who doesn't love that all humans are endowed with certain inalienable rights? Who doesn't think the government should not establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity? Just because the bourgeoisie can't I've by their own code of law, does not mean these documents are FOS, n'est pas?

Also, Castro evoked the names of American revolutionaries in his History will absolve me speech.