Without a community, connected throughout the landscape, near and far, there will be no real change.

We have fundamental social structures which inhibit this community from forming deep ties and creating a powerful movement.

I do not think this should be a movement based on the past, on single issues, on racism (per se) or on workers’ rights (per se). What fractures this movement is that it is always pigeon-holed. Coalitions must be built and sustained. A means of transforming and reconfiguring the local power structures, to make them more participatory and democratic. Build out from there. The notion of grand marches, have long past as a means of creating effective and enduring change. If those happen from a deep connection, or through a broad and deep movement then marches can be useful. But as relatively spontaneous events, they are simply marginalized and filtered to the point of wasted energy (like the sun’s energy hitting a desert).

The forces beyond our control, the dissolution, the collapse of this social structure is in process. How it will play out will emerge. But action can be taken, and taken now to have in place a connected and thoughtful purposeful movement. The alternative is simply more concentration of power and tyranny of a very few.

Precisely. It’ll be tough enough accomplishing those things without putting a label on it…a label that many react to viscerally.

had our ancestors understood what shamans/priests were up to, the classful order may have been prevented. however, when one observes what the same shamanistic process in US had been doing for 4 centuries, one can also see that 98% of usans have not noticed anything amiss.

this may have happened to our forebipeds. for if they had realized what the sacerdotal and shamanistic classes were up to, they wld have killed all of them.
and today we wld, in morto, given them the highest honors. but in ‘eternity’ of time, the slaughter of shamans might still happen.
either that or threaten them with exile to moon where they can chant all those lamentations, halftruths, lies, etc. tnx

I don’t disagree that the US is every where but ideology is less the empire’s interest. I think that’s an important distinction (not to mention the topic of Blum’s article here). Whether the US goes into Afghanistan, Iraq, or funds killing squads in Central America, ideology is only a pretext for power and domination.

Because there are those, like Deadbeat, who seem to have a rosy colored view of socialism as a simple flip whereby workers “rule”, racism is a thing of the past and we all sing kumbaya, there is another “conversation” at play here.

The implementation of an “ism” is not going to “give” anything. We are going to look square at the problems and work to determine root causes. The US is a preditory State. If it called itself a socialist state, it would still be a preditory state. (It calls itself a free democracy for christsake!) Yes, the labels are worthless.

That’s not to say that we should avoid all labels, but rather be very wary of them, particularly as they come into favor and are coopted. Once we get the Owellian wheels rolling which end is up and which is down becomes anybodies guess.

To stir a steady course through the morase of disinformation and propaganda, stick to the problems, keep labels minimal but use until they are corrupted (which happens as soon as they gain popular traction). I don’t think popping from US economic collapse to the socialist “life boat” is smart – in fact it seems rather reactionary, and relatively thoughtless.

Socialism vs. Capitalism. (Part One)

It is clear Aaron has drunk the Shieldists kool-aid. One of the fallacies of Shieldsism is failing to do in-depth analysis. What Aaron neglects is WHY Chavez survived the coup and why the U.S. has been unsuccessful in toppling him. The same analysis BTW would be needed for Castro as well. Clearly Venezuela is in a much stronger position then Cuba ever was and still is.

[Socialism] only exists in a theoretical bubble like in a laboratory.

Then by your own argument Democracy exists in a theoretical bubble like in a laboratory. However people who are suffering do have an understanding of what Democracy is and they know that it is not reaching them. Therefore by your own argument you think we aren’t digging deep enough when we comment on the “isms”.

The problem is you want to run from the ideas and tenets of Socialism rather than fight and struggle for them. Replace Socialism with Democracy (which is an “ism”) and you’ll see the absurdity and fallacy of the Shieldsists argument.

The problem is the indoctrination and propaganda especially the Cold War rhetoric and against Socialism and the neo-liberal arguments of the past 30 years. Clearly Socialism ADDRESSES POWER, and EXPLOITATION and INEQUALITY. Perhaps you should educate yourself as to what Socialism means before you interject your rhetoric.

The rhetoric of Shieldsists is to confound and to confuse workers and to pose as Leftist rhetoric while simultaneously debase Socialism as merely another “ism”. Socialism is WELL DEFINED and understood. The problem, AaronG, is that you lack a historical perspective and have been indoctrinated into believing the distortions that the ruling class has put forth and cowardly “leftist” like Max Shields who promote in classic Chomskyesque fashion fear uncertainty and doubt (FUD) rather than clarity.

For example the NAZI party of German labeled themselves “National Socialist” (which for Socialist is an oxymoron) . Did that represent Socialism? Of course not. Does the Democratic Party represent Democracy? Of course not.

The problem for people who are suffering that you are concerned about is that the Left HAS NOT acted with Socialist ideas and tenets otherwise Socialism would be unambiguously EMBRACED by people who are suffering and there would be real SOLIDARITY. However the “Left” has allowed themselves to be ACTORS in RETARDING solidarity and this phony discussion on “ism” is one that will RETARD building solidarity among the people who are suffering.

And going back to Hue Longer observation, if we take a look at the Black Panthers and see how they ENGAGED the community and were trusted by the community, their building solidarity with the community was seen as a THREAT to the U.S. and had to be destroyed by COINTELPRO. They were clearly Marxist and embraced a Socialist program, ideas, and tenets. Did Socialism fail or did the ruling class exercise their power to CRUSH them?

In Venezuela’s case, you can’t simply transpose the “socialist” model from the laboratory directly onto a functioning country.

What is going on in Venezuela is a STRUGGLE from the GRASSROOTS to move their nation towards Socialism. Chavez is doing this by by building coalitions and in stages. He calls his vision “21st Century Socialism”. But the point is that he is laying out a vision that his supporters CAN STRIVE TOWARDS. That’s the point. There MUST BE IDEOLOGY that paints a pictures of the kind of society that people are STRUGGLING toward. This is how you MAINTAIN SOLIDARITY. Otherwise what you will have is temporary alliances that will eventually breakdown and easily be defeated.

What Sheidsists like yourself do not realize is how to effectively build and maintain SOLIDARITY. Shieldsism is at best extremely naive and at worst a well disguised form of anti-socialist rhetoric.

I don’t care much for labels but between you and me we can use them to make a point about something. Whether the US looked across the water and noticed some happy utopia that needed crushing or were responding to defiance isn’t the point I was making. Whatever one wishes to call Cuba or Vietnam or Greece; and no matter how close to a popular definition of whatever ism they are/were…..Their dissident failures and successes were not going on without the hand of the US trying to ensure only failures.

I always find it odd that even leftists begin with the personal “failures” or the dishonesty of mission statements of these places without first (if ever) addressing Jumbo shitting in the living room. Bloom pointed it out in a piece some years back–here he didn’t.

You claim that the “socialist” experiments did not fail because they “were not Socialist”. That is exactly my point. This idealogy only exists in a theoretical bubble like in a laboratory. That is no good for people who are suffering. My point is, whatever “ism” we have tried throughout the ages the following is an historic fact: man has dominated man to his injury. A group of men have always grabbed power to suit some agenda, regardless of the label we give it – democracy, monarchy, anarchy, socialism, communism, dictatorship, neoliberalism etc are all just various forms of failure and exploitation of people (some obviously better than others!). I think we aren’t digging deep enough when we comment on the “isms”. We aren’t being dissident enough. We should disregard the label and look at the power structures behind the label. Using this analysis we could conclude that America and China DO have a lot in common…..the elites in both countries worship power and the dollar/yuan.

Max Shields makes a similar point above in respects to Venezuela and Cuba (keep it up Max, I value your comments). In Venezuela’s case, you can’t simply transpose the “socialist” model from the laboratory directly onto a functioning country. There are certain powerful entities that won’t FULLY allow this to happen. Yes, these entities may creep into the background for a while after their failed coup, but they’ll be back. They have bigger and nastier friends than Hugo does. And they wanna make sure that this socialist experiment fails. Or else……

By the way, an old textbook has some simple and interesting thoughts on the matter:

But that by means of an equalizing YOUR surplus just now might offset their deficiency, in order that their surplus might also come to offset YOUR deficiency, that an equalizing might take place. Just as it is written: “The person with much did not have too much, and the person with little did not have too little.” 2Cor 8:14,15

Castro turned to the Soviet Union and Marxism after the Revolution. The embargo holds in part because of the American/Cuban lobby, but mostly because Cuba did not fall in line with US dictates.

Socialism has failed in the past. It has failed because a few greedy men at the top exploited their fellow humans.

WRONG. It was not the same result because it what existed was not Socialist. Just like the United States lables itself a “Democracy”. Just because the U.S. is not a democracy doesn’t debase striving for democracy. The same is true about Socialism.

Also I agree with Hue Longer observation that attempt at Socialism was thwarted by the Capitalist class to make sure it couldn’t succeed. His example wrt Cuba is correct and the U.S. attempts to destory their political economy.

judging a socialist or communist state based entirely on its failures or even successes ignores the fact that outside influences were there to make sure it didn’t succeed. When under economic siege Cuba- with all its poisoned crops and espionage- is viewed this way it makes the patronizing of their small achievements look just as bad as blaming their government for any failures

all a person needs to know is that no ism can be explained; the process of explaining wld include explaining every word in the first definition/explanation and then words of the explanation of words need also defining; and so on; it’s process that never ends.
that is why people argue for a life time about undefinable terms.

of course, it is OK to use words like fascism, capitalism, judaism if one keeps in mind that they cannot be elucidated.
in short one can use them as short cuts. tnx

There was Thatcher and Reagan. Then Blair and Clinton/Bush. The Brits have shaped their policies to those of the US. We see Sarkosy in France which was a blend of Bush (for the French); who will shape himself around the new prez of US. As will Merkel.

The peoples of these nations have disagreed with their gov’ts most vehemently when the gov’t didn’t bring home the goods.

Americans have been sheep, dismantling unions and social safety nets with glee; voting in the very pols that do such things. America has been a me nation, prone to “I got mine, you get yours” culture of hyper-consumerism.

But when the bottom falls out of the boat, when the bubble that was fabricrated from the git-go is burst…then, maybe real change will come rolling in. But habits take a while to die; and we have a prez attuned to the nuance of appeasement.