Socialism, Now More Than Ever?

I just finished watching a television ad for somebody running for a congressional seat in South Carolina. The man was either a Republican, Tea Partier or both. The bulk of the ad’s thirty seconds was an attack on “socialized medicine” coming from Washington, DC. Now, of course most of us understand that the health care reform known as Obamacare is anything but socialized medicine. Yet, there is a sizable minority of US residents who honestly believe it is. This misunderstanding of what socialism actually is can be attributed to a few things, foremost among them are the monopolization of the media by mostly right-wing believers in the free market. The other fundamental reason for the lack of understanding about socialism in the United States is the failure of socialists to get the word out as to that system’s true nature. Of course, some of that can be blamed on the very nature of media ownership in the US, but the rest of the blame rests with socialists who have failed to vocalize their philosophy and creatively work to spread the real meaning of a socialist society.

It is not my intention to place blame here, but even if it was, there is one man active in the US socialist movement who would remain without blame. His book The Case for Socialism has been updated once again and is the most readable text available in English to explain what socialism is and why a socialist society is necessary if most of us are to live in a world worth living in. Barren of political jargon, replete with anecdotal tales of those to whom capitalism has been cruel or just unaware of in its pursuit of profit; and packed with responses to questions about the nature of socialism, The Case for Socialism is perhaps the closest thing today’s socialists have to the granddaddy of all socialist texts for the average man (and woman)–The Communist Manifesto. This isn’t a step-by-step guidebook to revolution, nor is it a dissertation-like cataloging of the ills of modern capitalist society. Instead, it is a clearly written look at the history of modern US capitalism and the left’s struggle to make it more humane, despite the odds. Author Alan Maass explains that the concessions made by industry and the world of finance–the eight hour day, an end to segregation, women’s rights, etc.–were not given out of the kindness of the capitalists’ hearts, but were the result of struggle. He also answers concerns many might have regarding the true nature of a socialist society and its relationship to democracy and freedom. Put simply, real democracy cannot exist in a society where elections are bought by those with the most money. Yet, reforms to that system like limiting campaign funding from Wall Street do not work either.

Why? Very simple, says Maass: because reforms can be taken back when the capitalist system is in trouble. One need only look at the current situation regarding the loss of benefits, civil rights and civil liberties for verification of that fact. If one looks at the history of the past thirty years or so, the concessions given up by labor because capitalism was in crisis prove Maass’s point even further. Or, if that isn’t enough, why not just take a look at the current imperial occupations/wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite a very clear mandate from US voters to remove all troops from Iraq, the majority of them remain almost a year and a half after Obama’s inauguration. On top of that, the rumblings are growing that the removal of several thousand of US combat troops from Iraq scheduled for August 2010 will now be delayed. When one reads in between the lines, the only reason given is because Washington and its cohorts in the financial sector are still not sure they will get what they want from an Iraqi nation without US troops inside its borders. Yet, socialists do fight for reforms. After all, they make workers lives better and they show that fighting for change does work.

It is 2010. Monopoly capitalism has gambled itself into massive debt and now wants the workers to pay for it by dismantling any financial security they thought they were working for. Meanwhile, the bigwigs in government and finance make certain that their class is taken care of. So, just as in the case of reforms, when the times get tough for the ruling class, they rewrite the rule book to insure their continued wealth and dominance. That, writes Maass, is why the only way to prevent the repetition of this dynamic is to bring a socialist government into existence. That will only occur when the popular will demands it. It will take more than Maass’s book, but it will not take place at all without an understanding of why socialism might very well be the solution so many in today’s world are looking for. Reading The Case for Socialism is certainly a good place to begin that understanding.

Ron Jacobs is the author of The Way The Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground and Tripping Through the American Night, and the novels Short Order Frame Up and The Co-Conspirator's Tale. His third novel All the Sinners, Saints is a companion to the previous two and was published early in 2013. Read other articles by Ron.

32 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bailout00 said on May 17th, 2010 at 11:59am #

    How long and How many bad reports before we learn the lesson – We need to form opposable non violent coalitions Using Obama’s own words that can move policies for real… this will take some hard work but people have to start by adding positive contributions so that we can effect real change

  2. Deadbeat said on May 17th, 2010 at 1:11pm #

    I read Maass book years ago and it’s nice to see that he’s updating his excellent book. I was also impressed with Maass articulation of Socialism/Marxism during his debate against Michael Albert’s flawed Parecon.

    Great article Ron. Getting the true message out about Socialism. This is vital especially to counter the Right’s use of as many labels as possible to divert responsibility from Capitalism.

  3. bozh said on May 17th, 2010 at 2:26pm #

    The pertinent question is: can one build socialism w.o. at least 25% of pop being socialistic?
    In US, which may be 99% asocialistic; of which 30-40% o of pop may stand just tad left/right of nazi ideology, the answer is clear: no, one cannot!
    In china, with a pop of 30-70% socialist, one can. But once socialist hordes [as they are known in canada] grow to 98% of the pop, china cld allow free speech and US interference.

    And simply laugh at any attempt to destroy such a civilization, but not, of course, if asocialistic missiles are emplaced around her borders and china unable to respond in kind.

    That’s what happened to USSR. It had been a matter to be or not to be. Russsians chose to be, rather than being probably one day eradicated.
    Now the burden of building socialism has fallen on chinese empire. But there are non-empires building socialist sructures of society.

    The longer chinese recreation of society lasts, the greater the chance other lands
    wld attempt to build better societies. tnx

  4. Max Shields said on May 17th, 2010 at 2:34pm #

    I don’t think Marxism is the solution to the human condition, and that is after all what this is all about. However I don’t think Marx or Socialism should be dismissed. It should be integrated into a socialization.

    But, let’s see it this way. Has humankind advanced much in the last millenium? Has human nature changed an iota with all its decadence and near fatal and certainly religious bent toward technology, the ultimate saviour? I think not. As we muddle through or as we collapse and regroup in ways we’ve yet to discover, will Marx be the light at the end of the tunnel leading us to some promised land? Anything is possible but seems hardly likely. Bits and pieces may be grafted onto whatever emerges this century or the next, provide the human species is still around and experimenting.

    I think a closer look at the biological emergence, of the context that puts this species in the universe of living creatures may have more promise. Worshiping false idols can pretty dangerous.

  5. dan e said on May 17th, 2010 at 3:08pm #

    Max, I wonder if you realize that Marx and especially Frederick Engels wrote extensively about the “biological context” in which our species became divided into ruled and ruling classes? cf. The Dialectics of Nature; also The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.

    I would agree with you that putting the works of Marx & Engels on a pedestal & worshipping them is not likely to get us out of the present predicament, which one reason why Marx made the comment “I am not a Marxist”. Both were vociferously hostile to all attempts to turn the product of their investigations into some kind of fetish.

    But anyone seriously interested in fundamental social transformation needs to avail themselves at the outset of the tools Karl & Fred went to such pains to provide.

    Maybe an analogy with the physical sciences will aid understanding: if we are ever to develop an analysis of social conditions & processes adequate to the challenge facing our species, what you might call a socio-political “string theory”, we’ll have to approach the task by starting from Marx, Engels & followers, just as those doing cutting edge high-energy physics today started by absorbing Einstein & Planck, and approached that by absorbing Newton.
    Trying to base social theorizing on Henry George is like trying to base high energy physics on the Ether theory:)

  6. Deadbeat said on May 17th, 2010 at 3:29pm #

    bozh starts from the wrong framework. He starts from nationalism. Marxism abhors nationalism. Marxism is about uniting workers of the world in their common interest against Capitalism. You don’t have socialism in China.

  7. lichen said on May 17th, 2010 at 4:28pm #

    Max is right; you could also claim that the bible said things about peace and ignore both history and the wealth of other material in the bible; but the point is that we cannot be in bondage to old right books and their condescending, dogmatic followers.

  8. lichen said on May 17th, 2010 at 4:28pm #

    *old right wing books, that is.

  9. dan e said on May 17th, 2010 at 4:53pm #

    I haven’t read Maass’ book so am not really qualified to comment on it. However Ron J’s review did kindle, or re-kindle, some thoughts I’ve been entertaining about the rubric “Socialism”.

    Most DV readers seem pretty clear that we need to get rid of the present system of governance/production/exchange & replace it with something radically different. Different people offer divergent visions of what could take the place of the present mess; some call for Socialism, others for Parecon, Anarchism, Ecological Democracy etc etc. I myself don’t care that much what you call it, and don’t see the priority right now to be describing the details of how it might be structured, how it would work etc.

    To me the key word is POWER. The focus needs first of all to be on gaining an accurate picture of what exists now, & on deciding what the key features of it are.

    Where I find the thinking of a lot of those who call themselves “socialists” breaks down, is that they fail to recognize that Capitalist Society in the US/US Empire at present is not, in very fundamental ways, the same kind of Bourgeois Democracy that has historically been the “normal” form of society and State in the main capitalist countries most of the time.

    Present-day Zionized US Imperialism is an extraordinary form of the Capitalist State intertwined with an extraordinary form of the process of Capital Accumulation.
    There are some parallels with other extraordinary capitalist state forms; European Fascism including Nazism leaps to mind, as does Apartheid-era South Africa, and the Confederate States of America (which was not Fascism but was certainly not a typical capitalist state).

    A word about what is thought of as the “normal” capitalist state/economic system, known in the Marxist tradition as “bourgeois democracy”: these social formations have a lot of democratic features inside the borders of their primary territory, even though they can behave in an extremely “fascistic” way toward peoples outside said borders, or those who are perceived by the main population group as outsiders, less than full members of society.

    For instance, take 19th/20th century Belgium. While conditions for Belgian citizens of all classes in the home country were among the best in the world compared to members of the same classes elsewhere, the Belgian ruling class headed by King Leopold were imposing a reign of terror & genocide in their Congo colony which exhibited unspeakable horrors to a degree seldom if ever equalled throughout history. But in this Belgium differed from other “normal” capitalist countries only if at all in degree of savagery, that is quantitatively, not qualitatively. All the countries/regimes/states of the Capitalist Metropole were doing similar things, exhibiting one standard of “normality” domestically & quite another in their colonies.

    So we don’t classify these states/regimes as “extraordinary” or “fascist”. They were brutal toward those they chose to colonize but extended a certain degree of gentleness, a level of economic & other privileges to their domestic workforces, who were and largely still are encouraged to think of themselves as “citizens” of “pluralist democracies”.

    Well I’ll have to try to return to this later. No, I’m not going to claim the USA has “gone fascist”, only that a bunch of fascists have grabbed the levers of power & we are just beginning to see the fallout.

  10. Max Shields said on May 17th, 2010 at 6:56pm #

    dan e, let’s not start with the Henry George red herring. I’ve made my points and Ron is not talking about HG, he’s talking about Marx and socialism.

    I think it’s a fools trap to be fronting for Marx or socialism in response to Tea baggers. Thinking clearly about these things means staying out of the trap set by the so-called American right which is basically the power-base of the status quo.

    A biological view is one based on emergence. Varela has some interesting points to make on the topic. Again, he is a biologist not a writer of manifestos.

    I’ve made my point that socialism is with us, as is some form of capitalism. Neither is more than a humanly implemented catastrophe. I really don’t care what Marx had to say about biology because it said something about pretty much everything. His “theories” are not based in biology and that’s really the heart of the matter. Every philosophy has had something to say about biology, Nietzsche had much to say about biology; but it does not serve as the cornerstone of his entire work. He was very interested in human (all too human) nature.

  11. Deadbeat said on May 17th, 2010 at 8:16pm #

    Of course the struggle is for power but then what. You need to have a vision and a basis for the kind of society to construct thereafter. Max and others here seem to defensively argue that because Socialism was co-opted by the USSR and China then Socialism is impossible to achieve. This would also be the same as arguing that Democracy is impossible to achieve because its has been co-opted by the United States. Or that Racism cannot be defeat because there will always be bigots. These are strawman-like arguments that must be rejected.

    Kudos to Ron for writing this article. The fact that he is getting this kind of criticism in 2010 demonstrates his point of how the Left has yielded so much ground.

  12. Max Shields said on May 18th, 2010 at 5:08am #

    Deadbeat there is a fine line between vision and delusion. One must take account of human nature. Would you call for some sort of social engineering to create this new world? What would it take. Spouting bits and pieces from your favorite volume of Marx?

    Change is tricky (a major understandment if ever there was). Is socalism something that needs to be prosthelytized, door to door like Jahova’s Witnesses? Do we have community gatherings? And what are your talking points – Problem CAPITALISM; Solution SOCIALISM? And when all the naysayers begin to pick at your little definitions and irrationally call you a dirty lowdown Commie, and you fight them off with your words of Marx, and they look at you like you just called their mother a foul name….what then Deadbeat!!! Go home, sit by the window with your Das Kapital and rock in your seat to the rhythms of dialectic materialism.

    Sweet dreams.

  13. bozh said on May 18th, 2010 at 6:58am #

    it is not possible to answer even one linguistic accusation. Answers true and false do not pertain to such utterances.

    What exeactly have i said that leads u to conclude that “he starts from nationalism”?

    My socialism is mostly ab changing the structure of society everywhere. In US also. In fact, it is a must to obtain a one timocratic world governance, but with civilized societies.
    I have conveyed this idea many times on DV, ICH, and Truthdig. I think that just recently i have reiterated my conclusion on DV that civilized societies have been destroyed during a period of 15-7k yrs ago.
    And destroyed by priests. I do not know whether marx, engels, bakunin, lenin, tito, trotzky, et al have said this. I have not read anything they wrote. Ah, yes, i did, Das Kapital; some 40 rs ago, but understood nothing at that time; being asocialistic-meritocratic? Well, i don’t know! tnx

    By observing this I am certainly going much farther than all MSM collumnists and even great majority of dissidents.
    Even a marriage is a bit of serfdom; nationalisms are even worse than that.

    Some people attack me because they cannot agree with what i say. But the usual justification for geting personal is the they don’t understand what i say.
    OK, at times i do make a mess of my language or present what looks to people as strange ideas, but i never mess up reality. And that’s the bottom line! The buck stops there! tnx

  14. Max Shields said on May 18th, 2010 at 8:36am #

    People respond viscerally, if they respond at all. Intellectually there is little change, and most are adaptive and generally apathetic. Revolt is something that requires an intolerable sense of desperation.

    People need to be engaged physically. Community needs to be an act that turns the conversation into an observation. Otherwise you do end up with a USSR; or a funky corporatized political system that divides and rules with incredible dexterity ala USA.

    But keep Marx and the word socialism out of the conversation for god’s sake. Change can happen without bickering over ideological truisms that get us absolutely no where but intrenched in the status quo.

  15. bozh said on May 18th, 2010 at 9:17am #

    Max, yes,
    From preconceived ideas, feelings, etc. One cause for that is also language. I am not talking ab syntax, spelling, verbal brilliance, or grammar, but ab the fact than 999 of one thousand people do not sanely distinguish facts from conclusions, inferences, hopes, wishes, condemnation, euphemism-dysphemism, etc.
    They think that blaming, labeling, lamenting, getting personal are facts or teach.
    Most peopl also do not know that meanings are not in words, but in people; in their own body-minds and apsolutely not in the other person’s mind-body.
    Thus, identify own feelings-thoughts of a word like socialism with another person’s feelings-thoughts who is using the word socialism; other isms, and ideas as well.
    Most people do not know that symbols we use [words, flag, tight pants, gown] are not the things they stand for.
    Take, eg, the symbol flag or US flag. Well, one person wld get gushy or teary upon seeeing it, while i am just ab livid by seing it and by my knowledge that that symbol stands for murder, oppression, classful and iniquitous society.
    In short, it is very simple: practice non-identity of a symbol and what it stands for and own meaning of anything under the sun with that of another person.

    And one wld quickly seee how useless it is to blame, call names, lament, use wishful thinking, etc.
    The sane evaluation and use of language starts with positing all or most salient facts that pertain {widest look possible}; followed by concluding, and suggestions what shld be done.

    Priests and pols do not do that. They usually posit a conclusion and forever buttress it with other conclusions, wishfulness, condemnations; and low and behold because they know that no matter what they say cannot ever be proven wrong or untrue.
    And that is what they have been doing to us for milllennia. And most people are totally blind to this fact! tnx

  16. Deadbeat said on May 18th, 2010 at 12:16pm #

    Max Shields scrawls the following …

    Deadbeat there is a fine line between vision and delusion. One must take account of human nature. Would you call for some sort of social engineering to create this new world? What would it take. Spouting bits and pieces from your favorite volume of Marx?

    And your vision is more of the same by “managing” Capitalism. HISTORY itself has demonstrated that to be impossible. The New Deal and the events of since WWII has shown that to be the case. And your view of “human nature” is about SHIFT BLAME onto humanity REGARDLESS of INEQUALITY and the struggle against INEQUALITY. You argue NO HOPE for humanity so why not just ADMIT DEFEAT.

    Your issue is that Marxism provides a BASIS to CRITIQUE Capitalism. I am not arguing that Marxism provided the ANSWER to a new and wondrous society. That’s up to the people when they become EDUCATED to revolutionary ways and are enabled to think outside of the ruling class indoctrination. Your argue to keep people CONFINED to ruling class nostrums which is why Dan E was correct to bring up your previous Henry George advocacy and your previous arguments against redistribution.

    Clearly your arguments is for the maintenance of the status quo with minor adjustments. They offer the same “non-solutions” that are more or less associated with the Right these days and Liberals of the past. That being the case why not just put your energies into reforming the Democrats because your advocacy will only yield the same delusional and diversionary outcomes that you so readily accuse your counterparts.

  17. dan e said on May 18th, 2010 at 12:19pm #

    Yes yes, by all means keep Marx out of the conversation so we can continue to ignore the reality of class warfare & class opression. Typical refuge of the petit bourgeois mentality, which views both the dominant class of monopoly imperialists and the ground down lower classes with fear and hostility, and dreams of a political/economic order based on mom & pop businesses.

    And babbles in its sleep about visions of Ecotopia, based on nothing more than its petit bourgeois imagination and notions of decorum. From time to time these people’s slumbers are interrupted by events too nearby and threatening to ignore; at such times they scurry to take shelter under the wing of the capitalist Imperial State which all the while has been the guarantor of their sacred rights to Life, “Liberty” (sic) and PROPERTY.

  18. Deadbeat said on May 18th, 2010 at 12:21pm #

    bozh writes …

    DB, it is not possible to answer even one linguistic accusation. Answers true and false do not pertain to such utterances. What exactly have i said that leads u to conclude that “he starts from nationalism”?

    Here’s what you wrote…

    That’s what happened to USSR. It had been a matter to be or not to be. Russsians chose to be, rather than being probably one day eradicated.
    Now the burden of building socialism has fallen on chinese empire. But there are non-empires building socialist sructures of society

    The burden of socialism doesn’t fall on the Chinese. The burden of socialism falls on the working class.

  19. Deadbeat said on May 18th, 2010 at 12:38pm #

    Dan, Excellent post. I couldn’t have written what you wrote any better.

  20. Max Shields said on May 18th, 2010 at 12:43pm #

    Deadbeat heavens where do you get that imagination. You’ve made about a bunch of stuff and alluded to my having said it. No I didn’t say that at all.

    dan e wow you too manage to let loose with some real fantasic notions. To paraphrase the Beatles, “All we need is Marx….everybody…All we need is Marx….Marx…Marx is all we need…yea yea yea…”

  21. Deadbeat said on May 18th, 2010 at 1:16pm #


    Ridicule is no rebuttal. If you have nothing to say it’s best to say nothing.


  22. dan e said on May 18th, 2010 at 1:20pm #

    but Max, I never said that. Once more you try the Strawman tactic; sorry, no stogie this time either:)

    But since you seem to be having a hard time understanding what I’m trying to tell you, I’ll try to break it down, as clearly as possible, “draw you a pitcher”?

    I never said and do not argue that “Marx is all you need”. What I AM saying is that serious discussion of a collective effort to fundamentally change social conditions, to eliminate the worst of the human-caused evils which presently plague our species and the rest of organic life on earth needs to begin with an indepth understanding of Marx & Engels main insights.
    But that’s only for starters. Efforts to oppose Capitalist dominance have a long history, dating from even before the Capitalist Class took over from Feudal Royalty & Nobility the operation of the State Apparatus, & revised the legal system to make Capitalist property the basis of law. Struggles by the propertyless classes have been recorded from at least the time of Babuef during the French Revolution. Colonized peoples have their own histories of resistance to colonization which exist in both written and oral tradition.
    Those who seek to lead resistance to the current system of oppression & destruction yet choose to ignore this rich experience at best will waste a lot of time following blind alleys & reinventing old wheels, but usually wind up just plain irrelevant, & thus serve the existing setup by diverting attention & effort from where it needs to go.

  23. dan e said on May 18th, 2010 at 1:28pm #

    Thanks so much DB:) I do get discouraged reading the reams of confusion that keep getting posted on DV, so I value encouraging words most dearly.

    “Ridicule as rebuttal”: Goebbels was at pains to avow that
    “I never try to change anyone’s mind; what I do is strive to reinforce existing prejudices in an entertaining way”:)

  24. bozh said on May 18th, 2010 at 2:48pm #

    However, china is an evil empire and not a nation. I forget now, but a chinese P. had had told me that there are ab 126 langauges in china.

    And if one wld have put the quote in the context of everything i have thus far written, it becomes clear that i’m not happy with nationalism.
    And china is not the only country which is building socialism. tnx

  25. Max Shields said on May 18th, 2010 at 3:04pm #

    Look if you want ridicule just check dan e’s responses to my efforts to explain land as a common wealth; and any discussion on the commons. And Deadbeat you have never missed a moment to provide your Zionist psalms to just about anything someone might offer.

    Let’s get off the piety and pity.

    We don’t need Marx to figure this out. Quite frankly I’m not so sure we can figure it out in any manifesto way, but perhaps we’ll push and bump until something very unexpected happens.

  26. dan e said on May 18th, 2010 at 4:10pm #

    Those who are serious do need Marx. But you, Max, will never figure it out because that is not your objective.

    Your problem is you have something to lose if capitalism and these capitalist property laws are overturned. You want to have your trendy “greenism” cake & eat the main features of the current system too, especially the part that guarantees you a comfy “intermediate strata” level of privileged existence.

    But I’m not writing for you or people like you. Yes you’ve picked up on some of the worst evils in the present setup, but you are incapable of tracing them to their roots because to do so would mean you would have to give up your preconceived notions including your unconcious assumption that people like you are the center of the universe.
    No I’m not reading your mind, I’m just extrapolating from experience. Which has been that those who preach what you preach invariably come from & identify with a certain slice of society.
    So Marxism and talk of class antagonisms scares you, threatens you.
    If you weren’t so afraid of the word Marx, you might have learned something about the dialectical approach which Marx acquired from his deep study of Hegel, Epicuris, Democritus, Feuerbach et al. The first category of Dialectics is Totality. You have to start with a global planet- and species-wide view.

    In human affairs one needs to identify with the interests of the majority. Screw the USian middle class, including those who belong to zionist-run “labor unions”.

    You have to learn to look at “Western Civilization” from the outside, like the residents of “Hispianola” who saw Columbus the way UFO-flick “typical Americans” saw visitors from Outer Space.

  27. Max Shields said on May 18th, 2010 at 6:47pm #

    There comes a time, dan e, when thinking you know the answers should give you pause.

  28. GLloyd Rowsey said on May 19th, 2010 at 5:38am #

    What government would you say was a socialist government, ron? And you feel free to pick the century.

  29. bozh said on May 19th, 2010 at 6:55am #

    One question-answer cannot ever illuminate a reality. Not even one thousand questions-answers wld elucidate or teach people how to behave more humanely or as we may have behaved prepriestly-noble mastery over serfs.

    That’s why pols love question-answer type of meeting and with the pol siting up looking dwn on u!

    Asking a mafioso org like indian, US, saudi arabian, et al gov’ts one or thousand questions wld elicit prepared ‘answers’.
    There is no question gangsters cannot ‘answer’; silence also being an answer!
    As i see it, there are several people on this site who cannot ever give up their love for master-serf structure of society but fear to say it explicitly.
    Thus, the constant obfuscation, dodgings, name calling, ridicule of what others say, etc. tnx

  30. Deadbeat said on May 19th, 2010 at 1:18pm #


    Where did I take your quotation “out of context” and was not the USSR a “nation” or something else as you describe China to be. Also how is socialism being build around the world as you claim. Perhaps I’m missing something or perhaps I’m misinterpreting your message.

  31. Deadbeat said on May 19th, 2010 at 1:19pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    And Deadbeat you have never missed a moment to provide your Zionist psalms to just about anything someone might offer.

    NOW WE’RE GETTING TO THE REAL MEAT OF THE MATTER. Thanks Max for exposing your real agenda.

  32. bozh said on May 19th, 2010 at 2:12pm #

    I said that if one puts the quote in the context of all i have written, one wld see i that i spurn nationalism.
    Socialism or asocialism [fascsism] are ideologies. As such they belong to every human being.
    These ideologies pertain to building structures of society. The end product being an idyllicly or near-idyllicly structured society for socialism and the other an ideally inequal society.
    India being an epitome of an iniquitous or unequal society!

    Nationalism, to me, is also an ideology. In case of some european lands, they are nationalistic, but with a structure of societies that are s’mwhere in btwn asocialism and an ldyllicly-structured society.

    But no european land, as far as know, appears asocialistic like US. But which way are they going? Time will tell.
    Vietnam is building, or seems to, along cuba, venezuella, korea, bolivia a more or less equal society.

    In view of the fact that some nations have built empires or are empires now, i do not see all that much wrong with any nationalism; i.e., an ethnic’s group to have a self rule.
    Unfortunately, a country like slovenia, croatia, serbia, ukraine do govern selves now but seem on their way away from socialism. Nevertheless, they have their right to be nationalistic as alway before.

    So, how am i talking ab socialism as nationalistic event? In fact, in the post from which the quote comes i do not talk ab nationalism. I simply stated which countries are on their way to creating an equal society.

    Of course, i spurn jingoistic, self-laudatory and predatory nationalism of which nearly all asocialistic lands are guilty of; even countries like norway or finland.
    Both of these lands have troops in afgh’n. That’s not right in my mind.
    So, nationalism is a mixture of goodness and badness.
    I hope this clarifies my position!