Republicans are fascists and falangists. They worship wealth and power and traditional male and religious authorities, and are supported by white nationalists among other traditionalists. The tilt of the party toward full Fascism occurred during the administration of Herbert Hoover, who himself personalized the drift, starting as a mere technocrat. The politicos endlessly sell out their base of ordinary workers for the benefit of their wealthy contributors, but both espouse essentially the same ideology, though the worker version may style itself as populist (right wing) in distinction from the current corrupt leadership.
The Democrats are split between their politicos, who are mostly lite-fascists, and their base, which is social democratic. The last true social democratic Democratic President was FDR. The next could be Bernie Sanders.
The mainstream Socialists are social democrats, calling for the institution of social democratic programs such as national healthcare and college tuition. This of course includes Bernie Sanders. Now this is the mainstream tendency represented by the Socialist Party of America and now by the Democratic Socialists of America, which calls itself "democratic socialism" which is virtually indistinguishable from the principles of "social democracy." Some call this "conservative Socialism." The organization is large enough that it includes many bona fide Marxists, but they've all become gradualists, and as only gradualism makes sense, I'm a gradualist too, and I'd be fine with being called Marxist myself, I just don't know as I'm worthy of such a claim.
In other countries where self Socialists have risen to power, such as France, they've often proven little different from American lite-Fascist Democratic politicos--and possibly worse. Commitment to limited socialism or even social democracy has often been superceded by neoliberalism.
There have been smaller socialist organizations such as ISO and SLP which were Trotskyist or De Leonist in principle (and De Leon was more left than Trotsky, just less effective), but perhaps more Menshevik in practice (though usually quite fun to be with). In other words, they were groups of organizers who had great parties, discussions, and protests, but it's not clear they improved the course of American politics as a whole, and they tended toward separateness from the mainstream which may have been more negatives than positive. However, they would sometimes work with mainstream candidates as well, with I think was better than nothing.
The Greens are also social democrats, whose main feature seems to be that they will not try to work within the establishment Democratic Party but only against it, sadly creating divisiveness in the present context.
The mainstream Communists (CPUSA) are also social democrats. There had been historically been more difference between them and the mainstream Socialist than there are now. Now that there is no Comintern (that ended in 1943), and no subsidy from the CPSU (that ended in 1987), and even USSR to "apologize" for, you could say there is no essential difference.
That "apologizing" was often the correct message. For long and away US Imperial rhetoric unfairly demonized the Soviet Union and Communism and everything about it. Rather than fighting endless hot and cold wars against USSR, if we had cooperated with it to build a better social democratic world, as FDR and Henry A Wallace intended, the world today would be much better. There's no social value in policing the world for Capital. If Communists took power in a country, that is their political evolution, not ours.
Communists developed the best analysis of Capitalist Imperialism, among other things. Communists include one of the greatest historians of all time (Eric Hobsbawm, CPUK), and, where I live, a local legendary organizer and litigant for civil rights, John Stanford.
One might think that given the name Communism, which refers to the ultimate end horizon goal in Marxist analysis, Communists were more dedicated to the socialist whole enchelada, as at least claimed by Lenin anyway, as social control of the Commanding Heights of the economy. In what are usually falsely disparaged as communist Actual Self-Described Communist Regimes (USSR, China, NK, Cuba) in fact, this whole enchelada or something like it has been achieved.
And perhaps, within the Communist ranks, one might hear more talk of such things.
But Marx himself, and American Communists, place not so much importance on the ultimate design of socialism let alone communism, as how we get there through worker and not capitalist control.
One probably unimportant difference is that the Communists don't consider Marxism optional. If you are a Communist, you are a Marxist, at least in denotation. You've nominally signed on to the program with the long term goals of socialism and communist regardless of how likely we are to get there any time soon, or whether the means to be employed are anything more than trying to get the better of the two establishment candidates elected to office, like a loyal Democrat.
Socialists haven't necessarily signed on to Marxism, and certainly not to Leninism. Socialists dump Lenin at the very start--Democratic Centralism. At least in theory. Even the Democratic Party is Democratic Centralist in theory.
Is Leninism useful? It constitutes a body of theory and experience regarding a fast collectivization that was carried out with considerable initial success. It had a lot of errors too, and I think needs as much critical reading as anything. Famously, Lenin's ends-justifies-the-means ferocity created huge problems to be avoided. It was for many a terror, and became more so under Stalin. A lot of mistakes were made, and some of the dictators evil. But the history at least is worthy of study. The theory is part of that history.
And, eventually, the USA will need a collectivization of the Commanding Heights including energy and transportation and medical care and more. The present systems are not sustainable. The longer we put this off, the greater the fundamental decay of meeting people's needs vs the need for profit will occur, and the more a "fast collectivization" would be needed, and therefore the more we might need to learn from the Leninist history.
The Democrats are split between their politicos, who are mostly lite-fascists, and their base, which is social democratic. The last true social democratic Democratic President was FDR. The next could be Bernie Sanders.
The mainstream Socialists are social democrats, calling for the institution of social democratic programs such as national healthcare and college tuition. This of course includes Bernie Sanders. Now this is the mainstream tendency represented by the Socialist Party of America and now by the Democratic Socialists of America, which calls itself "democratic socialism" which is virtually indistinguishable from the principles of "social democracy." Some call this "conservative Socialism." The organization is large enough that it includes many bona fide Marxists, but they've all become gradualists, and as only gradualism makes sense, I'm a gradualist too, and I'd be fine with being called Marxist myself, I just don't know as I'm worthy of such a claim.
In other countries where self Socialists have risen to power, such as France, they've often proven little different from American lite-Fascist Democratic politicos--and possibly worse. Commitment to limited socialism or even social democracy has often been superceded by neoliberalism.
There have been smaller socialist organizations such as ISO and SLP which were Trotskyist or De Leonist in principle (and De Leon was more left than Trotsky, just less effective), but perhaps more Menshevik in practice (though usually quite fun to be with). In other words, they were groups of organizers who had great parties, discussions, and protests, but it's not clear they improved the course of American politics as a whole, and they tended toward separateness from the mainstream which may have been more negatives than positive. However, they would sometimes work with mainstream candidates as well, with I think was better than nothing.
The Greens are also social democrats, whose main feature seems to be that they will not try to work within the establishment Democratic Party but only against it, sadly creating divisiveness in the present context.
The mainstream Communists (CPUSA) are also social democrats. There had been historically been more difference between them and the mainstream Socialist than there are now. Now that there is no Comintern (that ended in 1943), and no subsidy from the CPSU (that ended in 1987), and even USSR to "apologize" for, you could say there is no essential difference.
That "apologizing" was often the correct message. For long and away US Imperial rhetoric unfairly demonized the Soviet Union and Communism and everything about it. Rather than fighting endless hot and cold wars against USSR, if we had cooperated with it to build a better social democratic world, as FDR and Henry A Wallace intended, the world today would be much better. There's no social value in policing the world for Capital. If Communists took power in a country, that is their political evolution, not ours.
Communists developed the best analysis of Capitalist Imperialism, among other things. Communists include one of the greatest historians of all time (Eric Hobsbawm, CPUK), and, where I live, a local legendary organizer and litigant for civil rights, John Stanford.
One might think that given the name Communism, which refers to the ultimate end horizon goal in Marxist analysis, Communists were more dedicated to the socialist whole enchelada, as at least claimed by Lenin anyway, as social control of the Commanding Heights of the economy. In what are usually falsely disparaged as communist Actual Self-Described Communist Regimes (USSR, China, NK, Cuba) in fact, this whole enchelada or something like it has been achieved.
And perhaps, within the Communist ranks, one might hear more talk of such things.
But Marx himself, and American Communists, place not so much importance on the ultimate design of socialism let alone communism, as how we get there through worker and not capitalist control.
One probably unimportant difference is that the Communists don't consider Marxism optional. If you are a Communist, you are a Marxist, at least in denotation. You've nominally signed on to the program with the long term goals of socialism and communist regardless of how likely we are to get there any time soon, or whether the means to be employed are anything more than trying to get the better of the two establishment candidates elected to office, like a loyal Democrat.
Socialists haven't necessarily signed on to Marxism, and certainly not to Leninism. Socialists dump Lenin at the very start--Democratic Centralism. At least in theory. Even the Democratic Party is Democratic Centralist in theory.
Is Leninism useful? It constitutes a body of theory and experience regarding a fast collectivization that was carried out with considerable initial success. It had a lot of errors too, and I think needs as much critical reading as anything. Famously, Lenin's ends-justifies-the-means ferocity created huge problems to be avoided. It was for many a terror, and became more so under Stalin. A lot of mistakes were made, and some of the dictators evil. But the history at least is worthy of study. The theory is part of that history.
And, eventually, the USA will need a collectivization of the Commanding Heights including energy and transportation and medical care and more. The present systems are not sustainable. The longer we put this off, the greater the fundamental decay of meeting people's needs vs the need for profit will occur, and the more a "fast collectivization" would be needed, and therefore the more we might need to learn from the Leninist history.
No comments:
Post a Comment