Teachers Flock to Northwestern University for 'Marxist Conference'

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


Please, again you are talking about liberal policies. Socialism has nothing to do with the economic problems in Europe. Europe is not socialist.

If "socialism" is so great, they should have no problem with his guy attending their conference, as he rightfully did (with an invite)

Even if he is someone who has contrary views to theirs, they have zero right to evict him for....doing nothing...

MAJOR FAIL

To people posting in here, don't get polarized into the he said she said BS... focus on the fact this guy got kicked out of there for no good reason.

And THAT is un-American which is all you need to know.

/.

Not a bad discussion so far.

But now it's time for the big questions......

How do you keep the graft and corruption out ?

Who runs the show and who watches the chickens ?

Focus on #5

And if "all is equal", what's the point of #2 ?

At what "stage" do these gems come into play ?

Originally posted by chinaski77
reply to post by ANOK

 

Yes and any proceeds would go back into public services where it is needed. I don't have a problem with the Denmark model the quote describes, as I didn't with the Swedish model of the 70s. While I personally have socialist ideals, I don't think the term is constant; it is 'socialisms'. Liberalists sit on the fence and will not commit, I think that is the practical difference, but to be realistic we cannot believe that the capitalist world will change - it is too reliant upon the current system; all we can hope for are more socialistic policies within capitalism, hence my previous post.

Again though you mean liberal policies. What are socialist policies?

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production, as capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Other than that any so called "socialist policies" are polices of the organization, not of socialism. For example Marxism has it's own ideology, but that doesn't make that socialist ideology just because Marxism is a socialist movement. Capitalism is still the private ownership of the means of production regardless of anything else anyone decides to attach to it's meaning.

Point is what is important is the original definition of the term, not what has been attached to it over the decades.

The original definition of capitalism, for example, by Louis Blanc was, "The appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others." Proudhon defined it as, "Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour." Marx refined the definition to "The private ownership of the means of production". A system whereby the private owner hires labour, and makes their living from the 'surplus value' created by paying the worker for less than they produce. All the definitions fit, but Marx defined it more distinctly.

One way to prove this is by looking at Anarchism. Anarchists were socialists, obviously not pro-government.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" Mikhail Bakunin. Marxism was considered state-socialism by the anarchists, even though the Marxist state was supposed to be temporary, and the final goal a stateless society. The only way we can have a stateless society is with worker ownership.

I prefere this link.
legalinsurrection.com...

So much more 'right'.
"It is not an overstatement to say, based on the words of the teachers who filled the rooms at the Marxism Conference, that the Teachers agenda and the Marxist agenda is one and the same.

Welcome to the New Education of your children."

That's right america - they are comming. Like in the movies they will strike from the inside!
Better go buy yourself a gun. THEY ARE COMMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN!
Oh won't someone please think of the children!

reply to post by ANOK


no

No it isn't. Socialism is worker ownership, period. That is the goal, nothing else.

there is this, and many more

hell I could make one now.

Market socialism

For the libertarian socialist proposals sometimes described as "market socialism", see mutualism (economic theory). For the economic system in People's Republic of China, see socialist market economy.

Market socialism refers to various economic systems where the means of production are either publicly owned or cooperatively owned and operated for a profit in a market economy. The profit generated by the firms would be used to directly remunerate employees or would be the source of public finance or could be distributed amongst the population through a social dividend.

Theoretically, the fundamental difference between market socialism and a non-market socialism is the existence of a market for the means of production and capital goods. Market socialism is distinguished from models of mixed economies, because unlike the mixed economy, models of market socialism are complete and self-regulating systems. Additionally, market socialism is contrasted with social democratic policies implemented in capitalist market economies.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by xuenchen


That is not the 'ten planks of communism'. It is the outline of the temporary Marxist workers state that would lead to communism. Marx considered those steps necessary to reorder society in order to move from capitalist production to socialist production. Once that was achieved the state would dissolve. It is taken out of context without the rest of the text. Marxism is not communism, it was a movement for communism. Communism exists outside of Marxism.

The Commie Festo is not an explanation of communism. Read the Manifesto and you would stop posting this nonsense. It's only 64 pages and cheap to buy.

From back cover of my copy...

"...It [the Manifesto] presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism, rather than a prediction of communism's potential future forms"

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


LOL market socialism is still worker ownership.

The term 'socialism' means worker ownership. Like 'Libertarian Socialism' is the same as 'Anarcho-socialism' is the same as 'stateless socialism'. The socialism part means worker ownership.

Next...

reply to post by ANOK


no it is a mix of public, private for profit (corporate), AND worker ownership.

read the definition

Market socialism refers to various economic systems where the means of production are either publicly owned or cooperatively owned and operated for a profit in a market economy.

Originally posted by xuenchen

How do you keep the graft and corruption out ?

Corruption is rampant in capitalism because it's easy to be corrupted when it's a dog eat dog world.

Without the rampant competition for resources, jobs, housing etc., then corruption would be minimised.

Silly argument when capitalism is the most corrupt system there's ever been. We had more freedom under feudalism, but they don't want you to know that.

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by ANOK

 

no it is a mix of public, private for profit (corporate), AND worker ownership.

read the definition

Market socialism refers to various economic systems where the means of production are either publicly owned or cooperatively owned and operated for a profit in a market economy.

Read your own quote. It says cooperative not corporation. Cooperative, as in a workers cooperative, worker owned.

If there is private ownership involved it would not be socialism, no matter what they tried to call it. I mean American "libertarianism" is not Libertarianism, see my sig.

Publicly owned is another way of saying worker owned. Even though technically it should say common ownership, as public ownership is a form of capitalist private ownership. It's a common mistake. That article is not the best.

The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked and fundamental difference...

Public Ownership and Common Ownership

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by xuenchen

How do you keep the graft and corruption out ?

Corruption is rampant in capitalism because it's easy to be corrupted when it's a dog eat dog world.

Without the rampant competition for resources, jobs, housing etc., then corruption would be minimised.

Silly argument when capitalism is the most corrupt system there's ever been. We had more freedom under feudalism, but they don't want you to know that.

So you are saying that the corruption will somehow kill itself off or something ?

Who stops it and when does the "codeword" become the "alarm" ?

How long are the temporary outlines supposed to take ?

Perhaps the real plan was to never really get "there".

Perhaps it's all a "banker's dream" from the start.

reply to post by ANOK


corporations exists in socialist countries as a co-op. Share holders are what? If it is for profit, who do you think gets that profit? The workers? No, the share holders, and they still exist in socialisms because of this.

that my friend is corporatism. A whole other beast, but really everything we are talking about. The perceived ills of capitalism, and those of socialism.

It is the divide maker, nation breaker, bank maker...lol

really though, that is how private ownership exists in socialism, through market socialism favoring corporatism.

It is a huge loop hole that allows leadership, both public and private to avoid sharing profit.

Very animal farm.


this conversation was fun with you all, but that is really the high point as I see it. This is the core issue and this conversation flowed rather well into the root cause.

Nice. Thank you all for the chat.

I will let others talk it out. I have to work.

reply to post by ANOK


Like I said I think there are socialistic ideals within the existing capitalist system, Denmark here being one example and that's realisticly the most we can hope for. It can not a black and white issue of 'socialist or not', and I fear semantics are spoiling a good debate.

reply to post by xuenchen


The way he lied about how he was treated when asked to Leave,

Only makes what was going on at the Conference Probably more Lies.

The only Danger in this Thread, Is how some Folks Believe BREITBART BS Stories and Propaganda.

Originally posted by xuenchen
So you are saying that the corruption will somehow kill itself off or something ?

What corruption are you talking about?

Who stops it and when does the "codeword" become the "alarm" ?

What? Corruption only happens when there is something to corrupt. You have to be a bit more specific I don't understand your riddles, or read minds.

How long are the temporary outlines supposed to take ?

Of Marxism? I don't know I'm not a Marxist.

Perhaps the real plan was to never really get "there".

Who's real plan? Marx?

Perhaps it's all a "banker's dream" from the start.

No it wasn't. You're talking about the Marx thing. Again Marx is not communism. If you have a problem with Marxism that's fine, all Anarchists agree with you. Anarchists are socialists, so that destroys your argument.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" Mikhail Bakunin

Educate yourself...

The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict

I don't think your definition of socialism holds at all. Socialism does not equal equality. Socialism is socialized ownership of production, and despite theories about co-ops and such, the only attempts at socialism in the real world has been state ownership of means of production and state authority of distribution. Ownership by the workers is achieved through communism, which has only ever been tried by the USSR and that only from about 1918 to 1921, professor P Boettke wrote a nice article on those years. The reason they switched to socialism permamnently thereafter until the USSR's dissolution was that production absolutely crashed as they tried to implement a real communist system. So state ownership it was to be.

The whole problem with both ideologies is that they ignore how people actually behave. I can't recall the exact details but as the USSR moved into Communist party dictatorship, a conductor of one of their many outstanding orchestras (The Russians know epic music) was told he was going to be paid the same as some guy who cleaned the orchestra hall. His retort was to say that the janitor could do the conducting then while he pushed the broom. People need a reason to excel, or they just simply won't excel. There's no incentive. Why work harder and longer when it won't reward you? Humans operate on (mostly) rational self-interest. This why a Republic, a rule of laws and not of men, works best. Put together a fair set of rules, a system for the society to take care of those who are unable to participate fully in the game be it phyisical or mental impairment, and let those who aspire to excel do so. The laws and court system are structured so as to minimize abuses of power, and the laws protect minority opinion from being over run by majority 'mob' rule.

As far as the Manifesto, read it as a college sophomore. Find me one instance ever in history, just one, when an organiztion as powerful as centralized government voluntarily 'withered away'. The people with that power do not give it up. Ever.

Originally posted by chinaski77
reply to post by ANOK

 

Like I said I think there are socialistic ideals within the existing capitalist system, Denmark here being one example and that's realisticly the most we can hope for. It can not a black and white issue of 'socialist or not', and I fear semantics are spoiling a good debate.

It's not semantics it's important to understanding what socialism actually is.

Everyone of you is confusing Liberalism with Socialism. So called socialist ideals you talk about are liberal ideals. Social programs are a liberal idea.

I am trying to point out the massive conspiracy to hide the truth of what socialism really is. If you look at the history you can see how the state in many countries lied in order to maintain power. This all happened when the working class was very powerful, and a serious threat to the establishment.

People keep dismissing socialism simply because they do not understand what it actually is. So no, it has nothing to do with semantics.

reply to post by ANOK


I'm not being dismissive with the semantics thing. I still insist that socialism equals equality, and not necessarily strict communism. You can take the path to Stalinist Russia or the Swedish democratic socialist model of the 70s/early 80s.

Originally posted by chinaski77
reply to post by ANOK

 

I'm not being dismissive with the semantics thing. I still insist that socialism equals equality, and not necessarily strict communism. You can take the path to Stalinist Russia or the Swedish democratic socialist model of the 70s/early 80s.

You can insist all you want but socialisim is: socialized ownership of production and authority over distribution. I want this $1 bill in my pocket to be worth $100, but it still only counts as 1-it's definitional and exclusionary of aspirations I might have. And despite your hope in that ideology, it doesn't guarantee equality at all. Take the USSR again. I'm sure you've at least heard of the Military Industrial complex and railed against it (I know I have at least). In the USSR, Union of Societ Socialist Republics, it actually worked out exactly the same way,only they called it the Metal Eaters Alliance. Here's how it worked in both the US and USSR: If you were a Colonel in the Soviet Army, or the US Air Force, and you wanted to become a general, you had to show some savvy in aquiring more and/or better weapons/resources for your branch of the services. If you were a scientist for US research company or a Soviet think tank and you wanted to get your own lab to even more expensive research, you had to invent those weapons. And if you were sales rep for a US weapons manufacturer, or a bureaucrat at the Soviet Ministry of Heavy Machine Building, you got promoted or aquired access over more resources (moved up the career ladder in other words) by bringing those parties together to make something.