New Russia: A reassesment

Proponents of capitalism will often remark that the free market meets the needs of the masses. Unequalities in society will be fixed by the all-powerfull "invisible hand" to quote Smith. Far too often, proponents of socialism or other alternatives will be derided with "facts" about the backwardness and ineffciency of any rival of the free market. I was heartened to recently read an article published in News

The Parliamentary Socialist, and Glenn Beck has a point?

I am currently reading Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism, which is an extolment of a revolutionary, one party state over a parliamentary democracy. The piece was written in 1920, right after the end of the Russian Civil War. In it, Trotsky points out the negatives of attempting socialism through democracy. I thought after last blog's rather controversial point, I should clarify a bit on my opinion on democracy.

A political theory is the most relevant to the time it was created in, given certain circumstances. The situation in Russia during the early twentieth century, or China during the 1940's called for a true revolution. The possibility of realizing socialism through a democratic establishment was slim to none. The leaders of these revolutions were dealing with an unlearned, feudalistic populace. Obviously, here in America, such a unilateral undemocratic revolution would not be supported, and should not be attempted. The way to achieve socialism in the "First World" is through democratic elections. So while I support Trotsky and co. in theory, given their time in history, applying their teachings to our present society is not a good idea.

On another topic, I was watching Glenn Beck last night, and he was arguing the usual conservative mantra of cutting taxes and spending being the key to fixing the economy. I realized that I agree with him. Cutting taxes and spending is probably the most effective way of rebounding the economy, and returning to the same system of deregulated, rat -ace capitalism that got us into this mess to begin with. Our government should not be searching for ways to return the economy to the status quo, but to improve its practices to ensure another catastrophe like this never happens again.

True Democracy and the One Party State

Disclaimer: Although I may often criticize her policies, I am by birth, an American. That being said, I was conditioned in an environment that allowed me to study other political systems, and my idea of "freedom" may reflect that ability.

Most Americans, if asked what they love best about their country, would answer their freedom. Their freedom to open a business, vote for a candidate, or speak freely without fear of repercussions. Some of these freedoms help me be able to write this blog, for instance. However, when looking deeper into the fabric of American, or more importantly, Western society, one can't help but notice the shocking lack of true freedom. Does the child born into the extreme urban poverty we are only too familiar with have any true choice of education? Any real chance of owning or operating a business? Perhaps, in some rare cases, they do. But far too many people born to the lower class stay that way, poor, hardworking, and overlooked by a society obsessed with materialism. This sense of freedom degrades even more when considering that although allowed to vote, too often the people's choices are between similar candidates, operating without any working class principles or cares. Does one's vote really matter when choosing between two ideologically concurrent parties? Certain Democrats, I believe, have a concern for the working class, but all too often, they're corrupted by the power, money, and prestige.

Even though beset by all these problems, most Americans, as well as leftists, would balk at the idea of living within a socialist, dictatorship of the proletariat. They decry this idea of being authoritarian, Orwellian, etc. Would a multi-party, western, socialist society be able exist? That is, would a socialist nation be able to function with a viable opposition? Historically, every Marxist society that came about due to revolution has not allowed political opposition. Some may attribute the downfall of the USSR, for example, to their banning of any organized political opposition. I disagree. In my opinion, if a socialist state were to come about, allowing political opposition to take root amongst the unlearned masses would spell destruction for the movement. This is due to the fact that socialism requires a complete rewiring of society, and one's ideas and perceptions of it. I have faith in the people, faith in their ability to popularly choose socialism eventually, however once that happens, it would be far to dangerous to allow an active opposition immediately. Socialism brings massive improvements, but only after tearing down the pre-existing system of exploitation and degradation. The people must be given the chance to witness the positive changes, and then let them contemplate an opposition.

If, for example, a popular movement were to take power, under the leadership of a vanguard party, which I believe is necessary, and that party was to stay in power, allowing democratic centralist elections to party posts, would that not be true democracy, provided this party was truly acting on the will of the people? And would not the people's decision to allow this party to continue to rule constitute as legitimizing its rule? By this logic, I would argue that it is possible to have a democracy, even a more effective democracy, within a one party state.

Unnecessary Dividers in the Marxist Community

I've written often of the multiple factions that plague the left. Specifically, these can include the difference between anarchists, trade-unionists, Marxists, anarcho-syndicalists, etc. Today, I will focus especially on the divisions that split the Marxist community.

The origins of the divisions in theory and practice debated among today's Marxists can be traced back more than seventy years. These differences can be extremely small and seemingly insignificant, and yet they never cease to cause controversy amongst leftists. I believe that these rows are caused more by managerial differences and the debate on modes of practice than any real ideological debate between Stalin, Trotsky, etc.

A good example of the needless debate between Marxists centers on Stalin's "National Question" and its place in Marxist thought. Self-described Trotskyists and Stalinists continue to be split by their opinion of this piece, often needlessly. The real focus on the "National Question" centers on state-craft, which is more or less useless to America's fledgling Marxist community.

Since the 1917 October Revolution, revolutionary politicians have understood that the theory of Marxism is a tool to be applied to oppressive governments in the hope of building a more egalitarian society. This point, that Marxism is a tool to be applied to a particular situation seems to have been lost on many revolutionary Marxist parties in the "First world." Deep down, every politically conscience progressive person has a inner-revolutionary, fighting to take over and foment some sort of a people's war for the betterment of mankind. But, as mature beings of current western society, we must put down this craving, and work for a true democratic revolution, within the political system we currently have. The concept of violent revolution in America, or the western world for that matter, is currently impossible and unsupported by the masses, and thus working towards one must be considered opportunist defeatism.

Revolutionary giants of the past provide a good example of thought, theory, and practice, and must be used often as a guiding light. There is nothing wrong with learning history, or admiring the likes of Lenin, Mao, or Che. The real problem starts in failing to understand that these men used Marxism as a tool in their time, and in their unique historical context. The failure to update Marxist action, and the refusal to take part in the current democratic political process dooms any Marxist movement to failure.

The myth of American exceptionalism

Recently, and against better judgement, I opened up an issue of the ultra-conservative magazine "NewsMax." Now if I were to write a blog post for every utterly confounding thing in that magazine, it would be safe to say I wouldn't have any spare time to update my other blog, or even write angry Op/Eds to "The Post" for that matter. After seeing one particular phrase in an article about Obama's foreign policy however, I couldn't resist a rant. Near the end of the article was this well crafted claim: "Obama denies American exceptionalism, insisting that American is just another country like Uganda or Spain, except with more land."

What blasphemy! What lies! I honestly can't believe there are many Americans that believe his nonsense, and yet I know it to be true. I suppose the writers of NewsMax believe that by birth we Americans are better than the other people's of the world? By divine mandate we reserve the right to rule? These xenophobic and nationalistic writers believe they are actually superior.

There is nothing wrong with being proud of one's country, but such feelings often lead to dangerous nationalistic sentiments. These feelings create an atmosphere of lazy self-assurance, and are threatening the growing progress of our country. The conservatives are feeding Joe Citizen what he wants to hear, along with fatty foods and useless products. Eventually, without a new attitude, our country will continue to decline in world rankings for literacy, health care, knowledge, and freedom. These arrogant Americans can only shrug at the anger of the world for so long, before they utterly destroy our country. America's suffering and hard work decades ago gave us our pride, and these people are continuing to live off of it like a fat thirty year old in his mother's basement. Only a new commitment of hard work and global responsibility will cure the disease of "American exceptionalism." The sooner we all realize we're citizens of the world too, the larger the chance of positive development in our crumbling society.

Further musings on fellowship amongst leftist groups

Recently, the problem of factionalism amongst leftist has been growing even more profound. On the UWM campus there exists at least three separate groups touting a similar ideology. The main problem seems to be a lack of leadership, and idea of purpose amongst these groups.

Here on campus, SDS takes the role of the only major "revolutionary" group. They can boast the largest members, and yet groups such as "Progressive students of Milwaukee" and the "Revolutionary Students Union" and the SDS-splitter "Act Everywhere" still regularly hold meetings, rallies, etc. While these groups are filled with bright, charismatic students, and they generally put on a good protest, their stubborn refusal to take part in the legitimate affairs of UWM continue to damn them to inefficiency. In a sense, they are paper tigers.

At first glance, one would assume these rebellious groups are filled with the "typical college hippie," at once as equally taken with the movement as the image. They are in fact, filled with well-meaning and seasoned student activists. The man-power SDS can call up for a protest or speak-out is impressive if not a bit frightening.

These groups suffer from what I'll called "left revisionism." Their hatred of "the system" causes them to shun any chance of gaining legitimate power on campus, thus doing more harm to the leftist movement than any conservative group could do. While many paramount leaders are arguing whether or not to even vote in the student elections, conservative groups on campus are running, and electing their candidates to powerful positions within the government.

The problem with "liberal"

Too often journalists, news commentators, writers, and politicians have taken to describing the common liberal as a "bleeding heart," a "tree hugger," or some other description that conjures an idea of a Starbucks-frequenting pacific northwest hipster who subscribes to Amnesty International's email listserve, while decrying the tyranny of "the man." Allow me state the fact: most everyone can agree upon, nobody likes that person. That guy or girl is annoying, touts a holier than thou image, and generally makes everyone around them feel insecure, as well as apathetic to their causes. In labeling liberals as this, the conservative movement does more to harm the left's appeal to the working man than almost any other ploy used. The great irony here, is that it is the conservative who should invoke feelings of bitterness from the middle class, it is the conservative who should be seen as the bane of a happy medium of income, and yet the working man hates "the liberal."

I avoid calling myself a liberal. When a more common descriptor is needed (in the place of "Socialist," democratic socialist, etc) I call myself a "progressive." I believe it conveys a less haughty meaning. The American left, as people see it, has been branded, and this most likely won't change. As long as people continue to believe it, the conservative populist movement will continue to condemn leftists as "latte-sipping" liberals, and the people will continue to agree. It is time for the Socialist to rise. The word has been tainted for so long in the past, and yet it is ready for rebirth. Let it now be used to describe the hard working, meager living, champions of the people, those who actually have something to gain from a change in our political system. The "liberal" has won us nothing, and his time is over, let the Socialist now rise to foment true change in America.