This seem apropos regarding the last couple of months.........

[socialist_n_TN]

From a speech by Leon Trotsky in 10-24-1918:

"We shall create our kingdom of labour, and the capitalists and landowners can go where they like, to another planet or the next life....A new world revolutionary front is emerging, on one side of which stand the oppressors of all lands, and on the other the working class...This moment will sound the death-knell of world imperialism and then we shall achieve the kingdom of freedom and justice."

Utopian? Sure, but without a utopian vision the stuggle against oppression becomes only an end in and of itself, ONLY struggle. And this can lead to what happened in the USSR under Stalin. Remember what we fight FOR. A "kingdom of freedom and justice" for ALL, not just a few.

[SDuderstadt]

1. Let me make sure I get this straight...

You've started an OP citing Trotsky?

[Swede]

2. Da!

:shrug:

[Taverner]

5. What's wrong with Trotsky?

Of all of the Bolshiveks, he was the most popular, the most trusted, and the least violent.

[SDuderstadt]

7. Well...

I can think of countless American labor leaders which would have been far more apropos.

[Taverner]

8. True, I like Eugen Debs myself

The point the OP is trying to get across (I think) is that more Capitalism won't solve our problems

[SDuderstadt]

9. I disagree...

It's not capitalism per se...it's the kind practiced by some.

That's why I keep promoting democratic capitalism.

[Taverner]

11. There are two fatal flaws with capitalism

1 - No matter what model, it always ALWAYS ends with inflation.

2 - All companies eventually merge into monopolies

[SDuderstadt]

12. "all companies eventually merge into monopolies"

LOLOL!

Please provide some support for that. In the meantime, I don't think you understand democratic capitalism very well.

[socialist_n_TN]

14. Don't the capitalists themselves have to go along with........

'democratic capitalism"? How do you make that happen, when EVERY capitalist is touting Freidman's version of capitalism?

[SDuderstadt]

15. "Every" capitalist is going along with...

Friedman's version? Really?

Umm, no.

[socialist_n_TN]

16. Oh really? Who's not a Friedmanista?...........

Especially if you look at the people over the last 30 years who've had any SAY in what capitalism IS. You know, the people who've made deregulation a religion and passed laws reflecting that belief. Anyway, they all say the market would work just FINE if all regulations were off. Don't they?

[SDuderstadt]

17. That is hardly...

all capitalists, dude.

Your rhetoric isn't a substitute for fact.

[socialist_n_TN]

19. Well, how about this fact.............

The capitalists who've had the MOST, and, in reality almost EXCLUSIVE, influence over economic policy since Reagan have been followers of Milton Freidman. You know, the Chicago Boys.

Capitalism is what the most influential capitalists SAY it is. That's what we've got.

[SDuderstadt]

20. Bullshit, dude...

Your hyperbole does not carry the day.

Working hard to elect Democrats to restore balance to our system does.

Unfortunately for you, they are not going to install your socialist utopia.

[socialist_n_TN]

23. Wow! Hyperbole huh? I'll give you ONE name...........

which is one more than you've given me of "democratic capitalists" with actual economic INFLUENCE over tha last 30+ years. Grover Norquist.

And as to electing democrats to install your "capitalist utopia", didn't we do that in '08? And guess what? Nothing changed. DEMOCRATS are ALMOST as sucked into the Friedman ideas as Republicans are.

It'll be easier to install a socialist utopia that it will be to change the nature of capitalism.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Dude...

do you honestly think Grover Norquist represents all capitalists?

Your remarks about your socialist utopia are equally silly. I'm not crazy about state ownership of the means of production, dude.

[socialist_n_TN]

26. Do you deny that he's had a bigger influence over........

economic policy than anyone else in the last 30+ years? NOrquist doesn't have to represent all capitalists, just the ones who influence POLICY. POLICY is what capitalism IS.

As to your last two sentences, QUELLE SURPRISE! You'll be one of those guys who keeps pushing capitalism right up until capitalism pushes the rest of us over a cliff.But I knew that. Some folks are useless to argue with.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the name of one of those "democratic capitalists" who's had such a HUGE influence over economic policy over the last 3+ decades.

[SDuderstadt]

28. Dude...

I am not going to waste all day debating your "capitalism will be the death of us" mantra. Your chances of realizing your vision are precisely nil.

I'll work on restoring democratic capitalism anyday.

[Taverner]

42. I used to buy that whole "deregulation will save us all" mantra

Big fan of it in the 1990's when I was making six-figure salaries. Then reality hit, and I learned a valuable lesson.

[Taverner]

21. The Phone Company nt

[SDuderstadt]

25. The claim was...

ALL companies. Remember that?

[Taverner]

27. We are in the process of that now

Every tech company is getting eaten by Microsoft and Oracle

All phone companies being eaten by AT&T

and so it goes....

left unchecked we will have one company that does everything.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Oh, bullshit

You aren't remotely close to proving your claim, dude.

[Taverner]

32. So you're telling me companies are not merging and becoming monopolies

Wow...are you even paying attention to the news? Or do you read fairy tales and pass that off as news?

[SDuderstadt]

37. Dude...

the claim was ALL companies merge into monopolies. You are far from proving that claim, dude.

[Taverner]

40. They do, and have done

See: Railroads in the US. They all merged into one company, which had to be bailed out by taxpayers when it wasn't making any money.

[SDuderstadt]

45. That has got to be...

the stupidest claim I have ever heard, bar none.

I'm done.

[Taverner]

48. Funny world you live in

Do unicorns and fairies live in your world?

[SDuderstadt]

50. No...

multiple railroads do.

Duh.

[socialist_n_TN]

39. BINGO! The truth has arrived.............

The guy has preconceived notions that he's going to push no matter what. He'll attack YOUR position, but won't ever back up his attacks.

[QC]

30. OMNICORP™

[Taverner]

34. Yup

One big, omnipresent, happy overlord

[BobbyBoring]

31. Well

look at banks. What did bankers do with the TARP $$ they didn't stick in their pockets?? Bought up smaller banks. Look at media. 10 companies control 90% of the media. look at money 1 % has most of the wealth.

How's that for starters?

[SDuderstadt]

33. Maybe you should look up...

the definition of "monopoly".

[Taverner]

36. Maybe YOU should

Since you think AT&T's behavior is just fine

And one ring to rule them all will benefit everyone

[SDuderstadt]

41. "Since you think AT&T's behavior is just fine"

Show me where I said that.

I am not going to waste all day with your stupid strawman arguments, dude.

[Taverner]

44. Who's playing strawman?

The only proof you would accept would be if there was only one company that ran everything today. The fact that monopolies formed in the past, and Teddy R had to break them up (see: Trustbusting) is lost on you.

You're the one with the strawman dude

[SDuderstadt]

47. Done...

dude.

[Taverner]

49. Enjoy fantasyland

Send me an invisible postcard, OK?

[SDuderstadt]

52. Dude...

I prefer honest debate, not people ascribing positions to me that I have never advocated.

[socialist_n_TN]

18. Wasn't Debs an internationalist?.......

I really don't remember, but I BELIEVE so. My OP was meant to be hopeful about the worldwide nature of the current class struggle AND the utopian vision that has to underscore it. An "eyes on the ultimate prize" type of thing.

I used Trotsky because he was BEST known for supporting a worldwide vision of socialism, irrespective of national borders.

[Taverner]

22. He was a Socialist, from the American Socialst Party

And part of the Anti-Soviet left

[socialist_n_TN]

35. I did a quick search just to refresh my memory...........

and it DOES appear that Debs was an internationalist. And a Marxist too. At least some version of Marxist.

[Taverner]

38. Yes, but he was also VERY critical of the USSR and Stalin

He and Emma Goldman both were. I wonder if the two ever met?

[socialist_n_TN]

43. I don't doubt it. EVERYBODY who wasn't ..........

under control of Stalin WAS a critic of Stalin. For good reason.

If not met, I would be willing to bet they coresponded. Mail was a big part of the international socialist movement back then. Well since that's all they had, I guess that's stating the obvious. :)

[Taverner]

46. True - I remember reading the correspondence between Jack Reed and Emma Goldman

I think (but may be wrong) that her famous quote "If I can't dance then I don't want to be a part of your revolution" came from those letters

[bemildred]

3. What happened in the USSR under Stalin happened because Stalin was an asshole.

I think of Ghaddaffi and Mao and Pol Pot and Idi Amin and the like when I think of Stalin.

If you really want to get a lot of people killed, there is nothing that matches up to evangelical religion and/or utopian visions, in both cases pie in the sky by and by.

[socialist_n_TN]

4. To me that was the PROBLEM with Stalin..........

His LACK of an utopian vision. He was all about power, plus a HUGE dose of paranoia. If he'd had a little more utopian vision and less power hunger and paranoia, things would have been BETTER than they wound up being. You've also got to add in a little bit of the "Peter principle" with Stalin. He wound up promoting himself to his level of incompetence. BAD news for Russia.

[Taverner]

6. To me it was his rejection of reason over fantasy

Take genetics. Stalin called it a 'bourgeoisie hobby' and instead pushed the non-science of Lysenko. A 'scientist' who said you can plant Mediterranean seeds in Siberia and magically 'will' the plants to survive the winter. Lysenk was a fan of LaMarck, who said just that.

[socialist_n_TN]

13. There was a LOT wrong with Stalin...........

He had a very pedestrian mindset and, as I've said a lot, a VERY paranoid personality. IOW, no vision past personal aggandizement and seeing enemies everywhere (mostly where they were NOT) that were trying to interfere with that personal aggandizement.

[dionysus]

10. i'm all set on your communist paradise comrade...

:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. realize Trotsky died in Cuernavaca at the hand of

Stalin's men... I am not so sure I'd quote him.

But we must talk of GLOBAL LIVING WAGES.

[socialist_n_TN]

53. Why not? Yep Ramon Mercader killed him with..........

an ice pick in August 1940. It took him 25 hours to die. But Trotsky was an ENEMY of Stalin, and Stalin, being the paranoid that he was, was bound to kill Trotsky, sooner or later.

The reason I picked the Trotsky quote though, was because Trotsky was the leading proponent of a world socialist movement, whereas Stalin was in favor of building and consolidating socialism in a single country, the USSR. I thought it was apropos because we seem to be seeing a WORLDWIDE growth in class consciousness and that quote kind of summed it up.

Why not Trotsky? I've never made a secret of the fact that I AM, philosophically, a Trotskyist. Or mostly so anyway. Like just about every other philosophical beliefs I have, I'm a heretic. Whether it's Marxism, Trotskyism, Buddhism, or Christianity, I'm not going to be dogmatic. I'll put my own spin on it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Realize that any philosophy has trouble potentially

and many of our current batch of Neocons started life as trotskytes... see Wolfowitz. In fact, his believes still have some roots in the worst aspects of Leon's works

[socialist_n_TN]

55. It's hard to believe that neocons are Trotskyist..............

Now they might have been at one point, but the "invisible hand of the marketplace" is not something I've found in Trotsky's writings (and I've read a LOT of Trotsky over the last 40 years).

I suppose the internationalist aspect of capitalism held by the neocons could be construed as "Trotskyist", but to me, that's just an observation. Like the difference between Adam Smith's version of capitalism and what we have today. Like capitalism being what IS and not some textbook definition, I believe that Trotsky merely observed what IS.

The international version of labor though, follows right upon the heels of the internationalization of capitalism. Actually, since the international solidarity of the working class is a part of MARX's writing, the solidarity of labor probably came first in Trotsky's view, but I'm SURE it was at WORST, a contempory observation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. They were in the 1960s and 70s

as I said the worst aspects are still part of their world view.

Among them, the belief that some are to lead this revolution, and their authoritarian streak. (Which is part of Leon's philosophy, just as any utopia)

Hell Smiths Capitalism (and the hand appears ONCE in the whole work with caveats up the ying yang, aka it is not what they think it is) and Marx's Marxism share one aspect (among many) they are both utopias. Yes Marx is right in line with the writings of Smith. They are both bookends of that ECONOMIC SCHOOL.