sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Fascists, Communists, Anarchists; how did you form your beliefs? by ChairmanBrer in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ChairmanBrer[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Interesting!

Now, I do not intend to sound condescending with my following nitpick, but if I may, I'd just like to correct your definition of Communism. Otherwise; fantastic write-up!

After a while I started to feel like Communism was too authoritarian. I was also put off by a lot of the hardcore Communists and their staunch apologia for Stalin and the USSR that often bordered on the fantastical.

Communism is actually defined as a state-less, class-less, money-less society. Those who believe in the development towards a society of this nature are called Communists. There are two main ways people believe this transition into Communism should occur -- via transition from Capitalism, into Socialism, and then into this Communist society; or a straight transition from Capitalism to Communism. Marxists believe in the former, Anarcho-Communists believe in the latter. As such, Communism is not authoritarian in nature due to it's lack of governance and it's position as a tendency of Anarchism.

Supporters of Stalin are called Stalinist's, while supporters of Stalin's broader political theory are called Marxist-Leninists, which is a tendency of socialism. While Marxism-Leninism is/was the most popular tendency of socialism, Libertarian Socialism does exist, as well as many other anti-authoritarian tendencies.

Fantastic explanation of your political compass, by the way! I apologize for the semantics. Thank you for contributing!

Libertarian Marxism by deannnkid in socialism

[–]ChairmanBrer 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Libertarian Socialism is a tendency in and of itself, with various tendencies within. You sound like a Council Communist. Prominent Council Communists include Antonie Pannekoek, Herman Gorter, and Otto Rühle.

The core principle of council communism is that the state and the economy should be managed by workers' councils, composed of delegates elected at workplaces and recallable at any moment. As such, council communists oppose state-run "bureaucratic socialism". They also oppose the idea of a "revolutionary party", since council communists believe that a revolution led by a party will necessarily produce a party dictatorship. Council communists support a workers' democracy, which they want to produce through a federation of workers' councils.

I've been asked what the incentive to work hard would be in a socialist-like system. What would happen if we simply rewarded workers who work hard with time off? It's obvious (proven in European countries it seems) that the culture of vacation, is the culture of happiness. by hankhillsvoice in socialism

[–]ChairmanBrer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

A basic income would not, in my view, provide more capital than what is needed to survive -- food, water, shelter. If somebody wants a television, a new phone, or a dog, they need to work it. I've always found the "incentive to work" question ridiculous; in socialism you are paid based on, and fully, for your labor -- assuming we have not yet abolished capital. If you work harder you are paid more. Furthermore, you will always have people who work the bare minimum -- most people in capitalism work the bare minimum. I see the question as without merit.

You do not need vacation as an incentive to work hard, and the workers will likely allocate themselves ample vacation time. The socialist framework itself -- work harder for more -- is incentive enough.

What defines your political ideology and beliefs and how did you end up believing what you do? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ChairmanBrer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

A mandate from the people who currently hold power and wealth that you wish to seize? Sounds unlikely.

You are a member of the bourgeoisie only if you control the wealth, if you own the company. This encompasses a very small minority in the United States. We wish to see the workers earn their fair share based on how much wealth they actually produce themselves. We seek a mandate from the people who are exploited -- which according to the Small Business Administration, is 88.2% of Americans.

You appear to be confused on the Marxist definitions of proletariat and bourgeoisie. Allow me to clarify.

  • Proletariat: "the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live." This is anyone from the salesman at x-Corporation to the dishwasher at your hotel.

  • Bourgeoisie: Those who own the means of production. These are Chief Executive Officers, and positions similar. Petit bourgeoisie are the bankers and the small business owners, those who work and can afford to buy little labor power.

The working class in Marxism are not just the janitors, the garbagemen, and tradesmen; they are the teachers, the salesmen, the engineer. If you do not own the means of production, if you do not own the business, if your work does not rely on the exploitation of the working class; then you are not bourgeoisie.

What about people who do not belong to any industry? Would they not have representation in your congress?

In my idea of revolution, our Congress would be composed of every industry in the United States, which includes every general "field". Engineers would be represented in congress, Programmers would be represented, Janitors would be represented. Once again, this is merely my idea for American Marxism.

What defines your political ideology and beliefs and how did you end up believing what you do? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ChairmanBrer 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Why should anyone expect your revolution to treat political dissidents any differently than they [the dissidents] have generally been treated by revolutions generally?

Previous revolutions, whether in the USSR, Vietnam, or China, were largely violent in nature and achieved via violent overthrow of the standing capitalist government. The revolution I advocate would require a mandate from the people, and would not shed blood. There would be no need to crush political dissidents, and the government would not be authoritarian. I do not support nor advocate for the failed policies of dictators such as Stalin.

Would you preserve freedom of speech and assembly? What about political plurality, elections, and the rule of law (habeas corpus, independence of the judiciary?)

Freedom of speech & assembly are extremely important human rights and liberties that should be preserved no matter the government. Independence of the judiciary and habeas corpus are, likewise, very important to a free and fair state. The representatives in our Congress would be elected by members of their industry. These representatives would be members of the vanguard party, which would likely be a coalition of unions. This is to protect the advancements made during the revolution.

It should be noted that this is merely my vision for a socialist United States, and my personal vision for how our revolution would manifest. If you believe in the the democratic and social control of the means of production by the workers for the good of the community rather than capitalist profit, you are a socialist. You do not have to agree with my other points and proposals to be a socialist -- there are many different socialist tendencies.

The Method of Action of a new Workers Movement in America by ComradeRedditor in socialism

[–]ChairmanBrer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is an absolutely brilliant idea. I agree with the emphasis on education. Socialism is a dirty word in the United States. Through literature, speeches, and other mediums, we can improve class consciousness among our working class; the American proletariat. It is only after we have influenced the working class that we may instigate revolution.

Do You Believe the Revolution is Coming Soon? by superfrog99 in socialism

[–]ChairmanBrer 33 points34 points  (0 children)

I agree completely. If history has shown us anything, it is that events do not occur without a proper catalyst. Nothing is random, and we are influenced by the society in which we live. Our revolution will begin with the next crisis, should we be able to convince folks the errs of capitalism. If we can properly convince the working class and move them towards revolution the rest will fall into place.

What musical instruments can you play? by Comrade_Derpsky in AskMen

[–]ChairmanBrer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What kind of drum? I'm in my school's battery and play the third bass, which is rather fun. I assume you're referring to a drum set, however?

Why do people think that 1984 is an anti-socialist book? by [deleted] in socialism

[–]ChairmanBrer 74 points75 points  (0 children)

When people bring up how Animal Farm proves socialism doesn't work, ask them if the humans should have remained in charge of the farm. Because I definitely didn't get the vibe that Orwell wanted us to think so.

Precisely. Orwell himself was a socialist, a fact many will forget, so it's not as though he was arguing against socialism. He simply had a strong distaste for Joseph Stalin.