Strongly disagree. The conditions in those countries were changed such that people were living in conditions they found comfortable within capitalism. Desire to radically change something evaporates when people are comfortable with the way it is.
The material conditions are vastly more important. There is a reason revolution does not occur in the imperial core and yet it occurs frequently in the periphery and it is not simply "propaganda is better there", the propaganda only works because the people are in vastly superior material conditions.
Then there’s the fact that opposing social welfare programs is a dead end.
I do not, and I agree that we can not.
This does not however change the material reality of the situation. If you make people feel relatively comfortable, they will not feel like changing the thing that makes them feel relatively comfortable. You certainly will not ever get someone in those conditions to die for the cause of revolution.
I agree that better conditions can lessen the urgency to improve, but there were significant leftist movements even in the relative comfort of social democracies. Clearly, the programs those countries had/have do not create that much of barrier to moving further left.
There is a reason revolution does not occur in the imperial core and yet it occurs frequently in the periphery
The number one reason for this is that the repressive apparatus of the state is more effective in the imperial core. It's easier for the U.S. to assassinate Fred Hampton in a Chicago apartment than it is to assassinate leftist leaders halfway across the world. It's easier to monitor movements in your own backyard, that speak your native language and operate in your neighborhoods, than it is to go to some other country, learn their language, learn their neighborhoods, and conduct the same surveillance. Imperial countries can still pull off repression across the globe -- it's just harder, so you see more leftist success in the periphery.
I agree that worse economic conditions in the periphery prime more people for leftist organization, but that's a smaller factor than how easy it is for a movement to be strangled in the crib.
I do not, and I agree that we can not... If you make people feel relatively comfortable, they will not feel like changing the thing that makes them feel relatively comfortable.
Can you square this circle for me? What does it look like in practice to not oppose social welfare programs, but at the same time believe that making people more comfortable will prevent further improvement?
It's also worth considering that comfortable people have the time and energy for big, long-term political projects. They don't always use that time and energy to that end, but many do. Plenty of theorists and revolutionaries had comfortable backgrounds.
Can you square this circle for me? What does it look like in practice to not oppose social welfare programs, but at the same time believe that making people more comfortable will prevent further improvement?
It looks like the western left. Stuck in a place where it can see and analyse correctly that the only path to communism is the complete destruction of "western society" but that advocating for such would be political suicide as it would ruin the lives of everyone in those societies. Revolution in the west requires collapse of it, particularly the US, and yet collapse of it is very obviously going to be a step backwards for everyone. It would take so many decades to play out that it would not bring any immediate benefits to the people there, only pain.
The western left is such a mess because to achieve what we want at an international scale the lives of western people will get considerably worse. It can not square this circle. It is torn between its ideal of "make people's lives better" and the moral dilemma that western lives will be harmed by it for decades before they ever get better. 30-50 years of a reduction in life might be justifiable in the sense that it's better than another 200 years of capitalist violence but the people would not support harming their own lives unless they became incredibly ideological.
This is why the western left consistently ends up in a Bernstein loop. Because western leftists at their core do not want to harm the lives of their people and when wrestling with this problem end up choosing "making working lives better"(under capitalism) over "make socialism".
You subscribe to one of two possibilities. Either socialism electorally (I do not), or socialism through revolution. The only way socialism through revolution will occur is through a western collapse that massively changes the conditions of the people enough that they are literally willing to risk their lives for a better future.
I am willing to die to achieve socialism. But I know for a fact that's extremely niche and I'm not going to blind myself to the reality that it's not possible to get that willingness out of the masses if they are comfortable. They have videogames they would much rather be playing than getting shot. We have to live in reality here.
The realistic way socialism will occur is with the collapse of the western world occurring leading to the ability for socialist uprisings in the periphery countries and socialist leadership of the world. Then eventually the now backwards and behind beleaguered former "west" would eventually follow.
You subscribe to one of two possibilities. Either socialism electorally (I do not), or socialism through revolution.
The range of possibilities is far broader than this. Any path to socialism will realistically involve a bunch of different tactics -- electoral participation (both mainstream and radical), labor organization (both formal unionization and informal shows of solidarity/support), and all kinds of direct action. It's not choosing one at the expense of all others; it's choosing which mix of tactics is best for the situation and time.
And each of these tactics can move the ball forward individually, or can help move the ball forward via another tactic. The mass protests of last summer pushed elected officials in New Mexico to get rid of qualified immunity for cops, and put that legislation on the agenda in a bunch of other places for the very first time. Legislatively making it easier to punish cops in turn makes protesting more viable. Marijuana legalization (which has been led by politicians, not protesters) puts a lot of people in a less precarious position and gives people better employment/education/housing opportunities, all of which makes any kind of political action more viable. You might be more likely to risk a political arrest if you don't have a drug prior, and you might be more willing to organize with coworkers if you aren't afraid of getting targeted by a "random" drug test. If you get healthcare from the state there's one huge thing you and your coworkers don't have to worry about losing as you organize, and one of the easiest ways for organized labor to flex its power is to put elected officials they like into power, who can then pass more union-friendly legislation.
I don't think there's any question that a lot of good can be done with this sort of toolkit approach, which itself is worth a lot if we both agree that waiting for civilization to collapse is not an optimal outcome. The question I see is whether this approach can get us from capitalism with improved guardrails to socialism. Either it can -- maybe capital's power can get constrained enough, and public services can get good enough, that a critical mass of people ask why we need private ownership of capital in the first place -- or it could erode reactionary institutions to the point where a revolution might be feasible without the world going to shit. It's worth considering if the revolutionary path doesn't appear viable.
I don't think you are describing achieving socialism. You are describing incrementally making capitalism more bearable. None of this achieves socialism. None of it moves anything towards socialism. Socialism is not achieved by making capitalism slightly more bearable bit by bit until "HAZAH! IT'S SOCIALISM NOW". Doesn't work.
You need to think about how all of this magically leads to overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. It's very nice, I genuinely believe you are a good person, but I don't think you've thought through the nuts and bolts of actually achieving socialism itself within a country like the US, or the UK or France for that matter. It doesn't matter if a "critical mass of people" agree with us, they are too comfortable and will not die for the cause. Electoralism will be fixed against us. And if it ever looks like we might ever achieve socialism electorally a fascist coup will occur followed by the death of tens of thousands of communists as they clean out the rot (us). Assuming you get that far, you're looking at a collapse situation anyway.
I agree this is a pretty circuitous path to socialism. But if a revolution is off the table, you can't just vote socialism into place, and building labor power to the point where a general strike would be feasible is equally unlikely... what else is left?
You need to think about how all of this magically leads to overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Here's how: through this toolkit approach, you get to the point where an increasing number of basic needs (healthcare, housing, education, employment) are guaranteed by the state. The effect of this is (1) shrinking the power private capital has over people and (2) providing a proof-of-concept, which leftists can organize around, for the idea that private control of the economy is not necessary. Increasing labor organization goes hand in hand with this -- it's much easier to organize if one's basic needs are guaranteed even if they get fired for joining a union. Finally, crucially, you simultaneously whittle down the police.
In that world, you're much closer to the conditions where a general strike might push you over into socialism. Or it might be feasible to do it electorally, not through one "socialism yes/no" vote, but through a gradual nationalization of industry (think of how much would already be "nationalized" if healthcare, housing, education, and employment are guaranteed -- you'd have that as a proof of concept for going farther, step by step). Or, if further progress keeps getting stalled by undemocratic reaction from capital, think of how a wave of protests like we saw last summer could go if the police have been whittled down, there's a much greater degree of leftist political organization, and people know that they aren't going to lose their basic needs if they get arrested.
So yeah, it would make capitalism more bearable in the near-term (which would improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and can't be glossed over), but it would also make an eventual move to socialism feasible. It's not feasible now, so this would be a big step in the right direction, and -- unlike waiting for the collapse of civilization -- it's something you can organize around.
You're describing various european countries though, and we're not closer to achieving socialism here than you are there. It hasn't made things easier, things are the same, stalled between the dilemma of worsening everyone's lives vs electorally making things slightly nicer under capitalism.
Do you think it is easier to achieve socialism here in the UK? Or in Germany? Or Norway? Why do you think the conditions are better in these places than they are in America? You say it's easier to organise and yet we're not better organised here.
I'd say it's easier to achieve socialism in Europe than in the U.S., yes, if only because (it seems) most Europeans don't immediately scream "communism!" the second someone proposes a public solution to a social problem. The background level of resistance to addressing collective problems collectively appears to be much lower. There are a ton of state-owned companies in Norway -- wouldn't it be easier to talk about nationalizing other companies in a country like that vs. a country where you're called a commie before you can even finish your sentence?
And I'm suggesting going beyond what Europe has. I don't think most (any?) European countries have housing or job guarantees, for instance. If the U.S. not only had those, but implemented those policies in a modern political movement, that would open up all sorts of potential to go further. You'd have a political coalition that's already produced big results, results which to a degree would speak for themselves.
Disagree. We are further away from revolution than the US and electoral socialism is an impossibility. Greece and Italy are the closest mainland European countries to making something happen and they are the closest because they have had economic disasters that have created the material conditions for a rising and powerful left. They will not get closer unless the conditions tighten further though. Ireland is closest but has moved further away from the opportunity to achieve socialism since conditions improved in the 90s.
Strongly disagree. The conditions in those countries were changed such that people were living in conditions they found comfortable within capitalism. Desire to radically change something evaporates when people are comfortable with the way it is.
The material conditions are vastly more important. There is a reason revolution does not occur in the imperial core and yet it occurs frequently in the periphery and it is not simply "propaganda is better there", the propaganda only works because the people are in vastly superior material conditions.
I do not, and I agree that we can not.
This does not however change the material reality of the situation. If you make people feel relatively comfortable, they will not feel like changing the thing that makes them feel relatively comfortable. You certainly will not ever get someone in those conditions to die for the cause of revolution.
I agree that better conditions can lessen the urgency to improve, but there were significant leftist movements even in the relative comfort of social democracies. Clearly, the programs those countries had/have do not create that much of barrier to moving further left.
The number one reason for this is that the repressive apparatus of the state is more effective in the imperial core. It's easier for the U.S. to assassinate Fred Hampton in a Chicago apartment than it is to assassinate leftist leaders halfway across the world. It's easier to monitor movements in your own backyard, that speak your native language and operate in your neighborhoods, than it is to go to some other country, learn their language, learn their neighborhoods, and conduct the same surveillance. Imperial countries can still pull off repression across the globe -- it's just harder, so you see more leftist success in the periphery.
I agree that worse economic conditions in the periphery prime more people for leftist organization, but that's a smaller factor than how easy it is for a movement to be strangled in the crib.
Can you square this circle for me? What does it look like in practice to not oppose social welfare programs, but at the same time believe that making people more comfortable will prevent further improvement?
It's also worth considering that comfortable people have the time and energy for big, long-term political projects. They don't always use that time and energy to that end, but many do. Plenty of theorists and revolutionaries had comfortable backgrounds.
It looks like the western left. Stuck in a place where it can see and analyse correctly that the only path to communism is the complete destruction of "western society" but that advocating for such would be political suicide as it would ruin the lives of everyone in those societies. Revolution in the west requires collapse of it, particularly the US, and yet collapse of it is very obviously going to be a step backwards for everyone. It would take so many decades to play out that it would not bring any immediate benefits to the people there, only pain.
The western left is such a mess because to achieve what we want at an international scale the lives of western people will get considerably worse. It can not square this circle. It is torn between its ideal of "make people's lives better" and the moral dilemma that western lives will be harmed by it for decades before they ever get better. 30-50 years of a reduction in life might be justifiable in the sense that it's better than another 200 years of capitalist violence but the people would not support harming their own lives unless they became incredibly ideological.
This is why the western left consistently ends up in a Bernstein loop. Because western leftists at their core do not want to harm the lives of their people and when wrestling with this problem end up choosing "making working lives better"(under capitalism) over "make socialism".
So it's a dead end, and we're not even going to explore alternate paths? That's not a good plan. It's fatalistic.
Why not at least try other paths? Things aren't set in stone, and maybe writing off everything besides the complete collapse of society is a mistake.
Which other paths?
You subscribe to one of two possibilities. Either socialism electorally (I do not), or socialism through revolution. The only way socialism through revolution will occur is through a western collapse that massively changes the conditions of the people enough that they are literally willing to risk their lives for a better future.
I am willing to die to achieve socialism. But I know for a fact that's extremely niche and I'm not going to blind myself to the reality that it's not possible to get that willingness out of the masses if they are comfortable. They have videogames they would much rather be playing than getting shot. We have to live in reality here.
The realistic way socialism will occur is with the collapse of the western world occurring leading to the ability for socialist uprisings in the periphery countries and socialist leadership of the world. Then eventually the now backwards and behind beleaguered former "west" would eventually follow.
The range of possibilities is far broader than this. Any path to socialism will realistically involve a bunch of different tactics -- electoral participation (both mainstream and radical), labor organization (both formal unionization and informal shows of solidarity/support), and all kinds of direct action. It's not choosing one at the expense of all others; it's choosing which mix of tactics is best for the situation and time.
And each of these tactics can move the ball forward individually, or can help move the ball forward via another tactic. The mass protests of last summer pushed elected officials in New Mexico to get rid of qualified immunity for cops, and put that legislation on the agenda in a bunch of other places for the very first time. Legislatively making it easier to punish cops in turn makes protesting more viable. Marijuana legalization (which has been led by politicians, not protesters) puts a lot of people in a less precarious position and gives people better employment/education/housing opportunities, all of which makes any kind of political action more viable. You might be more likely to risk a political arrest if you don't have a drug prior, and you might be more willing to organize with coworkers if you aren't afraid of getting targeted by a "random" drug test. If you get healthcare from the state there's one huge thing you and your coworkers don't have to worry about losing as you organize, and one of the easiest ways for organized labor to flex its power is to put elected officials they like into power, who can then pass more union-friendly legislation.
I don't think there's any question that a lot of good can be done with this sort of toolkit approach, which itself is worth a lot if we both agree that waiting for civilization to collapse is not an optimal outcome. The question I see is whether this approach can get us from capitalism with improved guardrails to socialism. Either it can -- maybe capital's power can get constrained enough, and public services can get good enough, that a critical mass of people ask why we need private ownership of capital in the first place -- or it could erode reactionary institutions to the point where a revolution might be feasible without the world going to shit. It's worth considering if the revolutionary path doesn't appear viable.
I don't think you are describing achieving socialism. You are describing incrementally making capitalism more bearable. None of this achieves socialism. None of it moves anything towards socialism. Socialism is not achieved by making capitalism slightly more bearable bit by bit until "HAZAH! IT'S SOCIALISM NOW". Doesn't work.
You need to think about how all of this magically leads to overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. It's very nice, I genuinely believe you are a good person, but I don't think you've thought through the nuts and bolts of actually achieving socialism itself within a country like the US, or the UK or France for that matter. It doesn't matter if a "critical mass of people" agree with us, they are too comfortable and will not die for the cause. Electoralism will be fixed against us. And if it ever looks like we might ever achieve socialism electorally a fascist coup will occur followed by the death of tens of thousands of communists as they clean out the rot (us). Assuming you get that far, you're looking at a collapse situation anyway.
I agree this is a pretty circuitous path to socialism. But if a revolution is off the table, you can't just vote socialism into place, and building labor power to the point where a general strike would be feasible is equally unlikely... what else is left?
Here's how: through this toolkit approach, you get to the point where an increasing number of basic needs (healthcare, housing, education, employment) are guaranteed by the state. The effect of this is (1) shrinking the power private capital has over people and (2) providing a proof-of-concept, which leftists can organize around, for the idea that private control of the economy is not necessary. Increasing labor organization goes hand in hand with this -- it's much easier to organize if one's basic needs are guaranteed even if they get fired for joining a union. Finally, crucially, you simultaneously whittle down the police.
In that world, you're much closer to the conditions where a general strike might push you over into socialism. Or it might be feasible to do it electorally, not through one "socialism yes/no" vote, but through a gradual nationalization of industry (think of how much would already be "nationalized" if healthcare, housing, education, and employment are guaranteed -- you'd have that as a proof of concept for going farther, step by step). Or, if further progress keeps getting stalled by undemocratic reaction from capital, think of how a wave of protests like we saw last summer could go if the police have been whittled down, there's a much greater degree of leftist political organization, and people know that they aren't going to lose their basic needs if they get arrested.
So yeah, it would make capitalism more bearable in the near-term (which would improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and can't be glossed over), but it would also make an eventual move to socialism feasible. It's not feasible now, so this would be a big step in the right direction, and -- unlike waiting for the collapse of civilization -- it's something you can organize around.
You're describing various european countries though, and we're not closer to achieving socialism here than you are there. It hasn't made things easier, things are the same, stalled between the dilemma of worsening everyone's lives vs electorally making things slightly nicer under capitalism.
Do you think it is easier to achieve socialism here in the UK? Or in Germany? Or Norway? Why do you think the conditions are better in these places than they are in America? You say it's easier to organise and yet we're not better organised here.
I'd say it's easier to achieve socialism in Europe than in the U.S., yes, if only because (it seems) most Europeans don't immediately scream "communism!" the second someone proposes a public solution to a social problem. The background level of resistance to addressing collective problems collectively appears to be much lower. There are a ton of state-owned companies in Norway -- wouldn't it be easier to talk about nationalizing other companies in a country like that vs. a country where you're called a commie before you can even finish your sentence?
And I'm suggesting going beyond what Europe has. I don't think most (any?) European countries have housing or job guarantees, for instance. If the U.S. not only had those, but implemented those policies in a modern political movement, that would open up all sorts of potential to go further. You'd have a political coalition that's already produced big results, results which to a degree would speak for themselves.
Disagree. We are further away from revolution than the US and electoral socialism is an impossibility. Greece and Italy are the closest mainland European countries to making something happen and they are the closest because they have had economic disasters that have created the material conditions for a rising and powerful left. They will not get closer unless the conditions tighten further though. Ireland is closest but has moved further away from the opportunity to achieve socialism since conditions improved in the 90s.