5 Feb 2024 7:18 am
(PART III OF V)
Cannonpointer: "And speaking of links, the one you provided fits nicely into a pattern ( http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf . The pattern is something like, 'THIS WAY, BOYS! WE DEFEAT THE CAPITALISTS, AND A WORKERS' PARADISE IS ASSURED US as soon as we work out the rest of the diagram.'"
The chart depicts the Socialist Labor Party's concept of Socialist Industrial Unionism or industrial government. It does not convey, "This way, boys, we defeat the capitalists," for it states, "NOT A BLUEPRINT." It's a rough idea of how a futuristic socialist society could operate industrially. The assertion that it's "the way to beat capitalism" is frivolous. And those who inhabit such a society may work out the rest of the diagram. Too, I'm not a member of the SLP, nor a supporter of the syndicalism it pushes. However, I do like the party's Industrial Unionism concept.
I wrote: "As I previously stated, these capitalist 'reforms' were likened to defensive fortifications erected by an army in response to an advancing enemy army. Although the US government/capitalist state would have preferred not to give an inch, it was forced to in light of that battle for hearts and minds and because of the strong demand for socialism by American workers at the time."
Cannonpointer: "Sounds like socialist reforms UNDERTAKEN BY CAPITALISTS - in response to a demand for socialism, not capitalism."
Yes, that's it; during the 1930s, some of the American working class wanted to create a socialist society, so the US government/capitalist state acquiesced to that demand. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? Moreover, a socialist society isn't achieved through a capitalist state granting reforms, i.e., unemployment insurance. It's brought about by dissolving the capitalist state and the capitalist system it serves and establishing the social ownership and democratic administration of the means of industrial production.
Cannonpointer: "We both agree that capitalism was forced to yield and was saved by doing so. We both agree the programs in question are socialist, not capitalist."
It's telling that Cannonpointer finds the need to speak for me. No, we don't agree the programs in question are socialist, for programs created by a capitalist state have nothing to do with socialism. But yes, capitalism was forced to yield vis-a-vis New Deal reforms, which likely saved capitalism.
Cannonpointer: "Let's call the socialist structures capitalism was FORCED to erect capitalist. The question then presents, who needs socialist revolution? Let's keep reforming capitalism until it looks exactly LIKE socialism."
Unless the reforms instituted by the capitalist state strip capitalists of their means of production, their factories, mines, mills, arable lands, etc., society wouldn't look like a socialist society. And that won't happen for as long as the capitalist state exists.
Cannonpointer: "Marx listed the conditions necessary for a NATION-STATE to become socialist - I do NOT remember anything about multiculturalism being a necessity - or racial harmony. Nation states were FAR, FAR more homogeneous - and I challenge you to show me where he ever claimed that fact presented a problem for socialism. Socialism will almost certainly work in a racially homogeneous nation-state better than in a state with multiple competing cultures." (Continued in PART IV)
http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf
(END OF PART III)