Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Socialist United States

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

M. Soltysik, one of the leaders of SPUSA (Socialist Party of the USA), was recently interviewed by M. Bonanno, as reported in an OpEdNews article:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/LA-Socialist-Party-Local-H-by-Michael-Bonanno-101220-602.html

After briefly commenting on that interview, I wrote my own PoEdNews article:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Socialist-United-States-by-Ludwik-Kowalski-101222-350.html

What follows is a summary of my article.

1) M.S. wants us to discuss socialism without linking it with the USSR, the first socialist country in the world. I objected to this. I think Stalinism must be studied in order to avoid Soviet mistakes and Soviet crimes.

2) Referring to capitalists, M.S. said “fat cats have had fun at the expense of the working class for way too long.” What should be done with them? Are all fat cats parasitic? Was Henry Ford parasitic? Is Bill Gates parasitic? What fraction of “his” billions is invested in “our” economy, rather than consumed? What fraction is used in scientific research? I suspect that private consumption is below 1%, including luxury homes, private jets, etc.

Why was the Soviet agricultural system, based on collective farms, much much less productive than our own system? What should be done with American agricultural capitalists? Should they be treated as kulaks were in the Soviet Union? Who will run our airline companies, our TV stations, our restaurants and our barber shops? Why is the SPUSA program silent on this? Do you agree that the Soviet experience should not be ignored in answering such questions?

3) The program of SPUSA, at www.socialistparty-usa.org , displays the party emblem. It calls for unity of proletarians of the world. I know this slogan very well; it was always displayed on the first page of the main Stalinist newspaper, Prawda, till 1942. What is wrong in my suspecting that the SPUSA is a Marxist-Leninist party in disguise?

4) The party program contains this statement: “The Socialist Party is committed to full freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion, and to a multi-party system." How can anyone dislike such proclamations? The question is how to proceed without creating something that is much worse than what we already have in America. Similar promises were made by Lenin, in 1917, and we know what happened. How to avoid similar disasters?

5) The program also states that “socialists struggle for the full freedom of women and men to control their own bodies and reproductive systems and to determine their own sexual orientation." That is good. Will this struggle be easier under socialism? Those who oppose abortions will still exist. Yes, I am thinking about “freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion” mentioned in point 4 above.

6) What do the SPUSA leaders mean by “democratic revolution”? Speculating about the future, and trying to turn dreams into reality, are attractive but sooner or later, as before, idealists will be pushed aside, by revolutionary leaders, due to “practical necessity.” Soldiers do not win wars by discussing orders; they win by obeying orders. In my opinion evolutionary social reforms are more desirable than revolutions. Do you agree? I do not wish anyone to experience another proletarian dictatorship.

7) Socialism as a vision of paradise on earth? Yes indeed. But not via proletarian dictatorship! My father was a communist. But he died in Kolyma, the worst corner of GULAG, at the age of 36, about two years after being arrested in Moscow. His two letters from Kolyma, to my mother and me, are in this free ON-LINE autobiography (the link should appear below the signature).

Ludwik Kowalski (see wikipedia)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4) The party program contains this statement: “The Socialist Party is committed to full freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion, and to a multi-party system." How can anyone dislike such proclamations? The question is how to proceed without creating something that is much worse than what we already have in America. Similar promises were made by Lenin, in 1917, and we know what happened. How to avoid similar disasters?

5) The program also states that “socialists struggle for the full freedom of women and men to control their own bodies and reproductive systems and to determine their own sexual orientation." That is good. Will this struggle be easier under socialism? Those who oppose abortions will still exist. Yes, I am thinking about “freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion” mentioned in point 4 above.

It is unclear how these “pro-free speech” socialists can follow through on their promises to allow “full freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion, and to a multi-party system.” If it is the job of the proletariat to eradicate its opposition, then whomever claims to represent the “will of the nation” as embodied in the “will” of the proletariat will necessarily have to persecute any and all dissenters. The eradication of bourgeois media and internal opposition is a must. How is there to be made “one single class” without some apparatus of coercion, that is, without the State? If the control of all media and press is to be put in the hands of the proletariat, how is this to be exercised without that apparatus of coercion?

If if they claim to leave the nationalizations up to democratic vote, it is unclear how free speech etc. is to be maintained, or is an any sense conceivably workable, given that all resources for media and propaganda are collectively owned and their control must be determined collectively. A scarce resource, if not allocated by private property and the price system, must be allocated by the arbitrary fiat of whoever controls it, including the decision of what to say on it, how to use it, etc. It is impossible to allow each man to vote on every other man's opinion until the majority ultimately decided what to say, and even then, they would already know it, thus rendering the media efforts pointless (plus there is still the issue of the dissenters from the majority.) Since all press and media is nationalized, the central planning committee will ultimately decide on how many resources to go to various propaganda efforts (including the campaign efforts of the supposed opposition parties), how much paper to use and what to print on it, how much airtime to use and what to say on it, and who does the writing and speaking, etc. Under capitalism, there is no extraneous “free speech” or “free press” or what have you, other than the individual property rights of those doing the speaking, writing, publishing, reporting, forming parties, etc.

As to opposition parties, at the most, the supreme chief of state, or the majority planners, or whomever controls the police forces can simply have them assassinated (e.g. Stalin vs Trotsky), and at the least, will be able to determine the occupations and income of the opposition leaders as well as any and all dissenters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...