PSL's Presidential Campaign Video: What is Socialism?

KurtFF8 wrote:

Proletarian ownership over the means of production is one of the basic/elementary definitions of socialism, I'm not sure what issue you have with such a definition.

Market socialists and social democrats often speak along those lines. Both talk about worker ownership, both retain capitalism. Both make the crude, unmarxist 'we'll use the profits for our own needs!' appeal the PSL is using.

Europe went through this phase and there are clear distinctions in the workers' movement there. The USA never had the fortune of going through this so social democrats and communists are essentially unrecognizable to most people, it just seems like the PSL is capitalizing on this.

Quote:

Proletarian ownership over the means of production is one of the basic/elementary definitions of socialism, I'm not sure what issue you have with such a definition.

The question isn't who formally "owns" the MoP, the question is whether there is real socialist development, whether the whole economy is leaning towards producing according to needs of a whole society in a most efficient manner and not according to what's most profitable. Whether "competition" and commodity production and small-scale capitalism are being dealt with.
At least that's how i see this issue.

Quote:

Under this definition, I would indeed argue that Yugoslavia was socialist indeed. I don't think that their model of socialism was the best it could have been, however, and contained some serious issues.

Yes but that definition is then not correct, because Yugoslavia wasn't a socialist country. See : "Is Yugoslavia a socialist country?" by the CPC.

Quote:

And that would cease to be capitalism. You can't really have capitalism without a capitalist class.

See my example.

Quote:

Pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.

It's actually most relevant. For the sake of argument let's imagine that one economy is mostly in the hands of such workers-small shareholders. Where is this "capitalist class" then?

Shareholding is not ownership it is investment. Even majority worker controlled companies are still operated by bourgeoisie.

Conscript wrote:

Market socialists and social democrats often speak along those lines. Both talk about worker ownership, both retain capitalism. Both make the crude, unmarxist 'we'll use the profits for our own needs!' appeal the PSL is using.

Europe went through this phase and there are clear distinctions in the workers' movement there. The USA never had the fortune of going through this so social democrats and communists are essentially unrecognizable to most people, it just seems like the PSL is capitalizing on this.

Claiming that they "retain capitalism" is as vulgarly simplistic as what you're accusing the PSL of doing: being vague.

You of course have yet to demonstrate what "retaining capitalism" even means, let alone how a short video from the PSL "retains capitalism" (which of course would be a nonsensical statement in itself)

Loz wrote:

The question isn't who formally "owns" the MoP, the question is whether there is real socialist development, whether the whole economy is leaning towards producing according to needs of a whole society in a most efficient manner and not according to what's most profitable. Whether "competition" and commodity production and small-scale capitalism are being dealt with.
At least that's how i see this issue.

How those things are divorced from who owns the MoP is beyond me. Yes it's about changing the structure of society and the goal/process of development. But is that not also clearly being called for in this video?

Loz wrote:

Yes but that definition is then not correct, because Yugoslavia wasn't a socialist country. See : "Is Yugoslavia a socialist country?" by the CPC.

I prefer the Monthly Review's criticism in this book. I think that Yugoslavia had a fundamentally flawed model of socialism, but I wouldn't say it wasn't socialist.

Loz wrote:

It's actually most relevant. For the sake of argument let's imagine that one economy is mostly in the hands of such workers-small shareholders. Where is this "capitalist class" then?

An irrelevant example, no one is calling for workers to just increase stock holdings in companies.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Shareholding is not ownership it is investment. Even majority worker controlled companies are still operated by bourgeoisie.

Agreed, this is also a straw man if it's being directed at any socialist group, as I'm not aware of anyone calling for this.

Quote:

An irrelevant example, no one is calling for workers to just increase stock holdings in companies.

Fine. Let's imagine that in some country factories are "owned by the workers" in a legalistic sense, that there is no other owner besides the employees.
What does that mean if factories remain "autonomous" and "independent" to produce for the market, compete with other factories , perhaps even collectively buy more factories and other such things.
Is that socialism?
Someone in an old thread here called it "capitalism without capitalists".

Quote:

I prefer the Monthly Review's criticism in this book. I think that Yugoslavia had a fundamentally flawed model of socialism, but I wouldn't say it wasn't socialist.

I've read the translation of that extract and i think it's a pretty damning account of Yugoslav "self-management".
I don't see how that can even be called socialism.

Quote:

What does that mean if factories remain "autonomous" and "independent" to produce for the market, compete with other factories , perhaps even collectively buy more factories and other such things.
Is that socialism?

You're arguing against a straw man here though. Besides Market Socialists (which make up a very small part of the Left), who argues that they ought to produce primary for the market?

I don't know.
Your program doesn't make it clear though.
However that, i guess, doesn't have much "weight" or meaning so i'm out of arguments in this tread. :D
PSL might still be wrong but we'll have to wait and see...

Loz wrote:

Fine. Let's imagine that in some country factories are "owned by the workers" in a legalistic sense, that there is no other owner besides the employees.
What does that mean if factories remain "autonomous" and "independent" to produce for the market, compete with other factories , perhaps even collectively buy more factories and other such things.
Is that socialism?

If the workers own and control the means of production and the product thereof, yes.

Loz wrote:

I don't know.
Your program doesn't make it clear though.
However that, i guess, doesn't have much "weight" or meaning so i'm out of arguments in this tread.

PSL might still be wrong but we'll have to wait and see...

What isn't clear to you?

The PSL is a highly successful party. But sadly they are an unorganized group of Brezhnevites. Even if they got enough votes to win, their candidate is only 28 (you must be 35 to be president in the United States), and the bourgeois wouldn't let them win. Also, the PSL lacks any ideological education for their comrades and as a result many of their members lose interest, leave or become Social Democrats. I've met a few of their members at an Occupy Protest.... they knew nothing about theory and thought that you could develop socialism by razing wages, cutting work hours and having a single party state. In addition to that sad story, they didn't know what dialectical materialism was.

Quote:

. Also, the PSL lacks any ideological education for their comrades and as a result many of their members lose interest, leave or become Social Democrats. I've met a few of their members at an Occupy Protest.... they knew nothing about theory and thought that you could develop socialism by razing wages, cutting work hours and having a single party state

Thanks for your reply.
It seems that my assumptions and comments based on what i could see on their site proved right after all.

The PSL has right on its website an introduction to dialectical materialism. I'd think that most members of a new Party are going to be learning. I'm not a member, but I think judging them as not truly Marxist because one of there campaign videos is a little vague is silly.

Quote:

But sadly they are an unorganized group of Brezhnevites

What exactly do you base this off of?

Quote:

Even if they got enough votes to win, their candidate is only 28 (you must be 35 to be president in the United States), and the bourgeois wouldn't let them win.

The Party most likely won't be on the ballot in enough states to win in the first place. This also assumes that we're running in the same way that the Dems/GOP or the Green Party are: to win the election. Instead we are using it as a tool to bring up the issues in a broader venue than usual in a way that isn't usually done.

Quote:

Also, the PSL lacks any ideological education for their comrades and as a result many of their members lose interest, leave or become Social Democrats

This is simply false. There is a candidacy program to become a full member, a major part of this period is the requirement to complete classes on political issues.

Quote:

In addition to that sad story, they didn't know what dialectical materialism was.

I doubt this is true.

Another interesting thing about this campaign is that neither of their candidates can run. One was born in Guatemala, and the other one is only 28.

Quote:

One was born in Guatemala,

You mean Colombia?

And yes they can "run" they just aren't eligible to win. I'm having a hard time understanding why other Leftists are so concerned with this fact: if we had a real shot a winning the election then yes this would be quite absurd. But our campaign is, as I pointed out previously, not a typical bourgeois campaign but contains elements of being didactically and helping to promote the Party. I don't know why that's confusing to some folks

Does the PSL support Mexico reclaiming its stolen land?

I'm not sure that the PSL has a defined position on that, but we certainly support the revolutionary Chicano movement

Can you post some PSL article on this?
My gut feeling is that it's all just Mexican petty-bourgeois irredenta under the mask of pseudo-leftism but i don't want to jump to conclusions...

Quote:

My gut feeling is that it's all just Mexican petty-bourgeois irredenta under the mask of pseudo-leftism but i don't want to jump to conclusions...

Based on...? Or are you just trying to launch baseless attacks?

Based on some videos i saw, and i vaguely remember some texts, such as the PSL talking about "self-determination" of certain America's minorities..
Not to mention you calling the Chicano "movement" revolutionary. What is revolutionary about it?