Russia invades Ukraine

[Travis B.]

At this point, Marxist theory, much like Freudian psychoanalysis, allows you to argue for almost anything you like. If you want a precedent for a national defence war in alliance with fascists, see Mao's theory of primary and secondary contradictions. IIRC it's an elaboration of Marxist theory justifying his alliance with the Chinese nationalists to fight Japan. Why wouldn't internet Marxists apply that in the case of Ukraine? I suspect many of them derive revenue from anti-US media like RT and Press TV. They might have been induced to overlook that if Ukraine had a prominent Marxist movement, or if it were part of the Third World. (There's an ideology called Maoism Third Worldism, which says that in a globalized economy, a Marxist revolution is only possible in the Third World.) These Marxists don't win anything from Ukraine's success, neither in terms of revolutionary potential nor cash.

Even though Ukraine's side of the war is not seeking revolutionary goals by any means, one can still analyze things in terms of lesser or greater oppression for the working class - a flawed democratic social liberal capitalist state will oppress the working class less than a dictatorial social conservative capitalist state, so the only reason to favor the latter is if you are an accelerationist who thinks that more oppression is better because it will bring about teh Revolution sooner.

[rotting bones]

Even though Ukraine's side of the war is not seeking revolutionary goals by any means, one can still analyze things in terms of lesser or greater oppression for the working class - a flawed democratic social liberal capitalist state will oppress the working class less than a dictatorial social conservative capitalist state, so the only reason to favor the latter is if you are an accelerationist who thinks that more oppression is better because it will bring about teh Revolution sooner.

If they were sincere revolutionaries rather than money-grubbing opportunists, they would be using the defence of Ukraine's working class against Russian aggression to drum up support for the Marxist movement. Instead, they roll over so meekly when the oligarchs invade, it's almost adorable. What's the point of Marxist theory if "Marxists" are going to generalize Ukraine's Far Right into some kind of national character?

Not that I'm surprised. I've known tankies to watch Putin's military parades just like they did under the Soviet Union. For many of them, the point was not that the Soviet military tried to present itself as socialist. Rather, the Soviet style is a "way of life". Just like what happens for dreamers desiring all other ways of life, oligarchs can make them hesitate just by signaling idealized styles despite being devoid of content.

Not all of them are that far gone, but idealism has crept into almost all of today's easily accessible Marxism. Eg. If you look at that TheFinnishBolshevik channel, he seems to be doing a series on Political Economy using a Soviet textbook from the 50's! Why should anyone take that outdated material seriously? I respect Paul Cockshott because even when he doesn't develop complete theories, he at least sticks to the facts, and tries to develop theory based on the facts.

On the one hand, I understand where the temptation of idealism comes from. Contemporary theories are often annoyingly revisionist and/or traditionalist in character, so some people just regress to the 50's. Nevertheless, the idealist response to the Ukraine crisis should make it clear that this tendency does more harm than good.

The Far Right used to have a similar problem, which they solved by switching to memes and stochastic terrorism. That can't work for the Marxism. Fascist "theory" has always been a form of advertising that dupes its buyers into sacrificing their lives for bullies who oppress them. (As is, I'd argue, the populist view of "civilization" in general.) By contrast, Marxism strives to rise to the level of science. After receiving the standard of education that our capitalist masters deign to confer upon us, science is very hard to do.

[hwhatting]

There's an ideology called Maoism Third Worldism, which says that in a globalized economy, a Marxist revolution is only possible in the Third World.

I don't know how Mao arrived at that conclusion, but it's a fact that successful revolutions that call themselves some kind of Marxist have ever only happened in low-industrialised agricultural countries (= 3rd world).

[rotting bones]

I don't know how Mao arrived at that conclusion, but it's a fact that successful revolutions that call themselves some kind of Marxist have ever only happened in low-industrialised agricultural countries (= 3rd world).

I don't think Mao himself was responsible for it. It was a later outgrowth from other Maoist movements. Mao himself had ideas about the Third World, but Maoists regard those as racist and imperialist ideology. I think Third Worldism came about by equating workers in low income economies with the exploited proletariat that Marx talks about.

[Travis B.]

If they were sincere revolutionaries rather than money-grubbing opportunists, they would be using the defence of Ukraine's working class against Russian aggression to drum up support for the Marxist movement. Instead, they roll over so meekly when the oligarchs invade, it's almost adorable. What's the point of Marxist theory if "Marxists" are going to generalize Ukraine's Far Right into some kind of national character?

Not that I'm surprised. I've known tankies to watch Putin's military parades just like they did under the Soviet Union. For many of them, the point was not that the Soviet military tried to present itself as socialist. Rather, the Soviet style is a "way of life". Just like what happens for dreamers desiring all other ways of life, oligarchs can make them hesitate just by signaling idealized styles despite being devoid of content.

Not all of them are that far gone, but idealism has crept into almost all of today's easily accessible Marxism. Eg. If you look at that TheFinnishBolshevik channel, he seems to be doing a series on Political Economy using a Soviet textbook from the 50's! Why should anyone take that outdated material seriously? I respect Paul Cockshott because even when he doesn't develop complete theories, he at least sticks to the facts, and tries to develop theory based on the facts.

On the one hand, I understand where the temptation of idealism comes from. Contemporary theories are often annoyingly revisionist and/or traditionalist in character, so some people just regress to the 50's. Nevertheless, the idealist response to the Ukraine crisis should make it clear that this tendency does more harm than good.

The Far Right used to have a similar problem, which they solved by switching to memes and stochastic terrorism. That can't work for the Marxism. Fascist "theory" has always been a form of advertising that dupes its buyers into sacrificing their lives for bullies who oppress them. (As is, I'd argue, the populist view of "civilization" in general.) By contrast, Marxism strives to rise to the level of science. After receiving the standard of education that our capitalist masters deign to confer upon us, science is very hard to do.

Sincere revolutionaries would be seeking to turn the Russia-Ukraine war into a People's War against the reactionary, kleptocratic fascism of the Russian state, the oligarchs, and the Russian Orthodox Church rather than aligning themselves with kleptocratic fascists against the working class, both Ukrainian and Russian (as after all the Russian people and the Russian troops themselves did not choose this war, and are victims of Putin's repression too).

[rotting bones]

Sincere revolutionaries would be seeking to turn the Russia-Ukraine war into a People's War against the reactionary, kleptocratic fascism of the Russian state, the oligarchs, and the Russian Orthodox Church rather than aligning themselves with kleptocratic fascists against the working class, both Ukrainian and Russian (as after all the Russian people and the Russian troops themselves did not choose this war, and are victims of Putin's repression too).

The ideal scenario for Marxist theory is for the class conscious elements of the Ukrainian and Russian working classes uniting to overthrow the rule of the profit motive in both countries. Tankies will point out that there is no significant organization among class conscious elements of the working class in Ukraine, and arguably neither in Russia.

The problem is that if you never get involved in conflicts outside your own communities, how will your community grow beyond its current boundaries? Outsiders will only know you as "those weirdos" and believe whatever lies fascists whisper in their ears. Instead, if you fight for justice even in places where Marxists aren't directly present, then non-Marxists might have some idea of what you stand for. Later on, they might turn to you for help.

Maybe we should create our own platform. I can't honestly say I'm a Marxist, though.

[Travis B.]

Sincere revolutionaries would be seeking to turn the Russia-Ukraine war into a People's War against the reactionary, kleptocratic fascism of the Russian state, the oligarchs, and the Russian Orthodox Church rather than aligning themselves with kleptocratic fascists against the working class, both Ukrainian and Russian (as after all the Russian people and the Russian troops themselves did not choose this war, and are victims of Putin's repression too).

The ideal scenario for Marxist theory is for the class conscious elements of the Ukrainian and Russian working classes uniting to overthrow the rule of the profit motive in both countries. Tankies will point out that there is no significant organization among class conscious elements of the working class in Ukraine, and arguably neither in Russia.

The problem is that if you never get involved in conflicts outside your own communities, how will your community grow beyond its current boundaries? Outsiders will only know you as "those weirdos" and believe whatever lies fascists whisper in their ears. Instead, if you fight for justice even in places where Marxists aren't directly present, then non-Marxists might have some idea of what you stand for. Later on, they might turn to you for help.

Maybe we should create our own platform. I can't honestly say I'm a Marxist, though.

The thing is that one should still struggle against oppression even if revolution is not possible in the short term. Revolution may not be possible in Ukraine and Russia, but the actions of the Russian state still oppress both the people of Ukraine and the people of Russia, and as the most effective way of opposing this oppression here and now is by supporting the actions of the Ukrainian people and, yes, the Ukrainian state, capitalist as it may be, against the Russian state. Opposing the oppression of the Russian people at the present is harder, but things such as encouraging Russian troops in Ukraine to surrender or desert rather than to fight against fellow members of the working class while attempting to reach whatever people in Russia can still be reached somehow is probably the best that can be done at the present.

[rotting bones]

The thing is that one should still struggle against oppression even if revolution is not possible in the short term. Revolution may not be possible in Ukraine and Russia, but the actions of the Russian state still oppress both the people of Ukraine and the people of Russia, and as the most effective way of opposing this oppression here and now is by supporting the actions of the Ukrainian people and, yes, the Ukrainian state, capitalist as it may be, against the Russian state. Opposing the oppression of the Russian people at the present is harder, but things such as encouraging Russian troops in Ukraine to surrender or desert rather than to fight against fellow members of the working class while attempting to reach whatever people in Russia can still be reached somehow is probably the best that can be done at the present.

If you ignore the socialites and look at grassroots Marxists, they are often poor people who have been pushed around their whole life for being poor. That Jason guy from Maoist Rebel News (or whatever it was called) used to make a living by working at a gas station, consulting for Press TV and selling books to his very short list of YouTube subscribers. You will never convince these people to explicitly support a capitalist state. It's shocking that they don't seem to support the Ukrainian people either. I don't think it's possible for Marxists to justify that move theoretically. If worker's organizations don't exist, they should be trying to build them. How do you attract people to your movement if not by fighting for their rights?

[Travis B.]

The thing is that one should still struggle against oppression even if revolution is not possible in the short term. Revolution may not be possible in Ukraine and Russia, but the actions of the Russian state still oppress both the people of Ukraine and the people of Russia, and as the most effective way of opposing this oppression here and now is by supporting the actions of the Ukrainian people and, yes, the Ukrainian state, capitalist as it may be, against the Russian state. Opposing the oppression of the Russian people at the present is harder, but things such as encouraging Russian troops in Ukraine to surrender or desert rather than to fight against fellow members of the working class while attempting to reach whatever people in Russia can still be reached somehow is probably the best that can be done at the present.

If you ignore the socialites and look at grassroots Marxists, they are often poor people who have been pushed around their whole life for being poor. That Jason guy from Maoist Rebel News (or whatever it was called) used to make a living by working at a gas station, consulting for Press TV and selling books to his very short list of YouTube subscribers. You will never convince these people to explicitly support a capitalist state. It's shocking that they don't seem to support the Ukrainian people either. I don't think it's possible for Marxists to justify that move theoretically. If worker's organizations don't exist, they should be trying to build them. How do you attract people to your movement if not by fighting for their rights?

The problem with the "no war but the class war" types is that not all "bourgeois" wars are simply contests between ruling classes which equally use the working class as pawns. Not all wars are WWI, and the Russia-Ukraine war is probably one of the best examples of this, being a war in one brutal dictatorship attempts to subject the working classes of both nations, and the other state, capitalist as it is, is doing everything it can to preserve its democracy, bourgeois as it may be, and defend its people. So for a Marxist-Leninist to follow Lenin's formula of opposing WWI and apply it to the Russia-Ukraine war is to miss the fact that WWI and the Russia-Ukraine war are very different wars. Even if they insist on following historical socialists' example, they miss other examples such as how Marx himself supported the Union in the American Civil War, a capitalist state in a "bourgeois" war, yet one fighting against a would-be state dedicated to the institution of slavery.

[zompist]

If you ignore the socialites and look at grassroots Marxists, they are often poor people who have been pushed around their whole life for being poor. That Jason guy from Maoist Rebel News (or whatever it was called) used to make a living by working at a gas station, consulting for Press TV and selling books to his very short list of YouTube subscribers. You will never convince these people to explicitly support a capitalist state. It's shocking that they don't seem to support the Ukrainian people either. I don't think it's possible for Marxists to justify that move theoretically. If worker's organizations don't exist, they should be trying to build them. How do you attract people to your movement if not by fighting for their rights?

In my experience, actual Marxists are both more and less smart than this analysis.

Why should Marxists justify anything theoretically? Their theories are crap anyway[*] and lead them to the sort of absurdities we're discussing (e.g. "Ukraine should give up and let the fascists win").

But e.g. Marxists in the US are often quite pragmatic, and work with socialists and even liberals. I have a friend who's a Maoist-- if you talk theory with her, it's not only stuff that hasn't been updated since the 1960s, but suffused with a personality cult for a dude few people outside the movement have even heard of. But the actual stuff she does is stuff like facilitating civil rights protests, and she's pretty good at finding common ground with less extreme leftists. Or take the DSA, whose position on the Ukraine war is basically fascist apologetics, but on a practical level does things like organizing for tenant rights, or fixing brake lights (not only helpful to people, but it avoids traffic stops which can be dangerous for POC). I sometimes think socialists should be doing things like organizing co-ops, and in fact some local Trotskyites run the only bookstore left in our town. Historically, communists were the backbone of the labor movement.

From their own theoretical perspective, this was useless incrementalism. But within the developed world, the record of incrementalism is pretty good, and the record of Marxist revolution is zilch.

[*] A lot of Marx's theories are fine-- especially for the 19th century. But slavish adherence to the theory and practice of 1848 is unhelpful, and slavish adherence to the Russian experience of 1917 is even worse. I am fine with a generally socialist or "Marx-ish" approach-- I think e.g. George Orwell is one of the most perceptive of political analysts (and I'm not thinking of his novels, but his essays and journalism). But even his thinking needs updating.

[rotting bones]

The problem with the "no war but the class war" types is that not all "bourgeois" wars are simply contests between ruling classes which equally use the working class as pawns. Not all wars are WWI, and the Russia-Ukraine war is probably one of the best examples of this, being a war in one brutal dictatorship attempts to subject the working classes of both nations, and the other state, capitalist as it is, is doing everything it can to preserve its democracy, bourgeois as it may be, and defend its people. So for a Marxist-Leninist to follow Lenin's formula of opposing WWI and apply it to the Russia-Ukraine war is to miss the fact that WWI and the Russia-Ukraine war are very different wars. Even if they insist on following historical socialists' example, they miss other examples such as how Marx himself supported the Union in the American Civil War, a capitalist state in a "bourgeois" war, yet one fighting against a would-be state dedicated to the institution of slavery.

Marxists are not followers of Karl Marx. They are self-interested parties with affinities for the theories of Karl Marx. Eg. Karl Marx thought the socialist revolution would take place in the most advanced capitalist countries. But Third Worldist Marxists think it will take place in the poorest countries. You could argue that the poorest countries are the most authentically capitalist, but I'm pretty sure that's not what Marx had in mind.

The point is, if you want to know why Marxists are doing certain things, you won't find your answers in the works of Karl Marx. You have to ask what those Marxists are trying to achieve.

[rotting bones]

In my experience, actual Marxists are both more and less smart than this analysis.

My first post had a fuller picture:

At this point, Marxist theory, much like Freudian psychoanalysis, allows you to argue for almost anything you like. If you want a precedent for a national defence war in alliance with fascists, see Mao's theory of primary and secondary contradictions. IIRC it's an elaboration of Marxist theory justifying his alliance with the Chinese nationalists to fight Japan. Why wouldn't internet Marxists apply that in the case of Ukraine? I suspect many of them derive revenue from anti-US media like RT and Press TV. They might have been induced to overlook that if Ukraine had a prominent Marxist movement, or if it were part of the Third World. (There's an ideology called Maoism Third Worldism, which says that in a globalized economy, a Marxist revolution is only possible in the Third World.) These Marxists don't win anything from Ukraine's success, neither in terms of revolutionary potential nor cash.

Why should Marxists justify anything theoretically? Their theories are crap anyway[*] and lead them to the sort of absurdities we're discussing (e.g. "Ukraine should give up and let the fascists win").

Marxist theory is often kind of crappy, but in my experience, Marxists don't usually know that. Usually, they pride themselves on following a "theoretically correct" line. And when they don't like where the line is going, they switch to a better theory. There are tons of Marxist ideologies to choose from.

But e.g. Marxists in the US are often quite pragmatic, and work with socialists and even liberals. I have a friend who's a Maoist-- if you talk theory with her, it's not only stuff that hasn't been updated since the 1960s, but suffused with a personality cult for a dude few people outside the movement have even heard of. But the actual stuff she does is stuff like facilitating civil rights protests, and she's pretty good at finding common ground with less extreme leftists. Or take the DSA, whose position on the Ukraine war is basically fascist apologetics, but on a practical level does things like organizing for tenant rights, or fixing brake lights (not only helpful to people, but it avoids traffic stops which can be dangerous for POC). I sometimes think socialists should be doing things like organizing co-ops, and in fact some local Trotskyites run the only bookstore left in our town. Historically, communists were the backbone of the labor movement.

From their own theoretical perspective, this was useless incrementalism. But within the developed world, the record of incrementalism is pretty good, and the record of Marxist revolution is zilch.

I'm not sure it was useless incrementalism from the standpoint of their respective theories. Marxist theory usually sides with the people against capitalist states. Serving the people is very much in line with theory. After all, the revolution deserves to win because the revolutionaries are workers who take care of their own. That's why I'm shocked at how so many "Marxists" are abandoning Ukrainian workers.

[*] A lot of Marx's theories are fine-- especially for the 19th century. But slavish adherence to the theory and practice of 1848 is unhelpful, and slavish adherence to the Russian experience of 1917 is even worse. I am fine with a generally socialist or "Marx-ish" approach-- I think e.g. George Orwell is one of the most perceptive of political analysts (and I'm not thinking of his novels, but his essays and journalism). But even his thinking needs updating.

I like Paul Cockshott, who sees himself as working within a Marxist-Leninist tradition. However, it seems to me that he disagrees with almost everything Karl Marx said. Can you call yourself a Marxist once you replace dialectics with a Markov model of social transitions? What's left of Marxism at that point? You can absolutely use Marxian economics as a starting point without being a Marxist. Loads of libertarians do it. This may blow the internet's silly little collective mind, but there are capitalist libertarians who argue for Marx's labor theory of value!

[Travis B.]

The above is why I do not consider myself a Marxist, since Marx's original theories are dated at best and utter crap at worst, and the variety of theories which have sprung forth thereof are mostly little better if better at all (Marxism-Leninism and its progeny in particular are even worse, to put it lightly). The only Marxist ideologies which have any value to me in the first place are the libertarian Marxist theories such as council communism and left communism, but even then, why saddle oneself with the intellectual baggage of Marxism? Of course this is because intellectually I come from an anarchist background even though today I consider myself a democratic socialist. I do not follow any particular ideology today, and would gladly support any sort of democratic or libertarian socialism.

[Travis B.]

If you ignore the socialites and look at grassroots Marxists, they are often poor people who have been pushed around their whole life for being poor. That Jason guy from Maoist Rebel News (or whatever it was called) used to make a living by working at a gas station, consulting for Press TV and selling books to his very short list of YouTube subscribers. You will never convince these people to explicitly support a capitalist state. It's shocking that they don't seem to support the Ukrainian people either. I don't think it's possible for Marxists to justify that move theoretically. If worker's organizations don't exist, they should be trying to build them. How do you attract people to your movement if not by fighting for their rights?

In my experience, actual Marxists are both more and less smart than this analysis.

Why should Marxists justify anything theoretically? Their theories are crap anyway[*] and lead them to the sort of absurdities we're discussing (e.g. "Ukraine should give up and let the fascists win").

But e.g. Marxists in the US are often quite pragmatic, and work with socialists and even liberals. I have a friend who's a Maoist-- if you talk theory with her, it's not only stuff that hasn't been updated since the 1960s, but suffused with a personality cult for a dude few people outside the movement have even heard of. But the actual stuff she does is stuff like facilitating civil rights protests, and she's pretty good at finding common ground with less extreme leftists. Or take the DSA, whose position on the Ukraine war is basically fascist apologetics, but on a practical level does things like organizing for tenant rights, or fixing brake lights (not only helpful to people, but it avoids traffic stops which can be dangerous for POC). I sometimes think socialists should be doing things like organizing co-ops, and in fact some local Trotskyites run the only bookstore left in our town. Historically, communists were the backbone of the labor movement.

From their own theoretical perspective, this was useless incrementalism. But within the developed world, the record of incrementalism is pretty good, and the record of Marxist revolution is zilch.

Incrementalism is necessary because focusing on bringing about teh Revolution will do more harm than good because teh Revolution probably won't happen anyways any time soon, to be completely honest, while focusing on it at the expense of other matters will take energy away from actual good that can be done. Sure, some may call it reformism, but being practical can do a whole lot of good, whereas doing things such as standing on street corners peddling one's party's newspaper will not do much of anything except annoy people, even people who might sympathize otherwise.

[rotting bones]

The above is why I do not consider myself a Marxist, since Marx's original theories are dated at best and utter crap at worst, and the variety of theories which have sprung forth thereof are little better if better at all (Marxism-Leninism and its progeny in particular are even worse, to put it lightly). The only Marxist ideologies which have any value to me in the first place are the libertarian Marxist theories such as council communism and left communism, but even then, why saddle oneself with the intellectual baggage of Marxism? Of course this is because intellectually I come from an anarchist background even though today I consider myself a democratic socialist. I do not follow any particular ideology today, and would gladly support any sort of democratic or libertarian socialism.

Paul Cockshott works in the Marxist-Leninist tradition, and promotes direct democracy! You can find his books Towards a New Socialism, Classical Econophysics and How the World Works on pdfdrive. He also has a YouTube channel. But beware of his blog. That's where he posts all his TERF-y material. (Please don't learn anti-transgender politics from him. Please don't cancel him.)

Also, the Marxian approach to economics makes a lot of sense to me. It avoids idealizing money and looks at an economy at the physical level. It's amazing how people keep forgetting that money is not intrinsically valuable. It just consists of tokens introduced to increase liquidity as against a barter system; basically so you don't fall into the folktale trap of exchanging items all over the village to get that one thing you wanted.

To correctly understand how an economy works, you have to translate your mental model back and forth from monetary value to the underlying barter of useful goods as appropriate. It's essential to do this in order to understand why it's a good idea for the government to create jobs by popular vote.

Decreeing that spending power goes to workers to the extent that the people approve of their products can only increase the satisfaction of demand throughout the economy. If the government doesn't create jobs that the people demand, not only will there be a shortage of jobs required to guarantee acceptable living standards, but the jobs that do get created will be undemocratically skewed towards the interests of the wealthy.

IIRC Marx was the first to clearly explain the theory grounding this, and similar, observations. Before him, there were the Utopian Socialists who, according to Marxists, were unbearably moralistic. If that's true, they must have been the ancient New Left.

[rotting bones]

Incrementalism is necessary because focusing on bringing about teh Revolution will do more harm than good because teh Revolution probably won't happen anyways any time soon, to be completely honest, while focusing on it at the expense of other matters will take energy away from actual good that can be done. Sure, some may call it reformism, but being practical can do a whole lot of good, whereas doing things such as standing on street corners peddling one's party's newspaper will not do much of anything except annoy people, even people who might sympathize otherwise.

Coming from the Third World, my impression is that people there are desperate for a revolution. Since the socialists have stopped offering that hope, they are increasingly looking to fascists.

[Travis B.]

The above is why I do not consider myself a Marxist, since Marx's original theories are dated at best and utter crap at worst, and the variety of theories which have sprung forth thereof are little better if better at all (Marxism-Leninism and its progeny in particular are even worse, to put it lightly). The only Marxist ideologies which have any value to me in the first place are the libertarian Marxist theories such as council communism and left communism, but even then, why saddle oneself with the intellectual baggage of Marxism? Of course this is because intellectually I come from an anarchist background even though today I consider myself a democratic socialist. I do not follow any particular ideology today, and would gladly support any sort of democratic or libertarian socialism.

Paul Cockshott works in the Marxist-Leninist tradition, and promotes direct democracy! You can find his books Towards a New Socialism, Classical Econophysics and How the World Works on pdfdrive. He also has a YouTube channel. But beware of his blog. That's where he posts all his TERF-y material. (Please don't learn anti-transgender politics from him. Please don't cancel him.)

Also, the Marxian approach to economics makes a lot of sense to me. It avoids idealizing money and looks at an economy at the physical level. It's amazing how people keep forgetting that money is not intrinsically valuable. It just consists of tokens introduced to increase liquidity as against a barter system; basically so you don't fall into the folktale trap of exchanging items all over the village to get that one thing you wanted.

To correctly understand how an economy works, you have to translate your mental model back and forth from monetary value to the underlying barter of useful goods as appropriate. It's essential to do this in order to understand why it's a good idea for the government to create jobs by popular vote.

Decreeing that spending power goes to workers to the extent that the people approve of their products can only increase the satisfaction of demand throughout the economy. If the government doesn't create jobs that the people demand, not only will there be a shortage of jobs required to guarantee acceptable living standards, but the jobs that do get created will be undemocratically skewed towards the interests of the wealthy.

IIRC Marx was the first to clearly explain the theory grounding this, and similar, observations. Before him, there were the Utopian Socialists who, according to Marxists, were unbearably moralistic. If that's true, they must have been the ancient New Left.

The reason I support market economies personally is that, of all the systems that have been tried, to be completely honest they have worked the best, even for all their failings - planned economies just have not been able to function as well as complete systems, as shown by the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, Venezuela, etc. But I do not assign any magical quality to money - money, as you say, is really a means to provide liquidity in order for the economy to practically function. And while alternatives to money have been proposed, such as labor vouchers, those ignore the fact that so much of the economy exists outside of the realm of consumer goods, known as the "business-to-business" portion of the economy in the capitalist world. Some means of managing the distribution of products used and consumed by businesses themselves is still needed, and resorting to some sort of central planning to manage this simply will not work in practice.

[Travis B.]

Incrementalism is necessary because focusing on bringing about teh Revolution will do more harm than good because teh Revolution probably won't happen anyways any time soon, to be completely honest, while focusing on it at the expense of other matters will take energy away from actual good that can be done. Sure, some may call it reformism, but being practical can do a whole lot of good, whereas doing things such as standing on street corners peddling one's party's newspaper will not do much of anything except annoy people, even people who might sympathize otherwise.

Coming from the Third World, my impression is that people there are desperate for a revolution. Since the socialists have stopped offering that hope, they are increasingly looking to fascists.

I was speaking from the perspective of a socialist in the First World. That said, to me, the big problem with revolution is that for a revolution to be truly successful, it cannot happen in one country but must encompass a good swath of the globe if not the world as a whole, and bringing that about is even harder than simply starting a revolution in any single country. Any socialist revolution in a single country will be economically isolated, which will hamper its viability, especially if the country is a small country or has limited natural resources, and will invite outside intervention, overt or covert, by capitalist countries in order to crush the revolution, which can only be stymied if a larger socialist bloc comes into being (and even that is no guarantee, as one can see from the case of Chile under Allende or Nicaragua under the Sandinistas).

[rotting bones]

The reason I support market economies personally is that, of all the systems that have been tried, to be completely honest they have worked the best, even for all their failings - planned economies just have not been able to function as well as complete systems, as shown by the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, Venezuela, etc. But I do not assign any magical quality to money - money, as you say, is really a means to provide liquidity in order for the economy to practically function. And while alternatives to money have been proposed, such as labor vouchers, those ignore the fact that so much of the economy exists outside of the realm of consumer goods, known as the "business-to-business" portion of the economy in the capitalist world. Some means of managing the distribution of products used and consumed by businesses themselves is still needed, and resorting to some sort of central planning to manage this simply will not work in practice.

A command economy by vote is not the same as a Five Year Plan, capitalist Russia was worse than the Soviet Union in every way, First World prosperity depends on Third World exploitation, etc.

[rotting bones]

I was speaking from the perspective of a socialist in the First World. To me, the big problem with revolution is that for a revolution to be truly successful, it cannot happen in one country but must encompass a good swath of the globe if not the world as a whole, and bringing that about is even harder than simply starting a revolution in any single country. Any socialist revolution in a single country will be economically isolated, which will hamper its viability, especially if the country is a small country or has limited natural resources, and will invite outside intervention, overt or covert, by capitalist countries in order to crush the revolution, which can only be stymied if a larger socialist bloc comes into being (and even that is no guarantee, as one can see from the case of Chile under Allende or Nicaragua under the Sandinistas).

"Civilization" AKA unqualified barbarism it is, then.