Socialist Rally

Welcome to the Socialist Rally!

[socialistrally]

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

The wealthy of the world like to say that socialism is awful and they want nothing to do with it, meanwhile they ignore the vast amount of support that they themselves receive from society at large.

People like to paint that this as a heavily American way of dealing with capitalists and the wealthy, but I disagree with that assumption entirely. Throughout the entire history of capitalism, and even stretching back to feudalism, there has been an effort by ruling classes to keep their position. This can be seen in feudalism where someone could be part of the nobility or upper class and receive all the privileges of that station, such as inheriting land, but otherwise have no more wealth than a serf. In the modern day this can be seen in failed businesses where the owners and management that caused the business to fail will receive bonuses or pay raises. Or in other cases as incentives to make the business successful again, Ignoring how they are effectively rewarded for putting the business in its current position in the first place.

What about outside just work though? Even in their personal lives many upper class and capitalists are able to live a better life even at a basic level due to privileges that they have due to being a capitalist. For example, a classic trick is writing off large personal expenses as being a “business expense” even if its something the business uses maybe once a year and the owner uses it the rest of the time, or by receiving things through the business in such a way that they will pay less tax than the average person who buys it. There are many other examples of privileges that the wealthy and capitalists are able to receive based on their class, such as how many are able to become bankrupt and almost nothing changes about their life and will usually easily get back on their feet. This is in contrast with workers that don't have the same social safety net that the wealthy and capitalists do, and instead when they have something go wrong they are left to fend for themselves, which usually means they don’t get better as seen with the constantly shrinking “middle class” and expanding lower class.

Unlike in previous systems like feudalism where these benefits and privileges are very visible, in capitalism these things are hidden and a narrative of “hard work” is spread as the reason for why the wealthy are where they are. This narrative is totally at odds with all the funding, tax breaks, and benefits that both businesses and individuals receive. For example, many of the top earning companies in America pay next to nothing for taxes and many of the wealthy pay almost nothing too. This a system that at its core creates a deep divide between classes, where the wealthy have a brand of socialism for themselves and everyone in the lower classes is left in capitalism to survive on their own.

This inequality between classes is one of the key features in how capitalism functions in practice, and is replicated so much that it is an inevitable conclusion. Proponents of free market capitalism will argue that “that’s not real capitalism” because it involves a system of government that enforces all the rules and regulations and I totally disagree. Capitalism is a system that inherently is based on inequality and the creation of hierarchies and class structures, even in a perfect capitalist system with no government oversight of any kind an eventual ruling body of some kind will be set up to enforce rules and regulations to favor the upper class. In either case of an already existing ruling body or one created by the wealthy themselves, a system will be made to prop up the wealthy leaving them safe if something happens and making “socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.”

In conclusion, the upper class in capitalism is not simply a bunch of rugged individualists that “just so happen” to always stay wealth no matter what, they are propped up by a system that was designed to help them at the cost of everyone else. In this way the upper class has a “socialism” for themselves, with safety nets abound to ensure they don't fall down. Meanwhile the lower classes are simply left to fend for themselves, a great mass that at any moment could plunge to their doom with nothing to stop them. This is what many who look into capitalism see, a system of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

(Hey thanks for reading, please remember to reblog to help spread the word and to follow for more stuff. Have a great day comrades!)

[socialistrally]

2K Milestone!

Starting this blog 10 months back I’m amazed it’s grown so much since then. Also sorry for the recent lack of activity, school and personal matters got in the way for a while but I should be back to producing content soon. Also I’ve started working on some video stuff for Youtube and I’ll be posting links when I get some stuff up there.

Thanks again comrades, and have a good day.

[socialistrally]

A little bit more on the commune of Paris.

Someone said in my last post about governments said they had never heard that criticism of the Paris Commune before, so I thought it would be interesting to post something about it.

The Central Committee appointed March 22 as the day of elections for the Commune; but, not sure of itself, frightened at its own illegality, striving to act in unison with more “legal” institutions, entered into ridiculous and endless negotiations with a quite helpless assembly of mayors and deputies of Paris, showing its readiness to divide power with them if only an agreement could be arrived at. Meanwhile precious time was slipping by.Marx, on whom Kautsky, through old habit, tries to rely, did not under any circumstances propose that, at one and the same time, the Commune should be elected and the workers should be led out into the field for the war. In his letter to Kugelmann, Marx wrote, on April 12, 1871, that the Central Committee of the National Guard had too soon given up its power in favor of the Commune. Kautsky, in his own words, “does not understand” this opinion of Marx. It is quite simple. Marx at any rate understood that the problem was not one of chasing legality, but of inflicting a fatal blow upon the enemy. “If the Central Committee had consisted of real revolutionaries,” says Lavrov, and rightly, “it ought to have acted differently. It would have been quite unforgivable for it to have given the enemy ten days’ respite before the election and assembly of the Commune, while the leaders of the proletariat refused to carry out their duty and did not recognize that they had the right immediately to lead the proletariat. As it was, the feeble immaturity of the popular parties created a Committee which considered those ten days of inaction incumbent upon it.” (Page 78)The yearning of the Central Committee to hand over power as soon as possible to a “legal” Government was dictated, not so much by the superstitions of former democracy, of which, by the way, there was no lack, as by fear of responsibility. Under the plea that it was a temporary institution, the Central Committee avoided the taking of the most necessary and absolutely pressing measures, in spite of the fact that all the material apparatus of power was centered in its hands. But the Commune itself did not take over political power in full from the Central Committee, and the latter continued to interfere in all business quite unceremoniously. This created a dual Government, which was extremely dangerous, particularly under military conditions.

Leon Trotsky - Terrorism and Communism: Chapter 5 The Paris Commune and Soviet Russia

Specifically this mentions Marx’s own criticism, and others, about how the revolution was too quick in giving over power. Spurred by idealism and a want to quickly transition to what it wanted they exposed themselves. I personally feel that this is the same kind of idealism that Slavoj Žižek questions in asking “what about the day after the revolution.” Because you can certainly have an idea about where you want something to end at, or at least a certain stopping point that you feel will allow natural processes to take hold. But at the end of the day we still have to answer “how can we GET there,” which in of itself might require diverging from the end goal until it is obtainable.

In a simple example: If we want to keep a ship from sinking, we have to plug the holes before we start bailing water.

It might mean something bad continues to happen, but in the end it creates a condition where the end goal can be achieved.

[socialistrally]

If you were to design an ideal form of government what would it look like? Or even if a government should be used to govern the people in this modern era.

Well that is a complex answer that depends on how and when you mean it. For example the general idea is that socialism will turn into communism which will in turn cause the state itself to essentially disintegrate, leaving behind a classless stateless society with a new idea of what government really is.But in general I guess the best answer would be. An central government that would focus on dealing with overall issues such as supply and demand of goods and directing armed forces throughout the country, and supported by powerful workers councils that will work together with the central government to meet goals, and present their own.This is of course, like I mentioned, a general thing. I think a government should change to what is needed at the time, and not be some eternal unmoving entity. The Paris commune for example, as I have understood it so far, was undermined because of their attempts to go directly to what they believed was the way society should be organized, instead of basing how their government needed to be ran under the current circumstances. It was because of this that they were unable to fight back against the counter revolutionary forces against them and were ultimately, crushed.

[socialistrally]

What do you think about anarchism? Is it preferable to what we have now? Is it the best system imaginable? Is it feasible? Anarchism seems desirable to me in theory but I don't trust the human character enough - I feel like someone would always crash the party.

I’ll be honest I haven’t researched a whole lot about anarchism, but from what I have read and heard it’s interesting. Though much like you say I do feel that anarchism has a bit too much of a positive outlook on humans and human nature. While I do think the vast majority of people are good, it seems naive to say that we can create a new society based purely on anarchism. Though if you want a hypothetical I certainly wouldn’t mind some “free territories” where anarchists can experiment with their ideas.

[socialistrally]

Just wanted to say thanks

In the past 24 hours this blog has received almost 5k notes, which is undoubtedly more than all notes received before combined!

 To the people or persons that have relogged and followed I wanted to give a big thanks. Hopefully I can continue to improve and create more stuff that people like. Thanks for all your help.

Also as a side note, I’ve been thinking about making some Youtube videos to reach a wider audience.

[socialistrally]

Well that was what Marx and Engels were trying to do right? To provide a scientific critic of capitalism that would rise above the purely moral or emotional response to it

I think I know what post you are responding to, and in that case then yes. Marx and Engels saw that capitalism was simply a stage in economic evolution and due to the contradictions present inside itself, would collapse and make way for a new social and economic system to take hold.

[socialistrally]

While I do have different opinions in general about Capitalism, I find the way you clearly state your viewpoint, and approach issues in a fair an balanced way, as well offer solutions to the problems you precive rather than simply complain to be a breath of fresh air and a fantastic read. I'ts good to see another viewpoint that doesn't insult me because I don't 100% agree with all of it. Thank you for such informative content.

While I don’t want to be overly critical since I don’t consider what I say as well researched as it could be, I do think a lot of “leftists” and “anti capitalists” don’t really understand what it means to be a leftist or anti capitalist. It’s become fashionable, especially recently, to join sides based on only the premise of being against something. And I don’t think it should take a lot of convincing, or be controversial to say, that when someone’s ideas are based only on being against something, then their only response is to be aggressive and offensive to who/what they are against. Expanding this idea further I think it shares some similarity to this kind of thing. Specifically a feeling of helplessness and concern leads to an outflowing of anger at whatever is the problem without comprehending how to fix said problem.IE: People who are angry at what capitalism is doing, but don’t know how to change it, can only yell that capitalism is bad.

[socialistrally]

Just wanted to say I really liked (well, appreciated) your post about hostile architecture. Those "leaning benches" and spikes under overpasses that have popped up in my city always make my guts twist but I didn't know they were That involved. Do you have recommendations on other reading about hostile architecture, especially as transient deterrent? (Thank you for sharing your research! ♥️)

Here is an article based around explaining hostile architecture, and that links other things about it.As for specifically anti transient, I personally see all forms of hostile architecture as being, if not explicitly, then still functionally anti transient. Specifically for the homeless they can only exist within public spaces, so if public spaces are made hostile then they have nowhere to go.

[socialistrally]

I've heard a lot of discussion concerning socialism and capitalism, and I'd like to understand. Can you provide a list of what's wrong with capitalism or any sites that might provide insight?

Well the most easy to explain thing is the exploitation of labor. To explain this lets setup a simple example.

There is a product called “product X”, it takes 1 hour to produce and $1 of raw materials.

A capitalist hires a worker to produce “X” for $2 an hour. 

The total production cost of “X” is $3, and can be sold for $5.

This means that the capitalist is gaining a profit of $2 from the labor of the worker, thus the worker is exploited.

A rebuttal of this from capitalists and proponents of capitalist markets would say, “If the worker wants to gain the full value of his labor he should start his own company!” Which presupposes the ability of said worker to afford starting said venture, and the ability to compete with the capitalist who can respond by changing prices and wages.As for other places to look, some simple stuff is this and the other videos they made. Also this video shows how extreme wealth inequality is under capitalism, and important thing to mention about that video is that it’s almost 6 years old, things have only gotten worse since

[socialistrally]

Something a little different

Thought I would post a quick thing informing people that the “Pharma bro” Martin Shkreli has just been sentenced to 7 years of prison. In case you didn’t know this is the person that increased the price of a life saving drug almost 56 times its previous price because his company had a monopoly over its production. This of course isn’t the reason he got sentenced, instead it’s because of a hedge fund he ran that defrauded wealthy investors.

So remember people.

Increasing the price of life saving medicine to the point people can die? = fine

Taking money from the wealthy? = bad

The upper class doesn’t care what happens to you, only that they have more than you.

[socialistrally]

Public Space Privatization and Hostile Architecture

For the past few years there has been a troubling trend in how urban designers decide to deal with public spaces, in this post I want to go over what these things are and what they mean.

The first thing I want to go over that’s been becoming more common is the concept of “Privately Owned Public Spaces.” These space are what we would recognize as being public, such as plazas, parks, or sidewalks but have been sold through privatization measures to companies and businesses. This is done so that places that should be for public use can to transformed in a way for the owner to profit, or to create a space that is specific to what they want. Thus this is forcing what they want onto others by removing the universal use of public spaces. For example, in places with cafes or restaurants these businesses could buy the public area and remove the seating around them, only allowing paying customers to use the seating in their businesses. In this way companies can transform public spaces into ones that poses no threat to them, and by extension make that public space less useful to people. In another example these “public” spaces can have strict rules, such as no photography, not being allowed to stay for a certain amount of time, and not being able to use the space in a way that does not financially benefit the owner. Since this is a privatized and commercialized mindset anything that isn’t making money is deemed an unnecessary expense, and thus not allowed.

In public spaces that are still being made to be used by the public though, a new idea of what these spaces should be has taken root. This idea is that these spaces should be made for a very specific purpose and otherwise hostile to the user. An example of this is a recent trend to make “benches” that vaguely fulfil the idea that a resting spot should be available, while at the same time strictly enforce the idea that this is a temporary place and you aren't supposed to stay. This can be seen in objects such as “leaning benches” that just give people a place to lean instead of actually sit, or specifically designing beaches to be uncomfortable by adding spacers or narrow “arm rests” that are too short to be used. All these are methods to make public spaces less a place of gathering and meeting and instead a transitional place that actively discourages long term use.

This all ties into the concept that goes by many different names, but can be summarized in the idea of “Hostile Architecture.” This is a design philosophy that seeks to make the design of public spaces hostile to its users, or more specifically to discourage usage that is not approved of by the owner. In this way I think Hostile Architecture goes against the very idea of a public space, IE a space that the public can use in a way they see fit. This idea is embodied in the creation of, and response by, the creators of, the Camden bench. This bench was specifically designed in a way that it was only supposed to be used a certain way, and the creators even try to defend it by saying that "[Because] there is no 'correct' way to sit on it... it becomes a far more inclusive seat encouraging social interaction." This notion that they are somehow being creative and helping people by making an uncomfortable bench that isn’t as good as a normal bench by any measure of the imagination, is a perfect example of how this was specifically created as a hostile object. The creators are trying to redefine something that is explicitly negative as something that is somehow a positive because of the connotations of making something explicitly negative means.

But, one of their other responses is an even better look into how this mentality works, “Homelessness should never be tolerated in any society and if we start designing in to accommodate homeless then we have totally failed as a society.“ This brings up one the major points I have about Hostile Architecture, and that is its function to hide problems in society. By creating hostile public spaces it doesn't fix crime, drug use, violence, and homelessness like the creators of this stuff would have you believe. Instead all this does is make it so problems are less visible on the surface because it's not as convenient to do them in public anymore. People don’t just stop being homeless because you design benches they can’t sleep on, or put down spikes so they can’t stay somewhere that’s safe. These are problems with society that can not be fixed by commercializing public spaces at the whims of a profit seeking owner, or by making them unusable by anyone but the “right” kind of person.

All of this ties back to one central source. Privatization only helps the wealthy that own the land and helps them to create a situation where they get more money. And ignoring these social problems only creates a situation where taxes to fund social help can be cut because the public perception can be that it’s not really a problem. All of this only benefits one group of people, and that is the upper class that control almost all of the money. By removing things people can use for free they are creating a system where they can be relied on more and more, and people are required to pay for what used to be cheap or even free. Once again I will say this, in the capitalist system there is no room for anything that does not directly benefit the people that own and control society. They will continue to sink themselves into any part of society we let them in, and only by understanding these motives and reasonings can there be any resistance against it.

For something similar, here’s something I wrote about common land.

(Hey thanks for reading, please remember to reblog to help spread the word, and to follow for more stuff. Have a great day comrades!)

[socialistrally]

Hello! Firstly, I wanna thank you for this blog - the breakdown of these concepts are well done and much appreciated 😁. Secondly, a question. Are there any particular books or websites you recommend for someone starting to get into something like this?

Sorry it took so long to reply, I only check this account every few days.As to your question I would say start with something simple and surface, say look up stuff on Wikipedia about socialism and communism to see a condensed and streamlined version, or even check out some Youtube videos on the subject. If you feel you want to know more then start reading into the different theories and isms to try and find a version of communism that you like, I would like to stress deciding your opinion on your own instead of simply being caught up by one of the larger groups and being “poisoned” against other ideologies due to ideological differences. Once you feel you have a basis for what you want to look into then you could check out https://www.marxists.org/ for in depth writings by Marx and others.

[socialistrally]

What Martin Luther King Jr. really thought.

This might be a little late to the conversation but I wanted to talk a bit about the recent Dodge ad that used some Martin Luther King Jr. speech exerts to try and sell it’s products, and how it goes entirely against what MLK stood for.

The first thing to tackle in this is the way MLK gets presented, school’s and news media love to use him as a mouthpiece to support certain ideas. Whenever there is some kind of civil unrest people always bring out some out of context quote from him about how non violence is the best answer, so that means anyone who engages in violence or disobedience is bad. This is a narrative that’s used to reinforce positions of power that “if you don’t have power you shouldn’t fight to gain power because that is bad,” meanwhile what MLK actually said about rioting was.

“But at the same time, it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard.”

-Source:The Other America

By excluding this key section from the dialogue it creates a narrative where any violence or disobedience can be used to delegitimize a movement or message, especially when it is dangerous to those with power.

In the same way his message on civil rights was twisted, MLK’s message about exploitation and capitalism has been ignored.

“Again we have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that Capitalism grew and prospered out of the Protestant ethic of hard work and sacrifice. The fact is that capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor – both black and white, both here and abroad.”

-Source: The Three Evils

There is a distinct lack of mention about MLK’s critique on capitalism and the exploitation it puts on people, almost the entire focus of media and education has been on his civil rights positions, and even those are watered down. The true Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t simply say “give black people some rights please,” he was directly critical of the entire structure that held not only black Americans down, but also all people that were exploited.

More than many today, Martin Luther King Jr. understood why racism is so prevalent among people in the American south.

"... the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow. ... And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man. And he ate Jim Crow. And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in the public buildings. And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, their last outpost of psychological oblivion.”

-Source:  25 March 1965 speech after Selma to Montgomery March

He understood that racism cannot be seen as a simple hatred of one race because they exist, this mass hatred has to be fueled by something that affects many people. That something he concluded was those that saw to benefit most from dividing workers from one another, even going so far to say, “In a sense, you could say we’re involved in the class struggle.” - quote to José Igelsias, 1968. (this is like something I mentioned before) This is not some side project or small idea he worked on, he believed that capitalist exploitation was tied to many of the issues he fought against, and a facet of that exploitation and indoctrination he saw was advertising.

(Video is Dodge commercial with an exert from the same speech replacing it.)

From his views and spoken words it’s obvious that Martin Luther King Jr. was more than the simple civil rights fighter that “had a dream.” Instead he was a nuanced critic of capitalism's methods and effects, going so far as to say that advertising was a way to make propaganda profitable, essentially “buy this because it will make you better than someone else.” All this points to a totally different man than what people are told and taught about MLK, I encourage everyone to look into at least some quotes he has said about capitalism and other aspects of class struggle. In conclusion Martin Luther King Jr. would without a doubt in my mind, be against how he was used in that ad, and the continued twisting of his words is an affront to his legacy.

(Hey thanks for reading, please remember to reblog to help spread the word and follow for more stuff. Have a great day comrades!)

[socialistrally]

Happy 1k!

Hey there everyone, I just wanted to say thanks for all the comments and follows this blog has gotten. In less than 6 months this blog went from zero followers to well over a thousand, I only hope that I can live up to everyone’s expectations.

Have a great day comrades.

[socialistrally]

Why capitalism improves living standards.

In a previous post I mentioned that improving standards of living were not a direct benefit of capitalism, this post I will explain what I meant by that..

One of the key points to focus on when it comes to the capitalist relationship with labor is it’s attempts to keep workers separated. Unity, class consciousness, and worker solidarity are all things that capitalists fight against constantly, this is because when workers are divided they are weak and don’t pose a threat. This is all central for why capitalism will “improve living standards”, it’s because if they give people just enough then they reduce the amount they have to give. Giving people more, specifically to people that can enact change, capitalism can put them in a situation where they care about where they are.

These people now don’t have enough reason to go against the capitalist and in some cases will try to dissuade others because they fear losing what they gained. For example: a capitalist pays 1$ and workers are demanding $5, by conceding a wage of 2-3$ to either some, or all of the workers, the capitalist can neutralize dissent. Increasing pay means that people don’t have to work as much, or can purchase more goods with their wages. So in a way yes capitalism can improve living standards, but this is not exclusively the response it can have.

There are a lot of examples around the world where capitalist countries have not had the large leaps in standards of living that has been seen in Europe and North America. In the words of Fidel Castro,

“They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?”

There are of course a great many possible explanations and factors that can combine together to explain how and why this mostly happened in Europe and America, but there are two possibilities that I want to focus on. First is the strength of unions, these countries tended to have strong unions so there was more pressure for capitalists to raise wages more frequently. Second is the welfare state and it’s creation that has helped prop up capitalism in the western world. If you would like some more information on the background of welfare here’s a video from DemocraticSocialist01 on the subject.

In conclusion the statement that capitalism can improved the standards of living isn’t false but it ignores that only in relatively few circumstances does this happen. In countries around the world capitalism is fine with how things are as long as the capitalist are at the top of society, no matter how poorly those below them live. Even in the US there are reports that for the first time in history without some radical event, those born in this century will have a worse quality of life than their parents did. Finally, only through unwavering solidarity between workers and understanding how the world works can we gain what is rightfully ours.

[socialistrally]

The problem with “feminism.”

When someone says they have a problem with “feminism” the first thing you should ask is what kind of feminism?

Much like other ideas it has variants that focus on certain aspects, or problems that women face. One of the more popular variants today though is radical/bourgeois variants of feminism. These kinds of feminism are a purely feminine focused ideology that throws all women into one class, and all men into another, regardless of the actual power these people have. This creates a situation where no matter what men are considered the “upper class” and women are the “lower class.”

Using this people will ignore class problems and redefine them problems as sex ones. (For example: women are paid less than men? It’s because men are naturally sexist towards women.) This see this as some inherent thing that men do because they are men, and not based on other motives. This leads me to my main critique of these radical/bourgeois feminists, by viewing everything as some kind of sex issue they are unable to actually fight against sexism.

They are attempting to blame men for the symptom of sexism, instead of the source of capitalism and class. I’ve talked before, and still believe that the main divisions of sexism, and racism are products of trying to keep the lower classes divided so they will not overthrow the upper class. So looking at this its visible why dividing people based on sex is in the interests of the upper class, and continued sex based conflicts can only help them.

This goes into a different kind of feminism, and that’s Marxist feminism. It accepts class conflict, and capitalism as the primary reason for the continuation of sexism. I won’t go on about all the differences between them, but one of the primary things is, it’s views of women's liberation, and freedom of people to choose how they want to live. Unlike the other mentioned versions of feminism mentioned, Marxist feminism says that women are free to choose what they want to do, and are not constrained by the ideology that a sex only approach forces on them.

In conclusion the main thing I want to be taken away from this is solidarity between all people. We are all human, and our primary oppressor is still the upper class. Only by understanding the ways that the upper class try’s to divide us can we truly fight for our own interests. We are the most powerful force when we work together for the common good, and only by making us all equal can we truly be free to do what we want.

(Hey, please remember to reblog this to help spread the word. Have a great day comrades!)