This is a question for those who REALLY know what a 'marxist', and 'socialist' is...and all those categories in between...and all around in this craziness...
The 'righties' or whatever they are - or whoever hates Obama...Keep calling him a Marxist, socialist, blah, blah, blah...along with Messiah, and all that other stuff....
Now, I come across this term 'Fabian Socialist'....
https://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/obama-fabian-socialist-oped-cx_jb_1103bowyer_print.html
So what the h*ll is that?...I brush it off as another, mostly silly term as far as categorizing Obama...But, then brushing off this categorization I've somehow proved Alinsky 'correct'...Who-ever the h*ll he is...(Oh, I know I looked him up...But, reading all that stuff just doesn't interest me...Can someone give me a 'crash course' in what the heck is going on with all this terminology, and categorization stuff?...And why do 'they' often bring up Alinsky? - like when I brushed off this 'Fabain socialist' categorization of Obama?)...
Just gettin' a bit irritated with all these terms bein' thrown around...(But, really...what exactly is a 'Fabian Socialist'?)...
"Mad" Miles
02-02-2010, 05:54 PM
Lynn,
This is from memory so I may get the details wrong. But Fabian Socialists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism)were members of the Fabian Society in Great Britain in the late 1800's through the early 1900's, or anyone who followed their ideas. They mostly came from the middle and upper classes and believed in the introduction of Socialist government policies through parliamentary/electoral means.
They weren't really down with a violent revolutionary overthrow of Capitalism and the Bourgiousie by the Proletarian (Working) Class. George Bernard Shaw is a famous playwrite who was a Fabian Socialist. George Orwell (who came a few decades later) was influenced by Fabian Socialism (as well as Anarchism, see below).
A Socialist is someone who thinks that society should be organized to meet everyone's basic needs for food, shelter, education, health care, social services and basic cultural (The Arts) amenities. There are a zillion different kinds of Socialism, some accepting Capitalism, some rejecting it and some waffling in between. So the slams from the right about anyone being a Socialist this, or a Socialist that, are mostly scare words based in pig ignorance about the history and varied details and different kinds of Socialism. Technically most of Europe is Socialist, Democratic Socialist. Yet their economies are Capitalist.
A Marxist is someone who thinks Karl Marx had intelligent things to say about the nature of Capitalism, as well as history, sociology, economics and even some basic early psychology. And is willing to own that publicly. Marx himself is famously quoted for saying, "I am not a Marxist".
There are a zillion different kinds of Marxism. Many Socialists are Marxists, but not all Socialists are Marxists. Most Marxists are Socialists, but I could imagine there are some Marxists who are not. There were/are many other Socialist theorists, and therefore theories, who preceded, or lived contemporaneously with, or succeeded Karl Marx.
A dictionary of Political Philosophy should be able to answer any questions you have about these terms. There are some available online. Here's one: https://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/ (https://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/) Ok, actually it's an Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I just perused it, you'll probably do better with Wikipedia. Here's what is says about Saul Alinsky (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alinsky).
The over two hundred year history of various movements to address social and economic suffering, inequality and injustice, caused by Capitalist economic relations, is complex. Coming out of Europe, and spreading worldwide within fifty or so years (not even mentioning the antecedents which go back thousands of years) it involves a lot of people and a lot of places. So, consequentially, there are many different ideas, movements and players to keep track of, if one is interested.
The use of terms pejoratively rather than descriptively, such as Marxist, Socialist, Communist, etc. is inherited from the Cold War in modern American (U.S.) culture and politics. But fear and demonization of the enemies of Capitalist exploitation precede that by many decades.
Even before the Russian Revolution of 1917, there was the Industrial Workers of the World, who were slandered as criminal syndicalists and traitors to the nation. The IWW, at least in its current skeletal form, is one of the two unions to which I pay monthly dues.
And there's the history of Anarchism, which some might argue predates Socialism, but certainly coincides with it, ran concurrent with, and opposed, but was also influenced, by Marxian Socialism. In fact, the big threat to Capitalism in Europe and the U.S. prior to 1917, was from Anarchists, not Socialists.
Yet when the Marxist Leninist Bolsheviks won the Russian Revolution, one of the first things they set about doing, after winning the Civil War against the Pro-Czarist White forces, was to kill all of the Anarchists they could get their hands on. It is a complex history that bears some study to begin to understand.
Now, anyone want to challenge my description of Fabian Socialism? Like I said, it is off the cuff and from vague memory. I've never been good a memorizing facts (dates, names, statistics) but I do have OK retention of concepts, relationships and sequences of events.
I've never forgotten the scene near the beginning of "Marathon Man" when Dustin Hoffman's character, a History grad student at Columbia, is daunted by all the dates of events he has to memorize to become a professor of History. What bunk! It's not what you learn in grad school. At least not for the last forty years.
"Mad" Miles
:burngrnbounce:
lynn
02-02-2010, 06:23 PM
Thanks 'Mad'!...
I read Marx in the phil. 101 class ages ago...Gawd knows, I remember basically nothing of these things...Just not my 'bag'...
And ran into a History major yrs. ago who talked a little about the Bolsheviks murdering off the other communists, or anarchists as you write here...
After I posted, I figured if anyone around here might be able to answer that question...It just might be you!...:):
So, what political category(s) would you put Obama in...?...descriptively that is...
"Mad" Miles
02-02-2010, 07:15 PM
So, what political category(s) would you put Obama in...?...descriptively that is...
Lynn,
Well, the problem is that all political labels limit and do not allow for complexity. That's why I have avoided labeling myself for the last thirty years.
I take President Obama at his word. He's a Centrist Democrat (Party that is), which makes him moderately Liberal (Look it up, especially the definition of Classical Liberal).
He uses Progressive language and buzz words to appeal to the Left wing of the party base. But clearly, based on his policies so far, he's far more beholden to his corporate masters than anyone else. But that's pretty true of any politician who ascends to his exalted level in this system.
From the intelligent Left he gets described as a Neo-Liberal (look it up) and I think that's as good a critical description as any.
What he is not, by any stretch of the imagination or even partisan bias, is a Socialist, Marxist or Anti-Capitalist of any kind whatsoever.
I'm missing The Daily Show rerun, where I get most of my television based political analysis these days.
Gotta run,
"Mad" Miles
:burngrnbounce:
"Mad" Miles
02-03-2010, 01:28 PM
Lynn, Everybody,
In thinking about my responses to your questions last night, I've realized that since there are very few, if any, openly Socialist, Marxist, Anarchist, or whatever kind of strict anti-capitalist you wish to name in positions of power in our country, other than in some History, Philosophy, English, Sociology, Anthropology or Fine Arts departments at various elite and state universities, that the political terms that are really important are the ones that apply to people who wield substantial power in the "real world".
So, does everyone understand the distinctions between Keynesian vs. Friedmanite economics? How about Neo-Liberal vs. Neo-Conservative? What is a Straussian? What does Progressive mean in relation to Liberal? Conservative in relation to Reactionary? What is the relationship and the differences between the Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement?
On a more marginal note, are all Libertarians advocates of laissez faire capitalism? Is State Socialism a form of capitalism? Yes, or no, explain.
Anyway, I hope you get the idea!
"Mad" Miles
:burngrnbounce:
Orm Embar
02-03-2010, 10:12 PM
Oh, I wish I had more time to re-read snippets of past studies and even more time to write and participate in this potentially enjoyable discussion . . . but I'm swamped! Please, someone else step in! Too many people throw around these labels and have no clue of what the words mean.
To Miles: much appreciation for your recent posts in this thread.
-Larkin (aka Orm Embar)
*snip*
On a more marginal note, are all Libertarians advocates of laissez faire capitalism? Is State Socialism a form of capitalism? Yes, or no, explain.
Anyway, I hope you get the idea!
"Mad" Miles
:burngrnbounce:[/QUOTE]
lynn
02-04-2010, 06:41 PM
Miles..."Well, the problem is that all political labels limit and do not allow for complexity."<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Totally agree…That’s been my big beef too…And my perception has been about the same as yours on Obama…Sure seems mostly like a ‘Centrist Democrat’ to me - if we are going to put a simple political label on him…
<o:p></o:p>
So, if Obama is not a ‘Fabian Socialist’…Why does this guy think so?...<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
That's why I have avoided labeling myself for the last thirty years.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Well, we are twins in that arena…I’ve never even bothered to categorize myself and never wanted to anyway…I have no idea where the political ‘center’ even is sometimes…Seems that’s all over the board too, depending on who’s defining ‘center’ these days…Like, if Obama is a ‘marxist’ to someone – or even a ‘Fabian Socialist’…what is‘center’ to them?...And I’ve found that so many people will throw each other into a category, and assume how someone is going to think on several issues, just because they think a certain way on one issue…I try not to assume this about others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sort of a side-note here while we're on the topic of political labels being thrown around..
Getting back to when Bush was in office…I also got frustrated with the word ‘fascist’ being thrown around – as it still sometimes is with Obama (although ‘marxist’ is now more in fashion)…
These are a couple articles I found awhile back after hearing someone else state that fascism has about 5 steps in it’s development…(For anyone who cares to read them)...
<o:p></o:p>
The Five Stages…
https://www.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five%20Stages%20of%20Fascism.pdf (https://www.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five%20Stages%20of%20Fascism.pdf)
<o:p></o:p>
on defining fascism…(quicker summation)…<o:p></o:p>
https://www.dkrenton.co.uk/on%20defining%20fascism.html (https://www.dkrenton.co.uk/on%20defining%20fascism.html)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, I hope you get the idea! <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Well, I sure think I do…That's partly why I asked my Q's...<o:p></o:p>
And, I see a Public Poll in the making…(example below)…<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Q. Do you know the difference between Keynesian vs. Friedmanite economics?<o:p></o:p>
(Please check appropriate box)…<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Yes. [__]<o:p></o:p>
No. [__]<o:p></o:p>
Sort of. [__]<o:p></o:p>
You are kidding, right? [__]<o:p></o:p>
No Ph*cking WAY! [__]<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Q. Are you well versed in the definition of laisse-faire capitalism?…
Yes. [__]
No. [__]
It’s a high priced couch made in France, right? [__]
J<o:p></o:p>
----------<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I'm missing The Daily Show rerun, where I get most of my television based political analysis these days. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Well, since so called ‘news’ has been made into 'entertainment' anyway…Might as well get it from ‘The Daily Show’…J<o:p></o:p>
n4rky
02-05-2010, 10:16 PM
The use of terms pejoratively rather than descriptively, such as Marxist, Socialist, Communist, etc. is inherited from the Cold War in modern American (U.S.) culture and politics. But fear and demonization of the enemies of Capitalist exploitation precede that by many decades.
I would offer a very slight modification here (otherwise, you're way ahead of me). From what I can see, while socialism was perhaps within the range of acceptable discourse before World War II, I have original sources where people used the term pejoratively.
It's a much longer story than is really necessary, but I have transcripts of meetings around the country with Indians to discuss the then proposed Indian Reorganization Act, passed along with much New Deal legislation and in fact also called the "Indian New Deal."
Some of the resistance to this legislation among some Indians was on the basis that it was supposedly "socialist."
n4rky
02-05-2010, 10:32 PM
I take President Obama at his word. He's a Centrist Democrat (Party that is), which makes him moderately Liberal (Look it up, especially the definition of Classical Liberal).
He uses Progressive language and buzz words to appeal to the Left wing of the party base. But clearly, based on his policies so far, he's far more beholden to his corporate masters than anyone else. But that's pretty true of any politician who ascends to his exalted level in this system.
From what I can see, you're using language very precisely here, perhaps too precisely for general audiences.
A very interesting site for all this is politicalcompass.org (https://politicalcompass.org). I used to assign this test to my public speaking students (for persuasion, it helps to know where one is relative to one's audience). Nearly all our politicians are to some degree right wing and authoritarian.
"Mad" Miles
02-06-2010, 02:04 PM
Hey n4rky,
I knew when I wrote, "The use of terms pejoratively ...such as Marxist, Socialist, Communist, etc. is inherited from the Cold War in modern American (U.S.) culture and politics. But fear and demonization of the enemies of Capitalist exploitation precede that by many decades." that someone might interpret it as a claim that the first pejorative use was during the Cold War.
That's why I added the phrase, "... in modern American ... culture and politics" and the second sentence.
Of course any student of history knows that movements to collectivize, i.e. "share" social and economic wealth, have been seen with alarm by those whose power derives from privately held wealth.
I apologize for not being crystalline clear. I was trying to pack too much into the paragraph.
The problem is with the use of language to encapsulate a large amount of information with a modicum of phrasing. This requires generalization and all generalization is innacurate insofar as it does not describe all of the relevant details with regard to any phenomenon. But a history that included all relevant details would by necessity, take as long, if not longer, to describe any series of events, as the events themselves! One could never catch up. There's a word for this fallacy in the field of historiography but at the moment it escapes me.
Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Collectivism, Levelling, The Diggers, Ned Lud, etc. all were threats to Capitalism long before 1945. No doubt. My point was that we inherit their pejorative use, most recently, from the Cold War era, where they were stigmatized even more intensely and effectively, than they were before.
That Cold Warriors could easily use them as descriptors of "The Threat To All Things Good And Right" was of course inherited from previous pejorative usage. And the politics of class warfare between the haves and the haves not, of course.
For the record, although I've stated it before on this board, I am no fan of the tradition of authoritarian Marxist-Leninism, in any form, shape or movement.
I discuss these terms from the perspective of their historical interest, and the way the Right elides any differences between them in order to demonize, marginalize and dismiss the entire Left.
Not that the Left isn't very good at providing our enemies plenty of ammunition to use against us!