FinnishBolshevik responds to Jimmy Dore

Really good video, WV.

Finally saw who you had mentioned, over on the side of the website, and wanted to give it a listen.

Had never heard of him before, but I agree with the vast majority of what he said. Capitalism is the problem. As long as it exists as the legal economic mode of production, we can’t have democracy. It will always own the government. In my view, it’s just impossible. Capitalism is, in fact, economic apartheid. It’s easily the most immoral and destructive economic system in world history, and the first to take over the entire globe — which makes it all the more deadly.

I liked that the Finnish guy called socialism “economic democracy,” which is my take as well. It’s what I argue with others on and offline when I defend it . . . especially when they play the Stalin card. If we go to socialism, that means we replace economic apartheid with economic democracy. But few Americans will ever get this. Too many generations of gaslighting have fogged them up too much.

Do you agree with him about Dore overall, and his calling him a “liberal”? You know Dore. I really don’t, outside some of the videos you’ve posted here. It surprised me initially when he said that. But I think he makes a pretty good case for it, while complimenting Dore for being among the most “woke” liberals. Woke, in this case, meaning class-conscious.

Would enjoy reading your take on it.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Really good video, WV.

Finally saw who you had mentioned, over on the side of the website, and wanted to give it a listen.

Had never heard of him before, but I agree with the vast majority of what he said. Capitalism is the problem. As long as it exists as the legal economic mode of production, we can’t have democracy. It will always own the government. In my view, it’s just impossible. Capitalism is, in fact, economic apartheid. It’s easily the most immoral and destructive economic system in world history, and the first to take over the entire globe — which makes it all the more deadly.

I liked that the Finnish guy called socialism “economic democracy,” which is my take as well. It’s what I argue with others on and offline when I defend it . . . especially when they play the Stalin card. If we go to socialism, that means we replace economic apartheid with economic democracy. But few Americans will ever get this. Too many generations of gaslighting have fogged them up too much.

Do you agree with him about Dore overall, and his calling him a “liberal”? You know Dore. I really don’t, outside some of the videos you’ve posted here. It surprised me initially when he said that. But I think he makes a pretty good case for it, while complimenting Dore for being among the most “woke” liberals. Woke, in this case, meaning class-conscious.

Would enjoy reading your take on it.

=======================

I think he ‘may’ be right about Dore, but I dunno. My take on Dore is more like he’s not easy to label. I mean how many critical-thinkers can really be ‘reduced’ down to this or that single word, like ‘socialist’ or whatever. I mean so much of what we support just depends on the context. Like, if someone asked me would i support a tax-increase on the rich, or a bigger tax on corporations, I’d say, “Yes, I support that”. Does that make me a ‘liberal’? Am i always supposed to say “Well i really support the dismantling of corporate-personhood, and corporate capitalism, and raising-taxes on corporations is just useless reformism and doesnt get to the root of the problem…blah blah blah…”

It gets tricky. I think Dore supports decent reforms. But that doesnt mean hes a liberal. He ‘might’ be. But maybe he just supports liberal reforms for strategic reasons, etc.

I’d vote for Bernie. But that doesnt make me a liberal-capitalist. In my case it just means, I dont believe in a “Revolution or Nothing” approach.

w
v

All of that makes a lot of sense. It’s a common problem, I’m betting, for all leftists. When we engage in discussion, it’s almost a dynamic of double-consciousness — if that’s the correct or useful term. Two hats, perhaps. Or more. Aspirational versus realistic, etc.

As in, most of us want society and the planet to be a certain way, ultimately, and we’re passionate about this. For me, that would be fully democratic, egalitarian, cooperative, radically decentralized, class-free, non-hierarchical to the degree humanly possible, etc. At the same time, we also live fully in the here and now, which means under the thumb of capitalism and oligarchy, for lack of more nuanced terminology. So we may say Yes to certain reforms for the system as it exists, but it can be tedious to always qualify this with “But we need to go a thousand fold further” every time.

Yes to much higher taxes on the rich and corporations. Yes to an end to corporate personhood. Yes to an end to money in politics, etc. etc. But, ultimately, these things really amount to using buckets to bailout the water in a sinking ship. It would be much smarter to abandon the ship altogether and find one that doesn’t and can’t leak.

Or, as I’ve mentioned before: Instead of choosing a dog for your kids that will always require a leash and constant supervision, choose one that doesn’t, one that is naturally gentle and loving and doesn’t require any supervision at all.

Choose a system that really does manage itself, because there is no concentration of power or wealth, and everyone has an equal say. It’s all on us, together. It’s all up to us, the who, what, when, where and why, instead on one person or a small group of execs.

I think the Finn was saying kinda sorta the same thing. At least pointing to this . . .

wv wrote:

“… Two hats, perhaps. Or more. Aspirational versus realistic, etc. …”
==============

Exactly. And there’s a lot of conversation-paths that could branch off from that notion.

What counts as ‘realistic’ and what counts as actual ‘reform’ etc? Hillary? Biden?
Etc, etc.

And then you have the always-present problem on the left of the “purists” vs “reformers”. Left Politics is a long long long dynamic of fracturing and fracturing and fracturing from within. I mean, have you ever read some of the history of the American socialist movement around the time of the Russian Revolution — It was comical. I bet They couldnt agree on what kind of bullets to use to shoot robber-barons….

Ironically, Sanders is the moderate candidate, IMO. He’s the reform guy. Again, two hats, but we need to go much further, etc. etc.

As for that time period and subject. It’s a gap in my self-education. If you have a good book in mind, please let me know. I did read China Mieville’s excellent history of the Russian Revolution, October, and loved it. But I don’t know much about American Socialism around that time.

Of indirect interest . . . is this article in Jacobin. I hadn’t heard about this guy (August Bebel) before:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/02/socialism-feminism-august-bebel-germany-social-democratic-party