There is a Facebook group with over 3,000 viewers called “Social Democrats USA — Socialist Party USA.” I joined it a few months ago, then began complaining because some spam from an African “Christian” grifter kept popping up.
In my FB posts I've been trying to provide information, argument, and ammunition for the like-minded. There's not much by way of feedback though -- I just keep fingers crossed that I'm doing some good.
The other area of activism, the one I've been most involved in, is protesting the genocide in Gaza, which sustains the US arms industry and gives a nice payday to American merchants of death.
The socialist movement is now 200 years old. There has not been a single enduringly successful implementation of the full vision (social ownership and democratic control of society’s major means of production).
Bernsteinism is now well over 100 years old. It could hardly be less inspiring.
Instead of getting all old-fogey, here’s where Sixties radicalism should have gone:
I have recently finished his book on the history of inequality in economic analysis as well as the book reviewed in the link above, which examines the history of inequality in political theory. Both include chapters on Marx, which I found illuminating. According to both, Marx is not an egalitarian. In the book reviewed at the link, the argument is that Marx is a classical republican, drawing on a long history of republican political theory -- back to Plato -- which concerns itself with the effects of socio-economic inequality on the polity and its citizens. That is, an egalitarian distribution of wealth and income is desirable not at all for its own sake but, to the extent it is desirable, it is only because it makes possible the attainment of other goals.
organizing? this is where i stumble. would love to just walk out my door with my sleeping bag and join occupy but …
Okay, Max, I found the FB page and joined it.
In my FB posts I've been trying to provide information, argument, and ammunition for the like-minded. There's not much by way of feedback though -- I just keep fingers crossed that I'm doing some good.
The other area of activism, the one I've been most involved in, is protesting the genocide in Gaza, which sustains the US arms industry and gives a nice payday to American merchants of death.
Lots of junk on that page, unfortunately. Hysteria, conspiracy theories. One fellow in particular seems to spend all day just posting links.
The socialist movement is now 200 years old. There has not been a single enduringly successful implementation of the full vision (social ownership and democratic control of society’s major means of production).
Bernsteinism is now well over 100 years old. It could hardly be less inspiring.
Instead of getting all old-fogey, here’s where Sixties radicalism should have gone:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F254HFVT/ref=sr_1_1
The older you get, the more time you are granted to figure out where you were wrong.
If you want inspiration, you need to find Jesus. Or The Buddha.
RE: the slogan, "There is no way to democratic socialism. Democratic socialism is the way,” Nope!
Much better is, "There is no way to democratic socialism. Social democracy is the way.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other matters, do you read Branco Milanovic's blog, "Global Inequality and More?" ICYMI, this book review is of interest:
https://branko2f7.substack.com/p/poison-for-the-soul
I have recently finished his book on the history of inequality in economic analysis as well as the book reviewed in the link above, which examines the history of inequality in political theory. Both include chapters on Marx, which I found illuminating. According to both, Marx is not an egalitarian. In the book reviewed at the link, the argument is that Marx is a classical republican, drawing on a long history of republican political theory -- back to Plato -- which concerns itself with the effects of socio-economic inequality on the polity and its citizens. That is, an egalitarian distribution of wealth and income is desirable not at all for its own sake but, to the extent it is desirable, it is only because it makes possible the attainment of other goals.
I like Branko, find him illuminating. I reviewed one of his books, but he took umbrage at the review and will not speak to me.
To me the foundational notion in Marx is not inequality, but alienation.