Looking for a third party

1. Openly Secular.
2. Preference for revolution, however not to the extent of being anti-pragmatic. Reform is better than nothing.
3. Specifically American revolution and a specifically American version of socialism. Marx, Engels, Juche, Ba'athism, Mao, Stalin etc. can be admired, but they can't be exported and imported.
4. Socialism basically means that the Government takes care of you, but if you want to work privately, you can opt to. (I modified this later in the thread)
5. Even though I have stated that it should be specifically American, Mao/Stalin/Castro/Kim Jong Il etc/Saddam Hussein/Hugo Chavez and other leftist leaders should not be bashed and disrespected.
6. Not Trotskyite.
7. Should emphasize relativism and a dialectical approach.
8. Anti-imperialist.
9. Against petty identity politics.
10. Keeps focus on economic and national issues. Not social issues. (For instance, I'm pro-life, but I wouldn't want to exclude people who are pro-choice, etc.)

Ba'athism and Juche are not leftist ideologies.

The left-right spectrum would ideally be rejected as one-dimensional.

You cannot have a marxist and fascist party. It doesn't make any sense. Grouping communists and socialists with fascists and pseudo-monarchists is just silly.

That is irrelevant, because I stated that the dialectical and relativist nature of the party, which would imply that America does not copy anyone - Marxist or Fascist.

It works for socialism separately, but not chauvinistically. And it trades and interacts intentionally, without degenerating into cosmopolitanism.

I also take issue with this point:

4. Socialism basically means that the Government takes care of you, but if you want to work privately, you can opt to.

Where did you get this definition?

I didn't "get it" but socialism is narrowly defined enough that I am not contradicting myself.

The definition of socialism is a dictatorship of the working class. That doesn't mean that there aren't some market forces, but they are different and less politically significant than under capitalism.

Whether or not you are hired by a private employer should not determine whether or not you sleep on the streets, basically.

If you are hired by someone then the person doing the hiring is a capitalist. You can't have Socialism with capitalists running around.

If it's a consensual relationship for entrepreneurial reasons, that's not the same thing as wage slavery or class stratification. Meaning people should be able to want to work, but people shouldn't have to work. If they don't work, they should still basically have a good enough living standard.

It's trying to reconcile socialism with the way America works.

No you want a welfare state. That is not Socialism in any established or recognized way. You have essentially expanded the term into meaninglessness.

In Socialism the people own the means of production in common. In Capitalism the means of production are held in private hands and labor is sold for a wage.

What you want is Capitalism.

No, because I give the Government the authority over market forces, but still allow market forces in some (but not all) situations.

But it differs from fascist, because the goal of such authority is not political, but economic. In fascism, the market is subjected to ideas (race purity).

It sounds like you want a system like China has.

I think that is how socialism would work in a country like America that has a certain culture.

Russian Culture, American culture and Chinese culture are all different.

I think Stalin ruled Russia correctly in his time, but I don't think a revolutionary idea, a progressive one, can be implemented without considering the place and time.

What I really want is DIALECTICAL materialism.

If you think that China is socialist and Stalin was good for the USSR then I don't know what to tell you.

I agree it's a mistake to say that "if you want to work privately you can opt to."

The correct statement would be "if you want to work privately, the Government may allow it, but no such human right exists."

That still isn't Socialism, sorry.

Socialism requires the common ownership of the means of production through the abolition of private property. This means that wage-labor is also abolished. If you want the basics read The Communist Manifesto.

You can allow people to temporarily hold onto public property.

It's your toothbrush, but I can take it away if I want to.

Basically, that's my version. It's tolerating some ownership but reserving the right to take it away, but certainly not tolerating every market force in the same way as capitalism.

You aren't getting it. Why don't you define Socialism more explicitly?

A transitional stage between capitalism and communism (Leninism) or between feudalism and Communism (Maoism) in which the working class officially influences the means of production for its own sake, against the will of others. In my interpretation, it means that businesses don't exclusively own themselves, but are also managed by the Government and the concept of having "the right to property" is taken away. Property rights over the means of production become subordinate to the demands of the working class party.

Notice that Socialism is not Communism, which is a classless society.

I think that you should really look at this thread.

Red Aegis wrote:No you want a welfare state. That is not Socialism in any established or recognized way. You have essentially expanded the term into meaninglessness.

In Socialism the people own the means of production in common. In Capitalism the means of production are held in private hands and labor is sold for a wage.

What you want is Capitalism.

He's American. It's no surprise he has no concept of socialism. Both dominant parties are so far to the right they actually believe the watered down, powerless state of liberalism is leftist ideology.

That's really the best I can describe what he desires as. Pure liberalism. I'm not trying to question his devotion or proclaim "not a true Scotsman" fallacy. But that's what it sounds like. A mixed/planned economy is capitalist. Functional capitalism that goes on in every country. The dogmatic rhetoric of free markets and social Darwinism has controlled the debate, and now many in the west think that somehow a regulation here, a union there, a small tax increase is somehow "socialist".

If it makes OP feel any better, there's no reason he can't just join one of the monopolized parties and simply tilt it more toward the direction he would like. Granted it will mostly be superficial... but many within these imperialist parties might be willing to listen to reason. Once you can start nominating senators and state representatives who show more actual left-leaning involvement/action, it might force the system to consider leftism a legitimate stance.

We cannot hope to beat the parties at their own game, or simply destroy them. They have to be eaten and transformed from the inside.

Metal Gear wrote:A transitional stage between capitalism and communism (Leninism) or between feudalism and Communism (Maoism) in which the working class officially influences the means of production for its own sake, against the will of others. In my interpretation, it means that businesses don't exclusively own themselves, but are also managed by the Government and the concept of having "the right to property" is taken away. Property rights over the means of production become subordinate to the demands of the working class party.

Just to clarify (and not to argue), where did Marx use the term 'socialism' to refer explicitly to the lower phase of communism? Did he not use the terms almost interchangeably?

Notice that Socialism is not Communism, which is a classless society.

Class is defined by the relationship to the means of the production. If socialism is a society in which the workers own the means of production and there is no longer a bourgeoisie (or a proletariat for that matter), it is a classless society. Lenin's use of the term (socialism) was used to refer to a large gap in Russia's transition to the higher phase of communism which Marx did not predict or call for.

Cuba does now allow ownership of small businesses, such as painters, taxi drivers etc. This can work in a socialist country.
To quote from the Communist party of Britain's 'British Road to Socialism
"....socialism does not require that all economic enterprise must be confined to the public sector or to a single model of public ownership. Even as socialism is being constructed, there should be scope for small businesses, self-employment and for the co-operative, voluntary and municiple sectors of the economy"

Ultimately there is no one size fits all vision of socialism. Juche may work in North Korea but to introduce this in the USA or Britain would be a disaster. Socialism has to adapt to the culture and nature of each individual country, yet be built within pillars of socialist principles.

Regarding fascism, I think it was Lenin that once regarded a then left wing Mussolini as the great hope of Italy. Yet ultimately fascism puts the national establishment above ordinary people and wraps this in a vision of patriotism for the masses. In reality it exploits and does not liberate eventually evolves into socialist nationalism and racist politics.

Modgardener wrote:Ultimately there is no one size fits all vision of socialism. Juche may work in North Korea but to introduce this in the USA or Britain would be a disaster. Socialism has to adapt to the culture and nature of each individual country, yet be built within pillars of socialist principles.

Regarding fascism, I think it was Lenin that once regarded a then left wing Mussolini as the great hope of Italy. Yet ultimately fascism puts the national establishment above ordinary people and wraps this in a vision of patriotism for the masses. In reality it exploits and does not liberate eventually evolves into socialist nationalism and racist politics.

Juche isn't Socialism though. I just wanted to add that.