The Three Reasons Why Americans AREN'T Rising Up

With income inequality rising, the middle class increasingly squeezed and more of us than ever feeling the pinch, why hasn’t the American public risen up to demand reform? It’s happened before, as in the Progressive Era, during the New Deal and the Great Society, so why not now?

http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=Pebp1Y-w260&u=/playlist?list=PLRQTFB42xzPm4zBaLEB8ydC0R_QVSyJMA

Growing list of videos related to the 30th National Convention of the Communist Party, USA.

Chicago School Closings rally

Chicago School Closings rally

Chicago Socialists Meetup Group

To fight against poverty, misery, to nourish the children, the pregnant mothers, and the people in general. That is one of the big differences with capitalism, that it is savage by nature. Versus socialism, which is human by nature.
Hugo Chavez, Speaking Freely (via socialism-or-barbarism)
Of course, Marx had the vision of Germany and Europe at that time and knew very little about the realities of Latin America. As a matter of fact, he knew so little that he wrote articles condemning Simón Bolívar. Karl Marx made a lot of mistakes. That is why it isn’t healthy for anyone to follow the ABC’s for anyone. Also, Bolívar made mistakes and we have also made mistakes. Nobody is infallible, especially when it comes down to ideas. Which are, like waves or currents, often very turbulent.
Hugo Chavez, Speaking Freely (via socialism-or-barbarism)

Dichotomy Of The Now: revolutionaryhopes replied to your post: Are you turning into a...

socialism-or-barbarism:

revolutionaryhopes replied to your post: Are you turning into a Luxembourgist?

You’re turning into a situationist, admit it.

haha you wish!

anarcholiberalism replied to your post: Are you turning into a Luxembourgist?

Rosa is p great. Got Reform or Rev….

oooo @hr-stasistuff 

That’s a Monthly Review Press book. I love that publisher. I need to get this now!

You know that many people have tried to characterize the now defunct Soviet system as ‘state capitalist.’ I do not think that such a characterization makes any sense at all. The Soviet system was not ‘state capitalist’; it was ‘post-capitalist.’ Nevertheless, this system also operated on the basis of appropriation of surplus labor by a separate body, structurally dominating the labor and operating the political extraction of the surplus labor. The Soviet-type system was historically specific from the capital system in which the appropriation of surplus labor had to be politically controlled.

That is what has come to an end in the former Soviet Union, but by no means everywhere. In the Chinese system you still find the predominance of the political control of surplus labor extraction. Although many people talk about the ‘market framework in the Chinese system,’ in reality— when you consider the totality of China’s metabolic reproduction— the market is very much subsidiary to it. So, primarily, in the Chinese system the political appropriation of surplus labor is still going on and indeed on a massive scale. In this sense, when you look at the problem of conversion from the angle of ‘surplus labor,’ rather than ‘surplus value’— which must be present in a particular variety of the capital system— then you find that in the capitalist variety (based on surplus value) it is essential to operate with the intermediary of conversion whose particular details are historically contingent. They also depend on the historic phases of capitalist development. Thus, the more advanced monopolistic phases of capitalist development must obviously operate in a significantly different way the conversion of surplus value into prices, as compared to a much earlier phase of development known to Marx.

Istvan Meszaros on the claim that the USSR was “state-capitalist,” taken from his essay Socialism or Barbarism (via socialism-or-barbarism)
Do all Communist parties of the 50 states have Tumbr accounts, or just certain ones? :) — Asked by commie-chan

Nope, only a select few I believe. I’ve only seen one more, the SO-CAL club, but it hasn’t been updated in a while. There may be others I think, though.

Thanks for following! I refollowed on my main blog.

Socialism is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled, and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. — That is socialism, nothing short of that.

Daniel De Leon

(via socialism-or-barbarism)

339 plays

socialdem:

How ‘Communism’ Brought Racial Equality To The South

Tell Me More continues its Black History Month series of conversations with a discussion about the role of the Communist Party. It was prominent in the fight for racial equality in the south, specifically Alabama, where segregation was most oppressive. Many courageous activists were communists. Host Michel Martin speaks with historian Robin Kelley about his book “Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression” about how the communist party tried to secure racial, economic, and political reforms.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123771194

redflagflying:

Posted on Facebook by the Young Communist League, USA. Damn right!

redflagflying:

Posted on Facebook by the Young Communist League, USA. Damn right!

‎Susan B Anthony pummeled and arrested for attempting to vote in 1872. She was fined $100 for registering to vote.
‎Susan B Anthony pummeled and arrested for attempting to vote in 1872. She was fined $100 for registering to vote.