ERRORS IN THE ACTUAL SOCIALIST IDEOLOGY IN SPAIN
The socialist movement in recent decades shows a huge ideological chaos, the result of ideological degeneration occurs from the imposition of new pseudo. It seems that the current plutocracy has corrupted the socialist ideology, which gradually has moved away from the basic tenets of socialism, coming dangerously close to social-liberal positions. With this letter I present my review based so the current ideological English socialist movement in general.
ideological confusion: leftist or socialist?
Today, people consider the words "left" and "socialist" basically synonymous. This is not a reflection of ideological chaos live socialism. The term "leftism" was first used in the French Republic to appoint liberals. Therefore, originally, "leftist" means "liberal." Liberalism is the political ideology that prevails in the West, and is based on providing the utmost importance to the individual. According to liberalism, society is essentially a collection of unconnected individuals. In contrast to this ideology, socialism enacted more important to society than the individual. While liberalism gives priority to the individual, promoting selfishness and social conflicts, socialism gives priority to the creation of a just society, promoting cooperation and solidarity among the individuals composing it. Thus, liberalism can be considered the antithesis of socialism.
However, Marx thought that capitalism (the system promoted economic liberalism) should precede socialism. Many socialists, wrongly, saw the liberalism and capitalism as a form of progress toward socialism, a step forward, and chose to defend against the feudal monarchy that preceded it. This is a mistake that still persists. Mao Tse Tung has already shown that capitalism was not a prerequisite for socialism to succeed, and that socialism could emerge from a feudal society. Moreover, capitalism does not differ essentially from feudalism: feudal nobility in the work exploits the peasantry because they control arms, while the banking capitalism exploits the labor of workers because it controls the money. Capitalism is feudalism only adapted to the industrial revolution. It is therefore a serious mistake for socialists to appreciate certain "camaraderie" in the liberal-capitalist movement.
This error can be seen everywhere. For example, socialists feel admiration for Rafael de Riego, a liberal. In fact, Rafael de Riego was as an enemy of socialism and Fernando VII himself. In the South American socialist movement there is another liberal nineteenth-century fascination with Simon Bolivar, a native capitalist enemy of the Indians so as it was the English crown. The most fragrant the melancholy of the Second Republic. The Second Republic was a liberal capitalist republic, and therefore an enemy of socialism. It was not a socialist republic, or popular, was a monarchy, plutocracy as the present we suffer. Not differ practically nothing, and change the current monarchy with a new republic in the image and likeness of the second would be like changing snot drool. Another example: today, many prefer the socialist PSOE rather than the PP. Why? The PSOE is a capitalist party, liberal and monarchist, who defends the economic imperialism of the West, exactly the same as the PP. The PSOE is more progressive, yes, but it is as much an enemy of socialism, or higher, than PP. In addition, Socialists must be revolutionary, not progressive. Progress is also an enemy of socialism. The adoption of the very word "leftist" to define themselves, by the socialists, is a consequence of this mistaken approach from socialism to liberalism.
This error is not just semantic, but also reflects an ideological confusion. Many policy issues defending the socialist considered not derived from socialist thought, but of liberal thought. For example, many leftists precedence over "freedom" (debauchery rather) of the citizen to the welfare of society. That thought is contrary to the philosophy socialist, that puts the welfare of society as a whole to the excessive freedom of individuals. (Socialism does not preclude the freedom of individuals, but advocates a responsible freedom with the rest of the citizens.)
In short, throughout the twentieth century has been mixing socialism with liberalism. This mixture has been stronger in the last 30 years in Spain, which has helped the failure of socialist states and the mistakes made by them. Many have seen an evolution of the ideological shift from socialism to overcome old mistakes. But in reality these ideological changes have brought socialism to their greatest enemy: liberalism. This has ideological degeneration of socialism, approaching social-liberal positions and betraying the fundamentals of socialist philosophy. Therefore not be confused with socialism, leftism, not only are the same, but they are antonyms.
Patria and confusion: internationalist or anationalist?
Parents were internationalist socialism (hence the International), but most of those who consider themselves socialists confuse the meaning of the term. Internationalism is the defense of a multinational society based on solidarity and cooperation among nations. However, the meaning of this term is clumsily confused with the "world" and "cosmopolitanism" or "anationalism." Socialism advocates the nation itself and does not preclude the existence of nations. In fact, socialism has often been associated with homeland defense, especially in the former colonies of Western countries. The slogan of the Cuban socialist is "Fatherland or death." Nationalization has been a common denominator of socialism, and could not understand a policy of "socialist" not nationalize resources. But this defense of the nation itself is not and never has been, incompatible with solidarity among peoples. International Socialism advocates a non-exclusive patriotism and anti-imperialist.
This concept of internationalism easily stalled revolutions in Eastern Europe, and more recently in American socialism. The problem is when applied to the socialism of the former imperial metropolis, where the downside is married defending an imperialist nation such as Spain with the anti-imperialism that promotes internationalism. To me it's easy: I am a English patriot, but I am against neo-imperialist policy of Spain, and I support politicians like Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. But many socialists have resolved this conflict became one unpatriotic, because they are unable to understand that patriotism and imperialism are not synonymous. There are few things more stupid than attacking the very nation we live in, or the country that defines us. This has led many socialists to defend the anationalism, ie the disappearance of nations, a completely absurd in talks to end the identity of people and therefore, men and women who compose it. This perception has helped, and much abuse of the concept nation chauvinist exercised by conservatives, patriots, those who presume to make Spain as a mere puppet in the service of the U.S. Many socialists have become unpatriotic just for being "the opposite" of the conservatives, which lacks logic.
Worse, many socialists have emulated the concept of socialism patriotic overseas and have applied to the regions of Spain, as if they were colonies of Castile. International socialism, of course, must go for the union of peoples, not separation. For example, ERC, a political party that defines itself on the left while defending the lack of solidarity among the peoples of Spain. Such ideologies are unacceptable within the framework of international socialism, and have their own name National Socialism. The fact that they do not bear swastika does not mean they are not Nazis. I also point out that large patriotic socialist leaders such as Ho Chi Minh, fought, not separatism, but against imperialism. In Spain there is not any kind of imperialism or degrading treatment to any particular region, and therefore there is no justification for speaking of separatism from the socialist ideological framework.
In short, a socialist should defend their homeland, but never stop fighting against imperialism. A socialist should respect all people equally. And one must oppose socialist ideologies that violate these principles as the anationalism (which denies the idiosyncrasies of the people) or separatism (which undermine internationalism). Conservatives believe patriots, patriotism, summarizing in a sickening worship of national symbols, the Socialists must be true patriots, and that means defending the English people in attacks that may occur from within or from outside.
"Socialism must defend immigration?
be against immigrants has a name: xenophobia. But xenophobia does not mean being against immigration. Many supporters of the PP are xenophobic, but they have an immigrant chacha. Xenophobia is totally contrary to the idea of \u200b\u200binternationalism, which adopts the respect for all peoples. However, the downside of this is that, when great thinkers of socialism as developed in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, Europe had the problem of immigration. Now the Socialists have no ideological tools to decide what to think from the point of view of socialism and show impressive mental chaos. Try to analyze the problem from different perspectives.
On the one hand, socialism is a working-class ideology, therefore, should defend the working classes. It is obvious that immigrants compete on an unfair and unsupportive, with English workers. The Socialists avoid this discourse through rhetoric and denying this fact. "They take jobs that the English did not want" to, say, and sometimes even believe it. I know foreigners who work for dentists, and English who remain unemployed or in the olive harvest, because they prefer to hire foreigners who earn less. In the European socialist movement this topic is not discussed directly by the ideological conflict that generates, leaving out the working class. Consequently, the workers feel abandoned by the "left" and have to take refuge in ideologies that are not afraid to face reality, as revolutionary nationalism.
But on the other hand we are internationalists. We can not stand by while these people are starving. Solidarity with the suffering people requires us to support those immigrants. But bear in mind that socialism is the duty of working because migration is unnecessary. Socialism must work because the immigrants to live a dignified life in their countries of origin, without need for migration. And that goes for the fight against neo-imperialism, starting to fight the English multinationals such as Repsol, Banco Santander, Telefónica ... But I've never listened to those who defend immigration to appeal to boycott these companies to help immigrants in their countries of origin.
support to immigration is not only unsupportive of English workers, constitutes support for a process in which the main beneficiaries are, first, English employers who exploit immigrants with impunity. The behavior of social liberal can not be immoral. On the one hand, they defend the multinationals who steal the resources of these villages, forcing people to migrate. And secondly, the social-liberals talk about "alliance of civilizations" and open the borders for them to come and work in maids or construction workers. The business is round for big business, not only robbed at gunpoint (literally) their resources, but they were brought over here as cheap labor. A true socialist should NOT participate in this circus in which the main victims are immigrants, forced to flee their country, and English workers, forced to compete with foreign labor. Hence we next Morocco. Spain and France support a dictator Mohamed VI, which only differs from Franco mustache. A man who has starved his people. Thanks to Mohamed VI, English and French multinational companies get cheap labor in Morocco. But it's over, the Moroccans come to Europe to be left kidneys in Almería greenhouses for four dollars, thanks to which Almería has twice the income per capita than the rest of Andalusia. I wonder how Moroccan citizens are the wealth generated from their sweat. When immigration is supported without reservation it supports such processes imperialist and anti-worker. Socialism, therefore, can not support this.
To sum up this very complex issue: Socialism must uphold the humane treatment to immigrants, but above all must fight because these people do not have to leave their homeland and their families to lead a dignified life. Socialists do not be fooled by the social-liberal rhetoric, with the excuse of helping immigrants, actually promotes a well-oiled system of exploitation of weaker peoples. And in any case, socialists can not give back to the English workers. Although it is difficult, you should try to pursue policies that uphold the rights of English workers and immigrant peoples simultaneously. In response to the question: should not defend socialism immigration, because immigration is a consequence of territorial inequalities caused by capitalist imperialism, and against which anti socialism, but it should show solidarity with immigrants and their people . Thus, socialism should not confuse sympathy for immigrants with a defense of immigration. Confusing
solidarity with charity
Call bluntly political left defends "solidarity" as 0.07%. Again there is a confusion of terms. Giving "Alms" to poor countries is not solidarity, is charity. And the charity of a sense of superiority. When you give money to the needy, are being told: "Go, for you are too useless to get yourselves thrive in our infinite goodness, we give this limosnilla to sobreviváis." And at the same time, our multinationals are responsible for their starvation. Charity violates the dignity of individuals. Solidarity, by contrast, is to support the cause of others, according to the dictionary of the RAE. Solidarity, unlike charity, it occurs between equals. That is, support our multinational in its theft by the world and then to send them a limosnilla victims, is charity, offends the dignity of peoples, and is intolerable. Socialism, which defends the dignity of all people, should never support acts of charity. In contrast, solidarity is a boycott of English multinationals, and support those who struggle against neo-imperialism. There is a big difference between helping a blind man to fend for himself (solidarity) and do their job because we assume that blindness makes it useless (charity). Note that the charity always involves a minusvalorización of the person who runs to the person who receives it. The same is true in relations between countries. Note also that you can not be supportive if there is no cause to show solidarity. Unfortunately, a lot of work to do in poor countries is to spread the anti-imperialism as a cause. This also applies to measures such as social benefits to the most disadvantaged in society (like the 420 € of which I will below). Many of these actions are unworthy charity, not solidarity.
What is social justice?
Not long ago, the dysfunctional Zapatero government has approved an aid of 420 euros for people who are unemployed and social benefits. Then came the news congratulating Mr. Colin Campbell, the lackey of the government (whatever it is, lackey because it is so old it was Zapatero and Aznar). Colin Campbell said it was a measure "to ensure social justice." I wonder: is "social justice" that people who are unemployed, and stealing state through tax money to those who work to pay an allowance for doing nothing? This not only contributes nothing to social justice, it supports two social injustice: first, that there are people out of work and the government is not concerned about getting (it seems easier for them not to bother protesting), and the second , to be paid a salary for doing nothing, while others have to work for a living. Many people have kidneys to stop working for little more than € 420, let alone in the poorest countries. The fact that those who consider themselves socialists support this type of measures contrary to social justice is a reflection of very few "socialist" are aware of what "social justice".
social justice is simply that each one may receive what he deserves, and this implies that everyone has the means to earn a living. Social justice is not a work to eat while others eat without working. As he once said Raul Castro, which should learn many "leftists" English: "If an unproductive worker earns the same as a productive then the first will exploit the work of the second. "Socialism was presented as a means of ending social injustice caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by employers. This is a social injustice because the benefits of work does not accrue to the producing elements (workers). To understand the essence of this logic, I highly recommend reading "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx (many "leftists" think it is a brother of Groucho). But the ideological degeneration called left has come to such an extent that it has become a means by which not only the wealthy but now exploit the poor workers. Hold poverty with subsidies at the expense of taxes levied on the working class is a fudge intolerable. Socialism seeks to merge all classes into one: the working class. Socialism aims to create a just state in which everyone wins in terms of their contribution to society, and not in the current state, where a broken hand in the pit to earn a meager salary, while others live in palaces funded by the people. So Thief is the king and the beggar. Both charge a money not earned. The difference is only quantitative, not qualitative.
Again, the Socialists are wrong completely to play along to the social-liberal. Zapatero, not to implement Socialist measures to put an end to unemployment, take public money and distributes it among those who can protest and make trouble for the forthcoming elections. What will happen to these families when there is no money in public coffers to more than 420 euros? If by then the election is over and Zapatero has won again, will have achieved its objective. Confusing
socialism simply confusing socialism
often hear comments from socialist assumptions that show how ignorant they are of socialism. "Socialism is shared particularly among the people." No, socialism does not intend to completely allocate nothing is socialism socialize the means of production, ie, make the means of production to become common property, not to divide up profits as the Pirates split the loot. "You have to steal from the rich to distribute it among the poor." The very concept of "robbing the rich" shows a supine ignorance. The idea of \u200b\u200bsocialism is based precisely on the wealthy their wealth based on "theft" to the working class. Socialism is not robbing the rich (that is simply stealing from a thief), but to create a just society in which, precisely, no one will steal from anyone. In this society there would be rich. "Socialism is finish the job." And then Why live? Those who claim this are just lazy, they hope to establish a capitalist state where they have high positions in the political bureau, and are maintained by the working class, which seek to exploit. Socialism would destroy not only not work but that just means that we would work all without exception. "Socialism is to destroy private property." No, socialism is just the opposite, converting private property into collective property.
The fundamental precept of socialism is to change a society where the means of production belong to the banks (through loans) for a society where the means of production are collectively owned. Thus, the surplus of production that take the bankers and big business by doing absolutely nothing (do nothing but speculation) would happen to workers. So the workers would own their own production and their own destiny. No one will explode. Would increase their profits or reduce their workload, according to market needs. But the point is that there would be fattened hyenas on the sweat of others. This speech, a fundamental pillar of socialist ideas, has disappeared from the leftist rhetoric. During the Second Republic, the CNT encouraged local authorities, by which they sought generating companies to compete with workers capitalist firms. This type of workers' cooperatives should be the priority of social organizations, especially unions, and now would be a brave socialist alternative to the crisis. But no one stands in Spain, representing the final collapse of socialism as an idea. Can be seen, however, in Brazil, where agricultural cooperatives driven by liberation theologians, and also in Argentina is driven by many former workers are bound by the crisis in this country. But the English left does not fight for generating this type of cooperative. Instead, many leftists, including trade unions, choose to defend the capitalist system, but fueling the class struggle for the workers (who pay their dues, of course) get more and more of the employer. Since the employer does not produce these workers as "red", which are rubbing their hands thinking they are robbing the boss, who is actually stealing other workers who may be working if the company socialize. Many, many confused the class struggle with socialism, which is a serious mistake, because socialism is precisely to end the class struggle, as they already have one class only. The union struggle not only has nothing to do with socialism, but even going against him when you are asking wage increases, and not a change of the capitalist model for a socialist model. Even before the current economic crisis the union requested the change of model. And that's because the unions of this country are social-liberal ideology, and therefore enemies of socialism.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many thought that socialist ideology had to be reformed, and made him dangerously close to the liberal positions. By doing so destroyed the essence of socialism. These people thought that what failed was the ideological base generated in the nineteenth century. But if we look at history we see that the failure of socialist states not due to their ideological base, but precisely because the ideas of the great theorists were not made fully operational. How can you say that communism has failed, if ever in history has been a communist system? The English socialist movement has abandoned the basic tenets of socialism, and as a result of this is ideologically adrift. This is normal and will not seep into the public, and it is logical that their political formations fail. Today, the socialist movement should propose an alternative to a socio-economic system (the liberal-capitalist) that has clearly failed and sinks in its own misery. But the current ideological socialism is that cocoa not posing a clear alternative to anything. I suggest you dust off the old books of great theoretical and recover the essence of our struggle.
