Socialism

[CountArach]

Socialist as used by Socialists (at least myself and those I know) has come to mean much the same as it used to, except without revolutionary thought. Some now doubt that Communism is possible (Again, like myself) and instead believe in something much more closely resembling State Capitalism or at least a very watered down 'Socialism'.

As for labelling people, that is a tool used by the right because they mistakenly choose to associate Socialism with Leninism and Stalinism.

[PBI]

The reason people try to equate socialists with Nazis is the fact that the Nazis were supposedly "national socialists".

I feel this is being rather disingenuous however. Rather like using some nasty third world dictatorship with a terrible human rights record which happens to be called the "Democratic People's Republic of ..." to equate Republicans, Democrats or indeed people at large with those human rights abuses.

[Fragony]

Equal distribution of misery by a totalitarian and repressive government. Not the idea behind it but the inevitable conclusion and that is all that counts.

[CountArach]

Equal distribution of misery by a totalitarian and repressive government. Not the idea behind it but the inevitable conclusion and that is all that counts.

Socialism is tied in with minority rights of all kinds and hence is in no way totalitarianism. I swear we have had this argument before though...

[Fragony]

Socialism is tied in with minority rights of all kinds and hence is in no way totalitarianism. I swear we have had this argument before though...

Ya but men is not equal, gonna take a lot of government to pretend they are. Big government will always grow greater loyalty for their own organisation rather to their people, same for all big organisations, always growing into totalitarism secrecy and lies. Gonna take a lot of money though, hence the equal distribution of misery. In short, it sucks.

[Privateerkev]

The way I understand Socialism is that it is Communism without the Revolution. Basically it is public control of the economy or "command economy" in economic terms.

Believes in "evolution" instead of "revolution". Basically Socialism and Communism believe in the same end but disagree with the means to get there.

The common form of Socialism is the "Social Democrat" which believes in moving towards Socialism from within the current Democratic system. Basically there is a party and that party tries to get it's people elected so they can then push a more Socialist agenda.

As for beliefs, I like the quote: "From all according to their abilities, to those according to their needs."

It's the idea that we are all in this together. And only together are we strongest. It abandons the "bourgeoise individualism" that has been cultivated over the past couple hundred years.

We should also keep in mind that there is a difference between the economic system and the political system. The economic system is the "command economy" that I stated earlier. Where the political system is the idea of "more democracy". The more each person has a say, the better.

People bringing up Stalin and others are missing the point. North Korea is technically called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Though they are not Democratic, they are not run by the people, and they are not a Republic. All because a system is called a certain name, does not mean that it holds the values attributed to that name.

[rotorgun]

As for beliefs, I like the quote: "From all according to their abilities, to those according to their needs."

It's the idea that we are all in this together. And only together are we strongest. It abandons the "bourgeoise individualism" that has been cultivated over the past couple hundred years.

This is a very noble notion. My only beef with it (socialism) is who's going to pay for the "all according to their needs"? A system that mandates those who are productive to care for those who are lazy is another matter entirely. This is the idea that many in the United states oppose about socialism. I am not against charity and government programs to help people. I am against government "handouts" that enable some people to sit home and do nothing but have children while the rest of us get to pay for it.

As for "bourgeoise individualism," it is such individualism which encourages initiative and inventiveness. One of the characteristics of the former Soviet Union was that it tended to stifle these qualities. If, as you say socialism is communism without the revolution, than I would be very leery of going down the path.

[Viking]

Socialism = state control over the market
Capitalism = private control over the market
Communism = socialism + authoritarianism (strong intelligence agencies used to control the population etc.)

We should also keep in mind that there is a difference between the economic system and the political system. The economic system is the "command economy" that I stated earlier. Where the political system is the idea of "more democracy". The more each person has a say, the better.

People bringing up Stalin and others are missing the point. North Korea is technically called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Though they are not Democratic, they are not run by the people, and they are not a Republic. All because a system is called a certain name, does not mean that it holds the values attributed to that name.

Hurrah! It's the y-axis so many are not aware of; politics come on a two-dimensional map (as opposed to the one-dimensional left vs. right).

[LittleGrizzly]

Equal distribution of misery by a totalitarian and repressive government. Not the idea behind it but the inevitable conclusion and that is all that counts.


The inevitable conclusion of what ? Mine and CA's socailist beliefs ? the socailist inbetween described by Marx ? or are we talking stalinism ?

[Fragony]

Equal distribution of misery by a totalitarian and repressive government. Not the idea behind it but the inevitable conclusion and that is all that counts.


The inevitable conclusion of what ? Mine and CA's socailist beliefs ? the socailist inbetween described by Marx ? or are we talking stalinism ?

The whole idea that we should persuit equality. That is the inherent flaw of socialism, it's building the math around a false truth.

[Privateerkev]

The whole idea that we should persuit equality. That is the inherent flaw of socialism, it's building the math around a false truth.

But many of us see equality as a belief rather than a false truth.

[Fragony]

But many of us see equality as a belief rather than a false truth.

That is why (imvho) socialism should be treated as a religion just like christianity and islam.

[HoreTore]

The term "Socialism" isn't a specific term, it's an umbrella term which includes stuff from Marxist-leninism to social democrats(nulab should be disqualified though).

At it's heart, socialism is best defined as the ideology of the workers movement. But most big movements splinter into various factions, like the labour movement did, like when Lenin formed Komintern and split the movement hard. But every parti or ideology with their roots in the labour movement can perfectly well be termed as socialist. Some are revolutionary, some are reformists, some are enviromentalist, some industrialists, nationalist or internationalist and so on and so on.

But parties or ideologies without roots in the labour movement should not be called socialists. Like nazism(army roots), or capitalist parties even though they may favour a bigger government.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Socialism is tied in with minority rights of all kinds and hence is in no way totalitarianism. I swear we have had this argument before though...

Bah, more socialist lies! The smallest minority is the individual, whom socialists trample over in every one of their policies.

And of course, capitalism is a much better engine for economic growth (in that it is an engine for growth, whereas socialism is not), which makes all people better off.

CR

[Privateerkev]

Bah, more socialist lies! The smallest minority is the individual, whom socialists trample over in every one of their policies.

And of course, capitalism is a much better engine for economic growth (in that it is an engine for growth, whereas socialism is not), which makes all people better off.

CR

Capitalism funnels money to a select few by exploiting cheap labor. It is an engine for economic growth but it requires growth to expand for the rest of time. This simply can not be sustained forever.

Capitalism operates off of 3 assumptions;

1.) That there is an unlimited supply of resources

2.) That there is an unlimited number of markets

3.) That any enviromental damage can be repaired.

Once you knock even one of these pegs out, Capitalism becomes unsustainable. If you try to fix one of these assumptions, you no longer have pure Capitalism but instead you have a hybrid.

If you have a hybrid, you have to figure out what ratio of Capitalism/Socialism to have.

[Fragony]

Capitalism operates off of 3 assumptions;

1.) That there is an unlimited supply of resources

2.) That there is an unlimited number of markets

3.) That any enviromental damage can be repaired.

Who told you that? That is simply not true, capitalism is based on the principle of mutual benefit from economic activity with as little interference as possible. If you see someone starving in the street and you give him something to eat that doesn't make you a socialist, just a normal person with a heart in his chest instead of a frozen microwavemeal.

edit, back to religion, we are all sinners at heart?

[Privateerkev]

Who told you that? That is simply not true, capitalism is based on the principle of mutual benefit from economic activity with as little interference as possible. If you see someone starving in the street and you give him something to eat that doesn't make you a socialist, just a normal person with a heart in his chest instead of a frozen microwavemeal.

That might be the "belief" but the practice of pure capitalism is to expand regardless of the consequences. Someone who is a pure capitalist would demand that the person on the street work for his meal. And if he didn't, then he deserved what he got. You are obviously not a "pure" capitalist and I would guess that few people are.

If you believe in limiting the expansion of capital or in redistributing the wealth in any way, then you are simply not a pure capitalist but someone who believes in a hybrid model. Your posts suggest that you believe in a hybrid.