Republican or Democrat

[CountArach]

The hallmark of socialism is big government, "big" be because it regulates a great deal.

Incorrect - that is the nature of Stalinism/Leninism. To quote Marx (Who, surely, is worth quoting in any debate on Socialism) in the Communist Manifesto:
"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
Communism in its truest form is anti-Statist, as is Socialism.

Libertarian is the exact opposite, advocating a small government that does very little, mostly related to keeping the nation safe, with law and order. And all this you already know yourself. Thus, you cannot be a socialist libertarian because you will have to compromise either of those beliefs. Once you compromise, you are no longer one of those things.

Libertarian Socialism looks at the liberatory aspects of Libertarianism in relation to personal freedoms, such as gay rights, abortion rights, drug rights, etc. Socialism as an economic system, and communism as the end goal thereof, are unconcerned with the issue of personal freedoms. However, once it has been accepted that Socialism is anti-Statist then it follows that true Socialists must necessarily be Libertarian insofar as they can't accept that the State has a role to play in the private lives of citizens.

I understand you most likely believe in a socialist political system and in libertarian freedoms of action, but that will not happen. In any case, you will have to create plenty of taxes (or tariffs if you really wish to murder business and violate WTO) to sustain the high spending characteristic of a socialist government.

You realise you are talking to a Socialist right? You know, someone who hates business and the WTO? Oh, and someone who likes higher taxes?

Gah, you are like a National Bolshevik - you want the best of both :P. But life is harsh, and you will have to choose between the two. Yes, I read the Wikipedia article, but the nature of the socialism described there is no socialism at all. It is mere libertarianism - the absence of government. Socialism cannot be sustained there.

I think that the Soviets showed that Socialism in its Statist form is unsustainable as it simply turns into State Capitalism. Socialism as it is most properly understood is about personal responsibility towards the Community, which is seen as the highest good.

And will people ever learn that anarchism will never work, not in today's society?? It is the human nature to be led, to huddle in the safety, stability and complacency of government. And it is likewise the human nature for leaders to emerge when there is little government. People are sheep, we are stupid, and soon a new gov't will be elected in an anarchy. Either that or the "first among equals" anarchist will seize power.

Communities of Anarchists have successfully co-existed around the world at many different times for short periods (Then are crushed in a counter-revolution, but that is an irrelevancy here). Look at the Spanish Civil War for instance, or the modern Zapatistas. Large-scale Anarchism has never occurred.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Incorrect - that is the nature of Stalinism/Leninism. To quote Marx (Who, surely, is worth quoting in any debate on Socialism) in the Communist Manifesto:
"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
Communism in its truest form is anti-Statist, as is Socialism.

Oh dear...

Marx here does not describe the communist state. 'The modern state' describes the existing bourgeois' states of his time.

You wouldn't be one of those revolutionaries who've only read the Manifesto and never (the completely unreadable) Das Kapital?


But we do need higher taxes. Starting with the Tonkin Tax, an overhaul of the WTO, and a renewed understanding that the modern state must be the executive committee for managing the common affairs of the people, instead of an instrument for plunder.
[/bourgeois]

[CountArach]

Oh dear...

Marx here does not describe the communist state. 'The modern state' describes the existing bourgeois' states of his time.

The nation-state is a bourgeois construction. Marx does say that the workers are without a nation (Can't be bothered to find the exact quote at my fingertips). As such the destruction of the Capitalist Superstructure necessitates the destruction of the very concept of a nation-state.

You wouldn't be one of those revolutionaries who've only read the Manifesto and never (the completely unreadable) Das Kapital?

I have never read Das Kapital (Though I fully intend to once I can find a print version). I have, however, read quite a few of the more obscure writings of Marx, at least in part.

EDIT: Though I do believe we have strayed somewhat from the original question... my mistake.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Mistake? Rubbish.

About time we hijacked US politics threads to talk about Marx and the coming revolution.



I demand the addition to this poll of the option 'Socialist Worker's Party of the US' !!

[gaelic cowboy]

The Revolution man did ye not hear ye missed it all in 1989.
The ordinary people in commie land only wanted ipods and plasma tv's same as me

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm a member of the Pizza party.

[Subotan]

Ok, but what will your policies do for the working man?