Socialism in Action

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]florelius wrote:

how many times most have this “what is socialisme” debate.

to be specific: marxist socialisme = A society where the proletariat owns the means of production togheter.

what you talk about, can be called: statist socialisme or statist capitalisme.

have you read marx?

Ok what is capitalisme. orion and his comrades are libertarians, what they call capitalisme, I call libertarianisme. thats an ideal for a society, not our society today.

when marxists talk about capitalisme, they meen the burgeois society. a society where the burgeois class controls the means of production and the state. the state of today are the state of the burgeois.

remember that marxist look at history as a history of class antagonisme, and that socialisme is the interrest ideology of the proletariat class not the state.

so governments dont equal socialisme. workers power do.

[/quote]

Hey Flo - how you been?

You’re right - another socialism debate here is just kicking a dead horse, then whacking it with a cricket bat and smacking it with a polo mallet . . . still, can’t let silly comments pass uncorrected, thus I get drawn into yet another one.

I have several things i would disagree with in your post, but let’s just stick to this one and see where it takes us shall we? You’ve not disappointed me in a discussion yet and I think this one might actually develop into a meaningful one

“governments don’t equal socialism, workers; power does” was your basic conclusion, and here’s where I will disagree with you.

Your comment speaks only of the initial phase of a socialist revolution, the inciting, organizing and empowering of a group of workers to wrest power from those who have power (normally portrayed as business owners, governments, etc).

However, once the movement has become organized and develops any type of leadership group, it is no longer about workers power, because the worker’s power has been subjugated to the will and direction of those who have put on the mantle of leadership. Every socialist revolution ceases to be a worker’s revolution as soon as there is a leadership cadre - every historical incident proves this very truth.

The workers thus become nothing more than the engine providing energy/power to the movement, but now at the direction of those who hold the wheel and throttle.

Now this has to be seen from the instigators/inciters perspective- they know they the goal is power, and thus they lure workers into their revolution merely to use them to gain that power - the workers are duped and used from day one to achieve the goals of those who would be their leaders.

Thus socialism is no more than a small cadre of elites controlling and dictating the actions of their followers - the very thing they accuse the “capitalist pigs” of doing to the workers in the first place.

Now, leaving that analysis aside for the moment, lets look at what happens when the socialist revolution becomes the government- because that is the end goal. To have the leadership cadre in power and in control of the nation. Once this goal has been achieved there is no distinction between the government and the socialists - we then look at what type of policies the socialist government puts into place.

Once these Socialist policies are identified - it takes no great leap of logic to then look around the world and see places where governments with avowed socialists in elected positions (ie - no worker’s revolution) implementing the same types of policies already identified as socialist policies and thus determine that minus a worker’s revolution, a government can implement and enact socialist policies, thus the true socialism - control of society by a socialist leadership cadre.

Here is where the truth is revealed - the heart of socialism is not the worker - the worker is merely one means of achieving the ultimate goal - socialist control of the government so that the socialist leadership cadre can implement socialist policies on those who are not socialists.

This is why I disagree with your statement that workers power is the true socialism - it is not, the worker is but a means to an end. Socialist control of the government. Thus socialism is and really can only ever be government.

On the flip side, capitalism strives to leave the individual as free of the government as possible. anyway - time to end a really long post - just another wall of text

102

hey irish, Im been ok. had my exam in ME history 3 days ago. I have my exam in american history next week + Im working. have are you?

back to the discussion.

I agree with your post on one thing. yes this did happen in Russia, but there are examples from early in the russian socialist society of socialist organisation. If the party elite had not been able to create “das uber stat:P” the sovjets( workers councils) could have been the backbone of the new society.

An you have the collectives in spain. the point is that a marxist-socialist society must bee organized in such a way that the power is also a collectiv property, if it fails to do this its statisme, oligarchy or whatever you like too call it.

You can argue if this is possible or not, but remember two things: 1, its not relevant to our semantic debate about the meaning of the word socialisme. 2, We have yet to see a workers revolution in a modern society, wich marx ment was a necessary criteria for a succesful revolution.

finally one thing: when we have a semantic debate, the reason is to delete confussion about words.

so to clarify: when I say socialisme it meens: the proletarian society. when you say socialisme you meen: a statist society ( a society where the state in some way have alot of influence ).

when I say capitalisme I meen: the burgeois society. when you say capitalisme you meen: a society that allows the individual to make up there own life ( I would call that a humanist society, and I would argue that this is possible in socialisme). the point is that we talk about different things, and it makes all discussion on this forum about this, absurd and regressiv.

103

No, I’m sorry. Pleading ignorance is not sufficient. Government regulation has never been considered socialism, until capitalists needed something to blame their failures on.

I ask you yet again to point out nations in which the means of production are communally owned and operated according to a plan. That is socialism.

You fail according to basic logic. A thing cannot be two distinct things at once. So how could a capitalist nation practice socialism, yet still be a capitalist nation? Isn’t the definition of a socialist (or capitalist) nation “a nation which practices socialism (or capitalism)?”

Of course it is. Unless you suggest that a country’s identity resides somewhere else. Where would it be? Where can I go to see this thing, that preserves a nation’s capitalist identity despite the fact that it practices socialism (or vice versa)?

Oh, of course not! You’re not content to abridge the concept of socialism, and confine it to one well-defined concept! You let it stretch far and wide, so that many things may be labeled socialism, in order that argumentation may be made more convenient.

Of course, you are right. We need not sell words short. Why stifle them? A single word can mean many things. Why put “qualifiers” on them to artificially restrict their range?

Collectively-owned simply means that society owns the object. Not “the government,” which is the real flimsy argument.

Not at all, we simply object when someone imputes the failure of another system to ours. In other words, when one makes dishonest arguments, such as the ones you are making. The theory underlying socialism is being validated more and more everyday.

I see you are easily fooled by flowery language. If only you were still able to ask a European peasant if the confiscation of their lands for pasture and manufactories smacked of “individual freedom.” Socialism, on the other hand, is true democracy, not its cynical imposter.

In capitalism, you are a worker, and nothing else. Far from engendering individuality, it imposes sharp conformism, as illustrated by your faithful regurgitation of propaganda. That’s a good little drone.

Socialism, on the other hand, will allow the free development of each, uncoerced by the state or private employers.

[quote]In Capitalism I have the freedom to fail or succeed based on my own energy, efforts and character - socialism only guarentees me certain privileges as long as the resources are available.

Capitalism is about free will and risk/reward, socialism is about subservance and conformity/punishment

You can have your socialism all day - may God grant you the mercy to avoid living in a socialist society and may the devil grant your wish to see such a day . . .[/quote]

Pretty words–a shame capitalism always fails to live up to them.

104

Some interesting points, Irish and Florelius.

A quick question for both of you(+RMP): do you feel that a “workers revolution” could be implemented in a democracy to the point of TEXTBOOK socialism without bloodshed? IE workers/Gov’t(<–plz assume one or the other) control the means of production from harvesting through finishing of all value added products, eliminating the entity of profit altogether?

105

China takes large amounts of foreign direct investment. Though it is undoubtedly more guarded than a western economy, it is by no means close.

This is fascism. Not the “fascism” that Obama is accused of, but real fascism, simply the government control or ownership of the economy. Socialism requires that everyone own it and have a say in its use. If it is socialism, then I am against socialism and require a new word.

106

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes. Any future socialist experiemnts will also fail unless they can gain somewhat widespread support. A socialist country cannot exist surrounded by capitalism.[/quote]

Why is that? Could it be that the people in the socialist country see the freedoms and belongings of the people in the capitalistic country and covet them? Again you prove my point that socialism can not work in a world with humans.[/quote]

Not at all. Look at Cuba for instance. Despite the fact that they are poor comapred to American and European countries, the population shows a high degree of loyalty to the government, far more so than our population’s loyalty to ours. If protests are organized against the government (which are allowed, by the way), they are frequently dispersed by indignant citizens who support the government.

A good example is the Berlin Wall. Now why do you think they built the Berlin Wall? Was it because scores of people were leaving, and communists “hate freedom?” Far from it. Let me quote William Blum:

First of all, before the wall went up thousands of East Germans had been commuting to the West for jobs each day and then returned to the East in the evening. So they were clearly not being held in the East against their will. The wall was built primarily for two reasons:

  1. The West was bedeviling the East with a vigorous campaign of recruiting East German professionals and skilled workers, who had been educated at the expense of the Communist government. This eventually led to a serious labor and production crisis in the East. As one indication of this, the New York Times reported in 1963: “West Berlin suffered economically from the wall by the loss of about 60,000 skilled workmen who had commuted daily from their homes in East Berlin to their places of work in West Berlin.” 9

  2. During the 1950s, American coldwarriors in West Germany instituted a crude campaign of sabotage and subversion against East Germany designed to throw that country’s economic and administrative machinery out of gear. The CIA and other US intelligence and military services recruited, equipped, trained and financed German activist groups and individuals, of West and East, to carry out actions which ran the spectrum from terrorism to juvenile delinquency; anything to make life difficult for the East German people and weaken their support of the government; anything to make the commies look bad.

It was a remarkable undertaking. The United States and its agents used explosives, arson, short circuiting, and other methods to damage power stations, shipyards, canals, docks, public buildings, gas stations, public transportation, bridges, etc; they derailed freight trains, seriously injuring workers; burned 12 cars of a freight train and destroyed air pressure hoses of others;

used acids to damage vital factory machinery; put sand in the turbine of a factory, bringing it to a standstill; set fire to a tile-producing factory; promoted work slow-downs in factories; killed 7,000 cows of a co-operative dairy through poisoning; added soap to powdered milk destined for East German schools; were in possession, when arrested, of a large quantity of the poison cantharidin with which it was planned to produce poisoned cigarettes to kill leading East Germans;

set off stink bombs to disrupt political meetings; attempted to disrupt the World Youth Festival in East Berlin by sending out forged invitations, false promises of free bed and board, false notices of cancellations, etc.; carried out attacks on participants with explosives, firebombs, and tire-puncturing equipment;

forged and distributed large quantities of food ration cards to cause confusion, shortages and resentment; sent out forged tax notices and other government directives and documents to foster disorganization and inefficiency within industry and unions … all this and much more. 10

Throughout the 1950s, the East Germans and the Soviet Union repeatedly lodged complaints with the Soviets’ erstwhile allies in the West and with the United Nations about specific sabotage and espionage activities and called for the closure of the offices in West Germany they claimed were responsible, and for which they provided names and addresses. Their complaints fell on deaf ears. Inevitably, the East Germans began to tighten up entry into the country from the West.

This is why socialism cannot exist surrounded by capitalism. Capitalist countries will not leave them alone, but will instead do everything in their power to destroy the new society.

107

[quote]StevenF wrote:
Why is it that people that seem to be in favor of socialism choose not to live in a socialist country? [/quote]

Because the only one that I know of, Cuba, I am barred from traveling to. Yay capitalist freedom.

108

In my opinion, no, probably not. Few ruling classes throughout history have quietly stepped down, and capitalist (or corporatist, if you prefer) nations have made it quite clear that they are willing to use violence to put down any form of a socialist revolution.

109

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

But government regulation is not socialism, not even close. This is why your argument is completely irrational.

Ha, the only one of those in which industry in collectively owned and run according to plan is Cuba. China, haha. Let me give you a hint: if you can buy stock in a company in that country, they’re probably not socialist.

In addition, none of these countries are in Europe, which is strange, seeing as how you were convinced that practically all European countries are socialist.

I am being specific, you moron. That’s why I specifically said “collectively owned” (not government owned), planned economy. This would eliminate market socialism.

If you want to seriously claim that any country in Europe is socialist, then apparently I also have enough leeway to discount any country you name as socialist. It goes both ways.

All I have to say is, have fun solving capitalism’s problems with more capitalism. It’s worked so well so far.
[/quote]

Government owned/planned/regulated = socialism, Government Owned = socialism, government planned = socialism, government regulated = socialism . . . nuf said

According to you a capitalistic nation practicing socialism is not socialist, thus a socialistic nation practicing some capitalism is not capitalistic - you fell on your own petard . . .

yes, because I do not artificially limit my definition of socialism as you do in your little semantics games.

You don’t think i noticed your little qualifiers? Why do you think I prefaced my remarks with a jibe at your semantic gymnastics and why i reminded you to define your terms - a collective can be anything from a group of farmers to a politburo - so, you do need to actually be very specific if you want to base your entire argument’s contstructs on such flimsy material.

And of course you can, you adorable little socialist, which is why socialists like yourself are always trying to pass off the failures of a socialism on some other tangential component of that particular version of socialism rather than on the fallacious foundations of the theory itself.

Capitalism’s foundation is based on individual freedom, socialism’s foundation is based on collective chains.

in capitalism I am an individual, socialism removes my individuality.

In Capitalism I have the freedom to fail or succeed based on my own energy, efforts and character - socialism only guarentees me certain privileges as long as the resources are available.

Capitalism is about free will and risk/reward, socialism is about subservance and conformity/punishment

You can have your socialism all day - may God grant you the mercy to avoid living in a socialist society and may the devil grant your wish to see such a day . . .[/quote]

how many times most have this “what is socialisme” debate.

to be specific: marxist socialisme = A society where the proletariat owns the means of production togheter.

what you talk about, can be called: statist socialisme or statist capitalisme.

have you read marx?

Ok what is capitalisme. orion and his comrades are libertarians, what they call capitalisme, I call libertarianisme. thats an ideal for a society, not our society today.

when marxists talk about capitalisme, they meen the burgeois society. a society where the burgeois class controls the means of production and the state. the state of today are the state of the burgeois.

remember that marxist look at history as a history of class antagonisme, and that socialisme is the interrest ideology of the proletariat class not the state.

so governments dont equal socialisme. workers power do.

[/quote]

I am sorry, but that is not capitalism.

110

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]StevenF wrote:
Why is it that people that seem to be in favor of socialism choose not to live in a socialist country? [/quote]

Because Mommy and Daddy are paying for their school and well being, so it is like Socialism in their mind.[/quote]

Warren Buffet believes the same thing, he won’t leave his kids with shit because he sees it has a bag full of food stamps.[/quote]

Idiot…

Buffett once commented, “I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing”.[/quote]

Yes, I have read the Snowball, thank you. He also plans on giving them 1.5 million each when he dies. That is “shit” for the riches man in the world.

111

[quote]florelius wrote:
hey irish, Im been ok. had my exam in ME history 3 days ago. I have my exam in american history next week + Im working. have are you?

back to the discussion.

I agree with your post on one thing. yes this did happen in Russia, but there are examples from early in the russian socialist society of socialist organisation. If the party elite had not been able to create “das uber stat:P” the sovjets( workers councils) could have been the backbone of the new society.

An you have the collectives in spain. the point is that a marxist-socialist society must bee organized in such a way that the power is also a collectiv property, if it fails to do this its statisme, oligarchy or whatever you like too call it.

You can argue if this is possible or not, but remember two things: 1, its not relevant to our semantic debate about the meaning of the word socialisme. 2, We have yet to see a workers revolution in a modern society, wich marx ment was a necessary criteria for a succesful revolution.

finally one thing: when we have a semantic debate, the reason is to delete confussion about words.

so to clarify: when I say socialisme it meens: the proletarian society. when you say socialisme you meen: a statist society ( a society where the state in some way have alot of influence ).

when I say capitalisme I meen: the burgeois society. when you say capitalisme you meen: a society that allows the individual to make up there own life ( I would call that a humanist society, and I would argue that this is possible in socialisme). the point is that we talk about different things, and it makes all discussion on this forum about this, absurd and regressiv.

[/quote]

You are thinking Anarcho-Socialist (like the Calvinist, or in America Amish), but either society can be considered only in a voluntary agreement that everyone must agree to. If it was a voluntary situation this discussion would have as much weight as which grapes were better, green or red. Wouldn’t matter, personal preference. However, we are talking in terms of the government either influencing human actions or staying out of human actions.

112

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

But government regulation is not socialism, not even close. This is why your argument is completely irrational.

Ha, the only one of those in which industry in collectively owned and run according to plan is Cuba. China, haha. Let me give you a hint: if you can buy stock in a company in that country, they’re probably not socialist.

In addition, none of these countries are in Europe, which is strange, seeing as how you were convinced that practically all European countries are socialist.

I am being specific, you moron. That’s why I specifically said “collectively owned” (not government owned), planned economy. This would eliminate market socialism.

If you want to seriously claim that any country in Europe is socialist, then apparently I also have enough leeway to discount any country you name as socialist. It goes both ways.

All I have to say is, have fun solving capitalism’s problems with more capitalism. It’s worked so well so far.
[/quote]

Government owned/planned/regulated = socialism, Government Owned = socialism, government planned = socialism, government regulated = socialism . . . nuf said

According to you a capitalistic nation practicing socialism is not socialist, thus a socialistic nation practicing some capitalism is not capitalistic - you fell on your own petard . . .

yes, because I do not artificially limit my definition of socialism as you do in your little semantics games.

You don’t think i noticed your little qualifiers? Why do you think I prefaced my remarks with a jibe at your semantic gymnastics and why i reminded you to define your terms - a collective can be anything from a group of farmers to a politburo - so, you do need to actually be very specific if you want to base your entire argument’s contstructs on such flimsy material.

And of course you can, you adorable little socialist, which is why socialists like yourself are always trying to pass off the failures of a socialism on some other tangential component of that particular version of socialism rather than on the fallacious foundations of the theory itself.

Capitalism’s foundation is based on individual freedom, socialism’s foundation is based on collective chains.

in capitalism I am an individual, socialism removes my individuality.

In Capitalism I have the freedom to fail or succeed based on my own energy, efforts and character - socialism only guarentees me certain privileges as long as the resources are available.

Capitalism is about free will and risk/reward, socialism is about subservance and conformity/punishment

You can have your socialism all day - may God grant you the mercy to avoid living in a socialist society and may the devil grant your wish to see such a day . . .[/quote]

how many times most have this “what is socialisme” debate.

to be specific: marxist socialisme = A society where the proletariat owns the means of production togheter.

what you talk about, can be called: statist socialisme or statist capitalisme.

have you read marx?

Ok what is capitalisme. orion and his comrades are libertarians, what they call capitalisme, I call libertarianisme. thats an ideal for a society, not our society today.

when marxists talk about capitalisme, they meen the burgeois society. a society where the burgeois class controls the means of production and the state. the state of today are the state of the burgeois.

remember that marxist look at history as a history of class antagonisme, and that socialisme is the interrest ideology of the proletariat class not the state.

so governments dont equal socialisme. workers power do.

[/quote]

I am sorry, but that is not capitalism.[/quote]

what is not capitalisme? libertarianisme or the burgeois society?

113

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
hey irish, Im been ok. had my exam in ME history 3 days ago. I have my exam in american history next week + Im working. have are you?

back to the discussion.

I agree with your post on one thing. yes this did happen in Russia, but there are examples from early in the russian socialist society of socialist organisation. If the party elite had not been able to create “das uber stat:P” the sovjets( workers councils) could have been the backbone of the new society.

An you have the collectives in spain. the point is that a marxist-socialist society must bee organized in such a way that the power is also a collectiv property, if it fails to do this its statisme, oligarchy or whatever you like too call it.

You can argue if this is possible or not, but remember two things: 1, its not relevant to our semantic debate about the meaning of the word socialisme. 2, We have yet to see a workers revolution in a modern society, wich marx ment was a necessary criteria for a succesful revolution.

finally one thing: when we have a semantic debate, the reason is to delete confussion about words.

so to clarify: when I say socialisme it meens: the proletarian society. when you say socialisme you meen: a statist society ( a society where the state in some way have alot of influence ).

when I say capitalisme I meen: the burgeois society. when you say capitalisme you meen: a society that allows the individual to make up there own life ( I would call that a humanist society, and I would argue that this is possible in socialisme). the point is that we talk about different things, and it makes all discussion on this forum about this, absurd and regressiv.

[/quote]

You are thinking Anarcho-Socialist (like the Calvinist, or in America Amish), but either society can be considered only in a voluntary agreement that everyone must agree to. If it was a voluntary situation this discussion would have as much weight as which grapes were better, green or red. Wouldn’t matter, personal preference. However, we are talking in terms of the government either influencing human actions or staying out of human actions.[/quote]

well marxist socialisme is close to anarcho-socialisme, but they have there differences.

the difference is that a marxist beliefe that the proletariat must create a state ( a body of violence ) for themself to protect the proletariats control of production from former capitalist and other hostile nations. anarchist do beliefe that there are no need for any state, thats why they are utopians. on how to organize the proletarian society, marxist and anarchist agree on much.

114

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

But government regulation is not socialism, not even close. This is why your argument is completely irrational.

Ha, the only one of those in which industry in collectively owned and run according to plan is Cuba. China, haha. Let me give you a hint: if you can buy stock in a company in that country, they’re probably not socialist.

In addition, none of these countries are in Europe, which is strange, seeing as how you were convinced that practically all European countries are socialist.

I am being specific, you moron. That’s why I specifically said “collectively owned” (not government owned), planned economy. This would eliminate market socialism.

If you want to seriously claim that any country in Europe is socialist, then apparently I also have enough leeway to discount any country you name as socialist. It goes both ways.

All I have to say is, have fun solving capitalism’s problems with more capitalism. It’s worked so well so far.
[/quote]

Government owned/planned/regulated = socialism, Government Owned = socialism, government planned = socialism, government regulated = socialism . . . nuf said

According to you a capitalistic nation practicing socialism is not socialist, thus a socialistic nation practicing some capitalism is not capitalistic - you fell on your own petard . . .

yes, because I do not artificially limit my definition of socialism as you do in your little semantics games.

You don’t think i noticed your little qualifiers? Why do you think I prefaced my remarks with a jibe at your semantic gymnastics and why i reminded you to define your terms - a collective can be anything from a group of farmers to a politburo - so, you do need to actually be very specific if you want to base your entire argument’s contstructs on such flimsy material.

And of course you can, you adorable little socialist, which is why socialists like yourself are always trying to pass off the failures of a socialism on some other tangential component of that particular version of socialism rather than on the fallacious foundations of the theory itself.

Capitalism’s foundation is based on individual freedom, socialism’s foundation is based on collective chains.

in capitalism I am an individual, socialism removes my individuality.

In Capitalism I have the freedom to fail or succeed based on my own energy, efforts and character - socialism only guarentees me certain privileges as long as the resources are available.

Capitalism is about free will and risk/reward, socialism is about subservance and conformity/punishment

You can have your socialism all day - may God grant you the mercy to avoid living in a socialist society and may the devil grant your wish to see such a day . . .[/quote]

how many times most have this “what is socialisme” debate.

to be specific: marxist socialisme = A society where the proletariat owns the means of production togheter.

what you talk about, can be called: statist socialisme or statist capitalisme.

have you read marx?

Ok what is capitalisme. orion and his comrades are libertarians, what they call capitalisme, I call libertarianisme. thats an ideal for a society, not our society today.

when marxists talk about capitalisme, they meen the burgeois society. a society where the burgeois class controls the means of production and the state. the state of today are the state of the burgeois.

remember that marxist look at history as a history of class antagonisme, and that socialisme is the interrest ideology of the proletariat class not the state.

so governments dont equal socialisme. workers power do.

[/quote]

I am sorry, but that is not capitalism.[/quote]

what is not capitalisme? libertarianisme or the burgeois society?[/quote]

Burgeois society.

115

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
hey irish, Im been ok. had my exam in ME history 3 days ago. I have my exam in american history next week + Im working. have are you?

back to the discussion.

I agree with your post on one thing. yes this did happen in Russia, but there are examples from early in the russian socialist society of socialist organisation. If the party elite had not been able to create “das uber stat:P” the sovjets( workers councils) could have been the backbone of the new society.

An you have the collectives in spain. the point is that a marxist-socialist society must bee organized in such a way that the power is also a collectiv property, if it fails to do this its statisme, oligarchy or whatever you like too call it.

You can argue if this is possible or not, but remember two things: 1, its not relevant to our semantic debate about the meaning of the word socialisme. 2, We have yet to see a workers revolution in a modern society, wich marx ment was a necessary criteria for a succesful revolution.

finally one thing: when we have a semantic debate, the reason is to delete confussion about words.

so to clarify: when I say socialisme it meens: the proletarian society. when you say socialisme you meen: a statist society ( a society where the state in some way have alot of influence ).

when I say capitalisme I meen: the burgeois society. when you say capitalisme you meen: a society that allows the individual to make up there own life ( I would call that a humanist society, and I would argue that this is possible in socialisme). the point is that we talk about different things, and it makes all discussion on this forum about this, absurd and regressiv.

[/quote]

You are thinking Anarcho-Socialist (like the Calvinist, or in America Amish), but either society can be considered only in a voluntary agreement that everyone must agree to. If it was a voluntary situation this discussion would have as much weight as which grapes were better, green or red. Wouldn’t matter, personal preference. However, we are talking in terms of the government either influencing human actions or staying out of human actions.[/quote]

well marxist socialisme is close to anarcho-socialisme, but they have there differences.

the difference is that a marxist beliefe that the proletariat must create a state ( a body of violence ) for themself to protect the proletariats control of production from former capitalist and other hostile nations. anarchist do beliefe that there are no need for any state, thats why they are utopians. on how to organize the proletarian society, marxist and anarchist agree on much.[/quote]

Yes, and that is why I am still suspicious of anarcho-socialist. However, as an anarchist I believe that the idea of class, is arbitrary as much as the state is. I do not like Marx ideas mostly because of the government has a geographical area of violence they control, so if someone decides he would like to leave he cannot take his land and be left out of being governed, therefore violating his private property.

116

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

But government regulation is not socialism, not even close. This is why your argument is completely irrational.

Ha, the only one of those in which industry in collectively owned and run according to plan is Cuba. China, haha. Let me give you a hint: if you can buy stock in a company in that country, they’re probably not socialist.

In addition, none of these countries are in Europe, which is strange, seeing as how you were convinced that practically all European countries are socialist.

I am being specific, you moron. That’s why I specifically said “collectively owned” (not government owned), planned economy. This would eliminate market socialism.

If you want to seriously claim that any country in Europe is socialist, then apparently I also have enough leeway to discount any country you name as socialist. It goes both ways.

All I have to say is, have fun solving capitalism’s problems with more capitalism. It’s worked so well so far.
[/quote]

Government owned/planned/regulated = socialism, Government Owned = socialism, government planned = socialism, government regulated = socialism . . . nuf said

According to you a capitalistic nation practicing socialism is not socialist, thus a socialistic nation practicing some capitalism is not capitalistic - you fell on your own petard . . .

yes, because I do not artificially limit my definition of socialism as you do in your little semantics games.

You don’t think i noticed your little qualifiers? Why do you think I prefaced my remarks with a jibe at your semantic gymnastics and why i reminded you to define your terms - a collective can be anything from a group of farmers to a politburo - so, you do need to actually be very specific if you want to base your entire argument’s contstructs on such flimsy material.

And of course you can, you adorable little socialist, which is why socialists like yourself are always trying to pass off the failures of a socialism on some other tangential component of that particular version of socialism rather than on the fallacious foundations of the theory itself.

Capitalism’s foundation is based on individual freedom, socialism’s foundation is based on collective chains.

in capitalism I am an individual, socialism removes my individuality.

In Capitalism I have the freedom to fail or succeed based on my own energy, efforts and character - socialism only guarentees me certain privileges as long as the resources are available.

Capitalism is about free will and risk/reward, socialism is about subservance and conformity/punishment

You can have your socialism all day - may God grant you the mercy to avoid living in a socialist society and may the devil grant your wish to see such a day . . .[/quote]

how many times most have this “what is socialisme” debate.

to be specific: marxist socialisme = A society where the proletariat owns the means of production togheter.

what you talk about, can be called: statist socialisme or statist capitalisme.

have you read marx?

Ok what is capitalisme. orion and his comrades are libertarians, what they call capitalisme, I call libertarianisme. thats an ideal for a society, not our society today.

when marxists talk about capitalisme, they meen the burgeois society. a society where the burgeois class controls the means of production and the state. the state of today are the state of the burgeois.

remember that marxist look at history as a history of class antagonisme, and that socialisme is the interrest ideology of the proletariat class not the state.

so governments dont equal socialisme. workers power do.

[/quote]

I am sorry, but that is not capitalism.[/quote]

what is not capitalisme? libertarianisme or the burgeois society?[/quote]

Burgeois society.[/quote]

well its the society we live in, and its what me and many others call capitalisme. I will use my energy to abolish the reallife burgeois capitalist society, but I will not use my energy to fight against your normativ capitalist ideology.

117

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
hey irish, Im been ok. had my exam in ME history 3 days ago. I have my exam in american history next week + Im working. have are you?

back to the discussion.

I agree with your post on one thing. yes this did happen in Russia, but there are examples from early in the russian socialist society of socialist organisation. If the party elite had not been able to create “das uber stat:P” the sovjets( workers councils) could have been the backbone of the new society.

An you have the collectives in spain. the point is that a marxist-socialist society must bee organized in such a way that the power is also a collectiv property, if it fails to do this its statisme, oligarchy or whatever you like too call it.

You can argue if this is possible or not, but remember two things: 1, its not relevant to our semantic debate about the meaning of the word socialisme. 2, We have yet to see a workers revolution in a modern society, wich marx ment was a necessary criteria for a succesful revolution.

finally one thing: when we have a semantic debate, the reason is to delete confussion about words.

so to clarify: when I say socialisme it meens: the proletarian society. when you say socialisme you meen: a statist society ( a society where the state in some way have alot of influence ).

when I say capitalisme I meen: the burgeois society. when you say capitalisme you meen: a society that allows the individual to make up there own life ( I would call that a humanist society, and I would argue that this is possible in socialisme). the point is that we talk about different things, and it makes all discussion on this forum about this, absurd and regressiv.

[/quote]

You are thinking Anarcho-Socialist (like the Calvinist, or in America Amish), but either society can be considered only in a voluntary agreement that everyone must agree to. If it was a voluntary situation this discussion would have as much weight as which grapes were better, green or red. Wouldn’t matter, personal preference. However, we are talking in terms of the government either influencing human actions or staying out of human actions.[/quote]

well marxist socialisme is close to anarcho-socialisme, but they have there differences.

the difference is that a marxist beliefe that the proletariat must create a state ( a body of violence ) for themself to protect the proletariats control of production from former capitalist and other hostile nations. anarchist do beliefe that there are no need for any state, thats why they are utopians. on how to organize the proletarian society, marxist and anarchist agree on much.[/quote]

Yes, and that is why I am still suspicious of anarcho-socialist. However, as an anarchist I believe that the idea of class, is arbitrary as much as the state is. I do not like Marx ideas mostly because of the government has a geographical area of violence they control, so if someone decides he would like to leave he cannot take his land and be left out of being governed, therefore violating his private property.[/quote]

many are closet marxist, they may use a bit more flowery language than a openly marxist, but they really dont beliefe in a stateless socialisme. but others are real anarcho-socialists.

118

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

I still don’t see how this is a problem for a system with no welfare.
[/quote]

Exactly what system are you advocating? What will be the role of government? What would the job selection process be? How will salary be determined-the market? What redistribution of wealth (or lack thereof) would exist? What would the tax system be?

119

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]StevenF wrote:
Why is it that people that seem to be in favor of socialism choose not to live in a socialist country? [/quote]

Because the only one that I know of, Cuba, I am barred from traveling to. Yay capitalist freedom.
[/quote]

If you really wanted to live in Cuba, you could get there with 1 plane ticket and a boat ride . . . . .

120

[quote]florelius wrote:
hey irish, Im been ok. had my exam in ME history 3 days ago. I have my exam in american history next week + Im working. have are you?

back to the discussion.

I agree with your post on one thing. yes this did happen in Russia, but there are examples from early in the russian socialist society of socialist organisation. If the party elite had not been able to create “das uber stat:P” the sovjets( workers councils) could have been the backbone of the new society.

An you have the collectives in spain. the point is that a marxist-socialist society must bee organized in such a way that the power is also a collectiv property, if it fails to do this its statisme, oligarchy or whatever you like too call it.

You can argue if this is possible or not, but remember two things: 1, its not relevant to our semantic debate about the meaning of the word socialisme. 2, We have yet to see a workers revolution in a modern society, wich marx ment was a necessary criteria for a succesful revolution.

finally one thing: when we have a semantic debate, the reason is to delete confussion about words.

so to clarify: when I say socialisme it meens: the proletarian society. when you say socialisme you meen: a statist society ( a society where the state in some way have alot of influence ).

when I say capitalisme I meen: the burgeois society. when you say capitalisme you meen: a society that allows the individual to make up there own life ( I would call that a humanist society, and I would argue that this is possible in socialisme). the point is that we talk about different things, and it makes all discussion on this forum about this, absurd and regressiv.

[/quote]

Flo, I would answer by stating that you are doing an admirable job of defending “theoretical” or academic socialism, when the reality has been much different.

In reality, socialism only adequately works on a small scale setting and cannot function on a large scale. Your examples and comments prove this yet again. It’s one thing to have a communal farm with willing participants happily functioning in their own unique way. That is the extreme limit of quasi-successful socialism.

It works as long as two thing do not happen - One, someone decides that they do not want to willingly participate and Two, effort is made to control all parts of a particular economic activity of a region or nation under collective power.

You see, capitalism is a marvelous system - it can allow socialists to exist within and be a component of the economy - people free to interact within the larger economy on their own terms. That’s why we call it a FREE market economy. This is why the spanish examples you mention were even partially successful - they were tied into the larger FREE market.

Socialism fails when the participation is no longer willing - if I want to do things my way and no else does - I lose. Whereas in capitalism - I can do things my way and you and your socialist friends are free to do things your way and success comes to whoever is better at producing their goods/services and effectively markets them.

Socialism fails on the 1st point every time - not everyone is willing to do things the way the collective dictates and those not willing have to be punished/stopped or removed. There is no individual liberty within the collective and regardless of anything else man is an individual and should be free to choose his own way, own his own property and pursue his own dreams.

Socialism then fails when one collective then controls all parts of a particular economic activity - individual rights are trampled, power becomes concentrated and the economic engine collapses - As you rightly discerned, this was the death knell of the soviet system and almost of the chinese as well - until they learned that they needed capitalist markets to participate in with their socialist produced goods/services, allowing some measur eof free market activity to faciliatate this so that they could avoid the soviet experience.

For the best case scenario of any pure socialist economy - see North Korea.