Socialists: Revolution, or reform?
- Thread starter I'm Watermark
- Start date
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I advocate revolution rhetorically, although I don't really believe in anything and would probably oppose such a revolution if it actually occurred.
maineman
Banned
you wanna label Obamacare as rampant socialism, yet social security, medicare, the fire department, the public utility monopoly, the water district... all those things aren't socialism at all. Hell, you all want to label a progressive income tax system as socialism and we've had that non-stop since the very advent of income tax. Socialism... it's just a word that righties use to scare people with... and none of them can even define it... or they say, the definition is fluid and evolving which means they can't define it but want to be able to put their own bullshit definition on it and have it somehow be legit. ::yawn::
Falcon
Verified User
But your desire to "dismantle the private sector" means to actually ultimately abolish it, right? I mean, not just to get more people to choose to live more collectively, but to actually forbid the creation and accumulation of private wealth. Correct? I make the distinction of "socialism," socialism and Socialism as the following:
"socialism" is the impulse by many libertarian purists to link basically any taxes/national projects to something un-American;
socialism is actual "soft" socialism as practiced (in often very successful ways) in most of the world, notably Europe;
Socialism is hammer and sickle stuff, i.e., elimination of private property and wealth by force ala' Commies.
I'm asking you to attempt to define your idea of "socialism" better. You post a "new rule" about the use of the word "socialism" elsewhere on this thread, but you seem to be the one having difficulty defining the very form of government you propose. Images of Stalin, paens to Castro and hammers and sickles make me imagine you might be after the Socialism type of socialism.
If you are stating that you want to eliminate freedom of economic choice (Socialism), then go ahead and make that statement. If you're saying you want Socialism AND the human freedoms that you and I and others who live in our current form of government take for granted and respect, you are imagining two things which are wholly incompatible.
"socialism" is the impulse by many libertarian purists to link basically any taxes/national projects to something un-American;
socialism is actual "soft" socialism as practiced (in often very successful ways) in most of the world, notably Europe;
Socialism is hammer and sickle stuff, i.e., elimination of private property and wealth by force ala' Commies.
I'm asking you to attempt to define your idea of "socialism" better. You post a "new rule" about the use of the word "socialism" elsewhere on this thread, but you seem to be the one having difficulty defining the very form of government you propose. Images of Stalin, paens to Castro and hammers and sickles make me imagine you might be after the Socialism type of socialism.
If you are stating that you want to eliminate freedom of economic choice (Socialism), then go ahead and make that statement. If you're saying you want Socialism AND the human freedoms that you and I and others who live in our current form of government take for granted and respect, you are imagining two things which are wholly incompatible.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Socialism branched around the time of the Bolshevik revolution. One side became just a generic center-left bloc in a number of countries, hey abandoned their earlier calls for total social ownership over time as a natural result of the pressures inherent in surviving in a democratic context. It's usually referred to as social democracy or democratic socialism. The side that went with the Bolsheviks eschewed democracy and other handbrakes in pursuit of implementing socialism as soon as possible, and so grew up in a context of constantly having to justify their hold on power and zealously guarding it. They eventually became nothing but a curious kind of military dictatorship. They are usually referred to, however, as "Communists", or, more accurately, "Marxist-Leninists". Communist as a term was simply a revival of Marx's old term for the movement in the German Communist party, a name that Lenin revived merely to distinguish himself from the reformist democratic socialists. Originally, a person on either side could be called a communist or a socialist just as well no matter their orientation, because they all believed in eventual collectivization, but socialist was the term that won out, because "Communist" had religious connotations in some countries.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Capitalism and freedom are incompatible. Capitalism is, by definition, the subjugation of the working class to the bourgeois, and the revoking of any and all freedoms on this earth that they may have in pursuit of corporate profit.
Falcon
Verified User
I could live with that. Not only do many Euro soft socialists have more wealth, but as of now the US is about 12th or so in upward mobility, with soft socialist places like France, Canada, Finland, Holland, Germany and others leading the way.
Falcon
Verified User
I'm not sure if that was directed at me, but if it was I don't think I stated that socialist countries have no economic freedom. The soft socialism I describe above, often linked to the Euro-style governments, given people all sorts of economic freedoms. But they are fundamentally capitalist countries with a very robust central government designed to siphon off some profits from commerce to spread it around for the benefit of the society at large. That's what many right wing reactionaries, or libertarian purists hyperventilate about when they scream "Socialism!"
Now Big "S" Socialist governments which I think Rose Captain is interested in "implementing" pretty much eliminates private wealth and that fundamentally ends economic freedom. I would argue not is the way to get there with a pile of bodies, but even if you could achieve that dream it would be pretty ugly.
Falcon
Verified User
Unbridled capitalism seems to be that. It quickly turns into the law of the jungle, with very few lions and many prey.
But capitalism is not an invention; it is merely the natural interaction of human beings placing value on goods and services and willing to trade in goods and services. Like lust and other human impulses, capitalism is neither inherently good or bad and has a lot of good uses and bad We can make love and procreate and we can commit rape. Rather than considering capitalism inherently good and turning it into a religion, or considering it inherently evil and turning it into a vice, we need to simply acknowledge its existence and do our best to mitigate the bad parts of it. We can and have done that successfully.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
That is an illusion that people who've never experienced anything outside of the capitalist system believe in. They are so accustomed to all the constraints placed on them by the regulations necessary and inherent in the capitalist system and the traditions that bind them to these things that they consider them natural and not constraints or coercion at all.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
To add to what Watermark said:
Small s socialism is a blanket word for a whole group of ideologies. Within that, there are libertarian schools, right wing schools, reformist schools, statist schools, so on. But to weed through them, you need to remember that the uniting principal behind them is collective ownership of the means of production.
When socialism first came into existence, it the groundowork was laid by three men: Saint-Simon, Foureir, and Owen. They were what you'd call the "utopian socialists". Their ideals were well laid out, but they had to be developed by adherents in order to become useful on a large scale. That's were Marx and Engels came in. They took socialism and began developing it. And, unlike the quasi-Owenite chartists, they started a global revolutionary movement. Bakunin - the man who started the collectivist anarchist movement - also lived at the same time. From there, socialism began to branch. Countless individual schools began to emerge, with Mao, Lenin, Kropotkin, and Harrington being the most notable ideologues involved.
If you want, I can explain the results and thought of many of these schools, but I'll first clear up any confusion you may have about where I stand:
I'm a kind of Democratic Socialist influenced heavily by Owen, Mill, Kropotkin and Trotsky. My views center around a kind of market collectivism. Very simply, I want full democratization of the private sector. I want to increase the use of government, but reduce it's control on all but the local level. I'd like to reform education, eliminating the standardized methods of testing, teaching and whatnot. Basically, my socialism is to radically shift economic and political control to the bottom
Small s socialism is a blanket word for a whole group of ideologies. Within that, there are libertarian schools, right wing schools, reformist schools, statist schools, so on. But to weed through them, you need to remember that the uniting principal behind them is collective ownership of the means of production.
When socialism first came into existence, it the groundowork was laid by three men: Saint-Simon, Foureir, and Owen. They were what you'd call the "utopian socialists". Their ideals were well laid out, but they had to be developed by adherents in order to become useful on a large scale. That's were Marx and Engels came in. They took socialism and began developing it. And, unlike the quasi-Owenite chartists, they started a global revolutionary movement. Bakunin - the man who started the collectivist anarchist movement - also lived at the same time. From there, socialism began to branch. Countless individual schools began to emerge, with Mao, Lenin, Kropotkin, and Harrington being the most notable ideologues involved.
If you want, I can explain the results and thought of many of these schools, but I'll first clear up any confusion you may have about where I stand:
I'm a kind of Democratic Socialist influenced heavily by Owen, Mill, Kropotkin and Trotsky. My views center around a kind of market collectivism. Very simply, I want full democratization of the private sector. I want to increase the use of government, but reduce it's control on all but the local level. I'd like to reform education, eliminating the standardized methods of testing, teaching and whatnot. Basically, my socialism is to radically shift economic and political control to the bottom
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Then they will be the top and turn into assholes too. And anyway, no thanks. Full democratization of the private sector has a bad sound to it. Sounds like something that could turn me into a republican pretty fast.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Capitalism is by all means an invention. Just like socialism, anarchism or fascism. It, just like any system, is our reaction to the failings of the last one. That, in essence, is the dialectic.
And we have not mitigated the bad of capitalism. Is there not still poverty? Of opportunity, of spirit and of wealth? Are we not stretching our planet to the point where we're killing ourselves? Did we not just undergo a global economic crisis? Do the people not still lack control over their income and political affairs? Is the income gap not still increasing? Is the price of education not still to high? How about medicine? Capitalism is far from being acceptable.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
What about democracy bothers you?
And, to your first point, I'm not advocating dictatorship of the proletariat. I'm saying we need a government and private sector with less ability to exert control over the population.
Falcon
Verified User
"Capitalism is by all means an invention."
I disagree. As long as there have been people living together and using resources, there have been capitalists. There's nothing about capitalism that needs "implementation." People will naturally value X commodity higher than Y commodity, and will be willing to do more for commodity X and less for commodity Y. The rules of supply and demand exist in the animal kingdom. People naturally seek out ways to get more commodities for less output of resources and work. It's a very efficient "system" because it's a very natural one. There will be people better, smarter, more ruthless at doing what it takes to get commodities, than others, and by doing so, they often innovate in ways that help everyone. There are "winners" and "losers." There will be people with greater power than others. Like life, capitalism isn't "fair" and it's often ugly, because "capitalism" is a natural part of life.
You'll notice, however, that we need schools of thought, philosophers, implementation of programs, movements and the like to design and implement systems such as socialism. Sharing and cooperation are not outside of our nature, but having the state forcibly take our wealth and distribute it as it sees fit is.
"And we have not mitigated the bad of capitalism. Is there not still poverty? Of opportunity, of spirit and of wealth?"
And the kind of socialism you're promoting doesn't have these downsides?!
Please take a look at how capitalism has increased the freedom, quality and length of life, liberty and just basic happiness of so many peoples around the world who before were forbidden to engage in capitalism. The Vietnamese, Indians and Chileans come immediately to mind. Tell the Vietnamese woman who just a generation ago literally had to work herself to death in a rice paddy behind an ox, every single day of her life from sun up to sundown, who had to ensure she had baby after baby after baby to work the fields, that she wasn't suffering poverty of opportunity of spirit and wealth! Though McDonald's and KFC to mar the landscape, she'll surely tell you her 12 hour a day factory job, cell phone and need to not have endless children is preferable in many ways.
Any way you slice it, you're promoting Big "S" Socialism, and so have a lot of 'splaining to do. Some vague talk of democratizing the means of production from the bottom...huh? How? Somebody has to organize all this. Somehow you're gonna have to deal with those who don't agree with you. And I don't think those wise socialist organizer-leaders are going to willingly let the state "wither and die" any more than a banker is going to pay more taxes than he has to.
"Capitalism is far from being acceptable."
It's far, far from perfect. We agree. But that's the human condition. We're never going to have perfection regardless of any system we implement. We can only attempt to forever create some balance.
Let's also agree that - to borrow a capitalist phrase - we are coming to the point of diminishing returns in the way we've been practicing capitalism for a long while now. We're coming to a crisis in liberty, resources and the environment as it pertains to our form of consumer capitalism. But with no disrepect to you, to not acknowledge the gift that capitalism - with all its many, many downsides - has given to mankind seems willfully blind.
Let's look for the next NEW paradigm. Please drop the warmed-over Trotsky stuff. Talk about poverty of spirit!
I disagree. As long as there have been people living together and using resources, there have been capitalists. There's nothing about capitalism that needs "implementation." People will naturally value X commodity higher than Y commodity, and will be willing to do more for commodity X and less for commodity Y. The rules of supply and demand exist in the animal kingdom. People naturally seek out ways to get more commodities for less output of resources and work. It's a very efficient "system" because it's a very natural one. There will be people better, smarter, more ruthless at doing what it takes to get commodities, than others, and by doing so, they often innovate in ways that help everyone. There are "winners" and "losers." There will be people with greater power than others. Like life, capitalism isn't "fair" and it's often ugly, because "capitalism" is a natural part of life.
You'll notice, however, that we need schools of thought, philosophers, implementation of programs, movements and the like to design and implement systems such as socialism. Sharing and cooperation are not outside of our nature, but having the state forcibly take our wealth and distribute it as it sees fit is.
"And we have not mitigated the bad of capitalism. Is there not still poverty? Of opportunity, of spirit and of wealth?"
And the kind of socialism you're promoting doesn't have these downsides?!
Please take a look at how capitalism has increased the freedom, quality and length of life, liberty and just basic happiness of so many peoples around the world who before were forbidden to engage in capitalism. The Vietnamese, Indians and Chileans come immediately to mind. Tell the Vietnamese woman who just a generation ago literally had to work herself to death in a rice paddy behind an ox, every single day of her life from sun up to sundown, who had to ensure she had baby after baby after baby to work the fields, that she wasn't suffering poverty of opportunity of spirit and wealth! Though McDonald's and KFC to mar the landscape, she'll surely tell you her 12 hour a day factory job, cell phone and need to not have endless children is preferable in many ways.
Any way you slice it, you're promoting Big "S" Socialism, and so have a lot of 'splaining to do. Some vague talk of democratizing the means of production from the bottom...huh? How? Somebody has to organize all this. Somehow you're gonna have to deal with those who don't agree with you. And I don't think those wise socialist organizer-leaders are going to willingly let the state "wither and die" any more than a banker is going to pay more taxes than he has to.
"Capitalism is far from being acceptable."
It's far, far from perfect. We agree. But that's the human condition. We're never going to have perfection regardless of any system we implement. We can only attempt to forever create some balance.
Let's also agree that - to borrow a capitalist phrase - we are coming to the point of diminishing returns in the way we've been practicing capitalism for a long while now. We're coming to a crisis in liberty, resources and the environment as it pertains to our form of consumer capitalism. But with no disrepect to you, to not acknowledge the gift that capitalism - with all its many, many downsides - has given to mankind seems willfully blind.
Let's look for the next NEW paradigm. Please drop the warmed-over Trotsky stuff. Talk about poverty of spirit!
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Okay... what the hell are you talking about? I said I'm a libertarian minded DemSoc. Where do you get Bolshevism out of that? I've had folks use straw men to avoid debating against democracy, but this is by far the worst attempt.
Socialism is the only logical step to make after seeing the harmful effects of capitalism. It has disadvantages, but as Harrington said, we need to recognize it's merits before capitalism destroys the planet. Since his day, we've seen capitalism go into a downward spiral. This isn't a matter of want or desire, it's a matter of need and survival. I don't want to overthrow capitalism, put in place some magical Bakunist utopia, but I cannot justify doing nothing. There's a middle path, one that uses elements from existing structures, and logical, democratic reforms.
Also, capitalism is no more natural than socialism, nor monarchy, nor tribalism. It was a solution to the failings of the previous system - monarchy, I believe it was. Really just another step in the dialectic process. That's why I have the Trotsky quote in my signature: when it comes to societal organization, only change is natural.
Socialism is the only logical step to make after seeing the harmful effects of capitalism. It has disadvantages, but as Harrington said, we need to recognize it's merits before capitalism destroys the planet. Since his day, we've seen capitalism go into a downward spiral. This isn't a matter of want or desire, it's a matter of need and survival. I don't want to overthrow capitalism, put in place some magical Bakunist utopia, but I cannot justify doing nothing. There's a middle path, one that uses elements from existing structures, and logical, democratic reforms.
Also, capitalism is no more natural than socialism, nor monarchy, nor tribalism. It was a solution to the failings of the previous system - monarchy, I believe it was. Really just another step in the dialectic process. That's why I have the Trotsky quote in my signature: when it comes to societal organization, only change is natural.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
It's so fun when we have new members who want to debate this stuff. 