Socialists: Revolution, or reform?

[Anti-Party]

What are your thoughts on the implementation of socialism?

Education before reform and absolutely before a brainless Revolution.

Ever notice most of the people who fight the Socialist idea are poor? Generally hark workers that aren't earning much? Have you thought about a situation like the show "Revolution" where we lose all power and wonder what occupations would earn the most in America?

The hard working labor Americans would be rich. The superficial *brand name* Americans would be poor...........EXACT OPPOSITE OF TODAY. How much money would a football player make if we were in a depression? How much would a wood worker (like me) make in a depression?

Today we have the hardest working people destroying their bodies to make a living and getting pennies while the rich can't get enough making their money through the people not standing up for themselves. It's absolutely proven through statistics. Corporate America is making record profits and the workers are receiving record low pay. And record low unemployment.

Superficial America is out of control. Superficial America has to have "this brand for THOUSANDS more even though it costs the same to make, but less people have it because of the cost" If superficial America can get a grip and realize they don't need so much, America will benefit. But for now, rich people are introduced by the millions they make. "That's tom, he's worth 6 million"

I think it's just because I was raised Christian but if I had 4 houses and 6 million dollars, I wouldn't threaten to shut down my business if things didn't go my way. I would understand that America is outsourcing jobs. I also understand that the (R)ight voted down the "Anti-Outsourcing Bill of 2010" and know that I'm going to pay one way or another.............I'm either going to pay American Employee's to do my work....or I'm going to pay my raised taxes due to the Employee's out of a job and on welfare. I also know that I don't need 4 houses and I can sell one and get MANY new employees which would help America.

I"m not a Socialist, but I know what the Left is fighting for because I don't ignore the Left's media like my Right Wing media tells me to do. The very people hurting the worst from Corporate America are pointing at Political America because they simply haven't educated themselves.

 

[Steelplate]

Education before reform and absolutely before a brainless Revolution.

Ever notice most of the people who fight the Socialist idea are poor? Generally hark workers that aren't earning much? Have you thought about a situation like the show "Revolution" where we lose all power and wonder what occupations would earn the most in America?

The hard working labor Americans would be rich. The superficial *brand name* Americans would be poor...........EXACT OPPOSITE OF TODAY. How much money would a football player make if we were in a depression? How much would a wood worker (like me) make in a depression?

Today we have the hardest working people destroying their bodies to make a living and getting pennies while the rich can't get enough making their money through the people not standing up for themselves. It's absolutely proven through statistics. Corporate America is making record profits and the workers are receiving record low pay. And record low unemployment.

Superficial America is out of control. Superficial America has to have "this brand for THOUSANDS more even though it costs the same to make, but less people have it because of the cost" If superficial America can get a grip and realize they don't need so much, America will benefit. But for now, rich people are introduced by the millions they make. "That's tom, he's worth 6 million"

I think it's just because I was raised Christian but if I had 4 houses and 6 million dollars, I wouldn't threaten to shut down my business if things didn't go my way. I would understand that America is outsourcing jobs. I also understand that the (R)ight voted down the "Anti-Outsourcing Bill of 2010" and know that I'm going to pay one way or another.............I'm either going to pay American Employee's to do my work....or I'm going to pay my raised taxes due to the Employee's out of a job and on welfare. I also know that I don't need 4 houses and I can sell one and get MANY new employees which would help America.

I"m not a Socialist, but I know what the Left is fighting for because I don't ignore the Left's media like my Right Wing media tells me to do. The very people hurting the worst from Corporate America are pointing at Political America because they simply haven't educated themselves.

Excellent post. Mirrors a lot of my thoughts.

 

[Minister of Truth]

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.

Poverty will exist under all systems. The only thing which stands to eliminate it is not through systems but through technological and scientific progress such as the green revolution.

As for political power, stupidity is the only cause of one losing access to it in the US, and you can't end stupidity because you can't cure humanity.

 

[Anti-Party]

Excellent post. Mirrors a lot of my thoughts.

Mirrors most of Americans thoughts because it's common sense.

 

[Anti-Party]

Poverty will exist under all systems. The only thing which stands to eliminate it is not through systems but through technological and scientific progress such as the green revolution.

As for political power, stupidity is the only cause of one losing access to it in the US, and you can't end stupidity because you can't cure humanity.

Poverty will always happen. The difference in parties is "problem prevention (left) vs. problem solution (right) vs. problem ignorance (libertarian)...

All you have to do is think about a Crack Baby in a "hood". The parents are off doing drugs, what do they do with the baby? I tend to think they put it in front of a TV to entertain it. What happens if PBS is the channel the kid likes since it has Sesame Street and urban lingo?

Do you think that kid might break the mold with education? Or do you think it's impossible to break the mold?

Note that when Romney stated he wanted to cancel PBS, it costs us the exact same per year that the Afghanistan war does per day.

 

[I'm Watermark]

Poverty will exist under all systems. The only thing which stands to eliminate it is not through systems but through technological and scientific progress such as the green revolution.

As for political power, stupidity is the only cause of one losing access to it in the US, and you can't end stupidity because you can't cure humanity.

I won't deny the first bit. Poverty existed in the great manifestations of socialism. But the poor in these places were powerful, moralized, and given opportunity. This isn't about what's perfect, it's about what's better. Because remember, modern socialism isn't some magical creation that came out of nowhere: It's a direct response to the failings capitalism.

As for the second bit. I'd like you to type three terms into google:

Cultural hegemony
Hans von Spakovsky
Polyarchy

 

[Bfgrn]

I generally don't use that kind of distinction. I was using the blanket definition.

What definition is that? I see on this thread socialism and communism being used as if they are the same thing. They are not.

No major nation has ever tried socialism. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering.

Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels was, ideally, a where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule. As a purely economic system, socialism is a lousy way to run a large scale economy. Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services. At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what's needed for exactly who needs it. In practice, both work sometimes in microeconomic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies. And they fail for the same reason: Human pervserity. Too many people don't like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follow the same rules.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval.

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism and the cognitive dissonance created by Lenin and Reagan

 

[Falcon]

"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. ..."

Then I have completely misunderstood you. (Hammer & sickle and Lenin images, and Trotsky and Castro references can make someone imagine you're not all that hot on democracy at all, let alone capitalism.) If you want all sorts of necessary reforms of our current capitalist system, which many right wing react
ionaries would call "Socialism!," but which many people would consider necessary reforms to save our process, I'm with you!

 

[Steelplate]

One of the main differences between Socialism and Communism can be found in the famous slogan that's oft repeated on forums such as these.

Socialism- "From each, according to their ability, to each according to their CONTRIBUTION to society.

Communism- from each, according to their ability, to each, according to their NEED.

 

[Minister of Truth]

What definition is that? I see on this thread socialism and communism being used as if they are the same thing. They are not.

No major nation has ever tried socialism. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering.

Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels was, ideally, a where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule. As a purely economic system, socialism is a lousy way to run a large scale economy. Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services. At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what's needed for exactly who needs it. In practice, both work sometimes in microeconomic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies. And they fail for the same reason: Human pervserity. Too many people don't like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follow the same rules.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval.

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism and the cognitive dissonance created by Lenin and Reagan

The American Revolution failed?

 

[Minister of Truth]

I love how leftists who sucked up to communism during the 70s and 80s are now running from its failure by proclaiming the pile of atheist shit to be conservative. As I said earlier, you can't end stupidity because you can't cure humanity.

 

[Bfgrn]

The American Revolution failed?

The Reagan revolution failed miserably. Trickle down never happened. Ronald Reagan was the great American socialist. He transferred 3 trillion dollars of wealth from the poor and middle class to the opulent.

 

[Steelplate]

I love how leftists who sucked up to communism during the 70s and 80s are now running from its failure by proclaiming the pile of atheist shit to be conservative. As I said earlier, you can't end stupidity because you can't cure humanity.

How old do you think posters are? I graduated HS in '83. I couldn't have cared less about politics back then...I registered Republican because that's what my mom and dad were....and I voted such up until Bush/Kerry....I switched to Dem about halfway through Bush's 2nd term. The way the GOP was getting, I didn't want to be a part of it anymore. The lack of compassion and empathy combined with being called a fucking RINO all the time because I DID have those qualities made me realize that if they didn't want my vote anymore...I'll join a party that shares some of my thoughts and ideals.

 

[I'm Watermark]

What definition is that? I see on this thread socialism and communism being used as if they are the same thing. They are not.

No major nation has ever tried socialism. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering.

Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels was, ideally, a where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule. As a purely economic system, socialism is a lousy way to run a large scale economy. Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services. At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what's needed for exactly who needs it. In practice, both work sometimes in microeconomic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies. And they fail for the same reason: Human pervserity. Too many people don't like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follow the same rules.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval.

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism and the cognitive dissonance created by Lenin and Reagan

It may appear that way, but there's a distinct duplicity in play. Your description is true, within the mainstream of US politics. The academic left calls this "new communism" something else - "Stalinism", or "bureaucratic collectivism". It, in terms of principal, is not communism. Far from it, actually.

Communism, a kind of radical libertarianism, has been developed, but it hasn't changed meaning. It's still stateless, propertyless, moneyless economics.

 

[Falcon]

"Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services."

Oh of course it is a political system! How can the establishment of rules regarding "distributing goods and services" exist outside of politics? Production and distribution of goods and services are among the most fundamental aspects of individual and societal interaction. To create governments, rules or even movements to affect these interactions, therefore, is to attempt to affect the polity, i.e., engage in politics. It is impossible to separate economic systems from political ones.

"Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works."

To the degree that socialism (or any system) dictates/regulates the distribution of goods and services it is objectively less liberal, even though it may, ultimately, hopefully produce the most uplifting, humane, pleasant and subjectively liberating experience. The radical laissez faire revolution you describe conservatives engaged in is one where objectively more liberty exists, however, without any regulations and constraints, it ultimately devolves into a tyranny as power is concentrated in the hands of a few, and most people enjoy "liberty" on paper only.

Anyone who waxes wistfully about the missed opportunities of post-Tzarist Russia is capable of stating that "socialism is not a political system". The final outcome of Marx's and Engels' dream may not have been a political system, but the way to get there sure was: 1.) violent revolution, 2.) followed by top-down authoritarianism, 3.) followed by "real" socialism as the state withered away.

Even though surely you prefer a much gentler way of getting to Step 3, you will require a massive amount of coercion, by concentrating massive power in the state, to get to socialism. Without acknowledging this then you're merely discussing philosophy.

We are far better off with a massive social movement to counter today's hyper-consumption oriented economy and the empowerment of the oligarchy, to instill values against consumerism, workaholism, over-consumption, greed and the like, and to actually live like socialists without demanding that a government which forces us all of us to live like socialists.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Communism is far removed from libertarianism. Radical libertarians who believe in a stateless society advocate for contract law, for the purpose of protecting property rights and in bringing everything down to the local level.

 

[Bfgrn]

"Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services."

Oh of course it is a political system! How can the establishment of rules regarding "distributing goods and services" exist outside of politics? Production and distribution of goods and services are among the most fundamental aspects of individual and societal interaction. To create governments, rules or even movements to affect these interactions, therefore, is to attempt to affect the polity, i.e., engage in politics. It is impossible to separate economic systems from political ones.

"Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works."

To the degree that socialism (or any system) dictates/regulates the distribution of goods and services it is objectively less liberal, even though it may, ultimately, hopefully produce the most uplifting, humane, pleasant and subjectively liberating experience. The radical laissez faire revolution you describe conservatives engaged in is one where objectively more liberty exists, however, without any regulations and constraints, it ultimately devolves into a tyranny as power is concentrated in the hands of a few, and most people enjoy "liberty" on paper only.

Anyone who waxes wistfully about the missed opportunities of post-Tzarist Russia is capable of stating that "socialism is not a political system". The final outcome of Marx's and Engels' dream may not have been a political system, but the way to get there sure was: 1.) violent revolution, 2.) followed by top-down authoritarianism, 3.) followed by "real" socialism as the state withered away.

Even though surely you prefer a much gentler way of getting to Step 3, you will require a massive amount of coercion, by concentrating massive power in the state, to get to socialism. Without acknowledging this then you're merely discussing philosophy.

We are far better off with a massive social movement to counter today's hyper-consumption oriented economy and the empowerment of the oligarchy, to instill values against consumerism, workaholism, over-consumption, greed and the like, and to actually live like socialists without demanding that a government which forces us all of us to live like socialists.

You continue to confuse socialism with communism. Can you name a major country that has implemented socialism?

Falcon: "How can the establishment of rules regarding "distributing goods and services" exist outside of politics?"

You weren't paying attention:

Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels was, ideally, a where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule. As a purely economic system, socialism is a lousy way to run a large scale economy. Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services. At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what's needed for exactly who needs it. In practice, both work sometimes in microeconomic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies. And they fail for the same reason: Human perversity. Too many people don't like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follow the same rules.

None of these philosophies are immune to human perversity, especially on a large scale. Why? Absenteeism. In an early post Rose Capt. mentioned localities. That is the setting that is required for either socialism or laissez faire capitalism to work. What is paramount is everyone must be a stakeholder. In a small locality, where all goods and services are locally produced, no one can escape being a victim of their own human perversity. A polluter has to drink from the water supply he pollutes. A merchant has to face the community members he relies on for other goods and services.

 

[Falcon]

The Reagan revolution failed miserably. Trickle down never happened. Ronald Reagan was the great American socialist. He transferred 3 trillion dollars of wealth from the poor and middle class to the opulent.

That is an excellent graph, Bfgrn.

 

[I'm Watermark]

Communism is far removed from libertarianism. Radical libertarians who believe in a stateless society advocate for contract law, for the purpose of protecting property rights and in bringing everything down to the local level.

Yes, the libertarian right may do that, but the libertarian left uses communes - they essentially replace contracts with mutual aid. Communism is very much a libertarian ideology.

 

[Minister of Truth]

One of the main differences between Socialism and Communism can be found in the famous slogan that's oft repeated on forums such as these.

Socialism- "From each, according to their ability, to each according to their CONTRIBUTION to society.

Communism- from each, according to their ability, to each, according to their NEED.

That's a complete lie about socialism. There aren't any socialists who advocate that. I imagine it was a bunch of teenage communists who thought it up because it seemed totally legit, man!

I would take socialism over communism every day and twice in Thursday. Heck, I would probably even support a single payer Medicare system.