Socialists: Revolution, or reform?

[Bfgrn]

Wow, socialists can be real asswholes. I agree that it is possible to occasionally support a socialist ideal such as healthcare takeover, and still be, on the whole, a wellfare state liberal, a neocon, a progressive, or a conservative (such as Churchill).

Churchill wasn't a conservative. The famous "Conservative by the time you're 35" quote was falsely attributed to him.

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"

 

[I'm Watermark]

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

No major country to my knowledge has done so, though certain communities have practiced socialism.

I'm absolutely not confused about the difference between communism vs. socialism. I understand the difference. Communism was a means to a socialist end (theoretically at least). The idea was that a massive, heavy-handed, overbearing (to put it mildy), centrally planned state needed to be put in place first, in order to collectivize and create the ultimate conditions for socialism (and I know there are differences between even express communist and socialist goals, but not significant ones). But surprise! they never got there, because once you give such ultimate power to a ruling class, they ain't gonna give that power up. It's not human nature, which you yourself have recognized throughout this thread.

I don't think for a moment you're advocating for a Communist state. What I'm stating that you seem to want to skip ahead in the conversation to the happy outcomes of socialism, and disregard what it would take to get there. Any way you slice it, to achieve and enforce democratic socialism requires handing very considerable amounts of undemocratic political power to a ruling elite. Avoiding this obvious fact makes me wonder if you have the courage of your convictions.

If we're just talking independent groups of people choosing within our system to collectivize and cooperate, that's a different discussion altogether. If you're just promoting generalized reforms of our current system, I'm with you. Then let's use the rhetoric great Western reformers rather than Engels and Marx.

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

"You weren't paying attention:"....

I have no idea how the rest of this indicates that I was not paying attention. I don't disagree with the rest of it, and I find this to be a non-sequitor.

For all intents and purposes, that's good enough. But I'll key you in on how socialism and communism play into the Marxian process.

Using the basic definition, communism is a system of antonymous communities trading with one another. This is what Marx wanted to achieve. To do this, he proposed a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (a kind of socialism) - which eventually led to a classless society, where government was unnecessary. Then the state would be removed.