Saying hi!

[Damocles]

Uh no. I've known socialists who quote Marx too. Doesn't make them Communists does it? Nope. Once again it's all how you view the government. I've given plenty of links for you to see the difference. I even gave you a link to the communist party of the US and what they say about socialism. And yes there is an example of socialism working again. You're missing Western Europe and even France is more socialist than here in the States and once again Venezuela. And once again the people own the government and the government works for the people. That is socialism.

Okay, then you don't know what Marx was about. He believed that Communism, as you describe it, was the step after government control of production.

I am not quoting him, I am addressing what his idea was. Communism was the last step and Socialism as you describe it was a mixture of his final step and what he described as the first step. So far not even one nation, not even one place, has reached this step. It is as unattainable in today's world as Libertarianism is or Anarcho-Socialism is (or was depending on how the Lakota secession goes).

 

[SouthernBelle82]

And once again Communism is the extreme of socialism. They believe it's the best replacement for capitalism. I'm getting really sick and tired of using twenty-two pages of repeating the same song and dance.

Link- http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

What Socialism is not- Socialism does not mean government or state ownership. It does not mean a closed party-run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism.

"Socialism," as the American Socialist Daniel De Leon defined it, "is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. That is socialism, nothing short of that." And we might add, nothing more than that!

Remember: If it does not fit this description, it is not socialism—no matter who says different. Those who claim that socialism existed and failed in places like Russia and China simply do not know the facts.

Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives—the industries, services and natural resources—are collectively owned by all the people, and in which the democratic organization of the people within the industries and services is the government. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time.

Who Runs Things? - Socialism means direct control and management of the industries and social services by the workers through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization.

Under socialism, all authority will originate from the workers, integrally united in Socialist Industrial Unions. In each workplace, the rank and file will elect whatever committees or representatives are needed to facilitate production. Within each shop or office division of a plant, the rank and file will participate directly in formulating and implementing all plans necessary for efficient operations.

The US communist party advocating socialism. Odd?

 

[Damocles]

Then we are having a problem of using different definitions of a term in the same thread. First we must understand what the terms are to each other before a decent discussion of the meanings can be made.

Here is a nice short definition as I have described it, also from the dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

(And sorry, I was getting his terms backwards. Communism is the final version after Socialism where the government gains control. Communism in his terminology was the "perfect collectivism" that he believed would be obtained after that first step.)

 

[SouthernBelle82]

Yes I do know what I'm talking about. If the government owns it than that's Communism YET AGAIN! Do I have to start using pictionary? Seriously? This is getting pathetic! Uh no hun. Socialism is first and then Communism. Once again conviently ignoring Venezuela.

Okay, then you don't know what Marx was about. He believed that Socialism, as you describe it, was the step after government control.

I am not quoting him, I am addressing what his idea was. Communism was the first step and Socialism as you describe it was the next step. So far not even one nation, not even one place, has reached this step. It is as unattainable in today's world as Libertarianism is or Anarcho-Socialism is (or was depending on how the Lakota secession goes).

 

[SouthernBelle82]

So you just proved I was right and that Communism is the extreme of socialism. "In the community as a whole." What do you think that means? Community ownership which is what I've been talking about for the past twenty-two pages. Seriously. You're just now using the dictionary? I guess official SP website's aren't good enough. I don't go to the extreme to communism because that's not what I believe.

Then we are having a problem of using different definitions of a term in the same thread. First we must understand what the terms are to each other before a decent discussion of the meanings can be made.

Here is a nice short definition as I have described it, also from the dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

(And sorry, I was getting his terms backwards. Communism is the final version after Socialism where the government gains control. Communism in his terminology was the "perfect collectivism" that he believed would be obtained after that first step.)

 

[Damocles]

Yes I do know what I'm talking about. If the government owns it than that's Communism YET AGAIN! Do I have to start using pictionary? Seriously? This is getting pathetic! Uh no hun. Socialism is first and then Communism. Once again conviently ignoring Venezuela.

According to Marx, the terms I was using, Communism is the "perfect collectivism" it is only possible to reach after the socialist period of imperfect collectivism where the government controls things imperfectly but works towards that more perfect collectivism.

 

[Damocles]

So you just proved I was right and that Communism is the extreme of socialism. "In the community as a whole." What do you think that means? Community ownership which is what I've been talking about for the past twenty-two pages. Seriously. You're just now using the dictionary? I guess official SP website's aren't good enough. I don't go to the extreme to communism because that's not what I believe.

Once again, don't attempt to get personal then get mad when others might remark back to you in the same way.

I corrected myself. You keep saying the Soviet Union was "Communist" but by these terms they were Socialist, which is what I have been saying throughout. Socialism, in many manifestations has consistently turned to totalitarianism throughout history. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[SouthernBelle82]

You might wanna read your post above this one. It seems to me like you're getting all confused. And I didn't do anything to deserve to be called inappropriate and demaning words for a female. I haven't called them degrading names for men have I? I don't think so. So don't bitch at me and preach about your "tolerance" shit when I'm doing nothing more than defending myself since you don't have moderators here.

Once again, don't attempt to get personal then get mad when others might remark back to you in the same way.

I corrected myself. You keep saying the Soviet Union was "Communist" but by these terms they were Socialist, which is what I have been saying throughout. Socialism, in many manifestations has consistently turned to totalitarianism throughout history. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[SouthernBelle82]

Once again if there isn't community ownership and the people don't have a say in it whether business to government than that is not socialism. It's seriously getting old. I've repeated the same song and dance for twenty-two pages now. My post count is now 235 and I didn't intend to get it that high since I'm still new. Good grief. Why don't you go and read about socialism from actual socialists? For fucks sakes!

Once again, don't attempt to get personal then get mad when others might remark back to you in the same way.

I corrected myself. You keep saying the Soviet Union was "Communist" but by these terms they were Socialist, which is what I have been saying throughout. Socialism, in many manifestations has consistently turned to totalitarianism throughout history. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Damocles]

Once again if there isn't community ownership and the people don't have a say in it whether business to government than that is not socialism. It's seriously getting old. I've repeated the same song and dance for twenty-two pages now. My post count is now 235 and I didn't intend to get it that high since I'm still new. Good grief. Why don't you go and read about socialism from actual socialists? For fucks sakes!

When the government is "of the people" community ownership resides in that government. And I do read about socialism. However I like to pick the brain of people, not just read ideas consistently repeated.

As I stated, per Marx, the Soviet Union being imperfectly collectivist was a Socialist state, not communist. Had they been Communist there would have been no government ownership of anything. The same could be said of Venezuela. The government taking controlling interest in companies is the beginning, not the end of collectivism.

 

[SouthernBelle82]

Well these socialists seem to go against what you say...

Link- http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

Socialism has never existed. It did not exist in the old U.S.S.R., and it does not exist in China. Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives—the industries, services and natural resources—are collectively owned by all the people, and in which the democratic organization of the people within the industries and services is the government. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time.

However as I've said Venezuela is going more socialist than other country's are. China may claim to be Communist but they still have private businesses so they're not 100% communist in that sense.

When the government is "of the people" community ownership resides in that government. And I do read about socialism. However I like to pick the brain of people, not just read ideas consistently repeated.

As I stated, per Marx, the Soviet Union being imperfectly collectivist was a Socialist state, not communist. Had they been Communist there would have been no government ownership of anything. The same could be said of Venezuela. The government taking controlling interest in companies is the beginning, not the end of collectivism.

 

[Damocles]

Well these socialists seem to go against what you say...

Link- http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

Socialism has never existed. It did not exist in the old U.S.S.R., and it does not exist in China. Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives—the industries, services and natural resources—are collectively owned by all the people, and in which the democratic organization of the people within the industries and services is the government. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time.

However as I've said Venezuela is going more socialist than other country's are. China may claim to be Communist but they still have private businesses so they're not 100% communist in that sense.

So, what you are calling socialism is what Marx called communism. And that was where our disconnect was coming from. I agree it hasn't existed to date, as libertarian societies haven't existed since the aboriginal American groups were taken over.

China has only started allowing those private businesses, they did it watching Hong Kong and realizing that they would be taking it over at some period. It has brought powerful growth along with it, unfortunately they were unprepared for other things that come along with it. Such as lead paint infused toys.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

A girl... on the internet.. that likes politics and video games -_-

girl, if I could rearrange the alphabet, i'd put u and i together . .

*is so smooth, way smoother than watermark

 

[Damocles]

A girl... on the internet.. that likes politics and video games -_-

girl, if I could rearrange the alphabet, i'd put u and i together . .

*is so smooth, way smoother than watermark

LOL. That be da GRind!

 

[Cypress]

I've never understood the shadow boxing against the phantom threat of communism, by american rightwingers.

There's never going to be communism in america. There's no constituency for it. There's not a snowball's chance in hell of it ever happening here. Yet, some rightwingers spend their whole lives shadow boxing against a threat to america that doesn't exist.

Eishenhower, in his farewell speech, said the greatest threat to this nation and this democracy was the concentration of corporate power, particularly within the military industrial complex and the concentration of corporate power over the government. Eisenhower was wise enough to recognize a real threat when he saw one.

 

[SouthernBelle82]

LOL. Yea that's one I've never heard before. Well my video games are more like simulation stuff. I love the Sims 2. Although I haven't been able to play it in a while because I was busy there for a while finishing up this term. I can't play my XBox very long though because I get feeling sick so yea heh heh. But yea I do like video games.

A girl... on the internet.. that likes politics and video games -_-

girl, if I could rearrange the alphabet, i'd put u and i together . .

*is so smooth, way smoother than watermark

 

[SouthernBelle82]

Yea and the horrible sweatshops too which are awful and pretty much you get paid for nothing. Do you know about North Korea? If they have private companies still? But the important thing to remember about socialism is community ownership and the people deciding. If it's anything else than it's not socialism.

So, what you are calling socialism is what Marx called communism. And that was where our disconnect was coming from. I agree it hasn't existed to date, as libertarian societies haven't existed since the aboriginal American groups were taken over.

China has only started allowing those private businesses, they did it watching Hong Kong and realizing that they would be taking it over at some period. It has brought powerful growth along with it, unfortunately they were unprepared for other things that come along with it. Such as lead paint infused toys.

 

[Damocles]

I've never understood the shadow boxing against the phantom threat of communism, by american rightwingers.

There's never going to be communism in america. There's no constituency for it. There's not a snowball's chance in hell of it ever happening here. Yet, some rightwingers spend their whole lives shadow boxing against a threat to america that doesn't exist.

Eishenhower, in his farewell speech, said the greatest threat to this nation and this democracy was the concentration of corporate power, particularly within the military industrial complex and the concentration of corporate power over the government. Eisenhower was wise enough to recognize a real threat when he saw one.

One of my heroes.

 

[SouthernBelle82]

Yea I've never got it either. Fear is easy though if you want to control people. It's been done over time and time again whether Hitler to Bush. And yea it's interesting how Eisenhower's farewell speech was about that and not communism. My thing is as long as it's the people deciding what they want than there shouldn't be any problems. That's one reason out of many why I like socialism.

I've never understood the shadow boxing against the phantom threat of communism, by american rightwingers.

There's never going to be communism in america. There's no constituency for it. There's not a snowball's chance in hell of it ever happening here. Yet, some rightwingers spend their whole lives shadow boxing against a threat to america that doesn't exist.

Eishenhower, in his farewell speech, said the greatest threat to this nation and this democracy was the concentration of corporate power, particularly within the military industrial complex and the concentration of corporate power over the government. Eisenhower was wise enough to recognize a real threat when he saw one.

 

[Damocles]

Yea and the horrible sweatshops too which are awful and pretty much you get paid for nothing. Do you know about North Korea? If they have private companies still? But the important thing to remember about socialism is community ownership and the people deciding. If it's anything else than it's not socialism.

Which brings the unfortunate reality that it exists as does libertarianism, only in theory.