I always thought of myself as a Socialist, but am I?

[kbjami]

Okay I believe in some competitive drive and classes, but not as bad as it is in the USA. Like I believe in a more closer class. I hope I'm making some sense. I believe in taxing the rich and spreading the wealth as it's called. i also believe in free education and free health care. I believe if you can only make $500,000,000 or less. The rest that you make would go towards the government for programs for shelters and things like that. Now then I don't mean when a Business makes more than $500,000,000, but when a single individual makes that. I also believe in free housing. Also I think the Government should regulate businesses and have about 50% control on them or more just to make sure they aren't cheating the people. I also believe in freedom of speech, freedom to protest, and no censorship.
So what would I be called?

[Pirate Utopian]

Left-liberal, social democrat at best.

[Communist Theory]

Like a contestant for Miss America.

[kbjami]

oh also I'm starting to go towards the left more and more as time goes by. like right now though I'm only a 10th grader and i started thinking more and more like this in 9th grade. I'm also just starting to think that government should have all control on businesses.

[Raúl Duke]

A democratic socialist (fabian socialism) perhaps?

[rednordman]

Your a socialist..anyone who says otherwise is being an idiot. If an american president decided to initiate state planning, use tax to pay for free education and health care, people would call him/her a stalinist.-Yes thats how far away from actual socialism we are living from. At the very least you are are as, JonnyDarko says, a Democratic socialist, but from what you have said I would still class you as a socialist. Just not an anarchist or marxist-leninist (but your not actually that far away from this though) thats all.

[Black_Flag]

Left-liberal, social democrat at best.


Agreed.

[rednordman]

I may add, If you believe in free education and healthcare, there is NO way you are a capitalist (liberals and social democrates are for the most part, still capitalists).

[Pirate Utopian]

I may add, If you believe in free education and healthcare, there is NO way you are a capitalist (liberals and social democrates are for the most part, still capitalists).
Yes you can be.
Everyone who supports private property and the class system, even if they support free healthcare and eduction is a capitalist.

[Pogue]

Yeh I'd say left-liberal to social democrat. Social democrat with some odd areas I guess. Your politics would be like the moderate wing of Die Linke, and the 'radical' wing of the UK Labour Party. Doesn't say much.

[gorillafuck]

Social Democrat, definitely

[teenagebricks]

Social democrat, possibly a democratic socialist. As long as you believe in the hierarchical structure of the class system you aren't really a socialist, unless of course you believe that society should grow into complete classlessness, in which case you would be a reformist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The classic Marxist use of the term Socialism is a society where workers have control over the means of production. If you do not think that workers should democratically run the economy, then I would say you are not a socialist in the revolutionary marxist sense. But you may still be a socialist in a more general sense of social democracy and reformism and so on.

Originally Social Democrats believed they could get to that kind of socialism through gradual reforms of the existing capitalist state. Although now-days I think they have dropped that pretense and generally just want capitalism with the rough edges taken out. So you sound more aligned with social democracy in your beliefs.

So as you think about where you stand politically I would suggest considering the experience of social democratic parties over the last 100 years. We had social democratic parties in power who like in France in the 1980s, but that president ended up cutting the welfare state like Regan and Thatcher.

To me social democracy is like hanging out with a wounded bear - the bear being capitalism. The bear may tolerate you and not attack as long as he thinks you will be able to defeat him, but as soon as he's healed and regained his strength, you are lunch.

Also you may not be a socialist if you don't like to make silly analogies like the one above.:)

[Bitter Ashes]

Okay I believe in some competitive drive and classes, but not as bad as it is in the USA. Like I believe in a more closer class. I hope I'm making some sense. I believe in taxing the rich and spreading the wealth as it's called. i also believe in free education and free health care. I believe if you can only make $500,000,000 or less. The rest that you make would go towards the government for programs for shelters and things like that. Now then I don't mean when a Business makes more than $500,000,000, but when a single individual makes that. I also believe in free housing. Also I think the Government should regulate businesses and have about 50% control on them or more just to make sure they aren't cheating the people. I also believe in freedom of speech, freedom to protest, and no censorship.
So what would I be called?
If I may make a suggestion; take a look at socialism's "idea of a perfect world" indepth and see if you agree with us that socialism would be an even better world than the one you describe.

If you need to ask any questions about socialism, then that's what these learning forums are for. Feel free to start a new topic to as some questions.:)

[JimmyJazz]

If you don't believe a revolution would be necessary to implement your economy, then you're either (1) kidding yourself or (2) just playing with the word 'socialism'.

Also, taxation is not what socialists do to spread the wealth. That's what liberals do. Socialists expropriate the expropriators (hence the 'revolution' bit).

Read up on ParEcon, Market Socialism, Council Communism, State Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, etc., to get an idea of the kinds of economic systems that fall under the umbrella of socialism.

[ZeroNowhere]

Left-liberal, social democrat at best.
Agreed.
Though I don't use the term 'social democrat', but yeah, they're a reformist.


A democratic socialist (fabian socialism) perhaps?
Nope, not a socialist at all.


If you don't believe a revolution would be necessary to implement your economy, then you're either (1) kidding yourself or (2) just playing with the word 'socialism'.
Well, technically, reforming capitalism would never be revolutionary. Socialism would by definition require a revolution (whether violent or not).


State Socialism
That's basically an oxymoron, though...


Originally Social Democrats believed they could get to that kind of socialism through gradual reforms of the existing capitalist state.
Originally, 'social democrats' referred to socialists, regardless of how they believed that they could get to socialism.


Social democrat, possibly a democratic socialist. As long as you believe in the hierarchical structure of the class system you aren't really a socialist, unless of course you believe that society should grow into complete classlessness, in which case you would be a reformist.
Quite honestly, I have no idea what 'society should grow into complete classlessness' means, and no, a reformist is somebody who only wants to reform capitalism. And again, no, they're not socialist.


I may add, If you believe in free education and healthcare, there is NO way you are a capitalist (liberals and social democrates are for the most part, still capitalists).
I don't believe that class is defined by political current.
Also, if you mean 'capitalist' as in 'supporting capitalism', then you most certainly can be.


Your a socialist..anyone who says otherwise is being an idiot.
They're not a socialist.


If an american president decided to initiate state planning, use tax to pay for free education and health care, people would call him/her a stalinist.-Yes thats how far away from actual socialism we are living from.
And it would still be capitalism. So?


Democratic socialist
That is one of the most abused terms in the history of socialism (along with 'dictatorship of the proletariat', 'socialism', and such).

[Invincible Summer]

I also believe in free housing. Also I think the Government should regulate businesses and have about 50% control on them or more just to make sure they aren't cheating the people. I also believe in freedom of speech, freedom to protest, and no censorship.
So what would I be called?

[...]

oh also I'm starting to go towards the left more and more as time goes by. like right now though I'm only a 10th grader and i started thinking more and more like this in 9th grade. I'm also just starting to think that government should have all control on businesses.

You say this as if the government can do no wrong...

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I love labels. When I was younger, I constantly changed my political views. Hell, I still change my views. However, I often found myself adopting "sets of values" because if I didn't agree with "all Marxist views," I couldn't be a Marxist. Finding yourself with no political identity is a troubling situation. I understand why you want to know "if you're a socialist." Technically, your views best fit under the category of social democracy.

However, I would advocate this. Whatever your political views are, label yourself the philosophy that makes sense to you. If none of them do, define yourself. Sometimes, people will argue with you. You're views suite social democracy, and you're wrong to call yourself a socialist. If you disagree, call yourself a socialist. Just be prepared to defend your label.

I might be closer to collectivist anarchism than anarcho-communism, technically, but I feel the latter definition better represents my ideals. I consider myself a communist, and I consider myself an anarchist. The latter entails the former, but I don't consider this necessarily true. According to Wikipedia, anarchism entails views outside communist philosophy. We claim "anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction," but we don't decide what names people call themselves. The ideas anarcho-capitalism entails my very well be contradictory, but it made sense to the anarcho-capitalists to call themselves by such a definition. If we convince people it's contradictory, later, we might convince them the definition is faulty.

Why do I call myself an anarcho-communist? According to Wikipedia, which I love, anarcho-communism entails:

Abolition of the state, private property, and capitalism.
Direct Democracy
Voluntary Associations, Worker's Councils, and/or a gift economy.

Abolition of private property, capitalism, advocating direct democracy. Anyone evaluating my views would see those as consistent positions i hold.

I get in trouble with anarchists when I discuss the state, voluntary associations, and other issues. I consider conflicts between mutual interest best resolvable through elections and collectively enforceable. Decentralized agreement constitutes a state, according to some. How they resolve conflicts is beyond me. I've also suggest individuals can actively limit the freedom of others if it's necessary to maximizing the good of society and supported by the majority of people.

I advocate decentralized or collective authority used to resolves issues of conflicting interest (necessary) and positive liberty maximization (unnecessary but beneficial). I think the former case will have anarchists reluctantly concede that I "can legitimately call myself an anarchist." The latter case will have people throwing me in with totalitarianism, 1984 references, and all other degrees of demagogy. Essentially, it means that if the majority of people, in a social system, agree to taxation through a purely democratic process, that process is legitimate. This is based on a view of human nature. Had that person been outside society, they would get no moral consideration at all. We would simply steal their money for self-interest. Since they are in society, we grant them the benefits of society. They have free expression, politically and socially, to compel us to action.

Of course, I'm not convinced taxation is entirely necessary in an ideal society, perhaps as an anarcho-transitional phase. Again, I don't get all my crayons from one box. I don't agree with state socialism, but Marx was onto something about gradual change. Sometimes gradual change leads to monumental change, such as revolution. However, a revolution that leads to a completely communist society, I think, isn't necessarily the case. If I want to turn my house into a castle, I could do it overnight, but what constitutes a "transitional phase" is only a view about time. I don't after a revolution, there would still be a period of turmoil where individuals. I'm actually trying to conceptualize my views into some sort of new-school revolutionary thought. Revolutionary theory emerged from a time period of specific views. We know things we didn't then, and the theories have barely changed at all. I think they need to undergo some changes. Or at least evaluate them and reestablish why they "work" in the first place.

To conclude, I am a communist. I am an anarcho-communist. Opponents could claim I'm a minarcho-socialist, but I disagree. I think my view is consistent with the fundamental ideas of communism and anarchism. Communism is fundamentally a belief in equality, as I see it. Anarchism is fundamentally a belief in skepticism of power, as I see it. Anarchism entails "anti-power, anti-statism" because there is reason to be skeptical of their usefulness. I'm not sure it entails a complete lack of authority.

[teenagebricks]

Quite honestly, I have no idea what 'society should grow into complete classlessness' means
Like I said, reformism, the end result would, in theory, be the same as that of a socialist revolution, the means however would be very different.

and no, a reformist is somebody who only wants to reform capitalism.
That's exactly what kbjami wants to do, capitalism would have to exist for it to even be possible for a person to have $500,000,000 to their name. It is natural, and entirely predictable, that a reformist would want to put a limit on how much money an individual can own, however given that the limit of personal wealth suggested by kbjami was $500,000,000, a rather excessive sum to say the least, I feel it makes sense to assume that they do believe in the concept of capitalism, therefore they are not a socialist. For the record I don't consider social democrats or democratic socialists to be socialists at all, you can not be a socialist and a capitalist at the same time, others may see it differently but I would put democratic socialism closer to capitalism than socialism, and I think that is justified by the number of democratic socialists we have in the world who still support capitalism.

[TheWaffleCzar]

$500,000,000, a rather excessive sum to say the least, I feel it makes sense to assume that they do believe in the concept of capitalism, therefore they are not a socialist.

Perhaps he meant 500,000. I can't say I can name anyone making 500,000,000. Maybe in Zimbabwe. . .

[teenagebricks]

I certainly hope so, why anyone would need, or even want that much money is beyond me.

[skki]

Not a Socialist, unless you believe that absurd far-right Republican rhetoric.
Why has nobody asked him whether he believes workers should control the means of production yet? That after all, is the core of Socialism.

[kbjami]

Sorry i actually meant 500,000.
Also again though thank you everyone for helping me out w/ this because I have been called many different things and it can be a huge mind fuck at times.

[Communist Theory]

noob. :laugh:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not a Socialist, unless you believe that absurd far-right Republican rhetoric.
Why has nobody asked him whether he believes workers should control the means of production yet? That after all, is the core of Socialism.

Ahem.



The classic Marxist use of the term Socialism is a society where workers have control over the means of production. If you do not think that workers should democratically run the economy, then I would say you are not a socialist in the revolutionary marxist sense. But you may still be a socialist in a more general sense of social democracy and reformism and so on.

You should read my posts - they are a little slice of heaven topped with a light drizzle of misspelling and a side of dubious logic.

[The Idler]

Supporting free education and free healthcare doesn't make you a socialist.
Supporting taxation/redistribution of wealth doesn't make you a socialist.
Supporting nationalization of industries doesn't make you a socialist.
Being class conscious doesn't make you a socialist.
Supporting workers in control of the means of production is probably close.
I wouldn't go as far as saying you need to oppose private property or all hierarchy, but perhaps opposing all exploitation and oppression would suffice to be considered a proper "socialist".

Maybe you should read up and reflect on whether you support the extraction of surplus value from workers. Das Kapital explains this but can be challenging for a beginner, maybe Marx by Rius which is an easy read.

[S.O.I]

social democrat... you practically just described the politics of norway.

[STJ]

Okay I believe in some competitive drive and classes, but not as bad as it is in the USA. Like I believe in a more closer class. I hope I'm making some sense. I believe in taxing the rich and spreading the wealth as it's called. i also believe in free education and free health care. I believe if you can only make $500,000,000 or less. The rest that you make would go towards the government for programs for shelters and things like that. Now then I don't mean when a Business makes more than $500,000,000, but when a single individual makes that. I also believe in free housing. Also I think the Government should regulate businesses and have about 50% control on them or more just to make sure they aren't cheating the people. I also believe in freedom of speech, freedom to protest, and no censorship.
So what would I be called?
The Labor Party.

[teenagebricks]

Yeah, the more I read the original post the more it reminds me of Labour, perhaps you should look into third way politics and social liberalism.