How would socialism ever actually be enacted? It has always failed obviously?

[valdek]

Sure, soviet russia wasn't actual 'socialism', i'm not that ignorant.
But isn't that the problem with socialism? It could never been enacted because like every other attempt at socialism it has gone horribly wrong?
Does that not show it could never be enacted?

[MarxSchmarx]

Sure, soviet russia wasn't actual 'socialism', i'm not that ignorant.
But isn't that the problem with socialism? It could never been enacted because like every other attempt at socialism it has gone horribly wrong?
Does that not show it could never be enacted?

So how would men ever actually fly? It has always failed obviously?

Sure, da Vinci's helicopter wasn't a real "flying machine". I'm not that ignorant. But isn't that the problem with the dream of flight? It could never been (sic) enacted because like every other attempt at flight has gone horribly wrong? Does that not show that man can never fly?

Yes, we might as well throw in the towel and let the boot step on a human face. Forever.

Or you can fight like hell to end oppression like the rest of us.

[Savage]

You are implying that in every supposed attempt to create socialism the international material conditions were those needed for revolution, and that within these conditions the course of action conformed with the common socialist theory.
The problem with this is 1, the correct conditions for revolution (If they have ever even truly existed) are not continuous and 2, there is no common theory on socialism.
Indeed, there are people that consider the USSR to have been socialist for at least some period of it's history, just as there are those of us that consider it to have been a capitalist state, and that socialism is in fact defined by the absence of the state and market.

[Thirsty Crow]

Sure, soviet russia wasn't actual 'socialism', i'm not that ignorant.
But isn't that the problem with socialism? It could never been enacted because like every other attempt at socialism it has gone horribly wrong?
Does that not show it could never be enacted?
First of all, you cannot really prove the impossibility of anything. Think about a scientific project that would aim at proving that God cannot exist.

Secondly, yes, the problems encountered when trying to establish socialism will be severe. It seems to me that your fear before this fact is getting the best of you.

[ar734]

Sure, soviet russia wasn't actual 'socialism', i'm not that ignorant.
But isn't that the problem with socialism? It could never been enacted because like every other attempt at socialism it has gone horribly wrong?
Does that not show it could never be enacted?

Every attempt failed?

1. Soviet communism saved the Russian Revolution, defeated the Western attack on Russia in the Civil War, turned Russian from a peasant society into a major industrial force in less than 30 years. Then withstood and defeated singlehandedly the largest and most destructive military invasion in history by Hitler. You don't like Stalin? How about Nazi control of Europe today?

2. The Chinese revolution. Defeated Japan in WW II. Turned China from a peasant society into the 2nd largest economic power in less than 60 years. Don't think China is socialist? Would you rather see the Chinese people making firecrackers and still addicted to British supplied opium?

3. Vietnam. Defeated the world's superpower.

4. Cuba. Defended itself against invasion. Still fighting the world embargo of the world's superpower. Defeated the superpower's puppet in the Angola Civil War. Forced the South African govt to end apartheid. Has done 100x more for the people of Haiti than the world's superpower.

5. Venezuela. Using the oil produced by its own people to bring itself out of the poverty imposed by the capitalist owned oil industry.

6. Western Europe. Installed a quasi-socialist welfare state; guaranteed pension, quality health care, free quality education, worker rights including worker participation on boards of directors, ample vacation and other benefits. Are capitalists trying to take these gains back. Of course. Can these rights be maintained and furthered without a fight? Of course not.

However, to say socialism has been a failure is to look at the world only through the propaganda filters of the capitalist media.

[red cat]

^^^
I don't agree with this fully, but the approach is correct. Far better than swallowing imperialist propaganda and then presenting weak arguments saying things like "ok it has failed so far, but that doesn't mean it will always fail" etc etc. No offence meant to comrades who think otherwise though.

[smashcapital]

It's true that most attempts at socialism have failed so far. But then again hasn't capitalism always failed also? It has tended to last longer, but in the end it also ends up failing.

[Blake's Baby]

Unfortunately, if 'socialism' is what happened in Eastern Europe and the USSR (and China and Cuba and Ethiopia and Cambodia and Nicaragua and Angola and Zimbabwe and Tanzania ad nauseum), then it has failed, and no-one in their right mind would want to touch it with a 20-metre pole.

On the other hand, if the original question is 'why has every attempt at socialism been brutally surpressed by capitalism, doesn't this prove it is impossible?' then the answer is pretty obvious - no, not only is it possible, it's extremely dangerous to capitalism, else why surpress it?

[Dunk]

There are many on the left that suppose that socialism and communism are an inevitability. I don't agree with this. It's too optimistic, too faith based. The only inevitability is that capitalism will come to end, as surely as every previous economic model has been replaced - and as surely as you and I are mortal. What replaces capitalism will be determined by the ever-evolving, changing material conditions of the world and the way the overwhelming majority of humankind reacts to these changing conditions.

We on the left cherish democracy, equality, and freedom to such an extent that we can only work and hope for an alternative to capitalism which removes oppressive divisions and unites humankind in freedom, and in the ability to eliminate as much suffering and want as possible.

It's hard to imagine what socialism - and harder still - what a global communist society might actually be like - other than the obvious markers of classless or stateless society. Beyond this, no one has a crystal ball. What we do know is that capitalism is exploitative, and that the nature of the current way we conduct business - a la private ownership and production for profit - is the root cause of every social ill I can personally think of, and that working men and women do not need owners and dictators.

Personally, my thinking on the "failures" of socialism in the 20th century is this: the world made it impossible for workers to simply create socialism through sheer will - even the sheer will of millions of people. The working class wasn't nearly as large, especially in the countries in which "communist states" actually emerged. They were mostly peasant-filled countries, with a comparatively (especially with the west) extremely weak bourgeoisie to resist a revolution from within their borders. These countries could not insulate themselves from the highly organized, fabulously wealthy bloc of capitalist nation-states which did move to suppress these "communist states" with force - but the greatest damage done to these attempts at a classless society wasn't through the Cold War, but through the external pressure of global trade. Socialism is not competitive. Against a capitalist nation, a truly socialist society will be outperformed by every conceivable capitalist metric - except for those things which matter most - like happiness, want, and freedom. If we approach history materially, we understand that individual people are agents of change brought about by people reacting to the conditions they find themselves in. Globalized capitalism, among other things, has been creating a massive working class, now constituting the overwhelming majority of humankind. The social safety net is failing today - welfare capitalism may no longer be sustainable or capable of placating the working class - we may be entering a truly transformative time. But no one on the left can tell you how long it will take, or whether the revolution will ever happen. Maybe civilization will largely collapse, billions starve, some type of feudalism reemerges during some prolonged dark age, who knows? But we have to reach for the dream - the same way hunter gatherers dreamt of creating an abundance of food and humanity very suddenly went from hunter-gatherers to subsistence or pastoral societies, after hundreds of thousands of years of hunter-gathering. As workers in a super-developed, technological age of super-abundance and super-exploitation, we as a species have the capability to satisfy every need of every person, and to build a sustainable, peaceful future. But we know a peaceful, free, sustainable, want-free future is completely impossible with capitalism and private property.

So, after all this bloviating, my short answer is this.

A free, classless, stateless society is not impossible, and capitalism itself is going "horribly wrong".

If property can be owned privately, it can also be commonly owned - and common ownership can only be achieved if control is shared commonly. If human beings can create capitalism through their social interactions, they can create socialism through their social interactions. But the people will not create a classless society until the material conditions they find themselves in force them to create a classless society. My guess is that the source of divisions between tendencies among the left is all moot - we have no idea how the inheritor of globalized capitalism will ultimately function or develop, we merely know that there will be an inheritor, and we must play our role as agents as robustly as possible.

:thumbup1:

Holy shit, I wrote way more than I intended to. Sorry.

[BlackMarx]

"When people say Socialism has failed, we should say yes! Socialism has failed once! How many times has Capitalism failed?" - Tariq Ali, speaking at ISO's "Socialism 2010"

[Dimmu]

When socialists countries wont be ruled by power hungry despots.. I just quote Bakunin here.. "‘Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, but socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality’"

So i propose that that we try anarchism once and see how it works out.

[Rafiq]

Actually State Capitalism failed, not Socialism.

Actually, the revolutions in western Europe failed, leading to the degeneration of the Russian Revolution. It was not SOcialism that failed, it was The Revolutions that failed.

[Reznov]

So how would men ever actually fly? It has always failed obviously?

Sure, da Vinci's helicopter wasn't a real "flying machine". I'm not that ignorant. But isn't that the problem with the dream of flight? It could never been (sic) enacted because like every other attempt at flight has gone horribly wrong? Does that not show that man can never fly?

Yes, we might as well throw in the towel and let the boot step on a human face. Forever.

Or you can fight like hell to end oppression like the rest of us.

I give it a 4 out of 10 on the inspiring rhetoric.

[Delenda Carthago]

You know how many times it took for the bourgeois revolution to be achieved?You have to look in retrospect and analyse the situation not by just a small victory or defeat, but in the overoll.

[RadioRaheem84]

How come no one applies this logic to liberal democracy?

French Revolution came, fell and then succumbed to Napoleon. Countless liberal revolutions were in the same boat.

Some went back and forth from Republic to Monarchy, then both succumbed to Fascism and then back to liberal democracy.

Yet, the industrial wonders of taking the most backward nations in the world into the 20th century says nothing to the testament of socialism? They're only failures when they revert back to capitalist nations and the income disparity rises like no other point since before the socialists ever took power?

[Desperado]

...let the boot step on a human face. Forever.




If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.

<3

[piet11111]

And capitalism overthrew Feudalism overnight right ?
And in every part of the world too.

[Jose Gracchus]

As pointed out, this is nothing but adopting the program of the counterrevolutionaries going back to the Enlightenment. We've always had patrimonial farming relations for thousands of years, and domination by kinship and superstition-based tyrants, so it should always be that way!

Except due to the duration of that social formation family versus capitalism, it would actually be a better argument. Furthermore, capitalism seems increasingly likely to lead to its the destruction of modern human civilization if it is allowed to progress unchecked in the next century or two. If that's "success", maybe we should try "failure."

[MarxistMan]

Well, this is just on the pleasures and entertaiments in a socialist system. In a socialist system in USA there would be nationalization of corporations that provide entertainment, sports and pleasures, like direct-tv, dish-network, GNCs, Golds Gyms. Because in our present neoliberal economic system what poor family can afford all those services at the same time for their families, like complete packages of movies, gym memberships, sports supplements.

In this system what poor young guy can even think about joining one of those very expensive weight training gyms for yuppies?

Oh, and by the way there would also be nationalization of vacation cruise ship corporations like Royal Caribbean, Carnival Cruises. And nationalization of Disney World for children. Damn man Disney World entrance fees are just too expensive, not to mention the food.

All these nationalization of the sectors of economy that provide entertainment, arts and pleasures would lead to being more affordable for the people, leading to more demand of those services, and higher levels of happiness in society

.

thanx





Sure, soviet russia wasn't actual 'socialism', i'm not that ignorant.
But isn't that the problem with socialism? It could never been enacted because like every other attempt at socialism it has gone horribly wrong?
Does that not show it could never be enacted?

[Imposter Marxist]

Socialism failed just like capitalism fails guys!

I expected that from Anarchists, but not from other Leninists. :laugh:

[Toppler]

(sarcasm) Yeah, socialism has so fucking failed. Indian slums are better than "boring" socialist housing. (/sarcrasm)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/demonization-communism-t148770/index.html?t=148770[/URL]
[URL]http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2016305&postcount=11 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/demonization-communism-t148770/index.html?t=148770)

Listen, you Western dimwit, your beloved "West" forced capitalism on us. People wanted socialism with democracy in 1989, not your nightmare that you are taught from young age to love and to call it the "super advanced capitalist Western world".

[Omsk]

Exelent post's comrade Toppler i share your view on socialism,the western propaganda is a fearsome tool.
For instance,when my family back in the 90' lost almost all property (thank you cluster bombs) we had nothing to start with,the 'democratic' change caught us unprepared,we though that times would get better,that people will have more money and better pay,and commodity,and all that which they filled the news with,but after only a couple of month's under 'the new people' so called western saviours,we felt the horrid thing called capitalism,when we lived in a 'socialist' state,al least we were proud,we had everything that we needed,we had everything the people in the west had,probably even better than them,just because they are from the west and we are form the so called 'hell on earth former Yugoslavia" didn't mean we did not know what was good,we were normal,working people with small needs,we didn't need 2 cars,we didn't need interent,we didn't need all the goods of capitalism,hell,we were happy with out Yugo,we were happy with our home and style of life,and than these terrorist's came,first they invaded our country,but these terrorist's were from our land,they fought for 'freedom' they fought against socialism and communism,in truth,they fought for the west,alot of people felt that the moment Yugoslavia ceased to exist,we were broken,than the bombing came,more than 3 months i hid under my bed in fear of Nato bombs!
I watched my neighbourhood lose house after house in fiery doom,these memories are all what remains after the 'over-throwing the horrid regime' and after that,i remember the thieving buirocrats on their rise to power,the end of civilised society that was Yugoslavia,the emerge of hate and even greater nationalism followed by the colapse of culture and all moral values,this my friends,is capitalism and democracy,they came and liberated us,in truth they just enslaved us all,now,jobs cant be found anywhere,the corporations are getting richer and richer,in Yugoslavia,the country owned the corporations,in modern day 'democratic' Serbia,corporations own the country.

They talked about liberation,and 'the life in the west' all i saw was filth,scum,slime that invaded a once peaceful society,but first it planted the seed of war into it,the seed that devoured us all,and that was our mistake,but it was not enough for them,they wanted bloodshed,they gave weapons to every little criminal and turned him into a 'nationalist war veteran' and when the job was done,when my village,among countries other,perished under the tank threads and artillery shells,they arrested them,and put them on funny trials,some they even realised.A horrible story indeed.
They knew nothing,nothing!Our lives drasticlly changed,a sense of unity we had,perished,and the country we forged in blood and tears during the war perished in a couple of years,all just because they saw it as a problem.
That is why i hate them,and that is why i will never stop doing so.