Fake socialism is now over the true socialists was 100% right!!!

[spice756]

Many of the captalism countries from 60's to mid 90's like Europe and Canada embrace a socialism coexist of socialism and captalism where the socialist tried go after big businesses ,monoply ,class struggle , help the poor and homeless , less class hierarchy , walfare state , free social programs so on!!

The truth is today most all this got ripped out in mid to late 90's with neoliberalism. With captalism again in full force.

Well Canada it got it very hard and Europe well on the way .Many socialist say that NAFTA ,free trade and Globalization may have caused this along with corporation lobbying.

The truth is the middle class people pay so much in tax than the upper class and corporation that hardly pay pocket change in tax :cursing:that this again is other reason why this fake socialism cannot stay around long and middle class vote conservative or center than the left that too high in tax .

One can just look at the NDP party in Canada if they could do there platform on tax like the conservative use than 90% of the people would vote them in power!!

The thing is this fake socialism will never ever ever ever stay around long and still you in a captalism society.

My prediction in the next 10 to 15 years what little is left of fake socialism will all be disappear.Again the true socialists was 100% right !!

[hatzel]

Qué? :confused:

[El Chuncho]

Qué? :confused:

Quien sabe?!

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Many of the captalism countries from 60's to mid 90's like Europe and Canada embrace a socialism coexist of socialism and captalism where the socialist tried go after big businesses ,monoply ,class struggle , help the poor and homeless , less class hierarchy , walfare state , free social programs so on!!


That was never socialism.

It's called social-democracy.

[Agent Ducky]

¡Yo sé! O... yo pienso que yo sé...
K I think I might translate a little bit:
Fake socialism= Reformism, the type of socialism that's getting mixed with capitalism. This thread is about how reformist socialism is on the decline and everywhere is getting more conservative/capitalist, and people are willing to vote for that (for some reason) And the true socialists I'm assuming are the revolutionary leftists... And that apparently they predicted the decline of reformist socialism (the world is gonna plunge deeper into capitalism/neo-liberalism) ... What I draw from this is less reformism=more capitalism=more angry people= revolution sooner?

Sorry if that made less sense than the OP. I'm just trying to help =]

[Revolution starts with U]

Of course socialists were right to say reform of capitalism is ill fated and only prolongs the decay of capitalism.
I like the social democracy = fake socialism tho :lol:

[El Chuncho]

Of course socialists were right to say reform of capitalism is ill fated and only prolongs the decay of capitalism.
I like the social democracy = fake socialism tho :lol:

Social Democracy is more hyper-liberalism, IMO.

[spice756]

¡Yo sé! O... yo pienso que yo sé...
K I think I might translate a little bit:
Fake socialism= Reformism, the type of socialism that's getting mixed with capitalism. This thread is about how reformist socialism is on the decline and everywhere is getting more conservative/capitalist, and people are willing to vote for that (for some reason) And the true socialists I'm assuming are the revolutionary leftists... And that apparently they predicted the decline of reformist socialism (the world is gonna plunge deeper into capitalism/neo-liberalism) ... What I draw from this is less reformism=more capitalism=more angry people= revolution sooner?

Sorry if that made less sense than the OP. I'm just trying to help =]

The proper name would be social-democracy but the world fake is some thing that is not genuine so most people going around calling them socialists are really not true socialists .So in the context of this thread the word fake would suffice.


¡Yo sé! O... yo pienso que yo sé...
K I think I might translate a little bit:
Fake socialism= Reformism, the type of socialism that's getting mixed with capitalism. This thread is about how reformist socialism is on the decline and everywhere is getting more conservative/capitalist, and people are willing to vote for that (for some reason) And the true socialists I'm assuming are the revolutionary leftists... And that apparently they predicted the decline of reformist socialism (the world is gonna plunge deeper into capitalism/neo-liberalism) ... What I draw from this is less reformism=more capitalism=more angry people= revolution sooner?


No it is capitalism system and capitalism leaders just copying some socialism ideas to make it look more fair and the public calling it socialism and the conservative/capitalist saying it is very bad.

We know this what is the point?


Social Democracy is more hyper-liberalism, IMO.


That me say it again many socialist say that
NAFTA ,free trade and Globalization may have caused this along with corporation lobbying.




So are moving to more pure capitalism and doing away of these so called socialism the public likes to call it.

[El Chuncho]

That me say it again many socialist say that


So are moving to more pure capitalism and doing away of these so called socialism the public likes to call it.

Social Democracy is still hyper-liberalism, though! :tt2:

[L.A.P.]

Due to being incredibly high right now, I actually understood this incoherent and confusing post by the OP. Obvious yet interesting analysis though.

[Agent Ducky]

No? As in what I said isn't correct? I think everyone here understands that the bourgeois leaders are adding 'elements of socialism' into capitalism, etc. But I thought the whole point of your post is that these elements are declining.... O_O.

[Bud Struggle]

But I thought the whole point of your post is that these elements are declining.... O_O.

They aren't.

[Revolution starts with U]

If you were consistent with you "tea party mandate rabble rabble" you would say they were.
I agree tho, they're not. They're just experiencing a backlash.

[Bud Struggle]

If you were consistent with you "tea party mandate rabble rabble" you would say they were.
I agree tho, they're not. They're just experiencing a backlash.

Maybe, maybe not. There is a backlash--but how long will it hold out?

[JTB]

That was never socialism.

It's called social-democracy.
The imperfect implication of collectivist principles.

It's early in the the socialist stage of a civilization's socio-economic development.

It's socialism by definition.

[Baseball]

Social democracy evolved out of the discovery by socialists that socialism cannot develop without breaking skulls, tyranny, ec ect ect.

[danyboy27]

Social democracy evolved out of the discovery by socialists that socialism cannot develop without breaking skulls, tyranny, ec ect ect.

social democracy pre-date socialism btw.

[Revolution starts with U]

Social democracy evolved out of the discovery by socialists that socialism cannot develop without breaking skulls, tyranny, ec ect ect.

/facepalm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society

[RGacky3]

Social Democracy is still hyper-liberalism, though! :tt2:

What does that mean, does it mean that Social Democracy are people who are REALLY for gay marriage?

[#FF0000]

Social democracy evolved out of the discovery by socialists that socialism cannot develop without breaking skulls, tyranny, ec ect ect.

I like how you keep saying things and they're always wrong.


The imperfect implication of collectivist principles.

It's early in the the socialist stage of a civilization's socio-economic development.

It's socialism by definition.

And what definition is that?

[JTB]

The definition you just quoted: a stage of socio-economic development within a society following capitalism and preceding communism, characterized by the imperfect implication of collectivist principles.

[El Chuncho]

What does that mean, does it mean that Social Democracy are people who are REALLY for gay marriage?

No, I just meant that they are just excessive liberals, fake socialists. I wouldn't take my comment too seriously, Gacky. ;) In truth social democrats are socialists, just somewhat misguided ones.

[hatzel]

The definition you just quoted: a stage of socio-economic development within a society following capitalism and preceding communism, characterized by the imperfect implication of collectivist principles.

So how is social democracy 'socialism', if none of these countries ever even intended to abolish capitalism? By the definition you yourself just gave (I'm not sure who quoted it, I haven't seen it quoted anywhere on this thread), social democracy is not 'socialism by definition', because it doesn't fit in with your definition. I'm sure you realise this, though, and you're just saying silly things :)

[RGacky3]

I think a lot of people that support or vote for social-democratic parties are socialist, I think the parties themselves ... It depends on the party, some of them are socialist in the sense that they want to set up a socialist economy, some of them are mixed system types that think that some things should be socialized some things should be market based (most social-democrats), some are just Welfare Capitalists, or pro-labor Capitalists, some are a mix of 2 or more of them.

I think a lot of the people that VOTE for social-democratic parties are socialists, or at least partially.

Social-Democracy as a system usualy has elements of socialism and Capitalism.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

From the 1950s to somewhere in the 90s or so here existed what some call the "social democratic compromise". In many countries of Europe and Canada there were extensive welfare states and the state socialized things like higher education, healthcare, etc. This was partly done from pressure from the working class and the fact that these countries had working class parties, however bowlderized. This "compromise" also helped capitalists-the work force was kept happy and costs like healthcare were socialized. It was a social contract of sorts between capitalist and the working class and as these classes are irreconciable symbiotic enemies by definition, couldn't really last long.

This existed in much weaker form in the US because of the lack of a worker's party to push for it.

There were people like Michael Harrington who fooled themselves into thinking this was a stepping stone to socialism. It wasn't. After the crisis of capitalism became acute in the early seventies social democracy came under increasing attack. This is continuing with cutbacks in the UK and elsewhere.

This disapproved a main idea of social democrats-that capitalism could be gradually and "democratically" turned into socialism taking away the need for a revolutionary transformation of society.

[#FF0000]

The definition you just quoted: a stage of socio-economic development within a society following capitalism and preceding communism, characterized by the imperfect implication of collectivist principles.

No.

[#FF0000]

From the 1950s to somewhere in the 90s or so here existed what some call the "social democratic compromise". In many countries of Europe and Canada there were extensive welfare states and the state socialized things like higher education, healthcare, etc. This was partly done from pressure from the working class and the fact that these countries had working class parties, however bowlderized. This "compromise" also helped capitalists-the work force was kept happy and costs like healthcare were socialized. It was a social contract of sorts between capitalist and the working class and as these classes are irreconciable symbiotic enemies by definition, couldn't really last long.

This existed in much weaker form in the US because of the lack of a worker's party to push for it.

There were people like Michael Harrington who fooled themselves into thinking this was a stepping stone to socialism. It wasn't. After the crisis of capitalism became acute in the early seventies social democracy came under increasing attack. This is continuing with cutbacks in the UK and elsewhere.

This disapproved a main idea of social democrats-that capitalism could be gradually and "democratically" turned into socialism taking away the need for a revolutionary transformation of society.

It's funny cause Luxemburg pretty much said it was a dead end, you know, a hundred years earlier.

Here is a thing Paul Mattick said about a thing Rosa Luxemburg said:


Of all the attacks on revisionism, one may venture to say that those of Rosa Luxemburg were the most powerful. In her polemic directed against Bernstein[5] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1935/luxemburg-lenin.htm#n5) she pointed out once more, in opposition to the nonsense of pure legalism, that “the exploitation of the working class as an economic process cannot be abolished or softened through” legislation in the framework of bourgeois society.”[6] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1935/luxemburg-lenin.htm#n6) Social reform, she insisted, “does not constitute an invasion into capitalist exploitation, but a regulating, an ordering of this exploitation in the interest of capitalist society itself.”[6] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1935/luxemburg-lenin.htm#n6) Capital, says Rosa Luxemburg, is not heading for socialism, but collapse, and it is this collapse to which the workers must be adjusted – not to reform, but to revolution. This is not to say, however, that we have to renounce the questions of the present; revolutionary Marxism, too, fights to improve the workers’ situation within capitalist society. But, in contrast to revisionism, it is interested far more in how the fight is conducted than in the immediate objectives.

[JTB]

So how is social democracy 'socialism', if none of these countries ever even intended to abolish capitalism?
You seem to confuse (1) capitalism (stage of development), (2) capitalism (socio-economic system), and the capitalist mode of production.

I suspect you do so knowingly, though it's possible you simply need to study more.

[hatzel]

I suspect you do so knowingly, though it's possible you simply need to study more.

I hate to be that guy, but...to be honest, I don't really know who you are. I see that you're restricted, though, and that your rep is...2...these two pieces of information added together suggest that I might not have take your vague comments into much consideration...:rolleyes:

But also capitalism is capitalism is capitalism. You want to refute that? Be my guest! Might make a change for you to actually say something. So far I've seen about 4 of your posts, and none of them have had any substance whatsoever. You won't be challenging Bud for the Golden Che on this evidence, sorry...

[#FF0000]

You seem to confuse (1) capitalism (stage of development), (2) capitalism (socio-economic system), and the capitalist mode of production.

I suspect you do so knowingly, though it's possible you simply need to study more.

you seem to confuse (1) being a condescending twat (you) with (2) being a good poster (not you)

i suspect you do so knowingly, though it's possible you simply need to shut the fuck up

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

But also capitalism is capitalism is capitalism. You want to refute that? Be my guest!

Um, what? Liberal Western Democracy is Falangist Fascism is Lenin's New Economic Policy? :confused:

Maybe I'm missing you're point on this issue, and if so I do apologize. But Rabbi K, I know you, and I know you're not one of those romantics who actually believes that any capitalist system, or country/whatever, is equal to every other...As JTB wrote (and perhaps he'll clear up what he meant precisely) the socio-economic system or even style of mode of production shifts massively when looking at one "type" of capitalism compared to another.

Like I said I may be missing your point here entirely. And honestly I'm not even going to try and expound anymore on what JTB wrote, that's all him to explain.

[RGacky3]

But also capitalism is capitalism is capitalism.

I don't think its that black and white, you can have aspects of socialism and aspects of capitalism, is the US not Capitalist because it has public services?

[spice756]

No? As in what I said isn't correct? I think everyone here understands that the bourgeois leaders are adding 'elements of socialism' into capitalism, etc. But I thought the whole point of your post is that these elements are declining.... O_O.

The media ,government and bourgeois are only allowing elements of socialism into the systme when they fear unions or a revolution.

The use of the word socialism the public use now can be any thing now do to the media ,government and bourgeois use of the word socialism .Like you want state run healthcare that is socialism they say , you get my point !!!

When there is less working class movements like protests and unions or a revolution the elements of socialism start to dry up and the media , government and bourgeois start to become more conservative.

[JTB]

As JTB wrote (and perhaps he'll clear up what he meant precisely) the socio-economic system or even style of mode of production shifts massively when looking at one "type" of capitalism compared to another.

Like I said I may be missing your point here entirely. And honestly I'm not even going to try and expound anymore on what JTB wrote, that's all him to explain.




I don't think its that black and white, you can have aspects of socialism and aspects of capitalism, is the US not Capitalist because it has public services?
Since a mixed economy falls under 'imperfect implementation of collectivist principles' (eg: commonly held industries, wealth redistribution towards the lower classes, and efforts to limit the accumulation of capital among the minority), it is socialism by definition.

A system such as social democracy emerges early in the socialist stage of a society's socio-economic and political development development. It is not undiluted, unfettered capitalism, nor is it the whole abolition of the capitalist mode of production or the private ownership of the means of production.

It is neither true capitalism nor communism, but something in between, along the path to the emergence of a truly communist system within the larger society.This is the very definition of socialism as a stage of development following the capitalism of the industrial revolution and preceding communism. Any communist should recognize this.

I call myself a socialist and not a communist because I believe we must continue down the evolutionary path and fundamentally society at its roots before communism can be sustainable on the grande scale. Violent revolution has repeatedly failed to produce the desired results because it invites internal fights for power and authority, such as that in the CCCP that saw the rise of bureaucratic collectivism and the murder of Trotsky.

The route to communism is not through the same violent struggles that have given rise to thousands of years of tyranny, oppression, oligarchy, and the rule of the strong over the weak. Rather the path to communism lies in autonomism, the manipulation and reformation of the machinations of the systems in which we find ourselves, and the establishment of parallel societies that operate independently of the existing nation-State that bring us communism immediately and provide the blueprint for others who would follow. Violence has its role in the defense of ourselves, our comrades, and our communities against outside aggression, but so long as we allow ourselves to be manipulated into being the aggressors, we breed among the proletariat (most especially the 'middle class') the seeds of reactionism, anti-communism, and conservatism. That such actions and misuse of tactics as serve to enlist out fellow-workers in the ranks of counter-revolutionary armies on the battlefields and in the voting booths is counter-productive should be plainly obvious.

Violent resistance is a tactic to be used carefully. Violent revolt as a strategy is losing one.