Socialism in One Sentence

[JPSartre12]

Comrades,

I understand that we're united by our revolutionary and anti-capitalist tendencies, but I've seen a handful of different threads, comments, etc that describe socialism differently :confused:

Worker's control ... any society that comes after capitalism ... authoritarian regimes ... council-based control ... centralized planning ... market socialism ... a one-party state ... any society after a revolution ... and so on.

If you could define the word "socialism" in one sentence, how would you go about describing it to others?

[Caj]

Abolition of private property.

[Book O'Dead]

A classless, stateless society in which the means of production are socially owned and democratically administered by the workers themselves, directly from their workplaces.

[Positivist]

Common ownership of the means of prodcution.

Edit: What Caj said pretty much means the same thing.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The reason why you see different opinions is because there are many different tendencies which view revolutionary theory differently (and not always in the most accurate terms hence all the mudslinging).For each definition of socialism you read it comes from a standpoint that developed out of reaction to another ideology; research what those ideologies are and you will be on your way to discovering why there are so many conflicting opinions on what constitutes socialism.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

A socio-economic system based on the needs of all rather than on the profits of a minority.

[JPSartre12]

The reason why you see different opinions is because there are many different tendencies which view revolutionary theory differently

Absolutely.
I was thinking something along the lines of a cooperative-based economy with worker control of the means of production, coupled with economic planning determined at the communal and regional level by democratically-elected workers councils

So ... basically what was said above :laugh:

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The dictatorship of the proletariat, and the lower phase of communism.

[Comrades Unite!]

Socialism is the doctrine of the liberation of the worker.

[Caj]

The dictatorship of the proletariat, and the lower phase of communism.

Which are separate stages.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I see them both as socialist.

[JPSartre12]

Which are separate stages.

I'd have to agree with that ^

[Lynx]

Democracy in the workplace.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Yeah probably should have said it differently.
Socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism, including DotP and the lower phase of communism.

Happy now? Or did I eff up again?

[helot]

Or did I eff up again?


Yup you did


Yeah probably should have said it differently.
Socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and socialism

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Yup you did

I hate you!


Also edited.

[Book O'Dead]

Democracy in the workplace.

We can even distil it down to this slogan: Economic Democracy.

Or my most recent infatuation: Occupy! (as in "Occupy The Workplace!")

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Abolition of private property.

^^Because this would only happen when workers control the means of production, when Capitalism has been knocked off its fucking perch and when democracy has been established.

Democracy is the means by which Socialism - abolition of private property - is established.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Socialism is a mode of economic production in which the means of distribution, production, and exchange are held in common.
Contrary to what Stalinists who've never read any Marx will tell you, the DotP and socialism are not the same stage. Under revolutionary state-capitalism generalized commodity production persists.

[cynicles]

When workers control the means of production and distribution of resources.

[Sea]

Comrades,

I understand that we're united by our revolutionary and anti-capitalist tendencies, but I've seen a handful of different threads, comments, etc that describe socialism differently :confused:

Worker's control ... any society that comes after capitalism ... authoritarian regimes ... council-based control ... centralized planning ... market socialism ... a one-party state ... any society after a revolution ... and so on.

If you could define the word "socialism" in one sentence, how would you go about describing it to others?For an unbiased tendency-untainted easy two-word definition, I think workers control does nicely:

Worker's control -- given
Any society that comes after capitalism -- As in any society that comes after socialism takes hold? Sort of a reflexive definition, not really a definition at all.
Authoritarian regimes -- Given the anti-socialist context this is usually used from I think we can safely throw it out the window.
Council-based control -- Seems like a councilist way to say to say worker's control.
Centralized planning -- Again, what someone who supports centralized planning would say instead of worker's control.
Market socialism -- Usually used to point out the transitory nature of socialism as between capitalism and communism.
One-party state -- see "authoritarian regimes"
Any society after a revolution -- Again, as this supposes the revolution is a socialist one, it's really not a definition at all.

Not all definitions are mutually exclusive. The reason you may hear so many different definitions is for one, people will often try to include the views of their tendency in the definition and two, people will often try to make socialism sound less or more appealing depending on any differences in views you may have.

[JPSartre12]

Socialism is a mode of economic production in which the means of distribution, production, and exchange are held in common.
Contrary to what Stalinists who've never read any Marx will tell you, the DotP and socialism are not the same stage. Under revolutionary state-capitalism generalized commodity production persists.

While I'm not a Stalinist nor do I support Stalinism in any form, I think that many of them do read and understand Marx. He formed the enter foundation on which Stalinist theory is built, and Stalinism couldn't stand on it's on without it.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Well, i guess real socialism could be describes as a complete socialised, democratic economy. But i am not a socialist, i am a communist and want to replace profits for human needs, which socialism does not do, only communism.

[Ravachol]

You cannot have socialism in one sentence, it will either exist throughout the entire text or it will not exist at all!

[Brosa Luxemburg]

When workers control the means of production and distribution of resources.

Hell no. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2481534&postcount=6)

If I were to chose one sentence...

Socialism is the destruction of bourgeois economy in all it's forms.

[Book O'Dead]

You cannot have socialism in one sentence, it will either exist throughout the entire text or it will not exist at all!

How's this:

Socialism is a classless, stateless society in which the means of production are socially owned and democratically controlled by the workers themselves at the workplace, AND wherein production is carried out to satisfy society's needs and wants instead of for sale with a view to profit

Hows that for a twofer?

[JPSartre12]

Sounds good to me haha ^

[MarxSchmarx]

We have nothing to lose but our chains.

[Caj]

How's this:

Socialism is a classless, stateless society in which the means of production are socially owned and democratically controlled by the workers themselves at the workplace, AND wherein production is carried out to satisfy society's needs and wants instead of for sale with a view to profit

Hows that for a twofer?

That's still only one sentence. In fact, that's not even two separate clauses.

[Ostrinski]

Hell no. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2481534&postcount=6)

If I were to chose one sentence...

Socialism is the destruction of bourgeois economy in all it's forms.Eh? Even if its result is a regression into a previous mode of production or the rebuilding of the bourgeois mode of production?

[DasFapital]

Having Donald Trump get his ass handed to him.

[Ostrinski]

A socio-economic system based on the needs of all rather than on the profits of a minority.This is probably going to be our most useful definition in the political arena. It's also one that we can all agree on.

[Geiseric]

When all property is publicly owned and when humankind is forever free from any kind of slavery, free to use her life for its full use value, and to rid the world of all kinds of oppression. When the toilers of the world realize that nations are barriers from their brothers and sisters across the borders, and when they wish for a mutually accepted relationship in which their labor is exchanged for its full value, and everything else goes into developing their community for the betterment of society.

[Book O'Dead]

That's still only one sentence. In fact, that's not even two separate clauses.

But isn't that what the OP is asking for; to define socialism in one sentence?

There was no other rule, was there?

[Book O'Dead]

When all property is publicly owned and when humankind is forever free from any kind of slavery, free to use her life for its full use value, and to rid the world of all kinds of oppression. When the toilers of the world realize that nations are barriers from their brothers and sisters across the borders, and when they wish for a mutually accepted relationship in which their labor is exchanged for its full value, and everything else goes into developing their community for the betterment of society.

This sounds like Ayn rand on LSD.

[Welshy]

But isn't that what the OP is asking for; to define socialism in one sentence?

There was no other rule, was there?

You are missing the joke. Ravachol was making a Socialism in One Country joke and Caj is just giving you a hard time.

[Geiseric]

Well that's kinda insulting since I hate Ayn Rand with a passion. Alienation from the world due to mechanization of human life is kinda what I was addressing, not objectivist bull caca. that along with internationalism...

[Book O'Dead]

Well that's kinda insulting since I hate Ayn Rand with a passion. Alienation from the world due to mechanization of human life is kinda what I was addressing, not objectivist bull caca. that along with internationalism...

You hate quite a bit, don't you? And with a passion, no less!

What else do you hate with a passion? Not Jews, surely! Maybe just the SWP or some of its founders, right?

[Geiseric]

Well ayn rand is responsible partially for capitalism's further continuation, whereas I don't "Hate" any socialists since at least they have good intentions. I hate Hitler, Louis Napoleon, and Winston Churchill, is that justified?

[Book O'Dead]

Well ayn rand is responsible partially for capitalism's further continuation, whereas I don't "Hate" any socialists since at least they have good intentions. I hate Hitler, Louis Napoleon, and Winston Churchill, is that justified?

That's perfect. Now, whom do love, besides me?

[Welshy]

Well ayn rand is responsible partially for capitalism's further continuation, whereas I don't "Hate" any socialists since at least they have good intentions. I hate Hitler, Louis Napoleon, and Winston Churchill, is that justified?

Dude ignore him, he is trying to troll you.

[Book O'Dead]

Dude ignore him, he is trying to troll you.

Whom and what do you love?

[Welshy]

Whom and what do you love?

I love you.:wub:

[maskerade]

Peace, love, happiness and the violent destruction and dismantling of all oppressive institutions that facilitate the dictatorship of capital and the capital owning class.

[Book O'Dead]

Peace, love, happiness and the violent destruction and dismantling of all oppressive institutions that facilitate the dictatorship of capital and the capital owning class.

Why "violent"? Do you like violence?

[Book O'Dead]

I love you.:wub:

Good.

Suddenly I feel like Vito Corleone getting his hand kissed by Amerigo Buonasera.

[Welshy]

Suddenly I feel like Vito Corleone getting his hand kissed by Amerigo Buonasera.

Naw it's more like having someone say I love you and not mean it and then have them stab you in the back later.

[maskerade]

Why "violent"? Do you like violence?

i thought it was a nice juxtaposition against peace, love and happiness. though it doesn't have to be physical violence, it could be symbolic violence - like large scale expropriation of commodities and property.

[Book O'Dead]

i thought it was a nice juxtaposition against peace, love and happiness. though it doesn't have to be physical violence, it could be symbolic violence - like large scale expropriation of commodities and property.

Thanks for the clarification. I hope your next flight of poetic fancy comes with a 2 minute warning, 'kay?

[maskerade]

Thanks for the clarification. I hope your next flight of poetic fancy comes with a 2 minute warning, 'kay?

for the record, I don't like violence, though explaining all of this would have surpassed the one sentence limit. i'd still maintain that socialism cannot be achieved without violent means (both symbolic and physical) but i'd agree that such a caveat would not be integral to a definition of socialism.

[o well this is ok I guess]

pretty cool thing

[Book O'Dead]

for the record, I don't like violence, though explaining all of this would have surpassed the one sentence limit. i'd still maintain that socialism cannot be achieved without violent means (both symbolic and physical) but i'd agree that such a caveat would not be integral to a definition of socialism.

I disagree that socialism "cannot be achieved without violent means".

In fact, I would argue that socialism cannot succeed as a movement and as an objective if it relies on violence and destruction.

What will be contested in the coming revolution will not be control of vast geographical areas, as in America in 1776 and Russia in 1917, but ownership and control of the workplaces we inhabit.

Violence will not be necessary if the working classes of all countries organize themselves into the correct political and economic unions with a plan to occupy the workplace at the right moment,

The days of the street barricades, molotov coctails and AK-47's are over. A better plan is required.

[Yuppie Grinder]

While I'm not a Stalinist nor do I support Stalinism in any form, I think that many of them do read and understand Marx. He formed the enter foundation on which Stalinist theory is built, and Stalinism couldn't stand on it's on without it.

Sure it could. Stalinism is not based on Materialist understanding of economy, it is based off of a romanticized vision of Marx and Lenin. There are some Stalinists who have an understanding of Marx's writings, such as Ismail, but they are in the extreme minority. Stalinism is not a Marxism.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Hell no. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2481534&postcount=6)

If I were to chose one sentence...

Socialism is the destruction of bourgeois economy in all it's forms.

Excellent. You can make private property illegal but if goverment-directed surplus value extraction and generalized commodity production still exist, you don't have socialism.

[Le Socialiste]

We can even distil it down to this slogan: Economic Democracy.

Or my most recent infatuation: Occupy! (as in "Occupy The Workplace!")

No, you really can't. Cooperative businesses have and continue to exist within capitalism, utilizing what are arguably democratic means of management to conduct business. Common ownership of the productive forces of labor is an oversimplification, to say the very least. What of the contradictory relations inherent in capitalist society? Does economic democracy disrupt these relations, abolishing the terms and means of extractive capital? Does it produce or provide a service for a common need or continue functioning for profit? What of commodification, the fetishization of consumer culture? Have these questions been resolved with more democratic controls? Have they under the cooperative model? While preferable to more traditional forms, they leave property and distributive relations intact. Political power isn't directly challenged, remaining tied to the common interest(s) of private capital and beyond the reach of the average workingwoman or man.

"Occupy!" is even more vague. I understand the sentiment behind what you're saying, but it sure as hell doesn't translate into what socialism is and represents for the working-class.

[maskerade]

I disagree that socialism "cannot be achieved without violent means".

In fact, I would argue that socialism cannot succeed as a movement and as an objective if it relies on violence and destruction.

What will be contested in the coming revolution will not be control of vast geographical areas, as in America in 1776 and Russia in 1917, but ownership and control of the workplaces we inhabit.

Violence will not be necessary if the working classes of all countries organize themselves into the correct political and economic unions with a plan to occupy the workplace at the right moment,

The days of the street barricades, molotov coctails and AK-47's are over. A better plan is required.

I agree that it cannot succeed if it relies on violence and destruction, but I never said that it needed to. I guess my point is that even a coordinated takeover of workplaces that avoids direct physical confrontation will still be treated as an act of violence by the capital owning class, directed at them. so unless it's presumed that all arms and eyes of the capitalist panopticon will cease to serve its own ends, violence would be necessary to defend any gains made. But, like I said, I'd consider any act of working class power to be 'violent' as it so radically disrupts the preceding capitalist governing structures. I would also contend that the current relations of production are inherently 'violent' as they facilitate a wide ranging regime of domination.

And I'd say that in large areas of the world violence will be used towards revolutionary ends, regardless of our disliking of it, and if we distance ourselves from such tactics by using the language of those who seek to illegitimate such movements - be it through morals/ethics, appeals to institutions we seek to replace etc - we would be doing those revolutionaries a drastic disservice.

[Commiekirby]

I'd say... "The human ideal for the perfection of society" then probably add haters gonna hate somewhere in there.

[Tim Cornelis]

A negative can hardly be an appropriate definition, therefore "destruction of bourgeois economy" and "abolition of private property" are flawed definitions. Essentially, you would be defining socialism as "not capitalism." Which is quite ludicrous.

[Le Socialiste]

I disagree that socialism "cannot be achieved without violent means".

How so?


In fact, I would argue that socialism cannot succeed as a movement and as an objective if it relies on violence and destruction.

What is this reliance on violence? The revolutionary left does not fetishize violence, it recognizes its inevitability. The ruling-classes won't simply roll over at the sight of strikes and work stoppages; these acts, by their very nature, challenge the foundations upon which the class in its entirety rests. They won't go unanswered - the bourgeoisie will drown the revolution in its own blood if necessary.

Most members of the working-class face threats of violence or assault on a day to day basis. The armed wing of private capital disperses any visible signs of defiance with violence, overseeing the subjugation of labor. The material hardships endured by the vast majority render pacifism (or conceptions of nonviolent revolution) an irrelevant, unrealizable force. Ironically enough, it was a member of the ruling-class (or rather, a product - and later representative - of privilege) who laid this out quite clearly (albeit in an ethical/moralistic fashion):

"Those would make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."


What will be contested in the coming revolution will not be control of vast geographical areas, as in America in 1776 and Russia in 1917, but ownership and control of the workplaces we inhabit.

Are we not to follow the question of area control to its logical conclusion; that is, the control and use of said area's productive and distributive capabilities? Ownership and control of one's workplace means shit if you're surrounded by an armed, hostile force.


Violence will not be necessary if the working classes of all countries organize themselves into the correct political and economic unions with a plan to occupy the workplace at the right moment,

And how will this "right moment" present itself, much less translate into a concerted push around the world? The workplace is of vital (not to mention strategic) importance, but once again you're oversimplifying the issue. It's one thing to shut down the economy, another thing to ensure it remains so.


The days of the street barricades, molotov coctails and AK-47's are over. A better plan is required.

Plan? What plan? It's not like we've been plotting since day one to achieve "victory" via violent means - the fact of the matter remains: we do not come prepared with molotov cocktails and AK-47's, but with the acknowledgment that a nonviolent revolution isn't possible. No one should glorify violence, or engage in it for its own sake. The question is how and when it should become necessary, while similarly realizing its inevitability. It's rather idealistic to expect a peaceful overthrow of the terms and relationships under private capital.

[Manic Impressive]

What is this reliance on violence? The revolutionary left does not fetishize violence, it recognizes its inevitability. The ruling-classes won't simply roll over at the sight of strikes and work stoppages; these acts, by their very nature, challenge the foundations upon which the class in its entirety rests. They won't go unanswered - the bourgeoisie will drown the revolution in its own blood if necessary.
If the power of the proletariat exceeds that of the bourgeois why would they fight? Better yet if it was all the proletariat against all the bourgeoisie, how could they fight? Is Donald trump going to learn how to drive a tank? Are the Barclay brothers going to get in a gun ship? Nope they cannot function without the proletariat, the proletariat are the bourgeoisie's only power. What you're spouting is vanguardist dogma. Where a minority must resort to violence as a large enough section of the proletariat opposes them.


Most members of the working-class face threats of violence or assault on a day to day basis. The armed wing of private capital disperses any visible signs of defiance with violence, overseeing the subjugation of labor. The material hardships endured by the vast majority render pacifism (or conceptions of nonviolent revolution) an irrelevant, unrealizable force. Ironically enough, it was a member of the ruling-class (or rather, a product - and later representative - of privilege) who laid this out quite clearly (albeit in an ethical/moralistic fashion):
Well ok if you view the transitional stage as being right now then the revolution is already violent. But the actual capturing of the state need not be all that violent. I think when we talk about a non-violent revolution what we mean is not an all out global civil war. It also depends on your definition of violence to the bourgeois destruction of property is violence, the breaking of a window is violence. But if you think people are gonna be marching round Surbiton with AK-47s on their backs then I think you're the one who's being unrealistic.


"Those would make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
"Peacefully if we can forcibly if we must"


Are we not to follow the question of area control to its logical conclusion; that is, the control and use of said area's productive and distributive capabilities? Ownership and control of one's workplace means shit if you're surrounded by an armed, hostile force.
Yeah so better to make a non-violent revolution then. Because it's not going to be surrounded by a bunch of infantry like in 1917, it's going to predator drones and tanks. The proletariat probably couldn't win a war against a great military power like the USA.

And how will this "right moment" present itself, much less translate into a concerted push around the world? The workplace is of vital (not to mention strategic) importance, but once again you're oversimplifying the issue. It's one thing to shut down the economy, another thing to ensure it remains so.
That's why it's vital to capture the state as well as workplaces. There obviously needs to be organization within workplaces, revolutionary unions for want of a better phrase which would be able to coordinate a smooth transition to make sure people didn't go without.


Plan? What plan? It's not like we've been plotting since day one to achieve "victory" via violent means - the fact of the matter remains: we do not come prepared with molotov cocktails and AK-47's, but with the acknowledgment that a nonviolent revolution isn't possible. No one should glorify violence, or engage in it for its own sake. The question is how and when it should become necessary, while similarly realizing its inevitability. It's rather idealistic to expect a peaceful overthrow of the terms and relationships under private capital.
Who's we? Maoists? Stalinists? Make total destroy anarchists? Certainly not Marxists. When Marx talks about inevitable violence he's talking about absolute monarchies not parliamentary democracies. Where the only way to legitimately capture the state is to be the son of the king so violence is inevitable. Whereas with parliamentary democracies you've got a whole host of different options, which is what Marx thought.
The fact is material conditions determine if and how the state can be captured not some mystical crystal ball predictions based on misread and misunderstood information. So if the material conditions can be created for the state to be captured in the most peaceful way possible then we should work towards that goal. As it is more likely to lead to conditions which will allow us to abolish capitalism and it's the best way of being alive to see it.

[Davide]

We can define Socialism in one sentence as it is an economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise.

[Crux]

The Great Anti-Theft Movement.

[Rafiq]

The weapon we utilize to crush the class enemy.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Eh? Even if its result is a regression into a previous mode of production or the rebuilding of the bourgeois mode of production?

um...no? I think that's kinda a given considering we are on a revolutionary anti-capitalist site...

[Tim Finnegan]

No money, no work, no government.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Lets stop the trolling or I will delete all such posts.

[Ostrinski]

um...no? I think that's kinda a given considering we are on a revolutionary anti-capitalist site...ok but you only said



Socialism is the destruction of bourgeois economy in all it's forms.

[Book O'Dead]

Lets stop the trolling or I will delete all such posts.

Please close the tread.

[Revolution starts with U]

What a worker uses to scare and undermine his boss.

[Le Socialiste]

If the power of the proletariat exceeds that of the bourgeois why would they fight?

Who are you referring to here? The bourgeoisie won't relinquish their power without there being some contention; to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. The working-class will have to struggle to keep and defend its gains against the desperation of an entire class. How are you grounding these assertions? It's common knowledge that the strength of the proletariat far outweighs the bourgeoisie's, however the latter's power lies in its cultural and political hegemony. A societal system, reliant (driven!) by the profitability of a commodified market, cannot "wither" away at the slightest challenge without so much as a whimper. We're talking about a material development in the world's productive capabilities that has revolutionized the means of mass-scale distribution and service, entrenched via its own inherent terms and methods of exploitation; it will not go softly into the night. The power of the working-class, exceeding that of the bourgeoisie, makes the subject of violence, as I've already highlighted, an inevitability.


Better yet if it was all the proletariat against all the bourgeoisie, how could they fight? Is Donald trump going to learn how to drive a tank? Are the Barclay brothers going to get in a gun ship? Nope they cannot function without the proletariat, the proletariat are the bourgeoisie's only power.

You of all people should understand how the cultivation of 'false consciousness' works. Reactionary struggles transcend class lines and interests, despite their contradictory nature. In an ideal world, it would be the working-class in its entirety against the bourgeoisie - but it isn't. You have elements like the Tea Party, the military, organizations like Greece's Golden Dawn and Iran's Revolutionary Guard, as well as the deep-rooted conservatism of the police. The ruling-classes have demonstrated an alarming prowess in rallying the proletariat against itself. Marx underestimated the bourgeoisie's incredible resilience and adaptability to sudden shifts of circumstance. The proletariat isn't the bourgeoisie's only power, unpredictable as it is. I've highlighted several examples of how this is so.


What you're spouting is vanguardist dogma. Where a minority must resort to violence as a large enough section of the proletariat opposes them.

What are you going on about? You're inserting your own interpretation of my posts and asserting it as fact, when you couldn't be further from the truth. Where have I "spouted" this "vanguardist dogma?" Where have I ever advocated the supersession of the majority with the interests and tactics of the minority? Because I haven't.


Well ok if you view the transitional stage as being right now then the revolution is already violent.

Never said that, so I'm not sure where you're drawing this from.


But the actual capturing of the state need not be all that violent. I think when we talk about a non-violent revolution what we mean is not an all out global civil war. It also depends on your definition of violence to the bourgeois destruction of property is violence, the breaking of a window is violence.

"Need not." You're right, it "need not" be violent. The question is, will it? I'm not in favor of violence, I'd rather it were out of the picture entirely. But that's wholly unrealistic, devoid of any legitimate grounding in the historical and material development of the working-class in relation to private capital. We should refrain from moralizing about violence in this particular context; otherwise we're going to be on this awhile.


But if you think people are gonna be marching round Surbiton with AK-47s on their backs then I think you're the one who's being unrealistic.

Again with your personal interpretations! Where did I ever say this would happen? Where? I'd really, really like to know, because I can't for the life of me remember having ever said that.


Yeah so better to make a non-violent revolution then. Because it's not going to be surrounded by a bunch of infantry like in 1917, it's going to predator drones and tanks. The proletariat probably couldn't win a war against a great military power like the USA.

All you've noted here is how the technology has changed, while simultaneously adopting a position that reeks of defeatism where the U.S. is concerned. I'm not clear on the point you're trying to make here. The technology is more advanced, but the substance of my original post remains. Besides, last I checked the ruling-class still had the police and other groups to rally around its efforts. They'll still need these people to crack down if necessary, drones or no drones.


That's why it's vital to capture the state as well as workplaces. There obviously needs to be organization within workplaces, revolutionary unions for want of a better phrase which would be able to coordinate a smooth transition to make sure people didn't go without.

No argument here (I'd tweak a few posts, but that's me being me).


Who's we? Maoists? Stalinists? Make total destroy anarchists?

What? Quit throwing out random assumptions. If you're not clear on a certain point of mine then ask.


Certainly not Marxists. When Marx talks about inevitable violence he's talking about absolute monarchies not parliamentary democracies.

I'd really like to see where he ever said that. Marx and Engels witnessed the collapse of these old power structures, and the ascendency of a more "liberal" bourgeoisie. While Marx acknowledged that nonviolent revolution was possible, it certainly isn't an absolute. Revolutions are tied to the respective conditions and struggles of the proletariat, divided as it is by arbitrary borders and a spectrum of governing institutions. It is less an issue of ethics as it is one of material boundaries and the predominance of bourgeois ideals. A society brutalized for decades under the direction of an autocrat may initially take the streets in a nonviolent fashion, but outbreaks of violence and struggle won't be uncommon.


Where the only way to legitimately capture the state is to be the son of the king so violence is inevitable. Whereas with parliamentary democracies you've got a whole host of different options, which is what Marx thought.

So violent revolutions or struggles occurring without monarchal power structures are...what? Coincidental? Flukes? I'd really like to see the passages where Marx says any of this. He may have pointed out a plurality of options, but I suspect you're oversimplifying things a bit and would like to read it firsthand.


The fact is material conditions determine if and how the state can be captured not some mystical crystal ball predictions based on misread and misunderstood information.

No argument here either. Kinda preaching to the choir.


So if the material conditions can be created for the state to be captured in the most peaceful way possible then we should work towards that goal. As it is more likely to lead to conditions which will allow us to abolish capitalism and it's the best way of being alive to see it.

Our role is not to organize around the issue of violence vs. nonviolence, but to organize the working-class. If a revolution were to ever break out and the working-class was violent (by its own initiative) in its seizure of power, would you work actively to curb it? Is that really a subject that demands our immediate concern? I feel like the question of (non)violence is ridiculous, really. I'm certainly not an advocate of violence, but I'm not a pacifist either. I merely recognize violence as a likely tool that will be used by both the bourgeoisie and the working-class.

I feel like I haven't responded to your post adequately enough (as I'm pressed for time), but I did the best with the time I had. :unsure:

[Brosa Luxemburg]

ok but you only said

How about this.

Socialism is the destruction of the bourgeois economy in all it's forms and the institution of a new society lacking class divisions, property relations, money, the law of value, and many other essential things.

[Ocean Seal]

Fuck the police, yolo, and no one really knows how were going towards socialism so all we can do is support the revolutionary proletariat and organize along those lines.

[cynicles]

Hell no. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2481534&postcount=6)

If I were to chose one sentence...

Socialism is the destruction of bourgeois economy in all it's forms.

How would you still have markets and all that crap if workers are deciding how to distribute resources? Your link doesn't refute my post at all, it just ignores what I wrote.

[Peoples' War]

I see them both as socialist.
Lenin didn't....neither did Stalin...

[Brosa Luxemburg]

How would you still have markets and all that crap if workers are deciding how to distribute resources? Your link doesn't refute my post at all, it just ignores what I wrote.

From your quote here:


When workers control the means of production and distribution of resources.

It left out any mention of the abolition of the law of value, private property, etc. which can easily exist beside workers' control and, in fact, has before.

Now, I know that the thread was that you could only describe socialism in one sentence, so obviously everything cannot be covered and I am not saying that you are arguing this point (like "market socialists" do) but I was just making that point.

[freeeveryone!]

A socio-economic system based on the needs of all rather than on the profits of a minority.this can pretty easily describe left social democracy, considering that it doesn't necessarily abolish the existence of those profits.

[Peoples' War]

No money, no work, no government.
No work...?

[cynicles]

From your quote here:



It left out any mention of the abolition of the law of value, private property, etc. which can easily exist beside workers' control and, in fact, has before.

Now, I know that the thread was that you could only describe socialism in one sentence, so obviously everything cannot be covered and I am not saying that you are arguing this point (like "market socialists" do) but I was just making that point.
How can you have a market if workers are also determining how to distribute and use resources democratically?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

How can you have a market if workers are also determining how to distribute and use resources democratically?

I am sorry, but I really don't understand your confusion here.

Just because workers' "democratically" control the workplace does not mean that private property, the law of value, markets, or many other things have been eliminated. Workers' control has existed alongside the bourgeois economy before. This is generally called "market socialism" (the guys that say we need to put more "democracy" into our economy-think Michael Moore and John Roemer). Just because the workers control the factories doesn't mean that socialism has been implemented and the destruction of the bourgeois economy has been formed.

EDIT: Yugoslavia, for example, had workers' control existing right alongside the law of value, markets, private property, the profit motive, etc. under the years of Tito. With the economic collapse in Argentina in 2001 many workers' occupied and ran closed down factories but this existed within the bourgeois economic framework. The Argentina example was honorable and heroic, for sure, but it didn't abolish capitalism.

[cynicles]

I am sorry, but I really don't understand your confusion here.

Just because workers' "democratically" control the workplace does not mean that private property, the law of value, markets, or many other things have been eliminated. Workers' control has existed alongside the bourgeois economy before. This is generally called "market socialism" (the guys that say we need to put more "democracy" into our economy-think Michael Moore and John Roemer). Just because the workers control the factories doesn't mean that socialism has been implemented and the destruction of the bourgeois economy has been formed.
Oh, I know about cooperatives and that controlling the factories isn't enough, thats why I also said that they control the distribution of resources, as opposed to using a market mechanism and the old system of value and all that stuff you were talking about. You didn't address the second part of what I said about distribution and allocation of resources.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Oh, I know about cooperatives and that controlling the factories isn't enough, thats why I also said that they control the distribution of resources

Again, that can exist within a bourgeois framework. Market socialists argue this to.


as opposed to using a market mechanism and the old system of value and all that stuff you were talking about.

There we go. ;)

[cynicles]

Again, that can exist within a bourgeois framework. Market socialists argue this to.



There we go. ;)
How can you have both a market mechanism and have a democratically planned distribution of resources?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

How can you have both a market mechanism and have a democratically planned distribution of resources?

Well, you can't if you phrase it like that. (Notice the key word that was missing from your other posts. And no, it is not implied when you left it out).

[cynicles]

Well, you can't if you phrase it like that. (Notice the key word that was missing from your other posts. And no, it is not implied when you left it out).
How can workers control the distribution of resources without planning it?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

How can workers control the distribution of resources without planning it?

I agree with you that it is a ridiculous notion, but "market" socialists would argue through buying and selling on a "working-class market" (they would describe that as "workers' control of the distribution of resources" as you put it).

[cynicles]

I agree with you that it is a ridiculous notion, but "market" socialists would argue through buying and selling on a "working-class market" (they would describe that as "workers' control of the distribution of resources" as you put it).
Well they're idiots, a market isn't planning and I'm incredibly anal about my use of words especially since small systemic changes like this carry large structural implications.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Well they're idiots

Don't forget reformists, fake socialists, capitalists, class-collaborationist, etc.

[Tim Finnegan]

As if that would stand out around here.

[Luís Henrique]

Socialism in one sentence isn't any bit more possible than socialism in one country.

Luís Henrique