Potential new poster

[redfist.]

Greetings, RevLeft!

My apologies if this is not the correct board to post on, if not, please let me know

I am considering to start going on this board to learn and inform myself about the ongoing struggles of working people around the world, but before I do, I want to know that I will not be subject of ridicule based on my stance. I have seen a significant amount of hate from leftists towards revisionist socialists (i.e. Democratic socialists, not social democrats). Is this prevalent on this forum?

[Sasha]

welcome, moved to introductions... :)

[Manic Impressive]

What do you think is the difference between Democratic socialism, something we all claim and social democracy which is the gradualist approach taken by parties like the British Labour party or progressive members of the democratic party?

Revisionist socialist can mean different things to different people perhaps you can expand on that.

[Art Vandelay]

Welcome to the forums!

[redfist.]

Well, I am Norwegian, and the Norwegian Labour Party is self-identified as a social democratic party, which is a pair of wings they earned during the 20th century with the legislative introduction of free public school, health care etc. The problem is, they seem to have abandoned the revolution (or rather the evolution) and, with it, socialism. The social democratic ideology seems like an ideology that is willing to negotiate on the rights of the working class. Though it is worth noting that the Labour Party that rules my country was formed as a result of the bourgeoisie wing of the labour movement (I know, it's weird) leaving and later rejoining the Labour Party (while absent from the party, the bourgeoisie wing of the party started another party, named the Norwegian Social Democratic Labour Party).

The difference, I believe, lies in the economic system. A social democratic government would lean towards a mixed economy, wheras a democratic socialist government would lean towards decentralized economic planning.

[Manic Impressive]

wheras a democratic socialist government would lean towards decentralized economic planning.
I'm with you 100% up until this bit and it may come from your definition of socailism being different from a lot of people here. The important question though is what do you think the ultimate goal of the working class should be? Especially in regards to private property, markets, wages and the state.

p.s. I think you'll be fine here, the learning section of the forum is supposed to be a less aggressive environment for discussion where the rest of the forum is more combative. Sometimes we need newcomers to remind us of this :)

So Welcome!

[redfist.]

Just curious, why was that the "drop off" point, if you will? The research I've done may have been incorrect. If so, what subideologies, of the general umbrella term socialism, favour decentralized economic planning. I do like the idea of that system, and see the possibility of it's implementation.

I'm gonna try to structure this answer as much as it is possible:

Private property: A hard one, I find. Because through social reinforcement, it is easy to buy into the idea that what socialists want is for no one to own anything. I think ultimately that private property, as far as ownership of land is concerned, should be abolished, simply because land belongs to no one particular man/woman. However, I constantly find myself asking the question; "What about houses?". I've read in places that in capitalism, since one will ultimately be in debt as a first time buyer of a house, one does not simply own one's own place of residence. Could you clear this up for me?

Markets: In terms of a market of commodities? Preferably, it should be regulated by some central organ (i.e. government), which would be a good way to organize regulation. However, they, nor one single person or institution, should not own the means of production. Much like the land, it should be owned by the people (see: proletariat).

Wages: Another hard one. I do see that there is merit to the argument that a doctor should be paid more because he or she worked hard to be in the position that they are in. However, their function may not be greater, nor more important, and even perhaps reliant of eachother (referring to the argument presented in the High School Commie's Guide). But, ultimately, no one is going to stop working because they don't get to drive a truckload of cash home after a day's work, passing the proles on the bus. I guess I'm on the fence, but definetly leaning towards minimizing the gap between janitor and doctor.

The state: As mentioned, I do think that the state/parliament is necessary (as did Marx, as seen in his support of the Paris Commune, an indirect/representative democracy). However, I believe in the direct democracy, which may or may not be incompatible with a state. A state organ can do some good though, as far as keeping a standard that the entire country has to live by (for example on issues such as gay marriage, education etc.).

I hope to learn more, as I am a novice in the depths (or rather that one bit that is not quite shallow, not quite deep) of socialist theory.

[Manic Impressive]

The questions I asked are things that we all agree on here. That the ultimate goal of the working class is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. In other words the complete abolition of capitalism as an economic system. However, we all disagree on how to get there.

What is Socialism?


Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population. But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership. In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.
Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.
Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply. So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety. We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every individual towards the issues that concern them.
In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/introductory-articles/what-socialism


Just curious, why was that the "drop off" point, if you will? The research I've done may have been incorrect. If so, what subideologies, of the general umbrella term socialism, favour decentralized economic planning. I do like the idea of that system, and see the possibility of it's implementation.
Well the only subideology (I quite like that term) that I can think of which suggests a decentralized or autonomous society is anarcho-syndaclism. My main criticism of that is that it would require a market and an accepted medium of exchange (money) to trade with other 'communes'. This would also mean that the members of these 'communes' were being exploited for surplus value. In other words I don't think that it would be a full abolition of capitalism.

You may also want to look at council communism and De Leonism as they both offer similar.


Private property: A hard one, I find. Because through social reinforcement, it is easy to buy into the idea that what socialists want is for no one to own anything. I think ultimately that private property, as far as ownership of land is concerned, should be abolished, simply because land belongs to no one particular man/woman. However, I constantly find myself asking the question; "What about houses?". I've read in places that in capitalism, since one will ultimately be in debt as a first time buyer of a house, one does not simply own one's own place of residence. Could you clear this up for me?

Markets: In terms of a market of commodities? Preferably, it should be regulated by some central organ (i.e. government), which would be a good way to organize regulation. However, they, nor one single person or institution, should not own the means of production. Much like the land, it should be owned by the people (see: proletariat).

Wages: Another hard one. I do see that there is merit to the argument that a doctor should be paid more because he or she worked hard to be in the position that they are in. However, their function may not be greater, nor more important, and even perhaps reliant of eachother (referring to the argument presented in the High School Commie's Guide). But, ultimately, no one is going to stop working because they don't get to drive a truckload of cash home after a day's work, passing the proles on the bus. I guess I'm on the fence, but definetly leaning towards minimizing the gap between janitor and doctor.

The state: As mentioned, I do think that the state/parliament is necessary (as did Marx, as seen in his support of the Paris Commune, an indirect/representative democracy). However, I believe in the direct democracy, which may or may not be incompatible with a state. A state organ can do some good though, as far as keeping a standard that the entire country has to live by (for example on issues such as gay marriage, education etc.).
What we want is to abolish private property completely and replace it with common ownership of the means of production (industry). This should not be confused with personal property. You're not going to have to queue up with your neighbors to use the communal toothbrush. The same applies to houses, we have right now the facilities, materials and labour power to house every person on the planet. Yet we don't because of private ownership and the profit motive. So we're not suggesting that everyone use the same housing or all live together in large groups. But at the same time if we can produce something in abundance relieving the fear of scarcity, of not having enough then there is really no need to own a house when you know that you will not go without one.

Marx's definition of the state is that it is a means by which one class exploits value from another's labour.


The ancient state was, above all, the state of the slave owners for holding down the slaves, just as the feudal state was the organ of the nobility for holding down the peasant serfs and bondsmen, and the modern representative state is an instrument for exploiting wage labour by capital

This is not too dissimilar to Adam Smith's definition which is

The function of the state is to protect those with property from those withoutSince the existence of a state is reliant on the existence of classes and exploitation Socialism is a stateless society.


I hope to learn more, as I am a novice in the depths (or rather that one bit that is not quite shallow, not quite deep) of socialist theory.
I'm sure everyone will be willing to help and if you feel anyone is being too aggressive or rude to you contact one of the mods. The important thing to remember is not to react to it.