Isn't communism/ anarcho-collectivism the only aternative to capitalism?

[Craig_J]

I've noticed some on here aren't anarcho-collectivists or communists but are socalists. If we did have socalism as a system wouldn't the inequality still exist causing it ro revert back to full blown capitalism? After all, Old Labour in the UK tried socalism and look where it is now, it's a center left capitalist party.

[Skyhilist]

Most people who call themselves socialists on here are communists. The terms are used quite interchangeably in many situations and depending on who you talk to.

[evermilion]

I have to agree with you there, comrade. What alternative is there to capitalism but communism, ultimately?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Most people who call themselves socialists on here are communists. The terms are used quite interchangeably in many situations and depending on who you talk to.

Hell, even MARX used the two terms interchangeably!

I don't use the word communist myself, however. The word has far too much baggage over here in the U.S.

Plus, I wouldn't make a very good communist because I hate most of the major communist figures. :grin:

[Craig_J]

Most people who call themselves socialists on here are communists. The terms are used quite interchangeably in many situations and depending on who you talk to.

I've always considered them interchangable but some people would refer to democratic socalism as simply socalism.

It was this thread where I saw a post that lead to me asking this question:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/eliminating-scarcity-luxury-t180805/index.html

This thread did intrigue me though as the abolishment of luxury items is a tricky thing to get rid off. But if we were to have democratic socalism I think it would just resort back to capitalism as it would inevitably end in a bust somewhere along the line, as capitalism always does, and predictably people would say "democratic socalism is the problem" therefore causing it to be abolished.

Not just that but inequalitys and the prejudices and disadvnatges that come with it would still very much remain. Reduicing inequality maks the problem a little but doesn't pull the weed from it's root so to speak.


Hell, even MARX used the two terms interchangeably!

I don't use the word communist myself, however. The word has far too much baggage over here in the U.S.

Plus, I wouldn't make a very good communist because I hate most of the major communist figures. :grin:

I consider myself a communist. I actually posted a thread a few days back askign whetehr we can ever reclaim the word or whether it's lost. I'm always careful about calling myself a communist around people who aren't as introduing your ideological position as 'communist' often brings up an instant jump in that persons mind to 'Stalinist'. Sad but true, and I'm from the UK so I can only imagine how much baggage it must have in the USA!!!!

[tuwix]

I've noticed some on here aren't anarcho-collectivists or communists but are socalists. If we did have socalism as a system wouldn't the inequality still exist causing it ro revert back to full blown capitalism? After all, Old Labour in the UK tried socalism and look where it is now, it's a center left capitalist party.

UK's Labour Party is bourgeois organisation. But what alternative is? Many people say that fascism is capitalism. I think it's not but certainly it isn't something better.

But there is mixed system. As in Scandinavian countries. Social safety is secured. Unemployment benefits are paid until you'll get a job. Salaries are high despite bourgeoisie still has strong influence. And this is alternative.
Certainly, there are detrimental effects of that. Such conditions decrease a class struggle to such extend that there is no chance for building communist society there. There are less left-wing radicals.

[Craig_J]

UK's Labour Party is bourgeois organisation. But what alternative is? Many people say that fascism is capitalism. I think it's not but certainly it isn't something better.

But there is mixed system. As in Scandinavian countries. Social safety is secured. Unemployment benefits are paid until you'll get a job. Salaries are high despite bourgeoisie still has strong influence. And this is alternative.
Certainly, there are detrimental effects of that. Such conditions decrease a class struggle to such extend that there is no chance for building communist society there. There are less left-wing radicals.

That's what I mean by old labour, they run a mixed system. Now though they've moved as politics has becoming mundane and centred. And yeah, I think the mixed system definantly does do that, that's the whole reason for coming up with it. There was a growing Marxist movement in the UK, I'm not sure if it got big enough to be a threat but I think the government acted swiftly on it and now the Marxist movments in the UK are so small that you wouldn't know they existed unless you bothered to look.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Socialism can be described as the stage of history prior to communism where the last vestiges of capitalism are being destroyed. Some like to use communism and socialism interchangably, as Marx did during his earlier writings.

The welfare state as established by Labour in the UK and in Sweden etc are not examples of socialism or even 'mixed' economies, they are simply examples of capitalism where the bourgeoisie have implemented reforms to pacify and control the working class. The difference between this reformist social-democracy and socialism is that socialism must be achieved through class struggle from below and not implemented by the state from above. Reforms can be implemented and taken away; socialism is the destruction of capitalist social and economic structures. The welfare state is dehumanizing, alienating and forces the working class to resort to relying on the bourgeois state for their means of survival. Socialism is liberating and will be the emancipation of the working class from all the elements of control the bourgeoisie force upon us.

[Blake's Baby]

'Mixed economies' are capitalism. The mix is between state industries and private industries. Not between 'capitalism' and 'socialism/communism'.

[Craig_J]

Socialism can be described as the stage of history prior to communism where the last vestiges of capitalism are being destroyed. Some like to use communism and socialism interchangably, as Marx did during his earlier writings.

The welfare state as established by Labour in the UK and in Sweden etc are not examples of socialism or even 'mixed' economies, they are simply examples of capitalism where the bourgeoisie have implemented reforms to pacify and control the working class. The difference between this reformist social-democracy and socialism is that socialism must be achieved through class struggle from below and not implemented by the state from above. Reforms can be implemented and taken away; socialism is the destruction of capitalist social and economic structures. The welfare state is dehumanizing, alienating and forces the working class to resort to relying on the bourgeois state for their means of survival. Socialism is liberating and will be the emancipation of the working class from all the elements of control the bourgeoisie force upon us.

So would a socalist society have the same structure as a communist one? Or is socalism considered a mere process where the bourgeoisie's ideological values and structures are dismantled to be replaced by a communist one?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

So would a socalist society have the same structure as a communist one? Or is socalism considered a mere process where the bourgeoisie's ideological values and structures are dismantled to be replaced by a communist one?

Socialism is the system, communism is the end result. Think of Socialism as a machine with communism being the end product.

Honestly, I wouldn't be too surprised that after the revolution, and after living with socialism for some time, we'll enter into pure communism without realizing it until after the fact.:grin: