Do you believe the Juche idea is a legitimate form of socialism?

[Comrade Jacob]

Not the DPRK it's self but it's ideology.

[Skyhilist]

Socialism involves the workers controlling the means of production. Anyone who didn't answer "no" should provide clear evidence of DPRK's plans to cede control over production to the workers.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Juche is a nationalist ideology. Already it cannot be socialism in any form.

[Comrade Samuel]

I'd go one step further and say that it is anti-socialist.

[SonofRage]

I'm curious...anyone actually read the material?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4

[Art Vandelay]

I'm curious...anyone actually read the material?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4

Vox Populi has read alot about Juche, not for any tangible reason from what I'm aware, but due to curiosity. I remember that Grenzer used to talk about getting his hands on the collected works of Kim Il Sung or something too, but I don't think he posts anymore. Personally I don't see much benefit in a thorough study of the actual material, Juche is merely a bastardized child of Stalinism (just like the official state ideology of most soviet satellite states) and anyone on the left (outside of the WWP and PSL and perhaps a couple cults out there) can see that the DPRK is in no way reflective of proletarian class interests, and nor could it be.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

It's like the Bible in how many ridiculous contradictions it has, especially the shit about materialism.

The fact that it spawned from someone who now has one of the largest personality-cults in history does not surprise me. In fact it's the only way you could take that rubbish as having any shred of value: be an uncritical stalinoid cultist with double standards.

[Vireya]

Juche is a nationalist ideology. Already it cannot be socialism in any form.

Ridiculous, socialism is just as compatible with nationalism as it is with internationalism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Ridiculous, socialism is just as compatible with nationalism as it is with internationalism.

No it is not. Socialism is strictly internationalist. Socialism is only possible as a world system, ergo internationalism is an inherent part of socialism.

[Vireya]

No it is not. Socialism is strictly internationalist. Socialism is only possible as a world system, ergo internationalism is an inherent part of socialism.

Bullshit. Socialism in general is capable of existing in the midst of capitalist neighbors, it is only anarcho-communism that cannot. Nationalist socialism and internationalist socialism are equally viable, simply in different contexts.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Bullshit. Socialism in general is capable of existing in the midst of capitalist neighbors, it is only anarcho-communism that cannot. Nationalist socialism and internationalist socialism are equally viable, simply in different contexts.

A stateless society cannot defend against imperialism. A transitional workers' state is necessary until all states have been smashed and socialism fully developed. I take it you reject Marxism?

[Vireya]

A stateless society cannot defend against imperialism. A transitional workers' state is necessary until all states have been smashed and socialism fully developed. I take it you reject Marxism?

No, I don't outright reject Marxism in its entirety. I mostly disagree with it about what should be the end result of a proletarian revolution and what form a socialist society should take. It should be noted that I'm not exclusively for or against nationalism or internationalism, though I lean more towards the former.

I generally disagree with anarchistic and minimalist varieties of socialism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

No, I don't outright reject Marxism in its entirety. I mostly disagree with it about what should be the end result of a proletarian revolution and what form a socialist society should take. It should be noted that I'm not exclusively for or against nationalism or internationalism, though I lean more towards the former.

I generally disagree with anarchistic and minimalist varieties of socialism.

What makes you not completely against nationalism? Nationalism divides the working class and is impossible with socialism (nations can't exist under socialism!). Even if you don't agree with the latter, the former is undeniably true and is one of the worst effects of capitalism.

[Vireya]

What makes you not completely against nationalism? Nationalism divides the working class and is impossible with socialism (nations can't exist under socialism!). Even if you don't agree with the latter, the former is undeniably true and is one of the worst effects of capitalism.

I agree. Though, I would say nationalism isn't inherently attached the capitalism, and it predates it actually. Capitalism can infact be outright anti-nationalist (outsourcing, for example).

I don't believe nationalism should remain indefinitely, but I do see it as a necessary step in the development of socialism and humanity in general. The end goal for socialism, in my opinion, should ultimately be a globally unified humanity. At the moment, however, I believe nationalism is the highest viable level of organization.

[BIXX]

I agree. Though, I would say nationalism isn't inherently attached the capitalism, and it predates it actually.

Only in other, oppressive systems...


Capitalism can infact be outright anti-nationalist (outsourcing, for example).

That isn't a rejection of nationalism, just like ordering products from another Privatized State under feudalism isn't a rejection of nationalism.

[Vireya]

Only in other, oppressive systems...



That isn't a rejection of nationalism, just like ordering products from another Privatized State under feudalism isn't a rejection of nationalism.

True, however, nationalism isn't standalone, both nationalism and internationalism are always attached to an ideology, both and be good or bad.

That is blatantly anti-nationalist, it robs the domestic economy of work and sends it elsewhere.


But, yeah as for my opinion on the topic...no, Juche is not socialism, not anywhere close.

[Skyhilist]

A stateless society cannot defend against imperialism.

Just decided you'd throw in an argument against anarchism for the hell of it?

Anyways hierarchy doesn't necessarily equal a coordinated defense and the lack of hierarchy doesn't necessarily equal no coordinated defense.

[Vireya]

Just decided you'd throw in an argument against anarchism for the hell of it?

Anyways hierarchy doesn't necessarily equal a coordinated defense and the lack of hierarchy doesn't necessarily equal no coordinated defense.

An effective military must be hierarchical.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Just decided you'd throw in an argument against anarchism for the hell of it?

Anyways hierarchy doesn't necessarily equal a coordinated defense and the lack of hierarchy doesn't necessarily equal no coordinated defense.

Socialism is a stateless society. I'm not talking about anarchism but instead about socialism.

[OHumanista]

An effective military must be hierarchical.

ROFLMAO! Just like an effective economy must be hierarchical right?! :laugh:

[Fourth Internationalist]

ROFLMAO! Just like an effective economy must be hi?erarchical right?! :laugh:

Most professional armies have had a level of hierarchy, including the Bolsheviks. I'm sure that if they had gone completely egalitarian then they would not have been as effective.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 4

[BIXX]

Most professional armies have had a level of hierarchy, including the Bolsheviks. I'm sure that if they had gone completely egalitarian then they would not have been as effective.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 4

You being sure doesn't mean anything. Proof, please.

[Fourth Internationalist]

You being sure doesn't mean anything. Proof, please.

Armies require leaders who have more experience and knowledge. That is why generals have spent decades in the military before coming to their position. Commanders get their position because they have shown they know what they're doing, whereas someone who just joined doesn't. With that knowledge gives them the privileges of having a certain amount of authority over others. It's exactly why armies are structured that way. This doesn't imply dictatorial powers, just some power of checked authority, but authority nonetheless.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I agree. Though, I would say nationalism isn't inherently attached the capitalism, and it predates it actually. Capitalism can infact be outright anti-nationalist (outsourcing, for example).

Nationalism was in fact the main ideology of the "liberal revolutions" of 1848 and onwards - the creation of the nation states gave us the European map as we know it - and in many ways the map of the rest of the world too, as a new and more advanced wave of imperialism and colonialism entailed this development in Europe. Capitalism and nationalism go hand in hand.


I don't believe nationalism should remain indefinitely, but I do see it as a necessary step in the development of socialism and humanity in general. The end goal for socialism, in my opinion, should ultimately be a globally unified humanity. At the moment, however, I believe nationalism is the highest viable level of organization.

Nationalism is in no way a "necessary step" - the step was already made nearly 200 years ago! The fact that you think a system of borders, concentration and deportation of "illegal immigrants", racism etc - all which are things that entails nationalism - is a "necessary step", not only for socialism, but for humanity (!) speaks for itself. Take you outright conservatism elsewhere.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Socialism is a stateless society. I'm not talking about anarchism but instead about socialism.

they are the same thing. Anarchism is just a different political philosophy, but both socialists and anarchists want to work towards the same/similar sort of stateless and classless society: communism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

they are the same thing. Anarchism is just a different political philosophy, but both socialists and anarchists want to work towards the same/similar sort of stateless and classless society: communism.

But I had made no mention of anarchism. I am attacking the idea that socialism can be built within a single place surrounded by capitalism, almost exactly like socialism in one country. It was he, not I, who brought anarchism.

[Vireya]

Nationalism was in fact the main ideology of the "liberal revolutions" of 1848 and onwards - the creation of the nation states gave us the European map as we know it - and in many ways the map of the rest of the world too, as a new and more advanced wave of imperialism and colonialism entailed this development in Europe. Capitalism and nationalism go hand in hand.

Yeah, the American capitalists that sell out their nation to China are so nationalist. And so is the capitalist financial class behind the creation of the European Union, gutting their homelands in the name of profit and self interests. Capitalists' only true loyalty is to money, they are only nationalist if their is money in it, as soon as it threatens their wallets, they'll stab their compatriots in the back. Same for internationalist capitalists.



Nationalism is in no way a "necessary step" - the step was already made nearly 200 years ago! The fact that you think a system of borders, concentration and deportation of "illegal immigrants", racism etc - all which are things that entails nationalism - is a "necessary step", not only for socialism, but for humanity (!) speaks for itself. Take you outright conservatism elsewhere.

Yes, I've never said I wasn't conservative, I mean it says it in myself description.

If we can't manage socialism on the national scale, how the he are we going to form a global socialist society? Socialism must be accomplished nationally first.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Yeah, the American capitalists that sell out their nation to China are so nationalist. And so is the capitalist financial class behind the creation of the European Union, gutting their homelands in the name of profit and self interests. Capitalists' only true loyalty is to money, they are only nationalist if their is money in it, as soon as it threatens their wallets, they'll stab their compatriots in the back. Same for internationalist capitalists.

All you're saying is that capitalism is a global system (in fact, it's not all you're saying - you're also implying that workers should save the nation from their "internationalist" overclass - but I'll leave that for the moment). You're completely glossing over the nation state as a material system of strict border controls, concentration and deportation of immigrants and other nationalist, racist laws. You also gloss over the nation state as a historical entity - modern capitalism was shaped by nationalist revolutions.


Yes, I've never said I wasn't conservative, I mean it says it in myself description.

Well, I did say it was outright... Whatever conservative syndicalism is supposed to mean.


If we can't manage socialism on the national scale, how the he are we going to form a global socialist society? Socialism must be accomplished nationally first.

What does socialism mean to you? (actually, I don't think I wanna hear the answer)

[Vireya]

All you're saying is that capitalism is a global system (in fact, it's not all you're saying - you're also implying that workers should save the nation from their "internationalist" overclass - but I'll leave that for the moment). You're completely glossing over the nation state as a material system of strict border controls, concentration and deportation of immigrants and other nationalist, racist laws. You also gloss over the nation state as a historical entity - modern capitalism was shaped by nationalist revolutions.

I'm saying nationalism should be used as a unifying tool by socialists. National identity is there and can facilitate the creation of a workers' society. There isn't a significant international identity yet, so a global socialist goverment won't be possible for sometime after the nationalist socialist revolutions.

I would say nationalism and capitalism happened in spite of eachother, not because of eachother.


Well, I did say it was outright... Whatever conservative syndicalism is supposed to mean.
It's exactly what it sounds like. I'm a syndicalist with conservative social sensiblities. Well, I'm not sure "conservative" would be the correct label for my views, but I'm certainly socially anti-liberal and moderately authoritarian.



What does socialism mean to you? (actually, I don't think I wanna hear the answer)
Why does everyone ask me that?

Socialism is workers' self-management and common ownership of the means of production. It speaks of social justice, responsibility, and anti-hedonism.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I'm saying nationalism should be used as a unifying tool by socialists.

:crying:

[Zukunftsmusik]

I'm saying nationalism should be used as a unifying tool by socialists. National identity is there and can facilitate the creation of a workers' society. There isn't a significant international identity yet, so a global socialist goverment won't be possible for sometime after the nationalist socialist revolutions.

This is exactly the shit we have to overcome, not embrace.


I would say nationalism and capitalism happened in spite of eachother, not because of eachother.

I would like to see some justification for this salto mortale of an assumption. Indeed, there is a tension or a contradiction between capitalism as an international system and the nation state, but it's pretty clear that nation states and capitalism grew mutually. Why do you think capitalism and nation states formed at the same time?



It's exactly what it sounds like. I'm a syndicalist with conservative social sensiblities. Well, I'm not sure "conservative" would be the correct label for my views, but I'm certainly socially anti-liberal and moderately authoritarian.

Oh, believe me, conservative fits perfectly.



Why does everyone ask me that?

Why do you think? People who say "why can't you be socially conservative when you're a socialist?" usually reveal themselves as conservative in more aspects than their social values.

[Skyhilist]

Socialism is a stateless society. I'm not talking about anarchism but instead about socialism.

You're using trot definitions and assuming everyone else uses the same definitions.

Anarchists are socialists. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Skyhilist]

But I had made no mention of anarchism. I am attacking the idea that socialism can be built within a single place surrounded by capitalism, almost exactly like socialism in one country. It was he, not I, who brought anarchism.

You said that it's impossible to have a coordinated military effort without a state. That's basically an attempt to refute the way anarchists would prefer to fight and is therefore an argument raised against anarchism whether you used the word or not. I don't know why you brought it up in the first place though seeing as the person you were engaging with wasn't trying to debate you on such a matter.

[Skyhilist]

Armies require leaders who have more experience and knowledge. That is why generals have spent decades in the military before coming to their position.

Anarchists aren't against leaders, we're against rulers. If someone knows their shit and makes it clear that they know their shit in say, solder assemblies, then obviously people will listen to their ideas because they want to win. Also, delegates from syndicates are permitted to take necessary actions if there's an attack or something and not time to discuss what the best option is. But if they misrepresent the interests and intents of the soldiers they can be immediately removed. This doesn't require a state. Please provide solid evidence of why this doesn't work and why hierarchy is needed instead.


Commanders get their position because they have shown they know what they're doing, whereas someone who just joined doesn't.

Uhh yeah again, we're against rulers not leaders. Of course listening to the people who know their shit would be a part of any successful army run from the bottom up. It just wouldn't be constantly imposed on people. This isn't an argument against stateless defense.


With that knowledge gives them the privileges of having a certain amount of authority over others.

Nope, not unless it's an emergency situation where they're a chosen delegate and there's no time to consult with others. The reason this should be avoided is that people don't tend to act based on their knowledge of things alone but also on their opinions (such as their opinions of what the interests and intents should be of the army, which should be up to the army, not them).


It's exactly why armies are structured that way. This doesn't imply dictatorial powers, just some power of checked authority, but authority nonetheless.

You're assuming anarchists and the notion of stateless defense are against all authority, which is wrong.

"On the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot maker." --Bakunin.

Revolutionaries aren't a bunch of dimwits who are incapable of using logic. If someone has military experience and has worthy ideas, then obviously those ideas will be voted in, because the revolutionaries want to win. More experienced people can be leaders in voicing good ideas. What they shouldn't be are autocratic rulers who forcefully impose all the ideas from the top down.

[Fourth Internationalist]

You said that it's impossible to have a coordinated military effort without a state. That's basically an attempt to refute the way anarchists would prefer to fight and is therefore an argument raised against anarchism whether you used the word or not. I don't know why you brought it up in the first place though seeing as the person you were engaging with wasn't trying to debate you on such a matter.

He/she said socialism could exist whilst surrounded by capitalist neighbours ('socialism in one country') This is exactly opposite of the view of Marxism. I am merely repeating basic Marxist beliefs and one of their reasonings, which are not anarchists' beliefs, and therefore is, to you it seems, is a sign of aggression against anarchist beliefs and therefore requires your intervention.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 4

[Tim Cornelis]

Juche is vehemently anti-socialist.

Nationalism emerged in the bourgeois revolutions of England (failed), France, and the USA. It became viable through central government which unified people under a single rule. Socialism is based on a free association of equals, and its self-administration from below would abolish the precondition for nationalism.

And of course hierarchy is necessary in military conduct. I honestly don't understand how anyone could think an armed militia could operate without hierarchy -- what, everyone just does whatever he wants, or they democratically decide how they should proceed with an attack? You're going to hold a soldier's assembly in the middle of a battle? Don't be ridiculous.


Not the DPRK it's self but it's ideology.

itself* its*

[Leftsolidarity]

From my knowledge of Juche, which is by no means expert but not completely ill-formed, I would say it is legitimate whether you decide to hold to it or not. Juche seems to be continually associated with Shogun which is the military first policy. I would say that they are not inherently intermingled. I would relate it to how the base and superstructure relate to each other in capitalist society; how capitalism is the base and it's governmental formations are the superstructure, forming according to what is in the best interests of the base. Juche would be the base and it's Shogun policy would be the superstructure. From my reading of Kim Il-Sung and some other works on Juche, my understanding of it is basically a national liberation ideological based on socialism. It stresses that Korea will never be liberated until it is united and has rid itself of imperialism and to do that it must create a socialist state. I don't see why that wouldn't be legitimate.

[Skyhilist]

He/she said socialism could exist whilst surrounded by capitalist neighbours ('socialism in one country') This is exactly opposite of the view of Marxism. I am merely repeating basic Marxist beliefs and one of their reasonings, which are not anarchists' beliefs, and therefore is, to you it seems, is a sign of aggression against anarchist beliefs and therefore requires your intervention.

You're dodging the question.

Vireya said: "Bullshit. Socialism in general is capable of existing in the midst of capitalist neighbors, it is only anarcho-communism that cannot. Nationalist socialism and internationalist socialism are equally viable, simply in different contexts."

Obviously this person is not a trotskyist and isn't going to share your trotskyist/whatever definition that socialism always implies statelessness.

You responded: "A stateless society cannot defend against imperialism."

They weren't suggesting that in the first place because they obviously don't see socialism as being necessarily stateless. So how was such a sentence relevant to the topic? The person you were arguing with said nothing about "a stateless society" and clearly isn't going to use your definition of socialism being something that's necessarily stateless, because they are not the same tendency as you.

[Fourth Internationalist]

You're dodging the question.

Vireya said: "Bullshit. Socialism in general is capable of existing in the midst of capitalist neighbors, it is only anarcho-communism that cannot. Nationalist socialism and internationalist socialism are equally viable, simply in different contexts."

Obviously this person is not a trotskyist and isn't going to share your trotskyist/whatever definition that socialism always implies statelessness.

You responded: "A stateless society cannot defend against imperialism."

They weren't suggesting that in the first place because they obviously don't see socialism as being necessarily stateless. So how was such a sentence relevant to the topic? The person you were arguing with said nothing about "a stateless society" and clearly isn't going to use your definition of socialism being something that's necessarily stateless, because they are not the same tendency as you.

The only people I know who use the term socialism as not stateless are Stalinists and liberals (Marxists, Trotskyists, anarchists all define socialism the way I am using it. I am not using a super secret sectarian Trotskyist definition) I saw no indication of Stalinism, ergo i ignorantly used the Revolutionary Leftist definition most commonly used on RevLeft. This is not a specific tendency definition.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 4

[Vireya]

This is exactly the shit we have to overcome, not embrace.
It should be embraced, especially by socialists. The usefulness of nationalism to higher human organization is undeniable. Until such a time that there is a sufficient global identity, socialism on an internationally unified scale will not materialize.



I would like to see some justification for this salto mortale of an assumption. Indeed, there is a tension or a contradiction between capitalism as an international system and the nation state, but it's pretty clear that nation states and capitalism grew mutually. Why do you think capitalism and nation states formed at the same time?

Capitalism grew mutually with globalism and "free trade" too. What ever grows with capitalism is a result of whatever capitalists deem more profitable at a given time, it doesn't mean that those concepts are inherently a product of it nor that the can only occur in a capitalist context.



Oh, believe me, conservative fits perfectly.
Eh, I'd rather be that than a liberal.





Why do you think? People who say "why can't you be socially conservative when you're a socialist?" usually reveal themselves as conservative in more aspects than their social values.

You could say that. After all I'm a proponent of market based syndicalism and I'm not anarchistic or minimalist, so I indeed am a member of a much less radical socialist tradition. So, yes, in comparison with communists, I could be seen as economically conservative even if a capitalist wouldn't consider me so.

[Brutus]

To Comrade Aang:

Adherents of Socialism in on Country are not foolish enough to think that it is possible to have communism in one country (the very existence of countries prohibits this), but they believe that it is possible for the first stage of communism (or the first stage of socialism) to exist in one country. As a you are a Leninist, I'm sure the word of Lenin will hold more weight than that of Stalin:

"…when we are told that the victory of socialism is possible only on a world scale, we regard this merely as an attempt, a particularly hopeless attempt, on the part of the bourgeoisie and its voluntary and involuntary supporters to distort the irrefutable truth. The 'final' victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible". (Lenin, Speech to the Third All-Russia Congress of Soviets, 1918.)

Of course, if you were to put aside your hatred of Stalin, you could always read this work on the matter (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm), which explicitly states that until capitalism has been defeated on a worldwide scale the final victory of socialism (i.e. lower stage of communism) is impossible.

To avoid confusion I think it would be best to use Lenin's definitions- 'socialism' meaning the lower stage of communism, and 'communism' meaning the upper stage.

[Skyhilist]

The only people I know who use the term socialism as not stateless are Stalinists and liberals (Marxists, Trotskyists, anarchists all define socialism the way I am using it. I am not using a super secret sectarian Trotskyist definition) I saw no indication of Stalinism, ergo i ignorantly used the Revolutionary Leftist definition most commonly used on RevLeft. This is not a specific tendency definition.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 4

I think most people on here see anything where the workers control the means of production, that is international, that has no division of labor, and that doesn't rely on any capitalist markets as socialist. I propose a poll to solve this disagreement and will make one now to see what people actually think.

[Vireya]

To Comrade Aang:

Adherents of Socialism in on Country are not foolish enough to think that it is possible to have communism in one country (the very existence of countries prohibits this), but they believe that it is possible for the first stage of communism (or the first stage of socialism) to exist in one country. As a you are a Leninist, I'm sure the word of Lenin will hold more weight than that of Stalin:

"…when we are told that the victory of socialism is possible only on a world scale, we regard this merely as an attempt, a particularly hopeless attempt, on the part of the bourgeoisie and its voluntary and involuntary supporters to distort the irrefutable truth. The 'final' victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible". (Lenin, Speech to the Third All-Russia Congress of Soviets, 1918.)

Of course, if you were to put aside your hatred of Stalin, you could always read this work on the matter (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm), which explicitly states that until capitalism has been defeated on a worldwide scale the final victory of socialism (i.e. lower stage of communism) is impossible.

To avoid confusion I think it would be best to use Lenin's definitions- 'socialism' meaning the lower stage of communism, and 'communism' meaning the upper stage.

I agree with Lenin in this respect, though I disagree with Marxist-Leninist theory in that communism should be the form socialism ultimately takes. I believe that the proletariat should start with socialism in one country and work towards international socialism, and that the process should stop at what Lenin would call socialism, as opposed to communism. So, the final form should be somewhat intermediate between the worker's state and communism.

[Baseball]

I agree with Lenin in this respect, though I disagree with Marxist-Leninist theory in that communism should be the form socialism ultimately takes. I believe that the proletariat should start with socialism in one country and work towards international socialism, and that the process should stop at what Lenin would call socialism, as opposed to communism. So, the final form should be somewhat intermediate between the worker's state and communism.

This is, of course, the only logical way for socialism to develop. It is sheer fantasy to suppose a simultaneous, world wide revolt which in any event must fail because not all regions of the world are ready for socialism. Plus, one cannot discount the force of reaction. A realistic viewpoint must account for capitalist communities developing/surviving alongside socialist communities, or those striving to build socialism, or those ect ect ect.

Of course, the critics on this thread are also correct. Support enough national socialisms and sooner or later you wind up with National Socialism and all that entails.

[Milan_Suvajac]

Juche is almost fascist.

[Leftsolidarity]

Juche is almost fascist.

Compelling argument you make there. Btw, one-liners aren't allowed.

I haven't seen anyone respond to my post and I'm one of 2 people to say yes so I find that odd.

[Red_Banner]

Juche is a road to nowhere.


North Korea abandonded Marxism-Leninism when the Warsaw pact was still alive and well, and Maoism still existed in China.

North Korea sold out early.

[Vireya]

This is, of course, the only logical way for socialism to develop. It is sheer fantasy to suppose a simultaneous, world wide revolt which in any event must fail because not all regions of the world are ready for socialism. Plus, one cannot discount the force of reaction. A realistic viewpoint must account for capitalist communities developing/surviving alongside socialist communities, or those striving to build socialism, or those ect ect ect.

Of course, the critics on this thread are also correct. Support enough national socialisms and sooner or later you wind up with National Socialism and all that entails.

nationalist socialism =/= National Socialism

National Socialism is fascist, and though it can be socialist, Strasserism for example, it hasn't historically manifested as such.

In the event of surviving capitalist communities after a global proletarian union, I believe they should be swiftly finished off by force.

[liberlict]

No it is not. Socialism is strictly internationalist. Socialism is only possible as a world system, ergo internationalism is an inherent part of socialism.

I find this idea kind of frightening. I mean it's basically a prescription for imperialism. I have little respect for countries like Iran and their scummy practices, but telling them they need to 'be like us' seems a little douche-baggy to me. It's cultural imperialism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I find this idea kind of frightening. I mean it's basically a prescription for imperialism. I have little respect for countries like Iran and their scummy practices, but telling them they need to 'be like us' seems a little douche-baggy to me. It's cultural imperialism.

How on earth did what I say indicate support imperialism in any way? I said nothing about culture, nor did I say Iran has to 'be like us' (nor was their a mention of Iran). How does internationalism imply imperialism?

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 4

[Bardo]

Bullshit. Socialism in general is capable of existing in the midst of capitalist neighbors, it is only anarcho-communism that cannot.

Oh.

What exactly is the difference between the two? Socialism as a revolutionary process serves as a means to establish communism. This has global, international implications and the intended goal is the same regardless of which specific ideology is at the forefront. If "anarcho"-communism cannot exist without an international struggle, then nationalist socialism is a futile endeavor without a greater internationalist mentality..

[Vireya]

Oh.

What exactly is the difference between the two? Socialism as a revolutionary process serves as a means to establish communism. This has global, international implications and the intended goal is the same regardless of which specific ideology is at the forefront. If "anarcho"-communism cannot exist without an international struggle, then nationalist socialism is a futile endeavor without a greater internationalist mentality..

Communism is only the end goal in Marxist and Anarchist theories about socialism, I'm not a Marxist nor an anarchist, the same goes for a great deal of socialists. It's very annoying how Marxists try to monopolize socialist philosophy as if Marx invented it all.

Though I, like you, believes that socialism should be eventually global, I also recognize the validity of nationalist socialism. I believe a nationalist phase for socialism is pragmatic, the bonds between the proletariat of nations isn't yet strong enough for global socialism to be successful.

I also accept that even in an era in the future where the exist more socialist nations than capitalist ones, they may not choose internationalism as their mantra. Using the same societal system doesn't guarantee cooperation, there are other factors at play in human discourse.

[Bardo]

Communism is only the end goal in Marxist and Anarchist theories about socialism, I'm not a Marxist nor an anarchist, the same goes for a great deal of socialists. It's very annoying how Marxists try to monopolize socialist philosophy as if Marx invented it all.

So... which revolutionary socialist school of thought doesn't view socialism as a means to a stateless, classless society?

[Vireya]

So... which revolutionary socialist school of thought doesn't view socialism as a means to a stateless, classless society?

Nationalism isn't mutually exclusive with a socialism mode of production, nor statelessness.

[Tim Cornelis]

I agree with Lenin in this respect, though I disagree with Marxist-Leninist theory in that communism should be the form socialism ultimately takes. I believe that the proletariat should start with socialism in one country and work towards international socialism, and that the process should stop at what Lenin would call socialism, as opposed to communism. So, the final form should be somewhat intermediate between the worker's state and communism.


This is, of course, the only logical way for socialism to develop. It is sheer fantasy to suppose a simultaneous, world wide revolt which in any event must fail because not all regions of the world are ready for socialism. Plus, one cannot discount the force of reaction. A realistic viewpoint must account for capitalist communities developing/surviving alongside socialist communities, or those striving to build socialism, or those ect ect ect.

Of course, the critics on this thread are also correct. Support enough national socialisms and sooner or later you wind up with National Socialism and all that entails.

The point is not that internationalists believe the revolution will occur simultaneously, but rather that until the revolution is victorious globally socialism cannot truly be established because of the global intertwined character of capital established through exchange. Thus, while a workers' revolution and state can successfully be established in 'one country' (or rather region), the socialist mode of production cannot.



Though I, like you, believes that socialism should be eventually global, I also recognize the validity of nationalist socialism. I believe a nationalist phase for socialism is pragmatic, the bonds between the proletariat of nations isn't yet strong enough for global socialism to be successful.

That's because you have a wrong paradigm where you view socialism as an idea. We need to strengthen bonds of humanity for internationalism to exist is the same notion as expressed by liberals, it's naive. We need to transplant the nation-state, not appeal to humanity globally.


Nationalism isn't mutually exclusive with a socialism mode of production, nor statelessness.

Yes it is. The socialist mode of production is based on the free association of equals, both in the economic and political spheres (insofar these exist). Nationalism was borne out of central government with a single rule that would unite people under that single rule. The precondition for nationalism, central rule, does not and cannot exist under socialism as socialism is a decentralised, self-administered network. You cannot have nationalism and socialism.

[liberlict]

Yes it is. The socialist mode of production is based on the free association of equals, both in the economic and political spheres (insofar these exist). Nationalism was borne out of central government with a single rule that would unite people under that single rule. The precondition for nationalism, central rule, does not and cannot exist under socialism as socialism is a decentralised, self-administered network. You cannot have nationalism and socialism.

I'm not sure that central rule is a precondition for nationalism. That might have been the character of nationalisms so far, but there's no theoretical reason it has to be that way.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/

[#FF0000]

Bullshit. Socialism in general is capable of existing in the midst of capitalist neighbors

If you're accepting "non-marxian" or yellow socialism as "socialism", then sure. Problem is that then "socialism" means whatever someone wants it to mean.


Nationalism isn't mutually exclusive with a socialism mode of production, nor statelessness.

Oh.

Well, in that case, yes, nationalism and a socialist mode of production are mutually exclusive, because one simply cannot establish a socialist mode of production in isolation. It simply cannot happen.

I mean, what is a "socialist mode of production", to you?


I find this idea kind of frightening. I mean it's basically a prescription for imperialism. I have little respect for countries like Iran and their scummy practices, but telling them they need to 'be like us' seems a little douche-baggy to me. It's cultural imperialism.

Well, I get where this comes from, but the fact is that a single country just can't establish a socialist mode of production on it's own, and even if it somehow could (which would mean it is capable of providing entirely for itself without needing to interact economically with anybody else on the planet), the fact of the matter is that capitalism requires constant growth, and just can't abide there being a market left untapped. Peaceful coexistence is an impossibility. The capitalist or socialist mode of production must be a global one, or it just can't be at all.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Personally, find it perplexing when topices like this stretch into several pages and 50+ posts, back and forth debating whether or not DPRK is 'socialist' in any way.
Whatever anti-imperialist stance it's government takes and however many murals there are with big red flags and striding workers; there is evidence of systemic repression of the citizens who dare to question or undermine the dear sweet super duper leader(s) and there are public executions of such dissidents...even if their only 'crime' is trying to leave the country (the one that sticks in my mind is from Dispatches doc from 2005, undercover footgae showing public execution; firing squad and all).
And I don't see that as a characteristic of a 'socialist' country / system, sorry.
...it can't just be one vast Western plot with every video, eyewitness testimony etc engineered by imperialist agents to make the best country in the world look shitty. I just can't buy that particular conspiracy.

[hashem]

"Do you believe the Juche idea is a legitimate form of socialism?"

its shameful that such questions can even arouse from leftists.

[Vireya]

The point is not that internationalists believe the revolution will occur simultaneously, but rather that until the revolution is victorious globally socialism cannot truly be established because of the global intertwined character of capital established through exchange. Thus, while a workers' revolution and state can successfully be established in 'one country' (or rather region), the socialist mode of production cannot.
Why? Why is it that you believe a nation can't employ a socialist economy in the midst of capitalist neighbors? What would stop it?



That's because you have a wrong paradigm where you view socialism as an idea. We need to strengthen bonds of humanity for internationalism to exist is the same notion as expressed by liberals, it's naive. We need to transplant the nation-state, not appeal to humanity globally.

How is it naive? Unless a more genuinely global culture is developed, you cannot subplant the nationstate as an idea and international socialism cannot happen, it would be too unpopular. People must feel a connection with eachother in order to unite.



Yes it is. The socialist mode of production is based on the free association of equals, both in the economic and political spheres (insofar these exist). Nationalism was borne out of central government with a single rule that would unite people under that single rule. The precondition for nationalism, central rule, does not and cannot exist under socialism as socialism is a decentralised, self-administered network. You cannot have nationalism and socialism.

So you believe that say...France, if it were to become communist, that there would no longer constitute a nation? Even a decentralized system could have a central point of governance even if it has limited legislative capabilities, and who is to say the French communes wouldn't form a federation?

That is the problem I have with Marxism, it attaches too many assertions about the political structure of socialism, something is find is on the peripheral margins of socialist theory. The central point of socialism is the manner in which the means of production are handled. With that being the case, as long as there is common ownership of the means of production within a given region, that community is socialist regardless of its political structure.

Hence, I recognize the validity of both anarchistic and non-anarchist socialist traditions, internationalist and nationalist ones, and market and non-market variants. I do, however, believe certain variants are more pragmatic than others.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Not the DPRK it's self but it's ideology.

Yes and those whom would argue otherwise don't understand the Juche idea.

[Vireya]

If you're accepting "non-marxian" or yellow socialism as "socialism", then sure. Problem is that then "socialism" means whatever someone wants it to mean.
Yes, I most definitely of the mind that non-Marxist traditions hold merit.

The thing Marxist forget is that socialism is only one thing at its core, common ownership of the means of production, anything attached to that is just adjectives.



Oh.

Well, in that case, yes, nationalism and a socialist mode of production are mutually exclusive, because one simply cannot establish a socialist mode of production in isolation. It simply cannot happen.

I mean, what is a "socialist mode of production", to you?
^my answer to this is above.




Well, I get where this comes from, but the fact is that a single country just can't establish a socialist mode of production on it's own, and even if it somehow could (which would mean it is capable of providing entirely for itself without needing to interact economically with anybody else on the planet), the fact of the matter is that capitalism requires constant growth, and just can't abide there being a market left untapped. Peaceful coexistence is an impossibility. The capitalist or socialist mode of production must be a global one, or it just can't be at all.

How? What would stop a socialist nation from trading with a capitalist one? Capitalists in the long run would be willing to engage a socialist nation with trade due to their nature, they would be able to pass up a profit. That would be to our benefit.

Of course, we are bound to misunderstand eachother, you and I, due to the limits of your conceptions about socialism being confined to Marxist dictations. Of course a Marxist nation could not exist unless capitalism were eliminated, but a market socialist one could. Since Marxism calls for the abandonment of the market apparatus and of currency as a medium of exchange, I can fathom your position on this though. I simply disagree that that is the direction socialism should take.

[Vireya]

Yes and those whom would argue otherwise don't understand the Juche idea.

Juche, like Fascism, has the theoretical capacity to be socialist in the most basic sense (common ownership of the MoP), but it hasn't yet manifested as such. So at this time the only state practicing Juche, North Korea, is our only example of the ideology, and so far it lacks a socialist character.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Juche, like Fascism, has the theoretical capacity to be socialist in the most basic sense (common ownership of the MoP), but it hasn't yet manifested as such. So at this time the only state practicing Juche, North Korea, is our only example of the ideology, and so far it lacks a socialist character.

That's debatable however the OP said the following:


Not the DPRK it's self but it's ideology.

The Juche idea in theory sees itself as the theoretical successor of Marx, Lenin, and Mao being of course continued by Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, and Kim Jong-Un. Moving forward, while I have not read the discussion leading up to my own post, the very fact that you're comparing the Juche idea to Fascism (if not implicitly) seems ridiculous.

[Vireya]

That's debatable however the OP said the following:



The Juche idea in theory sees itself as the theoretical successor of Marx, Lenin, and Mao being of course continued by Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, and Kim Jong-Un. Moving forward, while I have not read the discussion leading up to my own post, the very fact that you're comparing the Juche idea to Fascism (if not implicitly) seems ridiculous.
Juche does not consider itself a successor to Marxism, all references to Marxism and communism were removed from North Korea's constitution.

Juche is comparable to Fascism even if only superficially, but the similarities are undeniable;

"To make revolution in Korea we must know Korean history and geography as well as the customs of the Korean people. Only then is it possible to educate our people in a way that suits them and to inspire in them an ardent love for their native place and their motherland. - Kim-Il Sung

[#FF0000]

How? What would stop a socialist nation from trading with a capitalist one? Capitalists in the long run would be willing to engage a socialist nation with trade due to their nature, they would be able to pass up a profit. That would be to our benefit.

Because to do this means the society must play by Capitalism's rules. It's the same reason why utopian communes are totally useless when it comes to challenging capitalism, but on a larger scale. What you end up with is "socialism" that's nothing more than another way to organize an economy and society which is capitalist at its core.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Juche does not consider itself a successor to Marxism, all references to Marxism and communism were removed from North Korea's constitution.

So, Kim Il-Sung's Report at the National Celebration of the 30th Anniversary of the Foundation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on September 9, 1978, was what? When the Eternal President said "let us step up the Socialist construction under the banner of the Juche idea," that was what? MLism has been removed from the verbiage of the DPRK on paper however also on paper, Juche is seen as the "creative application of Marxism-Leninism." So, while yes, "Marxist-Leninism," may have been removed from official statements and so on, that doesn't really mean jack diddly and as I will point out again below, you're negating or ignoring the historical context in which such things have been the response to and result of.


Juche is comparable to Fascism even if only superficially, but the similarities are undeniable;

Generally speaking it smacks of philosophical and theoretical impotence to compare Leftist currents to Fascism. If you're going to critique the Juche idea, fine, you're silly but fine, lol, but really?


"To make revolution in Korea we must know Korean history and geography as well as the customs of the Korean people. Only then is it possible to educate our people in a way that suits them and to inspire in them an ardent love for their native place and their motherland. - Kim-Il Sung

The above quote is comparable (similar but not necessarily the same) to the Maoist and PRC assertion of Socialism with Chinese characteristics. Which seems pretty obvious to me and simply means tailoring the development of Socialism and the economy in general to the material conditions (which can't be refuted nor changed) of the given area in question, in this case, the Best Korea. Further, the use of the verbiage "motherland," isn't damning as it has been used by numerous Socialist states in the past when nationalistic verbiage was used to garner support for the protection and security of the revolution as was the case in Stalin-era USSR during WWII and can't necessarily be compared to the Fascist rhetoric of 'der Vaterland' and so on. To put it simply, I see wot u did der. Needless to say, I don't really see what you're getting at here or how exactly this equates to crypto-Fascism.

You're also negating the historical context of the situation and the DPRK's struggle against Western imperialism.

[Vireya]

Because to do this means the society must play by Capitalism's rules. It's the same reason why utopian communes are totally useless when it comes to challenging capitalism, but on a larger scale. What you end up with is "socialism" that's nothing more than another way to organize an economy and society which is capitalist at its core.

In what way would it be forced to "play by capitalism's rules" inherently?

I admitted that a marxist community would indeed fail because its lack of a market and currency, but that wouldn't be a problem for a socialist nation that employs a market system for resource allocation.

Not to put words in your mouth, but being a Marxist, you'd probably consider markets to be inherently capitalist, hence you wouldn't recognize to possibility for a market socialist community operating in the midst of capitalist ones and engaging in trade relations with them. That is why I see Marxism as arrogant and shortsighted.

[Vireya]

So, Kim Il-Sung's Report at the National Celebration of the 30th Anniversary of the Foundation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on September 9, 1978, was what? When the Eternal President said "let us step up the Socialist construction under the banner of the Juche idea," that was what? MLism has been removed from the verbiage of the DPRK on paper however also on paper, Juche is seen as the "creative application of Marxism-Leninism." So, while yes, "Marxist-Leninism," may have been removed from official statements and so on, that doesn't really mean jack diddly and as I will point out again below, you're negating or ignoring the historical context in which such things have been the response to and result of.
That's fair, I don't claim to be an expert on Juche.




Generally speaking it smacks of philosophical and theoretical impotence to compare Leftist currents to Fascism. If you're going to critique the Juche idea, fine, you're silly but fine, lol, but really?
Yes, I'm serious. I think it appropriate to compare nationalist variants of socialism with Fascism, it isn't much of a stretch seeing as Fascism began as a heterodox movement of socialist nationalism. Not to mention there are ideologies that bridge the gap between forms of "socialism" like Juche and Stalinism with Fascism.



The above quote is comparable (similar but not necessarily the same) to the Maoist and PRC assertion of Socialism with Chinese characteristics. Which seems pretty obvious to me and simply means tailoring the development of Socialism and the economy in general to the material conditions (which can't be refuted nor changed) of the given area in question, in this case, the Best Korea. Further, the use of the verbiage "motherland," isn't damning as it has been used by numerous Socialist states in the past when nationalistic verbiage was used to garner support for the protection and security of the revolution as was the case in Stalin-era USSR during WWII and can't necessarily be compared to the Fascist rhetoric of 'der Vaterland' and so on. To put it simply, I see wot u did der. Needless to say, I don't really see what you're getting at here or how exactly this equates to crypto-Fascism.

To me that rings of the Fascist notion of "national character", and that the conservative revolution should be molded to conform to and advance the motherland's national spirit. Sounds like a völkisch philosophy to me.


You're also negating the historical context of the situation and the DPRK's struggle against Western imperialism.

Ok? And fascist movements pick a national nemisis to focus the energies of the people towards whatever the state wishes to accomplish at a given time. Though nationalism wouldn't make a movement automatically fascist, the form it took in North Korea bares an uncanny resemblance to fascism.

I'm not necessarily calling Juche or North Korea fascist, I'm simply pointing out similarities I see between them.

[d3crypt]

What is the actual theoretical basis of Juche?

[Baseball]

The point is not that internationalists believe the revolution will occur simultaneously, but rather that until the revolution is victorious globally socialism cannot truly be established because of the global intertwined character of capital established through exchange. Thus, while a workers' revolution and state can successfully be established in 'one country' (or rather region), the socialist mode of production cannot.


Its not really a question of what socialists "believe." Its almost theological here.

What is the impact of existing capitalist communities upon the development of socialist (or if you prefer, aspiring socialist) regions?

[Baseball]

Because to do this means the society must play by Capitalism's rules. It's the same reason why utopian communes are totally useless when it comes to challenging capitalism, but on a larger scale. What you end up with is "socialism" that's nothing more than another way to organize an economy and society which is capitalist at its core.

OK-- so an aspiring socialist community must isolate itself from the capitalist world. Isn't this what North Korea does?

In a broader sense, why must a (aspiring) socialist community isolate itself? Would it not be reasonable that the workers of that community believes their form of production to be superior to the capitalist one and thus would wish to highlight it, especially to workers in the capitalist communities? How does isolation foster the cause of internationalism?

[Decolonize The Left]

This thread is tiring.

Communism/socialism/anarchism at its root isn't about nations, or cultures, or anything other than a relationship to the means of production. Workers of the world unite. We are one class: the working class. It doesn't matter what color your skin is, what your gender may be, what language you speak, we're all united as a class.

[Vireya]

This thread is tiring.

Communism/socialism/anarchism at its root isn't about nations, or cultures, or anything other than a relationship to the means of production. Workers of the world unite. We are one class: the working class. It doesn't matter what color your skin is, what your gender may be, what language you speak, we're all united as a class.

Exactly, all the adjectives attached to different socialisms won't change the fact that socialism is primarily a theory of economic discourse and its effects on society. Anything else concerning socialism and social policy merely depends on what social positions one feels best compliments it.

Though, I find that just belonging to the same class won't compel the proletariat to act in unison, there must be a cultural component.

[#FF0000]

OK-- so an aspiring socialist community must isolate itself from the capitalist world. Isn't this what North Korea does?

In a broader sense, why must a (aspiring) socialist community isolate itself? Would it not be reasonable that the workers of that community believes their form of production to be superior to the capitalist one and thus would wish to highlight it, especially to workers in the capitalist communities? How does isolation foster the cause of internationalism?

I don't think you understood my point. Isolation is a dead end as much as "peaceful coexistence" is. A communist society can't develop in isolation. "Socialism in one Country" is impossible and leads to, State Capitalist abberations.


In what way would it be forced to "play by capitalism's rules" inherently?

Because playing ball in the modern international market would mean producing to trade. That is -- generalized commodity production.


Not to put words in your mouth, but being a Marxist, you'd probably consider markets to be inherently capitalist, hence you wouldn't recognize to possibility for a market socialist community operating in the midst of capitalist ones and engaging in trade relations with them. That is why I see Marxism as arrogant and shortsighted.

Markets aren't inherently capitalist. Capitalism isn't the only mode of production that made use of a market but it can only be the last in the genre, imo. I don't think "market socialism" can exist.

[Vireya]

I don't think you understood my point. Isolation is a dead end as much as "peaceful coexistence" is. A communist society can't develop in isolation. "Socialism in one Country" is impossible and leads to, State Capitalist abberations.
Socialism in One country is no more impossible than communism itself.




Because playing ball in the modern international market would mean producing to trade. That is -- generalized commodity production. Commodity production wouldn't condemn a socialist nation in the least.
Even in a socialist world, trade between communities would have to occur, and production for trade would naturally result. Marxist theory, as I said is shortsighted.


Markets aren't inherently capitalist. Capitalism isn't the only mode of production that made use of a market but it can only be the last in the genre, imo. I don't think "market socialism" can exist.
Why is that? What makes Communism so plausible, but not market socialism? In my opinion the Marxist economic viewpoint is simplistic and primitivist, I don't believe it is a system fit for humanity's continued progress.

[Red_Banner]

"Why? Why is it that you believe a nation can't employ a socialist economy in the midst of capitalist neighbors? What would stop it?"

Those neighbours would stop it.

History has shown that.

[4MyNation]

Juche is a fascist ideology! Socialism is about collaborating and helping one's fellow man (and woman). North Korea is a dictatorship, and the government works off the labor of it's people. That is not what socialsim nor marxism is about.

[Vireya]

"Why? Why is it that you believe a nation can't employ a socialist economy in the midst of capitalist neighbors? What would stop it?"

Those neighbours would stop it.

History has shown that.

If it is that simple a socialist world would be impossible.

Geopolitical conditions are never that simple, systems are capable of perpetuating themselves in the midst of older ones, liberal democracy for example, replaced absolute monarchism as the dominant format over centuries of revolutions, socialism will be the same. Nation by nation, revolution by revolution, it will be a long fight, but socialism is in our collective destinies.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

That's fair, I don't claim to be an expert on Juche.

I love the Best Korea.


Yes, I'm serious. I think it appropriate to compare nationalist variants of socialism with Fascism, it isn't much of a stretch seeing as Fascism began as a heterodox movement of socialist nationalism. Not to mention there are ideologies that bridge the gap between forms of "socialism" like Juche and Stalinism with Fascism.

You're view of the historical and ideological/theoretical development of Fascism is thoroughly naive and idealist. You're totally over-looking the class character of both the Juche idea and Korean Communism and Fascism. Fascism was essentially the petty bourgeois response to both the rise of Communism and late modernity following WWI. Trying to link Fascism to either Stalinism or Juche is dubious at best.



To me that rings of the Fascist notion of "national character", and that the conservative revolution should be molded to conform to and advance the motherland's national spirit. Sounds like a völkisch philosophy to me.

To me, that is a Socialist notion of recognizing the material conditions of a nation, post-revolution, and trying to create a self-sufficient economic eco-system to protect the revolution from global imperialism and to later spread the revolution aka Socialism in One Country. Further, you, yourself just injected this notion of a "conservative," revolution, like wuhdafok? There is nothing völkisch, about it. Are you just wiki arguing?


Ok? And fascist movements pick a national nemisis to focus the energies of the people towards whatever the state wishes to accomplish at a given time. Though nationalism wouldn't make a movement automatically fascist, the form it took in North Korea bares an uncanny resemblance to fascism.

No, no it does not. I honestly do not see how the DPRK in any way, shape or form is comparable historically to any Fascist movement or state. Again, if you want to critique the DPRK, alright, there is ample room (admittedly) where you could try to do so legitimately but come on.


I'm not necessarily calling Juche or North Korea fascist, I'm simply pointing out similarities I see between them.

Really, you've only tried to lay some incoherent theory about how the verbiage being used is somehow Fascistic in your own opinion. That's about it.


Juche is a fascist ideology! Socialism is about collaborating and helping one's fellow man (and woman). North Korea is a dictatorship, and the government works off the labor of it's people. That is not what socialsim nor marxism is about.

Keep it up and I'll send you to Siberia.


What is the actual theoretical basis of Juche?

BASED Maoism.

[Baseball]

I don't think you understood my point. Isolation is a dead end as much as "peaceful coexistence" is. A communist society can't develop in isolation. "Socialism in one Country" is impossible and leads to, State Capitalist abberations.


The point is that socialism has to develop - somehow. A simultaneous worldwide revolt is not realistic. "Socialism in one country" is not realistic.
Something has to give, yes?



Because playing ball in the modern international market would mean producing to trade. That is -- generalized commodity production.

Why? If true, doesn't that imply that such production is a superior way of producing?

[4MyNation]

Keep it up and I'll send you to Siberia.



What did I do wrong?

[Tim Cornelis]

Why? Why is it that you believe a nation can't employ a socialist economy in the midst of capitalist neighbors? What would stop it?

It needs to exchange commodities with its capitalist neighbours.



How is it naive? Unless a more genuinely global culture is developed, you cannot subplant the nationstate as an idea and international socialism cannot happen, it would be too unpopular. People must feel a connection with eachother in order to unite.

Because it's not a matter of ideas or culture, it's a matter of social relationships. Socialism, by definition, is based on the free association of equals. This implies that the preconditions for nationalism are absent. Internationalism and socialism don't require a unifying culture because it lacks a single rule. You have a bourgeois paradigm, and this is the problem.


So you believe that say...France, if it were to become communist, that there would no longer constitute a nation? Even a decentralized system could have a central point of governance even if it has limited legislative capabilities, and who is to say the French communes wouldn't form a federation?

France can't become communist unless its neighbours are communist, and once France is communist France will no longer be a political unit, but rather a geographical denomination. Of course they would form a federation, but these would be for practical purposes and hence not limited by arbitrary frontiers. So a French commune close to a Spanish commune would presumably maintain more intense relations because their decisions more affect each other than two French communes at opposite sides of the geographical or cultural nation.


That is the problem I have with Marxism, it attaches too many assertions about the political structure of socialism, something is find is on the peripheral margins of socialist theory. The central point of socialism is the manner in which the means of production are handled. With that being the case, as long as there is common ownership of the means of production within a given region, that community is socialist regardless of its political structure.

A socialist mode of production is more than 'common ownership', and a mode of production has political implications. Yes, a socialist mode of production would be socialist if it co-exists with a state, the problem is the state would cease to exist inevitably under socialism.


The point is that socialism has to develop - somehow. A simultaneous worldwide revolt is not realistic. "Socialism in one country" is not realistic.
Something has to give, yes?

Again, workers' revolutions will not be simultaneous but once they're victorious only then can socialism exist.

[Vireya]

It needs to exchange commodities with its capitalist neighbours.
Ok, and? Trading commodities doesn't make socialism impossible. Trade is part of economic discourse.




Because it's not a matter of ideas or culture, it's a matter of social relationships. Socialism, by definition, is based on the free association of equals. This implies that the preconditions for nationalism are absent. Internationalism and socialism don't require a unifying culture because it lacks a single rule. You have a bourgeois paradigm, and this is the problem.

Culture, ideology, and social relations don't exist in isolation, they're all intertwined. A true international system is impossible without a global culture and a central political leadership of some kind. Such a decentralized and minimalist platform will fail do to lack of cohesion.


France can't become communist unless its neighbours are communist, and once France is communist France will no longer be a political unit, but rather a geographical denomination. Of course they would form a federation, but these would be for practical purposes and hence not limited by arbitrary frontiers. So a French commune close to a Spanish commune would presumably maintain more intense relations because their decisions more affect each other than two French communes at opposite sides of the geographical or cultural nation.
I seriously doubt that would happen, the French communities would have more in common with eachother than with a community outside of their cultural realm.




A socialist mode of production is more than 'common ownership', and a mode of production has political implications. Yes, a socialist mode of production would be socialist if it co-exists with a state, the problem is the state would cease to exist inevitably under socialism.
Socialism has no inherent political implications, nor would a state necessarily erode in the presence of it.

[Decolonize The Left]

Exactly, all the adjectives attached to different socialisms won't change the fact that socialism is primarily a theory of economic discourse and its effects on society. Anything else concerning socialism and social policy merely depends on what social positions one feels best compliments it.

Though, I find that just belonging to the same class won't compel the proletariat to act in unison, there must be a cultural component.


Nation by nation, revolution by revolution, it will be a long fight, but socialism is in our collective destinies.

False. A communist revolution is only: the global working class uniting under the banner of our self-interest and seizing the means of production. It doesn't have anything to do with culture and there is no such thing as "destiny."

You're "national socialism" or whatever totally misses the point and drives wedges between workers. We will either achieve our class interest or we won't. Likewise there can be no individual revolution within a global capitalist world: capital is vastly too powerful for such a naive idea and will re-incorporate this 'socialist' nation in no time. History proves this time and time again and only a fool ignores history because of their ideas of 'destiny.'

[Thirsty Crow]

The point is that socialism has to develop - somehow. A simultaneous worldwide revolt is not realistic. "Socialism in one country" is not realistic.
Something has to give, yes?

For the i-don't-know-which-time, no one is forwarding the idea of the viability of a simultaneous world revolution.

The deal is this: revolutionary governance, based on delegation and active participation of the broadest layers of the working class, coupled with possible immediate measures to affect working hours, standard of living, housing, cultural aspirations and education, community and solidarity as opposed to individual self-interest expressed in competitive all-against-all - and internationalism, unconditional support for world working class as a condition of the possibility of the eradication of last barriers to our own (meaning, that of the revolutionary territory's inhabitants') liberation, and with that, of all of humanity.

It is quite another matter to produce ideological justification for a specific restructuring of class relations and class re-composition as achieved socialism, thereby also damaging the potential of revolutionary theory (not to mention, again, the fact that it's simply an ideological justification of existing practice).

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

If we were to abstract Juche from its historical context, yes Juche represents a socialist school of thought. Although it seems that some people have conflated Juche with nationalism, it's important to understand that while Juche has been translated into self-sufficiency and independent-stand, the more accurate translation would be the Hegelian term for subject. The very concept of independence which lies at the core of Juche does not actually invoke the nation state but rather of the independence of the human subject which according to Juche, exists when consciousness is united with with his full capacity to transform the world, and when his creative capacity can be utilized to the full. In general, Juche represents a humanistic take on Marx's concept of alienation where alienation stems not from the process of production but rather the general alienation between consciousness and actual transformative activity, where alienation here means that social relations have evolved pass conscious intention and the human subject lacks the capacity to transform the world in his image to the best of his creative capacities

[Vireya]

False. A communist revolution is only: the global working class uniting under the banner of our self-interest and seizing the means of production. It doesn't have anything to do with culture and there is no such thing as "destiny."

You're "national socialism" or whatever totally misses the point and drives wedges between workers. We will either achieve our class interest or we won't. Likewise there can be no individual revolution within a global capitalist world: capital is vastly too powerful for such a naive idea and will re-incorporate this 'socialist' nation in no time. History proves this time and time again and only a fool ignores history because of their ideas of 'destiny.'

I would expect that sort of reaction from a Marxist, a follower of the most one dimensional socialist theory.

There is no global proletariat yet, the consciousness isn't there, the nation must be the basis we start from. The nationstate harbors the necessary social cohesion to facilitate class consciousness. Now you Marxists keep insisting socialism can't exist unless the entire world is socialist. Then how the hell do we do that? Magic? We must start from somewhere, and the nationstate is a ready made tool for our purposes!

From the way you and the others talk, it would seem like none of you actually believes socialism is plausible, it is defeatist. You keep talking about international revolution and how perfect communism will be, but I've yet to here how any of you plan to bring it about. Do you support the Marxist idea of the vanguards and worker's states? Or do you have some other plan?

[Baseball]

For the i-don't-know-which-time, no one is forwarding the idea of the viability of a simultaneous world revolution.

The deal is this: revolutionary governance, based on delegation and active participation of the broadest layers of the working class, coupled with possible immediate measures to affect working hours, standard of living, housing, cultural aspirations and education, community and solidarity as opposed to individual self-interest expressed in competitive all-against-all - and internationalism, unconditional support for world working class as a condition of the possibility of the eradication of last barriers to our own (meaning, that of the revolutionary territory's inhabitants') liberation, and with that, of all of humanity.

It is quite another matter to produce ideological justification for a specific restructuring of class relations and class re-composition as achieved socialism, thereby also damaging the potential of revolutionary theory (not to mention, again, the fact that it's simply an ideological justification of existing practice).

Yeah-- I get it.

I have no quarrel with the claim that socialism will develop differently, and on its own timeline, around the world.
However, this means that the socialist community (or the aspiring socialist community, however you wish to define it) must co-exist with existing capitalist countries, as well as organizing themselves to develop socialism. A fellow like Vireya seems to recognise and proposes how socialists ought to do this (indeed, he or she is big on the workers fullfilling their "cultural aspirations."). One then has to examine how they might do this, what is the impact of it upon socialism itself, and so forth.
IOW, it requires more than words on a political pamphlet

[Tim Cornelis]

Ok, and? Trading commodities doesn't make socialism impossible. Trade is part of economic discourse.

Socialism is incompatible with notions of exchange and trade.


Culture, ideology, and social relations don't exist in isolation, they're all intertwined.

Exactly, you can't just pick and choose what you like. You can't say, I'll have socialism with some nation-state.


A true international system is impossible without a global culture and a central political leadership of some kind. Such a decentralized and minimalist platform will fail do to lack of cohesion.

No it's not. Socialism would be based on a network of self-governing communes, and these are the political unit of socialist society. There wont be a central leadership or 'global culture' as precondition of internationalism.


I seriously doubt that would happen, the French communities would have more in common with eachother than with a community outside of their cultural realm.

That makes no sense. What decisions regarding collective infrastructure would concern "culture". If commune A and commune B find that there is too much traffic on the highway between them they need to find an appropriate solution. It doesn't matter what culture these communes have, it matters that they have a practical interdependence. If commune A is near commune B and they are located in Spain and France respectively it stands to reason they will have an intimate relation, whereas commune B will have little relations with Lille despite cultural commonality.

Honestly, you don't seem to grasp the essentials of socialism.


Socialism has no inherent political implications, nor would a state necessarily erode in the presence of it.

Of course it does. You have a bourgeois and idealist paradigm which makes you fail to realise the state did not arose out of an idea or philosophy, but out of class society, and arguably the need for central control over a larger population post-Neolithic revolution. Once class society has been abolished through the establishment of the free association of equals, which also implies absolute decentralisation, the preconditions for the state are gone.

You can't pick and choose what you like. You can't, as you said, implement whatever you feel compliments it best because, as you said, every social form is intertwined. Liberal democracy became viable through commercial production and proto-industrialisation. Prior to that it had no social basis. While physically possible, socially it was impossible. So the emergence of capitalism, nationalism, and liberal democracy was no accident as an idealist would say, but a logical outcome of industrialisation.


I would expect that sort of reaction from a Marxist, a follower of the most one dimensional socialist theory.

There is no global proletariat yet, the consciousness isn't there, [QUOTE]

The existence of a mass of wage-labourers (objective condition) because they lack consciousness (subjective conditions)? That makes no sense.

[QUOTE=Vireya;2659664]the nation must be the basis we start from.

Why?


The nationstate harbors the necessary social cohesion to facilitate class consciousness.

How?


Now you Marxists keep insisting socialism can't exist unless the entire world is socialist. Then how the hell do we do that? Magic? We must start from somewhere, and the nationstate is a ready made tool for our purposes!

I've explained this three times: a workers' state is established in one region, nation, whatever is the maximum extent to which it can establish its hegemony -- irrespective of arbitrary national boundaries. The workers' victory of self-emancipation precedes the establishment of socialism.
It does not imply a simultaneous socialist world revolution.


In what way would it be forced to "play by capitalism's rules" inherently?

Capital imposes its logic. I'd refer you to reading about how generalised commodity production came about, to see how commodity production in the industrial area leads to the restructering of society in accordance with commercial principles, in the political (government creating "business environment"), social (commodity fetishism), and the economic (markets, obviously), and thus how isolated communities (e.g. kibbutzim) are unsustainable.


I admitted that a marxist community would indeed fail because its lack of a market and currency, but that wouldn't be a problem for a socialist nation that employs a market system for resource allocation.

A market would eventuate in generalised commodity production, the capitalist mode of production.


Not to put words in your mouth, but being a Marxist, you'd probably consider markets to be inherently capitalist, hence you wouldn't recognize to possibility for a market socialist community operating in the midst of capitalist ones and engaging in trade relations with them. That is why I see Marxism as arrogant and shortsighted.

That's not an argument.


Socialism in One country is no more impossible than communism itself.

You imply as if socialism and communism are different from one another.


Commodity production wouldn't condemn a socialist nation in the least.

Perhaps because they are incompatible. Socialism would be production for use, not production for exchange.


Even in a socialist world, trade between communities would have to occur, and production for trade would naturally result. Marxist theory, as I said is shortsighted.

Even if that were true it has nothing to do with "shortsightedness". You are projecting the bourgeois experience of today unto a socialist future, stemming from the bourgeois paradigm you uphold. This results in all sorts of premature anachronistic deductions, such as the supposed need to trade between communities. Communism would establish some sort of distributive mechanisms whereby resources are shared amongst communes, and subsequently cultivated for use, then distributed for free or rationed in some way.


Why is that? What makes Communism so plausible, but not market socialism? In my opinion the Marxist economic viewpoint is simplistic and primitivist, I don't believe it is a system fit for humanity's continued progress.

"Market socialism" is plausible insofar it can exist, but it wouldn't be socialism. Also, Marxism isn't prescriptive, it's descriptive. Your understanding of it is rather poor.




I admitted that a marxist community would indeed fail because its lack of a market and currency, but that wouldn't be a problem for a socialist nation that employs a market system for resource allocation.

There's no such thing as a Marxist community, and that multiple options of socialism based on personal preference exist. Marxism makes predictions based on scientific analysis about the features of socialism, it's not an ideology it's a method of analysis.

-------------------------
I found a good metaphor for the bourgeois-idealist paradigm. As stated above, it observes the world today, whose character stems from its capitalist base, and projects or extrapolates it unto a socialist future, or universal human nature.

In the following picture we see a t-rex facing obstacles in human civilisation. However, had t-rexes' developed a civilisation its tools and means would be shaped according to its physical form. Yet, the cartoonist imposes a human civilisation on a t-rex one for comedic effect. But the bourgeois-idealist paradigm is that, imposing human civilisation on a t-rex civilisation. It simply doesn't fit, and is inaccurate.

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/aQqMjEd_700b.jpg

[Fakeblock]

There is no global proletariat yet, the consciousness isn't there, the nation must be the basis we start from. The nationstate harbors the necessary social cohesion to facilitate class consciousness.

So the working class will recognise its social position as the global proletariat, in direct antagonism to the global bourgeoisie, when it unites on the basis of extraclass nationality? Where's the logic? 'National unity' is inherently class collaborationist and thus incompatible with class unity, what socialists have strived for since for ever. When you feel you have more in common with a class enemy, who speaks your language than a comrade who doesn't, you aren't class conscious at all.

The nation is a veil that serves to obscure the inherent class antagonisms that follow capitalist production. It unites exploiter and exploited, always for the benefit of the former. Sure, organising as a class works better on the national scale, but those are the unavoidable conditions of the capitalist society, which establishes national borders, national laws and such. It doesn't benefit the working class in the slightest. In fact, the nation state is even hindering the continued development of capitalism more and more. Even for the bourgeoisie it's fossilising. It works for propaganda and repression purposes, but its economical restrictions are far too great to ignore. The national bourgeoisie has for years established supranational unity in the forms of unions, leagues and so on and yet there are still self-professed socialists who call for the strengthening of the nation, who desperately cling to an old and dying political structure.

[CyM]

I'm sorry, but let's set the record straight: there was no such thing as a "nation-state" before capitalism, and particularly the national-democratic revolutions that accompanied its birth-pangs.

[Fakeblock]

Has anyone claimed otherwise?

[CyM]

Long day at work, and didn't realize there were 3 pages before I replied. I was replying to the debate about nationalism on the first page. Totally irrelevant now.

[Baseball]

Even if that were true it has nothing to do with "shortsightedness". You are projecting the bourgeois experience of today unto a socialist future, stemming from the bourgeois paradigm you uphold. This results in all sorts of premature anachronistic deductions, such as the supposed need to trade between communities. Communism would establish some sort of distributive mechanisms whereby resources are shared amongst communes, and subsequently cultivated for use, then distributed for free or rationed in some way.



Well, if the logic of capitalism is what dictates how society is developed, then one would expect that the logic of communism would dictate how the socialist/communist society develops.

With that in mind, saying that "communism would develop some sort of distributive mechanism..." doesn't really cut it. Those "mechanisms" would have to be developed prior to communism in order to support the development of communism. You need to explain "somehow" and demonstrate that it does so. Requiring this explanation isn't operating within some sort of "bourgeois paradigm" but a reasonable request to evaluate whether in fact the new "distributive mechanism? conforms with communist principles and the society that is supposedly arising, and also whether it does what it says it does in a manner superior to how capitalism distributes goods and services.

[Vireya]

Socialism is incompatible with notions of exchange and trade.
Marxist socialism is incompatible with exchange and trade, Marxism isn't the totality of socialism.



Exactly, you can't just pick and choose what you like. You can't say, I'll have socialism with some nation-state.
No one is "picking and choosing", the nation. And socialism aren't exclusive to eachother.




No it's not. Socialism would be based on a network of self-governing communes, and these are the political unit of socialist society. There wont be a central leadership or 'global culture' as precondition of internationalism.
What would compel the communes to cooperate without an overarching culture or a central leadership? Sounds a bit utopian to me.



That makes no sense. What decisions regarding collective infrastructure would concern "culture". If commune A and commune B find that there is too much traffic on the highway between them they need to find an appropriate solution. It doesn't matter what culture these communes have, it matters that they have a practical interdependence. If commune A is near commune B and they are located in Spain and France respectively it stands to reason they will have an intimate relation, whereas commune B will have little relations with Lille despite cultural commonality.

Honestly, you don't seem to grasp the essentials of socialism.

I suppose that'd work if all the communes were communist.

My grasp of socialism is just fine, I simply find Marxist methods obsolete and one dimensional.



Of course it does. You have a bourgeois and idealist paradigm which makes you fail to realise the state did not arose out of an idea or philosophy, but out of class society, and arguably the need for central control over a larger population post-Neolithic revolution. Once class society has been abolished through the establishment of the free association of equals, which also implies absolute decentralisation, the preconditions for the state are gone.
Yes, of course you'd see it that way, anything not Marxist is bourgeois.

I don't see it that way, I see the nationstate as an outgrowth of the need for higher levels of organization in the face of growing populations. Even in the event of global socialism, there would need to be a central authority to regulate relations between the communes.


You can't pick and choose what you like. You can't, as you said, implement whatever you feel compliments it best because, as you said, every social form is intertwined. Liberal democracy became viable through commercial production and proto-industrialisation. Prior to that it had no social basis. While physically possible, socially it was impossible. So the emergence of capitalism, nationalism, and liberal democracy was no accident as an idealist would say, but a logical outcome of industrialisation.
Point taken, however I don't find that the necessary leaves only one avenue of action for socialism. There is room for variation.


The existence of a mass of wage-labourers (objective condition) because they lack consciousness (subjective conditions)? That makes no sense.
They don't exist as a concept yet. It is similar to what you said earlier, it's physically here, but it isn't socially possible yet.



Why?
It's the first logical step, socialism must happen locally before it happens globally.




How?
It is easiest to organize people with those they feel most commonality with.




I've explained this three times: a workers' state is established in one region, nation, whatever is the maximum extent to which it can establish its hegemony -- irrespective of arbitrary national boundaries. The workers' victory of self-emancipation precedes the establishment of socialism.
It does not imply a simultaneous socialist world revolution
Ok then, were both supporting the samething then, starting small and working up to international socialism. I'm simply saying it would be more pragmatic to start within the borders of a nationstate. Establishing a workers' state across national boundaries would be improbable.



Capital imposes its logic. I'd refer you to reading about how generalised commodity production came about, to see how commodity production in the industrial area leads to the restructering of society in accordance with commercial principles, in the political (government creating "business environment"), social (commodity fetishism), and the economic (markets, obviously), and thus how isolated communities (e.g. kibbutzim) are unsustainable.
I recognize a Marxist economy is incapable of coexisting with capitalism, that's a given. I'm not a proponent of communism or Marxism in general, though.

I see the market as the most effective economic system, even for socialism.



A market would eventuate in generalised commodity production, the capitalist mode of production.
Ok, I see no problem with commodity production as long as the means of production are commonly owned and workers are properly reimbursed for their labor. Of course, we're never going to agree on this.





You imply as if socialism and communism are different from one another.
Communism is a variant of Socialism, there are other variants.




Perhaps because they are incompatible. Socialism would be production for use, not production for exchange.
No reason why it can't be both.




Even if that were true it has nothing to do with "shortsightedness". You are projecting the bourgeois experience of today unto a socialist future, stemming from the bourgeois paradigm you uphold. This results in all sorts of premature anachronistic deductions, such as the supposed need to trade between communities. Communism would establish some sort of distributive mechanisms whereby resources are shared amongst communes, and subsequently cultivated for use, then distributed for free or rationed in some way.
That's still trading....



"Market socialism" is plausible insofar it can exist, but it wouldn't be socialism. Also, Marxism isn't prescriptive, it's descriptive. Your understanding of it is rather poor.
If it is plausible, then it would be socialism, how wouldnt it be? What are you talking about? My understanding of Marxism is fine, I understand its analysis of society, and I even agree with much of it. However, view Marxism as presenting an extremely oversimplified view of history.




There's no such thing as a Marxist community, and that multiple options of socialism based on personal preference exist. Marxism makes predictions based on scientific analysis about the features of socialism, it's not an ideology it's a method of analysis.
Ok now you're getting ridiculous, now there's now such thing as a Marxist community.....right. That is what I've been saying this whole time!!!! There are multiple socialisms and multiple paths to socialism.


-------------------------
I found a good metaphor for the bourgeois-idealist paradigm. As stated above, it observes the world today, whose character stems from its capitalist base, and projects or extrapolates it unto a socialist future, or universal human nature.

In the following picture we see a t-rex facing obstacles in human civilisation. However, had t-rexes' developed a civilisation its tools and means would be shaped according to its physical form. Yet, the cartoonist imposes a human civilisation on a t-rex one for comedic effect. But the bourgeois-idealist paradigm is that, imposing human civilisation on a t-rex civilisation. It simply doesn't fit, and is inaccurate.

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/aQqMjEd_700b.jpg Either way, somethings will stay the same, regardless of if society is socialist or not.

[Decolonize The Left]

^ No, there aren't any other "variants." There is socialism/communism/anarchism = classless, stateless society based around the general maxim 'to each according to need, from each according to ability.'

This means no nation-states, no classes, no markets. You are not a socialist, a communist, a Marxist, or an anarchist.

[Vireya]

^ No, there aren't any other "variants." There is socialism/communism/anarchism = classless, stateless society based around the general maxim 'to each according to need, from each according to ability.'

This means no nation-states, no classes, no markets. You are not a socialist, a communist, a Marxist, or an anarchist.

Typical Marxist, equating anarcho-communism with socialism itself. How arrogant. There are variants based on how one believes socialism should be implemented and how it should be organized after the revolution. The very fact that you and I disagree is proof of this.

I haven't implied any support for classes, I've already explained I only view the nationstate as a stepping stone to the next phase of socialism; the creation of a world encompassing socialist federation. Markets are superior at distributing resources when compared to planned economies, sorry but Marxist economic platforms fail, they don't work. Look at what happened to the Soviets, their economy failed at providing basic goods such as food, clothing, comfortable housing.

I take great offense at being called non-socialist, I have been socialist for a very long time. Perhaps you should loose your narrow minded conceptions about socialism and recognize that Marx isn't the god of socialism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

In all fairness, before Marx there were plenty of variants of utopian socialism that we wouldn't consider "real" socialism. I mean, Mutualism is basically a pretty looking stateless capitalism and yet it was considered legitimate for a period of time. So even though I don't consider him a socialist in the same sense I am a socialist, I don't think it is too inappropriate to use that term as long as he doesn't call himself a Communist.

[Vireya]

In all fairness, before Marx there were plenty of variants of utopian socialism that we wouldn't consider "real" socialism. I mean, Mutualism is basically a pretty looking stateless capitalism and yet it was considered legitimate for a period of time. So even though I don't consider him a socialist in the same sense I am a socialist, I don't think it is too inappropriate to use that term as long as he doesn't call himself a Communist.

Thank you!

I've never claimed to be communist (because I'm not). I draw some inspiration from Marx, but that's about it. I don't particularly fancy Marxism, but I recognize it and its adherents as socialists, because to deny that would be dishonest.

I won't lie, my thoughts on socialism aren't as radical as what seems to be the norm here.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I don't think you have to go back to the 1800s and Proudhon to acknowledge that socialism might mean something else than what people on here usually define it as. I see Vireya in the tradition of "left" social democratic parties such as SPUSA etc. But that doesn't mean "socialism" is something meaningfull in this sense, I think it's Engels who states somewhere - although in relation to something else - that "everything can be turned into a phrase".

[Thirsty Crow]

However, this means that the socialist community (or the aspiring socialist community, however you wish to define it) must co-exist with existing capitalist countries, as well as organizing themselves to develop socialism.

True.

Though, it would be a bit farcical to call unconditional support for the destruction of said capitalist states and material aid in this project "co-existence", wouldn't it? Though, to be clear, I do not advocate revolutionary offensive war as a viable means to the end.


A fellow like Vireya seems to recognise and proposes how socialists ought to do this (indeed, he or she is big on the workers fullfilling their "cultural aspirations.").
This is not the case.

Vireya operates with a specific understanding of both capitalism and socialism which is not adequate to the reality of the former (or at least to the crucial social relations involved) and its many consequences (thus to the cause-consequence relationship in social development), and this results in the claim that socialism can be achieved without world revolution. This is not a proposal how a revolutionary working class is to establish socialism through internationalism as a necessary component, but a repudiation of the latter.

And the thing about cultural aspirations. I do not claim here the importance of a national-ethnic culture, but the probability and desirability of the widening interest and participation of more and more workers in cultural activity - music, literature and theater, and so on.



IOW, it requires more than words on a political pamphletSure.

[Tim Cornelis]

Marxist socialism is incompatible with exchange and trade, Marxism isn't the totality of socialism.

There's no such thing as "Marxist socialism," as a political or economic system at least.


No one is "picking and choosing", the nation. And socialism aren't exclusive to eachother.

You are picking what you like and combining them, even those these contradict the movements of historical development.


What would compel the communes to cooperate without an overarching culture or a central leadership? Sounds a bit utopian to me.

Compel? They have an interest in it!


My grasp of socialism is just fine, I simply find Marxist methods obsolete and one dimensional.

Everything you said suggest you do not know much about Marxism, except hearsay. Saying its methods are obsolete is contradictory because by definition the materialist method is always relevant or never.


Yes, of course you'd see it that way, anything not Marxist is bourgeois.

Yes, because Marxism is the contradicting paradigm of the bourgeoisie.


I don't see it that way, I see the nationstate as an outgrowth of the need for higher levels of organization in the face of growing populations. Even in the event of global socialism, there would need to be a central authority to regulate relations between the communes.

That's ahistorical and absolute nonsense. The nation-state emerged in the period of industrialisation and had nothing to do with population size. And no, there wouldn't be a need for central authority to regulate between communes.


Point taken, however I don't find that the necessary leaves only one avenue of action for socialism. There is room for variation.

Any variation will need to correspond to the real historical development of society. Your view on the nation-state's compatibility with socialism is anachronistic.


They don't exist as a concept yet. It is similar to what you said earlier, it's physically here, but it isn't socially possible yet.

No, it's not a question of what's possible. The proletariat is a mass of wage-workers selling their labour-power to an employer, this exists objectively and irrespectively of how this relationship is perceived.


It's the first logical step, socialism must happen locally before it happens globally.

No, a workers' revolution must happen locally before it can happen elsewhere. It does not follow that therefore there will be a socialist mode of production locally.


It is easiest to organize people with those they feel most commonality with.

Irrelevant and makes no sense. Spanish commune A has too much traffic between it and French commune B. French commune B is not going to say to Lille Commune to solve it because they have a common culture.


k then, were both supporting the samething then, starting small and working up to international socialism. I'm simply saying it would be more pragmatic to start within the borders of a nationstate. Establishing a workers' state across national boundaries would be improbable.

Not really. If we look at the Iberian peninsula we see that South Spain and South Portugal are more developed in terms of class consciousness than other regions of respective countries. If a revolution were to break out these regions would form a joint workers' congress to facilitate joint efforts in the realisation of socialism. It would be senseless and counter-productive for them to limit themselves to arbitrary confines of the nation-state.


I recognize a Marxist economy is incapable of coexisting with capitalism, that's a given. I'm not a proponent of communism or Marxism in general, though.

There's no such thing as a Marxist economy.


I see the market as the most effective economic system, even for socialism.

Socialism would not have buying and selling, but even if we fool ourselves into thinking market exchange and socialism are compatible then it's still unsustainable.


Ok, I see no problem with commodity production as long as the means of production are commonly owned and workers are properly reimbursed for their labor. Of course, we're never going to agree on this.

No because the workers would become the collective capitalist actor.


Communism is a variant of Socialism, there are other variants.

The socialist mode of production is communism and vice versa.


No reason why it can't be both.


That's still trading....

Sharing, by definition, is not trading.


If it is plausible, then it would be socialism, how wouldnt it be? What are you talking about? My understanding of Marxism is fine, I understand its analysis of society, and I even agree with much of it. However, view Marxism as presenting an extremely oversimplified view of history.

You keep suggesting as if Marxism is prescriptive, your understanding of it is not fine.


Ok now you're getting ridiculous, now there's now such thing as a Marxist community.....right. That is what I've been saying this whole time!!!! There are multiple socialisms and multiple paths to socialism.

This contradicts your notion that you understand Marxism. There's the socialist mode of production, which Marxism predicts, not advocates. No Marxism community exists because Marxism is not an ideology, nor a mode of production. There is variety possible within socialism, rationing in some way or free access to consumer goods. It's incompatible with exchange as modus operandi.

[servusmoderni]

Juche's a fancy name for what a autocratic hereditary military dictatorship. Go to hell with Kim Juggs Nuts :lol:

[PompeiusMagnus]

While the synthesis provided by Kim Il Sung is far from what I would call a great theory(Totalitarian anti-dogmatism namely) it is most certainly Socialist. Firstly in plain dictionary form Socialism is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. The Juche Ideal and Kim Il Sung's North Korea was without a doubt a practitioner of socialism and was in fact a Soviet-style planned economy. Juche is a single party democracy which employs "the one ideology solution". Juche's core tenant of self reliance and the one ideology solution are ample explanation why the DPRK and the government leadership continue to struggle on for Socialism to this day. :unsure:Now I however seriously doubt that the Songun "army before party" policies of Kim Jong Il aided the progress of socialism and the well being of the people. Also it is evident that Kim Jong Il was far from the idealist and benevolent dictator that Juche was founded under given his numerous act of extreme opulence and in one instance kidnapping foreign citizens to play in his films. Under Kim Jong Il there was starvation and the diversion of the government's funds towards building one the largest standing armies in the world rather then fixing DPRK's decaying infrastructure, agricultural mismanagement, and medical catastrophe. However Kim Jong Il's propaganda machine was probably on par even with Mao's on the more radical phases of the Cultural Revolution. Meaning that the ideological indoctrination towards socialism, self-reliance and optimism is as strong as it was under Kim Il Sung. But now he is dead and a new generation is center stage, if Kim Jong Un follows in the revolutionary path laid by his grandfather he has the opportunity to end Songun and return to Socialism and the crafting of not only a better Korea but a better world, or run Korea into the ground. :unsure:

[Baseball]

True.

Though, it would be a bit farcical to call unconditional support for the destruction of said capitalist states and material aid in this project "co-existence", wouldn't it? Though, to be clear, I do not advocate revolutionary offensive war as a viable means to the end.


This is not the case.

Vireya operates with a specific understanding of both capitalism and socialism which is not adequate to the reality of the former (or at least to the crucial social relations involved) and its many consequences (thus to the cause-consequence relationship in social development), and this results in the claim that socialism can be achieved without world revolution. This is not a proposal how a revolutionary working class is to establish socialism through internationalism as a necessary component, but a repudiation of the latter.

And the thing about cultural aspirations. I do not claim here the importance of a national-ethnic culture, but the probability and desirability of the widening interest and participation of more and more workers in cultural activity - music, literature and theater, and so on.


World revolution is just that- world revolution. It has been stridently denied that there would a.simultaneous world wide revolt. Absent that, socialism has to be organised somehow, both internally and.how it interacts with the capitalist world.

[Chop_Sugar_Cane_Dem]

Juche philosophy is anti-genderqueer and homophobic. Thus, it's impossible to be valid as an ideology for the people.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Juche's a fancy name for what a autocratic hereditary military dictatorship. Go to hell with Kim Juggs Nuts :lol:


Juche philosophy is anti-genderqueer and homophobic. Thus, it's impossible to be valid as an ideology for the people.

Imperialist sympathizers. :rolleyes:

[PompeiusMagnus]

I am with Vox Populi. Juche is an actual attempt at Socialism. It may fail but if you truly want Socialism to succeed and there are people who have a regime that is not quite the model we want but has similar goals, you are just as much of a difficulty as a Rightist to cynically dismiss them. If you are ever to be successful we should respect out allies and fine tune our model once we actually are in a position to do so. As of right now there are only 5 Single-party democracies modeled after Lenin left. China and Vietnam can be dismissed as vehemently Capitalist. The left must unite now or drift into the ether. :glare:
Also where did you hear they where passing anti-gay legislature?

[Fourth Internationalist]

World revolution is just that- world revolution. It has been stridently denied that there would a.simultaneous world wide revolt. Absent that, socialism has to be organised somehow, both internally and.how it interacts with the capitalist world.

I don't see how you get the idea that lack of an immediate and simultaneous world revolution means that socialism has to be organised within the capitalist world ("socialism in one country"?). A workers' revolution does not immediately create socialism.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I am with Vox Populi. Juche is an actual attempt at Socialism. It may fail but if you truly want Socialism to succeed and there are people who have a regime that is not quite the model we want but has similar goals, you are just as much of a difficulty as a Rightist to cynically dismiss them. If you are ever to be successful we should respect out allies and fine tune our model once we actually are in a position to do so. As of right now there are only 5 Single-party democracies modeled after Lenin left. China and Vietnam can be dismissed as vehemently Capitalist. The left must unite now or drift into the ether. :glare:
Also where did you hear they where passing anti-gay legislature?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cQvrmJkAsCk/UVQyFL-S9WI/AAAAAAAAAMA/xcT4LCxYFQ8/s1600/33617404.jpg

[TiberiusGracchus]

"Juche" is just a fasade for winning some anti-imperialist sympathy in the west. No ordinary people in North Korea have even heard of "juche". On the other hand if we were to ask a citizen in DDR if s/he had heard about marxism-leninism s/he would probably be able to hold an hour long lecture on the subject.

The ruling ideology in North Korea is paternalistic, racist and totalitarian. It rather resembles the traditional ideology of the old japanese or korean empires. The people are treated as children and held in political ignorance and subordination.

[Leftsolidarity]

"Juche" is just a fasade for winning some anti-imperialist sympathy in the west. No ordinary people in North Korea have even heard of "juche".

lol source please. Have you ever been to the DPRK or known anyone who has? How can you say with any confidence at all that no "ordinary people" in the DPRK "have even heard of" Juche?

[PompeiusMagnus]

All three of us have Latin names :D, But seriously if you watch 1 hour of Korean Centreal Television or listen to any of the Socialist music from North Korea which is played in train stations, upon entering a factory, listening to the radio, or watching a film. All throughout Juche and more recently Songun are reoccurring themes. A complex ideological arsenal is exposed to them constantly, how can you claim they do not understand it?

Also, DDR? You are kidding, the ideological indoctrination was clearly inferior as it collapsed over 2 decades ago with a mass movement against Socialism.:laugh:

[liberlict]

Juche is just great, I love to see socialism in one country working. It's pretty good. Sweden is nearly there. Just got a resource economy. African countries have more mineral resources than Sweden. They should all emulate.

[Baseball]

I don't see how you get the idea that lack of an immediate and simultaneous world revolution means that socialism has to be organised within the capitalist world ("socialism in one country"?). A workers' revolution does not immediately create socialism.


Its gotta start somehow and somewhere... If its not simultaneous worldwide then its going to have to work and develop while co-existing with capitalism.
Should Lenin have called for the restoration of Kerensky or the Czar after the failure of the revolutions in 1919?