Bill Maher: Socialism built the Middle Class

[Marxizm]

Over the years Bill Maher has finally came to the side of Socialism and he regularly defends it on his show, last night he ended his show with a great talk about Socialism and how it built the Middle Class,

You can type in youtube to find the video, just type Bill Maher Socialism and put in the search filter "This week" and find the video dated to last night, Friday night January 30th, this is what he said while closing his show,
"So what’s happening is the Democrats are proposing to nibble around the edges of our middle-class problem. And the Republicans are pretending to care while they go back to servicing eight rich dickheads who own coal mines. And no one is telling the truth. Which is that the large thriving middle-class that America use to have didn't just appear out of the blue. It was created using an economic tool called Socialism.

Oh, I know. We never use that term here in buzzword nation. But that is exactly what our government did after World War II. It taxed the rich up to ninety percent and massively redistributed that money through the GI Bill so that more than half the population benefited from free college, free job training, cheap mortgages, and much much more. Yes for a brief shining moment we were Finland. …

We can debate whether that is a good thing or bad thing to go back to, but what is beyond debate is that that is what happened. The fifties and sixties are the era of Socialism in America. And that is when a family only needed one bread winner and a house only cost two years’ salary. It is when a man could afford college for his kids and dinner at a chop house for the misses. …

Because here is the reality a middle class is actually not the normal by-product of capitalism. Ask any historian. Middle-class is actually a fluke in history. Like in the fourteenth century. A middle-class was created in Europe when during the black plague a third of the population died resulting in a labor shortage and increase bargaining power for workers. So that is one way to create a middle-class. But it is kind of hard to see it on a campaign poster."

Bill Maher has been a huge influence on me since a kid, he used to oppose Socialism but he was always a left winger who believed in equality but was disillusioned by the "Socialist" Soviet Union, as were many left wingers. I dont hold his past aggression towards Socialism against him, he has made the right choice in the end and I believe he is a good person who is really helping this country spreading messages like this.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I wonder how both you and Bill Maher define socialism... :rolleyes:

[Futility Personified]

This is intensely problematic.

I recall Michael Moore saying similar things in Capitalism: A Love Story. Those policies were hugely beneficial, but were they socialist? That period in time was called a golden age of capitalism. If I understand correctly, it was a time of Keynsian intervention, of encouraging spending and creating an infrastructure to support the capitalist state. Concessions to the workers, or economic stimulus?

There's no doubt it was much better to live under those conditions then than the farce we have now, but it just was not socialism.

Nevermind the horrendous social inequality of that time which practically enforced a smaller workforce through keeping women at home.

And what the hell is a middle class?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I guess I should say first off that I've never been a fan of him but it's probably as much a personality thing as much as it's political :D. I disagree with Michael Moore potitically, for example, but I'm a little more forgiving because he has (or at least in the past) built his public persona on some working class populism cred whereas Maher has built his persona round being unashamedly elitist, first as a libertarian, then as a progressive.

That being said, I think most marxists/anarchists would disagree with some of the definitions he's using. He's talking about the middle class but probably means better paid workers, the socialism he's talking about are democratic-socialist reforms from above, but really the policies in the u.s. Were liberal Keynesianism, not soc-dem Keynesianism or reforms.

But to me these are side points because I would personally welcome some of the economic working conditions of the post-war era: better pay, less work, more ability to take direct action at the shop floor, better workplace protections etc. everything suck these days, so it would be nice to at least have more free-time:lol:

but I think the problem is in seeing these things as reforms from above, and is implied by the quote, sort of just "better policies" to choose from. I think maher distrusts regular people and thinks we're too stupid, but really what cause politicians to choose these reforms, it was either through explicit threats of rebellion or indirect fears of this coming at a time when the u.s. Economy was expanding and European countries and the USSR needed stability to rebuild after the war. It was this situation that made these reforms a more realistic option for the ruling classes and politicians... More realistic than thinking they could repress workers outright and not just end up back in revolutions or at least massive class unrest like after the first war.

While I welcome socialism and equality loosing their taboos in mainstream discussion, the important thing to me is who has the poltential to alter the staus quo for the better (either in the short term with reforms or in building a whole other possibility for how society works).

[Jimmie Higgins]

I wonder how both you and Bill Maher define socialism... :rolleyes:
I wonder how many eye rolls it takes to convince someone of you politics:rolleyes: :lol:

But seriously, why not mke your case rather than being dismissive to someone new that has a handful of posts and you don't know where they're coming from?

[Ocean Seal]

So I think he would barely be called a social democrat considering how conservative he is on many positions. I always thought he was one of those get money out of politics liberal types.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I wonder how many eye rolls it takes to convince someone of you politics:rolleyes: :lol:

But seriously, why not mke your case rather than being dismissive to someone new that has a handful of posts and you don't know where they're coming from?

I just assumed the thread was some sort of trolling. Someone with the name "Marxizm" would surely, well, have read something about Marxism before joining a revolutionary leftist website in my eyes, and definitely before posting about Bill Maher's "socialism" in a serious subforum for political discussion of revolutionary leftism, not for the liberal, imperialist politics of a Democrat (that belongs in O.I.). So, sorry to the user if you are genuine. However, this should be in Learning or in O.I., not the politics subforum for revolutionary leftism.

[Rosa Partizan]

Really? I saw him the other day at Jimmy Kimmel, I think, right after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and he labeled himself a proud liberal.

[RedKobra]

As a Brit I'm not overly familiar with him but what I would say is that what he's describing is most certainly not socialism in any meaningful sense. What he's describing is just a point in Capitalist development when there is weakness of Capitalist hegemony and the working class is in a sufficiently strong position to negotiate a better settlement on wages and conditions. Now whilst these things make life really quite pleasant for working people, fundamentally it can only ever be a passing phase, it could last fifty years but it could just as easily last under five. The power of the relative classes fluctuate over time but generally speaking the bourgeoisie is in the position of dictating social conditions because ultimately as the appropriators of profit and hence the possessors of capital they are the ones that grow or shrink the economy.

These "Golden Periods" are fleeting moments and are inherently unstable. They haven't solved anything. The working class, under Capitalism, will always remain one crisis from impoverishment.

The only way to make those sort of gains permanent and not subject to the whims of Capitalism is to abolish Capitalism.

[parallax]

There was socialism in the United States, but then a counterrevolution occurred with the election of Ronald Reagan.

[Marxizm]

The way I see it is there are as many forms of Socialism as there are Socialists. We dont all have to have exactly the same views, in fact I think its good that we dont.


Really? I saw him the other day at Jimmy Kimmel, I think, right after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and he labeled himself a proud liberal.

Bill Maher is whats known as a "Social Liberal" or a "Liberal Socialist", "Liberal socialism is a socialist political philosophy that includes liberal principles within it.[1] Liberal socialism does not have the goal of abolishing capitalism with a socialist economy;[2] instead, it supports a mixed economy that includes both public and private property in capital goods.[3][4]
Although liberal socialism unequivocally favors a mixed market economy, it identifies legalistic and artificial monopolies to be the fault of capitalism[5] and opposes an entirely unregulated economy.[6] It considers both liberty and equality to be compatible and mutually dependent on each other.[1]"

I would say when I never really thought much about politics I was a Socialist Liberal, but the more I learn (im only 21) the farther Left I go, I may not be as far left as you guys right now or as knowledgeable, but trust me I am undoubtedly a far left winger and I love learning about Socialism. Every political test I take puts me on the extreme left, I took a test at "politicialtest.net" and I literally got "105% Communistic" :grin: and it labelled me a Trotskyist, which I am fine with ive never had any major problems with Trotsky but I have admittedly never read anything by him sadly, I still have so much to learn and im willing to listen to you guys just give me a chance and dont be dismissive like the first guy was :glare:

[Fourth Internationalist]

With the name "Marxizm", have you ever read The Communist Manifesto? (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/)

[Fourth Internationalist]

There was socialism in the United States, but then a counterrevolution occurred with the election of Ronald Reagan.

Okay, this time I'm almost sure this has to be trolling...

[Redistribute the Rep]

Bill maher just says things for shock value, especially if it is something that will piss off Republicans. This is the only reason american liberals ever appropriate the word socialism, it shouldn't really be taken to mean much

[The Disillusionist]

Bill Maher has some interesting opinions, but I think everything he says is carefully calculated to make typical Democrats agree with him and to make Republicans mad at him, which then makes the Democrats feel edgy for listening to him.

As others have stated, he's actually pretty conservative, and his half-hearted endorsement of socialism doesn't really mean that much. I think that for Bill Maher, "socialism" is just a buzzword that easily falls within that "just edgy enough to seem marketable to younger leftist Democrats without losing to much of the centrist audience" criteria.

Also, he's a bit of an asshole about religion. I've got nothing against atheism, I lean heavily toward atheism myself, but he's one of those typical American liberals who think everything bad that has ever happened can be blamed on religion, rather than material conditions and American imperialism. Again, because he's just edgy enough to be a hit with the college students, but doesn't want to get too controversial.

Edit: I like how Redistribute the Rep and I basically made the exact same point at the exact same time.

[Crux]

Well, I don't want to shoot the messenger but I do hate Maher with a passion. The elitist liberal in full form. That said though...
The days of the New Deal weren't socialism, nor for that matter, speaking as a Swede, was the Swedish wellfare state at it's peak.

That's not to say victories weren't won, but it is important to see them in context. They were never handed down benevolently from up on high.
For instance, the founding block of the Swedish wellfare state, the deal that was signed between the unions, the state and the bussines owners...well for one thing it was widely considered a sell-out deal at the time and not just by what we would call the radical left. It would be a lie however to say nothing was won, but what lead up to these small concessions from the ruling class?

Two primary factors, the objective economic situation allowed for it. Sweden had come out into the post-war era from having previously been a relatively poor mostly agricultural country into a relatively booming industrial country.

This in itself though insures nothing but it meant the ruling class had room for concessions.

The second more important factor however was the intense labour struggles that had occured up until then. In the 1920's Sweden had the most strikes per capita, the workforce was highly unionized. There was the ability to put power behind the demands.

For context, something similar had happened in the U.S as well. The ruling class never willingly gives up anything, and the politicians of New Deal liberalism or the rightwing of Social Democracy never handed these victories down. The momentum of the movement from below is what forced them, especially with the relatively fresh experience of the bolshevik revolution.

That, for them, was an even bigger fear.

[Sewer Socialist]

I wonder how both you and Bill Maher define socialism... :rolleyes:


It taxed the rich up to ninety percent and massively redistributed that money through the GI Bill so that more than half the population benefited from free college, free job training, cheap mortgages, and much much more. Yes for a brief shining moment we were Finland.

Clearly, social democracy.

But in a way, didn't real, militant socialists in the labor movement indirectly force some concessions - welfare to keep everyone pacified? These concessions are not themselves socialism, of course, but the quote that made me and everyone else here cringe isn't exactly wrong, right?

[Marxizm]

With the name "Marxizm", have you ever read

Of course I have read it, no reason to be such a douchebag

[ckaihatsu]

There was socialism in the United States, but then a counterrevolution occurred with the election of Ronald Reagan.





[T]he ruling group in the United States—this was before Reagan’s election—made the decision to dump Keynes and instead embrace the theories of Milton Friedman. By dumping Keynes, the Reagan era of “neo-liberalism” in a very real sense was already beginning even though Reagan’s actual election was still more than a year in the future.




https://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/the-five-industrial-cycles-since-1945/from-the-1974-75-recession-to-the-volcker-shock/





[T]he more I learn (im only 21) the farther Left I go


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://s6.postimg.org/3si9so4xd/110211_Ideologies_Operations_Left_Centrifug.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/zc8b2rb3h/full/)

[Fourth Internationalist]

Of course I have read it, no reason to be such a douchebag

Do you think what Marx advocates has anything to do with what Maher talked about?

[Marxizm]

Do you think what Marx advocates has anything to do with what Maher talked about?

Partly, not entirely. Maher cares about the plight of the working class and not only wants to increase ALL of their wages, he wants to increase the rights workers have and the compensation they receive for being injured etc. He also wants free healthcare and free college for everyone to be paid for exclusively by the billionaire class. Tell me, what do you think of Bernie Sanders? Bernie calls himself a Socialist, and I love him he is great, guess who Mahers favorite politician is? Thats right, the Socialist Bernie Sanders. You guys seem to be under the, in my opinion false, impression that unless you are willing to institute a ENTIRELY Communist system without a shred of Capitalism, than you arent a true Socialist. Well I disagree with that, as ive said before there are as many forms of Socialism as there are Socialists, and that is a good thing.

[John Nada]

Partly, not entirely. Maher cares about the plight of the working class and not only wants to increase ALL of their wages, he wants to increase the rights workers have and the compensation they receive for being injured etc. He also wants free healthcare and free college for everyone to be paid for exclusively by the billionaire class.Bill Maher might want a slightly nicer capitalism, which is okay for him and better than nothing, but not the complete liberation of the global working class. There shouldn't be billionaires everyone has to beg to for basic necessities, either in the US or any nation.
Tell me, what do you think of Bernie Sanders? Bernie calls himself a Socialist, and I love him he is great, guess who Mahers favorite politician is? Thats right, the Socialist Bernie Sanders.Bernie Sander is what's known as a social democrat. He's not even particularly left-wing by social democrats' standards, let alone by communists'/anarchists'. It's just that US politics is so far to the right he seems better and more left-wing.
You guys seem to be under the, in my opinion false, impression that unless you are willing to institute a ENTIRELY Communist system without a shred of Capitalism, than you arent a true Socialist. Well I disagree with that, as ive said before there are as many forms of Socialism as there are Socialists, and that is a good thing.Nearly every single social democratic party that advocated the "best of both capitalism and socialism" is now to the right of the 1960's conservative parties. If there's still capitalists at the helm of the system, they'll undo any reforms that benefit the poor and working class sooner or later. Either in the US or in another country by imperialist intervention. There will still be recessions and depressions, inequity, poverty, bigotry, pollution and war. "True socialists" want to end all oppression in all of the world, once and for all.

[Crux]

Partly, not entirely. Maher cares about the plight of the working class and not only wants to increase ALL of their wages, he wants to increase the rights workers have and the compensation they receive for being injured etc. He also wants free healthcare and free college for everyone to be paid for exclusively by the billionaire class. Tell me, what do you think of Bernie Sanders? Bernie calls himself a Socialist, and I love him he is great, guess who Mahers favorite politician is? Thats right, the Socialist Bernie Sanders. You guys seem to be under the, in my opinion false, impression that unless you are willing to institute a ENTIRELY Communist system without a shred of Capitalism, than you arent a true Socialist. Well I disagree with that, as ive said before there are as many forms of Socialism as there are Socialists, and that is a good thing. There's another issue that unites Sanders and Maher: Israel.
But yeah Sanders, and probably Maher too I suppose, say some common sense stuff sometimes. I'm not gonna lie, had I been an american I would have voted for Sanders. For mayor of Burlington in the 1980's. Trust me, I do get the appeal of Sanders but...the problem with Sanders isn't that he's not advocating FULL COMMUNISM, to speak internet meme speak, but that although he may have been a kind of socialist once that's not really the case today. There's much more I could say, but I'll have to drop back into this thread at some other time. It's kind of late here. I mean look Sanders may say some nice things, like other progressive liberals, but what are his means of achieving those limited nice things?

[newdayrising]

Bill Maher is not a socialist let alone a marxist, so I wouldn't expect him to have a "correct" definition of socialism. He, as some people here, believes socialism is a form os state capitalism.
Also, as a non-marxist, he believes class has to do with how much you're able to consume, not your relations to the means of production.
A similar notion appeared in Brazil during the last decade, people speak of a "new middle class" when it's actually a new working class with more money to buy TVs and cars.

[RedKobra]

Juan Moreno put it best, suffice it to say Socialists working within Capitalism have a dismal and I do mean dismal record of imposing their will on the system. Invariably (and I'm being polite, its actually every single time) the system bends the socialist to Capitalism's will. To suggest otherwise is to essentially have to believe that every social democrat that has ever gained power was a malicious, duplicitous, capitalist in socialist's clothing intent on screwing the working class, serving their Capitalist overlords and generally dragging Socialism through the mud. Quite frankly if you believe that then you need to grow up. Yes there are the classic exceptions to the rule, i.e Tony Blair but for every Tony Blair there's a hundred well meaning but hopelessly naive small S "Socialists" who desperately want Socialism to be delivered free of blood and destruction and so throw their lot in with the bourgeoisie and their festering democracy and before they know it they're crucifying the poor and demonizing immigrants.

There aren't quite so many villains as you'd believe. Only Capitalism and its barbaric and unstoppable logic. The irony is Social Democracy is premised on an absolute gem of a contradiction. That contradiction being the idea that you can deliver what Capitalism seemingly can't (comfortable living conditions for the workers) - and here's the stroke of genius - VIA Capitalism. Inevitably Capitalism has its retort. Growth is down, hand back the worker's cut of the profits. If the government tries to refuse then we all know what happens, Capitalists stop investing and the whole world comes to a halt, the workers are thrown out of work, the poor are kicked out onto the street and unsurprisingly the government are thrown out of government.

Within Capitalism Capitalist logic is implacable. The logic crumbles when the working class declare the means of production their own.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Partly, not entirely. Maher cares about the plight of the working class and not only wants to increase ALL of their wages, he wants to increase the rights workers have and the compensation they receive for being injured etc. He also wants free healthcare and free college for everyone to be paid for exclusively by the billionaire class. Tell me, what do you think of Bernie Sanders? Bernie calls himself a Socialist, and I love him he is great, guess who Mahers favorite politician is? Thats right, the Socialist Bernie Sanders. You guys seem to be under the, in my opinion false, impression that unless you are willing to institute a ENTIRELY Communist system without a shred of Capitalism, than you arent a true Socialist. Well I disagree with that, as ive said before there are as many forms of Socialism as there are Socialists, and that is a good thing.

Well, no.

Socialism is the movement for the abolition of class society through a workers' revolution. Social-democrats might call their parties "socialist", but at this point, not even they claim their brand of milquetoast reformism has anything to do with socialism. It's supposed to be capitalism with a human face - which just makes it all the more insulting when you're fucked over by "nice, progressive" capitalism, as workers and minorities always are.

Seriously, I think you need to think about your position: you name yourself "Marxizm" and claim you're moving to the left, but you defend someone like Sanders, who would have embarrassed even the old Labour and "Socialist" International. You have to ask yourself what you want: an end to capitalism or a "nice" capitalism.

[RedKobra]

ya know.........I think I might have posted my last post in the wrong thread. Bugger! Can't remember where it was supposed to go though or who I was responding to. Damn it. I'm not even 100% sure it is in the wrong place but then who the hell was I responding to? Deary, deary me I think I'm getting old.

[Pancakes Rühle]

Bill Maher is a liberal. It's as simple as that. He's barely a social democrat guys, and not to mention a pro-war, Islamophobe, and misogynist.

[Marxizm]

Bill Maher is a liberal. It's as simple as that. He's barely a social democrat guys, and not to mention a pro-war, Islamophobe, and misogynist.

Do you even know what a Liberal is? Technically, a classical liberal is a libertarian. A MODERN liberal is a Socialist Libertarian, or a Libertarian Socialist.

[Subversive]

Maher is an idiot, and a Capitalist.
There is no defense for this topic in this section of the forums. Maher has certainly not 'come to the side of Socialism'. His views are still very conservative on most aspects and if it were possible to question him I highly doubt he truly wants to abandon Capitalism or the US.

There is no point in discussing such an individual in terms of a revolutionary, nor as a Leftist. He is neither.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Do you even know what a Liberal is? Technically, a classical liberal is a libertarian. A MODERN liberal is a Socialist Libertarian, or a Libertarian Socialist.

Is Barack Obama a socialist?

[Pancakes Rühle]

Do you even know what a Liberal is? Technically, a classical liberal is a libertarian. A MODERN liberal is a Socialist Libertarian, or a Libertarian Socialist.

Isn't trolling against the rules? Either you're trolling, or you are seriously, and absurdly misinformed.

[Marxizm]

Is Barack Obama a socialist?

I believe he is a Socialist Liberal yes, but the Executive Branch does not exclusively control the economy so to say because he hasnt implemented Socialism therefore hes not even slightly a Socialist is absurd, he would like to give free college to people but has to settle for only 2 years specifically because of the right wing congress, tell me, is free college not in the Socialist model? Is free college Capitalist? What is it if its not either?


Isn't trolling against the rules? Either you're trolling, or you are seriously, and absurdly misinformed.


"Wikipedia: Social Liberalism
Social liberalism is a political ideology with the belief that the right to freedom from coercion should include a societal foundation. Social liberalism seeks to balance individual liberty and social justice. Like classical liberalism, it endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care and education.[1][2][3] Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[4] Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II.[5] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.[6][7][8][9][10] The term social liberalism is used to differentiate it from classical liberalism, which dominated political and economic thought for several centuries until social liberalism branched off from it around the Great Depression.[11][12]"


What do you find wrong about this?

[Marxizm]

Maher is an idiot, and a Capitalist.
There is no defense for this topic in this section of the forums. Maher has certainly not 'come to the side of Socialism'. His views are still very conservative on most aspects and if it were possible to question him I highly doubt he truly wants to abandon Capitalism or the US.

There is no point in discussing such an individual in terms of a revolutionary, nor as a Leftist. He is neither.

Why are 99% of you so sour about everyone who is not a full blown Socialist Revolutionary? He is a leftist whether you like it or not. He wants free healthcare and free college for everyone, is that a right wing concept or left wing? On some issues he leans to the right but on most issues he goes to the left. You guys seriously make yourselves look bad getting all outraged over such small things sitting on your high horse as if you are better than everyone else simply because you have been Enlightened, and im not saying you guys arent Enlightened you guys are indeed smart but you guys are letting it get to your heads and you are creating a superiority complex where you OBVIOUSLY believe you guys are better than everyone else, again you are making yourselves look bad and only hurting your cause, OUR cause. :mad:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Serious question, do you understand the difference between socialism and "social"-democracy? Social-democrats aren't another flavour of socialism, they're the worst enemies of the socialist movement.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I believe he is a Socialist Liberal yes, but the Executive Branch does not exclusively control the economy so to say because he hasnt implemented Socialism therefore hes not even slightly a Socialist is absurd,

Where did anyone say this? Further, even a communist in a bourgeois government could not be expected to "create" socialism by his or her comrades. Also, why does a "socialist" support imperialist war? Why would a socialist not openly speak of socialism? Obama does not because he doesn't want socialism nor does his party. Any extreme element of the Democratic Party that might use the term "socialist" to describe their politics is certainly not in line with the rest of the party nor would it be socialist in the sense of how Marxists use the term.


he would like to give free college to people but has to settle for only 2 years specifically because of the right wing congress, tell me, is free college not in the Socialist model? Is free college Capitalist? What is it if its not either?*

Reforms are not "capitalist" nor "socialist". Liberal capitalists believe in social programs and reforms, that does not mean they don't still support the capitalist mode of production. Even a lot of conservative capitalists support many social programs and reforms.

[Georg Lukacs]

He also had a guest on his show Real Time, Professor Richard D. Wolff, who is a well-known US Marxist political economist. Wolff's website (look up his name on Google) has some great videos of him giving a monthly lecture on the state of the global economy, and the U.S. in particular. He also has formulated some questionable 'solutions' to America's problems, through collectively owned enterprises, forgetting that the ownership of the means of production cannot socialised in an ad hoc manner, but that is another debate about power and the state.

[Pancakes Rühle]

I believe he is a Socialist Liberal yes, but the Executive Branch does not exclusively control the economy so to say because he hasnt implemented Socialism therefore hes not even slightly a Socialist is absurd, he would like to give free college to people but has to settle for only 2 years specifically because of the right wing congress, tell me, is free college not in the Socialist model? Is free college Capitalist? What is it if its not either?

Liberals are capitalists. If you are not a capitalist, you are not a liberal. "Free College" is neither capitalist nor socialist. It is "free college". Socialism is a mode of production, not a welfare policy on education.


"Wikipedia: Social Liberalism
Social liberalism is a political ideology with the belief that the right to freedom from coercion should include a societal foundation. Social liberalism seeks to balance individual liberty and social justice. Like classical liberalism, it endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care and education.[1][2][3] Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[4] Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II.[5] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.[6][7][8][9][10] The term social liberalism is used to differentiate it from classical liberalism, which dominated political and economic thought for several centuries until social liberalism branched off from it around the Great Depression.[11][12]"


What do you find wrong about this?

"Like classical liberalism, it endorses a market economy".

Do you even read this shit? Or wait, you don't know what socialism is...right.

"First, man produces in an associated, not competitive way; he produces rationally and in an unalienated way, which means that he brings production under his control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power. This clearly excludes a concept of socialism in which man is manipulated by a bureaucracy, even if this bureaucracy rules the whole state economy, rather than only a big corporation. It means that the individual participates actively in the planning and in the execution of the plans; it means, in short, the realization of political and industrial democracy. Marx expected that by this new form of an unalienated society man would become independent, stand on his own feet, and would no longer be crippled by the alienated mode of production and consumption; that he would truly be the master and the creator of his life, and hence that he could begin to make living his main business, rather than producing the means for living. Socialism, for Marx, was never as such the fulfillment of life, but the condition for such fulfillment. When man has built a rational, nonalienated form of society, he will have the chance to begin with what is the aim of life: the "development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom." " - E. Fromm

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Hell, in the socialist society, it doesn't even make any sense to say that university would be free, as money and the market would not exist in the first place. Socialists can fight for free education, but this does not mean that everyone who fights for free education is a socialist.

It seems one of the chief stumbling blocks here is people getting politically educated on Wikipedia, which is openly run by Randroids, and which consistently conflates socialism with social-democracy, probably so that the admins can have a great big cry-wank about how Amuhrika is soshulist now.

But I mean, it's necessary to take a stand. Do you want what people imagine Sweden is like? Or do you want the socialisation of all of the means of production, the abolition of the market and money, the abolition of the state and all coercive political power etc.? You can't have a bit from column A and a bit from column B, it's impossible.

[Marxizm]

If every single thing on wikipedia is SO wrong, than tell me where can I get these definitions and information on all these definitions from a credible source other than wikipedia? I trust wikipedia, you guys obviously dont, so if you got a better more credible source please show me

[RedKobra]

Did you not wonder why this place was called Revleft: Home of the revolutionary left? The clue really is in the name. We are not social democrats. We are not liberals. We are people who believe in revolutionary socialism and or anarchism. (the implication of the revolutionary part is that we intend to smash the state not build a white picket fence around it) I also have to ask why on earth you would call yourself Marxizm when it clearly does not represent your politics at all.

As far as most, if not all, of us are concerned people like Bill Maher are petty-bourgeois and his politics are those of the petty-bourgeoisie. They'll take whatever concessions the state is stupid enough to give them but gladly deny working people the dignity only true socialism can give them. He's not a socialist, he's not preaching socialism, he appears to not know what socialism is, he's not a proletarian and he most definitely is not one of us.

[Fourth Internationalist]

If every single thing on wikipedia is SO wrong, than tell me where can I get these definitions and information on all these definitions from a credible source other than wikipedia? I trust wikipedia, you guys obviously dont, so if you got a better more credible source please show me

How do you define socialism? How do you think socialism is defined in Marxism?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If every single thing on wikipedia is SO wrong, than tell me where can I get these definitions and information on all these definitions from a credible source other than wikipedia? I trust wikipedia, you guys obviously dont, so if you got a better more credible source please show me

First of all you can stop being so defensive. If you come here praising Maher and Obama and "Liberal Socialism", that is going to raise eyebrows. Second, you could read some actual socialist literature. You say that you have read the Communist Manifesto. Well, read something else - Anti-Duhring for example, where Engels sets out his and Marx's opposition to any attempt at alloying socialism and capitalism in some form. Read the critique of the Gotha programme to understand why we call for the bourgeois state to be smashed. There is a lot of socialist literature - but you have to make the effort to read it instead of relying on a site that thinks the Heim theory is serious science.

[Marxizm]

He also had a guest on his show Real Time, Professor Richard D. Wolff, who is a well-known US Marxist political economist. Wolff's website (look up his name on Google) has some great videos of him giving a monthly lecture on the state of the global economy, and the U.S. in particular. He also has formulated some questionable 'solutions' to America's problems, through collectively owned enterprises, forgetting that the ownership of the means of production cannot socialised in an ad hoc manner, but that is another debate about power and the state.

I love Richard D. Wolff ive watched plenty of his speeches and he is one of the leading Marxist economists in the world, yet he still defends Social Democracy and even Democrats. Not entirely of course, as even I dont defend them entirely, but he doesnt pretend that most Democrats are not left wing and he would way rather support them than the right wing Republicans. He even said just the other day that most of his followers most likely voted for Obama, yes MARXISTS voting for Obama, its really not as far fetched as you guys choose to believe. I am a Marxist for the most part but everyone has their own different interpretations of Marx, Lenin had his views, Trotsky had his, etc. I took a test on "politicaltest.net" and I literally got "105% Communistic" and it labelled me a Trotskyist, ive taken plenty of others tests and they all put me on the EXTREMELY far left.

The thing I think is confusing you guys about me is my defense of Liberal Socialism and Obama, Maher, Sanders, etc. Just because I defend these people/ideas doesnt mean I hold their exact beliefs, I believe in more of a United Front system where Left Wingers team up against the Reich Wingers, rather than a bunch of scattered left wing parties fighting amongst each other. We dont live in the 19th century anymore in the time of Marx, guns and revolution are not the only way. You guys do realize the 19th century was the century of revolution, right? We no longer live in that century anymore. Im not saying take revolution on the table, but I am saying its not the ONLY option nor should it be the first option.



Did you not wonder why this place was called Revleft: Home of the revolutionary left? The clue really is in the name. We are not social democrats. We are not liberals. We are people who believe in revolutionary socialism and or anarchism. (the implication of the revolutionary part is that we intend to smash the state not build a white picket fence around it) I also have to ask why on earth you would call yourself Marxizm when it clearly does not represent your politics at all.

As far as most, if not all, of us are concerned people like Bill Maher are petty-bourgeois and his politics are those of the petty-bourgeoisie. They'll take whatever concessions the state is stupid enough to give them but gladly deny working people the dignity only true socialism can give them. He's not a socialist, he's not preaching socialism, he appears to not know what socialism is, he's not a proletarian and he most definitely is not one of us.

Richard D. Wolff is the leading Marxist economist in the world and he doesnt run around like you guys saying "if you are not picking up weapons for a Revolution you arent a true Socialist!" im not even really certain what you guys mean by revolution anymore, are you talking about a violent one? A political one? What? If its a violent one, it should be one of the last resorts. If its a political/conscious revolution, I have no problem with rushing into that. Be more specific about this "revolution" you guys speak of, because as I said the century of revolution has long passed us.


How do you define socialism? How do you think socialism is defined in Marxism?

Nice job entirely dodging my question. Where do you get your sources? Where do you get your definitions? I admittedly get mine from wikipedia, but better than pulling them right out of my ass like most of you here who is under the impression its YOU who has the exact perfect form of Socialism and everyone else has it wrong and is just dumb compared to you :rolleyes:


First of all you can stop being so defensive. If you come here praising Maher and Obama and "Liberal Socialism", that is going to raise eyebrows. Second, you could read some actual socialist literature. You say that you have read the Communist Manifesto. Well, read something else - Anti-Duhring for example, where Engels sets out his and Marx's opposition to any attempt at alloying socialism and capitalism in some form. Read the critique of the Gotha programme to understand why we call for the bourgeois state to be smashed. There is a lot of socialist literature - but you have to make the effort to read it instead of relying on a site that thinks the Heim theory is serious science.

Ill stop being defensive when you guys stop being aggressive douchebags. I came here and was very nice, you guys jumped all over me just because I defend Liberal Socialists. You guys claim social-democrats are your worst enemy......Do you guys honestly believe that? Who the hell are you guys to say they are not real socialists and it is you who is the real socialists? Should we abandon politics entirely and just pick up arms and start fighting a revolution what the hell is it you guys are looking for I honestly dont understand.

I will read those books you mentioned, but I recommend listening to Social Democrats and hearing what they have to say, they are NOT your worst enemy, right wing fascist conservatives are your worst enemy, or at least they are mine. I honestly think this is what it boils down to, I am willing to ally with other Left Wingers to fight the Reich Wing, you guys are NOT willing to ally with other left wingers and instead choose have it "your way or the highway".

I have a question, are you guys against free college and free healthcare at the direct expense of the billionaire class? Or do you think we shouldnt have free healthcare nor free college so that people will get even more angry and eventually lead to a revolution? If im not mistaken, this is what Lenin did he opposed reforms because he wanted things to get SOO bad people would revolt and crush the system entirely rather than just reform by reform, is this your guys plan? Is this why you guys oppose liberal socialism so fervently even more than you oppose fascists?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Nice job entirely dodging my question. Where do you get your sources? Where do you get your definitions? I admittedly get mine from wikipedia, but better than pulling them right out of my ass like most of you here who is under the impression its YOU who has the exact perfect form of Socialism and everyone else has it wrong and is just dumb compared to you :rolleyes:

I said nothing about Wikipedia whatsoever. Your question was addressed to those questioning Wikipedia, which I did not do. If I did, please, point to where I talked about Wikipedia in anyway whatsoever. Now, instead of dodging the question, can you answer mine? It was pretty simple, so there is no need to get all defensive.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ill stop being defensive when you guys stop being aggressive douchebags. I came here and was very nice, you guys jumped all over me just because I defend Liberal Socialists. You guys claim social-democrats are your worst enemy......Do you guys honestly believe that? Who the hell are you guys to say they are not real socialists and it is you who is the real socialists? Should we abandon politics entirely and just pick up arms and start fighting a revolution what the hell is it you guys are looking for I honestly dont understand.

I will read those books you mentioned, but I recommend listening to Social Democrats and hearing what they have to say, they are NOT your worst enemy, right wing fascist conservatives are your worst enemy, or at least they are mine. I honestly think this is what it boils down to, I am willing to ally with other Left Wingers to fight the Reich Wing, you guys are NOT willing to ally with other left wingers and instead choose have it "your way or the highway".

I have a question, are you guys against free college and free healthcare at the direct expense of the billionaire class? Or do you think we shouldnt have free healthcare nor free college so that people will get even more angry and eventually lead to a revolution? If im not mistaken, this is what Lenin did he opposed reforms because he wanted things to get SOO bad people would revolt and crush the system entirely rather than just reform by reform, is this your guys plan? Is this why you guys oppose liberal socialism so fervently even more than you oppose fascists?

The thing is, you are the only one who has acted aggressively in this thread. Other users tried to engage you in a discussion about your own politics, but you avoided answering every question that was posed to you, and now you've just blown up. You should take this as an opportunity to clarify your position.

Socialism means the socialisation of the means of production. Do you understand what this sentence means? I didn't, when I was your age. There is no shame in that. But if you don't know, then ask, and try to learn about socialism, instead of basing yourself on snippets written by people who are openly hostile to socialism.

You say that you have read the Communist Manifesto. Well, apparently you skipped the part where Marx talks about the abolition of private property - the very thing that social-democrats fight tooth and nail to retain. Either you want private property to remain, or you want it to go. If the latter, you are with us. If the former - well...

Free college and free healthcare are nice things. They're also nice things the bourgeoisie isn't going to give you. If the workers want to fight for these things, then as socialists we can support them, while fighting against any reformist illusions - such as the notion that, by electing an allegedly benevolent social-democrat, the working class will have free healthcare given to them out of the kindness of the bourgeois heart. It worked so well with Obama, didn't it? Obama, who ended up slashing company-paid healthcare.

Also do yourself a favour and actually read what Lenin had to write. Particularly the State and the Revolution, a work that outlines precisely what we want - the smashing of the bourgeois state.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I will admit to you my first post was somewhat rude, as I assumed a revolutionary leftist advocating for Maher would be a troll (i realized the case is simply that you are not a revolutionary leftist and not a Marxist, yet). If you actually read my second post, I said sorry to the user (which is you) if you are genuine. However, you continue to use it as an excuse to not answer anything people ask. You're the playing the victim card. You should expect harsh criticism when you advocate for Maher and Obama on a revolutionary socialist board.

[Marxizm]

The thing is, you are the only one who has acted aggressively in this thread. Other users tried to engage you in a discussion about your own politics, but you avoided answering every question that was posed to you, and now you've just blown up. You should take this as an opportunity to clarify your position.

Socialism means the socialisation of the means of production. Do you understand what this sentence means? I didn't, when I was your age. There is no shame in that. But if you don't know, then ask, and try to learn about socialism, instead of basing yourself on snippets written by people who are openly hostile to socialism.

You say that you have read the Communist Manifesto. Well, apparently you skipped the part where Marx talks about the abolition of private property - the very thing that social-democrats fight tooth and nail to retain. Either you want private property to remain, or you want it to go. If the latter, you are with us. If the former - well...

Free college and free healthcare are nice things. They're also nice things the bourgeoisie isn't going to give you. If the workers want to fight for these things, then as socialists we can support them, while fighting against any reformist illusions - such as the notion that, by electing an allegedly benevolent social-democrat, the working class will have free healthcare given to them out of the kindness of the bourgeois heart. It worked so well with Obama, didn't it? Obama, who ended up slashing company-paid healthcare.

Also do yourself a favour and actually read what Lenin had to write. Particularly the State and the Revolution, a work that outlines precisely what we want - the smashing of the bourgeois state.

Most of my defensiveness is directed towards "Fourth Internationalist", just go back and read how he talks to me before I said anything insulting to him, he is by far the most condescending douchebag on this thread, he called me a troll multiple times and said what im saying belongs in the imperialist liberal section etc. Also most here seem to hate Bill Maher and are hostile to any mention of him, they also claim he is not a left winger and is just a liberal blah blah blah. Again, liberals today are not classical liberals, they are modern liberals, and modern liberals are SOCIALIST liberals, not libertarians. Modern liberals, like Bill Maher, are indeed Socialists but they are also liberals they are a mix between the two, I showed wikipedia saying this exact thing and again Fourth Internationalist ignored it ENTIRELY and chose to be incredibly condescending again, which he has been this entire time ive spoken with him, he claims I havent read the Communist Manifesto and that I dont even know what Socialism is, you guys are saying the same thing, you expect me not to be defensive about that? If I were to say you didnt know what Socialism and I was a douchebag about it like many of you are when you say it, you wouldnt take it very kindly either.

You stick to this "Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production" definition that is right but its not the whole picture, you seriously think you can define every single Socialist philosophy in one single sentence? Thats not the way it works. I think it boils down to the fight between Revolutionary Socialists and Democratic Socialists, the Democratic Socialists such as myself want to change the system through reforms rather than revolution, and someone here even claimed Socialist Democrats are the worst enemy of Socialism, not fascists, Socialist Democrats :mad:

They dont give us free healthcare and college out of the goodness of their hearts I never said that, do you honestly believe reform makes no difference and the only way to get them to do something is either for them to do it themselves out of the goodness of their hearts, which we both agree will never happen, or revolution? Do you honestly think those are the ONLY two options? Reform has no place in your mindframe? You cant see the massive reforms all throughout history that have helped the working class and still help them today? Child Labor Laws and Slavery were ended by Socialists and Liberals together, child labor was ended through REFORM, slavery was indeed through a quasi-revolution but Jim Crow laws were ended through REFORM, worker safety laws were created through REFORM, we still have all of these things today and there are plenty more reforms left wingers fought and died for through striking, not through revolution. You pretend reforms have never made any impact, no, you pretend reforms were never even made! You claim they would never make reforms through the kindness of their hearts, again as I said pretending as if that and revolution are the only ways to change anything which is intellectually dishonest, reform is indeed another valid route.


I said nothing about Wikipedia whatsoever. Your question was addressed to those questioning Wikipedia, which I did not do. If I did, please, point to where I talked about Wikipedia in anyway whatsoever. Now, instead of dodging the question, can you answer mine? It was pretty simple, so there is no need to get all defensive.

Thats the thing, you didnt say anything about wikipedia you just ignored it entirely and dodged how I showed there is such a thing as Socialist Liberals, you dont have a monopoly on the word Socialist, no one does. You keep asking me to define Socialism, but everytime you guys define Socialism you do it with one single sentence about workers owning production leaving out ALL OTHER forms of Socialism purposefully :glare: forms such as Liberal Socialism, Social Democracy, etc. Also it wasnt you but there was someone who was mad that I used a wikipedia definition, I think I got him mixed up with you.


I will admit to you my first post was somewhat rude, as I assumed a revolutionary leftist advocating for Maher would be a troll (i realized the case is simply that you are not a revolutionary leftist and not a Marxist, yet). If you actually read my second post, I said sorry to the user (which is you) if you are genuine. However, you continue to use it as an excuse to not answer anything people ask. You're the playing the victim card. You should expect harsh criticism when you advocate for Maher and Obama on a revolutionary socialist board.

Your first post? No, just about every single one of your posts has been incredibly insulting and condescending. Even when you said sorry, you immediately followed it up with another insult. :rolleyes:

My name is Marxizm because Karl Marx is my favorite philosopher, it doesnt necessarily mean I have to be a full blown Marxist. I honestly dont know exactly what I am, what I do know is im a extremely far left winger who believes in equality of all mankind and I love Karl Marx's philosophy, it doesnt mean I hate liberals like all of you guys, it doesnt mean I dont believe in Democratic reforms etc, I just simply love Karl Marx's philosophy even with pieces I dont agree with I can still greatly appreciate where he is coming from and his good intentions behind it.

I also love Buddha, it doesnt mean im a Buddhist. If I had to label myself I suppose it would be a Socialist Democrat but that doesnt mean I have taken revolution off the table, nor does it mean I despise revolutionaries.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Thats the thing, you didnt say anything about wikipedia you just ignored it entirely and dodged how I showed there is such a thing as Socialist Liberals, you dont have a monopoly on the word Socialist, no one does. You keep asking me to define Socialism, but everytime you guys define Socialism you do it with one single sentence about workers owning production leaving out ALL OTHER forms of Socialism purposefully forms such as Liberal Socialism, Social Democracy, etc. Also it wasnt you but there was someone who was mad that I used a wikipedia definition, I think I got him mixed up with you.
I did not ignore anything because nothing was aimed at me. I asked you to define socialism because I want to know your point of view. I don't care what others are saying, they are not me. I asked you what you think socialism is. I will ask, now, what would be the fundamental differences between a socialist society and a capitalist society? We all already know how certain individuals use socialism to define something that means very regulated capitalism. We know that, and we disagree with it because socialism, as it had been defined until it was taken over by non-socialists to mean a nice capitalism, is a totally different form of society. We disagree with social democrats using the term socialism just as we disagree with Nazis using the term socialism ("National Socialism"). As Marxists, we use the Marxist definition of socialism and disagree with people who try to appropriate that word for anything else than what it had been historically used to mean. You can disagree with that opinion, but that is our view on the matter. Clear enough?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Your first post? No, just about every single one of your posts has been incredibly insulting and condescending. Even when you said sorry, you immediately followed it up with another insult. :rolleyes:

I have not used any insults whatsoever after my first post. It is you, however, who has been calling others "aggressive douchebags" and using foul language.

[Redistribute the Rep]

you dont have a monopoly on the word Socialist, no one does. You keep asking me to define Socialism, but everytime you guys define Socialism you do it with one single sentence about workers owning production leaving out ALL OTHER forms of Socialism purposefully :glare: forms such as Liberal Socialism, Social Democracy, etc. Also it wasnt you but there was someone who was mad that I used a wikipedia definition, I think I got him mixed up with you.

It's true, there's been quite a diverse array of groups adopting the label 'socialist.' The application of such definitions, however, often reveals itself to be contradictory or without meaning. Calling social democracy socialism, for example, would be pointless, as it overlaps with the commonly accepted definition of capitalist. Furthermore, in studying history, the distinction between social democracy and other forms of capitalism aren't relevant enough to distinguish it and call it socialism. We might acknowledge that some social democrat groups and others call themselves 'socialist' but there's simply no other place for associating them in a Marxist analysis. They're related to socialism in name only, not in any real, historically relevant sense

[RedKobra]

What does Socialism mean to you, specifically? Our position is now clear and needs no further explanation.

[Marxizm]

I did not ignore anything because nothing was aimed at me. I asked you to define socialism because I want to know your point of view. I don't care what others are saying, they are not me. I asked you what you think socialism is. I will ask, now, what would be the fundamental differences between a socialist society and a capitalist society? We all already know how certain individuals use socialism to define something that means very regulated capitalism. We know that, and we disagree with it because socialism, as it had been defined until it was taken over by non-socialists to mean a nice capitalism, is a totally different form of society. We disagree with social democrats using the term socialism just as we disagree with Nazis using the term socialism ("National Socialism"). As Marxists, we use the Marxist definition of socialism and disagree with people who try to appropriate that word for anything else than what it had been historically used to mean. You can disagree with that opinion, but that is our view on the matter. Clear enough?

Yes that is very clear but I can assure you the Social Democrats who use the label Socialism are not twisting the word the same way Nazi's did, but I do see your point exactly, they did indeed attempt to use the popularity of Socialism and twist it for their own personal gains, im well aware of this and have to deal with it all the time arguing with conservatives lol, and my apologies for being overtly aggressive back to minor insults, im used to being on right wing forums arguing with exclusively right wingers, this is literally my first and only left wing forum and as you can see im new here and dont have much experience.

I understand your concern for the word Socialist being hijacked, but its not the same as when the Nazi's hijacked the word, Socialist Democrats are left wingers they are not right wingers like the Nazi's. Please watch Richard D. Wolff's latest "Global Capitalism" update on youtube, if you dont know who he is he is one of the leading Marxist economists in the world, he heavily praises the Senator Bernie Sanders, he is a Socialist Democrat who wants workers to own the means of production through these worker co-operatives which can and has been implemented within Capitalist systems. He also openly attacks the Billionaire class and is more than willing to raise taxes on them and close loopholes, same for Elizabeth Warren, do you guys honestly think these Socialist Democrats are just as bad as Capitalists and Nazi's? I can absolutely guarantee you guys Socialist Democrats are on the same side as you, we have the same goals but different means of getting there.


I have not used any insults whatsoever after my first post. It is you, however, who has been calling others "aggressive douchebags" and using foul language.

Well you have a different definition of "insult" than, because even after you apologized multiple times you called me a troll and asked if I even read the Communist Manifesto, if you dont consider that insulting well than you are playing semantics.


It's true, there's been quite a diverse array of groups adopting the label 'socialist.' The application of such definitions, however, often reveals itself to be contradictory or without meaning. Calling social democracy socialism, for example, would be pointless, as it overlaps with the commonly accepted definition of capitalist. Furthermore, in studying history, the distinction between social democracy and other forms of capitalism aren't relevant enough to distinguish it and call it socialism. We might acknowledge that some social democrat groups and others call themselves 'socialist' but there's simply no other place for associating them in a Marxist analysis. They're related to socialism in name only, not in any real, historically relevant sense

This is totally not true, you think people Socialist Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are indistinguishable from Capitalists like Mitt Romney and George Bush? Just because they dont agree entirely with you doesnt mean they are the same as Capitalists.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I didn't even notice this lovely bit.


Most of my defensiveness is directed towards "Fourth Internationalist", just go back and read how he talks to me before I said anything insulting to him, he is by far the most condescending douchebag on this thread, he called me a troll multiple times and said what im saying belongs in the imperialist liberal section etc.

Point out where I ever explicitly called you a troll. Now, point out where I did it again and again. I did not. I implied it with my first post, and said sorry in the second post. You're being so foul in your language yet I am a bag of some sort. Maher's socialism that you agree with isn't revolutionary socialism. I'm not insulting you by suggesting for this thread, then, to be in the OI section or in the learning section. You're so defensive for some reason.

[Marxizm]

What does Socialism mean to you, specifically? Our position is now clear and needs no further explanation.

Socialism to me means essentially Collectivism applied to a governing system, but of course there is no single pure definition of Socialism and I dont pretend to have one. I believe its a governing system where we all work collectively rather than individually, there are plenty of different ways to work collectively together.

I agree mostly with the Oxford definition of Socialism which does include Socialist Democracy,

"1: A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Notice it says "owned OR regulated", Socialist Democracies tend to aim for regulation of the economy and means of production, not absolute total ownership of it. So under this Oxford definition, we can both be considered Socialists :)

[Redistribute the Rep]

This is totally not true, you think people Socialist Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are indistinguishable from Capitalists like Mitt Romney and George Bush? Just because they dont agree entirely with you doesnt mean they are the same as Capitalists.

They may be distinguishable in some contexts. But in a marxist analysis, they're not distinguishable in their views on capitalism. None of them seek to overthrow capital, but to preserve it. They are all, by definition, supporters of capitalism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yes that is very clear but I can assure you the Social Democrats who use the label Socialism are not twisting the word the same way Nazi's did, but I do see your point exactly, they did indeed attempt to use the popularity of Socialism and twist it for their own personal gains, im well aware of this and have to deal with it all the time arguing with conservatives lol, and my apologies for being overtly aggressive back to minor insults, im used to being on right wing forums arguing with exclusively right wingers, this is literally my first and only left wing forum and as you can see im new here and dont have much experience.

I understand your concern for the word Socialist being hijacked, but its not the same as when the Nazi's hijacked the word, Socialist Democrats are left wingers they are not right wingers like the Nazi's. Please watch Richard D. Wolff's latest "Global Capitalism" update on youtube, if you dont know who he is he is one of the leading Marxist economists in the world, he heavily praises the Senator Bernie Sanders, he is a Socialist Democrat who wants workers to own the means of production through these worker co-operatives which can and has been implemented within Capitalist systems. He also openly attacks the Billionaire class and is more than willing to raise taxes on them and close loopholes, same for Elizabeth Warren, do you guys honestly think these Socialist Democrats are just as bad as Capitalists and Nazi's? I can absolutely guarantee you guys Socialist Democrats are on the same side as you, we have the same goals but different means of getting there.

Just because social democrats are "left wing" doesn't mean communists need to agree that they advocate for socialism, which in Marxism in a synonym for communism. Social democrats don't want communism, neither do Nazis, and I don't care to label one as worse than the other. Politicians advocating raising taxes and closing loopholes doesn't make them socialist. It makes them a capitalist who wants higher tax rates. Where has Elizabeth Warren declared herself a socialist? Does she wish to abolish private bourgeois property? Does Sanders? Again, to you, how is a socialist society fundamentally different from a capitalist society, in your eyes?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Socialism to me means essentially Collectivism applied to a governing system, but of course there is no single pure definition of Socialism and I dont pretend to have one. I believe its a governing system where we all work collectively rather than individually, there are plenty of different ways to work collectively together.

I agree mostly with the Oxford definition of Socialism which does include Socialist Democracy,

"1: A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Notice it says "owned OR regulated", Socialist Democracies tend to aim for regulation of the economy and means of production, not absolute total ownership of it. So under this Oxford definition, we can both be considered Socialists :)

To what degree of advocation of regulation makes one a socialist? Any conservative usually believes in some regulations, even libertarians often do. Some capitalists, though, support it to a greater degree than others. Certainly, as well, this regulation capitalists advocate for would be governed by the state and not by "the community". State regulation is a necessary aspect of capitalism, especially in the epoch of imperialism. To what degree and purpose it is done for doesn't change the mode of production from capitalism into socialism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Marxizm, there is a lot of different posts here and a lot to respond to. The only thing I ask for a response to, so that way the discussion is more concise about what needs to be addressed, is: What do you believe is the fundamental difference between a capitalist society and a socialist society?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Most of my defensiveness is directed towards "Fourth Internationalist", just go back and read how he talks to me before I said anything insulting to him, he is by far the most condescending douchebag on this thread, he called me a troll multiple times and said what im saying belongs in the imperialist liberal section etc.

He said he suspected you of being a troll on account of the sheer discrepancy between your username and your statements - it's as if someone with the username "Syndicalizm" started a thread about how much of an anarchist Hayek was.

He also referred to the fact that Maher is a liberal, which he is, and that he is supportive of imperialism which, again, he is, having supported the attack on Afghanistan, for example.


Also most here seem to hate Bill Maher and are hostile to any mention of him, they also claim he is not a left winger and is just a liberal blah blah blah. Again, liberals today are not classical liberals, they are modern liberals, and modern liberals are SOCIALIST liberals, not libertarians.

Incidentally, we aren't about to let an American non-movement have the term "libertarianism", which was first used to describe anarchists (as in, actual anarchists, not "anarcho"-capitalists), either. And in fact if it were not for the Internet and the very vocal presence of American "libertarians" on the said Internet, no one would believe you if you came to e.g. France and talked about how pro-market the libertarians were.


Modern liberals, like Bill Maher, are indeed Socialists but they are also liberals they are a mix between the two

There is no "mix between the two". Either the means of production are socialised, or they remain in private hands. Liberals, social-democrats, self-proclaimed "democratic socialists", "progressives" etc. - all of them stand for the retention of private property. And that's the line between us and them.


If I were to say you didnt know what Socialism and I was a douchebag about it like many of you are when you say it, you wouldnt take it very kindly either.

Political discussion is like that. People are going to call a spade a spade, even if you don't like it.


You stick to this "Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production" definition that is right but its not the whole picture, you seriously think you can define every single Socialist philosophy in one single sentence?

Obviously all of the people we call socialists have something in common, otherwise the term "socialist" would be nonsense. And that something in common is the fight for the socialisation of the means of production, for the abolition of the market, wage labour, money, commodity production, and the state. And yes, that means social-democrats (who don't call themselves socialists anyway), "market socialists" (including Wolff for that matter, who is not "one of the leading Marxist economists in the world", he just gets a lot of coverage because his actual proposals are so inane and toothless), national socialists, Prussian socialists, Arab socialists, guild socialists, that none of these are socialists. Such is life.


They dont give us free healthcare and college out of the goodness of their hearts I never said that, do you honestly believe reform makes no difference and the only way to get them to do something is either for them to do it themselves out of the goodness of their hearts, which we both agree will never happen, or revolution? Do you honestly think those are the ONLY two options? Reform has no place in your mindframe? You cant see the massive reforms all throughout history that have helped the working class and still help them today? Child Labor Laws and Slavery were ended by Socialists and Liberals together, child labor was ended through REFORM, slavery was indeed through a quasi-revolution but Jim Crow laws were ended through REFORM, worker safety laws were created through REFORM, we still have all of these things today and there are plenty more reforms left wingers fought and died for through striking, not through revolution. You pretend reforms have never made any impact, no, you pretend reforms were never even made! You claim they would never make reforms through the kindness of their hearts, again as I said pretending as if that and revolution are the only ways to change anything which is intellectually dishonest, reform is indeed another valid route.

Reforms are one thing. Reformism is another. Reforms were won, not by "socialists and liberals together" (liberals opposed most of these reforms), but by the struggle of the working class. When the working class becomes convinced that it does not need to struggle, that it simply has to elect the "good" bourgeois politicians, like Obama, Warren or Sanders, then the possibility of actual reform becomes tenuous at best.


This is totally not true, you think people Socialist Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are indistinguishable from Capitalists like Mitt Romney and George Bush?

Yes. All of them are bourgeois, pro-capitalist politicians.


Socialism to me means essentially Collectivism applied to a governing system, but of course there is no single pure definition of Socialism and I dont pretend to have one. I believe its a governing system where we all work collectively rather than individually, there are plenty of different ways to work collectively together.

That doesn't really tell us anything. People work collectively together (I would hardly expect them to work collectively separately) in any combined mode of production, meaning capitalism as well.


I agree mostly with the Oxford definition of Socialism which does include Socialist Democracy,

I do wonder about this tendency to act as if dictionaries are founts of sublime wisdom. They're translation tools, and they assume you're somewhat familiar with the terms being used. When they try to act as technical literature, they often fail. Here's what the OED says on mesons:

"A subatomic particle (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/particle) which is intermediate (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intermediate) in mass (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mass#mass) between an electron (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/electron) and a proton (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/proton) and transmits (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/transmit) the strong interaction (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/strong-interaction) that binds nucleons (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nucleon) together in the atomic (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atomic) nucleus (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nucleus)."

Which is wrong. Mesons can be heavier than protons, hell, the bottom eta meson is some 9, 10 times heavier, and they mediate (not "transmit") the residual strong interaction, which is not the same as the elementary strong interaction.

Does this mean the OED is a bad dictionary? No, it means OED is not a good place to learn about mesons. Which you shouldn't be doing in the first place. Likewise with politics. If you are serious about socialist politics, and don't just want a neat little label to stick on yourself because a hilariously biased test said you were something, you have to engage with actual socialist texts.



Notice it says "owned OR regulated", Socialist Democracies tend to aim for regulation of the economy and means of production, not absolute total ownership of it. So under this Oxford definition, we can both be considered Socialists

Another problem is, any state that exists or has existed can be considered socialist under that definition. So, in addition to the misuse of terms, it does raise the question, why would you want such an awful "socialism"? Do you think the present society is good, that it just needs a few tweaks like higher wages and free education? Well that's not our perspective and it never has been. We don't want higher wages, we want the end of working for wages.

[Tim Redd]

They may be distinguishable in some contexts. But in a marxist analysis, they're not distinguishable in their views on capitalism. None of them seek to overthrow capital, but to preserve it. They are all, by definition, supporters of capitalism.

I agree, but I'd rather have Sanders or Warren as prez over Huckabee. However with either of them as prez, I'd be doing everything I can to bring about communist revolution as quickly as possible.

[Sewer Socialist]

I would be so depressed if I dedicated huge amounts of my time dedicated to changing the economy to firms primarily composed of co-ops, only to go back to work, now a co-op, where I continued to produce shitty commodities I don't care about, out of supplies made and shipped by underpaid Chinese workers (who now also work at a co-op), for consumption by wealthy co-op workers whom I despised.

What an awful, half-assed "socialism" that would be.

[Subversive]

Why are 99% of you so sour about everyone who is not a full blown Socialist Revolutionary?
Because this forum is for "Revolutionary Leftists", hence the name "RevLeft". Maybe you didn't get the memo?

Meaning that if you aren't a revolutionary then you're in the wrong place: Go to the "Opposing Ideologies" section where you belong, before a moderator bans you. Otherwise, go to the 'Learning' section and, well, learn. Ask questions and get explanations - don't rattle on nonsense and assume you're right, as you're doing now.


He is a leftist whether you like it or not.
Only in loose terms because "Leftist" is not well-defined.
However, he is certainly no revolutionary - making you rather ignorant for attempting to saddle him in with all the revolutionary leftists.


He wants free healthcare and free college for everyone, is that a right wing concept or left wing?
OH MY HEAVENS, I have been defeated by your endless logic!

Wanting "Free Healthcare and Free College" neither makes you a revolutionary or a Leftist. In fact, I could point out that everyone wants Healthcare and College to be "Free", even the majority of Capitalists.
Does that make them Leftists, too?
Everyone wants these things to be "Free", they just understand that nothing is ever truly "Free" and that someone has to pay for them. Capitalists just happen to be the ones who don't want to be the ones to pay.


On some issues he leans to the right but on most issues he goes to the left.
OMG, He's no Leftist! He's a Middlearian!

*facepalm* Even you admit he's not always "Leftist", but somehow you still overlook this point simply because it is only 'sometimes'.


You guys seriously make yourselves look bad getting all outraged over such small things sitting on your high horse as if you are better than everyone else simply because you have been Enlightened, and im not saying you guys arent Enlightened you guys are indeed smart but you guys are letting it get to your heads and you are creating a superiority complex where you OBVIOUSLY believe you guys are better than everyone else, again you are making yourselves look bad and only hurting your cause, OUR cause. :mad:
Sitting on my high horse and being an elitist would be something more like if I just pointed out your horrible grammar and punctuation, the main aspect being the the above is one huge run-on sentence. That would be elitist.

Rather, what people here are actually trying to do is explain to you that your definitions are incorrect, that you are in the wrong place, and that you are discussing the wrong things.
"Wrong" being contextual. You could certainly go to the "Opposing Ideologies" section and have a proper place for this stupidity, providing the proper context for what you really are - a non-revolutionary.

If you want to see Elitism, look at your own post. The fact you came in to a revolutionary forum and spewed "social liberal" nonsense all over the place, misusing and misplacing definitions, and generally acting like a complete fool only to further your pseudo-Leftist, pro-Capitalist mentality and instigate arguments.

Tell me, is it not proper when a judge throws people out of the courtroom for causing a disturbance? Is he being 'elitist' or 'sitting up on his high horse'? There is a reason for it, as I'm sure you know.
Likewise, if someone argues only a fallacy then it is proper for another person to call them on it, is that not true?

You can't simply accuse people of being elitist just because they are correcting you, explaining to you: just because they disagree with you.
If you are going to accuse people of being elitist you better be damn sure you actually know what that means first.
And don't you get confused: It is not "our cause". Yours is something completely different until you get your thoughts sorted out and understand what people have been telling you.

Now get going. The 'Opposing Ideologies' section is waiting for you.

[Marxizm]

Because this forum is for "Revolutionary Leftists", hence the name "RevLeft". Maybe you didn't get the memo?

Meaning that if you aren't a revolutionary then you're in the wrong place: Go to the "Opposing Ideologies" section where you belong, before a moderator bans you. Otherwise, go to the 'Learning' section and, well, learn. Ask questions and get explanations - don't rattle on nonsense and assume you're right, as you're doing now.


Only in loose terms because "Leftist" is not well-defined.
However, he is certainly no revolutionary - making you rather ignorant for attempting to saddle him in with all the revolutionary leftists.


OH MY HEAVENS, I have been defeated by your endless logic!

Wanting "Free Healthcare and Free College" neither makes you a revolutionary or a Leftist. In fact, I could point out that everyone wants Healthcare and College to be "Free", even the majority of Capitalists.
Does that make them Leftists, too?
Everyone wants these things to be "Free", they just understand that nothing is ever truly "Free" and that someone has to pay for them. Capitalists just happen to be the ones who don't want to be the ones to pay.


OMG, He's no Leftist! He's a Middlearian!

*facepalm* Even you admit he's not always "Leftist", but somehow you still overlook this point simply because it is only 'sometimes'.


Sitting on my high horse and being an elitist would be something more like if I just pointed out your horrible grammar and punctuation, the main aspect being the the above is one huge run-on sentence. That would be elitist.

Rather, what people here are actually trying to do is explain to you that your definitions are incorrect, that you are in the wrong place, and that you are discussing the wrong things.
"Wrong" being contextual. You could certainly go to the "Opposing Ideologies" section and have a proper place for this stupidity, providing the proper context for what you really are - a non-revolutionary.

If you want to see Elitism, look at your own post. The fact you came in to a revolutionary forum and spewed "social liberal" nonsense all over the place, misusing and misplacing definitions, and generally acting like a complete fool only to further your pseudo-Leftist, pro-Capitalist mentality and instigate arguments.

Tell me, is it not proper when a judge throws people out of the courtroom for causing a disturbance? Is he being 'elitist' or 'sitting up on his high horse'? There is a reason for it, as I'm sure you know.
Likewise, if someone argues only a fallacy then it is proper for another person to call them on it, is that not true?

You can't simply accuse people of being elitist just because they are correcting you, explaining to you: just because they disagree with you.
If you are going to accuse people of being elitist you better be damn sure you actually know what that means first.
And don't you get confused: It is not "our cause". Yours is something completely different until you get your thoughts sorted out and understand what people have been telling you.

Now get going. The 'Opposing Ideologies' section is waiting for you.

This is exactly what I was talking about, you guys expect me not to get defensive with assholes like this attacking me?

You say "everyone" wants free college and free healthcare, well we both know you are playing semantics plain and simple, not everyone wants that especially not Capitalists, they think the free market should handle it as we all know, and even you know, but again you are purposefully playing semantics because you have no other way to debate me since you are so dead wrong.

Another claim about Bill Maher is that he is an imperialist.....He is BY FAR one of the most non-interventionist people in America, just watch his damn show every single day he is saying to get the fuck out of the Middle East and let them handle it, even with the Ukraine crisis he says gtfo and let Europe handle it, I disagree with him on these things but the fact is he is incredibly non-interventionist and people here were calling him a imperialist :glare: Its obvious you guys have a deep hatred for liberals since they are not as far left as you guys, and since Bill Maher has always called himself a liberal you guys assume he must be exactly like Bill/Hillary Clinton or Al Gore, even though he didnt even fucking vote for Gore he voted for Ralph Nader, and again his favorite politician is a Socialist. Who are you to say Democratic Socialists are not true Socialists? Again, you are acting like a fucking Capitalist trying to monopolize words like this. You do not own these words and they do not mean whatever you wish them to mean, there are multiple definitions to just about every damn word on the planet.

[Subversive]

This is exactly what I was talking about, you guys expect me not to get defensive with assholes like this attacking me?
Grow up. You were the first to "attack". I even quoted you. I only returned the favor to demonstrate your ignorant and elitist attitude.
Stop pretending to be so innocent. It is pathetic, immature, and extremely transparent. In other words: Stop trolling.



You say "everyone" wants free college and free healthcare, well we both know you are playing semantics plain and simple, not everyone wants that especially not Capitalists, they think the free market should handle it as we all know, and even you know, but again you are purposefully playing semantics because you have no other way to debate me since you are so dead wrong.
Oh, what's wrong? You don't like it when other people play with semantics like you do? Boohoo.

Maher is an idiot, as I said before. He is not a Leftist, either.
Wanting the government to pay for college and healthcare doesn't make you a "Leftist", it just makes you 'lean left'. You'll need to do better than that if you want to prove your point, kid.



Another claim about Bill Maher is that he is an imperialist.....He is BY FAR one of the most non-interventionist people in America
No he isn't. He is neither of those things - neither an imperialist or a "non-interventionist".
Maher has, on more than one occasion, professed support for US Troops intervening in foreign affairs.

The people you're talking about may be mistaken, but so are you.
And your hyperbolic nonsense sure doesn't help your arguments, either.



and people here were calling him a imperialist :glare:
I didn't see anyone do that - and you just quoted and replied to me and I know I never did that.
More immature and pathetic nonsense.


Its obvious you guys have a deep hatred for liberals since they are not as far left as you guys, and since Bill Maher has always called himself a liberal you guys assume he must be exactly like Bill/Hillary Clinton or Al Gore, even though he didnt even fucking vote for Gore he voted for Ralph Nader, and again his favorite politician is a Socialist.
lol, you and your stupidly ignorant assumptions.

For your information, I actually like Al Gore.
I dislike Maher because he is an idiot, as I said before.

Both are Capitalists, but Capitalists can still have good/bad personalities and not just be morons or total hypocrites. Maher is both of these things.



Who are you to say Democratic Socialists are not true Socialists?
lol, again with the irrational arguments and nonsense.

I never stated "Democratic Socialists" are not "true Socialists".
However, what in the world is a "Democratic Socialist"? This is complete and utter nonsense. According to wikipedia, and pretty much all other sources defining "democratic socialism", it has no real definition. It's just an arbitrary term for whatever you want.
So, once again, you are using more semantic games.



Again, you are acting like a fucking Capitalist trying to monopolize words like this.
Yeah, man. Those darn dictionary-writers are the leaders of the world and dictionaries are the main form of oppression!
WE SHOULD ABOLISH ALL DICTIONARIES!

Man, you are so revolutionary, man. Where do I sign up?


You do not own these words and they do not mean whatever you wish them to mean
Ironic coming from you.

[Marxizm]

Just because social democrats are "left wing" doesn't mean communists need to agree that they advocate for socialism, which in Marxism in a synonym for communism. Social democrats don't want communism, neither do Nazis, and I don't care to label one as worse than the other. Politicians advocating raising taxes and closing loopholes doesn't make them socialist. It makes them a capitalist who wants higher tax rates. Where has Elizabeth Warren declared herself a socialist? Does she wish to abolish private bourgeois property? Does Sanders? Again, to you, how is a socialist society fundamentally different from a capitalist society, in your eyes?

This again boils down to our definition of the world socialism. To me, I believe it doesnt just have to mean the government (the people) has ABSOLUTE 100% total control of everything in the country, to me it can also mean regulation of the economy/society. For example, you say Warren and Sanders dont want to eliminate bourgeoisie private property, which is only half true, no they dont want to strip it out form underneath their feet but what they do want to do is heavily regulate and tax this private property, so much so where essentially the government DOES control the property due to the sheer amount of control it has over it, but "technically" it still belongs to the bourgeoisie, if they can still afford it with those heavy taxes and regulations

Trust me, Capitalists see this as incredibly non-captialistic, for good reason, because it isnt capitalism. You guys just try to claim it is because you guys are so sour about Democratic Socialists you try to compare them to your enemies as much as possible, which is intellectually dishonest we should be creating a United Left Front to defeat the United Right Front. In case you dont know, most in the Communist Party USA merged with the Democrat Party during the height of the Red Scare, why the Democrats and not the Republicans? Why choose the liberals over the conservatives? Right, because liberals are left wingers, conservatives are right wingers, and we should not hate fellow left wingers. I just barley found this, I cant post links so feel free to google it,
"The chairman of the National Committee of the Communist Party USA has penned a 2,023-word manifesto making the critical point that American Communists are eager to work with the Democratic Party to advance the modern communist agenda and achieve communist goals.

Communist Party chairman John Bachtell published his essay last week at People’s World, a “daily news website of, for and by the 99% and the direct descendant of the Daily Worker.”

“[L]abor and other key social forces are not about to leave the Democratic Party anytime soon,” Bachtell promised. “They still see Democrats as the most realistic electoral vehicle” to fight against perceived class enemies.

Bachtell, 58, is playing the long political game and he has a strategy, he said.

“First, we are part of building the broadest anti-ultra right alliance possible, uniting the widest array of class (including a section of monopoly), social and democratic forces. This necessarily means working with the Democratic Party,” the communist leader explained."

This I could not agree with more, this is exactly what I have been asking for pretty much is for you guys to accept Liberals as part of your team and work with them, I guarantee you they dont hate you guys and if they heard what you guys had to say they would love it, as ive said dozens of times liberals are LEFT WINGERS, and today modern liberals are actually Socialist Liberals, or Libertarian Socialists. Classical liberals dont call themselves liberals anymore, they call themselves libertarians, and they are NOT on our side at least not the right-libertarians.


To what degree of advocation of regulation makes one a socialist? Any conservative usually believes in some regulations, even libertarians often do. Some capitalists, though, support it to a greater degree than others. Certainly, as well, this regulation capitalists advocate for would be governed by the state and not by "the community". State regulation is a necessary aspect of capitalism, especially in the epoch of imperialism. To what degree and purpose it is done for doesn't change the mode of production from capitalism into socialism.

Some Communists believe in using the State, others do not. I myself believe in using the State, I believe the State can be a power by and for the People, it isnt right now because corporations have hijacked it but it doesnt have to be this way it can be changed and money in politics can and will be made illegal. I also believe in equal air time for candidates. These things can be accomplished, all the State is is a governing body, who controls that governing body is a different question. Either We, The People, will control the State or the corporations will control it. Even if we got rid of the State and made Communal rules with police etc, that would just become another State whether or not thats what you call it thats what it is.


Marxizm, there is a lot of different posts here and a lot to respond to. The only thing I ask for a response to, so that way the discussion is more concise about what needs to be addressed, is: What do you believe is the fundamental difference between a capitalist society and a socialist society?

The fundamental difference is Individualism vs Communalism. Capitalists believe in Individualism, Communists believe in Communalism or at least some form of it. Capitalists believe in Survival of the Fittest, Socialists believe in Survival of the Species.


He said he suspected you of being a troll on account of the sheer discrepancy between your username and your statements - it's as if someone with the username "Syndicalizm" started a thread about how much of an anarchist Hayek was.

He also referred to the fact that Maher is a liberal, which he is, and that he is supportive of imperialism which, again, he is, having supported the attack on Afghanistan, for example.



Incidentally, we aren't about to let an American non-movement have the term "libertarianism", which was first used to describe anarchists (as in, actual anarchists, not "anarcho"-capitalists), either. And in fact if it were not for the Internet and the very vocal presence of American "libertarians" on the said Internet, no one would believe you if you came to e.g. France and talked about how pro-market the libertarians were.



There is no "mix between the two". Either the means of production are socialised, or they remain in private hands. Liberals, social-democrats, self-proclaimed "democratic socialists", "progressives" etc. - all of them stand for the retention of private property. And that's the line between us and them.



Political discussion is like that. People are going to call a spade a spade, even if you don't like it.



Obviously all of the people we call socialists have something in common, otherwise the term "socialist" would be nonsense. And that something in common is the fight for the socialisation of the means of production, for the abolition of the market, wage labour, money, commodity production, and the state. And yes, that means social-democrats (who don't call themselves socialists anyway), "market socialists" (including Wolff for that matter, who is not "one of the leading Marxist economists in the world", he just gets a lot of coverage because his actual proposals are so inane and toothless), national socialists, Prussian socialists, Arab socialists, guild socialists, that none of these are socialists. Such is life.



Reforms are one thing. Reformism is another. Reforms were won, not by "socialists and liberals together" (liberals opposed most of these reforms), but by the struggle of the working class. When the working class becomes convinced that it does not need to struggle, that it simply has to elect the "good" bourgeois politicians, like Obama, Warren or Sanders, then the possibility of actual reform becomes tenuous at best.



Yes. All of them are bourgeois, pro-capitalist politicians.



That doesn't really tell us anything. People work collectively together (I would hardly expect them to work collectively separately) in any combined mode of production, meaning capitalism as well.



I do wonder about this tendency to act as if dictionaries are founts of sublime wisdom. They're translation tools, and they assume you're somewhat familiar with the terms being used. When they try to act as technical literature, they often fail. Here's what the OED says on mesons:

[/I]Which is wrong. Mesons can be heavier than protons, hell, the bottom eta meson is some 9, 10 times heavier, and they mediate (not "transmit") the residual strong interaction, which is not the same as the elementary strong interaction.

Does this mean the OED is a bad dictionary? No, it means OED is not a good place to learn about mesons. Which you shouldn't be doing in the first place. Likewise with politics. If you are serious about socialist politics, and don't just want a neat little label to stick on yourself because a hilariously biased test said you were something, you have to engage with actual socialist texts.



Another problem is, any state that exists or has existed can be considered socialist under that definition. So, in addition to the misuse of terms, it does raise the question, why would you want such an awful "socialism"? Do you think the present society is good, that it just needs a few tweaks like higher wages and free education? Well that's not our perspective and it never has been. We don't want higher wages, we want the end of working for wages.


As I showed above, Bill Maher is the opposite of an Imperialist just watch any of his shows, type in youtube and watch his latest overtime episode on youtube and I absolutely guarantee you he will be talking about how we should be more non-interventionist and stop screwing with other countries, he talks about it every single fucking episode, so to claim he is a imperialist shows how truly ignorant you are on this subject.

You say Liberals and Socialists did not win these reforms together, it was the "working class", well what the hell do you think the working class was? LIBERALS AND SOCIALISTS!! You are just playing semantics constantly avoiding my answers and going off on tangents about how your definitions are the ONLY definitions thus everything I said is wrong blah blah blah. Tell me, is most of the working class today liberal, socialist, or conservatives? Most of the working class are liberals, most minorities are women are liberals, why is this? Because Liberals are left wingers, and it is the LEFT that supports the working class, not just exclusively the Communists. As I showed above also, the leader of the Communist Party has pledged to work with the liberal Democratic party, are you going to say he isnt a Communist either even though he is the leader of the Communist Party USA just because he is willing to unite with liberals against the fascist right wing? :rolleyes: You guys know you are fucking up when you say Democratic Socialists are your worse enemies, not fascists :mad:

[Marxizm]

*Angry rage*

lol, you're so mad.


Literally 99% of your post was pure insults with absolutely no argumentative substance :closedeyes:

[Subversive]

lol, you're so mad.

Literally 99% of your post was pure insults with absolutely no argumentative substance :closedeyes:
Alright. Let's assume that is true. Then why is it you're the one literally without any substance in your post now? Not even a single 1%?
And why is it that when you replied to my previous post that you accused me of things I absolutely never said, and that you cannot find a single trace of evidence anywhere, that I said any of these things?

Don't think you're hiding anything, "Marxizm". Everyone here can already see through you. It's not hard, you're about as shallow as they come.

[Marxizm]

Alright. Let's assume that is true. Then why is it you're the one literally without any substance in your post now? Not even a single 1%?
And why is it that when you replied to my previous post that you accused me of things I absolutely never said, and that you cannot find a single trace of evidence anywhere, that I said any of these things?


"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens, Marxist

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Maher is a socialist, Hitchens is a Marxist, I wonder what comes next.

[Marxizm]

Maher is a socialist, Hitchens is a Marxist, I wonder what comes next.

Hitchens is a Marxist and admits it, but just because he is willing to use military intervention to fight against Islam many on the left think he is on the right, which is not true. Now that I think of it, Hitchens was in love with Texas, and I was born and raised in Texas, maybe Texas Marxists have a military intervention twist to them most Marxists dont have? Just a hunch but I think it might have something to do with our culture interfering with our political beliefs. As the whole world knows, Texas in incredibly Jingoistic. We are the Lone Red Star State ;)

[Fourth Internationalist]

Maher is a socialist, Hitchens is a Marxist, I wonder what comes next.

So too are Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren, apparently, despite neither of them dentifying as socialists.

[Marxizm]

So too are Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren, apparently, despite neither of them dentifying as socialists.

They are liberals, and ever since the Red Scare Socialists have had to join the liberal Democrats and merge with them, a REAL liberal is actually a libertarian, and we all know Obama and Warren are NOT libertarians, they are liberals, so what is a modern liberal? A modern liberal is a Socialist Liberal, a classical liberal is a libertarian. These are just facts, that is why liberals are left wingers and care so deeply about income inequality, who else cares about income inequality? Oh right, the Socialists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
"Social liberalism is a political ideology with the belief that the right to freedom from coercion should include a societal foundation. Social liberalism seeks to balance individual liberty and social justice. Like classical liberalism, it endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care and education.[1][2][3] Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[4] Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II.[5] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.[6][7][8][9][10] The term social liberalism is used to differentiate it from classical liberalism, which dominated political and economic thought for several centuries until social liberalism branched off from it around the Great Depression.[11][12]"


However, Elizabeth Warren would fall much further to left more towards Liberal Socialism,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism
"Liberal socialism is a socialist political philosophy that includes liberal principles within it.[1] Liberal socialism does not have the goal of abolishing capitalism with a socialist economy;[2] instead, it supports a mixed economy that includes both public and private property in capital goods.[3][4]
Although liberal socialism unequivocally favors a mixed market economy, it identifies legalistic and artificial monopolies to be the fault of capitalism[5] and opposes an entirely unregulated economy.[6] It considers both liberty and equality to be compatible and mutually dependent on each other.[1]"



Just because I defend these people doesnt mean I share their exact beliefs. I believe in a United Leftist Front, left wingers should no squabble so much amongst each other, at least not until we have defeated the right wingers who hold so much power. We can fight each other after the right wingers are taken out of power, until than we have to stop hating each other so damn much and trust me liberals are very open to Socialism they dont despise it like conservatives do, you can actually communicate with them and make progress, whereas that is essentially impossible with conservatives. Most of the working class and minorities are liberals, not socialists, why is that? Because after the Red Scare the Socialists essentially hijacked Liberalism and pushed it far to the left, making Liberal Socialism and Socialist Liberalism far more common and dominant.

[Subversive]

"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens, Marxist
Except the problem with your trolling is that evidence of it is everywhere in this topic and you're the only one too blind to see it.
Good luck convincing everyone else that you're not a Capitalist troll, though.


I believe in a United Leftist Front, left wingers should no squabble so much amongst each other, at least not until we have defeated the right wingers who hold so much power.
The great irony...

[Fourth Internationalist]

However, Elizabeth Warren would fall much further to left more towards Liberal Socialism,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism
"Liberal socialism is a socialist political philosophy that includes liberal principles within it.[1] Liberal socialism does not have the goal of abolishing capitalism with a socialist economy;

Bold added by me.

[Marxizm]

Bold added by me.

"Although liberal socialism unequivocally favors a mixed market economy, it identifies legalistic and artificial monopolies to be the fault of capitalism[5] and opposes an entirely unregulated economy.[6]"

Clearly its a mix between both Socialism and Capitalism, so the question would be is this Capitalism or Socialism? Well there are many answers depending on personal opinions, but to claim that it is not Socialist at all is intellectually dishonest. The very least you can say is its a mix between Socialism and Capitalism, because thats exactly what it is.

[Fourth Internationalist]

"Although liberal socialism unequivocally favors a mixed market economy, it identifies legalistic and artificial monopolies to be the fault of capitalism[5] and opposes an entirely unregulated economy.[6]"

Clearly its a mix between both Socialism and Capitalism, so the question would be is this Capitalism or Socialism? Well there are many answers depending on personal opinions, but to claim that it is not Socialist at all is intellectually dishonest. The very least you can say is its a mix between Socialism and Capitalism, because thats exactly what it is.

Are you saying the laws of the capitalist mode of production, described in great deal by Marx, cease to operate in an economy in which capitalist production is undertook by both private and state industry?

[Subversive]

"Although liberal socialism unequivocally favors a mixed market economy, it identifies legalistic and artificial monopolies to be the fault of capitalism[5] and opposes an entirely unregulated economy.[6]"

Clearly its a mix between both Socialism and Capitalism, so the question would be is this Capitalism or Socialism? Well there are many answers depending on personal opinions, but to claim that it is not Socialist at all is intellectually dishonest. The very least you can say is its a mix between Socialism and Capitalism, because thats exactly what it is.
I think you are confused (or more likely, just trolling some more).
It would be intellectually dishonest (or just plain ignorant) to suggest that there is some sort of "mix" between Socialism and Capitalism and that one is not mutually opposed to and excludes the other.

You only demonstrate your ignorance yet again, "Marxizm".

[Marxizm]

Are you saying the laws of the capitalist mode of production, described in great deal by Marx, cease to operate in an economy in which capitalist production is undertook by both private and state industry?

No im not saying that, but I think one of the main issues of Capitalism, at least for me and many others, was its immorality, its efficient just like slavery is efficient, Hitlers warmachine for example received huge boosts not only from slave labor but from testing on slaves, the problem is of course its incredibly immoral despite being very effective. So, the question than becomes how can be balance efficiency with morality, a mixed economy with a heavy socialist lean seems to be the best transitional option, im not saying it should be the final absolute option but we can get there, educate our people and keep them healthy than in the process we can create a new Communist system, or maybe another transitional Socialist system closer to Communism, I do not believe we should rush immediately head long into Communism, especially with a population full of ignorant right wing Christians who would quickly try to hijack it or fight aggressively against it. Tell me, what should we do with all of these ignorant Christians in this revolution of yours?

I believe we can destroy the right-wingers by taking over the educational system and getting rid of private schools, which liberals ARE willing to do they fucking hate private schools and are entirely aware private schools, private prison, and private healthcare are horrible and should be entirely abolished. However, they dont want to abolish private property and corporations etc, which makes most of you very angry and ignore everything good liberals do because you are blinded by that anger, but they do want to heavily regulate these things, the only thing stopping them is Republicans which is why we should help the Democrats beat them. Yes there are many Democrats who have sold out, but that will happen in any party anywhere anytime, we cant use that as a dealbraking excuse every single time. The Democrats are the party of the Left, the Republicans are the party of the Right, this is so damn obvious.



I think you are confused (or more likely, just trolling some more).
It would be intellectually dishonest (or just plain ignorant) to suggest that there is some sort of "mix" between Socialism and Capitalism and that one is not mutually opposed to and excludes the other.

You only demonstrate your ignorance yet again, "Marxizm".

Crie moar

[Subversive]

Crie moar
Come on, kid. I point out your obvious logical errors, hypocrisies, and ignorance and this is all you've got?
I mean, seriously, you even insisted that you wanted there not to be fighting among Leftists. And you don't see an obvious irony, hypocrisy, and contradiction in telling another Leftist "Crie moar"?

You're not even good at trolling. You're like a confused little child living under a bridge because he wants to be a troll when he grows up. I can only assume from this you are still in your early teens.
At least provide a decently humorous response next time.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This again boils down to our definition of the world socialism. To me, I believe it doesnt just have to mean the government (the people) has ABSOLUTE 100% total control of everything in the country, to me it can also mean regulation of the economy/society.

Socialism can mean dressing in capes and following commander Dessler for you, that doesn't mean anything. You can't arbitrarily redefine terms. Socialism means something, and that something is not a nicer capitalism. That is all.


Trust me, Capitalists see this as incredibly non-captialistic, for good reason, because it isnt capitalism.

Yes, that is why they give millions of dollars every year to "socialists" Obama, Warren, and the rest of the Demonrat Party.


Some Communists believe in using the State, others do not. I myself believe in using the State, I believe the State can be a power by and for the People, it isnt right now because corporations have hijacked it but it doesnt have to be this way it can be changed and money in politics can and will be made illegal. I also believe in equal air time for candidates. These things can be accomplished, all the State is is a governing body, who controls that governing body is a different question. Either We, The People, will control the State or the corporations will control it.

So, once again you call yourself Marxizm and in one of your first posts you explicitly reject the Marxist theory that the state is an instrument of class rule and instead repeat the old liberal bromide about working through the institutions of the bourgeois state. And then you get upset when people point out the massive disconnect between how you present yourself and how you come off.


Even if we got rid of the State and made Communal rules with police etc, that would just become another State whether or not thats what you call it thats what it is.

It's a good thing, then, that communists don't advocate any sort of police force in socialism.


The fundamental difference is Individualism vs Communalism. Capitalists believe in Individualism, Communists believe in Communalism or at least some form of it. Capitalists believe in Survival of the Fittest, Socialists believe in Survival of the Species.

Actually, socialists "believe in" the social control of the means of production. "Survival of the Species" is, ironically, closer to the aforementioned commander Dessler than any socialist.


As I showed above, Bill Maher is the opposite of an Imperialist just watch any of his shows, type in youtube and watch his latest overtime episode on youtube and I absolutely guarantee you he will be talking about how we should be more non-interventionist and stop screwing with other countries, he talks about it every single fucking episode, so to claim he is a imperialist shows how truly ignorant you are on this subject.

Er... Maher referred to the American intervention in Vietnam as a "noble cause", hosted members of the South Vietnamese junta (but then, since the Vietnam war was started by liberals, perhaps you think it was a good thing), supported the attack on Afghanistan, praised Bush for "introducing democracy" to Iraq etc.


You say Liberals and Socialists did not win these reforms together, it was the "working class", well what the hell do you think the working class was? LIBERALS AND SOCIALISTS!! You are just playing semantics constantly avoiding my answers and going off on tangents about how your definitions are the ONLY definitions thus everything I said is wrong blah blah blah. Tell me, is most of the working class today liberal, socialist, or conservatives? Most of the working class are liberals, most minorities are women are liberals, why is this? Because Liberals are left wingers, and it is the LEFT that supports the working class, not just exclusively the Communists.

Workers can be liberals, conservatives, fascists, and members of any other ideology. What drives workers into conflict with capitalism is not their overt political ideology but their status as workers. The historical struggles against capitalism, that resulted in the reforms the reformist like to misrepresent, were led by socialists, against the liberal Republican Party.


As I showed above also, the leader of the Communist Party has pledged to work with the liberal Democratic party, are you going to say he isnt a Communist either even though he is the leader of the Communist Party USA just because he is willing to unite with liberals against the fascist right wing? :rolleyes: You guys know you are fucking up when you say Democratic Socialists are your worse enemies, not fascists :mad:

The CPUSA is a joke. No, wait, the CPUSA is the punchline, the practice of the popular front is the joke. Kapoosa has less members than the DSA, and manage to be less active. You will not find a soul in the world, not even the bitterest Brandtlerite, that has anything positive to say about the CPUSA.


Hitchens is a Marxist and admits it, but just because he is willing to use military intervention to fight against Islam many on the left think he is on the right, which is not true. Now that I think of it, Hitchens was in love with Texas, and I was born and raised in Texas, maybe Texas Marxists have a military intervention twist to them most Marxists dont have? Just a hunch but I think it might have something to do with our culture interfering with our political beliefs. As the whole world knows, Texas in incredibly Jingoistic. We are the Lone Red Star State

So, are you "willing to use military intervention to fight against Islam"?


No im not saying that, but I think one of the main issues of Capitalism, at least for me and many others, was its immorality, its efficient just like slavery is efficient, Hitlers warmachine for example received huge boosts not only from slave labor but from testing on slaves, the problem is of course its incredibly immoral despite being very effective.

Yes, it was so effective it couldn't secure enough winter clothes for the Eastern Front and despite making a show out of its armoured forces (many of them produced in Czechoslovakia), had to employ mules during the invasion of the Soviet Union.

And no, the issue isn't that capitalism is "immoral". The issue is that capitalism fucks us over. Any form of capitalism fucks us over, so if you want a nicer capitalism, this isn't the place to go, to be honest.


So, the question than becomes how can be balance efficiency with morality, a mixed economy with a heavy socialist lean seems to be the best transitional option

A "mixed economy" is capitalism and can't have any "socialist lean".

[G4b3n]

You (and Bill Maher) are referring to New Deal liberalism, not socialism. Which is essentially the idea that the bourgeois state ought to fund massive social welfare programs to prevent the working class from acting up. This persisted through the 50s even during the Eisenhower years. What happened in the early-late 60s starting with Kennedy was what we call Keynesian Corporate liberalism, which is the view that on top of tax cuts, government spending will ultimately stimulate the economy, especially during deficits.

There is one question you ask to see if a country is socialist. If the answer is no then it is not. Does the organized working class have full control over the means of production?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Quote for context



Are you saying the laws of the capitalist mode of production, described in great deal by Marx, cease to operate in an economy in which capitalist production is undertook by both private and state industry?

No im not saying that [rest of quote is about unrelated things that have been addressed by another user]

So then this theoretical mode of production you want--that you define as socialist because of its state intervention--operates by the laws of capitalism.