Socialism

[SittingBull47]

My friend tried to tell me today that (in the political spectrum) socialism is leftist (correct) Anarchism is in the middle, and communism is on the extreme right. He also doesn't understand the relationship between communism and socialism, he believes their polar opposites.

Opinions?

[redfront]

Then where do he think capitalism and fasism is :huh:??

[Mr_Thick]

"Communism" in the narrowest economic sense, is a claim that there ought
to be no private property or, alternatively, that there ought to be fairly
severe constraints on private ownership and that most things ought to be
held as *common* property used for the commmon good (in contrast to
individual advantage). In that sense, Plato's Guardian class and More's
Utopia are communist.

For Marx, communism is the state that will emerge once distinct class
interests have been overcome and done away with. Once communism has been
acheived, Marx says, the major productive infrastructure (the material
base) of the communist society will be held as the communal property of
all and used for the common good.

"Socialism" is bit harder to define: It means different, sometimes
incompatible, things to different people. At a minimum, virtually every
form of socialism holds that society ought to organized and run for the
benefit of the common good, rather than for the benefit of elites or
individuals. Different forms of socialism disagree about what this
implies, however.

Most self-described socialists are in favour of social control (i.e.,
government ownership or at least close government regulation) of society's
major productive resources (natural resources, major utilities, public
services). Socialist disagree amongst themselves, however, about just
what resources ought to be publicly controlled and which (if any) ought to
remain under the control of private interests operating in a free market.
(The NDP's insistance on the benefits of Crown Corporations is a fairly
modest version of "public ownership." Existing socialist/labour parties
in Europe, especially in Scandinavia, by contrast, tend to insist on a
very high degree of public ownership and governmental control.) Other
socialists (increasingly rare these days, but once fairly common) maintain
that 'true' socialism involves a major readjustment of how individual
liberties are understood and protected and, therefore, a major change in
cultural practices and social institutions. Others, following Marx, think
public control of resources will naturally create a distinctive 'socialist
ethos' without any need for direct governmental intervention.

Speaking of Marx, for him "socialism" is a technical term denoting that
stage of social development in which society is organized for the benefit
of the (previously oppressed) proletarian class. Which is to say, in
Marx's theory, socialism is an intermediate stage which will utlimately
give way to a fully communist society once all class divisions have been
overcome.

[Individual]

Mr. Thick:

Maybe next time when you 'copy and paste' you will fix it so that it is not noticeable.

[monkeydust]

Well said Alwaysquestion!

Admittedly this 'political spectrum' malarchy has been somewhat 'over done'. I don't really think they're too important. In any case, your friend is completely wrong.

In a bog standard political spectrum (quite obviously) communism is to the left of socialsism. Supposedly anarchism is furhter left still, though it's somewhat harder to place. Somewhere to the centre you'll find folks like Y2A etc. Moving further right you have your capitalists, conservatives, laissez fayre liberalists, nationalists, fascists. The extreme 'right' obviously being Hazard, who we know cannot be wrong.

[Mr_Thick]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:50 PM
Mr. Thick:

Maybe next time when you 'copy and paste' you will fix it so that it is not noticeable.
Was I trying to make it seem like I wasnt copying and pasting? I don't think so!! Save your smart ass remarks for somewhere else buddy!

[Individual]

Well hey,

How was I supposed to know? Most that do this provide a link, or a credit towards the author.

As a matter of fact, I believe this is a rule on Che-Live's due to copyright laws.

I honestly haven't seen someone blatantly post a 'copy' without their own insight, or without a link. Sure looked fishy to me.

Not to get 'smart' with you, however I wouldn't recommend doing that in the future. Mod's and Admin's tend to look at that as spamming, or merely the fact that you implied credit towards yourself for writing that.

[Mr_Thick]

Indeed it was I that wrote that piece. I did however copy and paste it from an essay I am writing on this mere subject, so that I would not have to re-write it. I am sorry that I snapped at you, but it just seemed like you were being a smart ass. So I apologize.

[SittingBull47]

good question, i have no idea where he thinks true right-wingers stand. I should ask him about it.

[Morpheus]

The traditional spectrum is:

Anarchism - Communism - Socialism - Social Democracy - Liberalism - Centrist - NeoConservative - Paleo-Conservativism - Fascist - Nazi

[Osman Ghazi]

Where are the monarchists?

[crazy comie]

They don't enter into it really becuse they are in favour of feudilism wich doesn't fit in in my oppinion.

[Fidel Castro]

Anarchism - Communism - Socialism - Social Democracy - Liberalism - Centrist - NeoConservative - Paleo-Conservativism - Fascist - Nazi


I sometimes get confused as to the ideas behind these different political spectrums. I'm I right in saying that:

Anarchism = Abolishon of all government and laws. People live how they choose and decisions and upholiding of civil peace is undertaken by all society?

Communism = Theory that after the eventual collapse of capitalism there will be no class barriers, and there will be both economic and social equality resulting in an eventual breakdown of government into an anarchist state?

Socialism = Theory that all industry and property should be divided equally amoungst the people by the state, which should also be responsible for public services.

Social Democracy = ????

Liberalism = Trying to find the happy medium in everything?

Centrist = Adopting both leftist and right-wing policies as they see fit?

Neo-Conservative = ?????

Paleo-Conservative = ????

Fascist = Extreme control over the people and often aggressive foreign policy?

Nazi = "Shoot me now, GOOD GOD PUT ME OUT OF MY MISERY!"


I really am a political novice, although I think of myself as being in the Socialist catagory.

[Hate Is Art]

Social Democracy = ????


Basically, liberalism but with more social and leftist, more of a political party than a form of government as they advocate democracy which will allow capitilists to get back in control.

[STI]

The left- right spectrum is pretty much useless. It's better to split it into social libertarianism/authoritarianism and economic leftism/rightism. Anarchism is extreme libertarian left, Fascism is extreme authoritarian right, Nazism is Extreme authoritarian moderate right. Stalinism is Extreme authoritarian left, social democracy, socialism, and communism are all libertarian left, going progressively libertarian and left respectively. 'Liberalism' is usually anywhere near the middle, though, in Canada, Jean Chreatien was slightly left and libertarian. Conservativism is anywhere on the right, barring any extremes.

www.politicalcompass.org (http://www.politicalcompass.org) is the best source i know of for placing people and parties on the political scale.

Hope i helped

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:50 PM
Mr. Thick:

Maybe next time when you 'copy and paste' you will fix it so that it is not noticeable.
AlwaysQuestion,

You are questioning too much. It is quite clear that it is written by Mr. thick himself.

[monkeydust]

Genghis

Just to clarify those definitions for you-

Bear in mind that my definitions are too simplistic, merely a summation of the ideological core of each example.

Anarchism

Anarchists reject hirearchy. They do not believe any one person shoul have more formal power than another. This does not necessarily lead to inevitable disorganisation, though some believe so. There is no central state to dictate how one should live, though basic standards are retained through social pressure, and the work of people in any given collective to oppose another. For a better definition use The Anarchist tension's dictionary in OI.

Communism

We all know this one. The abolition of dividing social and economic barriers. Public ownership of the means of production, of property and resources (hence no private ownership of these).Etc. etc. For a great definition, visit Redstar's site.

Socialism

Again we all know this one, Redstar has another good definition at his site.

Social Democracy

Ahhh, social democrats. Well, the name can be a bt misleading here. You see, Socialism could be considered both 'social' and 'democratic' thoug Social democracy is not socialism.

I always preffered to call it 'Social Capitalism'. Social democracy is essentially 'Capitalism with a nice face'

Social democrats tend to believe in welfare benefits, national healthcare and provisions to maintain a 'basic' standard of 'civilized life'. They do not wish to destroy big business, though they will instituste progressive tax schemes. They wish to support workers but not to penalise the bourgeoisie majorly.

A cynic might suggest that Social Democracy is just a tool to 'pacify' the working classes. Indeed, in 1920's Germany this was the case. Many German workers felt their revolution had already come, rallying behind social democracy rather than radical communists (such as the KPD).

Liberalism

'Classical' Liberalism has deep roots within most Western industrialised nations, though toda it can be seen as outdated. Liberailsts believe in the primacy of the individual over any other social unit. They feel that an individual should be able to do what he wishes, to an extent.

Thus Liberalists do not support any 'state' or 'government' beyond it's ability to maintain order and to allow people to live without great opression (if they're rich that is!).

Liberalists, or Laissez faire capitalists would thus not allow a state to impose its values upon it's citizens. They believe for example that if you wish to smoke pot, you can.

Consequently Liberalists believe that society will develop 'organically' along its own lines without interference from the state.

It sounds good, but trust me, it isn't.

Centrist

Generally just inbetween the others. 'Centrism' isn't really much of an ideology by itself. Due to the nature of our political spectrum. Centrists will always be capitalists.

Neo-Conservative and Paleo-Conservatism

Neo, or 'New' Conservatism might seem an odd phrase. Clearly both Neo and Paleo Conservatives are 'conservative'. It tends to be the case though, that Paleo Conservatives are more Conservative than their couterparts.

Both believe in traditional capitalism. Both wish to retain Christain morals, the Monarchy (in Monarchic nations that is) and both emphasise the importance of the 'traditional' family unit. Both tend to be quite nationalistic. Though the latter more so.

Paleo conservatives just go further than their counterparts. They are, in a sense, more conservative.

Fascist

Fascists believe the Nation is the most important social structure. Fascism, in many ways is the antithesis of individualism, emphasising common values and national strenth at the expense of contrasting, atomistic identity.

Fascists believe a single Dicatator is the most effective body for decision making. Through propaganda they wish the people to rally behind this leader.

Fascists advocate social Darwinist policies at a National level. Believing that all nations should compete, the 'greatest' ultimately dominating. Thus Fascists love expansionist policy, and are not averse to war.


Nazism, or National socialism

Nazi's are also Fascists, only worse than Bog standard Fascists.

Nazi's strongly believe in Eugenics. They advocate the systematic execution of Slavs, Jews, Black and gypsies in pursuit of the 'greater good'

Obviously Nazi's follow the policy of Adolph Hitler. National Socialism's 25 poins should not be given huge consideration though, for Hitler never actually implemented many of the Socilaist goals he set out. He probably never intended to either.

Today, most Nazi's are referred to as 'Neo Nazi's'.




I hope these definitions helped. Sorry if they're a bit brief.


EDIT: If anyone wants any better definitions just PM me and I should be able to send you something more substantial.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Finally one of the things I'm more interested into is being talked about: the political spectrum

For a long time people have been trying to identify different political-economical systems on a "graphical" way without much success. The classical left-right line is crap, it only attemps to measure "extremism". The liberal-conservative line is too useless. The libertarian Nolan chart is better than this last one but only tries to measure "freedom" (which means that a keynesian and an anarchist could be in the same place which is ridicoulous), plus it's biased. The political compass is not very useful after a while, people say things like "I'm more to the left than Gandhi/Dalai Lama" which don't make sense because it doesn't really tell a novice person about the kind of system they would be happy in or what ideals they might be interested into. The map at anarchy.no (http://www.anarchy.no) is better but still biased and not too accurate.

For a while I've been thinking about doing a huge topic in the OI forum to start creating a "perfect" political spectrum. I might do it some day, but so far I did with MS Paint a political spectrum which identifies 15 ideologies plus 8 that are between them (23 in total), which have different political/social/economical ideas and beliefs, and different attitudes concerning democracy, authoritarianism, autonomy, personal freedoms, economical role of the public administration, type of property over the means of production, etc. If you want I can post it after fixing a couple of things. Trust me, is better than the old "left-right", "liberal-conservative", "libertarians represent freedom", "tree hugging liberal hippies-old fashioned religious conservatives" ones.

[monkeydust]

There's no such thing as a perfect political spectrum.

Every spectrum is merely a means of simplification.

In reality these ideologies are not 'rounded' or 'neat' enough and have not the regularities to be able to fit into any graphical manner.

The ideologies should be learnt as just that, the ideologies. They should not be thought of simply as 'far right' or 'left'.

[Fidel Castro]

Thanks left, your summery helped explain some of these terms. :)

[Morpheus]

Neoconservatives are people like George Bush, who advocate imperialism & free trade. Paleoconservatives are people like Pat Buchanan. They are often opposed to imperialism (which they call "interventionism") on the grounds that our countries superior to all other countries and we shouldn't be helping out those inferior savages. They are isolationists and protectionists. They are usually also racist & anti-immigrant.

[Invader Zim]

Socialism is the underlying ideolology of all ideologies thatsubscribe to the belief that wealth should be equily distributed between everyone. Communism is mearly an specific ideology of this vast group. I consider my self a socialist because I dont subscribe to any individual ideology within the socialist group, as they all have their problems.

[crazy comie]

librelism and conservitivesim are the same arn't they as librel as in the economice sense means free trade and lack of intervention like wealfare as maggie the ***** thatcher was a librel

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 9 2004, 03:59 PM
librelism and conservitivesim are the same arn't they as librel as in the economice sense means free trade and lack of intervention like wealfare as maggie the ***** thatcher was a librel
You're right about Thatcher being a Liberal, technically a neo-liberal, though it's unfair to judge conservatism as a whole by one of its most prominent memebers.

Conservatives argue that conservatism is not an ideology at all. I somewhat disagree, though I must concede that conservatism is notably less ideological than many traditional 'ideologies'.

Conservatives today are nearly always liberals, though conservative pragmatism would allow someone to change this economic stance (in theory) and still be conservative, after WW2, many conservatives, albeit greudgingly accepted social welfare measures.

It's fairly accurate to say that all conservatives today are (economic) liberals. Though it's not the case that all liberals are conservatives.

Conservatism has much greater implications concerning the role of the family, 'traditonal' (usually Christian) moral values and the obvious wish to keep things as they are.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 9 2004, 03:59 PM
librelism and conservitivesim are the same arn't they as librel as in the economice sense means free trade and lack of intervention like wealfare as maggie the ***** thatcher was a librel
Nope, liberalism is the view that we should accept change and embrace it. It is the opposite of reactionary. Maggie was a reactionary.

In an economic sense Maggie was a neo-liberal not a liberal.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by Enigma+Mar 9 2004, 06:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Mar 9 2004, 06:24 PM)
crazy [email protected] 9 2004, 03:59 PM
librelism and conservitivesim are the same arn&#39;t they as librel as in the economice sense means free trade and lack of intervention like wealfare as maggie the ***** thatcher was a librel
Nope, liberalism is the view that we should accept change and embrace it. It is the opposite of reactionary. Maggie was a reactionary.

In an economic sense Maggie was a neo-liberal not a liberal. [/b]
Adam smiths belifs the most capitalist you can get is considerd simply liberal. Libreal economicly means that you allow freedom to do what you wan&#39;t with your moeny.

[El Tipo]

I passed the political compass with the results at sig. Im so new and just getting started, but Im sooo glad that Im far from Bush and such leaders. :)

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

in a true communist society, would the government choose everyones job? Say I&#39;m good at pushing a button and i don&#39;t fatigue easily; would they send me to work in a factory making plastic tubes all day?

[RedAnarchist]

We&#39;ve never really been close enough to a communist society.

I suppose we will not know for sure until a socialist state manages to make it to the stateless utopia of communism.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

what is the difference between the supposed communsim in China and Cuba, and true communsim which has never truly existed?

[RedAnarchist]

China has been capitalist for decades, and Cuba is a socialist state.

First the country is capitalist. Then the revolution will change it to socialist. The policies of Socialism will bring about Communism and make the state wither away.
Some communist staes might even turn Anarchist, but most will remain Communist.

[SittingBull47]

Yea, people say Socialism is a stepping stone for communism. If the goal of a country in revolution is to become communist, then in my opinion i don&#39;t think it could be achieved very succesfully without dabbling in the socialist movement.

[Nas]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 12:08 PM
We&#39;ve never really been close enough to a communist society.

I suppose we will not know for sure until a socialist state manages to make it to the stateless utopia of communism.
wow i agree with some people here but you are the one who i moslty agree with and think alike too

i personally think Communism is a higher society than Socialism . so where ever Socialism is , Communism will be beyond, you can almost understand it if you read the Communist Manifesto

and i also think before we (the people) can make the change from Capitalism to Communism , we need to go through Socialism because if we dont, we wont have the experience required and we wont be able to understand Communism very well

[Nas]

you will also realise there are more Socialists than Communists , just like there are more Communists than Anarchists . get it?

[davekriss]

Some of you might find this site interesting: Politcal Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/).

I did the questionairre and scored a -7.88 on the economic axis and a -8.36 on the social axis, which puts me on the lower left corner of the quadrant graphic, an extreme Leftist Anarchist. Or, in the language of the site, "...the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism (libertarian socialism) [which] belongs in the bottom left hand corner". Puts me squarely in the company of the Chomster. I&#39;m OK with that&#33; :D (However I realize that puts me at odds with the vanguard party here.)

[crazy comie]

Peimitive Communism has been practised in ancient times.

[Shredder]

in a true communist society, would the government choose everyones job? Say I&#39;m good at pushing a button and i don&#39;t fatigue easily; would they send me to work in a factory making plastic tubes all day?

No. In a true communist society, i.e. the utopian ideal, technology and education techniques (etc.) would be pushed to enormous capacity, so that you would not only choose one job, you would choose to do whatever you wanted. To paraphrase Marx, you could herd cattle, go fishing, and write a book without ever being a herder, fisherman, or author.

Even if a 100% perfect utopia is impossible,the idea is that there&#39;s nothing to lose by ceaselessly striding closer to it.

[Raisa]

The whole Left -Right is not the best way to look at it so i have seen.
Try the political spectrum. Its a grid, left is communist, right -capitalist, up-authoritiarian, down-libertarian.

try going to www.politicalcompass.org.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Mr. Thick:

Maybe next time when you &#39;copy and paste&#39; you will fix it so that it is not noticeable.





you are way out of line here AQ.

[Individual]

you are way out of line here AQ.

An entire month later...

Gee RAF, thanks for that wonderful insight.

I&#39;m glad only one of us can be abrupt. ;)

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:30 PM
Some of you might find this site interesting: Politcal Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/).

I did the questionairre and scored a -7.88 on the economic axis and a -8.36 on the social axis, which puts me on the lower left corner of the quadrant graphic, an extreme Leftist Anarchist. Or, in the language of the site, "...the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism (libertarian socialism) [which] belongs in the bottom left hand corner". Puts me squarely in the company of the Chomster. I&#39;m OK with that&#33; :D (However I realize that puts me at odds with the vanguard party here.)
I&#39;m right there with you the Communist Liberatarian label sticks again,
I fell -9.12 on the Econ/Lefty axis, and -7.95 on the libertarian/social axis
As you said with the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, Chomsky and Ghandhi in the same area I&#39;m okay. Actually thought I was more moderate economically, oh well, Free the Land Now&#33;

[crazy comie]

I was -9.12 -8.56.

[RedAnarchist]

Look in my sig for mine.

We&#39;ve had quite a few political compass threads.

[crazy comie]

Hasn&#39;t this gone abit of tpic now we are all disscussing what we got now.

[davekriss]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 9 2004, 09:59 AM
librelism and conservitivesim are the same arn&#39;t they as librel as in the economice sense means free trade and lack of intervention like wealfare as maggie the ***** thatcher was a librel
Liberalism=Conservatism only if you mix definitions from the Eighteenth Century with those of today. (Let me take a shot at this though I&#39;m not awake yet.)

200 years ago, Liberalism meant in essense unfettered Libertarianism: freedom for individuals to pursue economic advantage in unregulated markets; freedom to pursue their own choice of religion -- it demanded that the individual stand free from the interventions of the State to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness. The Liberal demanded change.

Conservatism back then meant support for the interventions of the Crown, which served to preserve the power derived from the State. The Conservative wants to "leave things as they are" in order to preserve the current order.

In reality, Liberal currents in popular thought were exploited by the Founding Fathers to wrest control of the colonies from England in order to substitute themselves as a new, unfettered ruling class. It was not long after in American history before the State was used to conserve their interests. ("Meet the new boss / same as the old boss".)

These definitions have been mixed and interbred a bit over the last two hundred years, and today Liberalism means a belief in a degree of collectivist solutions to the problems of the powerless and disadvantaged and use of the State to promote desireable outcomes. It still seeks change, but in ways opposite from its original focus. Conservatism, on the other hand, retreated to the definition of Liberalism of two hundred years ago, but seeks preservation of order -- to fix forever the state of affairs achieved by early American Liberalism.

Neo-Liberal should actually be called "Paleo-Liberal" in that a main dimension is a return to the idea of "free" markets where "free" and "equal" actors pursue their interests unfettered by the State. However, conceptual clarity is muddied because Neo-Liberalism would use NGO&#39;s like the WTO, IMF, and World Bank to pave the road used by powerful corporations to gain from global commerce. Like early Liberalism, it seeks change, but in ways that increase the advantage of the already advantaged.

Neo-Conservatism, which sprung from the Left in America (the "founding father" was Norman Podhertz) and was molded in the ovens of Anti-Stalinism (then generalized as Anti-Communism), also believes in collectivist solutions (like the modern liberal), but their focus is on power, control, and security, -- on hegemony and empire -- not on the Liberal pallative treatment of the ailments of the working class.

Underlying all of this is establishment of a ruling class and preservation of its advantages. Liberalism and Conservatism first and foremost entrench the advantages of the ruling class; neither seeks to deconstruct the relations between classes that is the fundamental source of so much misery in the world.

Anyway, let me get a cup of coffee (maybe, once awake, I&#39;ll be aware of what bunk I just wrote...)

[trotskylicious]

Go back and read Lenin&#39;s "State and Revolution". It&#39;s all there. In a nutshell, socialism is the stage before communism. Communism: Classless society. there is no state, because by the definition of state (again, read S&R) it is no longer necessary. Socialism still has a state because the bourgeoisie still exists and needs to be supressed. In a really smart-ass way, what I&#39;m trying to say is that they are not separate fights. The end goal is communism, but it&#39;s impossible to jump straight to it.

[crazy comie]

they still call them selfs libreals though.