Socialism

[Galatian 6:2]

What exactly is socialism? I searched the sticky's and didn't find anything and then i went to the Young Socialists Association webpage but it just seemed Marxist. Are there any socialist countries around right now? What are some criticisms of socialism? And what is socialism. Thanks everyone.

[Essential Insignificance]

What exactly is socialism? I searched the sticky's and didn't find anything and then i went to the Young Socialists Association webpage but it just seemed Marxist. Are there any socialist countries around right now? What are some criticisms of socialism? And what is socialism. Thanks everyone.

These kinds of question's "pop up" all the time; you should check out some of the older threads throughout this forum... it might help.

Socialism is an ideological outlook, political movement or an economic system. It is very difficult to define, with absolute certainty; because it has contradictory variants.

Some socialist's "endorse" that socialism should be a political movement, and social order that should succeed after the collapse of capitalism... and remian that way for eternity. But the Marxist view, is that, socialism is a "necessary", and not only a necessary "step" but an "inevitable" prelude to communism.

Many newcomers to "revolutionary politics" believe that Marx was the first writer and only "important" theoretician of socialist theory; and this is a gross mistake.

Prior to the "scientific investigations" of Marx and Engel's, there were other major followed socialist theoreticians of Europe, such as Saint Simon, Robert Owen, and Charles Fourier -- the latter being the most "historically important". Their doctrines, in the process of history, have, many would claim, become "outdated".

Well, just as it hard to delineate socialism, so to is it, to characterize practical actualizations... And thus it's a "hotly contested" argument between, Marxist's (and other brunches) to weather 20th century socialist regimes such as the USSR and the Eastern European bloc were, indeed socialist.

There are a few nations now, which are considered socialist regimes, such as China, North Korea and Cuba.

There are many criticisms of socialism in general and 20th century socialism in particular, namely Leninism, from Marxists and anarchists (to be narrow).

Just have a look around Che-lives... you're sure to encounter, with consistency, these different arguments.

I hope that helped. :D

[Guest1]

That's a pretty good explanation, but I'm gonna make a guess on what you mean and try to give a slightly more straightforward answer :P

If you want what some Marxists refer to as the middle step, not quite Capitalism, but not quite Communism, then it is society under workers' control organized in the form of a state.

There would still be classes and a state (unlike Communism), but the state functions as a tool of the workers, rather than the bourgeoisie.

Whether it actually does that is a matter for debate :lol:

[Palmares]

They have pretty much said it. Check out the Che-Lives Dictionary (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25786) for for a definition of socialism, resources for it, and definitions and resources for alot of other political terms.

[Essential Insignificance]

That's a pretty good explanation, but I'm gonna make a guess on what you mean and try to give a slightly more straightforward answer

And here I was thinking it was very undemanding. :lol:

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 28 2004, 10:22 AM
That's a pretty good explanation, but I'm gonna make a guess on what you mean and try to give a slightly more straightforward answer :P

If you want what some Marxists refer to as the middle step, not quite Capitalism, but not quite Communism, then it is society under workers' control organized in the form of a state.

There would still be classes and a state (unlike Communism), but the state functions as a tool of the workers, rather than the bourgeoisie.

Whether it actually does that is a matter for debate :lol:
The type of Socialism you are mentioning is state "socialism" - which has distorted the
whole meaning of the word - Stateless socialism is Anarchism/Real Communism

[Guest1]

Of course, like I said, what most Marxists refer to, and it's debatable whether it actually functions as a tool of the workers.

Furthermore, in some cases, Anarchists wouldn't even define it as a state. Very strange the way definitions are so different between different groups.

[redstar66]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 12:00 PM
They have pretty much said it. Check out the Che-Lives Dictionary (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25786) for for a definition of socialism, resources for it, and definitions and resources for alot of other political terms.
Thanks for pointing out the dictionary. That will be a big help to me. I am new to this after another election of no choices.

It was stated there are many variations of socialism. I guess that would account for the 5 socialist political parties in the USA. At least there are 5 listed under "third parties."

[YKTMX]

"Socialism" has diffirent meanings for diffirent people. For Reformists i.e. those who seek to change society through elections and political "reforms", socialism marks the end of a process of such reforms and is an end in of itself. Those representing this tradition include the British Labour Party or the German Social Democratic Party. Latterly, classical socialist reformism has become less and less progressive, with it's major parties become increasingly reactionery ceasing to be parties of the masses.

To Marxists i.e those who seek to overthrow capitalism through revolution, socialism marks a stage in history where the working class uses "state power" to suppress remnants of the old society. Socialism is a means to an end - the end being communism, a society without classes or a state. This tradition is represented by Karl Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and others.

You also have a class of people - represented in this thread - who have failed to grasp the importance of post-revolutionary state power for the proletariat and drift aimlessly in the nether regions between Anarchism and "libertarian Marxism".

Hope that helps.

[komon]

socialisme was a way to go to communisme witch will lead to communisme and the anarchisme
since socialisme(the name) has been turned away from his goal and has been use by bourgeois and midle class i am afraid anarchism and communism will get the same fate.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
You also have a class of people - represented in this thread - who have failed to grasp the importance of post-revolutionary state power for the proletariat and drift aimlessly in the nether regions between Anarchism and "libertarian Marxism".

:lol:

While you, on the other hand, presumably look forward to placing your personal "nether region" in the plush chair of some "socialist" bureaucracy.

Don't quit your day-job. :D

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Zingu]

Socialism now just applies to any elgalitarian society with some type of collectivized/nationalized economy, the variations come in when it decided what type of government and what economic structure there is in such a society. So you get this terribly long list of Socialist ideologies, more or less in the end, we all want the same thing though.

[Commie Rat]

I understand the whole capitalism vs socialsim thing
i may be parinoid but does it strike strange that austraila seems to be following amiercas footsteps not jus to war but on some of its commercial and forrigen doctrines like the privatisation of telstra ???



[QUOTE]

[YKTMX]

Don't quit your day-job.

This is my day job ;)