What is socialism?

[Abood]

Ok, here's the thing, im in a general political forum, and people are saying that socialism is huge govt control. i do not believe thts true.. but im doubting my own knowledge.
theyre also saying Hitler was a socialist...
i know this is stupid, but plz help me out here! thnx!

[ReD_ReBeL]

Socialism has government control because it nationalisis firms and buissnesses mostly so that for example water is given free to the majority of the peoples instead of just the minority thus meaning aboloshing the water bill etc and also so in theory that the corporations are in workers control and not controlled by bossess etc.
SOCIALISM=to abolish exploitation of man by man.

Nazi Party means =National Socialist Workers Party.
But Hitler was by no means a socialist or communist , i believe it was more to do with getting power ie. National=moslty right wing, Socialist Workers=left wing. See it's clever tactics because he is appealing to all peoples of germany basically, but no he was no a socialist but a fascist. he even prosecuted Socialists and Executed thousands of Communists.

[Abood]

hey thnx for helping me out :) appreciate it a lot.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I would not agree exactly with that definition. I would say that socialism more accurately describes the transitory state from capitalism to communism. That is a dictatorship of the proletariat, whereby they alter the infastructure of society so that it is in the interests of all, thereby destroying the constructs of class, money and authority. As this proccess becomes complete, and the problems arising from a society based in conflict dissipate, the state withers away. When the transition is complete, including the disintergration of the "state" that was (according to some) neccessary for this part, you slide into communism.

[Zingu]

Socialism has government control because it nationalisis firms and buissnesses mostly so that for example water is given free to the majority of the peoples instead of just the minority thus meaning aboloshing the water bill etc and also so in theory that the corporations are in workers control and not controlled by bossess etc.


Wrong, Socialism is not about nationalization (state capitalism), its about socialization. :angry:

[ReD_ReBeL]

Yes i know i was trying to give a description about the current governments which label themselfs 'socialists'

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 11:30 PM
Yes i know i was trying to give a description about the current governments which label themselfs 'socialists'
Well differentiating between what the term means in a western sense, and in the sense it was initially implied would be benificial, otherwise you haven't helped them at all.

To the original poster, you may have to define the context in which you mean the term, as it has more than one meaning. On the one side it means something along the lines of the initial response, and is used to describe things even vaguely similar to that, and in the Marxist sense it means something closer to what I said.

[Red Leader]

I think we can all agree that real communism can only exist on a global scale.

So i just have a quick question, is it true that in order for real socialism to come about there has to be worldwide revolution? Where the entire world becomes socialist, goes through the tranistion stage, and then is communist??

Or is it each country gets its own little revolution and becomes socialist and then everyone else sort of follows and worldwide communism falls into place?

This has confused me for a wihle.

[KC]

For info on what socialism is check out this blog entry (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=blog&id=10051&entry=301&action2=perma).

[( R )evolution]

^^ Thank you comrade that help clear things up.

[Abood]

hey thanks everyone for ur help :D
now i can show the goodness of socialism, as apparently, evry1 seems to think socialism is authoritarian.

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 18 2006, 08:20 PM

theyre also saying Hitler was a socialist...

I think they don't refer to the name of the party he formed .As far as I know Hitler was first in a socialist party before he built up the NSDAP but didn't was socialist at all because of that ,it was only a tactic,as already said.

Something like that did Mussolini ,too,he first was member of the socialist party and there he tried get people on his side before building his own party,quite the same malicious tactic.

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 18 2006, 08:20 PM
Ok, here's the thing, im in a general political forum, and people are saying that socialism is huge govt control. i do not believe thts true.. but im doubting my own knowledge.
theyre also saying Hitler was a socialist...
i know this is stupid, but plz help me out here! thnx!
What is Socialism, you ask???

Are you cold, friend? Well then here is my jacket.
Are you hungry? Well, let's share my lunch.

On the job, I have put forth both of these examples of Socialism.
Socialism is from each according to their abilities , to each according to their need.

You can easily practice Socialism without Government involvement..

As for Hitler, he was not much of a Socialist, at least to me anyway!

[Abood]

more and more i keep learning..yay
thnx comrades :)

[leftist resistance]

SA, have the same prob too.ppl around me think tt socialism=clamp down on freedom.this is aggravated by the fact tt the gov brainwash us by saying tt communism is against freedom(supposedly the capitalists) in the social studies bk.moreover,it is an examinable subject in the o levels.
When i tell them "y do u call them communist states when states are abolished in communism?" they'll get surprised.thats because they have no idea what it is about.the local media would at times(seldomly though) run articles tt aims to discredit socialism.but they,like most critiques of socialism/communism,have no idea of what they are attacking.i wonder,how do you criticise something tt which you have no knowledge of?

BTW,hitler was not a socialist.among those massacred in the Holocaust included communists and socialists,as stated by red rebel earlier.his main agenda was to make Germany 'strong' and cleanse it of the 'useless ppl',not the betterment of society.

[KC]

Socialism is from each according to their abilities , to each according to their need.

That's communism. Socialism is the process of evolving society from capitalism to communism.

[Abood]

Socialism is from each according to their abilities , to each according to their need.
honestly, i never got what that quote means :blush:

[Red Leader]

Socialism is from each according to their abilities , to each according to their need

It means that people work to thier own capability and pontential, for thier own individual needs, while at the same time equally contributing to society. Basically nobody is born equal, however everyone's capabilities, whether physical or mental shall be valued as equal. Say you are super smart and invent all these useful things, but dont have any legs. You work your hardest by your own means. Now somebody who isnt very intelligent but is incredoubly sttrong may go on working in a factory. Both individuals work equally as hard, but to thier own abilityies.

Now, not to be rude, but could somebody answer the question I asked a while back? Just in case you dont feel like scrolling up here it is again:


I think we can all agree that real communism can only exist on a global scale.

So i just have a quick question, is it true that in order for real socialism to come about there has to be worldwide revolution? Where the entire world becomes socialist, goes through the tranistion stage, and then is communist??

Or is it each country gets its own little revolution and becomes socialist and then everyone else sort of follows and worldwide communism falls into place?

[Led Zeppelin]

Wrong, Socialism is not about nationalization (state capitalism), its about socialization.

Nationalization of land, factories, and the means of production in general in the hands of the dictatorship of the proletariat is socialization.


So i just have a quick question, is it true that in order for real socialism to come about there has to be worldwide revolution? Where the entire world becomes socialist, goes through the tranistion stage, and then is communist??

Or is it each country gets its own little revolution and becomes socialist and then everyone else sort of follows and worldwide communism falls into place?

This is a "tough question", in that different people have different views on it, there is however only one correct view, and that is that Socialism has different phases itself, after a Socialist revolution we refer to the nation as Socialist, even though it might not be Socialist in the proper sense of the term, for example the Soviet Union was referred to as Socialist right after it was established, but it is obvious that it hadn't achieved the material conditions to be "really Socialist".

So, then, why do some people refer to it as Socialist? Because it was in the process of attaining that level of development, that is, it was building the material conditions required for Socialism, so it was building Socialism to become Socialist in the proper sense of the term.

Is it possible for one nation to become Socialist? Yes, it is.

The USSR after the two 5 year plans was more advanced than, let's say, western-Europe throughout the 19th century, was it not the person who "invented" Communism that said that western-Europe, i.e., the advanced Capitalist nations of the 19th century, had achieved the material conditions for Socialism?

Exactly.

[Red Leader]

So in order for COMMUNISM to occur, ALL countries must first turn socialist and go through said phases? That will take quite a while as long as super powers like the US have a say.

I say, there must be a revolution in the developed countries FIRST and then the others will follow. Little socialist states scattered and isolated throughout the world just seem to fizzle out in time or get taken over by more advanced, right wing driven countries.

Thoughts?

[Abood]

I say, there must be a revolution in the developed countries FIRST and then the others will follow. Little socialist states scattered and isolated throughout the world just seem to fizzle out in time or get taken over by more advanced, right wing driven countries.

that would be easier, since the third world countries depend heavily on the developed, great powers, such as the US for instance. but, practically, it cant happen.. why? well, bcuz developed countries exploit workers in undeveloped/developing countries so that most their ppl are rich and bourgeoisie. that means that there is no proletariat army to revolt.

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:27 AM


Socialism is from each according to their abilities , to each according to their need.

That's communism. Socialism is the process of evolving society from capitalism to communism.
"Now Lenin, gripping the edge of the reading stand, letting his little winking eyes travel over the crowd as he stood there waiting, apparently oblivious to the long-rolling ovation, which lasted several minutes. When it finished, he said simply, "We shall now proceed to construct the Socialist order!" Again that overwhelming human roar."

-John Reed on Lenin.

Source: (One of many)

http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/j_reed.html

:huh:
I would consider sharing my coat/lunch with a fellow worker to be Socialism.
I would consider sharing my coat/ lunch and house to be Communism.
sim·i·lar
adj.
Definition:
1 very much alike
2 Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.
3 Possessing the same or almost the same characteristics

[VictoryOverWar]

I say, there must be a revolution in the developed countries FIRST and then the others will follow. Little socialist states scattered and isolated throughout the world just seem to fizzle out in time or get taken over by more advanced, right wing driven countries.

this is exactly what needs to happen...if a revolution occurs in the major imperialistic countires smaller ones will follow. If the US was to have a revolution and head toward the direction of socialism it would effect many other countries on a global wide scale level

[Abood]

this is exactly what needs to happen...if a revolution occurs in the major imperialistic countires smaller ones will follow. If the US was to have a revolution and head toward the direction of socialism it would effect many other countries on a global wide scale level
true, but like i said before, that's very unlikely, since most ppl in imperial nations do not have anything against their govt.. or if they do, its not supported well enough.

[Led Zeppelin]

So in order for COMMUNISM to occur, ALL countries must first turn socialist and go through said phases?

Yes.


That will take quite a while as long as super powers like the US have a say.

Yes, as long as superpowers like the US have a say, which won't be very long.


I say, there must be a revolution in the developed countries FIRST and then the others will follow. Little socialist states scattered and isolated throughout the world just seem to fizzle out in time or get taken over by more advanced, right wing driven countries.

Thoughts?


You are right, that is what we would like to happen, if the advanced Capitalist (Imperialist) nations go through a proletarian revolution it will probably bring forth Socialism/Communism much faster than if the "third world" has a proletarian revolution.

But is that realistic? The history of all countries have shown that workers in Imperialist nations are most certainly not the most revolutionary out there, this is of course because they live in welfare states, i.e., they are better off economically than the workers in the "third world".

To say that revolution should first happen in one part of the world and then in another part of the world or else it is doomed to fail is childish, and anti-Marxist to its core.

You can't predict history, so don't even try, you can only guess.....my guess is on the "third world".

[sanpal]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 19 2006, 12:29 AM
I think we can all agree that real communism can only exist on a global scale.


Not all. I'm not agree:)
Communism is not a State, it is not a nation. It is relationshipbetween people in the process of production and distribution. . If a group of workers would be able to create such kind of relationship between themselves without selling their labour (wages system) so there would be no obstacle for appearing of communism in limited collective.


So i just have a quick question, is it true that in order for real socialism to come about there has to be worldwide revolution? Where the entire world becomes socialist, goes through the tranistion stage, and then is communist??

Or is it each country gets its own little revolution and becomes socialist and then everyone else sort of follows and worldwide communism falls into place?
I think your second question is most realist. Look on the people: when one person get a successful action another persons wish to repeat after him.

[Abood]

How can u achieve Communism in one country?! after all, its a stateless society, and u cant have a society with no economy and no money, while the rest are trading with money and everything else.

[KC]

"Now Lenin, gripping the edge of the reading stand, letting his little winking eyes travel over the crowd as he stood there waiting, apparently oblivious to the long-rolling ovation, which lasted several minutes. When it finished, he said simply, "We shall now proceed to construct the Socialist order!" Again that overwhelming human roar."

-John Reed on Lenin.

Source: (One of many)

http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/j_reed.html


That part that you bolded isn't necessarily correct. Yes, John Reed did write that but in other accounts of that event, no such thing was ever mentioned. Besides, who cares if Lenin said that or not?



I would consider sharing my coat/lunch with a fellow worker to be Socialism.
I would consider sharing my coat/ lunch and house to be Communism.

I would consider it a nice thing to do. Neither of them are socialism or communism, as both are socio-economic systems.


sim·i·lar
adj.
Definition:
1 very much alike
2 Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.
3 Possessing the same or almost the same characteristics


I don't even know why you posted this.



this is exactly what needs to happen...if a revolution occurs in the major imperialistic countires smaller ones will follow. If the US was to have a revolution and head toward the direction of socialism it would effect many other countries on a global wide scale level


As that is how it will happen.



true, but like i said before, that's very unlikely, since most ppl in imperial nations do not have anything against their govt.. or if they do, its not supported well enough.

They will soon enough.


The history of all countries have shown that

You can't take that into account as evidence. That's similar to saying "greed is human nature" when it is just normal in the capitalist system. You have to look at how capitalism will develop in the future, not in the past.


How can u achieve Communism in one country?! after all, its a stateless society, and u cant have a society with no economy and no money, while the rest are trading with money and everything else.


Communism will have an economy. All human society needs an economy.

[Hobbes]

I have been looking around and I see something like the above in a lot of posts.....

"greed" is a function of capitalism? defining "greed" as the act of vying for power, greed is universal among social animals. monkeys and dolphins have mating heirarchies and protect territory within their species......greed in this sense is a biological imperative necessary for reproductive success.

it seems that, although in the confines of what little philosophical ground people here seem to share some of your arguments make sense, you will never convince the laboring class of a modernized country that greed is not a part of human nature. in fact, although i am intrigued enough by some of you to register and post here, i can't wrap my mind around how you plan to organize any meaningful, productive and lasting change without addressing this flaw in your arguments.

social stratification was and is present in every civilization, and as long as people can lie, cheat and steal there will always be uneven distribution of goods.

[ComradeRed]

What genius went into such a post: "Humans are greedy because I say so!"

The argument is rather unrefined. What about that age old problem of "ethics"? Why would it be created in the first place if humans are programmed to be greedy?

Worse, the "human nature = greed" argument ignores not only all of hard science, but also all the exceptions are "irrelevant". :lol:

Let's look at the scientific ( :o ) explanation.

According to Neuroscience humans recognize patterns. That's all language is. That's all reading is. As a matter of fact, you aren't reading this post "y-o-u ah, you; a-r-e-n-t, you aren't...". You recognize patterns in the letters and words. The patterns of configurations of letters constitutes words.

Likewise in class society recognizing that those who screw others get ahead programs something into you. Now, pattern recognition is not the same as acting in a manner. Acting in any manner is a choice. This choice is of course based on the material conditions at the time.

No where is human nature assumed to exist, only pattern recognition! Now one could say that it is "impossible" to change this, yet look at what happened between the 1400s to the 1700s in Europe: society changed! :o

People were slaves, and now acted completely differently!? What a mystery according to the "modern" bourgeois social scientist.

One of the principles of the scientific method (which is so often ignored in the bourgeois social sciences): if something happened before, it can happen again. There is no reason why communism is "impossible". If people have changed before, they can change again.

There simply is no grounds for human nature...that is scientific grounds, you can bring up anecdotal naive pseudo-empiricism all you want but it is irrelevant.

[anomaly]

Hello, Hobbes.

'Greed' and 'self-interest' are not unaccounted for in Marxist theory. In historical materialism, greed is absolutely central. Benevolence and altruism are not the major motivating factors in history, according to HM. Rather, people, especially those with much power, tend to do what is in their self interests.

We see many examples of this in human history. Since your name is Hobbes, I assume you are rather well aquainted with those men whom Hobbes so influenced: the 'founding fathers' of America. They decided, due mostly to economic reasons, that they no longer wanted to be a part of Britain. They then proceeded to write a Constitution that, strangley enough, reflected completely their class interests. To consolidate their power, they created a strong central government (this was also in order to make some money, as 40 out of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention held government bonds, money which they desperately wanted). Also, half of them (the delegates) had money loaned out at an interest. Only a strong central government could ensure such loans were paid back in full with interest. Most importantly, in my opinion, all of the delegates were white landowning males. Is it any wonder, then, that they decided the only people who could vote were white, landowning males?

According to HM, the overthrow of capitalism will come once it is no longer in the people's self interest to preserve the system. Currently, the standard of living is relatively high in the most advanced of the capitalistic nation-states, and so there is little reason for the proletariat to revolt.

However, such prosperity cannot last long under a system in which the exploiting of one's fellow man is openly encouraged. The tendency of capitalism is for wealth to become highly concentrated in a small sector of the population. Thus, it is inevitable that the current prosperity seen will end. When this will happen is anyone's guess, and by simply perusing through some of the posts here, one can see that many have attempted such a guess.

At such time, it will be in the self interest, the class interests, of the proletariat as a whole to revolt.

Your post, however, completely ignores any principles of materialism. This is the source of your failure.

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:07 PM


"Now Lenin, gripping the edge of the reading stand, letting his little winking eyes travel over the crowd as he stood there waiting, apparently oblivious to the long-rolling ovation, which lasted several minutes. When it finished, he said simply, "We shall now proceed to construct the Socialist order!" Again that overwhelming human roar."

-John Reed on Lenin.

Source: (One of many)

http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/j_reed.html


That part that you bolded isn't necessarily correct. Yes, John Reed did write that but in other accounts of that event, no such thing was ever mentioned. Besides, who cares if Lenin said that or not?



I would consider sharing my coat/lunch with a fellow worker to be Socialism.
I would consider sharing my coat/ lunch and house to be Communism.

I would consider it a nice thing to do. Neither of them are socialism or communism, as both are socio-economic systems.


sim·i·lar
adj.
Definition:
1 very much alike
2 Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.
3 Possessing the same or almost the same characteristics


I don't even know why you posted this.


QUOTE

Socialism is from each according to their abilities , to each according to their need.



That's communism. Socialism is the process of evolving society from capitalism to communism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why split a hair?
I posted that because Socialism and Communism are similiar i.e. facism/nazism.
Yes they are both an socio-economic system and also an approach to life.
I try to live the ideology.

[Seong]

Just getting back to the question of global socialism vs. national socialism. If, hypothetically the superpower was let's say...China and that was predominantly socialist wouldn't there be a good chance that alot of other nations would follow?

Also, Lazar could you expand a bit upon this please? Just a bit confused. :blink:


Communism will have an economy. All human society needs an economy.

[anomaly]

What he means is that communism, like any other system, will have an economy. An 'economy' is simply a means of producing and distributing goods and services. In other words, an 'economy' is a means of solving the problem of scarcity, that is, there are limited resources to meet unlimited wants.

Atleast I think this is what Lazar means.