My Theory on Socialism

[Joseph]

I propose an alternate theory on the way to reach communism(classlessness)..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Socialism is when the classes start to resolve their differences with each other... the working class and the ruling class working together hand in hand(i have deliberately chosen to avoid proletariat and bourgeouis for more universality) ... things aren't perfect but there is genuine progress... through the shrinking difference in capital between the two, the distinction between the two classes begin to disappear.

In Scandinavia... the difference in income is getting smaller... its just a matter of time before they even out... once they even out enough, the class system will become irrelavent because a worker can choose to become a ruler if he wants... he has the capital(and all the benefits that are associated with it).

However, there will be times of setback and learning from mistakes.. but we can count on the workers in these societies to see the wrong in steps away from progress since they have already tasted the best social systems in the world.. they will vote accordingly when they get tired of moving backwards.

Each experience in the past will build onto the future. Therefore, the overall trend, despite all the ups and downs, can only move towards progress.

Governments in many socialist countries are actively promoting the decrease of difference in capital... eventually they will succeed at making capital distribution even... once that happens, ruling class and worker class will end up becoming perfectly interchangable... people can choose to be live simply as a worker that works on production or choose to take greater responsibility as a ruler(leader) that coordinates society. (of course every once in a while, there may end up being a income difference, but this time, the educated workers will not put up with it... history has taught them well... they will not be fooled)

[Joseph]

come on people... give me some feedback... am i right? am i wrong? im dying to hear what you think :unsure:

[Sentinel]

Yawn.. since nobody else seems willing, I'll try to tell you what's wrong with "your" theory. It's called "social democratic reformism". And it's a fraud. Why?


Socialism is when the classes start to resolve their differences with each other... the working class and the ruling class working together hand in hand(i have deliberately chosen to avoid proletariat and bourgeouis for more universality) ... things aren't perfect but there is genuine progress... through the shrinking difference in capital between the two, the distinction between the two classes begin to disappear.

Know why it hasn't happened yet then? Because that's not the intention! Left wing reformism of this type is an attempt to make capitalism work, not to advance to socialism (and certainly not communism! :lol:)

The plan is to make living conditions for the working class tolerable and make them think that "this is as good as it gets". And thus deprive them their right to something so much better, an equal society, communism.


In Scandinavia... the difference in income is getting smaller... its just a matter of time before they even out... .

This is complete BS. Take it from a scandinavian worker. The gap between the classes is growing with an accelerating speed.

Soon all public property has been sold to private corporations, and Trade Union power is being undermined as we speak.


the class system will become irrelavent because a worker can choose to become a ruler if he wants... he has the capital(and all the benefits that are associated with it)

A capitalism with only capitalists then, no workers except those who "want" to be that? :lol: :D

No, perhaps if you think about it for a while you'll recognize the "tiny flaw" in that "cunning plan". (I like the Black Adder series)


However, there will be times of setback and learning from mistakes.. but we can count on the workers in these societies to see the wrong in steps away from progress since they have already tasted the best social systems in the world.. they will vote accordingly when they get tired of moving backwards.

Noam Chomsky has written many a good book on this issue. Read him!
The term he uses for bourgeis democracy is "spectator's democracy". I don't know who actually coined the expression but it's quite accurate.

When the media is in corporate hands, the cappies or pseudoleftists with the best funding for their propaganda campaigns win these elections. The proletariat is reduced to mere spectators with no-one truly representing their interests.


Governments in many socialist countries are actively promoting the decrease of difference in capital...

Which "socialist countries" are you speaking of? I really, really, really hope
you aren't referring to Sweden here.

No, I'm sorry to break your illusion but reforms lead us absolutely nowhere. If you sincerely believe so, you've been fooled.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Yawn.. since nobody else seems willing, I'll try to tell you what's wrong with "your" theory. It's called "social democratic reformism". And it's a fraud. Why?


Socialism is when the classes start to resolve their differences with each other... the working class and the ruling class working together hand in hand(i have deliberately chosen to avoid proletariat and bourgeouis for more universality) ... things aren't perfect but there is genuine progress... through the shrinking difference in capital between the two, the distinction between the two classes begin to disappear.

Know why it hasn't happened yet then? Because that's not the intention! Left wing reformism of this type is an attempt to make capitalism work, not to advance to socialism (and certainly not communism! :lol:)

The plan is to make living conditions for the working class tolerable and make them think that "this is as good as it gets". And thus deprive them their right to something so much better, an equal society, communism.


In Scandinavia... the difference in income is getting smaller... its just a matter of time before they even out... .

This is complete BS. Take it from a scandinavian worker. The gap between the classes is growing with an accelerating speed.

Soon all public property has been sold to private corporations, and Trade Union power is being undermined as we speak.


the class system will become irrelavent because a worker can choose to become a ruler if he wants... he has the capital(and all the benefits that are associated with it)

A capitalism with only capitalists then, no workers except those who "want" to be that? :lol: :D

No, perhaps if you think about it for a while you'll recognize the "tiny flaw" in that "cunning plan". (I like the Black Adder series)


However, there will be times of setback and learning from mistakes.. but we can count on the workers in these societies to see the wrong in steps away from progress since they have already tasted the best social systems in the world.. they will vote accordingly when they get tired of moving backwards.

Noam Chomsky has written many a good book on this issue. Read him!
The term he uses for bourgeis democracy is "spectator's democracy". I don't know who actually coined the expression but it's quite accurate.

When the media is in corporate hands, the cappies or pseudoleftists with the best funding for their propaganda campaigns win these elections. The proletariat is reduced to mere spectators with no-one truly representing their interests.


Governments in many socialist countries are actively promoting the decrease of difference in capital...

Which "socialist countries" are you speaking of? I really, really, really hope
you aren't referring to Sweden here.

No, I'm sorry to break your illusion but reforms lead us absolutely nowhere. If you sincerely believe so, you've been fooled.

Well I really hope he doesn't mean Sweden is a socialist state because Sweden is not a socialist state.

What I think he means though is Sweden has adopted many social programs, I hope that's what he means. Sweden is far from being a socialist country. Just because a country adopts social programs doesn't mean it is a socialist state.

But I have to say America can learn from the programs in Sweden especially on education.

Has to be a nice country to live! I hope I can visit one day.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by FULL METAL JACKET
But I have to say America can learn from the programs in Sweden especially on education.

Definitely, but still the future ruling class goes to private schools here, while the 1 guy from my suburban-ghetto school class got an academic education.. <_<

But I see your point, and don&#39;t definitely envy you. :( The capitalism is, or used to be, better masked here, while it&#39;s more naked and brutal in the United States.

At least you know what you&#39;re dealing with. I sometimes have a very hard time trying to point out the conditions to people here. Seen the Matrix ? It resembles the situation mighty well.


I hope I can visit one day.

You definitely should&#33; Sweden is beautiful. :)

[redstar2000]

It seems to be a built-in feature of all capitalist societies that inequalities in wealth distribution increase over time.

Social democracy can halt or even slightly reverse that trend temporarily...but as seen throughout western Europe today, wealth inequality has resumed its increase and the trend seems to be accelerating.

This is, of course, what the capitalist class wants to happen...and as long as they dominate the state apparatus, there&#39;s nothing to stop them except their own prudence.

The successes of social democracy in Scandinavia were primarily due to the looming presence of the USSR. Capitalists in those countries were well aware of the "terrible alternative just next door"...and found it "the better part of wisdom" to "give up a little" in order to be able to continue "hogging all the rest".

The USSR is gone now so Scandinavian capitalists can join their European brethren in restoring 19th century conditions for the working classes.

The "age of social democracy" is over.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Hey sentinel, read this article tell me what you think:

Education (http://www.sntp.net/education/sweden.htm)

Am going to try to go this summer on some university trip but its so damn expensive, I can pay practically two semesters at my college for that one summer trip. The whole trip is about health care and social policies in Sweden. If I can&#39;t make it on the summer trip I&#39;ll go either way :lol:

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000) The successes of social democracy in Scandinavia were primarily due to the looming presence of the USSR. Capitalists in those countries were well aware of the "terrible alternative just next door"...and found it "the better part of wisdom" to "give up a little" in order to be able to continue "hogging all the rest".

The USSR is gone now so Scandinavian capitalists can join their European brethren in restoring 19th century conditions for the working classes. [/b]

Word. That&#39;s exactly how things are . :(


FULL METAL JACKET
Hey sentinel, read this article tell me what you think:

Bildt&#39;s cappies were in power for one term, and managed to ruin the swedish economy to the extent that the social demorats have sat in power ever since.

They&#39;re manifesting themselves as the only alternative to the outright lunatic plundering of national resources that happened under the short period of rightwing rule in the nineties.

In that way they have managed to do the same in a more "careful" manner.
Fuck them both, "leftwing" and "rightwing" cappies&#33; :angry:

[Sentinel]

And, no, the education system in Sweden has never had the ambition to "educate the masses".

It&#39;s always been about what schooling of the proletariat in capitalist countries is: indoctrination of new wage slaves. Like everything else, it has only been performed better than under "rightwing" rule.

It has elevated the allround knowledge somewhat better than in say the US but kids in public schools are not actually meant to get somewhere in life here.

Everybody can&#39;t be the capitalist in a class society, it just doesn&#39;t work that way. Someone has to sweep the floors and wash the dishes.

[Joseph]

There is a reason i never mentioned capitalists (which is just a phase)... i was really talking about bureaucratic managers and governors(which are more or less timeless)... the powerful capitalists we know of today would eventually be severly weakened under a government that works with the workers, through progressive compromises that gradually weaken the ruling class and strengthen the worker class(at the worker class&#39;s demands of course)...

Now, back to the pathway to reaching classlessness... lets look at the alternative from my way... the more highly regarded "dictatorship of the proletariat" style socialism... it should be obvious that a new ruling class(calling themselves proletariat) springs up with dictatorial powers... to these new guys, the workers won&#39;t be able to say sh&#33;t(do i even need to show examples :rolleyes: ), nor can they vote(or kick) them out... it is hypocracy if prominent members of the proletariat class set up such a government for themselves.. and to support such a thing is stupid, naive and short sighted...


This is complete BS. Take it from a scandinavian worker. The gap between the classes is growing with an accelerating speed.

Soon all public property has been sold to private corporations, and Trade Union power is being undermined as we speak.
For the longest time, in scandinavia, the gap between workers and rulers (these days they happen to be a mix of capitalists and politicians at various levels) was shrinking... the increasing gap is a new trend.. but it will soon reverse.

The workers in scandinavia are not dumb... they are educated... eventually they will start to vote for themselves, not to help the capitalists... its only a matter of time before things turn around.

i did say: "they will vote accordingly when they get tired of moving backwards."


A capitalism with only capitalists then, no workers except those who "want" to be that?
Ill expand on what i mentioned earlier, capitalists will be severely weakened (to the point where it no longer makes sense to be a capitalist)... there will be no substantial capital benefits to being a capitalist since they will no longer control the incentives to make someone work at a really cheap price to make lucrative enough personal gains in capital.. this will be implimented both through laws and through distribution of capital to workers by a government... most of the advantages will be on the worker&#39;s side (they will live an easy life compared to the people who decide to coordinate as a member of the ruling class, nothing stresses them.)



When the media is in corporate hands, the cappies or pseudoleftists with the best funding for their propaganda campaigns win these elections. The proletariat is reduced to mere spectators with no-one truly representing their interests.
That isn&#39;t true... funding is not the real the problem... its the message that is not clicking... if the message was liked by the workers, they would be willing to donate to the leftist parties... each worker chipping in a little bit and there are a LOT of workers... alot of workers are unionized so leftist parties should be able to get a foothold somewhere in the country... is the media that important when workers have vast labour networks in socialist countries? it can be bypassed... the problem is the message, people tend to fear change(even workers), so the platform(political promises) cannot be too radical(stick to small progress)...


Which "socialist countries" are you speaking of? I really, really, really hope
you aren&#39;t referring to Sweden here.China is trying to tackle its difference in capital(workers are getting upset)... Sweden was doing so for a long time but at the moment they are in a bit of a depression on the road of social progress(i expect workers to get upset soon)... then there are the other scandinavian countries... some European nations... the tendency for there to be growing difference in capital is a problem in every country... even socialist countries... some try to counter it(socialists) and some don&#39;t care(the free market types)... but its only a matter of time before feasible solutions to this tendency are discovered by socialists...


No, I&#39;m sorry to break your illusion but reforms lead us absolutely nowhere.
*yawn* the past builds onto the future so even if reforms fail now, it ultimately becomes a learning experience that is recorded in history... history does not move in a circle... rather, it spirals downward(or upward, whichever way you want) towards change and progress... in other words, any experienced event(including reforms) moves us somewhere.

I think social democracies should be considered socialist... the ones we consider socialist right now, in my view, have an even more powerful ruling class and are worse.

[Sentinel]

There is a reason i never mentioned capitalists (which is just a phase)... i was really talking about bureaucratic managers and governors(which are more or less timeless)... the powerful capitalists we know of today would eventually be severly weakened under a government that works with the workers, through progressive compromises that gradually weaken the ruling class and strengthen the worker class(at the worker class&#39;s demands of course)...

Now, back to the pathway to reaching classlessness... lets look at the alternative from my way... the more highly regarded "dictatorship of the proletariat" style socialism... it should be obvious that a new ruling class(calling themselves proletariat) springs up with dictatorial powers... to these new guys, the workers won&#39;t be able to say sh&#33;t(do i even need to show examples rolleyes.gif ), nor can they vote(or kick) them out... it is hypocracy if prominent members of the proletariat class set up such a government for themselves.. and to support such a thing is stupid, naive and short sighted...

I take it you really are against revolution then? When you came in, did you see a sign that said "ReformistLeft"? No. See, this is revolutionaryleft.com and we don&#39;t like that crap here&#33;


For the longest time, in scandinavia, the gap between workers and rulers (these days they happen to be a mix of capitalists and politicians at various levels) was shrinking... the increasing gap is a new trend.. but it will soon reverse.

No it won&#39;t. The capitalist class will never give away it&#39;s benefits or share any of them with the workers unless they are forced to.

Capitalists don&#39;t do that kind of thing. Read redstar&#39;s post, he explained why it happened in the nordic countries, and why it doesn&#39;t happen anymore.


The workers in scandinavia are not dumb... they are educated... eventually they will start to vote for themselves, not to help the capitalists... its only a matter of time before things turn around.

i did say: "they will vote accordingly when they get tired of moving backwards."

Your optimism is naive and shows lack of understanding of the concept of class society. Know that when the proletariat really becomes aware, and starts demanding real changes, the ruling class in not going to sit and idly watch themselves being voted out.

Look at the situation in Venezuela and the dirty tricks applied by the cappies there&#33;
And it&#39;s going to get worse, I&#39;d say a violent conflict is inevitable.

We also have an imperialist global police force that intervenes in countries trying to get rid of capitalism in any way, the United States Army with allies.


Ill expand on what i mentioned earlier, capitalists will be severely weakened (to the point where it no longer makes sense to be a capitalist)... there will be no substantial capital benefits to being a capitalist since they will no longer control the incentives to make someone work at a really cheap price to make lucrative enough personal gains in capital.. this will be implimented both through laws and through distribution of capital to workers by a government... most of the advantages will be on the worker&#39;s side (they will live an easy life compared to the people who decide to coordinate as a member of the ruling class, nothing stresses them.)

The problem being that the capitalists won&#39;t accept any of that. If we, say, rise the taxes or try to limit their power or demand that they contribute to the society in some other way, they&#39;ll threaten to outsource the jobs to overseas.

They hold the society in check&#33; No, a violent overthrow of capitalism is necessary. It&#39;ll remain as the only final option when we come to that point of history.


That isn&#39;t true... funding is not the real the problem... its the message that is not clicking... if the message was liked by the workers, they would be willing to donate to the leftist parties

As I said, read about propaganda. I recommend any book by Chomsky. You don&#39;t understand the way people&#39;s minds are being manipulated in capitalist countries.

The ruling class here has since long ago realised that propaganda is far more effective that authoritarian methods, as long as it can possibly be applied.
It&#39;s just another method of control.

When it is no longer possible, heads are going to roll even in these social democratic "worker&#39;s paradises" you praise so much.


alot of workers are unionized

And a lot of unions are bought. :angry:


history does not move in a circle... rather, it spirals downward(or upward, whichever way you want) towards change and progress

True. That&#39;s why all forms of capitalism, even reformism, are doomed. Mark my word&#33;


I think social democracies should be considered socialist...

No, capitalist countries shouldn&#39;t be "considered" socialist. It&#39;s like considering bananas blue. Take your reformism elsewhere, we are revolutionary leftists here&#33;

[Joseph]

I take it you really are against revolution then? When you came in, did you see a sign that said "ReformistLeft"? No. See, this is revolutionaryleft.com and we don&#39;t like that crap here&#33;
I never said you can&#39;t have a revolution... you can overthrow your nasty governments, just don&#39;t fuck it up afterwards by setting up a dictatorship or immediately getting rid of capitalism without a second thought... the evidence is in history... you will end up collapsing like the USSR or going back to capitalism to survive like China... time wasted is opportunities lost, socialist governments should not waste 30 or 40 years(for example) weakening themselves by completely throwing out every aspect of capitalism... realistically speaking, many aspects of the free market systems are a necessary evil in today&#39;s world because they tend to produce the most efficient economy... and in today&#39;s world, we still need efficient economies... of course you don&#39;t need a murderously efficient economy.. place huge limits on capitalism, i support that... but you cannot totally get rid of it right now because everyone will end up in poverty... this will cause your fellow workers will lose hope in the leftist cause.

the reason why Sweden started to move backwards makes so much more sense now... the collapsing of the Soviet Union is what triggered it... the workers began to doubt leftism, giving the ruling class steam to turn things around. (in a modern democracy, even the ruling class has its limits Redstar2000, they can&#39;t just do anything they want.. they can only manipulate it into happening)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 03:23 AM
I never said you can&#39;t have a revolution...

It&#39;s not a matter of choice. We need to have a revolution.


you can overthrow your nasty governments, just don&#39;t fuck it up afterwards by setting up a dictatorship or immediately getting rid of capitalism without a second thought...

Capitalism will be abolished as soon as the revolution nears its end, the economy would have collapsed after all the major industries are destroyed, and capitalists killed. But your right, no dictatorship should be set up, in fact, no government should be set up.


the evidence is in history... you will end up collapsing like the USSR or going back to capitalism to survive like China... time wasted is opportunities lost,

The USSR never collapsed Capitalism. It maintained a monetary system, and initiated a dictatorship (of the prolatariat, yea right). But the collapse of the USSR should be attributed to more than just that.



socialist governments should not waste 30 or 40 years(for example) weakening themselves by completely throwing out every aspect of capitalism...

Socialist Governments should not waste their time by existing, They should dissolve themselves and turn the geographic region they ran into an Anarchist-Communist society.

But really when the fuck has a socialist government ever began "throwing out every aspect of capitalism" and why would this weakened them It&#39;s simply never happened, you fabricated it in your head.


realistically speaking, many aspects of the free market systems are a necessary evil in today&#39;s world because they tend to produce the most efficient economy...

Fucking bullshit.


and in today&#39;s world, we still need efficient economies... of course you don&#39;t need a murderously efficient economy.. place huge limits on capitalism, i support that... but you cannot totally get rid of it right now because everyone will end up in poverty... this will cause your fellow workers will lose hope in the leftist cause.

Efficient economies? I read once that the capitalist free market is responsible for 1 death every 3 seconds. Thousands Tons of perfectly good food are dumped into the sea to make remaining food stocks more expensive, despite millions starving, and in the pursuit of money and power; dangerous, harmful and in the past sometimes fatal products are produced, at the cost of the environment. We do need an efficient economy, and we can start getting one by obliterating capitalism, and some of its violent supporters.



the reason why Sweden started to move backwards makes so much more sense now... the collapsing of the Soviet Union is what triggered it... the workers began to doubt leftism, giving the ruling class steam to turn things around.

That might just have been a good analysis if you didn&#39;t ignore the 100s of other possible influences that may have caused the gap in class to widen.

[anomaly]

Joseph please. Your posts are rather naive, to be perfectly frank. And your reformist leanings are quite simply annoying.

First of all, and probably most importantly, let us learn what the dictatorship of the proletariat is. It is not one man ruling a nation-state (as was seen in the Leninist nations). Nor is it the construction of Leninist &#39;vanguards&#39; to &#39;lead&#39; the proletariat. Nor is it &#39;parts&#39; of the proletariat assuming authority over other &#39;parts&#39;. Rather, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the post-revolutionary rule of the proletariat, as an entire class, over the ousted bourgeoisie. I like to think of it as the &#39;clean up&#39; period after the revolution, in which the proletariat &#39;finishes&#39; the old bourgeoisie. However, I see you&#39;ve paid attention well in bourgeois history courses :lol: .

Social democracy is a great progressive step, and the condition of the proletariat noticeably improves. However, two things: one, the age of social democracy may be over, as Redstar suggests. Time will tell if this is true, and early signs seem to indicate that inequality is once again growing in &#39;social democratic&#39; nations, just as it has been growing in the US for about 25 years. So, the evidence suggests that we are already well on our way back to a &#39;golden age&#39; for capitalists, which will likely resemble a &#39;modern&#39; version of the conditions at the end of the 19th century.

Two, that you want social democracy is not your problem. That you want to improve the condition of the proletariat is not your problem. Your problem is that you see social democracy as an end goal. That is, you do not want communism, you do not want socialism, you simply want capitalism &#39;with a human face&#39;. The problem with this is that such &#39;beneficial&#39; times for the proletariat never last, and these only improve the status of the proletariat; they do not destroy the proletarian class entirely.

This is what makes you a reformist. You still want the capitalist system. You still want the nation-state, money, classes, and the like. You are not a Marxist, a communist, or a socialist. You want to have social democracy, and then stop.