Socialism

[bl!ng]

I have read articles on it, some chapters in books, but I have never really delved into the details. So, I leave to you the burden of helping me out with a few questions. Almost everything I have found on the subject has had a slant from the right and these articles have bore the following questions:

1. Is there still culture in Socialism? Will this type of government take out diversity?

2. Does this type of government take away choice, such as what one does for a living?

Im sure I have more questions, and I will add them here at a later time. My focus (major) is cultural anthropology, and as much as I want more equality and opportunity for all of the people in the world... if it means taking away their culture, what it means to be human to them... I don't know if I could support that.

Thanks

EDIT: Maybe just answer all the questions that this (http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/003461.html) article poses.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by bl![email protected] 21 2006, 03:41 PM
I have read articles on it, some chapters in books, but I have never really delved into the details. So, I leave to you the burden of helping me out with a few questions. Almost everything I have found on the subject has had a slant from the right and these articles have bore the following questions:
Most books and articles talk about socialism in the popular sense, that is 20th century failures and authoritarian oligarchies. There are some basic guides here if you choose to look around, but I can answer your primary questions anyway.


1. Is there still culture in Socialism? Will this type of government take out diversity?
Yes there will still be culture, but I am not sure what you mean by the term, the culture that exists will likely be much more in line with the society it exists for.

Diversity is guarded more so under socialism than capitalism. Capitalism protects what s financially viable, socialism protects what is socially viable. The discrimination forum here might give you some sort of idea, but basically almost everything goes, but not at the expense of others.


2. Does this type of government take away choice, such as what one does for a living?
There are differing oppinions on this. Socialism is a transitory state en route to communism (which is when the transition from capitalism is complete, and the state becomes unecessary and disappears). My personal view is that any such state should consist of all of the working class movement, and not a few "representatives"...we all know how that turns out. So as everyone is in government, choice will be protected. One of the key issues here is educating people in the importance of acceptance before control is seized.


Im sure I have more questions, and I will add them here at a later time. My focus (major) is cultural anthropology, and as much as I want more equality and opportunity for all of the people in the world... if it means taking away their culture, what it means to be human to them... I don't know if I could support that.
Your view would support socialist leanings, not negate them.

Have a nice stay.

[bl!ng]

Thanks for the answers!

It seems that one of the basic ides behind socialism is taking away religion. And while I am not a religious person, when religion is taken away so is culture. By that I mean that most cultures are rooted in religion and if their religion is taken away, then in turn the culture is taken away.


Now some people make the argument that people have the right to be informed (Scientifically). I would argue, however, that certain "un-touched" tribes that have "crazy" religious beliefs in a hunting and gathering society love their way of life. They work very little, they enjoy their time, and they have a great, however short, life. So if the goal of Socialism/Communism is to some day be world-wide it would have to include these people that don't want to be included, that don't need to be included.

I might be getting too much into this. Isn't there some form of society out there that provides fiscal equality and freedom of choice? Basically, giving everybody a choice on how they lead their lives, but at the same time provide no fiscal advantages for certain occupations.

Example: Everybody that is a doctor at one time WANTED to be a doctor. They didn't become a doctor to make MONEY.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by bl![email protected] 21 2006, 04:38 PM
It seems that one of the basic ides behind socialism is taking away religion. And while I am not a religious person, when religion is taken away so is culture. By that I mean that most cultures are rooted in religion and if their religion is taken away, then in turn the culture is taken away.






It depends what you mean by "culture" and also by "religion." What is taken as the most importan issues are those that directly affect people, not some "sacredness" perceived only by some.

If a practice is reactionary, such as executing non-believers, or persecuting people based on; gender, sex, sexual preference, skin colour etc is not acceptable regardless of what title it goes under. So in this respect "culture" is not respected as something worthy in its own right, just as many now would criticise the lifestyle of slave owning familes, even if they professed it was "culture."

As for religion, well on this site at least many are against religion for various reasons and to different degrees. I see world religions as they exist being responsible for many problems in the world, but at the same time I will judge someone far what they are and not what they believe.


They work very little, they enjoy their time, and they have a great, however short, life. So if the goal of Socialism/Communism is to some day be world-wide it would have to include these people that don't want to be included, that don't need to be included.
That is an interesting point, and one I have thought about much myself. That is really a seperate discussion perhaps, but worthy nontheless. One thing that we must bare in mind however, is that those born into cultures based on ritual rather than progress do not get presented with a choice, this I think is equally as questionable as forcing any way of life on someone.


I might be getting too much into this. Isn't there some form of society out there that provides fiscal equality and freedom of choice? Basically, giving everybody a choice on how they lead their lives, but at the same time provide no fiscal advantages for certain occupations.
Collectivist systems, such as communism are based on the idea that people gravitate towards what they enjoy doing. When someone enjoys something they are more productive, and have a better quality of life. Without the inefficiencies of capitalism (such as over specialisation of labour combined with structural unemployment) people take what they need and this is provided for easily.

Capitalism creates fetishism, and greed. Its existance relies on the perceived wants and needs of a consumer class.


Example: Everybody that is a doctor at one time WANTED to be a doctor. They didn't become a doctor to make MONEY.
It is true, and an example of how people can gravitate towards helping people, and not just money.

[Delta]

Originally posted by bl![email protected] 21 2006, 04:38 PM
It seems that one of the basic ides behind socialism is taking away religion. And while I am not a religious person, when religion is taken away so is culture. By that I mean that most cultures are rooted in religion and if their religion is taken away, then in turn the culture is taken away.



Well, there are certainly different modes of thought within any group of people, but the type of socialism that I envision would not force people to do anything, especially not force them to accept beliefs that they did not share (this would be nearly impossible to do anyway). However, socialism and religion are fairly incompatible. You can't care for your fellow man and take care of society's needs if you are always throwing up sacrifices to the gods, and the other members of a community are probably not going to be very happy about building temples for other people's sky daddies who are clearly make-believe.

If it is feasible, I support letting communities decide for themselves how to organize themselves economically and politically. This way people who had to have religion could do their thing and wouldn't affect anyone else negatively. The only problem with this view is that some people refuse to let others live the way they see fit. State governments refuse to let their own citizens make their own communities, because the state "owns" the entire country, and would not let land within their country become independent. So this involves convincing others that you deserve the right to rule your life as you see fit. But if they refuse to grant independence to others, it is acceptable to prevent them from maintaining the means to threaten your independence. I think many socialists, communists, and anarchists believe that any non-leftish society that would exist would demand on threatening others and taking them over for either private profit (as a capitalist state would do) or would conquer them in the name of their god (as a religious theocracy would do), and so this is why many of them see communism as being a worldwide system, if it is to be stable from outside aggression.

[bl!ng]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 05:01 PM
If a practice is reactionary, such as executing non-believers, or persecuting people based on; gender, sex, sexual preference, skin colour etc is not acceptable regardless of what title it goes under. So in this respect "culture" is not respected as something worthy in its own right, just as many now would criticise the lifestyle of slave owning familes, even if they professed it was "culture."
I agree. I think that religion, however absurd it is, can be a part of society without directly affecting the ideas of Socialism. I'll take Southern Baptists, for instance, because I grew up in a Southern Baptist family. Actually, now that I think about it and how they treat a woman's role in the family... I guess it really wouldn't work without changing the religion itself. OK, how about Jesuit Catholocism. Everything that I know about society now came from my education at a Jesuit University (I'm a Junior, and have since transferred for reasons not related to that school or education). They promote equality, scholarship, investigation and questioning of the Bible, etc... This type of religion would fit perfectly into society because they would not conflict with Socialist ideals. You may enter or leave whenever you want, and entrance does not believe throwing away equality.

So I guess it comes down to saying which religions are ok to practice, and which aren't. That's kind of a brick wall...

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by bl![email protected] 21 2006, 05:33 PM
I agree. I think that religion, however absurd it is, can be a part of society without directly affecting the ideas of Socialism. I'll take Southern Baptists, for instance, because I grew up in a Southern Baptist family. Actually, now that I think about it and how they treat a woman's role in the family... I guess it really wouldn't work without changing the religion itself.
In such cases I wouldn't condone their "culture" because it is inherently exploitative. When change takes place we will inevitably ruffle a few feathers, but in such cases I am not in the least bit concerned.


They promote equality, scholarship, investigation and questioning of the Bible, etc... This type of religion would fit perfectly into society because they would not conflict with Socialist ideals. You may enter or leave whenever you want, and entrance does not believe throwing away equality.
Well what they promote may be fair enough, but often when you look into such religions you can find dirt. However this does seem from what you have described to be, albeit rare, an example of belief that could at least be tollerated.

Many members here oppose religion on the grounds that it conflicts with materialism. Personally I dont care, as science has yet to answer the metaphysical and ontological questions that religion deals with. I judge action irregardless of religion, if a person from a reactionary faith shuns these elements and acts admirably then so be it, if someone without faith, or from a "good" faith acts badly then I must oppose this.


So I guess it comes down to saying which religions are ok to practice, and which aren't. That's kind of a brick wall...
Well the Marxist view of religion would suggest that secularisation would take place at a much faster rate post-revolution. Any faiths that did remain would have to adapt to an enlightened populace, something taht has not really occured before, my guess is that any surviving religions would become less reactionary, and far more accepting...they would have nothing in common with the beliefs they stemmed from other than name.

In the mean time however, the vast majority of faiths act in a conservative role, and reinforce state "authority." It is probably most benificial to take a stance against religion as a whole, and worry about the particulars only in more detailed debate. Without religion the working class movement would be in a better state all together, it is perhaps counter-productive to focus on the exceptions to the rule.

This is turning into a debate on religion...I can move this to the appropriate forum if you like, or would you like to focus on some more of your questions?

[bl!ng]

No worries, you can leave it in this forum. I didn't mean for it to be a religion debate. I am in class right now, but I will post more questions at a later time.

Thanks for response.

[bl!ng]

OK, next question:

I know the idea is that Capitalism is going to continue the income inequality in the US until eventually SOMETHING has to happen. My question is, you guys seem to think it's going to be a revolt of the proletariat? Do you think, or hope? Because, couldn't it (Technically) just as easily relapse into Feudalism instead?

[Morpheus]

Yes, it could. Previous revolutions have replaced one set of tyrants with new tyrants, and future revolutions might do the same (and not only by reverting to feudalism - there are other forms of tyranny possible too). That's why we need to organize a revolutionary movement to not only defeat the status quo but to insure that the revolution doesn't just replace one type of oppression with another. We need to be on guard to that possibility, and organize against it.

[Messiah]

The aim of revolutionaries and sympathisers there of today is a bit different than those of our predecessors. 1900-1930s Europe and America were ripe for revolution. And the socialists and anarchists and communists certainly tried to make that happen, with mixed results.

Today, I maintain, a viabale revolution in the "First World" is still a ways off. Thus, our duty as those believe in these ideas is not so much to expect revolution, even in our lifetime, but to lay the groundwork for the eventual point at which it may once again be possible. Like you very wisely said, it is just as possible that when the current system falls, that it is not socialism/communism/anarchism that replaces it, but something like fascism or even neo-feudalism. History is mallable, and it is up to us to mold it into the world we desire. Thus we must work. Be it in the streets, shouting slogans, at co-ops and Universities, or just sharing ideas amongst friends at the pub. Every little bit helps. Never forget that.

[bl!ng]

OK Next,

I believe that a free press is one of the most important, if not the most important, characteristics a government should have. The free press keeps the government in check when it does something wrong, and thus the government is not given free reign to do whatever it wants to its citizens. No, do not confuse what I'm saying with "OMG USA RULES!!" because, out of every country in the world, we are ranked 44th for press freedom (Which is quite shitty for a nation that has it included in its FIRST amendment). However, I cannot come to grips with why everybody (Or a great deal) on this board is so in love with Cuba. It, according to wikipedia, is a socialist republic. Everybody I've seen on this board talk about Cuba is in love with it. Cuba, however, is 161st out of 167 countries on press freedom. So, we have a few options here:

1. Cuba isn't socialist. If it is socialist, then they wouldn't have to worry about the press. If socialism is the correct way of government, then having a free press is the best thing that could happen to them.

2. Socialism isn't the correct form of government. If Cuba is socialist, and they are so poor with press freedom, they must be hiding something. While I think they are hiding something, I do think that socialism (to an extent) is the correct form of government, so I believe 1 is a better choice here.

3. Castro is just putting people in jail for having a different opinion than his, rather than letting them print it and having it work itself out, which it would in a society with a completely free press. So, he must change his ways and let the press be completely free.


SOURCE: Reporters sans frontières (http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554)

[Messiah]

1. Cuba isn't socialist. If it is socialist, then they wouldn't have to worry about the press. If socialism is the correct way of government, then having a free press is the best thing that could happen to them.

Exactly, but as you say, Cuba isn't socialist. Look, you have to understand something Cuba. To a lot of people on the far left, it's sort of a bastion of what we believe in. It's survived so much shit that's been hurled at it. And some people really want to defend the ideals of what Cuba stands for in their mind.

However, we must remember that Cuba is not true socialism. It is a dictatorship. Eve though as I always say, as far as dictatorships go, it's probably one of the best ones. Nonetheless, we must stand by our principles. There are some major flaws Cuba. And as true revolutionaries we must be the first to point them out, not the last.


2. Socialism isn't the correct form of government. If Cuba is socialist, and they are so poor with press freedom, they must be hiding something. While I think they are hiding something, I do think that socialism (to an extent) is the correct form of government, so I believe 1 is a better choice here.

Right, they aren't socialist however, so yeah they are hiding something. And what they're hiding is the fact that they aren't socialist at all!


3. Castro is just putting people in jail for having a different opinion than his, rather than letting them print it and having it work itself out, which it would in a society with a completely free press. So, he must change his ways and let the press be completely free.

Castro, and people like him need to realize they are ruining it for the rest of us. They need to understand that we don't want to destroy what they have built but make it better. A free press must be critical because it's tough love. Of course there will be those who genuinly want to destroy what we try to do. But we cannot let that potential over ride our belief in liberty and freedom. Those are our ideals, it is the ones we championed for so long. When no one else spoke of democracy, it was socialists and anarchists and communists who took up the cause of liberty. Never forget that.