Socialism, Communism, Capitialism, ect [Archive]

JDawg

10th February 2003, 17:19

cool thanks guys, and yeah i was reading some books on it. But i'd rather hear from people on here because they have certain view on it. Why does it always seem like though that communism is linked to some dictator? is that just a stereotype or is there some truth to it? cause Castro doesnt seem like the cruel dictator that i mostly think of when i think of communism. He and Che liberated Cuba for the people, well thats from what i know from my understandings, i could be wrong. Anyways, thanks again guys
J

ComradeJunichi

10th February 2003, 20:40

Quote: from feoric on 2:23 pm on Feb. 10, 2003
...the economic system for socialism is called communism.

Quote: from feoric on 2:44 pm on Feb. 10, 2003
ohh, i see. so while there might be a 'socialist' party, they arent actually a proper party, just advocates of a certain economic system. so while i thought i read what they would do if they got in power-, i must have misread it, because thats impossible. either that or they have all gotten confused, they forget that socialism is just an economic system. the crazy fools.

Don't make an ignorant comment and then start throwing sarcasm around like you know what you're talking about. Maybe if you bothered reading any writing you'd understand that socialism was an economic doctrine. An economic system can be implemented with politics, that's why you see authoritarian, liberal and etc. socialists.

Umoja

10th February 2003, 21:00

Isn't National Socialism (Facism) also an economic system?

Just Joe

10th February 2003, 21:33

Socialism is economic. Marxs' economics were Socialist and because his most well read work is 'The Communist Manifesto', Socialism and Communsim have always been used in the same sense. but there are many Socialists like myself who reject Communism after seeing what happened in the Stalinist states of the east.

JDawg

10th February 2003, 21:41

i see

ComradeJunichi

10th February 2003, 22:42

Those stalinist states were socialist, not communist. You've read the Communist Manifesto.

kylie

11th February 2003, 11:13

and you say god-dang, this is a dope track

ComradeJunichi

11th February 2003, 11:59

Wow, this is really hilarious. I won't even bother, why don't you just read some books and come back later.

kylie

11th February 2003, 12:21

but lets define the term dope do you think funky now?

ComradeJunichi

11th February 2003, 12:28

socialism is not an economic system......the economic system for socialism is called communism....

i have read books. what, you think i come onto a socialist site, having no knowledge on the subject, and start guessing shit?

Okay, so I'll disregard that last post.

No such thing as authoritarian socialists? Then why the hell is Mazdak and several others locked up in Opposing Ideologies forums?

Socialism, government controls major industries and factories and such, do you agree? Then you'd agree that socialism being a economic doctrine would be implemented WITH politics also, do you not?

What the US socialist party or whatever thinks is not 'socialism'. If the US socialist party is a supporter of Palestine that doesn't mean socialism supports Palestine.

Have you read Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao...anything? Have you read the Communist manifesto?

-I'm late for school, I'll be back.

Just Joe

11th February 2003, 12:33

if you want proof Socialism is only economic look at the fact that Hitlers party was called the National Socialist Party. he was an economic Socialist but he detested Marxism. Sadaam Hussein is an economic Socialist. its just how you run your economy.

feoric, its hard where to start telling you how wrong you've got things mate.

kylie

11th February 2003, 12:40

no. here is true tale, how the ones who deal are the ones who fail

kylie

11th February 2003, 12:42

the problem is this, we gotta fix it

Just Joe

11th February 2003, 12:46

yeah as i said, the two are used in the same meaning. Marxism is the theory of class struggle resulting in revolution where the working people take over the running of the country. because there is no 'Bourgeois', the only economic system is Socialism. so Socialism is really a part of Marxism. then there are some who think Socialism naturally evolves into Communism which is probobly what youre describing. Communism cannot be top-down because there is not meant to be a state.

kylie

11th February 2003, 12:54

check out the justice, and how they runnin

ComradeJunichi

11th February 2003, 13:59

Quote: from feoric on 12:40 pm on Feb. 11, 2003
stalin was not a socialist. he implemented an economic system favoured by socialism, but that doesnt automatically make him one too. like i said, socialism is not for top-down governing.

what other type of socialism is there except that that the parties propose? the spirit of socialism? some hidden place where true socialism remains? its all down to what people believe. if parties representing socialism declare they are against palestines oppresion, then socialism in the modern world is against this too.

im not totally sure what you're getting at here.
but i would agree that communism is an economic doctrine, and implemented WITH politics, is part of socialism.

stalin was not a socialist. he implemented an economic system favoured by socialism, but that doesnt automatically make him one too. like i said, socialism is not for top-down governing.

Stalin was a socialist.

what other type of socialism is there except that that the parties propose? the spirit of socialism? some hidden place where true socialism remains? its all down to what people believe. if parties representing socialism declare they are against palestines oppresion, then socialism in the modern world is against this too.

There are thousands of different parties with different opinions. These opinions about Palestine, Israel, India, Pakistan, and such have NOTHING to do with socialism itself. Don't start throwing around your sarcasm that is trying to portray you kno what you're talking about, because what you're saying right now makes no sense at all.

im not totally sure what you're getting at here.
but i would agree that communism is an economic doctrine, and implemented WITH politics, is part of socialism.

I thought you said you read some books and made a cynical remark:

i have read books. what, you think i come onto a socialist site, having no knowledge on the subject, and start guessing shit?

You are just making yourself look foolish by standing aside ignorant comments so strongly.

ComradeJunichi

11th February 2003, 14:00

Just Joe

11th February 2003, 14:20

how does he have it wrong there?

ComradeJunichi

11th February 2003, 14:27

Quote: from feoric on 12:54 pm on Feb. 11, 2003
ohh, oops. i think ive been getting mixed up. i thought socialism was the general thinking, with communism the economic system.
but its marxism thats the general thinking. with socialism the economic system, and communism an alternative system.
ive been thinking marxism AND socialism were both all-round running models, with socialism and updated version of marxism.

ohh, oops. i think ive been getting mixed up. i thought socialism was the general thinking, with communism the economic system.

Finally.

but its marxism thats the general thinking. with socialism the economic system, and communism an alternative system.

What do you mean by "Marxism is the general thinking"? Socialism is the economic system, which is implemented with political theories and is a transition stage to communism. What do you mean by "communism is the alternative system"?

ive been thinking marxism AND socialism were both all-round running models, with socialism and updated version of marxism.

Okay...

Uhuru na Umoja

11th February 2003, 15:43

Even communism in certain forms has political as well as economic implications. For example if you are a Leninist you believe strongly in the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' and the use of a Party Vanguard. Both of these are political means to bring about economic change. Therefore Leninism is Marxist and communist, yet is a political movement concerned with implementing an economic system. Likewise Marx was interested in both political and economic change. In my mind true communism is not merely concerned with economics, but also with social and political change. Absolute distinctions between economic systems and political movements are dangerous and at times arbitrary. I think that all of us are looking for political as well as economic change (I certainly am).

kylie

11th February 2003, 15:58

BASS

ComradeJunichi

11th February 2003, 20:07

Quote: from feoric on 3:58 pm on Feb. 11, 2003
well i still stand by the party thing. its their fault for calling themselves socialist parties. its like someone calling themselves the capitalist party.

What do you mean by "Marxism is the general thinking"? Socialism is the economic system, which is implemented with political theories and is a transition stage to communism. What do you mean by "communism is the alternative system"?

the all round model of how things should be run. some of what i have seen in marxism is not concerned with economics. the mass media for instance.

as for communism, well it MUST be an alternate economic system, if not there would not be both socialism and communism, as why have two when they mean the same thing.
i dont see the need so a transition stage. after a successful revolution those responsible could instantly implement communism. all that would be needed is for them to hang around for a while to prevent a capitalist revolution.

well i still stand by the party thing. its their fault for calling themselves socialist parties. its like someone calling themselves the capitalist party.

If a Fascist party from England were pro-racialism and believe in aryan supriority, that doesn't mean all fascists do.

the all round model of how things should be run. some of what i have seen in marxism is not concerned with economics. the mass media for instance.

What have you read about Marxism? Marxism deals a lot with economics. Mass media? Where'd you get that from?

as for communism, well it MUST be an alternate economic system, if not there would not be both socialism and communism, as why have two when they mean the same thing.

Have you taken my advice and read anything yet? Socialism and communism are not the same thing.

i dont see the need so a transition stage. after a successful revolution those responsible could instantly implement communism.

That would pretty much be anarchy.

all that would be needed is for them to hang around for a while to prevent a capitalist revolution.

LOL!

Saint-Just

11th February 2003, 22:26

'but its marxism thats the general thinking. with socialism the economic system, and communism an alternative system.'

Alternative system? Economic system? Communism and Socialism are social sciences that relate economics, philosophy, history and social relations. Marx constructed the theory of communism and used the term socialism to describe the stage that preceded communism.

'socialism is very much against top-down rule.'

Socialism as defined by Marx is not against 'top down rule'. Socialism does not exclusively have a Marxist definition however.

'i dont see the need so a transition stage. after a successful revolution those responsible could instantly implement communism. all that would be needed is for them to hang around for a while to prevent a capitalist revolution.'

Instantly implement communism? you've got to be joking, thats impossible. Socialism is the transition stage:

'all that would be needed is for them to hang around for a while to prevent a capitalist revolution.'

-In an exceptionally basic sense that is one of the functions of socialism.

JDawg

11th February 2003, 23:18

damn, my thread turned into a big argument which i was hoping not to get cause now it just seems like everyone is calling everyone else ignorant. Hmm, whatevs, later
J

ComradeJunichi

11th February 2003, 23:27

This is not an argument, and we're all ignorant but feoric has it all wrong.

You should try studying and researching for answers, not asking people who don't know as much on a messageboard.

JDawg

11th February 2003, 23:30

well i have done some research, but a lot of it it seems to be one sided or whatever, i just like hearing the views of other people, gives it a real feel, rather then text book reading, thanks man

ComradeJunichi

11th February 2003, 23:32

I'm sure you can find things that try to stay neutral, go to some libraries in a university near you.

If you were looking for peoples opinions, you were obviously going to clash into some arguments.

JDawg

11th February 2003, 23:44

yeah i know, i just hate how argurments sometimes turn into things that are nothing about the topic. Like i dont care if someone messed up what they said, i just wanna know about the topic
J

kylie

13th February 2003, 08:43

herb

ComradeJunichi

13th February 2003, 11:53

Any reply to my other posts? Or Chairman Maos?

kylie

13th February 2003, 12:02

JDawg

13th February 2003, 17:27

thanks guys, its helping. I thought anarchism would be all shit and giggles too. But i dont know, even though it has much appeal, i think it'd take its tool eventually. I mean yeah, there are a lot of systems out there that arent very good. But it might be better then no system. If there were no governments, i think it would just boil down to people making their own governments and rules. Kinda like little gangs running around or something. Trying to compete for suprese leadership or something. Anyways, thats my thoughts, ill probably get bagged for them now

J

ComradeJunichi

13th February 2003, 20:21

Quote: from feoric on 12:02 pm on Feb. 13, 2003
Socialism as defined by Marx is not against 'top down rule'. Socialism does not exclusively have a Marxist definition however.

i fail to see how authoritarian socialism could possibly work. its contradictory. on one level equality is advocated, yet on another level you would have a small group of people deciding how things should be.

Instantly implement communism? you've got to be joking, thats impossible.
how so?

That would pretty much be anarchy
you say that as if its bad. anarchism may have some flaws, but its far better than the current system.

I'll let Chairman Mao reply to the first two, since those are for him.

you say that as if its bad. anarchism may have some flaws, but its far better than the current system.

Don't put words in my mouth, read the words that I've wrote. I never said anarchy was bad, but I don't support it. "Communism" right after a revolution would be pretty much anarchy.

How much do you know about the current system? How would anarchy be any better?

Geddan

13th February 2003, 20:37

Hmm, the Swedish definition of Socialism and Communism is somewhat like this:

Socialism is the classless society with economic and political democracy.

Communism is a form of Socialism which is related to the works of Marx and Lenin.

But hey, dudes...To argue over the definitions of socialism and communism is worthless... The definitions have changed over the years so I guess that everyone in here are correct... When Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto, socialism and communism meant the same thing, but today only Leninists or "Stalinists" are called communists, while today's social democrats are called socialists although they are not near that (but around year 1900 they were reformist socialists...if one is a reformist socialist then you are today "democratic socialist"...phew)

By the way, are you a reformist if you are elected democratically but you effectively make a revolution (that is, not making the process to a classless society take 300 years and you don't accept capitalism)?

(Edited by Geddan at 9:40 pm on Feb. 13, 2003)

Saint-Just

13th February 2003, 20:44

'i fail to see how authoritarian socialism could possibly work. its contradictory. on one level equality is advocated, yet on another level you would have a small group of people deciding how things should be.'

Its impossible to create a civil society without authority. Yes, socialism calls for economic equality. However it does not call for the abolition of power, just the abolition of the power of one class over another. In a society if the entire society is to direct itself under common goalds one needs a central power structure through which to coordinate this. Political equality is impossible since a political system demands that decisions be made. It is impossible to make decisions with complete political equality, furthermore it is impossible to even discuss anything in a society with millions of people in absolute political equality. Socialism calls for equality in political representation, but not equality in political decision making. Authority is legitimised power, power is needed to create a society that can govern itself. All systems require authority, socialism is not about removing authority; anarchy is.

'Instantly implement communism? you've got to be joking, thats impossible.
how so?'

You have to alter 'human nature', you have to collectivise and in some cases industrialise. You have to suppress counter-revolution and eliminate class. You have to organise the economy and build it and you have to construct responsible foreign relations. Communism is a stage of society in which all this has been completed. These tasks are ones of great length Decades and more.

kylie

16th February 2003, 12:49

eof

Uhuru na Umoja

16th February 2003, 14:05

Quote: from Geddan on 8:37 pm on Feb. 13, 2003
But hey, dudes...To argue over the definitions of socialism and communism is worthless... The definitions have changed over the years so I guess that everyone in here are correct... When Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto, socialism and communism meant the same thing, but today only Leninists or "Stalinists" are called communists, while today's social democrats are called socialists although they are not near that (but around year 1900 they were reformist socialists...if one is a reformist socialist then you are today "democratic socialist"...phew)

By the way, are you a reformist if you are elected democratically but you effectively make a revolution (that is, not making the process to a classless society take 300 years and you don't accept capitalism)?

(Edited by Geddan at 9:40 pm on Feb. 13, 2003)

True, definitions may have changed; however, even Marx and Engels defined a number of different forms of Socialism in the Communist Manifesto. They saw socialism and communism as being divided into 'Reactionary Socialism'(which they sub-divided into 'Feudal Socialism', 'Petty-Bourgeois Socialism', and 'German Socialism'), 'Convervative Socialism', and 'Critical Utopian Socialism and Communism'. Thus from the start Marx and Engels conciously distanced themselves from most socialist groups. They did not feel that communist and socialism were 'the same thing'; they felt that communism was a specific type of socialism.