hey i'm new and have questions!

[vyolet]

ok, I just recently have become intrigued with alternate political reviews that are drastically different from the two parties that dominate u.s. gov. after reading Assata's autobiography I really felt the calling to not only be involved in community service but to truly make a lasting change in the world. So if someone would be so kind as too explain what socialism is and how it relates to communism and how it relates to Cuba. Because from what I have heard I don't see communism as that bad of a theory and I'm wonderin y in the u.s. fidel castro is seen as a devil.
Thank you
p.s. nice to meet who ever replies.

[kylie]

Socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. The aim and reason for their being this intermediate stage is that firstly people need to adjust to living in an equal society, and not under capitalism. Secondly, to allow production to be brought under the control of the public. Thirdly, so that revolution can spread to other countries.
To implement this, what is needed under socialism is a dictatorship of the proletariat, where a party that represents the working class has total control of the country.
The reason for the US being so aggresive towards Cuba is due to the threat Cuba poses to the bourgeois way of life, and therefore the US administrations way of life. If people were to learn the truth about what its like in Cuba, and how successful the country is, then it could lead to a less stable situation in the US. This being the same reason why stereotypes and lies about communism are so encouraged and prominent in the west.

[kiwisocialist]

Cuba poses a problem to the US not by what they do but by what they are demonstrating. If every country in South America became socialist then American companies couldn't rape their resources or have people making their shoes for $2.85 a day!!

Welcome to the board and to Socialism.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from feoric on 11:11 am on June 11, 2003
Socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.


This is fundermentaly incorrect. Socialism is any form of government that has all means of production owned by the state rather than individuals. Communist is a form of socialism, if you follow the theorys of Marx then communism is the transitional period between capitalism and anarchy.

[Bianconero]

Actually, AK47, communism is anarchy. At least that is what I think. Communism/Anachy exists when the government disappears, when the dictatorship of the workers ends.

No?

[Blibblob]

Bianconero is basically correct. There is Communism and pure communism, or as many call it Anarcho Communism or Communist Anarchism ;), pretty terms. Communism has a governing force behind it, and is basically like socialism. Socialism has state controled means of production while communism has community controled means of production. Pure communism is community controled means of production, but no government. They say that can't work.

And you have to understand, Anarchy(by Proudhon standards, the original Anarchy) has an athority in it. Marx did not like Proudhon and critizized him often in works and letters. Marx was a utopian, Proudhon wasn't. If we impliment Communism with Proudhon's Anarchy, we have a nice federation. As Proudhon planned it all out, he was a communist, but when "communism" didn't exist yet.
(as you can obviously tell, I have been reading some works on/by Proudhon :biggrin:)

(Edited by Blibblob at 6:38 pm on June 12, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Bianconero on 11:29 pm on June 12, 2003
Actually, AK47, communism is anarchy. At least that is what I think. Communism/Anachy exists when the government disappears, when the dictatorship of the workers ends.

No?


No its not. Anarchy is a socioty without hierarchy or order, where as a communist socioty has order.

Communism is as I said the transitional point between capitalism and anarchism.

The exchange of power takes place from the capitalists to the people. The communist system is set up and as it progesses towards anarchism old and usless laws are disgarded until no form of beurocracy exists.

A communist socioty has beurocracy so it is by definiton not anarchistsic. By the time that the communist regim has no government it has already transfered to anarchism. They are not the same there are destinct differances. Such as laws and state structure etc.

To understand this one must understand the structure of socialism.

I have created a small image showing the basic structure of socialism: -

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/SocialismMap.jpg

It does not show every individual type of socialism just a few to give an idea on how it works.

[Blibblob]

OOO!! Picture look pretty and professional... ME TRY.
http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/procedingmap.jpg:biggrin: Mine looks like shit! It's all screwy! :complaints!:

Marx said that Socialism was the midpoint between Capitalism and Communism.... communism can then proceed to anarchy, which is pure communism.


Anarchy is a socioty without hierarchy or order
What about Proudhon's Anarchy... :whine whine:


(Edited by Blibblob at 7:37 pm on June 12, 2003)


(Edited by Blibblob at 7:38 pm on June 12, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Well, Vyolet, at this point you're probably wishing that you'd taken up something simpler...like particle physics.

The problem is that all of these words have a partisan political history.

The 19th century was an extraordinarily fertile period for the invention and elaboration of political terminology...many intelligent people, looking around them at the rising capitalist society, did not like what they saw and tried very hard to think of alternatives.

What distinguished Marx and Engels from their numerous contemporaries is that they actually examined the transition from feudalism to capitalism with an eye towards what form(s) of society might evolve out of capitalism...and how that evolution might take place.

It was not that they lacked the "moral outrage" of their contemporaries or that they lacked the imagination to draw up elaborate blueprints; they wanted to look at human history "scientifically"...to see if there were regularities that could be depended on to take place.

In my view (and that of others, of course) they were broadly successful in this endeavor...and reading the shorter works of Marx and Engels is still the best way to begin a study of socialism and communism.

It is perilous to speculate on the possible forms of post-capitalist society, much less reduce them to one-sentence definitions...but we try anyway.

For example, if a social order emerges that completely lacks a class that lives by exploiting the labor of non-members of that class--a "classless society"--shall we call it socialism or communism or anarchy? If whatever public authorities that may or may not exist are completely under the control of the entire population, is that socialism or communism or anarchy?

There are people who attempt to formulate "precise" definitions of these terms...and that's not necessarily such a bad thing. But I would suggest that you regard such definitions as "provisional", not etched in stone.

The core definition of what we "communists" want, in my view, is the liberation of the working class from the economic and political rule of the capitalist class...including any group that attempts to rule "in the name of the working class".

But who knows what it will be "called"?

:cool:

[Blibblob]

But I would suggest that you regard such definitions as "provisional", not etched in stone.
Ok, that works... Always need Redstar to point out necessary points to us who miss them(and then proceed to come up with something else).
Which I am not going to do here. :biggrin:

[RedComrade]

What is Socialism?-

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production (factories, assembly lines, etc.) are controlled by society instead of individuals. More often then not this means state controlled production although there are some cases (such as anarcho-syndicalism) where this is not the case. Socialism originated as a solution to alleviate the innate contradictions of Capitalism, namely the individual seizure of socially produced goods (Example: 10 workers on the assembly line make a car, when the car is complete it becomes the property of a single individual, the lucky person who owned the assembly line but did not necessarily have anything to do with the work involved in making the finished product). Contrary to popular beleif Socialism is not a political system, it is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy, it is Exclusively an Economic system. There are different types of Socialism (examples:Communism also known as Scientific Socialism, Leninism, Stalinism, Dubcek Socialism also known as Market Socialism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, etc.) and therefore it is wrong to associate the actions of one particular brand (such as the Leninist and later Stalinist model of the USSR) with the entire theory in general. Not only is it foolish too asociate the general theory of the many diverse types of Socialism with the general concept it is also wrong to associate the results of one particular brand with the possible results of a different brand of the theory (example: Because the USSR collapsed(even though it was doing much better economically under the USSR then it is today under capitalism) this does not somehow mean all socialist aplication is doomed to failure).