State Socialism is an oxymoron - Higharchy = inequality

[RedCeltic]

To say you are a socialist in today's society seems to imply that one is a Communist that believes in a state run economy.

However, Socialism is not a synonym for "state run economy" nor "Communism". Socialism is the belief in creating an equal society. Communism as brought about by Marxist-Leninists is one such philosophy with a major flaw....

True Socialism can never, and will never be achieved through the state. True Socialists can not support a state and equality at the same time. The word ¡°Socialism¡± implies a belief in equality, yet the existence of a state provides a higharchy and inequality.

While some Communism such as council Communism and Libertarian Communism are truly Socialist for they fight to Socialize society rather than the State...

... Marxist-Leninists especially Stalinists should not be recognized as Socialist ideologies at all.

[Anonymous]

i would say that, see a socialist state has to be democratic, wich leaves all and any authoritanism behind, therefore this state must be a Popular goverment, not a higharchy state, a statesmen should and shall be equal to a common citzen, lenin gave severall good things for socialism, but htis in his early ages, in the aes he said: "Democracy is needed for socialism" lather he would forget this and start a authoritarian state, yet do not see waht he did, but waht he said, marxism is more than symply politics, its science, dont forget it comrade, it is marxism that saves you from dgomatic bulshit of the church, the dialects save you comrade...

to resume, to achieve communism we need a people state, instead of people working for a state you must have a state working for the people, a popular rule, in other words, DEMOCRACY (demo=people cratos=power) yet if you fail to have a true socialist goverment you will jsut have planed economy, like CCCP and cuba, yet do not give up because you failed in the past, it is because we have failed to make true socialism in the past that we must work harder in the present, we must learn from the errors of the past and avoid future mistakes, we need a popular state in order to achieve communism, denying marxism will not help us...

[antieverything]

I don't think it' right to define Socialism as only what we agree with on the issue. I think that the argument about the USSR not being socialist is pretty silly...just because it was socialist doesn't mean that we have to answer for it. Pinochet's Chile was capitalist...I don't expect cappies to answer for that. Concerning the repression that is. I do expect them to answer for the fact that this lab-test for the free-market failed so miserably while what they call a lab test for Communism--the USSR--was enough of a success to make the ruling classes around the world tremble (just research Soviet economic growth, despite the use of command economies for consumer goods and inefficient agricultural policy--supercomputers hadn't been invented yet)...but that is a different discussion.

So, in that rambling paragraph I guess I mean to say that we shouldn't claim that there is only one kind of socialism--our kind...instead we should address the problems in these countries and ideologies for what they are. Anarcho-Cappies and Fascist-Capitalists are opposed to each other but both are capitalist ideologies (of course it is important to point out that the Capitalism worshipers on the libertarian right deny the capitalist nature of fascist-capitalism).

[antieverything]

Something that I left out is that I think we should define ourselves more precisely within the socialist movement. We are anti-capitalists but we are incredibly different from each other in many cases.

Remember, the authoritarian and libertarian-right are both capitalist but different enough to warrant different association in title.

I and others close to me politically are more than simply socialists...we are Democratic Socialists, Libertarian Socialists, the radical labor movement, Greens...and my personal favorites: Economic Democrats and Economic Federalists (I made those up myself!)

[Anonymous]

CCCP wasnt socialist, it had planed economy but it wasnt socialist...

[antieverything]

Well, now that I think about it more, you do have a good point...

Socialism requires public ownership as opposed to private ownership...whether that ownership be governmental or communal--either way, under the control of the people. The USSR had governmental control but not DEMOCRATIC government--meaning that the PEOPLE did not control the means of production and by extention, the USSR was not socialist but something different. (what many Democratic Socialists now refer to as 'Communism')

[lifetrnal]

Here, here! Agreed.

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from antieverything on 5:06 pm on Dec. 5, 2002
Well, now that I think about it more, you do have a good point...

Socialism requires public ownership as opposed to private ownership...whether that ownership be governmental or communal--either way, under the control of the people. The USSR had governmental control but not DEMOCRATIC government--meaning that the PEOPLE did not control the means of production and by extention, the USSR was not socialist but something different. (what many Democratic Socialists now refer to as 'Communism')



There ya go... now we're on the same page. ;) Yes my thoughts exactly.

[Stormin Norman]

Could you explain to me where you got your definition of socialism? Nevermind, I have already deduced that you pulled it out of your ass.

[Stormin Norman]

I hate it when you guys make me do this, but it is necessary to refer you to an official definition of the word.

Socialism 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating the collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods a: a system of society or group where there is no private property b: a system or condition of society where in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. -from Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary; 10th Edition

Socialist(s) 1: The moral equivalent of a bum on the street asking for a handout 2: A troglodyte 3: A Luddite 3: Of or having to do with the phylum Mollusca, a category of invertebrates 4: A macrofossil 5: Someone who wishes to ride the gravy train 6: A greaser, a dirtbag, or pile of feces 7: Plankton, smut, fungus, scum, or stain 8: A yellow-belly otherwise known as commie pinko 9: the waste effluent of society 10: A nonproducer 11: Someone with extremely low intelligence and or motivation 12: a looter, thief, or lynch mob 13: someone who deserves to be 86'd from civilization 14: My worst enemy -From Stormin Norman's Wonderful Worldview; 1st Edition


(Edited by Stormin Norman at 1:34 am on Dec. 22, 2002)

[antieverything]

OK, I'll admit it...that was pretty funny.

Always take into account that when talking about relatively abstract concepts, the dictionary isn't a definitive source...one should also never expect to get a complete definition of a complex and diverse set of political/economic beliefs from a normal dictionary...and only somewhat from a political dictionary.

Here's the definition from the Red Encyclopedia ( www.red-encyclopedia.org/vocab.html )

SOCIALISM: An economic system based on public ownership of the most major industries, universal healthcare and public education. Like Communism and Social Democracy, the term Socialism has gone through numerous changes. The term, originally used by Utopians who sought social justice in industrial societies, the term was later used by the followers of Karl Marx interchangeably with Communist and Social Democracy. But following many Socialists sided with their respective countries in World War I — and especially after the Russian Bolshevik Revolution of 1917-1919 — the worlds Socialist parties were seen as more reformist and moderate than Leninist and Communist parties. Today, Socialist politics cover a wide-range of views, from Democratic Socialism to Marxism to Social Democracy.

Look at that site for the definitions of different socialist ideologies and you will see how varied and diverse they really are...

[HankMorgan]

I'm constantly amazed at the hair splitting that goes on when defining socialism and communism.

It's this simple. Does the worker get to keep and decide what to do with their earnings or is it hijacked into some common pool?

If they keep and decide what to do with their earnings (private property exists), then that is freedom. If you want to call it capitalism that's OK.

If the earnings are hijacked into a common pool and private property does not exist, then that is not freedom. Call it socialism or communism. It matters not what it is called. Incentive is destroyed and people suffer.