What do you believe in? - Socialis/capitalist systems.

[socialist2000]

Personaly im a democratic socialist, or a libertarian socialist. But what are you guys.

[morkyboy]

a right-wing/center liberal

[socialist2000]

Quote: from morkyboy on 5:01 pm on Mar. 3, 2003
a right-wing/center liberal

Ohh well no ones perfect.

Who's the guy on your avatar?

[morkyboy]

It is John Locke, a great british philosopher

[socialist2000]

Quote: from morkyboy on 5:11 pm on Mar. 3, 2003
It is John Locke, a great british philosopher

So famous i've never heard of him, what did he do?

[thursday night]

I call myself a socialist, though my political views are basically Marxism-Leninism. I am an extreme supporter of the Cuban Revolution and in many ways I can be called a Castroist.

[socialist2000]

Quote: from thursday night on 5:34 pm on Mar. 3, 2003
I call myself a socialist, though my political views are basically Marxism-Leninism. I am an extreme supporter of the Cuban Revolution and in many ways I can be called a Castroist.

Hard core stalinist Marxist-leninist, like stalinism or a more liberal approach?

[The Syndicalist]

As my name implies im a syndicalist!

[socialist2000]

Quote: from The Syndicalist on 5:58 pm on Mar. 3, 2003
As my name implies im a syndicalist!

???

[von Mises]

Libertarian

[sc4r]

Quote: from socialist2000 on 4:51 pm on Mar. 3, 2003
Personaly im a democratic socialist, or a libertarian socialist. But what are you guys.


I'm a bit confused how you can be both, or even really what a democratic socialist means. Is there any other sort of genuine socialist ?

As far as I can see the only sense in which you could be a non democratic socialist is you believed in a mechanism for self rule which did not technically depend overmuch on formal voting. The only socialist type mechanism of this sort I can think of is libertarian socialism AKA Anarchism.

Hopefully I am about to learn something :-)

(Edited by sc4r at 6:55 pm on Mar. 3, 2003)

[socialist2000]

Quote: from sc4r on 6:48 pm on Mar. 3, 2003

Quote: from socialist2000 on 4:51 pm on Mar. 3, 2003
Personaly im a democratic socialist, or a libertarian socialist. But what are you guys.


I'm a bit confused how you can be both, or even really what a democratic socialist means. Is there any other sort of genuine socialist ?

As far as I can see the only sense in which you could be a non democratic socialist is you believed in a mechanism for self rule which did not technically depend overmuch on formal voting. The only socialist type mechanism of this sort I can think of is libertarian socialism AKA Anarchism.

Hopefully I am about to learn something :-)

(Edited by sc4r at 6:55 pm on Mar. 3, 2003)


A democratic socialist is a socialist who uses democracy to achive socialism. Socialism is simply the theory that wealth should be shared equily aqmong the people, like in marx's teachings, but socialism encompasses many forms of political ideology, from DS to Stalinism, which is not democratic at all.

I get the two idiologys from a site which tells you what kind of socialist you are, after repeated goes on it the two i always get are Libertarian socialism and democratic socialism, i think i probably sit on the half way line between them.

[Anonymous]

Right-wing capitalist.

[RedComrade]

Left- Wing Marxist Leninist (Trotskyist)

[englandsgay]

i believe in me because I rock.

[Umoja]

I would consider myself a Democratic Socialist as well, although you will come under fire for calling yourself one. The premise of Democratic Socialism is generally that revolution is bad, and isn't preferable for bring about socialism. This form of Socialism is the type advocated by the Socialist Party of the United States.

John Locke was also considered the founder of Capitalism, because of his book "The Wealth Of Nations" although Capitalism had existed long before it.

[commie kg]

I consider myself a Democratic Marxist-Leninist/Trotskyite (NOT a Stalinist), although I believe democratic means of installing socialism is preferable to violent revolution.

(Edited by commie kg at 4:22 pm on Mar. 3, 2003)

[Pete]

"i believe in me because I rock. "

That doesn't even answer the question, although it made me laugh!

I consider myself a Communist of independant creation. I was a communist in heart before I knew that such a word existed. In 1991 I was a communist at the age of 6 because of the questoins I asked my dad about the world that he jumped around. He still jumps around them today, 12 years later. My main influence was my brother, who died in 1991 from cancer, who was very libertarian and probaly would have been a communist as well. I read some of Marx and I learned nothing new about the ideology, since I have held my beliefs for so long. Or atleast the mindset for them to develop in. I have read Che Guevara, and I consider him the one person who has had beliefs the closest to mine. He has experienced more, and therefore had deeper ideals, but I expect as I live and move on I will have ideals closer and closer to those of Che. He is a hero and will live in our hearts forever, along with the memory of mybrother. I am, then, a communist of independant creation. I do not proscribe to any established views I may say that my Ideal is anachrocommunism, and that the realist in me sees Syndicism and anachrosyndicism as the ideal. I am, as I have said twice before, a communist of independant creation. Take it or leave it. Extreme liberatrain and left winged.

~HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE~~

[Blibblob]

John Locke was also considered the founder of Capitalism, because of his book "The Wealth Of Nations" although Capitalism had existed long before it.


Uh, John Locke did Pre-social man and a bit on democracy. Adam Smith wrote "the Wealth of Nations", i am reading it. John Locke was basically a lot like Rousseau (hopefully you know who he is), but had a bit of differential views. I am not done reading the comparison of the two, so i cant quite give deep details.


Oh, and im a democratic revolutionary communist.

(Edited by Blibblob at 8:10 pm on Mar. 3, 2003)

[Krobanikov]

One can be mistaken in their beliefs,knowledge constitutes a more solid foundation.It is said that one shouldnt put all their eggs in one basket,and I think it best not to sew oneself to the shirt-tail of another.
A wise man will learn from everyone and one should constantly question and seldom answer.Generally those who talk the most know the least and the greatest lessons are taught by actions rather than words for words often fall to the ground at the feet of he that is known for much speaking.Why bother in attempting to explain things for the most part?the wise are in no need of hearing and a fool refuses to listen.
As for belief,its a quite unstable concept seeing that it contains a large portion of doubt and people have always been most willing to kill for what they believe whereas they that know see the futility in war and killing.
Now for categorizing,I care nothing for labels but were any to refer to me as an Anarcho-Socialist I assure you that I will not take the least offense.


(Edited by Krobanikov at 1:13 am on Mar. 4, 2003)

[Blibblob]

"...You must understand nothing. All comprehension is temporary."- Frank Herbert, Chappterhouse Dune. From the Mentat Manual.

Somebody likes Dune... :)

[Pete]

John Locke said that everyone has the right to "Life, liberty, and property" and that government was a social contract that was broken when the government tried to take power from the poeple. He was used to justify the Glorious Revolution in England in the late 1600's. Rousseau spoke of the Noble Savage and the General Will of the poeple. He prefered no government, but said that if it was to be a 'necesarry evil' it should be a direct democracy, or a parlimentary democracy at the very worst. He also coined the term political science (science politique)
Lockean = America
Rousseau = ??? (Canada perhaps)