No I don't understand, what do you mean by socialism do you mean socialism or 'socialism'?
You might mean Social-Democracy too I guess...
Results 1 to 20 of 24
Because if your a anarchist and your fighting against all government, or if your a communist and your also doing a similer thing. Then people will look at what they have (assuming socialism) and say, "this is like that but better", or (assuming capitalism) "this is better". If you understand what I'm trying to get at.
No I don't understand, what do you mean by socialism do you mean socialism or 'socialism'?
You might mean Social-Democracy too I guess...
<span style=\'color:red\'><u>THERE IS NO GOD</u>
</span>
I'm with Ian Rocks...I don't understand!
Errrrr as this is a socialist (or at least left wing) messege board I think pretty much everyone is gonna think Capitalisms the worse of the two.
Please expand upon the question though.
Socialism some say that it is the way to true communism/anarchism.
Basicly government owns controls everything in the name of the people. I mean democratic socialism, not USSR style.
I believe u need to have Socialism to achieve eventually communism.
:S anarchists dont believe the way to anarchy is socialism too do they? i thought A's believe u can go straight from your current system to anarchy?
Isnt this a silly topic really? youre asking a bunch of socialists if they want socialism.
He is asking what we would prefer if we (Those of us who advocate the eventual, or immediate, dissolution of state had to choose between) had to choose between living under a distestable capitalist society and a detestable socialist society. I would choose the second.
<span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>11:18 am, Greenwich Mean Time, December 21, 2012 AD.
"If you're talking about Xvall, I think it is some date when the world is supposed to get sucked into some blackhole or some crazy shit like that." - Fist of Blood
"Einstein was a sick pervert, E=mC2 MY ARSE! pROVE IT U RED SWINE" - Bugalu Shrimp</span>
Obviously socialism. Though, it is true that anarchy would seem leaning kinda capitalist (free enterprise, no government regulation), anarchy relies on the idea of mutualism.
This mutualism cannot be obtained if everyone is working against each other to beat the competition and defeat the opponents. Thus, socialism, though it may mean a bigger government, would get closer to the idea of mutualism by training the people to work for one another.
"capitalism was not created by the 'natural greed,' but made greed seem natural"
I'd like the history of mankind to end in three words: "happily ever after"
"UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not."
- Dr. Seuss
Economic Left/Right: -9.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.18
Hmmm, controversial this, but from the perspective of a Marxist, a purely capitalist system would be far Far FAR better. Think about it. The Revolution is going to happen when the class conflict spawned by capitalism is at its peak. Therefore, if the population are ever more exploited, revolution will occur sooner. This exploitation will be most evident in a capitalist society. One which truly embraces the free-market, and has no regard whatsoever for its citizens.
No Welfare State. (This is the UK here...)
Massive (instead of just "large") differences in wages and conditions.
Ecological meltdown.
Shoddy capitalist culture.
Less education and/or development.
... Revolution!
In terms of which is more pleasant to live under; obviously Socialism.
Therefore, since I think the West is too far gone to be saved, I am voting Socialist (Green) in the next elections. Better then Bomber Blair I say!
Peace, Love and Jesus!
<span style=\'color:red\'>Also, Lenin.</span>
---
<span style=\'color:green\'>"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile." (Albert Einstein) </span>
---
<span style=\'color:black\'>"To find a queen without a king,
They say she plays guitar and cries and sings,
Ride a white mare in the footsteps of dawn,
Tryin' to find a woman who's never, never, never been born.
Standing on a hill in my mountain of dreams,
Telling myself it's not as hard, hard, hard as it seems." (Led Zeppelin!</span>
---
Buy Leninade and get "Hammered and Sickled"!
Well, Bakunin called Anarchism "Stateless Socialism" and Kropotkin called it the "no-government form of socialism" so this is a poorly worded question. It's like asking if you prefer fruit or apples.
Homepage
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin
Would you rather live in a system where the government loves you, but there is not much chance of revolution (Socialism)? Or a system where the government ignores you, but lots of chance for revolution (Capitalism)?
Governments are incapable of love.
Homepage
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin
What if the government is democratically run by the masses?
It is ridiculous to say all government is completely evil. Yes, all government is evil to an extent, but the people have gotten used to living under government. What we have to do is find the best alternative to capitalism.
To the point to say, almost all socialist countries (except a few - Cuba, North Corea, China) have gotten its chances of revolution (counter-revolution in a socialist point of view).
In “Communist Manifesto” it is clearly stated that communists may describe their theory in one following phrase:the elimination of private property on the means of production. USSR under Stalin has accomplished this task.
By destroying private property on the means of production revolutionary proletariat destroys capitalist way of production, it destroys class of capitalists and the exploitation of one man by another, and finally it destroys commodity production. Proceeding from the said above smart and intelligent people may understand that there is nothing negative in SOCIALIST STATE,as this kind of state has no antagonistic nature…
Anarchism is anti-capitalist and anti-socialist. Anarchism, including reformist anarchism, would not seek to place the means of produciton the hands of the State because it recognizes that the State, without appropriate checks and balances, is tyrannical and will never serve the interests of the people. As Robert Dahl put it, "A centrally planned economy issues an outright invitation to government leaders, written in bold letters: You are free to use all of these economic resources to consolidate and maintain your power! For this reason, anarchists oppose the nationalization of major industry and financial institutions.
Reformist anarchism, perhaps more accurately called leftist libertarianism, seeks to keep certain institutions in the hands of the State such as healthcare and education while regulating the abuses of corporations including environmental degredation and exploitation of the lower classes. The State could be used as a tool to instigate certain reforms such as the passing of a minimum living wage and a decentralization of political power to the local and state levels.
Ultimately, this sort of leftist libertarianism would become more radical, culminating in the elimination of for-profit corporate entities, the fostering of workplace democracy ,the development of community-based economics, and the protection of the environment.
It would be fair to acknowledge many if not most anarchists oppose this sort of platform, but I show this only to demonstrate that the tendency to associate anarchism with capitalism is absurd. Anarchism is against more than government; it is against hierarchy. As a sensible anarchist pointed out to me, what is commonly seen as the repealing of government is no more than a change in power structures: corporate hierarchies assume the responsibilities of government hierarchies; de-regulation spells re-regulation; and nationalization becomes privatization. Nowhere in these policies does one see the abandonment of hierarchy. Anarchists are against all forms of unecessary coercion, political and economic, and thus are opposed to both socialism and capitalism.
Capitalism does not guarantee revolution anymore than socialism does. Look at America, the home of government subsidized capitalism: Do you see Americans revolting against their government anytime soon or do you think the election of a Democrat is more likely? If you look at a country like Canada, which has a moderate welfare state, you'll find that there is much more of a tolerance of radical ideologies here and taboo philosophies such as Marxism and anarchism are understandable to common people, even if they disagree with them. Taking it a step further, I would argue that reforms serve to empower the working class is brought about by their own efforts since it demonstrates their ability to organize and reform the present system.
The main problem I have with this theory, i.e., the 'crisis theory,' is that it has never been proven in practice. The collapse of the stock market in the earlier part of the twentieth century lead only to the rise of social democratic governments like that of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the German social democrats which attempted to spend their way out of depressions and, in worse cases, the subsequent rise of strong central governments in Italy with Mussolini's fascists and Germany with Hitler's Nazis. The great crash that everyone hoped to see only brought about the most savage forms of totalitarianism, meanwhile Stalin butchered his own people in the name of 'socialism' or some abstract concept. The Marxist revolutions that did occur typically resulted from autocratic regimes or struggles against imperialism and not the collapse of global capitalism.
As it stands, capitalism has built a stronger foundation than many radicals recognize. It has allowed itself to expand tremendously and exploit rescources, human and material, like never before, but it has constructed governments which will restrain and subsidize capitalism as necessary to ensure its optimal success. Capitalists are not stupid and they will not let their system destroy itself. Marx could not have forseen the rise in welfare governments, the concessions granted by capitalists, and the many other phenomenons which, though they had their roots in Marx's time, came to their full realization in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. For these reasons, I am quite displeased with those who would call themselves allies of the oppressed all the while encouraging capitalism to demonstrate its nastiest features all over again, not knowing that capitalism is both too well-managed to do such a thing and that, even if it did, it would not allow itself to go so far as to destroy itself.
I'm not pretending I have all the answers, but when 'working class champions' encourage the repeal of the minimum wage, the abandonment of environmental regulations, and the increased centralization of rescources in the hands of the few, I question whether such an ideology should be called Marxism or Thatcherism.
It is that permanent contradiction between your ideas and desires and all the dead formalities and vain pretenses of your civilization which makes you sad, troubled and unbalanced... that's the poisoned and mortal wound of the civilized world.
There have been several hundred attempts to do that, all have failed. It is impossible, all states are the means by which a priviledged minority oppresses and dominates the majority.
No more ridiculous than saying all capitalism is completely evil.
They've also gotten used to living under capitalism, do you want to keep it around?
"Dictatorship of the proletariat" is not an alternative to capitalism, it is state-capitalism. What we need is anarcho-communism, not the replacement of the present set of tyrants with a new set of tyrants.
Homepage
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin
I can't quite put my finger on what you're getting at. However, I will say this...considering you're posting on a strickly LEFTIST board, I'd assume the majority of folks here are giong to condem Capitalism as being the absolute worst. On that note, I can't quite see how you can compare the two on any level really... Capitalism and Socialism are direct opposites. Capitalism advocates privatization, while Socialism advocates government ownership. My personal opinion in it's most basic form is that Capitalism is the absolute worst for a number of reasons...too many to list at this present time considering my boss could appear at any given time to peak over my shoulder. I'm sure he'd be most thrilled to discover a... *gasp* communist in his ranks... if the red star on my shirt doesn't already have him worried. :P
Firstly I have to say that this is a great post. (It isn't all there 'cause it's only two posts down.) We should always keep pushing the governments to take power away from the corporations. Until finailly we take the power for ourselves.
Read the rest of the posts here. Many far leftists think that socialism is just as bad, or worse the capitaplism. Worse 'cause the people have less need to worry. Less need to go further left.
First I should make notice of the contradiction in your argument. Firstly, it seems you're lacking a basic essential understanding of socialism in that it can be defined as (in it's most basic form) the state ownership of industry and capital.
You push for the government to "take power away from the corporations." when this is the most basic essence of socialist theory to begin with... you are clearly contradicting yourself... if you can prove otherwise, then please by all means...
... <_<
Socialism: a system in which "people have less need to worry".
I rest my case.
