Are (most) Socialists bullies?

[zulu9812]

Moderator Action: Sorry, I apparently have closed this thread by accident when posting. Just re-opened it again now.

I wondered what had happened - I thought that you'd deliberately posed me a question and then not given me the right of reply!

I don't agree much. May I bring up my own description of the communism/socialism relationship from another thread?

Communism is a utopic goal, and Socialism, the means to reach it that has gone sour, in simple terms.

As for the actual thread question, well, I have my own set of theories, which I'll post when I have more time at my hands..

This is an oft-apparent confusions on Socialism. Originally, socialism was (and still is, under straight marx communism) as you describe - the second of 3 stages in the revolution. However, the movement that I described - that of achieving the goals of the French revolution without violence - took on that term as well. So we're both correct. However, it should be noted that the people involved in running socialist states like the USSR are communists (the name of the stage of revolution does not translate to the noun). So whenever someone speaks about Socialist people they are (or should be) speaking about modern Socialism (often linked with Trotskyism).

 

[ainwood]

There's a warning for a troll thread in the OP, yet the mods don't close the thread?

Moderator Action: Because it has some decent discussion in it.

Less the spam and bashing that I have deleted, of course.

 

[Eukaryote]

"We want to have a say in how you run your own life, where and how you work, where you live, how you raise your children, what you eat, who you can talk to and what you say."

Just a small section of the panoplia of restrictions the popularly-known doctrine of Socialism offers today. I'm not picking on social justice and equality just about now, just on this interesting (and rather curious) desire to meddle and interfere in the affairs of private life. Or in other words, the regulations. Dear Socialists, why do you want to regulate us so much? Why are you not satisfied with the more simple (and arguably more efficient) method of the taxing of income?

Because socailism is a way of life that allows people to get help when they need it. However I think the happiest medium is a country that gives help always to people who need it and it is not their falt, but makes it limited if it is their falt.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Perhaps not limited to Socialists in themselves, but it is my observation that this category forms the bulk of the authoritarian groups today.

Just to pick up on this point - at least in the UK we left-wingers (who you can can socialist if you want) are the most socially Liberal of all the political groups. So that observation might apply in your country, but it sure doesn't in mine.

 

[newfangle]

I don't think even hardliner capitalists like my dear Aphex consider social democrats in the UK 'socialist.'

It seems like this thread is geared towards the throng of weird hippies and white suburban kids that yearn for the workers of the world to unite.

 

[Godwynn]

It seems like this thread is geared towards the throng of weird hippies and white suburban kids that yearn for the workers of the world to unite.

At least I'm not the only one that has noticed.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I don't think even hardliner capitalists like my dear Aphex consider social democrats in the UK 'socialist.'

It seems like this thread is geared towards the throng of weird hippies and white suburban kids that yearn for the workers of the world to unite.

Well, i've asked him to define what he means by socialist and he hasn't done so.

 

[BasketCase]

When I see the word "socialist", I usually use Marx's definition, the central tenet being public ownership of the means of production. However, Marx defined the process of the evolution of a socialist state as including a period where the tables are turned. "Dictatorship of the proletariat". That bit sounds kind of bullying.....

 

[newfangle]

One may as well use Mao's, Lenin's, or Stalin's versions of it. They wrote more about it than Marx ever did.

 

[ComradeDavo]

When I see the word "socialist", I usually use Marx's definition, the central tenet being public ownership of the means of production. However, Marx defined the process of the evolution of a socialist state as including a period where the tables are turned. "Dictatorship of the proletariat". That bit sounds kind of bullying.....

If I believe in public ownership of schools, hospitals and transport but not other means of production (in other words I support a mixed economy) does that make me Socialist or not?

 

[BasketCase]

Uhhhh....maybe half a Socialist--a "soci"???

There's always somebody trying to find that blurry dividing line just for kicks, isn't there?