Socialism

[aelf]

But hey, who would ally with a political force that meant to destroy oneself? All those bourgeois parties won't do that. Thus the Marxism myth No.1:

Why socialist revolution didn't get hold in the developed West as Marx predicted,
but in vast backwards countries like Russia?

My take is, the advances of capitalism also developed strong party politics which would not tolerate such heretic dissent in the political spectrum. Radicals are marginalized in bourgeois society, result? The rise of Social democrats, who are just compromising socialist ideals to capitalist reality. And their non-radical approach greatly reduced attraction of radicals.

Edit: Truth is exclusive. Thus the fighting between radical schools. The more radical, the less compromising.

I'm sorry, but your post is incomprehensible. Sure, it's filled with words that ostensibly mean things, but they do not form any rational argument or constitute any meaningful statement. Basically, all you're doing is declaring your intent to bash Marxism for being radical, but I don't know how or why.

 

[plarq]

I'm sorry, but your post is incomprehensible. Sure, it's filled with words that ostensibly mean things, but they do not form any rational argument or constitute any meaningful statement. Basically, all you're doing is declaring your intent to bash Marxism for being radical, but I don't know how or why.

Well maybe I should rephrase my words, but here's a short version:

Marx told socialists to grasp the root and being radical, etc.
But doing so would, 1)Alert different factions of bourgeois parties, thus socialists do not stand a chance in parliamentary political struggles, 2)Factions of socialists are harder to reach compromises, thinking their school of socialism is "truth", others were just "bourgeois spies".

The two problems limit success of Marxism, despite failures after failures of capitalism. Socialist storms left Social Democrats in charge, while the real socialists are marginalized in the West.

 

[Camikaze]

Agree or disagree?

Agree. Pretty much. The general principle you outlined is what socialism is to me. However, there are numerous ways to get to that end, and numerous takes on the definition of 'a return to the man'. Some may see it as a utilitarian definition- a return to the majority of man, and some would see it as a 'leave no man behind' definition. Both have merits, but are obviously quite different, and not necessitating what I would call socialism. For instance, some may see a 'return to man' as a move to private ownership, because that creates the highest overall utility in an economy, and is therefore most beneficial for the majority of people. Alternatively, some may see a 'return to man' as complete public ownership of the means of production. So, all the term 'a return to man' leaves us with is a unqualified description of the aims of an economic theory, but not an economic theory within itself. It is not sufficient, by itself, to define what socialism is.

However, I definitely agree that it is part of the definition. I would add to it, however, that socialism is a form of economics whereby the government aims for a 'return to man' through economic intervention and the rectification of market failure. Or something like that.

 

[Gustave5436]

So why did their very manifesto ask for:
" 1. Immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be held by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda.
2. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.
3. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant organisations.
4. The organisation, at the latest on 10 March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
5. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.
6. The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.
7. The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces. No political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In the place of the political sections various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.
8. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.
9. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
10. The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups. The abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.
11. The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.
12. We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.
13. We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.
14. We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.
15. We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour.
"
Doesn't sound very anarchist...in fact it sounds like socialism.

Only demand #7, with reference to the state, seems inconsistent with anarchism (and I note that anarchism is by definition socialist, hence why it is referred to as "libertarian socialism"). Also #6; anarchists would agree with it but would want it to go further (specifically, to the abolition of the prison system entirely).

#9, 11, etc. are not communist, but are most certainly socialist.

That cartoon is very good because it encapsulates some of the fundamentals of Marxist ideas, which no doubt serve as the spring board for, if not the foundation of, socialism.

If you want to talk about Marxism, make a thread entitled "Marxism." To suggest that Marxism and socialism are one and the same is outright false, unless you intend to argue that Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc. were not socialists.

In America, actual poor working people like amadeus have been brainwashed into voting against their interests.

For the poor (actually, pretty much everyone aside from the immensely rich), voting at all is voting against their interests.

 

[aelf]

Well maybe I should rephrase my words, but here's a short version:

Marx told socialists to grasp the root and being radical, etc.
But doing so would, 1)Alert different factions of bourgeois parties, thus socialists do not stand a chance in parliamentary political struggles,

Huh?

2)Factions of socialists are harder to reach compromises, thinking their school of socialism is "truth", others were just "bourgeois spies".

But I told you why this isn't true.

The two problems limit success of Marxism, despite failures after failures of capitalism. Socialist storms left Social Democrats in charge, while the real socialists are marginalized in the West.

Ignoring the many instances when left-wing parties and groups have cooperated, of course. And I don't recall anarcho-capitalists, for example, being friendly to mainstream bourgeois political ideas, so this is certainly not a problem that is unique to Marxism or socialism.

Agree. Pretty much. The general principle you outlined is what socialism is to me. However, there are numerous ways to get to that end, and numerous takes on the definition of 'a return to the man'. Some may see it as a utilitarian definition- a return to the majority of man, and some would see it as a 'leave no man behind' definition. Both have merits, but are obviously quite different, and not necessitating what I would call socialism. For instance, some may see a 'return to man' as a move to private ownership, because that creates the highest overall utility in an economy, and is therefore most beneficial for the majority of people. Alternatively, some may see a 'return to man' as complete public ownership of the means of production. So, all the term 'a return to man' leaves us with is a unqualified description of the aims of an economic theory, but not an economic theory within itself. It is not sufficient, by itself, to define what socialism is.

However, I definitely agree that it is part of the definition. I would add to it, however, that socialism is a form of economics whereby the government aims for a 'return to man' through economic intervention and the rectification of market failure. Or something like that.

As I said, this is the fundamental principle of socialism. There are many approaches to it, but anything that does not take this principle into account can only be called socialist in a plainly facetious manner.

However, I disagree with with what you say here:

some may see a 'return to man' as a move to private ownership, because that creates the highest overall utility in an economy, and is therefore most beneficial for the majority of people.

That is if you ignore the fact that the return to man as stated by Marx stands in opposition to the economic categories, 'natural laws' and concepts that we created in the world of political economy, under which the bourgeois concept of private property falls. The dichotomy between the real (human beings) and the not-so-real (economic categories and laws) is clear. Even if you say that private property cannot simply be done away with, being radical in Marxist terms is still to be pulling away from it, since it is the basis of the capitalist power relations that fail to consider the needs of the common man.

 

[aelf]

If you want to talk about Marxism, make a thread entitled "Marxism." To suggest that Marxism and socialism are one and the same is outright false, unless you intend to argue that Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc. were not socialists.

Thanks for ignoring the very bit you quoted.

That cartoon is very good because it encapsulates some of the fundamentals of Marxist ideas, which no doubt serve as the spring board for, if not the foundation of, socialism.

 

[nonconformist]

Every political marklar is edited so what's your marklar. Are marklar saying marklar is an marklar. Maybe your right, but marklar is hard to find. Marklar would like to know for sure. To tell marklar the marklar both marklar of this whole Obama marklar have no marklar. Marklar is all marklar on both marklar. Marklar for marklar do not think in the least marklar could be marklar. And the marklar thats against marklar have no definitive marklar to their marklar. All marklar see are both marklar going at each marklar and without coming to some kind of intelligent marklar. Marklar is marklar in some marklar or marklar. To marklar it is just a waste of marklar to even reply. If marklar could kill marklar all be marklar.

This is the most coherent post in the whole thread.

 

[nokmirt]

Every political marklar is edited so what's your marklar. Are marklar saying marklar is an marklar. Maybe your right, but marklar is hard to find. Marklar would like to know for sure. To tell marklar the marklar both marklar of this whole Obama marklar have no marklar. Marklar is all marklar on both marklar. Marklar for marklar do not think in the least marklar could be marklar. And the marklar thats against marklar have no definitive marklar to their marklar. All marklar see are both marklar going at each marklar and without coming to some kind of intelligent marklar. Marklar is marklar in some marklar or marklar. To marklar it is just a waste of marklar to even reply. If marklar could kill marklar all be marklar.

You got me, that makes sense. And no sarcasm intended.

I am going to read some here and try to learn, what is being said on this thread. Political Theory is not my strong point. I am primarily a Historian. But I can learn so I will try to keep updated and I may ask some questions from time to time.

 

[Camikaze]

That is if you ignore the fact that the return to man as stated by Marx stands in opposition to the economic categories, 'natural laws' and concepts that we created in the world of political economy, under which the bourgeois concept of private property falls. The dichotomy between the real (human beings) and the not-so-real (economic categories and laws) is clear. Even if you say that private property cannot simply be done away with, being radical in Marxist terms is still to be pulling away from it, since it is the basis of the capitalist power relations that fail to consider the needs of the common man.

As stated by Marx. Well there you go. There is a partial qualifier of the definition. My point was that without the 'return to man' being designated as a Marxist construct, it can be applied to a multitude of economic theories and situations, some of which may not be considered socialist. But I do agree that so long as the term is applied appropriately, it is a good definer of a socialist policy.

 

[say1988]

Are you saying it is an impossibility. Maybe your right, but proof is hard to find.

There is legal proof he was born in the US. It is that simple.

 

[aelf]

As stated by Marx. Well there you go. There is a partial qualifier of the definition. My point was that without the 'return to man' being designated as a Marxist construct, it can be applied to a multitude of economic theories and situations, some of which may not be considered socialist. But I do agree that so long as the term is applied appropriately, it is a good definer of a socialist policy.

And the point I was making was of course about the principle as defined as such. We could argue about how "man" is defined, for example, but that would just be pointless.

 

[cubsfan6506]

Every political video is edited so what's your point. Are you saying it is an impossibility. Maybe your right, but proof is hard to find.

The burden of proof tends ot fall on those making outrageous claims. Also you have no idea what nate dhlani really means. The fact is andom poeople pobaly don't go talk to Obama's grndmother very much, and those that do probaly have journalistic credintiels. Yes I'm saying it's an impossibility.

To tell you the truth both sides of this whole Obama issue have no proof. It is all conjecture on both sides.

The burden of poroof is on those claiming that the president is a evil secret foreigner.

 

[nokmirt]

There is legal proof he was born in the US. It is that simple.

Not the other things he's up to too many people are against him. Do you trust him with your life. If you do thats your first mistake, don't trust anyone. Nothing in this world is simple.

 

[Defiant47]

Not the other things he's up to too many people are against him. Do you trust him with your life. If you do thats your first mistake, don't trust anyone. Nothing in this world is simple.

I don't trust that you exist.

 

[nokmirt]

The burden of proof tends ot fall on those making outrageous claims. Also you have no idea what nate dhlani really means. The fact is andom poeople pobaly don't go talk to Obama's grndmother very much, and those that do probaly have journalistic credintiels. Yes I'm saying it's an impossibility.



The burden of poroof is on those claiming that the president is a evil secret foreigner.

Ok, believe what you want. and I hope your right. And no I do not speak any Kenyan dialects, but have you ever considered that you could be wrong. Of course not, I am sure you have'nt, but you did get excited enough to misspell proof. I was wondering could I borrow your crystal ball for awhile. And its credentials, please my friend use a spell checker.

 

[nokmirt]

I don't trust that you exist.

Well your a figment of my imagination too. Mr. Rommel too bad they did'nt give you a few more tanks huh?

 

[Masada]

Well your a figment of my imagination too. Mr. Rommel too bad they did'nt give you a few more tanks huh?

Courtesy of remarks like this I'm forced to award the win to Team Socialism.

 

[nokmirt]

Courtesy of remarks like this I'm forced to award the win to Team Socialism.

Thanks I need a win

 

[say1988]

Not the other things he's up to too many people are against him. Do you trust him with your life. If you do thats your first mistake, don't trust anyone. Nothing in this world is simple.

I wouldn't care if he was born in North Korea to a Libyan father and Iranian mother. I honestly think that law is just ********. I truly believe the requirements should be the same as that of congress. I see no reason for the president to have to be a natural born citizen.
Besides, as I said, by all legal requirements of proof is there. That is a fact. If you want more proof, you will need a time machine and go see his birth.

 

[nokmirt]

I wouldn't care if he was born in North Korea to a Libyan father and Iranian mother. I honestly think that law is just ********. I truly believe the requirements should be the same as that of congress. I see no reason for the president to have to be a natural born citizen.
Besides, as I said, by all legal requirements of proof is there. That is a fact. If you want more proof, you will need a time machine and go see his birth.

For our security and safety, we have to trust the president with our lives . Also, it is so the person who is president has loyalty to America first, and not terrorists or some other anti-American group. Above all for our safety and security, and to uphold the way of life in freedom we hold dear. You can think that its ********, you are free to have an opinion. Things are implemented in the constitution for a good reason. Our leader has to be an American. I don't think you would risk the lives of your children and family on a potentially dangerous person being the president. Think of it from that perspective, and I know you will see reason.