Socialism

[nokmirt]

Step 1: Travel to a "socialist" country and talk to the locals. Ask them about their lives and the amount of freedom they get over different things. Go to Canada, France, UK, Germany, Sweden, Spain, etc. They will whine and complain about some things as people always do, and there will be dissenting opinion on just about everything. But odds are they will tell you about how they have choices over just about everything in their lives. You will also walk around and see that they have largely the same consumer economy as you (for better or worse). There will be important differences in places (less poverty, less crime, better health care, better transit, more crowded roads, more expensive stuff)

Step 2: Go home and listen to what people in the US are saying about other countries and compare. Which do you think is more accurate?

Nobody says much about other countries, we have enough of our own problems.

 

[nokmirt]

nokmirt, you really aren't helping us.

You are from Minnesota, and where do your loyalties lie?

 

[Defiant47]

You are from Minnesota, and where do your loyalties lie?

With the evil socialism! Heil Stalin!

 

[nokmirt]

A lot do. I have and I like the US.

I didn't say he would decide other places are better, just that he would have a better understanding of what is true and what isn't. He might come back knowing exactly why he likes the US best. As a result, he might be more useful to the dark side.

I see your point

 

[REDY]

My friends say the same thing about Europe.

It should be cool to see our friends together then

 

[nokmirt]

With the evil socialism! Heil Stalin!

Good for you...ha ha

 

[nokmirt]

It should be cool to see our friends together then

I think both sides would have plenty to say about their leaders.

 

[amadeus]

You are from Minnesota, and where do your loyalties lie?

I'm a Maoist, which consists mostly of me and my other rich white friends getting drunk and passing out on people's lawns after calling them fascists.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

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

 

[nokmirt]

I'm a Maoist, which consists mostly of me and my other rich white friends getting drunk and passing out on people's lawns after calling them fascists.

Sounds like fun I suppose your a cow tipper as well. Of course you are especially being Maoist. Isn't America great these fools in Europe don't know what the hell their missing! By the way welcome to the Forums NOOB!

 

[nokmirt]

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

Yes but you gotta love America, never had so much fun in my whole life as I have had here. I feel sorry for the rest of ya, my god I really do!

 

[nonconformist]

Yes, I realize Obama is a millionaire, his family lives in squalor in Kenya, and from what I hear he sends them nothing to help them. This is what I was told. Me if I was him I would not be able to do this. It is almost as if he thinks, that is their culture, they would not know any other way to live. I heard his grandmother pointed to a hut when interviewed, saying to the translator, "Yes, my grandson was born in that hut over there." They never interviewed her again. Now that's funny and thats what I heard. I did not see it with my own eyes my fiancee did. She watched the interview on the news. The thing is she is very grounded, and I believe it. Besides it is not far fetched for a guy that uses his smile as a shield. He has too seemingly a right answer for everything. The media is afraid to poke fun at him. Must be the fear of being blamed for rascism. What you have to understand is our presidents have to be joked about, and made fun of. It gives them character, makes them approachable. It helps us realize that they are human like the rest of us. With Obama there is just this hidden mystery. To many things not known and trust in him is becoming more and more limited. Yesterday his popularity has dropped to 50%. That I saw myself in the news. Now if what I am seeing and hearing is a mistake, then our media is full of liars. I do not believe this to be true, I do not believe the media is some secret society, trying to undermine the presidency. Also the one thing he is associated with in the media is a Socialist. Even if you look at the beginning of this thread he is portrayed in this way.
Ha Ha...indeed everywhere I look he is portrayed in this light. Everybody on here says he is not and nobody knows the meaning of Socialism, except the people who defend it(I say thats convenient). So I suppose they chose a word that they thought might go with his looks I guess. I want to sit back and watch this thread develop, and make my decision later. This ought to be quite interesting.

Primo: paragraphs help reading comprehension.
Secundo: 98% of Americans have no idea what Socialism is, have never read Marx, and their only encounter of socialism is via the media and government run propaganda.
When Obama advocates the means of productions in the hands of the workers, get back to me, and then we can discuss socialism.

 

[nokmirt]

Primo: paragraphs help reading comprehension.
Secundo: 98% of Americans have no idea what Socialism is, have never read Marx, and their only encounter of socialism is via the media and government run propaganda.
When Obama advocates the means of productions in the hands of the workers, get back to me, and then we can discuss socialism.

Well like I said this is what Americans think, I hear it see it everyday.

So like I said, I will sit back and watch.

Also, paragraphs are seldom used here thats why I do not organize them.

However, the paragraph does seem to continue talking about Obama, so its not that confusing, at least to me.

You probably are not used to reading quite so much, and I am sorry for straining your eyes.

Perhaps I should make my font larger for you.

There I spread out my response for you, I hope this helps.

 

[nonconformist]

It doesn't matter what Americans think, if they're wrong.

Also, some grammar wouldn't hurt, again for reading comprehension.

 

[amadeus]

It doesn't matter what Americans think, if they're wrong.

Also, some grammar wouldn't hurt, again for reading comprehension.

Well, if not to use the word "socialism", then what? In recent years, under both Democratic and Republican rule in the White House and Congress, the U.S. has clearly been moving away from economic freedom. If anything, we should define ourselves by the term "creeping statism"; the U.S. government has a greater role in directing the economy (look at the takeover of General Motors, for instance) now than it had in many years, probably since the era of Franklin Roosevelt.

 

[nonconformist]

I dunno, a mixed economy?

 

[amadeus]

I dunno, a mixed economy?

But that could describe any country from Hong Kong to Venezuela or from Australia to Zimbabwe.

 

[Bill3000]

But that could describe any country from Hong Kong to Venezuela or from Australia to Zimbabwe.

So pick, oh, I dunno, an economic freedom index of 60ish to count as a mixed economy?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Well, if not to use the word "socialism", then what? In recent years, under both Democratic and Republican rule in the White House and Congress, the U.S. has clearly been moving away from economic freedom. If anything, we should define ourselves by the term "creeping statism"; the U.S. government has a greater role in directing the economy (look at the takeover of General Motors, for instance) now than it had in many years, probably since the era of Franklin Roosevelt.

It's still capitalism.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

There are practically no socialists around who would actually advocate any kind of revolution at all;

This right here says neither I nor anyone else should listen to your statements regarding this subject, but I'll go against my inhibitions and humor you anyway.

anything that happens will be a natural democratic progression caused by people just eventually getting pissed off with capitalism, or as the result of mass rioting.

It'll only be allowed to go so far. So long as you're posturing, sure, be parliamentary, just don't expect to found a proletarian state through the organ that keeps the capitalist order afloat.

Most socialists wasnt nationalisation, and a more centralised economy,

But not complete nationalization of all facets of life.

but you're misrepresenting "socialism" as what you want socialism to be, and there are a number of socialists on this board, msot of whom I wager would not go for that kind of system.

I wager than real socialists, meaning those who want to abolish the capitalist system, would be more likely to agree with my ideas than your mixed economic ones that preserve the capitalist hierarchy.

And remind me, where are you employed at the moment?
Isn't it some sort of supermarket or hyperstore? Since you're playing "their" game, doesn't that make *you* a social democrat?

I work at a restaurant.

What I meant by "playing their game" is expecting to bring real social re-ordering through the present system. Sure, we may get a pretty good welfare state out of playing the parliamentary game, but at the end, I honestly don't expect the ruling classes to let us vote away their status. Sure, using the system is alright for posturing and winning more immediate concessions, but we should be ready to act outside the law when the time comes to act and remove the capitalist order. I don't think many parliamentary socialists aka social democrats are willing to do that. The Mensheviks sure weren't, they refused to take full power in February, and walked out when the Bolsheviks finished the job for them that October.

Socialism isn't "employee ownership" as employee ownership still implies private ownership by the emplyees themselves (similar to the way corporations run shares and stocks), and is therefor incompatible with socialism in its most basic form where the corporation belongs to all the people (via the government)

Its not concretely defined. And anarcho-syndicalists would disagree with you.

Please, tell me, why would, I volunteer for the harder job, when I can just flip a couple burgers and hour, and sneak out the back for a cigarette and a beer every ten minutes?

Because you care about something bigger than yourself.

As I've already indicated, I'm quite open to the idea of different wages, if the people so wish to have them. But only when they decide to do it, not when its imposed on them by a private owner.

Or just slack? Or just be compeltely uncooperative?
Why would anyone want to accept extra responsibility, guilt, administration and work, for the same as someone doing a fraction of the work?

People do it all the time. Its called responsibility.

I'll also assume you're unfamiliar with the concept of parallel promotion in the military. More responsibilities, more prestige, same pay grade. Happens all the time.

That's nowhere near socialism.

Then please elucidate what "real socialism" is. I'm listening semi-intently.

So why did the Narodniks fail?

Because the peasantry made the mistake of trusting the bourgiosie, something the Narodniks did not count on. By the time the peasantry began to change its mind, the Social Revolutionaries didn't matter much any more, as they had been thoroughly discredited by association.

Why did bolsheviks resort to slogans like
"Vote With Your Feet" and "Peace, land and bread"?

They didn't "resort" to them. Two different strategies for two different audiences. Also remember that they had a Vanguard Party, because the people were so uneducated. Americans and Europeans are far more educated than a Russian peasant. The problem is simply that real, honest discourse about what capitalism, socialism, and communism are that necessitates long posts like the ones I've been writing in this thread. We have to start from scratch, if we are to re-enter the political arena in any sort of force. That means "patiently explaining" things.

because they realised that people don't have the time or inclination for the long, rambling, at times barely-understandable diatribes and dialectics that msot socialsits are obsessed with, and it shows today; there are barely any socialist systems in place anymore, msotly because of the long, and boring way they present their argum,ents, as a direct concequence of Marx's forced conciousness and historical demands.

The most boring things I've ever read are crap about the stock market. Hasn't stopped many many people from at least partially understanding or reading them.

Your very posts in this thread show this, as do the tags; "tl;dr" "too long, didn't read"

I've addressed this above. And your posts are just as long as mine.

Who's "we"?

You seem to have this quite odd idea that there are millions of you who will manage to force the hand of history, and establish a new order.

No, I have the odd idea that we (the people) have the potential to. We (the people) only have to want to. People don't want to right now. That doesn't mean we can't change their minds.

When the new order comes, it shall be because society decides it's time for the people to change, not because the people decide it's time for the people to change.

And what is "society," exactly? A bunch of people. Its not some mystical energy force.

Haha, I'm an old school British socialist, I jsut don't beleive in the middle-class youthful socialist who thinks that world revolution is around the corner, and that Marx was worth anything other than a flying fig, because they read the Communist Manifesto, and liked the sound of it.

How nice of you to demean my education.

I never said anything about it being right around the corner or even vaguely imminent.

Socialist movements have never come out of lifelong socialsit revolutionaries,

Dead wrong.

they have always come about from the disillusioned working class forced to take action by society, and the true socialists are found amongst the communes and farms and mines, and the pubs, not in the universities, in the restaurants, and writing long manifestos.

Well of course, but you need the revolutionary leaders to guide that anger, which is often unfocused and disorganized. Again, use February 1917 as an example. No one "planned" the Women's Day insurrection, it just sort of grew, feeding on anger and frustration with a great variety of things. All the revolutionary parties were caught off guard, and had no plan in place on how to deal with such a popular uprising; they didn't expect it. As a result, the soldiers and industrial workers, once they succeeded in forcing the Tsar to abdicate, had no plan of what to do then themselves. They established the Soviet, because they were familiar with the basic idea that the people who work in the factories ought to run them, but they had no guiding hand to focus their potential into building a real people's state. That's why it was so easy for the liberals and Kadets to step in and "seize" the revolution, so to speak, and why they got away with forming the Provisional Government to share power with the Soviet. The Bolsheviks learned from this horrible mistake, and they were ready the next time an uprising came about, and were more active in both helping to cause it, and directing it once it took to the streets (I'm talking about the April and July Days, and October).

So we need each other. And I'm by no means some sort of petty bourgeois pipe-dreaming socialist with no grounding in reality, so stop characterizing me as sitting around writing manifestos and blowing smoke.

Sorry to say that laughter is the best medicine. Maybe its different for you in Petrograd

I'm American. The Petrograd thing is simply a part of my "theme" right now.

That seems to be a view John Galbraith had about about private monopoly and why he strongly embraced public monopolies in his book "The New Industrialist State". Interesting that the private monopoly companies he felt would be dangerous when he wrote to book in the late 60's were AT&T, U.S. Steel and General Motors. Less than a decade later Microsoft was founded.

I don't understand, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

I'll be honest Cheezy

That's nice of you.

- if I could be perfectly comfortable working an easy, entry level job for my whole life, and get paid the same as if I spent years in school training to be an upper level management person - I'd take the easy, entry level thing. If I can live just as happily with less effort, why in the world shouldn't I take the easy route, and devote the rest of my time to pursuits that I enjoy?

If that's true, its only because you've been taught to do minimal work effort. I'm sorry for that. But not everyone is like you. And not everyone has to be like that. It all depends on how we teach our kids and how we teach The People. Teach them to be lazy and only do the minimal, then they will only do that. Teach them to step up to the plate and take the responsibility of leadership, and they will. There will always be exceptions, but the human persona is very malleable, as history has shown.

I'm willing to grant that you all may be morally superior beings to myself, who would willingly sacrifice their lives working for the same amount, just because the socialist system needs you to. But what do you do with people like me? Just carry us along forever? Or force us to contribute more substantively?

I suspect that you might be "forced" (not coerced) to take on some more responsibility than you want. Or you can work for the minimal.

Because the first seems impractical to me, and the second seems to make a mockery of the goals of socialism. And really, I think a lot more people would be like me, and take the easy route, than would take the hard route.

I know. Because you think the only motivator in peoples' lives in monetary gain. I think that once people have the basics of life secured, there's not so much reason to worry about "making your life better," since you have what is necessary. Other things are free to become people's desire, like prestige. A lot of people work hard and do things simply to be in the spotlight, even if there's no physical gain for them.

I'm not trying to troll or flame you here, I'm genuinely curious as to what you have to say. I haven't read the whole thread, but I've read some of it, and I think I have a fair grasp of what you're saying. (If I don't, feel free to enlighten me)

Well I already admitted that having no pay gradients at all might have been an oversight of mine, and that I'm open to the idea of creating them, and that it could very well be within the confines of what is "socialist." To summarize that, unless you want to find it in context in the thread, basically it would be okay to have pay grades so long as they are agreed upon democratically by the workers; the injustice would be if it were imposed from the top-down, by a private employer, with no say from the workers whose pay is at stake. Make sense?