Socialist

Well I am glad someone has opened up a fourm dedicating to discussion of socialism!

I hope to see many informative topics.

I think I am social enough, I mean socialist in disguise I sure will enjoy some new political ideas that the same old same old out there.

I did do socialogy at school and it was mainly about Karl Marx, but i would love to hear some members views on what they define as a socialist and their view on the world

Karl Marx is the definitive socialist. The Communist Manifesto is the bible of the socialist. Certain other left-wing denominations such as the Anarcho-Syndicalists focus on certain parts of marxism (in this case, the exploitation of the working class through the wage labour system), but it is all part of the same larger belief system.

I too am excited to see a socialism forum! Hopefully there will be enough traffic and debate to keep it open. Maybe even educate a person or two on true socialism/communism instead of sticking to there grandfathers version.

Where would the world be today if it was all socialist?

How would the people live?

How would the government live?

how would the leaders and the administrators live?

How would the tax rate be?

How would the budget be balanced?

Would people be able to move up the latters in society or does everybody stay on the same wrung??

Mazlow's theory does have validity you know.

Ask questions in another thread, go ahead and create it right now if ya want. This is our "Yay we have a new section!" thread. Tarnish it and...

Oh...and though a little late, Yay whe have a new section!!!!!

[edit on 093131p://333 by socrepLT]

Socialism interests me, but i dont see myself as a socialist... i am definately a left winger, but i dont say i belong to any political spectrum... if anything i would say i am a social-anarchist if anything... but yay for having a socialist forum!

I forgot, in a socialist society, the flock can't ask questions without being persecuted first, it's the put up and shut up mentality.
Thanks for clarifying!

Holy crap! I am persecuting you, I mean I am completely stifling your personal voice and forcing you into submission. I am soooo sorry, trust me, I kow how hard it is to copy, hit new topic paste and then think of a title. I didn't think of the personal and physical toll that my dictorial commands would have upon your life. I am truely sorry.

In an unrelated story, yesterday I was trying to go to the bathroom when some very rude womam said, "hey you cant go here, this is the ladies room!" "Bach," I said where "would you have me go?" "Ten feet to the right of your exit she said."


[edit on 033131p://444 by socrepLT]

stop bickering, take it to the 'mudpit' or whatever it is called now.

interesting questions you ask truelies, unfortunetly i don't believe they can be answered because it is hard to tell how the world would be. Would 9-11 happen if the world (or just america) was socialist? the answer to this question could impact the answer to all of your other questions. I do personally believe though than humanitarianism would be a factor in the goverment, which is something we definetly lack now.

In today's economy, Socialist doctrine seems outdated, since the largest Socialist country in the world is where you get $150 running shoes that cost 97 cents to make. You are on a buying spree at Walmart and they are actually making more money than some fancy department store, because they bully their suppliers into buying Chinese slave labor goods. The problem with this Socialism is that it "socializes," wealth in fewer hands on both sides of the transaction. Meanwhile who is financing the US? One should Google for the statistics from China. We send it over there, and they lend it back to us, now that's capitalism.

So you figure it out, no matter what your so called ideology, it always has normative and substantive operations. The substantive facts show that wealth goes into fewer and fewer hands, and people suffer in any system other than basic trade-union-guild articulations. There you have fair pay, fair work, and even a better economy for the ultra rich who keep having the delusion to cut off their economic base. In both socialism and facism, which are sometimes substantively indistinguishable, almost everyone except a few people are in poverty. Those few are extremely wealthy and yet they are too content with their illusion of power, ruling over a heap of ruins. In either system these people keep stealing the hopes, dreams, and wealth of many people who worked for it. They do it by building up then crashing economies. In the destructive aftermath they become bigger landlords, stealing equity. Economies go bust by design, not because of some absurd "invisible hand."

I was initially going to ask that if there are 200 socialists in the United States, 195 of them probably work for a counterintelligence operation?

[edit on 17-12-2004 by SkipShipman]

Few problems here,
A) You assume that a socialist country exists, showing an already complete lack on knowledge of socialism in itself. Here are a few pointers though; socialism is international in its very nature, it cannot survive otherwise, this has already been shown/ because it is international socialism breaks down even the concept of countries and as such makes the term a ‘socialist country’ an oxymoron.
B) Socialisms entire purpose is socializing wealth into the hands of the workers thus putting wealth into greater hands so to say.
C) About half of that really doesn't piece together to form a cohesive arguement.


Oh boy there is a lot here, fortunately for me it’s easy to respond. All that can be said is that you lack distinction between actual socialism, which has yet to be seen on this planet, and state capitalist countries such as China and the Soviet Union. Again there is also a complete lack of knowledge of socialism itself and comparisons are instead made to aforementioned state capitalist countries and an embarrassingly poor comparison to fascism which is a capitalistic reactionary movement to the encroachment of class consciousness and probable revolution. Read up please, because right now it all looks good but any facts or substance is completely off.

It all depends upon how you define socialism, does it not? The distinctions I made are clear, normative-substantive. Agreed, there are no substantive socialist countries, however there are nations such as China which are nominally and in a normative sense "socialist."

You are arguing the substantive definition of socialism, which has not happened. I am arguing that the union-guild-trade union is the only way in which wealth has ever formed in a middle class. The "workers," have never "owned everything," because it becomes property of the state, ergo the elitists that run it in these nominally socialist countries.

Hence the thrust of my argument is that "socialism," has never happened, and at the current rate only seems to equal the rate at which typical kleptocracies multiply wealth for the elites. Hence your "workers owning all property," myth is simply an excuse once again for all these capitalists to promote an ideology directing itself into the usual pyramid.

The arguments are already clear above, and it seems useless to debate it until I see some actual "socialism," which in its effect only exists in countries and internationally where a strong middle class makes the centralized elite irrelevant and quaint although still potentially dangerous when deluded. If you ask a mexican gardener in LA what class he thinks himself, I guarantee you he will say "middle class."

I am not sure what you mean by socialism, but in my mind it is purely normative "what should be," and so I agree with your disagreement, but it responds to not exactly what I said.

Depends which way you want to take it... Factor ina ll the other embassy bombings throughout the world and it could go off in another direction.

Spain elected a socialist government and the terrorist attack in madrid happened happened after the election, there is a great site to let you know it's not just attacks against the western world.

Here is a description and the country of where these attacks happened.
www.thereligionofpeace.com...

Change can only happen with active & educated, non-violent groups of socialists. Become one & educate yourself. Don't be fooled by violent revolutionaries and always think for yourself. Martin Luther King Jr stated " I have a dream - that all men are created equal". So goes the constitution of any viable social group.

Ex uno disce omnes "from one person - all people learn"

Definitions -
socialism - the abject denial of reality coupled with the belief in a utopian economic paradise based on the writings of an ill educated dreamer with no practical knowledge of the world.
Socialist - Poor deluded fool who buys into said belief.

mwm,

man, oh man. i haven't posted on this site in a while, but i am sick of people misconstruing the ideas of socialism, and telling socialists, i.e. me, that we fall victim to propoganda, despite purchasing commodities you will never use, and buying into corporate propoganda every day. its dissapointing. We live in a society in which, prescription drugs, DRUGS, are advertised on television, yet we claim to fight a war on drugs. tell me thats not the world falling victim to propoganda. "drugs are bad. If you feel that you have an opinion on the subject, come take this legalized drug, that i am allowed to advertise on TV. Ill take your money and life, so you will no longer have the 'inner conflict'. amd you take this pill, which will make you think normally. Also, take whats left of your money, and instead of buying necessties with it, go and get a tattoo on your arm, that says 112-2343-32413."

first of all, there are many different forms of socialism, you can't assume that all of them are utopian, fool.

also, mwm, what writer are you talking about, more than one person wrote about socialsim: Besant, engels, marx, hegel, Blatchford, Connolly, Harney, Jones, Lindsay, Maurice, O'Brien, Owen, Ruskin.... Was it just one dreamer?

Furthermore, what was that dreamer fantasizing about? He believed in equality for all, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and basic principles of the US, and most civilised countries. So whats wrong with basing an idea on that?

Socialist: Inadvertant antigonist, who has hope for, what seems to be, a lost world. One who looks forward, towards a better, safer, and more efficient planet.

Capitalist: A tool, who's personality, individuality, and knowledge of the world is disreguarded. Nothing matters, so long as the consumer buys the good or the service, and profit is made, no matter the consequences.

The world will, indeed, go on, and not all things will be changed that need to be changed, nor will all problems be solved, nor will all people show their content for a nation, so long as one persons are on the recieving end of a deal made to humanity: the pursuit of happiness, which, on today's standards, comes, is judged and measured only by, the amount of loot in your wallet. Give the greedy money. Let them live their lie. I don't care anymore, this state is hopeless. Selfish indiviuals, who might as well just be numbers and statistics, who don't care about anything but making that dollar, have taken over. Alas, there is no hope for this community, this nation. Don't make false suppositions. I am infering that you don't know what you are talking about.

"Socialism is the flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world."

-Tony Benn

Oh dear, another closed mind, brainwashed tool.
Im not trying to change your beleifs, just open your mind beyond what your fed daily and told to beleive. WE could brand all ideologies like this, with stupid, ignorant, stigmas. Observe:

Facism: Denial of reality also present. Beleif in chosen nation as the master nation and all others are inferior, stupid, and primitive. Nation under such rule is often actually primitive in technology itself, and will usually loose any war entered into. Bad managment of economy and mass opression.
Facist: Fed so much propaganda he beleives it. Deluded and is unwittingly a slave to the system.

Democracy: A false idea of freedom, as no one party will change anything. A very slow decline to poverty and chaos. Often follwed by a Facist system due to their manipulation of deomcracy and changing policies on a daily basis. This is present in most of the right wing, too.
Democrat: Basically a Liberal, full of self righteouness.

See, its easy? Its also stupid.

Socialism, like ANY IDEOLOGY AT ALL, beleive it is right. I see it as rge least evil present in Democracy. I presonally, if pushed to choose any Ideology, would choose Communism, but my personal preference is to get any decent result, you need to forget Ideologies and combine policies to make a decent structure, as they all have pluses.

I swing very far to the left though. We're one race of people, one planet. Lets stop being complete idiots and unite for the greater good, stop exploiting one another. Only as a world, can we truely work.