Originally posted by SteveR
You are not a socialist or a communist. I'm willing to bet you work for a living and satisfy yourself with material purchases like the rest of
Oh so what am I then? I happen to live on less than a $1000 a month before rent and bills and no I’m not a blind consumer. And you are still
showing your ignorance of what socialism is. I have nothing against material possessions, where do you get the idea I would? Socialism came from the
WORKING CLASS, so what would be wrong with me, or anyone working? The workers just want what’s theirs, what they produce with their labour.
Socialism has never been tried. Socialism is not about emotional hype, or hating anyone. Socialists want you to understand how capitalism works
and why it cannot serve the interests of the working class (everyone who must work, or depend upon social programs, for a living).
When people understand why capitalism cannot work for them, the structure of society needed to solve our problems becomes clear.
A class struggle begins the minute you say the word "socialism." Or, to put it another way, socialism is the idea at the heart of the
ideological struggle between the capitalist class and the working class.
As Communists understand very well there is really no way to challenge the system of capitalism without forcefully advocating its replacement with
socialism. All the critical issues of our day - war and peace, full employment, labor rights, full equality, social justice, the environment - cannot
be resolved under capitalism.
I have no interest in demonising socialism. You are constantly on the defensive about it. I appreciate some socialism. I point out your inaccuracies
in saying that Hitler was not socialist, Russia was never socialist. These are comments far below your intellectual level. You know damn well that
they were socialist.
Oh and you don't get defensive if someone makes claims that are not true about what you believe in? It's kind of frustrating to hear complete
Again Hitler was not a socialist. Hitler was a fascist, modeled after Italian fascism. Again it comes down to what socialism is and that's the
workers democratic ownership of the means of production…
Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires
worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they
in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be
As for Russia…
So often Russia is described at having tried 'socialism.' Russia under Lenin, Stalin and the rest is usually described as socialist or communist
by the media. Yet, as these extracts from our British-based journal, The Socialist Standard, argue, Russia was never socialist…
No wonder “a considerable number of people” had come to the conclusion that China is not socialist. And they are right. China is not a
“socialist country” but a capitalist one. And it never was socialist. What the Chinese “Communist” Party established when they came to
power in 1949 was a state-capitalist regime under their political dictatorship. The workers and peasants continued to be exploited but, from then
on, by a “vanguard” which collectively exercised a monopoly, through its political control, over the state-owned means of production.
It’s just the same old game, exploitation of the working class.
Socialism is enacted by the state. It is government control of the markets. It is a tool of economic management and that is the definition. Any
educated fellow will you tell you so. Anything else is communism, and communism seems to be your socialism.
You’re describing one form of socialism, it’s not the only one.
No I am not a communist, I am a Libertarian Socialist…
It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early
beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling,
or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known
as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the
libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or
less split down the middle.)
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a
definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education
and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives…
The state has nothing to do with Socialism.
No-one mentioned the word 'everything' only you. All countries use socialism in some form or another.
But you were saying socialism is government ownership, I’m only trying to point out that is not true. And what countries use socialism? Again
social services is not socialism, similar word different meaning…A society can’t survive without social services, capitalist or whatever.
That is communism. You are recycling the same old ideas in a new package to avoid the stigma. Libertarian socialism, it is nothing more than
another way of saying communism. I noticed you rarely reference communism. Why is that?
Again I’m not a communist, but I agree it’s similar. But again you are wrong, Libertarian Socialism is another way of saying Anarchism not
communism. Even though communes would be a good way for some people if they chose to organize themselves that way.
Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to
wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while
preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible.
LibSoc is not a new term for communism...
Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. According to anarchist historian Max
Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social in New York between 1858 and 1861 while the
use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it.
think is socialism is nothing but a capitalist dictatorship in sheep clothing.
I don’t expect you’ll read any of this, or the links provided, you’re so conditioned to hate liberty and believe the illusion of freedom
provided by the state
Edited to add...
The fact that State Socialism . . . has overshadowed other forms of Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic idea.
Benjamin Tucker[Instead of a Book, pp. 363-4]
[edit on 29/7/2008 by ANOK]