The history of Marxism, Political Correctness, and the "Left", page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 01:51 PM by ANOK

reply to post by Remixtup

I don't care about your dictionary definitions. All that explains is what socialism was turned into by the media, not what it traditionally is or what socialists want.

This is from the Socialist party of the US. (not a party I completely agree with but I'm a socialist of the libertarian kind).

from the SPUSA Statement of Principles....
THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies...
...We strive for democratic revolutions - radical and fundamental changes in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations - to abolish the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government...

Abolish the power of the control of the government by the wealthy minority, not increase it.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 01:59 PM by ANOK

reply to post by I_am_Spartacus

Again you are not understanding the concept. You are still believing it measn equal wages for everyone. That is why it seems an impossible system, of course it would be if you were right.

The difference is your pay check would come DIRECTLY from the profits your company makes, instead of the profit made going to a 3rd party 'owner' who then gives you an hourly wage.
As far as pay scale, as I said before that would be up to the workers themselves. If Joe Blogs guitar string company workers all decide they'd be happy with everyone getting an equal share form their collective work then that's what they'll do. If they decide certain workers deserve more pay then they'll do that. But, however the pay is distributed there will be more of it for the worker, who will benefit directly from his labour which will motivate harder work. Work harder for an hourly paid job and you just keep getting that same hourly wage.

Unless you are yourself a company owner right now, how could that be a bad system?

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 02:04 PM by I_am_Spartacus

reply to post by ANOK

Again, your childish insults expose your "intelligence" You can argue definitions all day long, but "real" practiced socialism is as everyone else is trying to tell you. If "true" socialism was bastardized it was because those trying to implement it saw it wasn't going to work like they dreamed thus it needed to be centralized and forced on the people.

However you want to define it, it is still fantasy.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 02:06 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by CRB86
No mention of the state. The workers own the means of production. This is socialism. True socialism. The all-powerful state only appears in bastardisations of the socialist ethic.

Thanks for that mate.

When will people learn that the truth is usually not what they're told?

When will people learn to not trust what they're told by the 'state'?

When will people learn to open their minds and explore alternatives to the exploitative, one party system we live under.

(Yes it's a one party system, that goes by two names.)

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 02:08 PM by Remixtup

reply to post by ANOK

True Socialisms Ideals do not, will not, and can not work in a world based on reality. Humans, having the power of reason, are inherently corrupt. If true socialism took over the reins, how many years would it take for it to become corrupted? And if it did, what would be the way to dispose of it?

True socialism is an Ideal, and I'll grant you a noble one. But since it would be humans putting it into practice, it remains that, an Ideal that will never be achieved.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 02:08 PM by I_am_Spartacus

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by I_am_Spartacus

As far as pay scale, as I said before that would be up to the workers themselves. If Joe Blogs guitar string company workers all decide they'd be happy with everyone getting an equal share form their collective work then that's what they'll do. If they decide certain workers deserve more pay then they'll do that. But, however the pay is distributed there will be more of it for the worker, who will benefit directly from his labour which will motivate harder work. Work harder for an hourly paid job and you just keep getting that same hourly wage.

Unless you are yourself a company owner right now, how could that be a bad system?

I am a company owner (wasting what would normally be precious time arguing with you but thanks to your "socialist" buddies, business sucks right now) and its all still impractical, impossible, and fantasy. If it worked, someone, somewhere would be doing it. Too many chiefs, not enough indians. Hippie hogwash.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 02:14 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus
Again, your childish insults expose your "intelligence" You can argue definitions all day long, but "real" practiced socialism is as everyone else is trying to tell you. If "true" socailism was bastardized it was because those trying to implement it saw it wasn't going to work like they dreamed thus it needed to be forced on the people.

However you want to define it, it is still fantasy.

Huh, what childish insults?

Who are you talking about when you say those trying to implement socialism?

Socialism has been bastardised by your media, your government, your system. Capitalists hate socialism, of course they do, and they will do anything to keep people from exploring it. True socialists still believe in the true concepts of socialism, which of course you wouldn't know about would you? How can you claim what socialists want? Because the media told you? HAHAHAHAHA, there's a childish insult for you, you deserve it.

You guys really need to get a perspective of history from more than just the side the won.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 02:20 PM by ANOK

reply to post by I_am_Spartacus

Ha I knew it! Arguing with you then is a waste of time, you're not arguing from anything but a self preserving angle. You don't want what's good for society, but what's good for you. That is our fundamental difference, and the fundamental difference between America and most of the rest of the world.

What socialist buddies are you talking about? I thought I explained what my concept of socialism is, so how can you even lump me in with the present government, which isn't even socialist of course? This just shows your ignorance of the subject.

I am as against what the present government is doing as much as you are, but obviously for completely different reasons...

BTW, I find it incomprehensible that you blame the present economic situation with the present government and socialism. It has nothing to do with either, you need to look at your capitalist buddies for that one. Since when have socialists been in control of your economy?
Your economy has been declining for years, how is it suddenly the fault of the present government? When things go wrong it's always someone elses fault isn't it?

[edit on 10/14/2009 by ANOK]

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 02:23 PM by I_am_Spartacus

reply to post by ANOK

Look Boss, THE PLANE!! THE PLANE!!

We get your point, but you're missing ours, its undo-able utopian fantasy, pure and simple. Proven by its lack of existence as dreamed of by the dreamy socialist dreamers of rainbowy yesteryear.

Again, I ask you, Are you one of those guys at the Saturday morning farmers markets passing out "The Workers Press" or whatever they call the local marxist oops, "socialist" rag with the red stars all over it?

Ignored

[edit on 14-10-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 02:25 PM by Remixtup

You guys really need to get a perspective of history from more than just the side the won.
Capitalism won because it fosters the spirit of ingenuity.

Socialism was tried in America BEFORE THE TERM WAS COINED!! and was an utter failure.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

mises.org...

[edit on 10/14/2009 by Remixtup]

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 02:30 PM by ANOK

reply to post by I_am_Spartacus

No, you are not listening. You are the one claiming it's utopia. You are the one not listening and just assuming. You are not coming to this with an open mind but conjuring up any one liner excuse you can find to put a negative spin on the subject.

Socialism is not utopia, it's newtopia.

No system is perfect, no one is claiming it is. Well except you guys who seem to think capitalism is the only workable system.

It's not about creating a 'perfect society', just a more fair one.

Now if you can drop the hysteria and exaggerations, maybe we can discus this with a bit more intelligence?

[edit on 10/14/2009 by ANOK]

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 03:55 PM by CRB86

Just because something appears idealised and unattainable doesn't mean it shouldn't still be strived for.

I'd like to see an end to racism. But seeing as human nature is to be prejudiced, should we just say "ah, sod it, racism is natural, let's just forget about it and let people carry on with their lynchings. It's what we do."

I'd like to see world peace. That is an idealistic concept and unlikely to happen in my life-time or even the life-time of our children. Should we not continue to strive for peace, or should we just say "bollocks to it, we're going to fight anyway, carry on with your nuclear programmes. Last one to develop bio weapons is a pussbag."

No, of course not. We should constantly strive to improve our lot. Would true socialism work if put in place tomorrow? Not a chance.

Will it ever? I don't know.
Could it ever? I don't know.

The fact of the matter is, if a true 'Democratic Socialism' could ever be established, it would be a damn site better than what we have now. This is an idealised view. It also happens to be true. So we should strive for it. Strive for a better world. A fairer world.

But the fact is, people are conditioned against socialism. Look at how many times, on this very website, the word 'Socialist/Socialism/Socialised' is used in a pejorative sense. Multiple times a day. Every day. For the last year, at least.

You are reminded that SOCIALISM is bought to you by STALIN, and MAO in association with HITLER (don't get me started on that, either)

You are quietly asked to forget that scandinavian countries top the life-style surveys. That their people are happy and free and their economies robust. That they have co-opted capitalism with socialism and come up with something good. Not great. Not perfect ( for what in this earth is) but good. Workable. A system whereby people are not getting screwed daily. They work shorter hours. They care for the poor and the sick. They eat better diets. They are more satisfied with their lot in life

AH, but Socialism isn't infallible, it can be influenced and used to CONTROL PEOPLE.

Well of course it can. But so can Capitalism. We're seeing that with the mess we're in right now.

Democratic Socialism is our only hope. We are not ready for it yet. Nor will we be in 100 years.

It is a hard idea. It would take a huge amount of intelligence, bravery, heart and nous to put into practise. By definition, it would have to be voluntary because as soon as it is forced upon people, it becomes instantly un-democratic.

But maybe one day, long after i'm gone, my descendents could actually live in a world where they are not oppressed. Where they are in with a fair shot. Where their voice is heard and considered.

This is true socialism, and this, to me, is worth striving for.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 04:35 PM by I_am_Spartacus

reply to post by CRB86

Socialism in any form means less freedom as the "collective" is more important than the individual. Socialism is for control freaks who want to remove all risk from life. Not something I want to strive for.

Wanting socialism has nothing to do with intelligence and is ignorant to make such a comment. Intelligent people make a better life without "socialism".

Charity should never be mandated, no matter how much you bleeding hearts believe so.

The United States is (was) the land of capitalism, freedom, and personal liberties. Take your "democratic" socialism somewhere else and "perfect" your own mediocre society there. Leave this country alone and go live in Sweden if you like it so much!!

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 04:56 PM by CRB86

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus
reply to post by CRB86

Socialism in any form means less freedom as the "collective" is more important than the individual. Socialism is for control freaks who want to remove all risk from life. Not something I want to strive for.

Wanting socialism has nothing to do with intelligence and is ignorant to make such a comment. Intelligent people make a better life without "socialism".

Charity should never be mandated, no matter how much you bleeding hearts believe so.

The United States is (was) the land of capitalism, freedom, and personal liberties. Take your "democratic" socialism somewhere else and "perfect" your own mediocre society there. Leave this country alone and go live in Sweden if you like it so much!!

It is clear you haven't read my post, or if you did, saw that it was someone advocating socialism and immediately brought down the shutters, without willing to think about anything i'd said. After all, thinking about stuff might actually lead to changing your opinion. And i guess that is a risk we can't tolerate.

But anyway, to your points. It is clear that you don't really understand socialism. It is NOT anathema to freedom. Personal rights and liberties, far from being antithetic to true socialism, are ingrained in the very fabric of it.

In a truly socialist society, you would have more freedom than you currently enjoy. That is a fact.

True socialism is far from being a system for "control freaks who want to remove all risk from life". It would appear you have mistaken socialism for health and safety legislation. Not to worry, we all make mistakes.

However, in your screaming polemical rage, you appear to have misunderstood the thrust of my post in which i said socialism is an idealised concept and NOT CURRENTLY WORKABLE, or for that matter workable in the forseable future.

I accept that mankind is too prone to using systems such as socialism and yes, even your beloved capitalism for oppression and depravity. This is immutable.

I aspire to an ideal of Democratic Socialism, like George Orwell.

I accept that implementing this system, without resorting to lying, oppression or coercion is a highly challenging task and one that i am unlikely to see completed in my life time, like George Orwell.

However, i still believe that this is an ideal worth fighting for, like George Orwell.

Also, for your personal information, i do not live in the United States, nor would i want to. Lovely people and great scenery but frankly you're all a bit mad.

I also intend to live in Sweden when it is viable for me to do so.

Thanks!

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 04:58 PM by I_am_Spartacus

reply to post by CRB86

BLAH BLah blah.....NEXT!

[edit on 14-10-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 05:35 PM by Someone336

Those of you who continue to say "socialism will never work!" fail to acknowledge the success of the idea of the worker co-operative, which are

businesses that are owned and democratically governed by their employees. They operate in numerous industries, including childcare, commercial and residential cleaning, food service, healthcare, technology, consumer retail and services, manufacturing, wholesaling and many others. Some 300 worker co-ops throughout the U.S. provide their employees with both jobs and ownership—allowing them to directly benefit from the financial success of the business.

www.ncba.coop...

One such cooperative is Kantega, located in Norway:

Kantega is a Norwegian software corporation founded in 2003 with headquarters in Oslo. Kantega primarily develops bespoke software based on Java and lightweight application frameworks, identity management and digital signature solutions based on PKI and Web Services technology.

en.wikipedia.org...

Or we have Suma:

Suma is the trading name of the Triangle Wholefoods Collective Ltd, a worker co-operative incorporated as an industrial and provident society. It was founded in Leeds in 1975 and is now based in Elland, West Yorkshire.

Its turnover for the year to 30 September 2007 is reported as £23,934,267, ranking it 51st among British co-operatives (see Co-operative review 2009, p. 5

Despite its trading volume, it is notable for being Britain's largest collectively-organised co-operative, in that it still avoids hierarchy and practices equal pay and job rotation despite employing over 100 people. It is also is the largest independent wholefood wholesaler in the United Kingdom.[1] The co-operative specializes in vegetarian, fairly traded, organic, ethical and natural products.

en.wikipedia.org...(co-operative)

What about the John Lewis Partnership?

The John Lewis Partnership is a major United Kingdom worker co-operative retailer which operates John Lewis department stores, Waitrose supermarkets and the direct services company Greenbee. Unusually, it isn't a public limited company but that it is held on trust on behalf of all its employees (called partners) - who have a say in the running of the business and receive an annual profit distribution which is usually a significant addition to their annual salary. The company is the 3rd largest UK private company in the Sunday Times Top Track 100 for 2008. The chain's image is upmarket, and it appeals strongly to a middle class core of shoppers. Recently, however, John Lewis have broadened their marketing strategy towards all types of buyers, with the introduction of the 'Simply' range to John Lewis and the 'Essential' range to Waitrose, and the expansion of the business.

The partnership supplies the Ocado web supermarket, with Waitrose own-brand foods, and John Lewis own-brand non-food items.

en.wikipedia.org...

There is the famous Indian Coffee House:

The Indian Coffee House is a restaurant chain in India, run by a series of worker co-operative societies. It has strong presence across India. [1] There are nearly 400 coffee houses all over India, which are a part of the chain.

There are 13 co-operative societies in the country to run the coffee houses. These societies are governed by managing committees elected from the employees. There is also a federation of the co-operative societies as the national umbrella organisation to lead these societies."[3].

en.wikipedia.org...

Let us not forget what corporate interests have done, and will do, if they go on unchecked:

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Someone336]

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 08:22 PM by The Transhumanist

reply to post by I_am_Spartacus

There is no way (in the real world) to evenly distribute "fairness" unless a central power controls production and distribution. Historically all countries who incorporate the socialist model have HUGE central governments controlling vast segments of production and society and have very often been led by a dictator type individual

Not true. What about the anarcho-syndacalists in Spain in the 1930s.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 09:03 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus
reply to post by CRB86

BLAH BLah blah.....NEXT!

Typical, happy in your ignorance are you?

This is why you are all confused, you refuse to listen to anything that goes against what you have been conditioned to believe.

I bet you think you're open minded and intelligent don't you? An intelligent man does not put blinders on and close their eyes to other forms of thought. How the hell can you make an argument against something you do not understand, and completely refuse to even try to?

You are why the world is in such a mess, and unfortunately you are the majority. And I was called ignorant, your post and attitude is the worst kind of ignorance, ignorance because you choose to be...

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 09:22 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
Not true. What about the anarcho-syndacalists in Spain in the 1930s.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, something you will not see taught in school, thanks for posting the link.

Anarchist/socialist farmers ran their own collectives and improved their own lives and conditions without the state, outside of all former state coercion. They did it completely using collective/cooperative ideals, and this while at the same time fighting the fascists (including Hitler who some want to claim was left wing).

Here's some more history on Spanish Anarchists...
libcom.org...

All these folks need to really educate themselves away from the insular twisted fantasy of a history they are taught.

As I said socialism is of the people, it was created by the people, it will be put into practice by the people. If anything comes along with authority and claims it is socialism it is LYING TO YOU. No matter what you've been conditioned to believe authorities lie, always have, always will. Authority cannot be trusted.

As has been mentioned George Orwell was a socialist, but ask an American he will more likely tell you '1984' is an anti-socialist story.
Try reading 'Homage to Catalonia', all about Spain and the revolution and gasp socialism.

[edit on 10/14/2009 by ANOK]

reply posted on 15-10-2009 @ 12:01 AM by really

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus
reply to post by ANOK

If "true" socialism was bastardized it was because those trying to implement it saw it wasn't going to work like they dreamed thus it needed to be centralized and forced on the people.

However you want to define it, it is still fantasy.
[edit on 14-10-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]

Once again Spartacus, you can use your own statement against capitalism. I've seen it said time and again on this site that the capitalist system we live under is not true capitalism but corporatism. However, it was once true capitalism. So, "if 'true' capitalism was bastardized it was because those trying to implement it saw it wasn't going to work like they dreamed thus it needed to be corporatized and forced on the people."

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^