Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
All correct, of course, except that socialism encompasses a broad range of ideologies, some of which involve large scale nationalisations - often
intended to be temporary, sometimes not. Marxism is not the be-all and end-all of socialism.
(I apologize for the long rant, it's not all directed at you personally mate. Just one point leads to another lol)
A lot of broad range of ideologies are socialist, big difference. Socialism is one thing, 'worker ownership'. There are many different ideas of how
that should be implemented and controlled. Marxism, Maoism, Leninism, etc., are all political routes to the same goal. Anarchism, in it's many
different flavours, is the revolutionary, direct action, path to the same goal. Free association of producers (workers).
Marxism is not even socialism, as I said, it is a political path to socialism and then to communism. The Marxists wanted to create a revolutionary
government, and nationalize industry, in order to create change from capitalism to socialism. Socialism eventually would take over from nationalism,
and socialism would lead to communism (which is free association essentially). It is why in the UK the Marxists created the Labour Party, in
opposition to the Liberal Party, but of course it failed to be revolutionary. The Marxists believed a worker controlled government would naturally,
over a period of time, socialize the nationalized industries. A lot of industry was nationalized, public transport, coal mines, aircraft and
shipping, steel, and many more, but then all sold off to private entities by the conservatives...
Former nationalised industries of the United
Privatisation of British Rail
Of course the "Labour Party" is no longer a Labour Party, but a more liberal version of the conservative right.
People simply don't understand enough of the details of those ideologies to understand exactly what the terms mean, so terms become very generic and
broad, as in everyone thinking that Marxism is socialism.
But as I said the ultimate goal of all left-wing ideology is 'free association'. If that is not the goal then it is not left-wing, and certainly not
socialist. Nothing but wolves in sheep's clothing. If people understood that, they would understand that anything that calls itself socialist, but
is not working towards worker ownership, and ultimately free association of those workers, then they are wolves in sheep's clothing.
Liberty is not possible without free-association. Anything else is control by an outside authority, state, government, or private entities. There is
so much wealth in so few hands, that they become the ones with ultimate control, and capitalism allows that to happen. Then the way society is
organized is controlled by a few for their own advantage. The working class is just along for the ride, we have no control over the direction society
is moving, or what is happening to our
The only way we can have any control over our lives is if we own the means to produce, and take away the ability for the few to control the many
through economic power. The argument has always been, 'How do we do that, through politics, or through direct action?'.
edit on 5/10/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)