My brand of Socialism

pressed rat, well put!

 

I created this thread to spark a big debate, mission accomplished. I do believe Socialism CAN work:

Taxes? You don't get it. The worker's are like contractors, the industries "sell" what they make to the state, and in return, they receive their pay + are taken care of by their Proletarian led government. Prisoners /// Troops will fill in the gaps Everything will be centrally planned, EVERYTHING. We will mostly have a closed economy, but we will trade based on the grounds of self-interest. The goal should be to overthrow governments, and to centralize the world, under one grand Proletarian government.

You have to play diplomacy right, you are ALWAYS the libertators, you are ALWAYS the FREE people, and point to the vices of each and every Capitalist nation: You need to demolish religion, teach people that there is only evolution, there is no "creator". That's the problem, in Iraq, they are actually killing eachother in the name of religion, now isn't that pathetic? That's weak. Okay, yes, I am more of Libertarian on social views, but I ENTIRELY disagree with Libertarians economically. I meant to "demolish" religion with knowledge, not literally, people have the fundamental right to believe in what the hell they want.

 

I totally agree with abolishing religion through education. If people would just read their own 'holy' texts, they would stop believing.

 

i would say that it is not an easy subject, this thread. and there is so much anger in the air. little energy put in the discussion, much trouble to make insults and funny remarks.

socialism or communism is easily overlooked in these times when they are like taboos.
and because they are overlooked, they are not considered theoretically. that is why the common mistake is made: socialism is considered about the same as totalitarism and something that is against democracy.
there is many kinds of socialist theory and the kinds that confuse totalitaristic ways with socialism belong to the minority and more and more to the history.
I too think that democracy is at the moment a better concept to discuss, because if you start to talk about socialism or communism, it's the end of discussion before it started. it is usually always the same comment which is supposed to be the solution for everything:
"we have seen it, it didn't work, it will never work, it was not nice, it was hell.."
that is the usual argument against socialism and communism.
and usually the point that is made is: "it didn't work, it has never worked, that's why it is impossible". that is the usual one and not many others are heard. it means actually an attitude that if something has not been before, it cannot be. it means a belief that there can be no progress. that is the attitude also in the arguments of this thread.

socialism and communism have many aspects.
on one aspects they are critic of capitalism. there are problems in the capitalistic structure of society and that creates criticism. that way capitalism gives birth to communism.
on the other hand communism and socialism can mean an opinion about historical process, the growth of capitalism, how it destroyes itself and how it creates communism.
on one hand it is an ideology with a small number of values ( of course there are many kinds, many things are being called communism or socialism ). then there are different schools in the ideology, some pacifist, some not, some democratic, some not.

Whatever the soviet union was(i'm not a fan), the revolution that created it was not essentially communist. What was essential was that before that revolution there was the Russian Empire. The society before was far from democratic, those of noble origin or big wealth had the power, most of the people were supressed, poor, without any political power or possibilities. But then people took the power. They were poorly educated everything was completely new, most of the people didn't know about the ideologies that were talked about, they still lived the middle ages, few could read, the possibility of a successful democracy or communism was low.. but they had to start from somewhere, and the result was what it was.

About democracy: I don't know about almost any democratic countries. surely not in the americas, not in europe. the way it goes in our societies is that the one who has money or the capital, has the power. The situation is not bad in all the places but I wouldn't call them democratic countries in the west. (there are exceptions, some small communities around the world, where people can live quite democratically)

 

I have two words for ya: Democratic Centralism.

 

Crud - You have no absolutely NO concept of individuality as it exists for free and democratic people.
Diogenes - You, at least, have more of a grasp of some of the more general concepts under this thread than some of the others. Democracy is an on-going experiment, requiring corrections and changes as things are learned, about the system and about people. To believe that we should react like a tennis match to the effects that communism/socialism and democracy have against eachother is foolish. It has been the biggest folly to continualy keep going back to the dark side of that debate in order to seek true progressive conditions for our world. You're right, history is the recorder of the repeated failures of communism as a whole and socialism when practiced as the sole form of government. You'll find that some countries (England, Sweden for example) practice a form of social-democractic government and are very good at it. But true and further reaching progress for universal advances in the human condition are made under a pure democracy. It's (not expressly) the folly of youth to keep fanning the flames of this counter-movement towards the lure of communistic ideals and socialistic promises because youth, by their very nature of inexperience, don't understand the consequences. Sad part is that the facts of the disaster of communism and socialism are plastered all over the physical and written world, but it is completely missed by young and ignorant eyes and minds. Thus we are doomed to try and educate some of ya'll. The fascist part is similar but different because,whereas communism and fascism are at odds on the philisophical arena, they are both, nonetheless, stiffling of individuality, personal freedoms and free-market priciples. ONLY in a democracy will you find all three. And those three are what Crud amd Maxi would take away from everyone for the common good! They TOTALLY underestimate the FREE MAN!

 

PS - Have any of you ever wondered why such a large website is dedicated to supporting the drug culture and anti-establishment rhetoric?

 

The reason this thread is getting nowhere is because socialism, communism, democracy, democratic centralism fascism etc. are all systems. Systems are means to ends. They are not ends in themselves. It's useless to dispute MEANS unless it's specified what ENDS one wants to bring about. A statement of ends means a statement of moral principle.

TimeTraveler what is your moral principle? (Hint: The answer is not "democracy". Or you can just say "I don't have any" and I'll accept that.)

crud3... what's your moral principle?

Maximus what's your moral principle?

If you can't say where you want to go no matter what the system nobody's gonna have much interest in going along for the ride. Duh.

 

Have you ever wondered how George W. Bush got to be president?

 

SDS - Don't go looking for 'moral principles' in politics or business. Our Constitution may protect your right to practice your religion, but it doesn't protect a religion's right to exist. Business is based on commodities, market and a barter sysytem(s). Ethics, for its part, will be a part of business, but ethics don't rely on any moral priciple in asmuch as it relys on adherence to mutual acknowledgements. Nothing 'moral' about that..just good beneficial practices! Same with politics. That's why you'll never find the word 'moral' properly utilized when used in any political statement. If this thread is getting nowhere it's because not enough people can back-up what they write, opting instead to think they are making their point with slogans, ideas that don't even pertain to the thread, and a shit-load of misconceptions about being believers of ideals they don't even practice. How can you debate what you don't know????

 

Not even close and no cigar. It's true there's no stated moral principle in many contexts. Whether stated or not however a moral dimension is still present i.e. one will stop at something or nothing or somewhere in between. In business, politics, religion etc. Where one draws the line in practice defines one's moral principle in reality. Whether one has the brains and the balls to state it out loud or not. The silence is deafening.

 

You're confusing morals and ethics. Morals would stop me from screwing your sister because it wouldn't be cool, ethics stops me because she ain't worth it!

 

This would never work.

Wages=prestige

I don't like it, but it's true, and merely stating that it can be any other way does nothing for the issue.

And besides, think of the issues this would cause....

People want to make money, most of the time regardless of the prestige it will give them. And if you tell them, "Don't go to college, here's a entry level job that someone without an education can do and you get paid more than a doctor", would anyone be interested in Medical school?

 

Actually, I had already updated my views on COMMUNISM wayy after I ever created that. I believe that EVERYONE should live in same style complexes, wipe out currency, everyone will do their part in society.

• NATIONALIZATION OF EVERYTHING
• NO MONEY
• You do your part, and if you hoard, you are penalized.

Why not run it similar to a commune? Let's start with a SOCIALIST commune, and let's talk about HOW we can expand the concept to millions. We're all just one giant village. Everyone is their own person in a commune, correct? Doesn't everyone do their part, and then everyone beneits, right? Well, why not model that for a nation?

The SOCIALIST theory is a nation/world without government, correct? Well, we implement DIRECT DEMOCRACY http://ao.com.au/ddf/aki_orr_manifesto.htm We use it to GOVERN ourselves, WE make the decisions! Then we expand .. We start as a commun, and we EXPAND, MORE people join, and they realize a SOCIALIST utopia within a CAPITALIST nation!

What we do is:

1. Comprehend the DD MANIFESTO
2. START a COMMUNE!
3. IMPLEMENT DD
4. We run it side to side with SOCIALISM
5. That is all. The recipe to GREATNESS!

 

That would be awesome if it could work.

And although I am socialist, as little as I like to admit it, I am a realist as well. A commune for the entire country? What would you say to someone like Bill Gates, who has billions of dollars that he actually worked for, whose money would suddenly become irrevelent? And for that matter, what about people who haven't worked for their money? Can you imagine Paris Hilton like that?

I'd love it, but it just won't happen.

 

They will suffer, as every RICH CAPITALIST would! I'm not saying a whole nation, the IDEA should probably start as a COMMUNE, it will show people HOW TO WORK IT!

• Direct Democracy http://ao.com.au/ddf/aki_orr_manifesto.htm
• SOCIALISM
• ONE

We'll make our own laws.

BILL GATES *never* worked for anything - His EMPLOYEES worked for it. PARIS HILTON's PARENTS EMPLOYEES worked for their wealth - The EMPLOYEES aka PROLETARIANS generated that wealth, that is what I'm talking about. While they're making $150 a week, PARIS HILTON's Parents are making MILLIONS a week! And what EXACTLY do they do? SIT on their asses allday and talk with their fellow CORPORATE FUCKHEADS, yeah. The EMPLOYEE is SLAVING his body, it's called SLAVERY, it's VOLUNTARY slavery. err Should we call it VOLUNTEER work? LOL You either slave your body, or you GO HOMELESS!

Furthermore, what is money? It's fucking nothing. It's pieces of paper, it's fancy looking chips of metal, it's DIGITALS on a fucking ATM machine. That is all it is. The US has no gold standard anymore, NOT since 1972, so technically the GOVERNMENT could enrich EVERYONE and it wouldn't KILL the economy! Yes, why? There is nomore gold reserves, the money is backed by NOTHING!

As far as I'm concerned, if the US / WORLD people ever got their hands of PARIS HILTON, or BILL GATES, well, it would be their deaths. None of those FORTUNE 500 fucks would survive, why? Someone would say "hey, it's BILL GATES!" and then proceed to stab him in the throat. Just watch on how many RICH will "come from humble beginningers" [APPARENTLY] once money is no more. People are naturally excited about the celebrities /// rich they see on tv, but when it gets down to it, there is an inner hatred for those same people inside each and every struggling PROLETARIAN. TRUTH. The lives of the RICH actually DEPENDS on this CAPITALISTIC system, their LIVES!

 

The fact of the matter is, the rich control everything.
And until that changes, we're stuck.

The only way it could change and this commune idea could work would be to have an almost unanimous decision among the "common people" to overthrow the government.
Which, no matter how much we all want it, will not happen.

There is POWER in numbers. But we don't have the kind of power or numbers for that.

And by the way, Bill Gates wasn't born with millions. He had to atleast get to a point where he could finacially support his employees, right? That, to me, is working for your money.

 

I have no cure for pessimism Who the HELL cares about what BILL GATES does? LOL I never even brought up the overthrow of the US government, you need to research what a COMMUNE is.

 

I know what a commune is.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but you're talking about Direct Democracy, a form of government, and you can't have two governments existing in 1 country, right?

Maybe you could take the power out of the government by not letting them control you, but again with the power in numbers thing.

Awesome idea if we could get enough people. But I just don't see it. Why don't you buy some land in like Idaho or something and try it out? You gotta start somewhere, I suppose.

I have always wanted to live on a commune....

 

You start it in a commune, not try to take over the US government. The goal is to create a MODEL SOCIALIST village that inspirates the movement, that's the goal. Or how about online? It could work online as well. Online AND offline ... People bring up starting new communes everyday on here, so I brought up a commune with a twist is all. If we grow very large, we could always purchase new land, and it would be awesome. If you can't run a commune successfully, then how do you expect to implement DD in a nation? Tha'ts what I've been trying to say.