# Socialism



## CuongNhuka (May 30, 2008)

Since the topic in anouther deabte got so far off trac, we're going to "fight it out" here. However, we're going to define certain things:

Socialistic State - One in which most industries (specificly the ones which are vital to the nations health and well being) upto all industry is controlled by the State/Community. However, The governement must have the intention of providing it's citizens with what they need to survive, and in general be what would be called a 'legitmate source of authority'. (this definition is paraphrasing Marx)

Communistic State - A Socialistic State where the government has largely disappeared. Resembles what a Libertarian would want. All industry is controlled by the local community, and all property is held in common with that same community (think Native American tribes Pre-Colonization). (again, paraphrasing Marx)

However, we do have these things called Socialistic Policies, which is simply anytime the government does anything to change, or alter, the economy or private industry.

If you folks want to fight with me so much, have at it.


----------



## Big Don (May 30, 2008)

Once again, for those who weren't bright enough to comprehend it the first thousand times:
In a PERFECT world, full of PERFECT people, communism or its ugly sister socialism would be wonderful. However, we do NOT live in a perfect world and many of those who expouse socialism, are as far from perfect as the rest of us.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 30, 2008)

Communism

Socialism

Both look REALLY good on paper

But when humans are introduced into the equation you end up with two real big problems with both Communism and Socialism. One is of course Greed those on top tend to take as much as they can for themselves and live like kings. And then you get a lack of drive to do anything as well. If everything is provided for you and no matter how hard you work nothing changes then why do anything at all.  

And lastly just to cut down on the confusion

Marxism


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 30, 2008)

Communism never happens top down.  The idea that the government will first become socialist and then dissolve itself is fancy.  Communism only comes about on small scales from a group of people with common society or goal as a sort of accident. 

Socialism, by your definition, applies to every government, based on your definition of 'vital'.  The US has shown


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 30, 2008)

Big Don said:


> However, we do NOT live in a perfect world and many of those who expouse socialism, are as far from perfect as the rest of us.


 
Thank you for ignoring the fact that the U.S. uses many Socialistic policies, and there are several countries that (whether or not they will admit it) are Socialistic. There were (and still are) also many many many societies that were Communistic. You just don't realise that.

Freap, no it doesn't. Vital to a countries health and well being means "without which, the whole country would collapse". Like fuel, banking, and the major providers to our economy (like Walmart).


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 30, 2008)

> Freap, no it doesn't. Vital to a countries health and well being means "without which, the whole country would collapse". Like fuel, banking, and the major providers to our economy (like Walmart).



In the US, the term "provide for the common good" in  the Constitution has been used as an argument to federalize many services that many would argue that the federal government has no business being involved in.  When you socialize 'vital' services....everyone's going to have an opinion on what is vital.  By some definitions, the US is already much more of a socialist state than would've been dreamed of 100 years ago, by other's definitions...not even close. 

But by your definition (minimalist interpretation of "vital") , you sound more Libertarian, or maybe even Conservative, than Socialist


----------



## arnisador (May 30, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Communism
> 
> Socialism
> 
> Both look REALLY good on paper



Yup, there you go. Just as in the martial arts, competition helps sharpen skills. In principle, kata is enough...in practice, you need competition.

Capitalism works for the same reasons Judo does.


----------



## Archangel M (May 30, 2008)

Thats a pretty good analogy there.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 30, 2008)

yeah that was pretty good

socialism doesnt work large scale.

it just doesnt. As much as we might wish it did, it doesnt.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 30, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> socialism doesnt work large scale.



Most of the EU isn't large scale?


----------



## Jai (May 30, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Most of the EU isn't large scale?



Another good point. Like many have said both systems on paper look wonderful, but when you add the human element you put "random" factors in because humans are not processed robots, we each have our own ideas, goals, and morals and they will always conflict with someone else. Therefore neither system could work to the fullest potential laid out in paper form.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 30, 2008)

You cannot study a political / economic system effectively without understanding the cutural makeup of the people over which that system governs.

Socialism works in Europe due to the fact that, for the most part, they have a homogeneous culture.  That was not true in the USSR (collectively, including the satellite states).  It also would not be true in the U.S., which is made up of people of many, many cultures.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 30, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Most of the EU isn't large scale?


 
Well not in Square miles (oh sorry... EU.... Square Kilometers) if you compare it to say Russia and China 



5-0 Kenpo said:


> You cannot study a political / economic system effectively without understanding the cutural makeup of the people over which that system governs.


 
EXACTLY!!!

If you do not know the cultural makeup you cannot really understand WHY or HOW this system of government works in a given area or why a system of Government will not work. I would also add that it is important to know the history that said culture came from as well.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 30, 2008)

actually, NO, the EU isnt large scale.

the countries themselves are SMALL

many have total populations smaller than New York state.


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 30, 2008)

-Waiting for someone to post something which resembles truth-


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 30, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> -Waiting for someone to post something which resembles truth-


 
oooh bad play.

If this is your attitude then I am done, you don't want truth you want agreement with your views and beliefs on the topic and if you do not get this you revert to calling others liars. You left the last thread and started this one likely to avoid truth in the first place since you did not bother to respond to the last few posts in it and started this post. 

If you would bother webfu (research) or buy a reputable book you would see it there is a lot of truth here, but I doubt you will.

Hey you might even try reading the Communist manifesto or if you had try reading it without bias. Also you might want to consider the fact that there has never been a truly Communist nation only Communist political parties.

And last but not least I was 18 once too and I thought I knew everything as well... I only wish I was a smart now as I thought I was then. You really should copy much of what you have posted in these 2 posts and when you are working on 18 for the 3rd time like I am take them out and reread them, you will be surprised. 

I leave you to the other posters who are in some cases more forgiving and in others much less because you have just set this post up for moderator warnings and eventual lock

I'm out.


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 30, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> If you would bother webfu (research) or buy a reputable book you would see it there is a lot of truth here, but I doubt you will.


 
I have. I've spent two years studying Socialism from the web, books, and talking to actual Socialist. That's why I know that I'm probably the only one on this site who has. People here have the fun habbit of posting what they think from assumption and and the brain washing they got in the "Cold War". If they did any real research, they'd be as offended by there posts as I am.


----------



## MBuzzy (May 30, 2008)

It is true that some places have PARTIALLY socialistic cultures in Europe, but there is still private industry.  The problem with a totally socialistic society - one in which everyone gets what they need and the community provides - is that it is either all or nothing.  You can socialize some portions and have it work decently...but if you try to do an entire country, you have to do every other country around you or it fail.  Hence communism.  the people KNEW that there were better ways of life.  Human nature is to want more....and more and more and more.  Shared property just doesn't fit with how people really are.  

It is a great idealistic idea of how things can and maybe SHOULD be....it just can't ever be put into true practice.  Otherwise you end up with things like the "secret state" and USSR.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 30, 2008)

i am out. 

Xue is right


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 31, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> It is a great idealistic idea of how things can and maybe SHOULD be....it just can't ever be put into true practice. Otherwise you end up with things like the "secret state" and USSR.


 
Actually there are alot of cultures that use Marx's idea of a Communistic state. We just don't recoginize them as independent states, or Communists. Name an isolated or semi-isolated culture, an old-school tribe living in the middle of Africa or South America. They live in a Classless, Stateless society were everyone works together (mostly anyways). That was what Marx said would be Communism in the end. To him the progression went like this:

Pure Capitilism (it's evil because brutal men rise to the top, who gain wealth by giving the minimal return for labour). Keep in mind Capitilism means that the Government does NOTHING in any way to interfere with the economy.

Socialism (all, or atleast major, industry is controlled by the state, employes, or community). The one where it's controlled by the employes is actually getting popular. I cann't remember the name, but there is a growing trend in certain companies to allow workers to ELECT there direct managers and executives, which is a step towards worker control of the company.

Communism (eventually governement will simply wither away, and leave a world of classless, stateless societies were everybody works together for the pure fact that it is the right thing to do). However, this will take hundereds of years of Socialistic rule, it will not happen over night, or by force of arms. 'nuff said.

The problem I've had with people on this site saying that Communism is evil because I can tell from what they have said that they have not read Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, or anyone who is themself a Socialist, or subscipes to there views. There can be no "Communist Parties" in reality, just like there can be no "Anarchist Parties". It's an oxymoron. 
The problem is that rulers who claim to be Socialist rarely are. And rulers who claim to be Communist, never are. Stalin started with a society that was well on it's way to be a pure Communistic state, but he kept people from realizing that he had no intention of ruling legitimatly. He tricked them into allowing him to be a dictator. 
I have read Socialist views. I have read the policy and platform of several Socialist Parties, read exerts from Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and so on, I have read the writing of others in the Socialistic currents. One of my favorite teachers is a Socialist, and we would have discussions on the matter 3-4 times a week, for the last two years. I am well versed in what it is to be a Socialist. 
That's why I got angry about all this. I was being told that I know nothing about Socialism because I'm 18, who-ho. I've also spent time researching the subject at hand, this is probably not true of my opposition.

Well, I'm tired... nighty night


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 31, 2008)

sorry, diregard.


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 31, 2008)

sorry, disregard.


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 31, 2008)

sorry, disregard


----------



## Empty Hands (May 31, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> The problem with a totally socialistic society - one in which everyone gets what they need and the community provides - is that it is either all or nothing.



That IS communism.  A socialist country does not completely exclude private industry, or private ownership.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 31, 2008)

I think that people need to remember that the US already is a socialist country.  We have all sorts of social programs already in existence, just not to the extent that many European countries have established.

Right or wrong, _this_ is the truth.

A couple of more points...

1.  If our country truly valued the individual over the needs of the state or society, then there would be no social programs.  Everyone would take care of themselves.  There'd be no police force, firemen, military, teachers, or doctors except for what people on the local level decided to support.  If you don't have the resources for those things, then you don't have those things.

2.  When you privitize social services on the national level, you are not fitting any capitalistic model or valueing individual freedom.  You are actually engaging in another form of socialism called corporatism.  This happens when private industry takes control of the large state functions that are normally associated with large government states.

3.  I think we might all be able to agree that a certain amount of socialism is needed.  The degree is where we differ.


----------



## Archangel M (May 31, 2008)

No. We have social programs. Our society isnt a socialist system. Theres a big difference.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 31, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> No. We have social programs. Our society isnt a socialist system. Theres a big difference.


 
The intent behind social programs is socialism.  The idea that everyone is responsible for everyone is a socialist idea.  

This contrasts with contrasts with individualism in which one is only responsible for themselves.

A good example of this is education.  In our country, k-12 education is free for all citizens.  We pay for this via a progressive tax system where the wealthy pay a greater percentage of the burden.

"To each according to their need, from each according to their means."

What isn't socialist about that?


----------



## CoryKS (May 31, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> I have read Socialist views. I have read the policy and platform of several Socialist Parties, read exerts from Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and so on, I have read the writing of others in the Socialistic currents. One of my favorite teachers is a Socialist, and we would have discussions on the matter 3-4 times a week, for the last two years. I am well versed in what it is to be a Socialist.


 
You have read theories of socialism.  You have read the writings of men who didn't have to live with the repercussions of their ideas.  Marx never lived in a socialist country.  Lenin and Trotsky?  Well, it's good to be the king (except for Trotsky;  tough break there).  Your favorite teacher is a "Socialist" who lives in a capitalist country and, like you, knows of it only what he has read.  

I have friends who lived in Russia when it was the USSR.  I know a Cuban family who built a boat to get to Florida.  I have a Vietnamese coworker who can tell you all about his two weeks floating on the sea in a boat filled with dead and dying people waiting for someone to pick them up.  The most telling thing about your socialist utopia is that nobody has tried to build a boat out of a pickup truck to get _in_.  

Read Heaven and Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.  Muravchik was a third-generation Socialist whose grandparents were members of the Russian Socialist Revolutionaries before emigrating to the USA.  He was a member of the Socialist Party and headed its youth wing.  He has studied every attempt to make socialism work - in Europe, in the kibbutzim of Israel, in 19th century US communes.  The best part was reading the letters between Robert Owen and his leaders complaining about the failures of their socialist experiment and realizing that it sounded just like this Onion article.

Finally, I want to point out again that you are about to enter what is probably the closest thing to working socialism you'll ever see.  Assuming you went "open contract", you will be tested on a range of abilities and assigned a job based on your aptitudes.  You will be paid the same rate as every other service member at your rank regardless of job; an E-3 infantryman makes exactly the same amount as an E-3 programmer.  You will receive three meals a day and a place to live (which you will be required to clean and submit for inspection each week).  You will do your assigned job, plus any other job that they require.  Your medical and dental needs will be met by the good Navy folks at the base clinic.  You will receive your orders from a superior, who will in turn receive orders from his superior, on up to a central point.  You will do what your told, and you won't have the opportunity to discuss it.  As I've said before, many people thrive in this setting.  Others chafe at having their lives controlled to that degree.  Most can ride it out for the 4-8 years they have signed up for.  But remember this:  if, at any time during your tour, you find yourself counting down the days until your EAS (end of active service) so you can get OUT of here, ask yourself how you'd feel if there was no EAS.  _That_ is what you socialists are proposing.


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 31, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> You have read theories of socialism. You have read the writings of men who didn't have to live with the repercussions of their ideas. Marx never lived in a socialist country. Lenin and Trotsky? Well, it's good to be the king (except for Trotsky; tough break there). Your favorite teacher is a "Socialist" who lives in a capitalist country and, like you, knows of it only what he has read.


 
OK, I'm sick of trying to explain this part to people. I will say this ONE LAST time. USSR, Cuba, and Vietnam are NOT Socialistic or Communistic. They are fascists. They are dictators, they are *NOT* in anyway Socialists, and are *NOT* in anyway shape or form Communistic. Everything you have heard to the contrary is because of the brain washing you got during the "Cold War". 

However, Swizterland is a Socialistic country and are one of the wealthiest countries on the planet.


----------



## Archangel M (May 31, 2008)

Im getting sick of a few things too.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 31, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> I have. I've spent two years studying Socialism from the web, books, and talking to actual Socialist. That's why I know that I'm probably the only one on this site who has. People here have the fun habbit of posting what they think from assumption and and the brain washing they got in the "Cold War". If they did any real research, they'd be as offended by there posts as I am.


 
I was not going to post again here and after this I will not but this deserves a response

First you make an awful lot of assumptions for one so young and inexperienced

2 whole years study, talked to an actual socialist... I am wholly unimpressed and any offense was from your calling those that did not agree with you a liar and not attempting to refute anything posted. I have taken no offense to any of your posts on the topic.

Now sonny for your information my wife spent over 30 years living in a communist nation, I have a lot of relatives that still live there and I have actually been there myself. I have had multiple professors, from my college days, that were from both socialist and communist nations (they were actually born and raised there, not born in the US and became socialists or communists because it was cool and a great way to impress chicks), I even had one that lived in Germany before, during and after WW II, you want an eye opening conversation talk to someone that lived through that.. in Berlin. I have had, and have, friends coworkers from both socialist and communist nations and here&#8217;s a bit of info I have actually talked to all of them and I even talked to them about their governments.

You have a lot to learn

This is my last post here.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 31, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> USSR, Cuba, and Vietnam are NOT Socialistic or Communistic. They are *fascists*. They are dictators, they are *NOT* in anyway Socialists, and are *NOT* in anyway shape or form Communistic.


 
Fascism can be more properly called Corporatism.  Calling historical communisit powers fascist is not neccessarily true.  



> Historically, *corporatism* or *corporativism* (Italian: _corporativismo_) refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and professional groups. These civic assemblies are known as _corporations_ (not necessarily the business model known as a 'corporation', though such businesses are not excluded from the definition either). Corporations are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over the social and economic life of their respective areas. Thus, for example, a steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common policy on prices and wages. When the political and economic power of a country rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place.
> 
> The word "corporatism" is derived from the Latin word for body, _corpus_. This meaning was not connected with the specific notion of a business corporation, but rather a general reference to anything collected as a body. Its usage reflects medieval European concepts of a whole society in which the various components - e.g., guilds, universities, monasteries, the various estates, etc. - each play a part in the life of the society, just as the various parts of the body serve specific roles in the life of a body. According to various theorists, corporatism was an attempt to create a modern version of feudalism by merging the "corporate" interests with those of the state.[_citation needed_]
> 
> ...


 
The banner that all of this more properly falls under is collectivism.



> *Collectivism* is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals.[1] The philosophical underpinnings of collectivism are for some related to holism or organicism - the view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Specifically, a society as a whole can be seen as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society. [2] Collectivism is widely seen as being diametrically opposed to individualism. Notably these views are almost always combined in systems.


----------



## Mr G (May 31, 2008)

These -ism debates always seem to focus on the extremes.  All capitalism vs all socialism.  neither is wrong.  neither is right.  

For example:  I don't want a capitalist running the police force.  (We only defend the highest bidder.)  I don't want a socialist police car. (We produce want you need, and we decide what you need) 

The world needs a balance. Think yin-and-yang.  And the culture help sort out the balance.


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> I was not going to post again here and after this I will not but this deserves a response
> 
> First you make an awful lot of assumptions for one *so young and inexperienced*
> 
> ...


 
Ah to be young and passionate about politics again! it's what the young do though isn't, before real life sets in and we become cynical and tired by trying to earn a living. It's why students are the ones who demonstrate and try to change the world. 
What they believe may be idealistic but thank goodness for wanting to change the world!


----------



## Twin Fist (May 31, 2008)

tying to change the world, when you dont know enough to make a sound decision has the potential to be a very, very bad thing. that's why most people ignore them when the kids start trying to talk out thier butts........


----------



## Marginal (May 31, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Once again, for those who weren't bright enough to comprehend it the first thousand times:
> In a PERFECT world, full of PERFECT people, communism or its ugly sister socialism would be wonderful. However, we do NOT live in a perfect world and many of those who expouse socialism, are as far from perfect as the rest of us.


Human nature is constant regardless of the economic system.


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> tying to change the world, when you dont know enough to make a sound decision has the potential to be a very, very bad thing. that's why most people ignore them when the kids start trying to talk out thier butts........


 
Mmm at least the young have an excuse.......


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 31, 2008)

How's that go again about youth is wasted on the young?


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> How's that go again about youth is wasted on the young?


 

LOL I thought the saying was 'you are only as old as the person you feel'.

Young people should be idealistic and not old fogies in a young skin. 
We should also bear in mind that while the 'oldies' make the decisions it's the young that are dying and being maimed as a result of them. You don't have the old soldiers out there fighting the battles and as the OP is going to be putting his life on the line for his country (and the oldies) I think he deserves more respect for his views even if you don't agree with them. After all isn't it freedom, free speech and democracy he'll be fighting for?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 31, 2008)

oh Tez, again with the sly insults. typical of you


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 31, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> LOL I thought the saying was 'you are only as old as the person you feel'.
> 
> Young people should be idealistic and not old fogies in a young skin.
> We should also bear in mind that while the 'oldies' make the decisions it's the young that are dying and being maimed as a result of them. You don't have the old soldiers out there fighting the battles and as the OP is going to be putting his life on the line for his country (and the oldies) I think he deserves more respect for his views even if you don't agree with them. After all isn't it freedom, free speech and democracy he'll be fighting for?


 

I don't think it's necessarily disrespect that's intended, it's just the knee jerk of "I was there and thought similarly, and that's what makes me say this now" type of thing and that has a certain....well....CERTAINness about it that can be taken as down-talk by someone who doesn't see it.


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> oh Tez, again with the sly insults. typical of you


 
Moi?
Insults are in the eye of the reader my dear.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 31, 2008)

It's hard to know what to say on that last little exchange.  After all, we, as a board are committed to reducing the amount of uselessly combative 'speach' that can go on.

The big "But" tho' is to also consider triggers that cause such events.  

When I find myself targeted for such things my automatic reaction is to review the 'history' and see if I did anything to bring it about.  Sometimes the answer is "Yes", sometimes it is "No".

In the "No" cases, the best thing, assuming a member doesn't want to go 'official' about it, is to talk via PM and find out the 'why' of things.  Spilling it into threads is not the best way.

Extreme views, regularly posted, wear on the resilience of people who do not agree with them.  So if a person espouses such views, then said poster might expect a little 'payback' every now and again.

A thick skin may help deflect some of that and it's not good for that to happen but it is human nature ... and I'm as guilty of it as anyone else (tho' I try my best to keep my fingers quiet when I get *really* wound up).

The most beneficial solution is for posters to recognise that what they're about to post is inflammatory and, if it serves no purpose other than to advertise their ideology one-more-time, then it need not be posted.

Then again, I *am* somewhat stereotypically English ...


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

The comment about the young having an excuse was merely a comment, it was neither an insult nor an snipe at anyone, it was just a comment. A light hearted one at that.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 31, 2008)

:tup:  Good to know, Irene.  It goes to show what I rambled on about earlier i.e. the Net is a terrible place to air views and try to banter.

EDIT: Unless you're on the same 'wavelength' as your protagonist of course.


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> :tup: Good to know, Irene. It goes to show what I rambled on about earlier i.e. the Net is a terrible place to air views and try to banter.
> 
> EDIT: Unless you're on the same 'wavelength' as your protagonist of course.


 
Well it was getting a tad heavy so I thought one of those nice English throwaway comments we make over our tea and scones would be nice, you know the sort with the arched eyebrow and the slight sniff just before one says "more tea vicar?"


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 31, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Fascism can be more properly called Corporatism. Calling historical communisit powers fascist is not neccessarily true.


 
OK, I'll give you this. But it still not Socialism/Communism.

"Democracy is the Road to Socialism" - Karl Marx

"Democracy is as vital to Communism as blood is to the human body" - Lenin.

One would need to make those corporations elected for it to be truelly a Socialistic system.

Last time I'm saying this, There are no Communistic States. 
"There cannot be a Communist State or Country. Why you may ask? Because Anarchy is the Lesbian Half-Sister of Communism. To say that the USSR was a Communistic country is to say that there can be an Arachicial country. It's an Oxymoron. But then, why do we call these States Communistic? Because they claim to be, and that automatically makes it true, even if what they are is the exact opposite of what they claim to be. For instance, I'm the Pope. That makes it true using the same logic." - My Socialist teacher.


----------



## Tez3 (May 31, 2008)

Did I mention the tea had a hefty swig of gin in it?

I have a suspicion the tea parties over and we really all should be saying our goodbyes on this thread lol!

:uhoh:    :uhyeah:


----------



## Twin Fist (May 31, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Moi?
> Insults are in the eye of the reader my dear.



whatever, i have seen you do the same thing, more times than i care to remember

I do give you credit tho, you are so very good at skating the line with the rules around here.


----------



## CuongNhuka (May 31, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Did I mention the tea had a hefty swig of gin in it?
> 
> I have a suspicion the tea parties over and we really all should be saying our goodbyes on this thread lol!
> 
> :uhoh: :uhyeah:


 
So, Tez, I'm curious... what party are you affiliated with?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 31, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> OK, I'll give you this. But it still not Socialism/Communism.
> 
> "Democracy is the Road to Socialism" - Karl Marx
> 
> ...


 
I think you, and your teacher, are misunderstanding one thing.  You can have a communistic oligarchy or dictatorship.  The overriding question is whether the oligarchs or dictators remains true to the communistic philosophy.  

Do not confuse the bureacracy of the government with the philosophy.  Here is what I mean based on your perspective:



> Actually there are alot of cultures that use Marx's idea of a Communistic state. We just don't recoginize them as independent states, or Communists. Name an isolated or semi-isolated culture, an old-school tribe living in the middle of Africa or South America. They live in a Classless, Stateless society were everyone works together (mostly anyways).


 
These groups still have a government.  Just, as you say, not one htat we recognize.  Whether they have an elder or tribal counsel, there is still a heirarcal structure, or government.


----------



## Big Don (May 31, 2008)

Marginal said:


> Human nature is constant regardless of the economic system.


Yes, but, human nature being what it is, economic systems, that depend on universal altruism, like communism and socialism are doomed before they begin.


----------



## Big Don (May 31, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Did I mention the tea had a hefty swig of gin in it?
> 
> 
> 
> :uhoh:    :uhyeah:


Uh, really? that seems like a bad combination...


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 1, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> So, Tez, I'm curious... what party are you affiliated with?


 
None, we tend not to join parties here. I'm liberal with a small l as in the old tradition of thinking people should be free to do and say what they wish with the proviso it doesn't harm or hurt anyone else. Liberals were around long before communism or socialism were even dreamed of. As I said earlier Winston Churchill was a Liberal and held several high positions in the Liberal Government. He changed parties and became a Tory but the two parties aren't that far apart in beliefs. The Labour Party over here is the Socialist party not the Liberals.


----------



## Mr G (Jun 1, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Did I mention the tea had a hefty swig of gin in it?
> 
> I have a suspicion the tea parties over and we really all should be saying our goodbyes on this thread lol!
> 
> :uhoh:    :uhyeah:



_Goodbye_
(Anyone free for a drink?)


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 1, 2008)

never seen the appeal of gin.........or socialism


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 1, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> never seen the appeal of gin.........or socialism


 
Depends what gin you have and what you have as a mixer, it can be very pleasant as an aperitif.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 1, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I think you, and your teacher, are misunderstanding one thing. You can have a communistic oligarchy or dictatorship. The overriding question is whether the oligarchs or dictators remains true to the communistic philosophy.
> 
> Do not confuse the bureacracy of the government with the philosophy. Here is what I mean based on your perspective:
> 
> ...


 
A true Communistic Government (if one were to exist) would be ligitmate, meaning not a dictatorial. Again, "Democracy is as essential to Communism as blood is to the Body." Those tribal governements may or may not be in some form Democractic. However, because the rulers are close to the ruled (like neighbors), they are still very much answerable to the people. That makes them (atleast somewhat) Democratic, whereas a Dictatorship is in no way Democratic, because they are not answerable to the people.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 1, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Yes, but, human nature being what it is, economic systems, that depend on universal altruism, like communism and socialism are doomed before they begin.


They all do. 

With Communism, you have power too tightly consolidated in the state, and you have people in factories that don't care if they make a single widget cause they get the same allocation of gruel as the next guy etc, but stuff like trusting in businesses to self govern properly, not pollute 'cause it's cheaper, and so on out of the fear that people won't buy their products anymore is equally nuts.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 1, 2008)

Which is why a Mixed Economy is best, like we used to have here before we eviscerated industry and privatised everything that should run for the public good.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 1, 2008)

This thread has been an interesting read so far and I thought I would like to add to it.



CuongNhuka said:


> Last time I'm saying this, There are no Communistic States.
> "There cannot be a Communist State or Country. Why you may ask? Because Anarchy is the Lesbian Half-Sister of Communism. To say that the USSR was a Communistic country is to say that there can be an Arachicial country. It's an Oxymoron. But then, why do we call these States Communistic? Because they claim to be, and that automatically makes it true, even if what they are is the exact opposite of what they claim to be. For instance, I'm the Pope. That makes it true using the same logic." - My Socialist teacher.


 
I have to disagree with your teacher on one point.  A state is not defined by its form of government.  It is an entity which has within it a form of government and a political system (which is a different thing).  A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area.  It doesn't matter what the people living in the state call their government system or how it functions, as long as that group of people are recognised as having sovereign rights to a piece of ground they have a state.

So, yes, you can have a social state or a communist state, or a republic, or a strawberry daiquiri state if you want to.

I agree that you cannot have an anarchic state, because anarchy is not a political association.


We have not, and will not, see a real communist state because it is a pipe dream.  Even Marx knew this when he wrote Das Capital.  He put forward communism as an ideal, an intellectual exercise, if you will (I think Engels got a little confused and thought it could work, but his economics are pretty iffy).  In almost every case that a state has claimed to have a communist government they have had a totalitarian regime.

Here, in Australia, we have a high level of socialist elements in our government, but it is most definitely not a socialist state.  Our government is a parliamentary democracy and we are technically a commonwealth.  


It is interesting how the descriptions of government systems has changed.  Our parliamentary system, the US's republic are really just oligarchies - a small group ruling on behalf of the majority.  Why?  Because real, full blown, democracy can't work either.  Imagine a country the size of the US trying to function with every decision having to go to every person eligible to vote.  It would be pandemonium.  Hence, the republic, or our parliament.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 1, 2008)

Marginal said:


> They all do.
> 
> With Communism, you have power too tightly consolidated in the state,


 
I'm going to ignore that (once again) there is likely to be no state in Communism, but anyways. State ownership is one of three options under Socialism/Communism. The other two are:
Employee ownership (you would elect your manager, he/she elects his/her manager, so on -OR- you use a confederation system instead of managers; either way, employee's have MUCH more authority, and would be a position for more individual profits)
Community ownership (mostly with small and/or nieghborhood things, like stores, movie theatures, so on)

Many Socialists want big huge companies that we would collapse without (like fuel) to be run by the state to get rid of prophet motive. Here's why that is good:
The oil industry is slowly raising prices per-gallon, and saying that this is because of increases in crude. While this could very easily be true, those same industries are making huge amounts of money. Infact, last year one Oil company make more profits (after expenses) then any other company in the U.S. Many other fuel companies are making record profits. Imagine what would happen to those prices if the people who ran those companies made no profit. However, those advocates (largely) want to nationalize the biggest company, and let it compete with private companies. It is misconcpetion that all socialists want to nationalize every buiness in the country.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 1, 2008)

Steel Tiger said:


> This thread has been an interesting read so far and I thought I would like to add to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Marx's Communism is basicly the same thing as Anarchy. "A Classless, Stateless Society" is the stated goal of Communism. Stateless-ness is the same thing (basicly) as governmentless-ness. Thus "Anarchy is the Lesbian Half-Sister of Communism". So, (once again) claiming to be a Communistic State/Country/Government is basicly the same as saying you have an Anarchial Government. Infact, Communism (like Anarchy) is meant to be Global. You know, take place everywhere. So, again, you cann't really have a Communistic Governement, unless it's global.

Once again, "Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen" - Leon Trotsky (I checked my source and realised I misquoted, but same thing). Saying that you cannot have Democracy and Socialism together, because Democracy requires a free market is called the "Package Deal Fallacy". Which is assuming that because Democracy is _often_ linked with a free market, that they must _always_ be linked.


----------



## Ray (Jun 1, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Saying that you cannot have Democracy and Socialism together, because Democracy requires a free market is called the "Package Deal Fallacy".


You're right.  People seem to often make the apples to oranges of "types of gov't" to "types of economic systems" comparison of "democracy" vrs "socialism."  should be "capitalism" vs "socialism."


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 1, 2008)

Ray said:


> You're right. People seem to often make the apples to oranges of "types of gov't" to "types of economic systems" comparison of "democracy" vrs "socialism." should be "capitalism" vs "socialism."


 
So Ray, what's your stand on all this?


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 2, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Marx's Communism is basicly the same thing as Anarchy. "A Classless, Stateless Society" is the stated goal of Communism. Stateless-ness is the same thing (basicly) as governmentless-ness. Thus "Anarchy is the Lesbian Half-Sister of Communism". So, (once again) claiming to be a Communistic State/Country/Government is basicly the same as saying you have an Anarchial Government. Infact, Communism (like Anarchy) is meant to be Global. You know, take place everywhere. So, again, you cann't really have a Communistic Governement, unless it's global.


 
Marx postulated three phases of social development - capitalism, which was all around him; socialism, a situation in which there are still some classes but where society has generally moved away from them; and lastly communism, a social situation with no classes and no states.  He further postulated that his ideal of communism would be global because it would simply be the best system to live under and people everywhere would rise up and change their situation.  Marx's position was not so much one of "smash the state" as it was the state will inevitably disappear having become redundant.

What is anarchy, on the other hand?  It can be:

The absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.
A theoretical social state in which there is no governing authority, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).
The absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere.
Marx really didn't espouse any of these concepts.  That is probably why his brand of communism is often referred to as utopian communism.  Full blown angry anarchic communism has been around a lot longer than Marx.  It arose out of the chaos and fear of the English Civil War and the French Revolution.  These were people seriously at odds with monarchy.  

They advocated (and still do) the abolition of the state and capitalism in favour of a horizontal network of voluntary associations, workers councils, and/or commons through which everyone would be free to satisfy their needs.  Its not really anarchy either.

The problem that arises when comparing communism to anarchy is that communism requires cooperative action to succeed, anarchy does not.  In fact it demands the exact opposite.  The simple fact is that even the anarchists don't really want anarchy, so the hypothetical communist states are anarchic because they are suggested systems for cooperative living which precludes anarchy.





CuongNhuka said:


> Once again, "Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen" - Leon Trotsky (I checked my source and realised I misquoted, but same thing). Saying that you cannot have Democracy and Socialism together, because Democracy requires a free market is called the "Package Deal Fallacy". Which is assuming that because Democracy is _often_ linked with a free market, that they must _always_ be linked.


 
I agree very much with Trotsky.  Socialism and, by extention, communism require real democracy (as in that beast that used to live in Athens).  These systems require it more that the oligarchic systems we live under do.  

You are right that democracy does not require a market economy.  They have become closely associated because the largest economies are market economies and they exist in countries that describe themselves as democratic.  But free markets are much older than democracy having arisen is some places around the eastern Med well before the current era.  What's more, the afore mentioned Athens did not have a free market.  It, the Athenian state, had monopolies on all sorts of goods, but democracy flourished.

Government systems and economic systems are not one and the same.  Look at China.  It is a totalitarian government which describes itself as communist, but they are moving toward a free market economy.

Now fully-fledged Marxist utopian communism does not need a market economy because it will have supposedly moved well passed those concepts.  The whole world will be living in the same idyllic system according to Marx and thus there will be no place for a market economy just as there will be no place for classes or states.  

In effect Marx was describing Heaven.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 2, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> I'm going to ignore that (once again) there is likely to be no state in Communism, but anyways.



I was mainly thinking of China's system and how it has been moving towards a mixed economy as their communist structure was proving unworkable. That tends to be the case in every country that's adopted communism so far. (Either that, or you end up with people in crushing poverty while the great leader gets yet another terrible haircut etc)



> State ownership is one of three options under Socialism/Communism.


Are the terms socialism and communism interchangeable?


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 2, 2008)

Marginal said:


> Are the terms socialism and communism interchangeable?


 
Well no they're not.  When Marx laid out all this stuff he saw three clear phases of society - first capitalism, then socialism, and finally communism.  Of course, nowadays the terms are conflated into one and are considered to be violently opposed to capitalism.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 2, 2008)

There is a reason why the two concepts are half sisters, not identical twins. And why anarchy is a lesbian.



Steel Tiger said:


> the state will inevitably disappear having become redundant.
> 
> What is anarchy,
> 
> 2. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing authority, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).


 
There it is. They share many principles (no government, people act out of free will, so on), but in Communism, people act for the common good. See what I mean?

Although, I must give you credit, you seem to be the only person who is argueing with me that seems to have really done her homework!

Marginal: China has a differnit kind of economy called Statism/something else I cann't remeber because I'm tired. But it's were the government has complete control of the economy, and is not answerable to the people. The reason why major thinkers in the Rose and Fist Tendency are so pro-Democratic is because Democracy is (by design) answerable to the people. That is the major differnce between Socialism and a Fascism.
Also, no the terms are not interchangeable, but share enough in common that I can often refer to them both at the same time. (kinda like extreme Libertarianism and Anarchy).


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 2, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> There is a reason why the two concepts are half sisters, not identical twins. And why anarchy is a lesbian.
> 
> 
> 
> There it is. They share many principles (no government, people act out of free will, so on), but in Communism, people act for the common good. See what I mean?


 
I don't disagree that the two concepts are related, as you say they share a number of elements, what I disagree with is the statement that a communist state is anarchic one.  To my understanding communism can have a state (as I defined it earlier) whether it be the size of San Marino, the USSR, or the entire planet, while anarchy cannot.  The essential notion of anarchy does not allow for those institutions that would be capable of carrying out the actions that would allow it to be recognised as sovereign over a territory.  Does one person make a state?  Possibly, but it is not a society.

We will not see a proper communist state because the very nature of humanity does not allow for it.  We are essentially selfish beings.  Altruism does not help me pass on my genes.  It is a learned behaviour because we know that helping others can benefit us, even so, we still think in terms of "what's in it for me?"  From a political point of view, anarchy is the ultimate expression of this aspect of ourselves, but it does not form societies, no matter how much the idealists would like it to.


----------



## Ray (Jun 2, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> So Ray, what's your stand on all this?


I have to apologize, I haven't read the posts because it seems a rehash of stuff.  Once you hit 50 you begin to notice that some topics keep coming up.

Capitalism, pure greed and Adam Smith's invisible hand of all working in their self-interest is what keeps the economic world turning.  I'd love a world where truely unfortunate people are taken care of and given something within their abilities--something that helps them to feel needed and appreciated.

Earthly socialism, where the state owns the means of production "sounds" like a great idea.  In practice, it has not shown to be a great economic driver.  Look at China...they are "experimenting" with capitalism and giving their citizens a better life.

I've said it before: it is only when my interest is interest in my neighbor's well-being can a communal ownership of the world and its resource work.  Unfortunately, I believe that it will take place during the millenial reign of the savior; and not before.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 2, 2008)

Steel Tiger said:


> what I disagree with is the statement that a communist state is anarchic one.


 
I didn't say they are the same thing. I said that by calling a country Communistic (which has the goal of being Stateless) is the same as saying there _can be_ an Anarchial Government. Is that something you can agree with?

Ray, I've said this to a couple here (many times each), but State control of industry is one of three options. The others are worker and community. An example of the worker controlled is where you elect your direct manager and/or the company ex.s (the possible managers have to "campaign" for your support). Community ownership would be for like the neighborhood store, schools, so on. 
State ownership has become close to a dirty in the Socialistic Comminity. It is mostly advocated with major industries (like fuel), and many advocate nationalizing one company, and having it compete with the free market (It's really only Market Socialists that still advocate state run companies).


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 3, 2008)

Socialism and the Chinese earthquake.



> The problem is that these buildings were not up to standards, but the more fundamental question is why they were not. It is not merely a matter of obedience. It is a matter of economics. The people who build buildings need to be held liable for the structural integrity of the buildings. But of course a lack of accountability is a famed feature of all governments everywhere, in contrast with private enterprise.
> 
> China has undergone a private-enterprise revolution in the last decade and a half, one that has transformed the country and dramatically raised the living standards of the population. But the system that built the schools that collapsed is as stuck in the past as the system of Chinese communism itself. The government orders schools to be built and they must be built, period.
> 
> What if the resources aren't available? What if the workers lack the skill to accomplish the task? What if the machines that are to build them do not work properly and lack replacement parts? What if resource supply should be allocated differently according to the needs of the people? Under socialism, economics is beside the point. The schools must appear. This is the way the system works.





> But let us not get too far afield from the core point. The remnants of socialist central planning killed the kids. Yes, the government is to blame. The survivors and their families are right about that. But they have another enemy as well. It is the deadly ideology that set out to put government in charge of economic life, which includes building structures to house children for educational purposes. They can add the tragedy of the Xianjian Primary School to the list of deaths caused by socialism.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 3, 2008)

CuongNhuka, you don't seem to want to hear anyone's opinion of socialism but your's. That is a failing due to your age. You'll likely grow out of it.


----------



## Ray (Jun 3, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Ray, I've said this to a couple here (many times each), but State control of industry is one of three options. The others are worker and community. An example of the worker controlled is where you elect your direct manager and/or the company ex.s (the possible managers have to "campaign" for your support). Community ownership would be for like the neighborhood store, schools, so on.
> State ownership has become close to a dirty in the Socialistic Comminity. It is mostly advocated with major industries (like fuel), and many advocate nationalizing one company, and having it compete with the free market (It's really only Market Socialists that still advocate state run companies).


A small commune, a state with the population of wyoming, a megalopolis, a large country...it's still the state owning the means of production.  Governing a state is like boiling a small fish.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 3, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> I didn't say they are the same thing. I said that by calling a country Communistic (which has the goal of being Stateless) is the same as saying there _can be_ an Anarchial Government. Is that something you can agree with?


 
No I cannot agree with that because anarchy, by its very nature, precludes government.  Anarchy is about individual freedoms and lack of responsibilities, it is not about cooperative action.  The so-called Anarchic communists are not really talking about anarchy they are talking about communism.

Nor can one have an anarchist state for the very same reasons.  If I may quote myself for a moment:


> A state is not defined by its form of government. It is an entity which has within it a form of government and a political system (which is a different thing). A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area. It doesn't matter what the people living in the state call their government system or how it functions, as long as that group of people are recognised as having sovereign rights to a piece of ground they have a state.


 
Anarchy does not conforn to this definition because there is nothing one could call a political association.  As soon as such a thing exists it is no longer and anarchy.  It has become something else.  

Anarchy is the ultimate indivualistic ideal just as communism is the ultimate cooperative ideal.  Neither condition can exist because they do not take into account human nature, training, and experience.  They are theoretical constructs dreamed up by philosophers and nothing more.


----------

