What is socialism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Senter said:
Nathan, do yourself a really, really big favor and toss your link to that website into your trash folder. The quote you posted is horribly, egregiously wrong! I can tell you right now that the writer of that article is confusing two entirely different uses of the word “communism”. But he is not referring to any notion of a communist society!

I really don’t want to lecture unless invited to do so, so for now just let me say that if you spend 5 minutes reading what Marx said about communism and what it is, or even check with wikipedia(!!), you will find that a future, theoretical communist society will be BY DEFINITION classless and stateless. So if it would be stateless, how can that author of that article say “under communism most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state”???? What “state”??? There would be none!!

Now, if you like I can explain how Marx said communism would develop and that will prove what I just said. It will also prove something quite remarkable that very few people who are not very familiar with Marx’s writings know. In fact it is often met with near-violent rejection and cursing and accusations. And here it is: communist society cannot be imposed by force or edict! And I can prove that, too, to anyone with an understanding of classes and class consciousness.
Click to expand...
By your understanding, has there ever been a communist society?
 

Nemo2 said:
OK...(typing slowly here)....you tell the gullible that they're getting 'A', and you slowly spoon feed them for a little while...then, one morning at 3 a.m. there's a knock on the door....it's Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
Click to expand...
Ok, so you’re relying on made-up stories and the fear they can generate to sway people instead of dealing with facts. Nice.
 
Senter said:
You may not get them. Look, it’s really quite simple. At the time there was a large labor union membership, there was a large and popular communist party, and there was one or more popular socialist party(s). And they were very active and protesting the treatment of workers with 12 and 14 hour days, weekend work, child labor, and very abusive treatment. The police and government had utilized Pinkerton thugs to attack and even kill workers who were on strike.

Along came FDR and he told corporate leaders they had better accept the reforms he offered because if they didn’t, the communist party had other ideas for them.

So FDR established programs and labor laws to alleviate much of the strife and general anger over conditions. He got the communist and socialist parties to “stand down” in return for his socially-beneficial programs. He calmed the waters. He saved capitalism.

If you can’t take someone’s word for it, look into it.
Click to expand...
No, this is what I'd call the historical context. It's about as you said: either FDR's half measures or as Marx postulates, revolutionary overthrow.

He was kinda like an excessive pressure relief valve.


...and yeah, I never take someone's word for it, I always look into myself.
 

Hyperion said:
It's easy. Socialism is a thing that works until you run out of other people's money.
Click to expand...
This is based on a smug quip from the neo-liberal Margaret Thatcher. As with most politicians’ sound bites, this one makes absolutely no sense and has nothing to do with why any nominally socialist regime failed.
 
Nathan said:
...and yet here you are...lecturing me. :rolleyes: You may not like the random link I posted on some technical aspect that you deem important, but I am well versed in political thought, including Marxist thought. Here, take your pick of references and post up the one that suits your fancy:
Google search- socialism vs communism
Click to expand...
LOL!!!! Not a single Marxist among them. All capitalist sources. WTF do you think they’ll say?

And if you think I was lecturing you, I conclude you are just looking for an opportunity to attack, insult and denigrate anything I say on the subject.

BTW, you say you’re well versed in Marxist thought? Then I wonder why you get so much about it wrong. Truth is you’re well versed in what anti-Marxists and capitalist ideologues SAY about Marxist thought. But Marxist thought? Nah! Hell buddy, the most basic thing about communism is that it is to be stateless, while you carried on about “communist state-owned property and economic resources”!!!!
 
Sawfish said:
By your understanding, has there ever been a communist society?
Click to expand...
To give you a completely correct answer you have to tell me whether you mean a society that is ruled by a “communist party” which some then ignorantly call a “communist society” when it isn't, or are you referring to a society that has been through a long period of socialism in which citizens became accustomed to a cooperative lifestyle and the capitalist class has therefore “withered away” as Marx put it, leading to the state “withering away” to end in a stateless communist society.

Obviously the latter has not happened. That may take a couple of centuries of socialism to develop it.
 
Senter said:
Ok, so you’re relying on made-up stories and the fear they can generate to sway people instead of dealing with facts. Nice.
Click to expand...
Facts...OK...when I was a kid, pre teen, my father would buy all the Sunday newspapers, we didn't have a TV so I read them. Even at that age I'd recall periodic stories of Soviet factory managers being executed for 'sabotage'. Years later I realized that the 'sabotage' was the inability to function with insufficient or zero supplies, a 'workforce' that didn't, and outrageous demands by those in power.

It was 'impossible' for the nomenklatura to be wrong, so the heads of the unfortunate rolled.

Then there were the depression era Americans who emigrated to the USSR with dreams of utopia: https://www.dazeddigital.com/artsan.../the-forgotten-american-emigrants-to-the-ussr

Those that eventually wanted to leave were told they could go......but...their children born there were Soviet citizens and were not permitted to leave.

And The New York Times 'noted reporter' Walter Duranty lied about it all.

It was all a lie from start to finish.....but to this day the gullible still echo the mantra "But, but, that wasn't true socialism/communism" .

Reminds me of an old joke: Guy goes to a farm, sees a pig with three legs and a wooden leg. Asks the farmer about it...farmer rambles on about what a great pig it is......saved the family from a fire, etc.......visitor keeps asking about the leg. Finally the farmer says "A pig like that, you don't eat him all at once".
 
There are no real socialist or communist countries left. The Soviet Union collapsed, now Russia is sort of an Oligarchy with capitalism. China figured out it didn't work and now are basically just a capitalist country with a totalitarian regime in control. Socialism was always a pipe dream, human nature dictates it will never work and there is no way around that. Capitalism may not be perfect, but it's what we have that will allow some degree of success and prosperity in whatever hybrid form it takes.
 
Senter said:
To give you a completely correct answer you have to tell me whether you mean a society that is ruled by a “communist party” which some then ignorantly call a “communist society” when it isn't, or are you referring to a society that has been through a long period of socialism in which citizens became accustomed to a cooperative lifestyle and the capitalist class has therefore “withered away” as Marx put it, leading to the state “withering away” to end in a stateless communist society.

Obviously the latter has not happened. That may take a couple of centuries of socialism to develop it.
Click to expand...
I could see this working on a very small and intimately connected scale, extended family for sure, but even at the clan level could it work without central leadership?

How might such a system work?

We're getting pretty close to political anarchism (not to be confused with anarchy, for sure). I mean, it's what anarchism is all about. So was Marx postulating a politically anarchistic social entity that followed the precepts of communism, as he defines it?

You'll note that I'm keeping this respectful and civil, and so far, with me, you've done the same. I look forward to continuing this exploration with you, but only under those circumstances.
 
Sawfish said:
Let's hear your version of why they failed.
Click to expand...
“My version”?? Isn’t that just a bit patronizing?

Well, in the case of the USSR, Lenin announced in 1921 in his NEP that Russia may first need a period of capitalism in order to utilize the powerhouse that capitalism is to develop Russia’s productive capacity and technical capability before socialism could succeed. He said if it was done (and he specifically called it “state capitalism”) it would require a second revolution at some time in the future to transition to socialism after the country became advanced enough. And that is what happened. Russia, which their communist party transitioned initially to socialism and expanded into the USSR, later transitioned to state capitalism without much fanfare.

I’m not an expert on Russian history but I’m familiar with this much.

In China Mao warned about “The Gang of Four” and capitalist-roaders who would sabotage Marxism.

https://redphoenixnews.com/2018/04/06/in-china-capitalism-is-being-consolidated-not-socialism/
 
When I went back to school, 50+ years ago, a guy in one of my classes, (Bus Admin), had previously been involved in some kind of manipulation scheme. The suckers, oops clients, were pretty much exclusively recent immigrants to Canada from Eastern Europe.

He leased a 'fancy' car, Cadillac at that time IIRC, and when he picked the 'mark' up to take him to some kind of 'sales pitch meeting' he'd plead fatigue and ask the guy if he wouldn't mind driving.

So here they are, mark is behind the wheel of a vehicle he'd only dreamed about. "Let's have some music" says the conman....presses the tape deck......wow..music from the same country as the mark......whodathunkit?

And on and on and on.......promises, reinforcing dreams that'll never come true.

Ah, but I bet the mark, like Gerry Rafferty, "Got it right next time".

Yeah. Tell 'em what they're desperate to hear.
 
Senter said:
“My version”?? Isn’t that just a bit patronizing?

Well, in the case of the USSR, Lenin announced in 1921 in his NEP that Russia may first need a period of capitalism in order to utilize the powerhouse that capitalism is to develop Russia’s productive capacity and technical capability before socialism could succeed. He said if it was done (and he specifically called it “state capitalism”) it would require a second revolution at some time in the future to transition to socialism after the country became advanced enough. And that is what happened. Russia, which their communist party transitioned initially to socialism and expanded into the USSR, later transitioned to state capitalism without much fanfare.

I’m not an expert on Russian history but I’m familiar with this much.

In China Mao warned about “The Gang of Four” and capitalist-roaders who would sabotage Marxism.

https://redphoenixnews.com/2018/04/06/in-china-capitalism-is-being-consolidated-not-socialism/
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
Senter said:
And if you think I was lecturing you, I conclude you are just looking for an opportunity to attack, insult and denigrate anything I say on the subject.
Click to expand...
If you had anything serious and relevant to say, you really conceal it well. I can see from your statement in quotes above that you are projecting your own feelings on me. I really have nothing at stake in this thread, I know what Socialism and Communism are, and don't really care about other posters opinions that deviate from accepted definitions.

If you think you have some interesting perspective on the definitions of Socialism and Communism I invite you to share them in your next post, rather than attack me and others for...whatever reasons that you have conjured up.
 
Sawfish said:
I could see this working on a very small and intimately connected scale, extended family for sure, but even at the clan level could it work without central leadership?

How might such a system work?

We're getting pretty close to political anarchism (not to be confused with anarchy, for sure). I mean, it's what anarchism is all about. So was Marx postulating a politically anarchistic social entity that followed the precepts of communism, as he defines it?

You'll note that I'm keeping this respectful and civil, and so far, with me, you've done the same. I look forward to continuing this exploration with you, but only under those circumstances.
Click to expand...
When you say you "could see this working on a very small and intimately connected scale” I assume you’re referring to communist society. Not socialism in this case. But do you see my point about the term “communism” being used to indicate both “communist society” and also “communist policies and ideology” in a society that is not a classless, stateless, communist society?

My own take on this question of communist society is that I have my doubts. I’m not sure the transition can be made to a society in which people work together in an advanced technological society without an enforcement mechanism in the state. But what we think is really irrelevant since it will take a couple of centuries of a functioning socialist society, probably, to reach the point where we can see whether the process is happening or not. If it does it will be as close to utopia as we would ever see. If not, we will live in an advanced, “comfortable” socialist society.

What do you think?
 
Nathan said:
If you had anything serious and relevant to say, you really conceal it well. I can see from your statement in quotes above that you are projecting your own feelings on me. I really have nothing at stake in this thread, I know what Socialism and Communism are, and don't really care about other posters opinions that deviate from accepted definitions.

If you think you have some interesting perspective on the definitions of Socialism and Communism I invite you to share them in your next post, rather than attack me and others for...whatever reasons that you have conjured up.
Click to expand...
So you’re one of those who pulls a reversal to put people on the defensive if you can, eh? You are the one who has been attacking. I don’t initiate attacks but I do give back what I get.

Do us both a favor and refrain from replying to each other.
 
Isn’t it interesting how everyone thinks they know all about Marx, socialism, and communism? It actually a good indication of how effective US anti-communist propaganda has been. I’ve been looking into the subject for over 50 years and my sources have been Marxists, mainly, …—not defenders of capitalism. I even had some personal experience with it, but for some all that counts for nothing.
 
Hyperion said:
I've got that one.

Obviously, Kulaks, hoarders, and wreckers.

Or, that wasn't real socialism, it's never been tried yet! ;)
Click to expand...
So you sound like you really know what Marx said, what socialism is, and what communism is.

Can you tell me what Marx called “socialism”? No. Of course you can’t.
 
Basically socialism/communism/totalitarianism is like fishing......you throw chum in the water to pull in the fish/suckers, and then you bait the hook and later eat the catch.

Oh, and in the interim you play semantics.
 
Senter said:
When you say you "could see this working on a very small and intimately connected scale” I assume you’re referring to communist society. Not socialism in this case. But do you see my point about the term “communism” being used to indicate both “communist society” and also “communist policies and ideology” in a society that is not a classless, stateless, communist society?
Click to expand...

Yes. As I wrote it I could see that there was no parallel to "ownership of means of production" at this scale.

I can see that "communism" is used to refer to both the social philosophy AND states like the former USSR and China.

But so far as I know there has never been a classless, stateless, communist society, and hence without any concrete examples we have to talk about non-stateless societies that practice communist precepts, right?

To me, postulating what such a stateless society would be like is a lot like talking about what it would be like to live in 1.5 gravity. We could play around with it, but without even a test bench, it's purely speculative and hence subjective.
Senter said:
My own take on this question of communist society is that I have my doubts. I’m not sure the transition can be made to a society in which people work together in an advanced technological society without an enforcement mechanism in the state.
Click to expand...

Well, earlier I've often thought about under what conditions a socialist society might work and and I always came to the conclusion that knowing what I learned about human nature over 75 years, humanity has too many hard-wired instinctual-level motivations for large-scale, multi-ethnic/racial socialist nations to work, without further evolution in a very resource-rich physical environment.

Does this make sense to you, what I just said? I'll spend more time on it if needed.
Senter said:
But what we think is really irrelevant since it will take a couple of centuries of a functioning socialist society, probably, to reach the point where we can see whether the process is happening or not.
Click to expand...

OK. This is similar to my "further evolution in a resource rich physical environment. I can understand this.

Senter said:
If it does it will be as close to utopia as we would ever see. If not, we will live in an advanced, “comfortable” socialist society.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
It will be either an evolved marginally comfortable socialist/collectivist large scale society, or we'll fragment and devolve into feudal-type societies, small scale.

To me, a lot more would be possible with an evolved population that is much reduced--maybe 50% or more.

I don't expect to see any of this, and this does not displease me.
 
Senter said:
So you sound like you really know what Marx said, what socialism is, and what communism is.

Can you tell me what Marx called “socialism”? No. Of course you can’t.
Click to expand...

Yeah of course. I'm just an uneducated hick who knows nothing. Yet somehow I know that Marx was a total loser who came up with an idea that eventually led to the deaths of tens of millions of people in a quest to make something unworkable work. And yet, there are people who still cannot just let it go and want to believe it will work no matter the mountains of dead bodies proving it will not work, and is a very dangerous idea that only leads to poverty, misery, and death.
 
Senter said:
So you’re one of those who pulls a reversal to put people on the defensive if you can, eh? You are the one who has been attacking. I don’t initiate attacks but I do give back what I get.

Do us both a favor and refrain from replying to each other.
Click to expand...
I see you are trying to suck me in to be a playmate.

Goodbye, go see if someone else will take the bait.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top