Socialist thought

**CoolKidX** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:41 pm

Lol those images are very good.
Nice drawing skill Tyrlop and Zealot.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:19 am

Tyrlop wrote:

and revolution can impossible be a big ship like that. it takes years to build it, it doesnt takes years to make revolution, revolutions is made on few weeks.

Good at missing the point huh? Smile

It's a merely symbolic reply: What's the transition between communism and capitalism? Revolution, not socialism.

_________________

**CoolKidX** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:40 am

Off-topic question, but you two guys did that with paint?

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Kenzu** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:49 pm

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

and revolution can impossible be a big ship like that. it takes years to build it, it doesnt takes years to make revolution, revolutions is made on few weeks.

Good at missing the point huh? Smile

It's a merely symbolic reply: What's the transition between communism and capitalism? Revolution, not socialism.

Revolution isnt enough for communism. There has to be a transition period where socialism is built and once this socialism is flawless it is time to make the next step for communism. That's pretty much how Marx has said it.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:06 pm

Kenzu wrote:

Revolution isnt enough for communism.

Really? On which grounds can you argue this?

Kenzu wrote:

There has to be a transition period where socialism is built and once this socialism is flawless it is time to make the next step for communism.

No. Revolution is the only transitional period. Revolution implies not only taking power but through taking this power the implementation of communism.
Communism is stablished once the bourgeoisie is abolished this happening when the workers take power. The reason for which workers will take power, that is, the reason for which they will start a revolution is because of their understanding of the workings of the capitalist system and why it is necesary to substitute it with communism being as well able to understand what the latter implies.

That said, there will be no revolution, or at least not succesful one, without workers knowing what communism is and having the conviction to stablish it. Vanguards, as the experience in USSR and arguably some other places demonstrated it, doesn't work even if led by geniune socialists for such a movement is too vulnerable towards opportunists and a workers movement that doesn't rely in the working class but in a handful of men is absoultely fragile.

Kenzu wrote:

That's pretty much how Marx has said it.

Would you mind quoting him please and where he said that? Because as far as I know the distinction between socialism and communism comes from Lenin who simply "perfectioned", if it can be said so, Blanque's vanguardism.

Basically, that notion was created as an excuse to implement another ruling elite the period of whose rule would be disguised as "socialism" being "communism" the objective. This is marvelous for opportunists who simply want a revolutionary elite to substitute the bourgeoise.

In theory, geniunely socialistic vanguardists (of which there are many) would employ the power harnessed after or during the revolution to start implementing communism, that is, building a system in which workers would directly own and control the economy without the intervention of a state, wage or the existance of classes. In theory, these ruling socialists would simply use that power to eductae the workers on communism and lay the foundations for that theory to be put to practice. Given all the power harnessed, it wouldn't take long to achieve this goal for it would be quite easy to get workers to understand communism and its implications event after which the state would be dissolved.
That said, and from a vanguardist point of view, the difference between socialism and communism is that there is a state building communism during socialism and communism is the succesful end of that system. And all this depends on a rrighteous and geniunely socialist ruling elite that has to be besides incorruptible. This is not much different from the idea that there should be a king that builds and proclaims socialism in a theory called "social monarchy".
USSR proved this whole theory and practice as flawed to build socialism as much as the Spanish civil war demonstrated that workers' movements need to have autharchic economies and most likely an effective military branch.

Vanguardism has been proven flawed so it doesn't make much sense to take it as a serious, or at least workable, approach towards the construction of socialism therefore its notions on "socialism" and "communism" are irrelevant for the revolutionary movement for other than educational reasons.

_________________

**Tyrlop** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:09 pm

just to make it clear its like a small river, the people are on the capitalist side and want to cross over to the other side. the socialisme and the socialdemocratic stoned can be stepped/jumped on to cross. but if they are missing its harder to cross and you would proberly have to jump really high, if you dont want to get wet.

this is the social democrat - like way to communisme. the bad is that sometimes there can be ping pong between the cappies and social democracties.

we remove social democrat stone. the spring is the revolution since a boat is total unrealistic in such a small river. (in this case we could also remove socialisme and only jump from social democraticy to communisme)

but if we remove socialisme too, there is simply to long to jump even with the "spring" (revolution)

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:52 pm

Tyrlop wrote:

just to make it clear its like a small river, the people are on the capitalist side and want to cross over to the other side. the socialisme and the socialdemocratic stoned can be stepped/jumped on to cross. but if they are missing its harder to cross and you would proberly have to jump really high, if you dont want to get wet.

It's very easy to simply make abstractions through cartoons and avoid arguements Smile

Tyrlop wrote:

this is the social democrat - like way to communisme. the bad is that sometimes there can be ping pong between the cappies and social democracties.

Not a very meaningful statement I must say. "Ping pong between cappies and social democraties"? Are you a proponent of "Bouncing Political Economy" or what?

Social Democracy doesn't stop being capitalism. It's just an alteration in capitalism's regulations in which the state takes a more active role both as a competitor to corporations and their regulator. The condition of exploitation of the proletariat by ruling elites is not eliminated. And illusion of welfare is created in left-wing social democracies by providing some prerrogatives to the workers.

Tyrlop wrote:

we remove social democrat stone. the spring is the revolution since a boat is total unrealistic in such a small river.

Now you check my abstraction in which revolution is a little bridge.

Once again, graphic abstractions don't work like arguements.

The revolution is not a method of propulsion but a process through which the stablishment is completely changed from its very foundations.

This process in the context in which we're speaking is to change the system from capitalism to communism.

It can be social democracy, monarchy, populist dictatorship, social state capitalism or whatever you like, revolution, in the context in which we're speaking, is the act of changing that system into socialism and this is done by eliminating the previous system and substituting it.

Even if it's a communist party rising to power through the pseudo-democratic mechanisms of the bourgeoise electoral systems which will diseminate information on the workings of communism educating thus the workers, dishear the constitution and all institutions and dissolving the state, it will be a revolution.

Socialist revolution is merely the act of substituting capitalism with communism and this implies the elimination of the state, corporations, the legal system, wage systems and market economy all to give birth to a classless economic system in which the workers completely control the economy that is production and distribution in order to suffice societal needs, need which are determined by the workers themselves should be noted.

Tyrlop wrote:

but if we remove socialisme too, there is simply to long to jump even with the "spring" (revolution)

No need to repeat, the reply to this is above.

_________________

**CoolKidX** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:13 pm

Seriously Tyrlop and Zealot those images rule.
Just to make it clear, you two do ti with paint or flash etc.?

Oh and social-democrasy can hardly be called a step since it sometimes more goes to centre then to further left, you can always begin with socialism.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:09 pm

CoolKidX wrote:

Seriously Tyrlop and Zealot those images rule.
Just to make it clear, you two do ti with paint or flash etc.?

Most probably he uses flash. I'm using paint. I simply screenshot his image and alter it to make my point.

CoolKidX wrote:

Oh and social-democrasy can hardly be called a step since it sometimes more goes to centre then to further left, you can always begin with socialism.

Social democracy can't be a step because it's nothing but regulate and often welfare capitalism.

Socialism, from any revolutionary non-vanguardist point of view, is a synonimous to comunism. WWW will disagree but then again as he has said, he prefers to avoid semantics' dicussion. The important thing is to define "socialism" here.

Socialism, and I'm sure even WWW will agree on this one, in a very brief way is a classless, stateless, economic system in which the workers are owners of the means of production and therefore control economy. For Marx, socialism and communism were synonims and he merely employed the latter to disociate his doctrine "scientific socialism" from the "utopian socialists". The term "communism" emerged from the worker's movements of Marx's time and since these notions of communism were quite similar to Marx's notion of Scientific Socialism, he adopted "communism" as an alternative name for his doctrine. Such a diferentiation became rather unnecesary once the utopians faded away and the most serious currents of Marxist thought used socialism and communism interchangeably until the advent of Leninism when Lenin decided to call "socialism" the vanguard's dictatorship and the proponents of "Marxism-Leninism" from which we can derive Stalinists, decided to call themselves "communist", thus being their doctrines defined as "Communist".

"Socialism" has been often misemployed as synonimous to "welfare", "state intervention", "state ownership of the means of production", "high taxation", etc.

For example "National Socialism". There's nothing socialist about national socialism. It was nothing but a Nationalist and Racist welfare state. The misinterpretation comes when the welfare part of this doctrine is called "socialism".

None of those are socialism or "socialist elements".

I'd say that in a nutshell that's the whole semantic problem around "socialism" and "communism".

From the latter part of this semantic problem we get also misunderstandings such as the notion that a system can be half capitalist and half socialist being in this case the misunderstanding that socialism is "state ownership over the means of production and investment of state's resources into social infrastructure and welfare programs" even though the system exists in an entirely capitalist framework in which the state serves like a competing corporation that invests on the people (non-lucratively) and which is the one in charge to set the rules by which private corporations and society should abide.

But that's not socialism. Socialism, and I'm alreday repeating is a classless and stateless system in which the workers completely control the eocnomy in an egalitarian fashion in order to suffice societal needs. Workers determine the needs and determine the ways to suffice said needs. They control the means of production and distribution in a purely democratic fashion to this end. That's socialism and there's no way to reform the actual system into such a thing because the existance of socialism requires the total destruction of the economic and political systems and instiutions nowadays.

The arguement that this is impossible because it has never been tried or worked is nil for two reasons:

1) It's impossible to assert something as unworkable just for not existing or for not being tried. This is similar to someone arguing in 1885 that no machine could fly because it hadn't worked before or stating in 1940 that no machine would even get close to Saturn because it hadn't happen before. Or like asserting you CoolKidX won't have children because you haven't had children before.

2) It has been proven false since socialism has actually worked in several communities most notably in Spain during the Spanish civil war. The main reasons for these communities not to thrive are either a) lack of autharchy (which is impossible to get for small communities and/or geographically very limited ones) and/or b) military intervention by third parties which eventually either hinder the economy enough, or destroy the community.

That's it.

_________________

**Kenzu** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:57 pm

I am sorry to say, but people aren't evolved enough to build such huge bridges.

Right now humanity is only capable of jumping from one island to another.

What you believe in cannot be achieved of its practical impossibility!

I talked about exploitation and governments with Sara and she also says that it is practically impossible for a government to exploit its people. Afterall the money that's left after paying the workers is used for improving the infrastructure, services for the citizens, health care, education and so on. She even went further and said that even if a country spend loads of money on defense and its military it isn't exploiting its people, because the army protects all citizens from invaders.

Something as "state capitalism" cannot be achieved, unless a government forces regular citizens (not criminals!) to work in a labor camp for little or no income and then uses the money on itself and not on people, which is ALSO impossible because a government has no needs. The only one who can exploit others isn't a government but other individuals. Be it some high ranking officials who send people into slavery or exploit them.

What existed in East block wasn't exploitation. There was some corruption and high ranking officials had slightly better life. They had better appartments and better dachas and maybe a driver to their cars, but regular citizens were similiar to them. The people were much more equal, not like now, where the rich earn 1.000.000$ per months while the poorest elderly get only 50$ per month. The rich fly private jets, helicopters, have their own yachts, own dozens of cars and villas around the globe.

Even the chairman of the communist party of the Soviet Union had only one appartment, maybe one house, one or two cars and a dacha. And actually none of these were his, because all of this property was state owned!

You can talk as much as you want, but you will never change the fact that the most equality there ever was, was in socialist countries. They were not perfect, but no country will ever be perfect!

The goal of socialism isn't to make everyone earn the same amount of money, the goal of socialism is to give people equal rights and equal opportunities. Remember it is a GOAL! Just because it hasn't been completely achieved it doesn't mean a country isn't socialist. The country IS socialist and is continuing to build socialism. Socialism isn't something you can have from one day to another. It is about time you will start to understand that. Socialism is the process, Equality is the goal!

_________________
World Republic will prevail!

**Black_Cross** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:38 pm

Quote:

The goal of socialism isn't to make everyone earn the same amount of money

Quote:

Socialism is the process, Equality is the goal!

Don't have the time to respond thoroughly, but i'd just like to point out that this is not equality.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:57 am

Kenzu wrote:

I am sorry to say, but people aren't evolved enough to build such huge bridges.

1. On which grounds can you argue that? (it's not the 1st time I ask this so I hope there's an answer backed up with arguements next time).

2. Adressing the cartoon, it's not larger than 5-6m. There are 30km long bridges.

Kenzu wrote:

Right now humanity is only capable of jumping from one island to another.

So humanity is not evolved to build huge bridges but it is indeed to jump from one Island to another... now that is funny.

Kenzu wrote:

What you believe in cannot be achieved of its practical impossibility!

For the 3rd time, on which grounds?

How is it impossible for workers to control the economy? I mean they design, produce and distribute everything so I have to wonder why is it "practically impossible"?

Kenzu wrote:

I talked about exploitation and governments with Sara and she also says that it is practically impossible for a government to exploit its people.

I guess Sara is the determinator of all axioms and therefore is a maximum authority...

I wonder if you understand the term "exploitation" even after more than one of us has explained it more than once.

Let's analyse your points:

Kenzu wrote:

Afterall the money that's left after paying the workers is used for improving the infrastructure, services for the citizens, health care, education and so on.

Money that is left after paying the workers... after paying the workers for what?

What you mention is welfare provided by workers working for the state or by request of the state which profits from the workers. All those services and products are provided by the workers while the state profits. The state is unnecesary.

Kenzu wrote:

She even went further and said that even if a country spend loads of money on defense and its military it isn't exploiting its people, because the army protects all citizens from invaders.

It doesn't matter where you spend the money at but wether you profit or not. Where does the state take incomes from?

And the army is also used to repress the citizens of the nation that army belongs to, actually, its been used quite often for that task. It's simply there to preserve the interests of the ruling class.

Kenzu wrote:

Something as "state capitalism" cannot be achieved, unless a government forces regular citizens (not criminals!) to work in a labor camp for little or no income and then uses the money on itself and not on people, which is ALSO impossible because a government has no needs.

Once upon a time there was a country called USSR...

Lets see: The state has a capital and all workers work for the state. The state orders articles to be produced and pays workers to produce them. The state sells them to the workers from which the state takes an income.
This income is used to pay the workers again, to pay to soldiers, and of course to pay to bureaucrats. Some products will be sold to the workers, generating some income, other products will be given for free to the workers representing no income (and its production a single-time expenditure) and other products, like weapons, will not only not represent an income but also a constant expenditure and, in the event of war, a total loss in resources. The state manages all that capital at will... nope doesn't seem like a contradictory state capitalism I guess... Rolling Eyes

Also, the government has no needs! Oh dear... so what is a government composed of? Autarchic astral entities? Last time, for example in USSR, I heard there were individuals like Stalin, Khrushyov and Brezhnev. According to well documented evidence they were humans which had the need to eat, drink water, wear clothes, have housing, they travelled abroad, they empoyed electricity and so on... The government was also composed by other people with similar needs... So, unless the government is composed by aethereal autarchic entities as opposed to humans, I don't see how the government can have no needs most of which are sufficed by the workers. And even if they were these entities, why would they excert control over the workers anyway? For amusement? In that case the workers would suffice their need for entertainment.

Kenzu wrote:

The only one who can exploit others isn't a government but other individuals. Be it some high ranking officials who send people into slavery or exploit them.

So you're arguing that a government is not composed by individuals. That or you're arguing that groups of individuals cannot exploit workers in which case most companies wouldn't engage in exploitation. Either way that statement is flawed.

"Either they're slaves or they're getting exploited" hmmm... Redundace is redundant or maybe repetitive or repetition.

What's your arguement to substain that governments can't exploit workers? That they provide them with welfare? Well, in essence they sell that welfare to the workers either directly or indirectly and they profit from the worker's work. It was alreday adressed above. Please come up with an arguement.

Kenzu wrote:

What existed in East block wasn't exploitation. There was some corruption and high ranking officials had slightly better life.

It's not about life standards only. It's somewhat impressive to me that you haven't understood this yet.

The state owned and controlled the means of production, workers worked for the state to get a wage that would help them acquire most of their needs for the state would sell much of this to the workers, both to refill its capital and to profit repeating the cycle. Is it so hard?

Kenzu wrote:

They had better appartments and better dachas and maybe a driver to their cars, but regular citizens were similiar to them.

Well I was thinking you argued the statesmen were actually entities with no needs whatsoever so i didn't expect them to be similar to the people...

Similar in what sense? In that they wore clothes mande by the same people? In which sense? They, the statesmen, controlled the whole economy and had everyone working for them, even whores. How is that "similar" or "equal"?

Kenzu wrote:

The people were much more equal, not like now, where the rich earn 1.000.000$ per months while the poorest elderly get only 50$ per month. The rich fly private jets, helicopters, have their own yachts, own dozens of cars and villas around the globe.

No need for redundance.

Kenzu wrote:

Even the chairman of the communist party of the Soviet Union had only one appartment, maybe one house, one or two cars and a dacha. And actually none of these were his, because all of this property was state owned!

And the state was controlled by?

Kenzu wrote:

You can talk as much as you want, but you will never change the fact that the most equality there ever was, was in socialist countries. They were not perfect, but no country will ever be perfect!

I wouldn't argue against this if there had ever been socialist countries... but there were not. A chunk of Spain was but we know what happened to them.

And perfection is relative.

Kenzu wrote:

The goal of socialism isn't to make everyone earn the same amount of money,

Who said this was socialism's goal? Are you even reading others' replies?

Kenzu wrote:

the goal of socialism is to give people equal rights and equal opportunities.

Equal rights and opportunities for what?

Kenzu wrote:

Remember it is a GOAL! Just because it hasn't been completely achieved it doesn't mean a country isn't socialist. The country IS socialist and is continuing to build socialism.

No, but, and for the 2nd time, if workers don't control the economy in a democratic and egalitarian fashion to suffice their needs, then the country or community isn't socialist.

You haven't even adressed the definition of socialism. I'm quite sure you're not even reading what we write to you, at least not thoroughly.

Kenzu wrote:

Socialism isn't something you can have from one day to another.

On which grounds can you argue this?

For socialism to be achieved workers have to control the economy wich is done by seizing the means of production and distribution which itself is done through revolution.

Kenzu wrote:

It is about time you will start to understand that. Socialism is the process, Equality is the goal!

Uncalled for patronization specially after disregarding 80% of the arguements of your interlocutors.

Define "socialism" and "equality".

_________________

Guest

Kenzu wrote:

I am sorry to say, but people aren't evolved enough to build such huge bridges.

Right now humanity is only capable of jumping from one island to another.

What you believe in cannot be achieved of its practical impossibility!

I talked about exploitation and governments with Sara and she also says that it is practically impossible for a government to exploit its people. Afterall the money that's left after paying the workers is used for improving the infrastructure, services for the citizens, health care, education and so on. She even went further and said that even if a country spend loads of money on defense and its military it isn't exploiting its people, because the army protects all citizens from invaders.

Something as "state capitalism" cannot be achieved, unless a government forces regular citizens (not criminals!) to work in a labor camp for little or no income and then uses the money on itself and not on people, which is ALSO impossible because a government has no needs. The only one who can exploit others isn't a government but other individuals. Be it some high ranking officials who send people into slavery or exploit them.

What existed in East block wasn't exploitation. There was some corruption and high ranking officials had slightly better life. They had better appartments and better dachas and maybe a driver to their cars, but regular citizens were similiar to them. The people were much more equal, not like now, where the rich earn 1.000.000$ per months while the poorest elderly get only 50$ per month. The rich fly private jets, helicopters, have their own yachts, own dozens of cars and villas around the globe.

Even the chairman of the communist party of the Soviet Union had only one appartment, maybe one house, one or two cars and a dacha. And actually none of these were his, because all of this property was state owned!

You can talk as much as you want, but you will never change the fact that the most equality there ever was, was in socialist countries. They were not perfect, but no country will ever be perfect!

The goal of socialism isn't to make everyone earn the same amount of money, the goal of socialism is to give people equal rights and equal opportunities. Remember it is a GOAL! Just because it hasn't been completely achieved it doesn't mean a country isn't socialist. The country IS socialist and is continuing to build socialism. Socialism isn't something you can have from one day to another. It is about time you will start to understand that. Socialism is the process, Equality is the goal!

this is a complete slap in the face to socialism.
im sorry kenzu, i like you but this is just a bastardization of what socialism is.

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:13 am

beatnikzach wrote:

this is a complete slap in the face to socialism.
im sorry kenzu, i like you but this is just a bastardization of what socialism is.

Would you say I accurately elaborate on why it is a bastardization?

_________________

Guest

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

beatnikzach wrote:

this is a complete slap in the face to socialism.
im sorry kenzu, i like you but this is just a bastardization of what socialism is.

Would you say I accurately elaborate on why it is a bastardization?

i would say you and i both elaborate on why this is a bastardization sir Smile

**Kenzu** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:11 pm

beatnikzach wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

beatnikzach wrote:

this is a complete slap in the face to socialism.
im sorry kenzu, i like you but this is just a bastardization of what socialism is.

Would you say I accurately elaborate on why it is a bastardization?

i would say you and i both elaborate on why this is a bastardization sir Smile

1) I'd rather hear what YOU think the goal of socialism is!

2) Please elaborate how you expect that socialism will be achieved (but don't say only "revolution". Please tell me how will the revolution take place, who will be the leader, how will it be made, when do you expect it happening, how will society work, what about present laws?)

3) I'd like to know if you think there can be only 1 type of socialism, or if you understand that socialism will differ from country to country. Socialism as such is a very broad term.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:18 pm

Kenzu wrote:

1) I'd rather hear what YOU think the goal of socialism is!

We stated it more than once. Since you evidently missed it here it goes:

Since socialism is an economic system in which the workers own and directly control the means of production and so the economy organized in a democratic way allowing for workers to determine themselves what the needs are and the means to suffice them, then, the goal of socialism is to stablish a democratic workers' economy eliminating classes and exploitation and of course overwork.

Kenzu wrote:

2) Please elaborate how you expect that socialism will be achieved (but don't say only "revolution". Please tell me how will the revolution take place, who will be the leader, how will it be made, when do you expect it happening, how will society work, what about present laws?)

Revolution is merely a term to refer to the change of system the way in which it will happen is something that cannot be accurately predicted but all of us have different perspectives on how it is to happen.

Who will be the leader? No one. Vanguardism has shown it's flaws being USSR and alike a huge pile of evidence to support this. A succesful revolution will take place once the working class as a whole arises by their understanding of their conditions and the way out of them, that is the udnerstanding of capitalism, of the role of the state, exploitation,, the implications of social stratification and the way out of this which is socialism. People must arise conscious that this system doesn't work and that it is the origin of their actual conditions as exploited individuals and with knowledge that this can be changed and how.

Geniunely socialist vanguardists will argue that an elte conformed by socialists will lead the working class into seizing power through which they'll be able to educate workers so that they can understand all that I listed above and communism can be established. Unfortunately for the vanguardist comrades this would only work if said elite was incorruptible, if people were to follow and if said elite was not prone to opportunism and of course if something like a handful of men was enough to get people to understand what socialism is and why it is convenient.

How will it be made? No one can say for certain since it doesn't depend on a thinker or a handful of them. It depends on all the working class the most important is that workers control the economy by owning directly the means of production in an egalitarian and democratic way. So long as that happens, it is socialism. The way it will be, how efficient it will be etc... that will be variable according to resources, circumstances and the organizational level achieved by society which ought to just improve constantly.

How will society work? Again, it's impossible to exactly predict and we all have different purposals on what we think would be the best way for it to work. The important, once again, is that it will be the workers who determine the working schemes and all of them will be socialist so long as there's no exploitation and the workers control the means of production.

When do I expect it to happen? In all honesty within the next 20-30 years. What do my comrades think? I don't know, but I'm sure we al agree on something: we expect it to be the soonest possible and we all would like to live to see it.

What about present laws? They'll be completely discarded. Constitutions, treaties, agreements, contracts, etc. all over the globe will become nothing more than archived documents for historical records. The nomrs by which society should abide will be determined by the workers.

Kenzu wrote:

3) I'd like to know if you think there can be only 1 type of socialism, or if you understand that socialism will differ from country to country. Socialism as such is a very broad term.

Socialism is not a broad term. We've defined it here more than 10 times. What is broad are its manifestations.

Socialism will be the same in Russia as in Cuba as in Arabia: Workers owning and controlling the means of production so that they can suffice their needs. The variations won't be in socialism but in the ways in which it may manifest and the needs it may suffice which will be determined by geographical and cultural conditions.

And Kenzu, I asked you to define "socialism" and "equality". So far you haven't done so. I ask you to do so at least as a matter of respect since I took my time to answer to your questions even though the answer of many was at least partially given in previous posts.

_________________

Guest

Kenzu wrote:

1) I'd rather hear what YOU think the goal of socialism is!

1. socialism is a system in which the workers directly and democraticly control the means of production, ergo, "i want democracy but i dont want a government" as alek's girlfriend expertly stated. the goal of socialism is communism. it is to be used as a bridge from classed, capitalist, society, to a nonhierarchical society of workers' and friends.

Kenzu wrote:

2) Please elaborate how you expect that socialism will be achieved (but don't say only "revolution". Please tell me how will the revolution take place, who will be the leader, how will it be made, when do you expect it happening, how will society work, what about present laws?)

2. socialism is to be achieved by agitation, class consciousness, mass strike, and eventually revolution (agitation, class consciousness, and mass strike are the factors that will lead to and strength the revolution). the revolution will take place once the working class has witnessed enough of the horrors in which capitalism has instilled. the revolution will be with out a leader, and shall remain with out a leader, we are tired of kleptocracy, and dont want to replace one regime with another. this is time for the workers' to take back what is rightfully theirs. to throw the clog into the gears. it honestly should not take to much longer seeing as capitalism in hole has completly shit on every single country. society will function by a directly elected group of workers to form a council, this council is non-authoratarian for every member of the council may be taken out of power as easily as they were put in. the members of the council will be replaced or re-elected rather simply. the only purpose of this council system, is for the worker's to finally gain an edge on the bourgeoisie, and take complete control of the means of production.

Kenzu wrote:

3) I'd like to know if you think there can be only 1 type of socialism, or if you understand that socialism will differ from country to country. Socialism as such is a very broad term.

there can only be one type of socialism, that in which the worker's have become fed up with having an outside entity (invisible hand-LOL!) having complete control of the means of production. ones the worker's have had enough, they will hault all production, cease to service the bourgeoisie's prostate, and stop farming for other's profit, and fight for control of the means of production. there is an old anarchist saying, we dont want the loaf of bread or the bakery, we wont the whole damn field.
market socialism, and socialism with chinese aspects, thats a load of garbage, anyone who believes in them, reactionary and an idealist. capitalism and socialism are not meant to get along.
there is one form of socialism, that in which the worker's control the means of production, and benefit from their labor. it is all about hard faught, self-acquired goods.
socialism is liberty. and dont you ever forget that.

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Socialist thought Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:21 pm

I guess I'm not alone when saying we're waiting for your replies Kenzu...

_________________

Guest

ya this is taking a while..