World Republic

Uniting All People!
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  UsergroupsUsergroups  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Socialist thought

Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
Kenzu
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1842
Join date : 2007-08-17
Age : 31
Location : Austria - Vienna

PostSubject: Socialist thought   Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:33 pm

Here I will be posting my thought about socialism:


Socialist Countries
Currently there is no country I would consider socialist, except probably Cuba. China is a country with a strong capitalist system which has lost most socialist characteristics long time ago. DPRK is a modern monarchy, which is considered by most socialists and communist a "state capitalist state", that's a state which exploits its citizens just like corporations exploit workers in capitalist countries.

USSR and East Block
Socialism was thriving in Soviet Union and East Block. In fact most people had a much better living standard in those countries during the time it was socialist. Once wild capitalism came and state owned enterprises got privatised and ended in the hands of few many became unemployed and the life deteriorated for many. The arrival in capitalism resulted in 17 billionaries at the cost of 70.000.000 people, who fell below the line of poverty In Russia alone. All my family members grew up in socialist countries and all of them say it was better during socialism. People worked little and lived well. Things have changed and life became horrible. Of course it has improved and now, 15 years later the living standard of the socialist era has been finally been surpassed.

Corruption in countries
There will always be corruption in a country, but there is no problem if there is some corruption. The problem is if this corruption gets too much. Socialism which existed wasn't perfect but it was better than the system which followed.

Socialism on the rise
Currently socialism is on the rise again. Especially in Latin American countries (Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile), but also in EU to certain extend. Many countries in Europe are governed by parties of the Socialist Internationale. Each country takes a different approach. Latin America is famous for christian socialism, most socialists there believe in God and say Jesus was the first socialist, while in Europe the most socialists don't believe in God, while only a minority believes in a God.

Economic in theory and in practice
I study economics so it is easy for me to understand why capitalism fails and is so unstable. Socialism on the other hand is a more stable system with a stable growth. The biggest problem of capitalism is market failure, which is underproduction of goods and services needed by a society (education, health care), but overproduction of goods and services damaging to the society (drugs, pornography, human traficing)


There is a saying:
Who is 20 and isn't a communist has no heart
Who is 60 and isn't a communist has no brain

Clearly anyone who thinks it's fair that some people have millions by doing nothing more than just being born into a rich family, while others have to work 60 hours a week to get a starvation wage has no heart.

As the person grows old and reaches the age of 60 and still isn't a communist (or socialist) that person should not wonder if the state will seize to support him/her one day and the person ends up homeless. If you vote for right wing parties, you don't deserve state support anyway. But it would be brainless for someone who will need a pension in the future to support an ideology which is against. Therefore it is clear that a person should become wise enough to support socialism by the time he/she gets old.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://www.patreon.com/SocialistWorldRepublic
WeiWuWei
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 624
Join date : 2008-04-14
Age : 42

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:43 pm

Kenzu wrote:
There is a saying:
Who is 20 and isn't a communist has no heart
Who is 60 and isn't a communist has no brain

I always thought it was:
He who is 20 and isn't a Socialist has no heart,
But he who is 60 and isn't a Capitalist has no brain.

Not that I agree with it, but I always thought that that's how it goes.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/groupcp.forum?g=11
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 30
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:40 am

Threads like this make me hungry *licks chops*

I won't bother with the first section, it's just not worth it.

Kenzu wrote:
Socialism was thriving in Soviet Union

For what, nine months tops? I wouldn't refer to that as thriving.

Quote :
Of course it has improved and now, 15 years later the living standard of the socialist era has been finally been surpassed.

Let's not allow the capitalists any delusions. This is true, but it has little, if anything to do with capitalism. Why? The standard of living is always improving throughout history, due to the natural course of human labor. We work for improvements. 18th century slaves had a better standard of living than 17th century slaves, but this is of course no justification for slavery.

Quote :
There will always be corruption in a country, but there is no problem if there is some corruption.

Really? I disagree on both levels. I don't think there's any real evidence to support your first claim (At the very least you'll need to expand your argument). And corruption is always a problem, no matter what the dosage. Where are you thinking corruption comes from? Surely not our "nature"?

Quote :
The problem is if this corruption gets too much. Socialism which existed wasn't perfect but it was better than the system which followed.

That's no justification for the system that you're calling socialism. That's a mentality that causes us to settle, but we should strive for perfection, even if we believe it's unattainable.

Quote :
I study economics so it is easy for me to understand why capitalism fails and is so unstable.

Anyone who is perceptive of the constant variables of capitalism should understand this. Unfortunately, people don't take the time to study the system the support.

Quote :
Socialism on the other hand is a more stable system with a stable growth.

If we're talking about actual socialism rather than state capitalism or some welfare state baloney, then yes, grassroots democracy on all levels of society would indeed be sustainable and quite sturdy.

Quote :
The biggest problem of capitalism is market failure, which is underproduction of goods and services needed by a society (education, health care), but overproduction of goods and services damaging to the society (drugs, pornography, human traficing)

Note another inherent flaw, that is credit speculation.

Boom-------------->Bust--------------->Boom-------->Bust-------------> Boom---->Bust------------------>Boom->Bust

^^ to oversimplify for the sake of time, the gap between boom and bust will always shorten.

_________________
"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--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 30
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:54 am

In essence, your whole original post is based on a misunderstanding of socialism. Basicly, confusing socialism with populism, state capitalisms and welfare states.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:44 am

Quote :
USSR and East Block
Socialism was thriving in Soviet Union and East Block. In fact most people had a much better living standard in those countries during the time it was socialist. Once wild capitalism came and state owned enterprises got privatised and ended in the hands of few many became unemployed and the life deteriorated for many. The arrival in capitalism resulted in 17 billionaries at the cost of 70.000.000 people, who fell below the line of poverty In Russia alone. All my family members grew up in socialist countries and all of them say it was better during socialism. People worked little and lived well. Things have changed and life became horrible. Of course it has improved and now, 15 years later the living standard of the socialist era has been finally been surpassed.

it couldnt possibly be considered thriving, when the driving force behind the growth was forced labor. the very thing socialism fights against. in capitalism, if you don't work the baton of the pigs is at your head, if you don't work under state capitalism the baton of the cheka is at your head.
ya, the living standard was raised, but at what cost, so the proletariat's standard of living was raised?
that is hardly a justification for being controlled and forced into labor. so if the workers standard of living was raised, imagine how greatly the party members standard of living raisied. even yuri andropov, he made loads of money by suppressing the hungarian revolution.

as for you saying once capitalism was introduced into the east there was a random explosion of wealth and a creation of an oligarchy. but that oligarchy and wealth had always been there within the party, but now that the party had imploded, they could be out right with their hardly self acquired wealth. that is always going to happen within any party.

Quote :
Corruption in countries
There will always be corruption in a country, but there is no problem if there is some corruption. The problem is if this corruption gets too much. Socialism which existed wasn't perfect but it was better than the system which followed.
there cant be corruption if their is nothing to corrupt.
there cant be socialism with corruption.
there cant be socialism with any hierarchy.
end of story.
Back to top Go down
Kenzu
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1842
Join date : 2007-08-17
Age : 31
Location : Austria - Vienna

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:48 pm

People who live outside ex-socialist countries are more likely to oppose socialism, because they dont know how life became after the arrival of wild capitalism, so it is obvious that they will make Soviet Union look as bad as possible.

One thing you should note. In truly socialist countries there is no poverty. There are no hungry people and there are no homeless people. In European socialist countries there was never a famine, except during a war or Stalin's tyranny (who became leader only through murder and deceipt, he wasn't a communist, he was a false Georgian priest). And again DPRK isn't socialist at all, The only socialist thing in DPRK are the flag the constitution and the name. If Hitler said he was a communist, that simple statement wouldn't make him one.

You should talk to people who stayed in Russia if you want to know if they liked USSR or not. In fact over 25% of Russians voted in a countrywide poll, that if they had the chance to turn back time, they would love to renew the Soviet Union EXACTLY like it was in the past. This clearly shows that at least 25% of people still live worse in Russia than they lived in USSR. There was even a referendum if Soviet Union should remain. The majority of population voted in favour of USSR, but the traitors Gorbachov and Yeltsin had it dissolved to ammass great fortune by stealing it from the people.

One argument against capitalism is that it is a HUGE FAILURE!!!
Except for a few countries like USA and Japan, where many people have decent living standards, in most countries like Mexico, capitalist Latin American, African and Pacific countries, people are hugely impoverished, tousands of children are starving each day and there is a lot of child labour!

The good living standard in developed countries, not only in capitalist countries, but also in social-democratic countries like EU and Canada exists largely due to the immense exploitation of the developing capitalist countries, where corruption and anti-communist sentiment inhibit workers rights movements and trade unions.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!


Last edited by Kenzu on Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://www.patreon.com/SocialistWorldRepublic
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council
avatar

Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:36 pm

Kenzu wrote:
You should talk to people who stayed in Russia if you want to know if they liked USSR or not. In fact over 25% of Russians voted in a countrywide poll, that if they had the chance to turn back time, they would love to renew the Soviet Union EXACTLY like it was in the past. This clearly shows that at least 25% of people still live worse in Russia than they lived in USSR.

So if someone votes that he wants to live in the Soviet Union again they live worse then in USSR? Not necessaryly, someone could vote because they hate capitalism but still have a good life, someone could be a communist but still have a wealthy life, but the fact because he is a communist he votes yes.
So it does not really mean all that 25% live worse in Russia then USSR, but I bet a much do, but just not all. Oh and its only 25% so it doesn't count for all, and we see that because every year the same party wins, United Russia, and I wonder if you say that Yeltsin is a traitor, why did people vote for him 2 times, and won? The people must like him then, and I don't think the Americans could control the Russian minds to vote for him.

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:13 pm

Quote :
You should talk to people who stayed in Russia if you want to know if they liked USSR or not. In fact over 25% of Russians voted in a countrywide poll, that if they had the chance to turn back time, they would love to renew the Soviet Union EXACTLY like it was in the past. This clearly shows that at least 25% of people still live worse in Russia than they lived in USSR. There was even a referendum if Soviet Union should remain. The majority of population voted in favour of USSR, but the traitors Gorbachov and Yeltsin had it dissolved to ammass great fortune by stealing it from the people.
kenzu, almost all of my family left from the ussr.
my great great grandfather fought in the russian revolution, and his brother was a sailor during the 1905 revolution.
my great grandfather left during in the early nineteen twenties after kronstadt had been put down and the party strengthened its hold.
so i know a thing or two about life in the soviet union.

and if you are going to trust a poll that is ran in modern russia, hahah i dont even know what to say.
Back to top Go down
WeiWuWei
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 624
Join date : 2008-04-14
Age : 42

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:15 pm

If you want to talk about good Socialist countries, I would think that the norm would be to avoid the Soviet Union, and to not even so much as poke it with a 100-foot long stick.

Because, y'know, the Bolsheviks killed people. A lot of people.

Yes, even Lenin.

And yes, even Trotsky.

In all fairness, however, the Soviet Union - which, by the by, wasn't even a union of Soviets, considering Lenin shut those down - did do relatively well economically. Within a matter of a few short years, it dragged itself up from out of the third world to the first world - if you accept those rather pretentious and elitist titles, which I don't, but that was the best way I can describe the Soviet Union's development. However, to say that "life was just oh so grand" there just because it was capable of accumulating capital and improving its economy is just not true; those economic successes relied on coercive Statist methods, which usually entailed abusing the peasantry and imposing harsh quotas upon them. These quotas were usually so high that peasants were not able to produce as much as the State demanded of them. Some of them were purged by Stalin, others starved to death, and still others worked themselves to death.

So did collectivization in the Soviet Union have economic successes? Yes, of course; how else can you explain the Soviet Union's rise to becoming one of only two world superpowers? However, the suffering and injustice it entailed, I think, can not be covered up just because of these successes.

Now if we were to have a decentralized, anti-State society that employed these collectivized methods, then Socialism might really have something to brag about. But has that ever happened? Hmm... let me think about that one...
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/groupcp.forum?g=11
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:21 pm

WeiWuWei wrote:

Now if we were to have a decentralized, anti-State society that employed these collectivized methods, then Socialism might really have something to brag about. But has that ever happened? Hmm... let me think about that one...
oh how moist the spanish revolution makes me Smile
but we cant forget about the ukrainian free territory Very Happy
Back to top Go down
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 30
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:32 pm

WeiWuWei wrote:
If you want to talk about good Socialist countries, I would think that the norm would be to avoid the Soviet Union, and to not even so much as poke it with a 100-foot long stick.

Well, let's be clear that being Socialist is directly averse to having a State (that is, our definition of the State, the one i find to have more validity). Looking past the Bolshevik activity we see that there was indeed a period of time in Russia where Socialism was genuinely sprouting (This was before the October revolution, which was a bourgeois, statist revolution hardly worth mentioning in a topic about socialism). And even after they came to become the new State ("Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Thanks Roger Daltry) their method of centralization was heavily resisted, as we see in Kronstadt and elsewhere. Unfortunately, with State power, they could easily manipulate public opinion (they made it impossible for the sailors of Kronstadt to communicate with Petrograd and other cities to ask for support for the cause of the soviets)

Looking at the accomplishments of the working class, though, you'll see a pretty solid egalitarian movement (it was young, which is why it was so trusting of the Bolsheviks, but it genuinely wanted an end of coercive authority).

_________________
"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--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 30
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:19 pm

After reading this post I have to wonder if this is an exchange of ideas or just randomly expressing our thoughts... I say this because this post in no way adresses the replies to the original one.

Kenzu wrote:
People who live outside ex-socialist countries are more likely to oppose socialism, because they dont know how life became after the arrival of wild capitalism, so it is obvious that they will make Soviet Union look as bad as possible.

Again, that is not socialism. That is state capitalism, social state capitalism at best or welfare state capitalism.

Many will oppose it because, after all, in many senses it was exactly the same as capitalism except the elite was smaller and centralized and that, for its contradictiry economic nature, couldn't effectively provide the people with material wealth, namely consumer goods. Not that "free market" capitalism does, though, just it's better at making people think it actually does. The problem is many still call it "socialism".

Kenzu wrote:

One thing you should note. In truly socialist countries there is no extreme poverty. There are no hungry people and there are no homeless people.
Wrong, in true socialism there is no poverty whatsoever unless resources are too scarce, but in that case it's impossible to blame the system.

Kenzu wrote:

In European socialist countries there was never a famine, except during a war or Stalin's tyranny (who became leader only through murder and deceipt, he wasn't a communist, he was a false Georgian priest).

Just a notice: ther were no European socialist countries.

Kenzu wrote:

And again DPRK isn't socialist at all, The only socialist thing in DPRK are the flag the constitution and the name. If Hitler said he was a communist, that simple statement wouldn't make him one.

That's exactly what I'm talking about, just not even the constitution in Korea is socialist.

Kenzu wrote:

You should talk to people who stayed in Russia if you want to know if they liked USSR or not. In fact over 25% of Russians voted in a countrywide poll, that if they had the chance to turn back time, they would love to renew the Soviet Union EXACTLY like it was in the past. This clearly shows that at least 25% of people still live worse in Russia than they lived in USSR. There was even a referendum if Soviet Union should remain. The majority of population voted in favour of USSR, but the traitors Gorbachov and Yeltsin had it dissolved to ammass great fortune by stealing it from the people.

That many Russians and former soviets still like USSR and would consider many USSR aspects to be much better tan nowadays Russia or other former republics is not a secret nor news. For starters, no one can deny, even if they hate USSR, that education was far better during these times and that people had a greater sense of unity. Else there was some more social stability and, of course, and as Wei mentioned, USSR indeed became an economic and technological behemoth.

Economy can't be measured in GDP or abstract idiocies like that. It shall be measured in industrial output and, in several key reasources, USSR's was the 1st sometimes doubling the 2nd place, namely USA.

However, this economy had great failures: it was based on capitalism and it was as well based, and again as Wei pointed out, in strongly coercive methods.

USSR's capital-reliant economy had most of this capital invested in non-lucrative welfare projects like free housing, free education and free healthcare and had a massive chunk of it invested in non-lucrative and persistantly expensive projects like USSR's military: USSR had alone more tanks than the whole NATO put together. A tank costs lots of resources just to build, keeping it operative drains more resources worforce included, it generates no income and to make it worse this massive ammount of resources have been put together just to be blown out somewhere (say Afghanistan). The same ecuation goes for the 2nd largest aiforce and the 2nd largest navy in the world. It was a massive investment which not only didn't report income but also represented great constant losses, a problem that just sharpened during the intervention in Afghanistan. (No wonder USSR's collapse followed said intervention)

Needless to say, these factors limit the centralized capitalist system to provide the people with enough consumer goods (and of good enough quality) for most of the economy reports no income and actually is used to mantain expensive enterprises like infrastructure and the army.

This, along with repression, lead to discontent and eventually unstability a condition which during war can only be sharpened.

No wonder they both hated and loved the USSR: a mighty welfare empire that failed to provide them nice clothes and all food they wanted while a ruling elite got everything they wanted!

Kenzu wrote:

One argument against capitalism is that it is a HUGE FAILURE!!!
Except for a few countries like USA and Japan, where many people have decent living standards, in most countries like Mexico, capitalist Latin American, African and Pacific countries, people are hugely impoverished, tousands of children are starving each day and there is a lot of child labour!

So it is a failure only in accordance to the living standards it gets to proide to the people? I don't think so. Capitalism is a failure for its incapability to provide the whole society with basic needs, to provide equal oportunities of development to everyone, for relying on exploitation and social stratification, for relying in market forces, for relying in abstract arbitrary economics, for naturally depending on the existance of economic gaps.

Isn't it a failure for Japan? In regards to living standards, arguably, not. But why can Japanese enjoy such living standards? Very simply because of imperialism. By having massive overseas industries based on cheap labour precisely from countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa is that they're able to enjoy those great living standards and a low Gini factor(this thing you love so much), because, while Japan-wide they don't have so much unequalty in regards to living standards (and that's arguable too) they use other countries to export their unequalty and the greater burdens of exploitation, through imperialism. Japanese are still exploited by ruling Japanese, just the former also exploit foreign proletariats to increase the living standards at home to keep their worker basis content and controllable.

That whole condition in which Japan enjoys etter conditions than other nations is supported by the fact other nations' peoples are submited to greater ratios of exploitation a condition that could be reverted even by protectionism and nationalism (one of the reasons for which Europe and USA have their guns aimed at say, Iran). This condition is as reliant on ignorance as the condition in which Japanese workers are epxloited by the Japanese Bourgeoisie.

Kenzu wrote:

The good living standard in developed countries, not only in capitalist countries, but also in social-democratic countries like EU and Canada exists largely due to the immense exploitation of the developing capitalist countries, where corruption and anti-communist sentiment inhibit workers rights movements and trade unions.

Social-democrat=Capitalist. Social-democracy= Capitalism with more state regulation and welfare programs. Perhaps mild Keynesianism.

The exploitiation of "developing nations" by "developed nations" is a mixture of nationalism and capitalism and product of the knowledge that te bourgeoisie needs to keep people at home deluded, content and docile. That's why they need to export the burden of exploitation.

It's almost the same formula as an empire enslaving an entire nation so that their own people would be happy thriving from them. Just add wage to the ecuation.

Worker movements in the 1st world muttered since rising conditions rised that much through the exportation of exploitation burdens. It is necesary for cappies to keep that condition if they don't want more angry mobs at home protesting for living conditions. It's necesary to preserve the facade.

Te problem is that it can't be kept forever and sooner or later all this will collapse, sooner than later.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
comrade110397
New Party Member
avatar

Posts : 569
Join date : 2008-11-11
Age : 32
Location : IDK

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:58 pm

WeiWuWei wrote:
Kenzu wrote:
There is a saying:
Who is 20 and isn't a communist has no heart
Who is 60 and isn't a communist has no brain

I always thought it was:
He who is 20 and isn't a Socialist has no heart,
But he who is 60 and isn't a Capitalist has no brain.

Not that I agree with it, but I always thought that that's how it goes.
There was another one that goes.

If you dont miss the Soviet Union, you have no heart.

But if you want it back, you have no brain.
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://www.youtube.com
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 30
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:08 pm

Quote :
After reading this post I have to wonder if this is an exchange of ideas or just randomly expressing our thoughts... I say this because this post in no way adresses the replies to the original one.

It's hard to do when the OP refuses to respond to your points directly. Notice how i started the response to this thread, and notice where it went from there...

_________________
"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--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Kenzu
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1842
Join date : 2007-08-17
Age : 31
Location : Austria - Vienna

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:29 pm


@Zealot
@beatnikzach

For state capitalism to exist the state has to exploit its workers, which I don't feel East Block countries have been doing. What makes you think workers have been exploited?

Just because there was massive terror under Stalin it doesn't mean that USSR remained like that. What I am talking about is the period after Stalin.

Great purges in Soviet Union after Stalin are as relevant as Slavery in USA. Just because it existed in the past it doesn't mean it was so bad afterwards. It is nonsense to try to make Soviet Union appear as a horrible police state sending everyone to a gulag who made a joke about a leader, when the amount of people in forced labor camps wasn't high and most of them were simple criminals.

You have no idea Soviet Union was like. Your views are distorted by stupid american movies and enemies of socialism!



Many of you say USSR was not socialist, Cuba isn't socialist. For you nothing is socialist! Socialism isn't communism!

Socialism is a system, the goal of which isn't to make everyone equal. It's goal is to give equal rights and opportunities to everyone and to prevent property. The existance of citizens who live better than others doesn't mean that this country isn't socialist. When companies are state owned it doesn't necessarily mean its workers are exploited. I don't know anyone who thinks he would be exploited by the state. Some people say not enough consumer goods have been produced, and that's it!

_________________
World Republic will prevail!
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://www.patreon.com/SocialistWorldRepublic
Tyrlop
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1853
Join date : 2008-06-01

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:50 pm


i forgot what i wanted to write while i was drawing. hand = zealot.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 30
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:05 am

BC, bro, I was adressing kenzu, not you.

Kenzu wrote:


For state capitalism to exist the state has to exploit its workers, which I don't feel East Block countries have been doing. What makes you think workers have been exploited?

The state used a capital with which it paid to the workers. The State owned the means of production and the workers worked for the state. The state profited from the people's work.

Kenzu wrote:

Just because there was massive terror under Stalin it doesn't mean that USSR remained like that. What I am talking about is the period after Stalin.

Who's talking about terror here? Exploitation and terror are not the same thing. Exploitation comes when someone thrives at the expense of other. In the case of USSR, the State at the expense of the people.

Kenzu wrote:

Great purges in Soviet Union after Stalin are as relevant as Slavery in USA. Just because it existed in the past it doesn't mean it was so bad afterwards.

Who's talking about great purges? At least certainly not me. I'm talking about the fact that USSR was a state capitalism which indeed employed coercion.

Kenzu wrote:

It is nonsense to try to make Soviet Union appear as a horrible police state sending everyone to a gulag who made a joke about a leader, when the amount of people in forced labor camps wasn't high and most of them were simple criminals.

I don't think to have said that. I'm sure I was pretty clear with what I said about the USSR.

Kenzu wrote:

You have no idea Soviet Union was like. Your views are distorted by stupid american movies and enemies of socialism!

This couldn't be more baseless. You'er even dodging our arguements here Kenzu.

For starters, we (or at least I) employ the marxist definition of socialism in which "socialism" is a synonim of "communism". Socialism is a system in which there are no social classes and no state and in which the workers completely control the economy. As simple as that. In such a condition a State has no place.

Just so you know: My views on USSR have been forged by history books on both sides, by citizens of the USSR that went away from it and that kept living in it, that lived during Stalin's rule, during Khrushyov's, during Brezhnev's, during Andropov's, during Chernyenko's, druing Gorbachyov's, and my understanding of socialism.

I asume an apologist position towards USSR because even if it was a dictatorial welfare state capitalism, it at least had many good points and had actually a much better chance of actually becoming socialist than any nation on this Earth during its time. Hell, if Stalin or any other leader of the USSR would have been a real socialist they would have had great chances of making USSR a socialist country and probably we wouldn't be even dicussing about capitalism today, it would be buried. They could have actually educated people about socialism, organized USSR in a socialist fashion and dissolved the state. They could have helped the real revolutionaires in Spain, socialism would have spread all over the damn globe probably even prior to 1945.

But they weren't socialist at all. They were a bunch of opportunists who excused their dictatorship by calling it "socialism". They stablished yet another oligocratic capital reliant system which to worsen things was contradictory for instead of income it meant losses (for the reasons I have explained). And they called that socialism.

They could have done this with all the power they harnessed: Made every single worker understand what socialism stands for, supervise that the workers organized themselves in such a way and then dissolve the state and of course the police force. Instead they just changed te bourgeoise for another ruling elite and an ultramilitarized and superindustrial welfare system that drove itself bankrupt.

USSR was the proof that vanguardism doesn't work but in the chivalrious fantasy of some.


Kenzu wrote:

Many of you say USSR was not socialist, Cuba isn't socialist. For you nothing is socialist! Socialism isn't communism!

You're most probably using the Leninist definition of socialism in which "socialism" is a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. This was nothing but Lenin's excuse to implant another ruling elite, namely the "communist" vanguard.

As that proved to be, Lenin's "socialism" was nothing but another form of capitalism, a state form of capitalism which relied on a small elite and which proved horribly vulnerable to opportunism (Leninists can be geniune socialists, the problem is that Leninism allows for non-socialist opportunists to take power and hinder the revolution which itself can't be expected to endure if reliant on a handful of people instead of all the proletariat of the community where it develops).

There is no transitional stage between communism and capitalism other than evolution itself. As simple as that.

Vanguardism is a total failure as it has been demonstrated. A revolution cannot depend on a handful of men. But even vanguardism can at least be geniunely socialist, just not workable.

Socialism is not a "capital reliant state centrally managed economy ruled by an elite". It is an econoic system in which the workers directly control and manage the economy themselves.


Kenzu wrote:

Socialism is a system, the goal of which isn't to make everyone equal. It's goal is to give equal rights and opportunities to everyone and to prevent property.

Edited because I misread the phrase:

So what do you mean by this? What do you mean by "equal"?

Socialism is a system in which all workers are equal in regards to ownership and thus control of the means of production, therefore economy.

What about living standards? It will depend on how the economy is managed. It can be determined by the workers that those that work, lets say, extra hours, can get certain luxuries and so while fundamentally provision being "by all according to capability to all according to need".

The focal point of socialism is that all workers should have equal say on the way economy is to be managed, economy must be planned, needs and the means to suffice them are both determined and sufficed by the workers (as opposed to oligarchies determining this) therefore economy, instead of having the objective of profit, has the objective of sufficing democratically determined needs.

That's socialism.

Socialism is not a welfare state capitalism. Socialism is not an element of economy in which the ruling party forces all sectors of economy to support economically less favoured sectors like workers and unemployed. Socialism is not a completely state owned economy in which the whole country (or community to speak in more general terms) is managed like an enterprise and the heads of state serve as the shareholders and CEOs. It's not a ruling elite cooridnationg economy as to suffice societal needs. No, that's not socialism. Those are welfare state capitalisms, populisms, welfare capitalisms, social dictatorships and what not. But not socialism.

Kenzu wrote:

The existance of citizens who live better than others doesn't mean that this country isn't socialist.

But when other than the workers owns the means of production and controls the economy, then it does mean the system is not socialism, which is what we're actually arguing here.

Kenzu wrote:

When companies are state owned it doesn't necessarily mean its workers are exploited.

The State acts pretty much like a coprporation in a capitalist framework: It manages a capital, it owns the means of production and pays to workers in accordance to its economic organization.

In essence the state is the "people's corporation" in which they, theretically, get to choose the CEO in a process wrongly called "democracy".

The state works pretty much like an enterprise.

Kenzu wrote:

I don't know anyone who thinks he would be exploited by the state.

Then you have a very limited circle of acquaintances limited to those who do not understand the concept of "exploitation".

Kenzu wrote:

Some people say not enough consumer goods have been produced, and that's it!

If you intend that to be linked to lack of exploitation, then neither you nor those people know what exploitation stands for.

One thing is living standards and other relationships towards means of production.

If X owns the means of production for A product, a product needed by both X and Y, and Y works producing it for X to sell it to Y, because ultimately it is X who owns these means, then Y is being exploited by X.

It doesn't matter if it's a fucking awesome product and all within Y's class have it, it's matter of Y working for X and X profiting from Y's work.

As simple as that.

I wonder... who paid Brezhnev's and Khrushyov's visits to New York? Who produced the fuel for the Tupolevs that flown them there? Who flew those planes? Planes owned by the CPSU but produced by the soviet workers.

You can always water down the impression of exploitation by making inventors and such part of the ruling class, that way you can argue that "the inventor is working for the worker as much as the worker works for him, because after all he invented the product" but it's just matter of knowledge being monopolized by the ruling class.

Tyrlop:


_________________


Last edited by Zealot_Kommunizma on Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:01 am

Kenzu wrote:

@Zealot
@beatnikzach

For state capitalism to exist the state has to exploit its workers, which I don't feel East Block countries have been doing. What makes you think workers have been exploited?
forced labor happened under every leader kenzu.
ohhhh ya and the whole labor camps things i forgot about...
stupid me.

Quote :
Just because there was massive terror under Stalin it doesn't mean that USSR remained like that. What I am talking about is the period after Stalin.
what about what adropov did?
what about how much tighter the stranglehold of the kgb became?
what about the prague spring and the hungarian uprising?
what about the invasion of afghanistan?

state sponsored terror and imperialism kenzu.

Quote :

Great purges in Soviet Union after Stalin are as relevant as Slavery in USA. Just because it existed in the past it doesn't mean it was so bad afterwards. It is nonsense to try to make Soviet Union appear as a horrible police state sending everyone to a gulag who made a joke about a leader, when the amount of people in forced labor camps wasn't high and most of them were simple criminals.

oh ya i forgot during reconstruction after the civil war the kkk was created.
kenzu, any place that has a state sponsored division of thugs (cia, kgb, all of it) is a place state.
well, i also thought that anyone who spoke out against the party was sent into forced labor?
annnnnd as you said above
Quote :
For state capitalism to exist the state has to exploit its workers, which I don't feel East Block countries have been doing. What makes you think workers have been exploited?
since when has forced labor not been viewed as exploitation?

Quote :
You have no idea Soviet Union was like. Your views are distorted by stupid american movies and enemies of socialism!



Many of you say USSR was not socialist, Cuba isn't socialist. For you nothing is socialist! Socialism isn't communism!

Socialism is a system, the goal of which isn't to make everyone equal. It's goal is to give equal rights and opportunities to everyone and to prevent property. The existance of citizens who live better than others doesn't mean that this country isn't socialist. When companies are state owned it doesn't necessarily mean its workers are exploited. I don't know anyone who thinks he would be exploited by the state. Some people say not enough consumer goods have been produced, and that's it!
noam chomsky is an enemy of socialism?
you are starting to sound off the a party leader kenzu.
nice work.

cuba isnt socialist, ussr wasnt socialist, they are and were autocratic, hierarchical, corporate states.
we say nothing that you claim is socialist is not socialism, because we do not believe in oppression and exploitation.

how do you feel about mao's china?

Quote :

Socialism is a system, the goal of which isn't to make everyone equal.
are you seriously fucking joking?
Back to top Go down
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 30
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:17 am

Quote :
BC, bro, I was adressing kenzu, not you.

I knew you were talkin bout Kenzu, but i confused myself by misinterpreting when you said "this post". Mah bad.

_________________
"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--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Tyrlop
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1853
Join date : 2008-06-01

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:31 pm


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.
and also the boat is almost bigger then the sea. i will paint what i think is better image for this drawing of the revolution you know. this is you imo.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council
avatar

Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:41 pm

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

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin


Last edited by CoolKidX on Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:23 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 30
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:19 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.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council
avatar

Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:40 am

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

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Kenzu
Chairman of the WR Committee
avatar

Posts : 1842
Join date : 2007-08-17
Age : 31
Location : Austria - Vienna

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:49 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!
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://www.patreon.com/SocialistWorldRepublic
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 30
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:06 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.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Socialist thought   

Back to top Go down
 
Socialist thought
Back to top 
Page 1 of 4Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Similar topics
-
» ...and you think Royal Mail are slow? (this is a lovely story!)
» I thought McCanns knew about diary, Myler tells court
» Just a thought.....how is all this monopoly money lent to EU countries to be repaid?
» Has Anybody heard Anything from the Lawyers or SISIP ????? I thought the GAG was over?
» To The Honorable Minister O'Toole & The Federal Government ! ... some food for thought as you gain ground with Veterans from across this " Great Nation " ........Consider the following " 2 Significant points " please , for Your A

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
World Republic :: Socialist Paradise :: Kenzu Milagro-
Jump to: