Socialist thought

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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".

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

ya this is taking a while..

take a look here. this is what Lenins explain us.

Leninism has been invalidated. His concept of "socialism" is nothing but a facade for an elitist dictatorship that we have seen what evolves into.

Kenzu wrote:

Your point has nothing to do with the video, which Tyrlop showed.

Really? We'll see how you're wrong.

Also, let me remind you that you have not replied to our previous arguements.

Kenzu wrote:

I agree with most of Lenin said in this video. My favorite phrase here was: "The old word socialism has been desecrated by the traitors of socialism". This is especially true about leaders who committed crimes against people in the name of socialism, like for example Stalin and Pol Pot.

It's a funny rather demagogic statement because Lenin himself desecrated it and his theories (a development of Blanque's) were the base that allowed the greatest and most terrible desecrations of the word "socialism":

Stalinism and its manifestations around the world, Maoism, the whole Soviet system, the system in Cuba, Poland, Hungary, Czechslovakia, Angola, etc.

His vanguardist theories based on the idea that it just takes a nadful of mean to lead the whole people into revolution and towards what he called "communism" are what stained both communism's (socialism's) name. His theories were proven factually wrong as per the Soviet experience. USSR and similar systems are a huge pile of evidence that vanguardism doesn't work to stablish socialism, or communism as you wish to call it.

It is a weak doctrine that can be easily used by opportunists to use "socialism" as a facade to their capitalist social dictatorships. It's what happened all around the COMECON and, if attempted again, there are more chances of it failing than succeeding in estblishing socialism.

Kenzu wrote:

However I disagree that people should change the name of their ideology just because of some psychos who abused their power.

Which is why we socialists do efforts to explain why vanguardism is not socialist.

Kenzu wrote:

This is true especially for corrupt people. Such people will always exist in our society and in each bigger group of people, just like there will always be a handful of mentally or physically handicapped people.

Which isn't true if there is no need or possibility of corruption. But, if we take your assertion for good, then it is a complete arguement against vanguardism.

Kenzu wrote:

Zealot, I think you misunderstand what socialism is about and furthermore I don't think that your views will draw a lot of support.

You think, but, you don't know so please learn. Your conception of socialism is entirely based on the Leninist conception of "socialism" in which socialism is a transitory stage in which a Communist vanguard takes power and uses it to prepare the people for communism a process which completed results in the dissapearance of said vanguard.

This whole theory has been pragmatically proven flawed. And it's also flawed theoretically.

When the vanguard controls the economy, it is not socialism, the workers are not in charge, it is the vanguard. It is simply another elite controlling the workers.

In theory, if the vanguard was impossible to corrupt and was genuniely socialist, it could stablish a Social Dictatorship that could geniunely prepare the workers for socialism.

This social dictatorship provides with collective welfare while exploiting the workers. If this social dictatorship had used a scientific economy, that is an economy in which there is no "work for wage and goods for money" ecuation but rather a plannified economy set exclusively to provide all workers with their needs, then it would have been more stable. Such an economic equation could have allowed for the workers to begin understanding the principles of economics and socialism and could have evolved into socialism.

But, that didn't happen and is unlikely to happen.

If the people do not understand the premises of socialism and economy overall, then, it is impossible to expect socialism to be established. They need to understand things themselves and be convinced that they ought to change and how to change them.

If they're following a vanguard then they're subject to what that vanguard decides to stablish, let alone the fact that the simple existance of a ruling elite implies the existance of a ruling class over a working class defacto implying the working class is not emancipated.

Kenzu wrote:

Let me ask you, how many people who weren't in support of socialism or communism you have persuaded to support it?

A handful of classmates when I used to study in the university (all of them being part of the working class), a couple of friends of mine who are interested in politics and philosophy, a handful of construction workers, that is, those I've talked with, my brother (even though he doesn't really care), some people over the internet and the number is growing.

Plus, there are a lot of geniune socialist movements and writters out there, numbers growing, efforts redoubling. I'm almost certain the XXI century will see the mess created during the XX century fixed.

Kenzu wrote:

I achieve to make 20-30 neutral or slightly anti-socialist people become supporters of socialism every year.

You mean Capitalist Welfare (or even more, social) State don't you?

Kenzu wrote:

Over 100 people became supporters of socialism because I explained it to them and they vote socialist/communist parties now.

Which proves they don't have a clue about what socialism is.

Kenzu wrote:

How many people did you persuade to start supporting socialism?[/color]

In the 6 months I've been working on it, around 12+. But hey, it's not a game nor a competition, the fact remains that you make people see Welfare (or social) Capitalist States as the best option available while you give them a terrible misconception of socialism based on Lenin's flawed theories which means that you're actually hindering the struggle for socialism instead of adining in it.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Leninism has been invalidated. His concept of "socialism" is nothing but a facade for an elitist dictatorship that we have seen what evolves into.

That was uncle joe's fault.

comrade110397 wrote:

That was uncle joe's fault.

That was Lenin's fault. Since the very start the flaws of his doctrine were evident. Actually the flaws of that doctrine can be pointed out logically:

A movement for the emancipation of the whole working class, that is, the great majority of population that relies on a little corruptible elite composed by a handful of men while the people who is supposed to be emancipated is unaware of what they're fighting for nor prepared to understand the situation in which they're, is doomed from the very begining.

The only way for such a doctrine to work would be that the vanguard was uncorruptible and the people followed them nearly blindly. Expecting something like that is not dissimilar from a religion that awaits a messiah.

I'll post the reply in two posts because it is too big for a single one.

Kenzu wrote:

Stalin desecrated it, not Lenin.
Lenin did a pretty good job I must say. Not many people would be capable of doing that.

Lenin desecrated it for vanguardism creates a ruling elite within society. This ruling elite becomes the ruling class. When the people follow the ruling elite they'll go to where this elite points them. The whole revolution pends on the wishes and actions of these handful of men which means that it can be absolutely diverted from its goals without the people even knowing that socialism isn't being even persued. This event will much more likely happen than not. It can happen simply because the people don't know the objectives that are being pursued neither they know how economy works so they can't get a picture of the problems going on within their society and because vanguardism is an awesome opportunity for opportunists.

Now, what does socialist stand for? The control of the means of production by the workers, not by a ruling elite. That means that every single workers must have a say on the way economy is runned. Not only-management wise, but absolutely all the objectives persued by the economy and all the policies running it. In vanguardism all this is determined by the vanguard instead of the people.

It is absurd to think we have to rely on a genuinely socialist vanguard to be uncorruptible and work towards the real establishment of socialism. The rule of the vanguard itself is not socialism, it's a mere social dictatorship so now one has to expect they actually do their job as socialists and educate the people to prepare them for the establishment of socialism. That's all. Excpect that the vanguard is uncorruptible and genuinely socialist.

In a very hypotetic case in which the social dictatorship is genuinely run by socialists, with all the power harnessed by them and all the grip over flux of information it shouldn't take even 5 years to accomplish the goal of stablising socialism.

You know why? Because the stablishment of socialism simply relies on people understanding what it is and why it is the best system they can have. People must understand why capitalism doesn't work, must fully understand its premises and must understand the premises of the alternative to capitalism.

People are so convinced about capitalism's naturality and workability because they see economy from a very simple and shallow perspective: I work for someone, I get money and I can use money to invest it and/or suffice my needs. Most of the workers don't quite grasp today where all the money they're paid come from and, most importantly, they don't understand the how nor the why. They don't understand that the whole economy is alienated to suffice the needs of those who control it today. They just see their situation as something naturally intrinsic, assomething that can't be changed, they literally have a religious view on economics, instead of scientific.

And why is that? Because there is not enough difusion of knowledge and ore importantly there's not even time to think, just time to work and break their back to suffice the caprices of their bosses.

They need to understand this otherwise they'll simply revolt bindly. Believing vanguardism works is a total disregard to the experience in USSR.

Kenzu wrote:

[color=orange]He probably wasn't wrong, since he got massive support and his group was the first one to have established the most progressive society in the world (He expanded civic rights and workers rights. Educated people, gave women the right to divorce and USSR was the first country to legalise abortions.)

So? That doesn't mean socialism was established, just a convincing popular and social dictatorship which degenerated horribly.

Kenzu wrote:

Without an organised group of specialists there cannot be a successful revolution.

Which is irrelevant to the existance of a vanguard. The idea is to get workers to organize themselves and most specialists are found within the working class.

Kenzu wrote:

There were leaders at every single revolution sofar.

Define "leader".

kenzu wrote:

Without leading characters the society would never improve, because most people are like sheep.

When people act like sheep it is because they lack knowledge to properly asses their situation making them prone to be fooled into following x or y doctrine.

As for "leading characters", for me a "leading character" could be simply an idea followed by many, not necesarily a person that rules over others.

Kenzu wrote:

Will follow orders and won't resist much.

Without knowledge people can be easily fooled. Knowledge is power.

Kenzu wrote:

Without a "vanguard" people would remain serfs up to this day and even if some had risen up, they would be taken down easily.

The problem is that people arte serfs up to this day and the simply existance of the vanguard makes them be serfs.

Kenzu wrote:

It is easy to destroy small groups of people revolting.

That's once of the reasons vanguards don't work: they're small groups that lead their system into destroying itself (for references look at the USSR)

Kenzu wrote:

For success you need a huge mass and for a mass you need a charismatic leader or at least a clever leader with a good plan.

For socialism to be stablished most workers should embrace socialism. For it to survive that worker's community requires to reach a certain level of autharchy which depends on resources available to the community and the community's control over land. In other words, socialism does require a great ammount of people, most of the workers of the world or at least most of the workers within a territory that would allow them autharchy.

No one here ever said we needed "small groups" to revolt. Well, the only ones including "small groups" in the revolutionary equation are actually vanguardists who expect from small groups to even a single individual to lead an entire community.

You don't need a charismatic individual to guide people like they were sheep. This is not only logically ineffective, it has been demonstrated that it doesn't work. Not only can't a centralized and isolated government ruled by an elite effectively know what people needs, even if they had the intention to actually prepare people for self-governance it should be expected that this small group of people never changed those objectives since 1) everything relies on them and 2) people don't know what the damn objective of the self-proclaimed socialist system is being unable to be independant from the vanguard to establish socialism.

It has been demonstrated that vanguards are prone to opportunism and that makes the revolution entirely weak and defacto non-socialist.

Instead of relying on the people's conviction and understanding of what they're pursuing, ieverything depends on a handful of hopefully holy men. It's just another ruling class telling them which way to go.

Kenzu wrote:

[color=orange]Instead of always thinking what is socialism and what is not, we should be thinking about what is good for the people and that's what counts.

We socialists argue that socialism is the best for the people because it lets them determine by themslves and in coordination with the rest of society what is good for them and the best way to achieve it.

[quote="Kenzu]
I don't help people because I am socialist, but
I am socialist because I help people.
[/quote]

No Kenzu, that would make you a social assistant, not socialist.

I'm socialist because I believe workers should determine what their needs are and what the best ways to suffice said needs are.

Kenzu wrote:

My conception on socialism is based on what is good for the society and for each and every of us.

O omniscient being please enlighten me on what is good for me and my fellow men!

What is good for each of us has to be analysed from a subjective prespective, that is, considerng that "good" is a term relatuive to each of us, not objective.

The best is when each can determine what is good for himself so long as it doesn't affect 3rd parties without their consent. That's the best and most general way to achieve this.

What you imply to propose is what I'd call a "Social, popular and Scientific Dictatorship" why? Because just through science can you claim to objectively know what is best for people.

Science would determine the basic needs and the most effective ways to suffice not only this basic needs but also secondary subjective needs.

How? This would be done by scientifically determining which the basic needs are.

This means that all the economic policies regarding basic needs would be determined based on scientific facts.

For example, it is a scientificaly proven fact that, in average, people need a daily protein intake of at least 1g per Kg to keep healthy and that the best way to do so is distributing this intake in a meal each 4 hours. That is, a man that weighs 80kg should consume 80g of protein in the day distributed, ideally, in meals that allow an equal ration of protein per meal each 4 hours. If the man has breakfast at 8:00 he should eat again at 12:00 and again at 16:00 and again at 20:00 and have dinner 20-30 minutes before 00:00. 5 meals. This means that everyone should at least be able to consume their weight/5000 in protein per meal.

So economy should be at least be able to provide every single worker with this daily protein intake. And should teach to people that this is the best way to keep protein supplies and thus keep good health. Because that's what is good for people from a scientific perspective.

However, here comes another interesting variation appliable to this example: The protein intake needed by construction workers would tremendously vary from an average person's because their work is far more demanding for their muscular structure. They should get access to a greater protein intake per meal, because that's what's good for them and their work is neccesary and good for the people.

And then, health is good for the people, so economy and infrastructure should allow for people not to be under excessive stress, to practice excersise and to overall be able to have an enjoyable life. And this brings us to a beautiful part, the enjoyable life part...

Who determines what is enjoyable for me, or for you or for Black Cross or for the child walking in the sidewalk? Who? I do? You do? Zhirinovskiy? Limonov? Obama? Mao Tse Tung? No. We determine that ourselves.

And if we determine that ourselves then there is a massive ammount of different needs that should be coped with, millions of kinds of needs. This would require a framework that allowed these needs to be met because, it is impossible for a cerntralized scientific government to act as a wonderful wishgranter that coordinates economy into the satisfaction of all workers' needs.

Wokers' needs are merely satisfied either by themselves, by other workers or a combination of both. This is an undeniable premise. So what could be better than workers arranging themselves which are the best ways to suffice each others' needs? And, within workers, there are also scientists, specialists that know what society objectively needs and the objectively most effective ways to achieve this needs satisfaction. That is for example food.

In such a framework a scientist merely argues, for example, that a human engaging in x activities requires y amount of food and z ammount of sleep if that person wants to become heatlhy so the scientist excerts a proposal sustained by arguements and evidence as per objectives, objectives that are determined both individually and collectively by te workers. The individual determines the collective.

Kenzu wrote:

Just because the workers don't decide how to manage a factory it doesn't mean they don't live in a socialist society.

The manager should tecnically be a worker and the rules by which the factory is managed shoudl be determined by the workers.

But I'll tell you what doesn't make it socialist: That what that factory produces is not determined by te workers, that the way that factory is runned is not determined by the workers, that the workers don't own that factory and that the factory doesn't suffice needs determined by the workers.

Kenzu wrote:

The vanguard IS the working class.

The vanguard may come from the working class but once it acts as a vanguard that rules over workers it becomes a ruling class, a class apart from the workers.

[quote="Kenzu"]

I, ZK wrote:

In theory, if the vanguard was impossible to corrupt and was genuniely socialist, it could stablish a Social Dictatorship that could geniunely prepare the workers for socialism.

Which it has

Which it has what? Genuinely prepared workers for socialism? If that's what you contend, then you're wrong and it was demonstrated by USSR's downfall.

Kenzu wrote:

Workers aren't exploited if some of the surplus value is used on infrastructure education and health care, since it serves workers.

Oh really? "Some of the surplus value"... and what does the rest of the surplus value go to? To the pockets of the rulers of course as it happened in the USSR.

But lets not go that far. Wokers produce food, they're given wages and then they use those wages to buy that food. The money given to buy that food goes to the Social Capitalist State which is the owner of the means of production and the state should use those incomes for the next:

1. Reinvest in the food industry as its capital is depleted with each payroll.
2. Invest that money in non-profitable welfare enterprises (expenditures, in capitalist terms) like Education, Healthcare, Housing, maybe electricity and/or gas, water, and of course military and scientific projects that may report absolutely no, or few benefit to society but in the long run in the satisfaction of basic needs or even needs in general.
3. The Statesmen's needs which often tend to be greater than the average workers' for some strange reason (elitism).

The statesmen produce nothing, they merely get workers to produce everything they need and then sell most that produce to workers to get an income.

Now this is the equation of a State Capitalist Social Dictatorship like USSR's. Which aside from non-socialist is also contradictory and unstable, thus self-destructive. (Gorbachyov et al. "Glasnost'[To admit that "people you're silly and we've been screwing you for decades like the good ole bourgeoise except with welfare and nice socialist parafernalia and decided to call that 'socialism'; you've been Leninrolled"], Perestroika[now we'll bring bourgeoise back again, including foreign and split our state in 17, this should bring me some extra wealth and keep you hoping for improvement for the next 20-30 years while you get even more screwed]How we gave the final blow to the Soviet political system").

This equation would be actually much more workable if it was scientifically determined and the dictatorship overtly stated that they'll coordinate workers into sufficing all workers' needs and that they're workers themselves which suffice the management needs of society. To make it stable they could let people decide or at leats have a say on what their needs are and what te best way to suffice them is.

Kenzu wrote:

Socialism can be established without the knowledge of what socialism is.

As demonstrated with the USSR, no, it can't happen unless a godly vanguardist gets people organised into selfmanagement.

Without conviction and knowledge workers cannot effectively arise nor can they reach their goals.

Kenzu wrote:

Once a strong egalitarian system has been established with people having similiar living standards and rights and similiar opportunities socialism has been established.

False. Once classes have vanished and workers control the means of production for the satisfaction of the needs determined by themselves is that socialism has been established.

Kenzu wrote:

Even if not a single citizen knows what socialism is.

Which can't happen be so if workers have arisen to stablish socialism in the first place.

Kenzu wrote:

A power vacuum will be always filled with a leader. Dead leaders will be replaced very fast.

A "power vacuum"... what's the relevance of this whatsoever for the discussion?

The only leading factors in society should be knowledge, conviction and the principle that we're all interdependant.

Kenzu wrote:

Let me ask you, how many people who weren't in support of socialism or communism you have persuaded to support it?

Kenzu wrote:

Congratulations!
Do the people who you persuaded to support socialism know that everyone deserves free health care, free education a home and a job?

They know more than that. They know that the whole economy should be controlled by workers.

Kenzu wrote:

I mean that they know that education and health care have to be free and that everyone deserves a home and a job.

Welfare, not socialism.

Kenzu wrote:

Just make sure that they persuade others tooand that they make sure their children support socialism too.

How? Should I supervise that they're "preaching socialism to others", compell them to do so and if they don't, force them?

It's logical that if they have understood something as relevant as the reasons for which tey're in te conditions that they are and how socialism represents the best solution out of that, then, they may comment it with other people. If they want to teach that to others then they will do and may even join and/or start a movement.