What is a socialism? Your thoughts

What is a socialism? Each this can understand on miscellaneous, certainly there is official determination this politicians, but which not all can understand, there is people which did not read the books K.MARKS, and compositions Lenin, and can misinterpret such system as socialism if you interesting here is official determination:
"Socializm - economic, social-political system, characterizing that that process production and distribution incom is found under checking society. The most Most important category, which unites the different directions to socialist thought, is a public property on capital goods, which changes itself private property.

The Marxism defines the socialism as public-economic sytucture with prevalence of the public property on capital goods. The Marxism-leninism considers the socialism as the first phase of the communism.

The Socialism possible to consider as political ideology, bring forth as purposes and ideal determination society, in which:
are absent the usage of the person of the person and social oppression;
become firmly established the social equality and fairness."

The Ideas of the socialism:
Ideas of the socialism
The Main line, which is defined socialism beside different thinkers:

1) Restriction quotient to property;
2) General equality;


As ways of the achievement to fairness by miscellaneous thinker was offered, for instance:

1)Abolition quotient to property at conservation personal 2) Change Kapitalisticheskih enterprise co-operative society 3)Creation communes, inwardly which all will be general (socialists-óòîïèñòû) 4)Creation state system of the social security

Dominates the principle to equivalence: equal amount of the labour is changed on equal. But, since different individuals possess the miscellaneous an ability, that they get the different share a consumer item. The Principle: "From each on ability - each on labour".

The Early socialists-óòîïèñòû considered that it is enough ïðèäóìàòü correct device society, and people themselves his(its) will take, when will caught his(its) advantage.
The Marxists and anarchists, opposite, considered that exploiter classes will not want to abandon to their own privilege, and, consequently, transition to socialism by possible only way to revolutions.
Social-democrats considered possible receipts to socialist party to the authorities by way parliamentary choice, with the following undertaking the socialist reforms by legal way, without violence, without shelters.
But as you notion what is a socialism? (Your thoughts)
If there is that add write
P.S Forgive for my english))

Lenin's notions on socialism are not valid.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Lenin's notions on socialism are not valid.

Here are my feelings on Lenin, which are extremely similar to my feelings on Marx.

I don't think it's acceptable to just passably ignore the contributions Lenin has made to Socialist thought because the methodology he used was, frankly, bad. I think what we need to appreciate Lenin for is his contributions to Socialist philosophical thought, specifically with regard to the role of Imperialism in the Marxist teleological view of history. Lenin, as we all know, basically posited that Capitalist countries, when on the brink of class conflict, turned towards outward expansion to suppress inward disorder. Even if you're not a Communist - heck, even if you're not a Socialist - I think you'd have to agree with Lenin's basic argument here: rich, powerful countries use their military and financial might to subdue weaker countries, and use them for exploitation of resources and as an open market to dump their so-called "surplus" material. I see no way in which this view is fundamentally wrong.

So I think Lenin was right on what the problem was, and I think he was right on explaining how modern Capitalism has evolved into what it is today. Whether you agree with his methodological approaches to establishing Socialism, however, is up for discussion - though I think it'd be fair to say that Bolshevist-style Vanguardism caused more bad then good, but that's just an opinion.

Whether or not you think Capitalist countries should or should not behave in the way Lenin described here, however, is not up for discussion, because that's not what he's arguing: what he's arguing is that that is what they do, not what they should do. And in this regard, Lenin and I are actually on the same page.

My laconism was excessive.

The 3 Ws wrote:

I don't think it's acceptable to just passably ignore the contributions Lenin has made to Socialist thought because the methodology he used was, frankly, bad. I think what we need to appreciate Lenin for is his contributions to Socialist philosophical thought, specifically with regard to the role of Imperialism in the Marxist teleological view of history.

I agree.

F the A wrote:

Lenin, as we all know, basically posited that Capitalist countries, when on the brink of class conflict, turned towards outward expansion to suppress inward disorder. Even if you're not a Communist - heck, even if you're not a Socialist - I think you'd have to agree with Lenin's basic argument here: rich, powerful countries use their military and financial might to subdue weaker countries, and use them for exploitation of resources and as an open market to dump their so-called "surplus" material. I see no way in which this view is fundamentally wrong.

This is true indeed. Is something that can't be disagreed upon and while quite relevant to socialism, it's still not an approach to it, just an important understanding to have.

Stopdoingitsoyoucangetitdone wrote:

So I think Lenin was right on what the problem was, and I think he was right on explaining how modern Capitalism has evolved into what it is today. Whether you agree with his methodological approaches to establishing Socialism, however, is up for discussion - though I think it'd be fair to say that Bolshevist-style Vanguardism caused more bad then good, but that's just an opinion.

The latter part being what we're essentially discussing here and actually I think it can be argued with a fair share of evidence that Vanguardism doesn't work and that defacto it can't be socialism which is what I argue.

He basically attempted to legitimize the Vanguard's dictatorship by naming it "socialism".

Shoobiedoobapbapbadoobiedoobiedoo wrote:

Whether or not you think Capitalist countries should or should not behave in the way Lenin described here, however, is not up for discussion, because that's not what he's arguing: what he's arguing is that that is what they do, not what they should do. And in this regard, Lenin and I are actually on the same page.

I'm not discreding Lenin enitrely as he indeed had several valid points. However, I argue that putting his theory on the Stablishment of Socialism to practice has shown it doesn't work at all for those ends and more likely than not evolves into a Capitalist Social Dictatorship that can manifest itself in forms that provide much better conditions than other exploitation systems or can actually manifest itself as a much worse system.