World Republic

Subject: Re: Hi Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:13 am

Poxca wrote:: Than yes, i understand it...

If you do, what are its implications?

Poxca wrote:: Never heard of such a thing, but ah well.

Matter of logical analysis and knowledge.

Poxca wrote:

Liche wrote:: The people here think if your not Communist then you dont understand it, and think that Communism is the only form of Socialism.

Ill teach them otherwise, if this is true.

How can you teach someone into disregarding a fact? Plus I already adressed this point partially earlier in the discussion.

Pioneer Posts : 32 Join date : 2008-12-29 Location : Berek

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: If you do, what are its implications?

Hmm, how to phrase this is a communist way...maybe say along the lines of: Free the workers of the 'tyrany' of capitalism and create a classless utopia, of course, this will be after the dictatorship

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: How can you teach someone into disregarding a fact? Plus I already adressed this point partially earlier in the discussion.

Im anticipating by "Disregarding a fact" you ment that towards Communism is the only form of Socialism? I think its quite obvious that some people actually do understand communism, just don't follow it.

But to combat that, lets make an obvious statement: Not all Socialists want a utopia of no government. (EE: Please don't say "Than they are not true socialists...")

Subject: Re: Hi Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:19 am

Poxca wrote:: Hmm, how to phrase this is a communist way...maybe say along the lines of: Free the workers of the 'tyrany' of capitalism and create a classless utopia, of course, this will be after the dictatorship

Too ambiguous. Mind detailing a bit ?

Poxca wrote:: Im anticipating by "Disregarding a fact" you ment that towards Communism is the only form of Socialism?

Not exactly.

Poxca wrote:: I think its quite obvious that some people actually do understand communism, just don't follow it.

"Some" is the keyword here. As I mentioned earlier, it's a fact that most people don't understand communism and it's also a fact that it's also the reason why most of those people do not follow it.

Poxca wrote:: But to combat that, lets make an obvious statement: Not all Socialists want a utopia of no government. (EE: Please don't say "Than they are not true socialists...")

It would depend on what you call "utopia" and "no government".

Pioneer Posts : 32 Join date : 2008-12-29 Location : Berek

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Too ambiguous. Mind detailing a bit ?

Alright...the revolution will be done (By workers) against the government to overthrow it, and insert a Dictator who will fight 'for the people' threw economical, political, and foreign affairs. This stage would be considered the stage of capitalism into socialism (Maoist, marxist, whatever they name). Depending on the sub-diversions group they can either be militaristic or not. If they are, than they assist other nations create communistic ideals, which can be examplifiyed by Vietnam 'helping' Laos, or the USSR 'helping' surrounding nations. Now...back on subject, after the world transits to Communistic/Socialist governments, they form together and dissolve into a anarchy with the government and military going with the dissolution.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Not exactly.

Explaination?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: "Some" is the keyword here. As I mentioned earlier, it's a fact that most people don't understand communism and it's also a fact that it's also the reason why most of those people do not follow it.

I could say the exact same thing about Fascism but that does not make it the least bit true.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: It would depend on what you call "utopia" and "no government".

Here it is, a tad bit clearer: Not all socialists want to create a dictator under socialism and eventually dissolve it into a anarchy.
Im sure you know National Socialists and Democratic Socialists correct? Than how can you so bluntly put it that they are communists?

Subject: Re: Hi Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:14 pm

Poxca wrote:: Alright...the revolution will be done (By workers) against the government to overthrow it, and insert a Dictator who will fight 'for the people' threw economical, political, and foreign affairs.

Not at all. Socialism has nothing to do with dictators or one-man or few-men leaderships. In socialism workers directly control the economy in the fashion of unions or councils and every single worker has a say on the way society is to be run.

Much of the organization, thus, must be achieved prior to the revolution.

Poxca wrote:: This stage would be considered the stage of capitalism into socialism (Maoist, marxist, whatever they name).

Not very clear. Would you mind to clear that up?

Poxca wrote:: Depending on the sub-diversions group they can either be militaristic or not.

The militaristicity of revolutionary groups will depend on the resistance by force applied by the reactionaries. Although it's difficult to forsee precisely how this scenary would evolve, most probably there will be a strong military resistance to revolution provided by reactionaries in which case it will be necessary that revolutionaires assume a level of military organization to provide the needs for defensive capability.

Poxca wrote:: If they are, than they assist other nations create communistic ideals,

Sorry but I'm afraid communistic ideals are not created through militaristic support, they're a process of knowledge acquisition and interpretation.

Poxca wrote:: which can be examplifiyed by Vietnam 'helping' Laos, or the USSR 'helping' surrounding nations.

Except neither Vietnam or USSR had anything to do with socialism.

Now, if your point is that workers freed in a certain nation will work to assist workers in other nations liberate, yes, that is indeed expected of a socialist revolutionary movement, but it doesn't have anything to do either with militarism or lack of it.

Poxca wrote:: Now...back on subject, after the world transits to Communistic/Socialist governments, they form together and dissolve into a anarchy with the government and military going with the dissolution.

Since before the revolution socialist movements are not based on hierarchies or leaderships, they're inherently democratic and anarchic.

Vanguardism is just socialist in theory and fairy tales.

Poxca wrote:: Explaination?

The fact I was refering to, aside from the "communism is the only kind of socialism" is that most people do not understand socialism thus most do not accept it, or better said, are unable to either accept or reject it.

Poxca wrote:: I could say the exact same thing about Fascism but that does not make it the least bit true.

From a logical perspective this reply is known as a "parallelism" and it's classified as an argumentative fallacy. Instead of adressing my arguement you simply compare it to another statement without of course disproving it.

As for fascism, happens that actually a lighter and more liberal form of it is what rules the world and most people actually know if not the workings of this system at least the consequences of their actions within it therefore at least having experienced it.

The problem is that most people often see this system as a "natural system" or "the only option" for most of them haven't experienced or known other kind of system and their analytic capabilities have been hindered by their conditions combined with the quite workable thought-supression techniques within this economic system, making it hard for them to realize that this system is in no way a "natural one" nor the only option nor to realize the reasons for which this system exists in the first place and that actually there's a way through which they could get rid of it and create a system that would actually be not only more efficient but more benefic and organized in which they wouldn't have to serve any master or thrive from others' disgrace.

Fascism is a system that grants few people great power over masses whereas socialism is a system in which no one has masters or slaves. If people knew, for example, that in socialism they could work 3 hours shfts without having productivity hindered while everyone could have what they'd need, most probably they would support such a system.

People already have a notion of how fascism works, however, most people fail to have an accurate notion of socialism.

(What I did above, is to reply without argumentative fallacies: I provided a counter argument to your statement. I expect you to do the same)

Poxca wrote:: Here it is, a tad bit clearer: Not all socialists want to create a dictator under socialism and eventually dissolve it into a anarchy.

Those "socialists" that want to create a dictator are often vanguardists with the fairy tale idea that a dictatorship can be socialist.

They theorize a dictatorship ruled by a completely communist autarch that will serve as a guard for socialism until people are finally able to reach a perfect kind of socialism and don't need the vanguardist anymore.

Currents belonging to this thought are Stalinists, Leninists, Maoists and other derivates of what seemingly began with the Blanquists.

There is also a more interesting yet more fictional current which so far I have just seen develop in Russia: Social Monarchy which is basically a Monarchy in which the ruler rules by the principles of equity and freedom for all those within the kingdom.

Yet... all these doctrines' socialisticity fail in the moment where the workers are not in control of the economy directly being a little group of individuals or a single individual who control the whole economy being just another kind of oligarchy.

There are some more currents like the concept of "Democratic Dictatorship" where there is a "democratically supported dictator" that basically serves as an administrator (using the state as a tool of course) that enforces the majourity's will. But the socialisticity fails at the point where the whole system is not reliant upon the people but upon said "people's administrator". It could be argued that the people could depose a "non socialistic administrator" but, if people have that capability then where's the need for such administrator?

Poxca wrote:: Im sure you know National Socialists

Scientifically, National Socialism is oxymoronic for what I'll explain below:

The application of such a system is rather frightening since it must rely on a simple premise: non-nationals are like animals, in other words, they can be exploited and it doesn't count as if we were exploiting human beings.

It could be argued that national socialism implies "socialism in one nation" or "socialism per nations".

But, before going further into the topic I must ask: What is your understanding of "National Socialism"?

And please don't come up with Nazism. It had nothing to do with socialism. If at best it was a nationalist capitalist welfare state based on other nations' exploitation.

A man dressing like a woman, undergoing a mastoplasty, injecting himself estrogen and running while shouting "I'm a woman!" is not a woman. In other words, calling yourself "socialist" doesn't make you socialist.

Actually, Nazism is a cynical example of reactionaries' tactics against socialism: they often steal socialist terms and promise the implications of socialism to gain attractiveness among population while projecting the implications of their system into socialism to divert people from it.

Poxca wrote:: and Democratic Socialists correct?

Democratic Socialism is nothing but a pleonasm: socialism is inherently democratic.

Poxca wrote:: Than how can you so bluntly put it that they are communists?

According to the marxist definition of "communism" and "socialism", they're the same thing.

Like Stos said previously, the idea of "socialism" being a transitory phase comes from Lenin.

I have my posture towards these two terms which is based on the marxist definition. In my posture "socialism" and "communism" are the same thing but in different developmental stages.

Given this interpretation, "socialism" is a classless society, just like communism. In socialism the economic relationships found within capitalism have been abolished. "Communism" wouild be just a "perfected stage" of socialism.

So "socialism" and "communism", from this perspective, are not two different systems, it's just a pragmatic way to clarify that the implementation of socialism doesn't magically imply the equalization of living standards and the implementation of the maximum possible workability that can be achieved through socialism. Basically is to have the goal of improving socialism constantly. I just prefer to use "communism" instead of "perfected socialism".

This is not quite relevant though, what is relevant is that from a Marxist perspective socialism and communism are synonims thus being used by many interchangeably.

New Party Member Posts : 546 Join date : 2008-09-14

Poxca wrote:: Alright...the revolution will be done (By workers) against the government to overthrow it, and insert a Dictator who will fight 'for the people' threw economical, political, and foreign affairs. This stage would be considered the stage of capitalism into socialism (Maoist, marxist, whatever they name).

How very Blanquist. Marxists are too anarchist for that kind of bullcrap, however.

Quote :: Depending on the sub-diversions group they can either be militaristic or not. If they are, than they assist other nations create communistic ideals, which can be examplifiyed by Vietnam 'helping' Laos, or the USSR 'helping' surrounding nations.

...Except that those nations were state capitalist, and engaging in imperialism just like any other capitalist state.

Quote :: I could say the exact same thing about Fascism but that does not make it the least bit true.

Are you implying that most people do know what socialism is?

Quote :: Here it is, a tad bit clearer: Not all socialists want to create a dictator under socialism and eventually dissolve it into a anarchy.
Im sure you know National Socialists and Democratic Socialists correct? Than how can you so bluntly put it that they are communists?

'National Socialists' aren't socialist, and 'democratic socialism' is fairly redundant. Unless you're using 'democratic socialism' to refer to reformists, who aren't socialist.

Quote :: Im anticipating by "Disregarding a fact" you ment that towards Communism is the only form of Socialism? I think its quite obvious that some people actually do understand communism, just don't follow it.

But to combat that, lets make an obvious statement: Not all Socialists want a utopia of no government. (EE: Please don't say "Than they are not true socialists...")

Eh, the word 'utopia' is an attempt to make an argument when you can't think of anything else, stop it.
Anyways, define 'government'.

Pioneer Posts : 32 Join date : 2008-12-29 Location : Berek

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Not at all. Socialism has nothing to do with dictators or one-man or few-men leaderships. In socialism workers directly control the economy in the fashion of unions or councils and every single worker has a say on the way society is to be run.

Alright, i kind of catch what your portraying here. Your saying as the people own the economics threw specific fashions. Fair enough, i can agree to this. But that really doesn't disperse the fact that a leader of the state is still required..unless, of course, your talking about the ending dissolution stage of communism, which would be portrayed more faintly to me as world anarchy, practically.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Not very clear. Would you mind to clear that up?

Sure! It's quite simple in my mind...the workers succed in a Revolution, thus taking over the government, gaining control of banks/unions/etc, and they implant a leader of the state. The versions of this can differ between Trotskyism and Maoism, or any other branch, because a lot of them go about things differentely, mainly during this stage.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: The militaristicity of revolutionary groups will depend on the resistance by force applied by the reactionaries. Although it's difficult to forsee precisely how this scenary would evolve, most probably there will be a strong military resistance to revolution provided by reactionaries in which case it will be necessary that revolutionaires assume a level of military organization to provide the needs for defensive capability.

I did not mean counter-revolutionarys. I ment military as in support to other communistic nations which they would later support, trying to achieve world communism. But, on this issue of reactionaries i understand what you mean.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Sorry but I'm afraid communistic ideals are not created through militaristic support, they're a process of knowledge acquisition and interpretation.

It was not demonstrated in this way at all threw USSR, Vietnam, or North Korea.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Except neither Vietnam or USSR had anything to do with socialism.

The workers fought for marxist socialism, and it failed. That's obvious enough. How it failed, is debateable, though. I normally found that Communists try to say it was 'State Capitalist.' I prefer the term Degenerated Workers' state.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Since before the revolution socialist movements are not based on hierarchies or leaderships, they're inherently democratic and anarchic.

Alright, your losing me here, ill admit it. Do you not recognize a dictator in a Marxist Socialist state (EE: Leadership)? And since when are the dictators democratic? Never heard of such a thing from a communist before, not even on my brief time on RevLeft...interesting way of going with this.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Vanguardism is just socialist in theory and fairy tales.

Vanguardism, not familiar with this term. Isn't that somewhat of a Trotskyist term? Im insinuating your not a Trotskyist...than.

Poxca wrote:: I could say the exact same thing about Fascism but that does not make it the least bit true.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: From a logical perspective this reply is known as a "parallelism" and it's classified as an argumentative fallacy. Instead of adressing my arguement you simply compare it to another statement without of course disproving it.

Point taken. It's difficult to disprove something that really can not be proven, either, somewhat like debating Deitys. But, I've seen no such proof that the majority would accept communism if they learnt about it.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: The problem is that most people often see this system as a "natural system" or "the only option" for most of them haven't experienced or known other kind of system and their analytic capabilities have been hindered by their conditions combined with the quite workable thought-supression techniques within this economic system, making it hard for them to realize that this system is in no way a "natural one" nor the only option nor to realize the reasons for which this system exists in the first place and that actually there's a way through which they could get rid of it and create a system that would actually be not only more efficient but more benefic and organized in which they wouldn't have to serve any master or thrive from others' disgrace.

Ain't that the truth?...well, the top part, at least, i agree with. The other half is your opinon, that Communism (Which im guessing your hinting at) would be the way to be more efficient and beneficial.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Fascism is a system that grants few people great power over masses whereas socialism is a system in which no one has masters or slaves. If people knew, for example, that in socialism they could work 3 hours shfts without having productivity hindered while everyone could have what they'd need, most probably they would support such a system.

hat was near all one sided view. You showed none of the bad sides of socialism, at all. What if someone wanted to gain up, and be better than the average person? Theres no way possible, everyone would be the same financially. Sure, some like to just fit in and work cooperatively, but not everyone does, some like to strive for more than the average, which would not be granted. I also have a quote, from one of the socialists on this site that i seen somewhere, where it said something along the lines of "If your lazy in socialism you get thrown in jail!" To combat this, at least in Capitalism i have the choice to be lazy or not, without having to be imprisoned. Do you agree that a Scientist, who went to school for nearly 8+ years, should be payed the same as a cleaner who cleans the utensils after the Scientist? Considering it's 5 in the morning i won't type anymore, but ill add on more later.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: (What I did above, is to reply without argumentative fallacies: I provided a counter argument to your statement. I expect you to do the same)

If i do use them, please alert me! I know much about these issues..but really the only debating i've ever had practice in was Revleft. On my Science Forums you usually do not debate, thus, making me a poor debater. It would be good to know if i use these accidentely, so i can eventually improve my arguments.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Those "socialists" that want to create a dictator are often vanguardists with the fairy tale idea that a dictatorship can be socialist.

Please explain to me which sub-diversion group of communists you belong too, if any. I first invisioned you a Maoist/Leninist, but threw your posts I am viewing otherwise.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Scientifically, National Socialism is oxymoronic for what I'll explain below:

The application of such a system is rather frightening since it must rely on a simple premise: non-nationals are like animals, in other words, they can be exploited and it doesn't count as if we were exploiting human beings.

It could be argued that national socialism implies "socialism in one nation" or "socialism per nations".

"Socialism in one nation" is more commonly confined as Stalinism, is it not?

--
Other than this, i want to thank you for the below posts, i will respond to them later, since they are in Marxist perspective i would like to look into them more before just bluntly trying to debate it without much knowledge, sorry.

Pioneer Posts : 32 Join date : 2008-12-29 Location : Berek

Stos wrote:: How very Blanquist. Us Marxists are too anarchist for that kind of bullcrap, however.

Hmm?

Stos wrote:: ...Except that those nations were state capitalist, and engaging in imperialism just like any other capitalist state.

I replied to this nearly exact opinon to Zealot.

Stos wrote:: 'National Socialists' aren't socialist.

Apparentely National Socialists aren't socialist...in a marxist perspective.

Stos wrote:: Eh, the word 'utopia' is an attempt to make an argument when you can't think of anything else, stop it.
Anyways, define 'government'.

Your insinuating that Communism would not create a utopia? How is it trying to create an argument? I have absolutely no idea what your trying to portray here.
Government? Again, what do this have to do with anything? Its authority who governs a society.

New Party Member Posts : 546 Join date : 2008-09-14

Poxca wrote:: Your insinuating that Communism would not create a utopia? How is it trying to create an argument? I have absolutely no idea what your trying to portray here.

We are not trying to destroy the universe, so no.

Subject: Re: Hi Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:51 pm

Poxca wrote:: Alright, i kind of catch what your portraying here. Your saying as the people own the economics threw specific fashions. Fair enough, i can agree to this. But that really doesn't disperse the fact that a leader of the state is still required..unless, of course, your talking about the ending dissolution stage of communism, which would be portrayed more faintly to me as world anarchy, practically.

The thing is that socialism is intrinsically anarchic. Socialism requires no state nor leaderships. The only authority in socialism is that of valid ideas, in other words, the experts' ideas and that if they're democratically accepted regardless of wether tehy're valid or not.

Poxca wrote:: Sure! It's quite simple in my mind...the workers succed in a Revolution, thus taking over the government, gaining control of banks/unions/etc, and they implant a leader of the state. The versions of this can differ between Trotskyism and Maoism, or any other branch, because a lot of them go about things differentely, mainly during this stage.

Well socialists don't take over the government they're fighting against, we abolish it. We don't keep a single trace of this socioeconomic system: we struggle for the abolition of state, money, trade and alienation.

Poxca wrote:: I did not mean counter-revolutionarys. I ment military as in support to other communistic nations which they would later support, trying to achieve world communism. But, on this issue of reactionaries i understand what you mean.

We see it as a battle to be fought world wide. The Russian oligarch is as as equally my enemy as the Chilean, French or German one. If socialism is achieved in a nation with autarchic capabilities or a group of nations achieving such an economic status, of course revolutions elsewhere will be supported by all means.

Poxca wrote:: It was not demonstrated in this way at all threw USSR, Vietnam, or North Korea.

Exactly, because communist ideals had nothing to do with them.

Poxca wrote:: The workers fought for marxist socialism, and it failed. That's obvious enough. How it failed, is debateable, though.

I'll bring back my transvestite's example: if a man dresses himself as a woman, talks like a woman and injects himself estrogen, does that make him a woman? No.

The same is with pseudo-socialists. It doesn't matter how much they say they're communist and revolutionaty and marxist and what not, that doesn't make them communists.

Poxca wrote:: I normally found that Communists try to say it was 'State Capitalist.' I prefer the term Degenerated Workers' state.

It was a system that employed capital monopolized by the state... how is that not capitalist?

Degenerated workers' state is Trotspeak.

Poxca wrote:: Alright, your losing me here, ill admit it. Do you not recognize a dictator in a Marxist Socialist state (EE: Leadership)?

There's no state per say in socialism, at least not as an entity dissociated from the people. Everyone form part of the government directly.

Poxca wrote:: And since when are the dictators democratic? Never heard of such a thing from a communist before, not even on my brief time on RevLeft...interesting way of going with this.

I'm not stating that dictators are demoratic. There are some political currents that favour a democratically supported dictator and others that argue that there can be a dictator that works more like an administrator executing popular will. Wether these ideas are flawed or not is not what I'm adressing, I'm just pointing out wether they're socialistic or not and why.

Poxca wrote:: Vanguardism, not familiar with this term. Isn't that somewhat of a Trotskyist term? Im insinuating your not a Trotskyist...than.

Vanguardism is a term to refer to those doctrines that consider people incapable of making their own minds implying that they need a leader to free them.

Poxca wrote:: Point taken. It's difficult to disprove something that really can not be proven, either, somewhat like debating Deitys. But, I've seen no such proof that the majority would accept communism if they learnt about it.

You could argue why it is the same, at least.

Poxca wrote:: Ain't that the truth?...

What do you mean by this?

Poxca wrote:: well, the top part, at least, i agree with. The other half is your opinon, that Communism (Which im guessing your hinting at) would be the way to be more efficient and beneficial.

I'm assuming people want more freedom. The way for people to have freedom is without having someone determining the way the should live, without breaking their backs for someone to thrive at their expense, being able to dedicate the greatest ammount of time possible to activities they enjoy, to dispose of as much time as possible in the way they want, to not fear wether they'll have something to eat or not, to have freedom of movement, to have freedom of choice, to be able to do what they want so long as they don't affect nonconsensual 3rd parties.

I'm also assuming people prefer not to fuck other people up, I'm assuming people prefer to live in an economically stable environment.

Scientifically, socialism can provide this. How?

Well, since socialism relies on decentralized economic planning it relies on completely scientific economic models, models that do not depend on abstract senseless things like money. What matters to a socialist economy is the ammount of workforce needed, the ammount of time taken and the ammount of resources. And it has a single goal: to suffice societal needs which will be democratically decided.

Based on this, socialist economy is planned to achieve its goal of sufficing societal needs in the most effective way possible.

Since workforce is no longer alienated and therefore no longer divided, it can be managed in a much more effective way: workforce will be democratically dispatched in accordance what society requires. If a certain requirement is urgent more workforce will be put into it, shifts will be modified accordingly and the societal need will be sufficed with the maximum efficience possible.

I'm working on some mathematical models that serve as a scientific basis to prove that socialism can actually provide with much more productivity than capitalism while demanding less effort from workers and achieving egalitarianism. They'll be my proposal of socialist economy.

Being the planned and sicentific economy socialism is it can allow much more freedom overall to people, opening more possibilities for people to enjoy their lives more fully.

That's why it's not my opinion wether socialism is more benefic or not: it will allow people a maximum of freedom without compromising high life standards, of course depending on how scientifically and well planned economy is, and that will be up to everyone, not just a bunch of greedy tycoons, politicians and hawks.

Poxca wrote:: hat was near all one sided view. You showed none of the bad sides of socialism, at all.

Which are?

Poxca wrote:: What if someone wanted to gain up, and be better than the average person? Theres no way possible, everyone would be the same financially.

Well, yeah, there would be no finances in socialism, everyone would be financially at 0.

Poxca wrote:: Sure, some like to just fit in and work cooperatively, but not everyone does, some like to strive for more than the average, which would not be granted.

No one will force those who want to engage in BDSM economics to accept socialism, they're welcome to leave society whenever they want. Just they won't be able to impose their ways on anyone.

Poxca wrote:: I also have a quote, from one of the socialists on this site that i seen somewhere, where it said something along the lines of "If your lazy in socialism you get thrown in jail!"

Hmmm... I wonder who it was. However, we socialists are not fond of parasites, what we do is just to expell them from society.

Poxca wrote:: To combat this, at least in Capitalism i have the choice to be lazy or not, without having to be imprisoned.

In socialism also, just you're to be expelled from society for slacking off unless you get some people to substain you economically.

Poxca wrote:: Do you agree that a Scientist, who went to school for nearly 8+ years, should be payed the same as a cleaner who cleans the utensils after the Scientist?

I think pays should not exist, they're a symptom of disorganized economics. And I wonder why is the cleaner cleaner? And another question: is it necesary that utensils be clean? If so, the act of cleaning is important too.

Poxca wrote:: If i do use them, please alert me! I know much about these issues..but really the only debating i've ever had practice in was Revleft. On my Science Forums you usually do not debate, thus, making me a poor debater. It would be good to know if i use these accidentely, so i can eventually improve my arguments.

Don't worry, I try not to miss when someone does.

Poxca wrote:: Please explain to me which sub-diversion group of communists you belong too, if any. I first invisioned you a Maoist/Leninist, but threw your posts I am viewing otherwise.

I call myself "Eclectic Communist", I keep my mind open to all ideas on the stablishment of socialism and struggle for the objectively most valid ideas to prevail.

Poxca wrote:: "Socialism in one nation" is more commonly confined as Stalinism, is it not?

Not necesarily. That notion is a core of the Stalinist ideology but it's more to refer that socialism is possible in one nation or in separate nations at a time, countering the notion that socialism can't be established until the whole world is united.

I just want to know what your notion of "National Socialism" is.

Poxca wrote:: Other than this, i want to thank you for the below posts, i will respond to them later, since they are in Marxist perspective i would like to look into them more before just bluntly trying to debate it without much knowledge, sorry.

Ok.

New Party Member Posts : 546 Join date : 2008-09-14

Poxca wrote:: Apparentely National Socialists aren't socialist...in a marxist perspective.

Dopfish llama fhdiiuer sipeowen diosferoigrenkg aooiiewfwnvsfjsv frogfucking ifduf sik dig log pig zigzag migg sofoee fisheefisheefishee.

Quote :: The workers fought for marxist socialism, and it failed. That's obvious enough. How it failed, is debateable, though. I normally found that Communists try to say it was 'State Capitalist.' I prefer the term Degenerated Workers' state.

Why do you prefer this terminology? It's silly.
The USSR was never a workers' state. Whether or not the workers were fighting for Marxism or not is debatable. The bullshitviks and their supporters weren't.

Quote :: Alright, your losing me here, ill admit it. Do you not recognize a dictator in a Marxist Socialist state (EE: Leadership)? And since when are the dictators democratic? Never heard of such a thing from a communist before, not even on my brief time on RevLeft...interesting way of going with this.

Wait, what?
Marx was an anarchist, not a Blanquist. That is, no, there wouldn't be any dictator in a Marxist workers' state.
Also, I'm on Revleft, so...

Quote :: Sure! It's quite simple in my mind...the workers succed in a Revolution, thus taking over the government, gaining control of banks/unions/etc, and they implant a leader of the state. The versions of this can differ between Trotskyism and Maoism, or any other branch, because a lot of them go about things differentely, mainly during this stage.

Well, yes, because Trotskyism was created by a former ruler who wanted his power back, and Maoism was created by, well, Mao.

Quote :: Hmm?

"The Blanquists fared no better. Brought up in the school of conspiracy, and held together by the strict discipline which went with it, they started out from the viewpoint that a relatively small number of resolute, well-organized men would be able, at a given favorable moment, not only seize the helm of state, but also by energetic and relentless action, to keep power until they succeeded in drawing the mass of the people into the revolution and ranging them round the small band of leaders. this conception involved, above all, the strictest dictatorship and centralization of all power in the hands of the new revolutionary government."

Quote :: Ain't that the truth?...well, the top part, at least, i agree with. The other half is your opinon, that Communism (Which im guessing your hinting at) would be the way to be more efficient and beneficial.

Certainly, capitalism is inefficient. That's been known for ages, even by non-socialists like Veblen.

Quote :: What if someone wanted to gain up, and be better than the average person?

Better at what?
Shit, I should use this argument for chattel slavery too. "What if somebody wanted to be better than the average person by owning chattel slaves?"

Quote :: Do you agree that a Scientist, who went to school for nearly 8+ years, should be payed the same as a cleaner who cleans the utensils after the Scientist?

Crud, if you're going to continue arguing with strawmen like that, you're going to end up worse than Lenin in 'State and Revolution'.

Quote :: Sure, some like to just fit in and work cooperatively, but not everyone does, some like to strive for more than the average, which would not be granted.

...Eh?

Quote :: I also have a quote, from one of the socialists on this site that i seen somewhere, where it said something along the lines of "If your lazy in socialism you get thrown in jail!"

...Ouch. That would suck. I don't want to get thrown in jail...
Ehm. Anyways, eliminating unproductive labour, unemployment and parasites would increase the workforce dramatically, thus meaning less working hours would be necessary. Therefore, more free time. Lazinesss is awesome, fuck hard work.
Also, we would hopefully abolish the current schooling system.

Quote :: To combat this, at least in Capitalism i have the choice to be lazy or not, without having to be imprisoned.

Well, yes, without being imprisoned. What else happens depends upon your class (and your economic standing within that class).

Quote :: It was not demonstrated in this way at all threw USSR, Vietnam, or North Korea.

Which is about as helpful as saying that the Iraq War proves that socialist countries engage in imperialism.
Capitalism is not socialism, no matter what form it takes.

Quote :: (What I did above, is to reply without argumentative fallacies: I provided a counter argument to your statement. I expect you to do the same)

Wow, Zealot spelt 'fallacies' without the sexual references.

Subject: Re: Hi Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:20 pm

Quote :: The thing is that socialism is intrinsically anarchic. Socialism requires no state nor leaderships. The only authority in socialism is that of valid ideas, in other words, the experts' ideas and that if they're democratically accepted regardless of wether tehy're valid or not.

the fuck is this shit? why the fuck everyone is starting to call communism socialism. i hope your not calling the dictatorship of the proletariat communism.

LISTEN UP FAGGOTS, DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT IS SOCIALISM AND COMUNICM IS COMUNICM, BECAUSE IF WE DO THIS, WE CAN AVOID CONFUSION.

in socialism (dictatorship of the proletarit), there is a state and the woerkers have control of it. they are the ruling class. they prevent the bourgoisei from doing a conterevulution.

what is this about the authority of ideas. ideas NEVER have authority EVR. thats what we call idealism. material conditions determine consciousness, not the other way aorund.

Subject: Re: Hi Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:24 pm

Hoxhaist wrote:: the fuck is this shit? why the fuck everyone is starting to call communism socialism. i hope your not calling the dictatorship of the proletariat communism.

Maybe because Marx did?

Hoxhaist wrote:: in socialism (dictatorship of the proletarit), there is a state and the woerkers have control of it. they are the ruling class. they prevent the bourgoisei from doing a conterevulution.

This is roughly part of the revolution: supression of the Burgeoise power. Why would we need to repress them through a state after taking all their power off?

Hoxhaist wrote:: what is this about the authority of ideas. ideas NEVER have authority EVR. thats what we call idealism. material conditions determine consciousness, not the other way aorund.

And who was talking about consciousness? I'm arguing that the best ideas are the ones that prevail and therefore become the path to follow.

Subject: Re: Hi Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:36 pm

marx intrechanged from calling it comunism or socialism. he said lower or higher stages.

but now its ommon to just say socialism thaen communism, this is beter because

a) most people use it. so, zealot and stos dont have to convert the entire comunists to their definitions, the comunists must convert zealot and stos

b) if we use the same thing, we avoid semantic confusion

"why we need supres with state?"

FUCK. did you ever know what the marxist definition of state is?

it is a organ of class supresion.

why we need supres with state? BECAUE< IF ONE CLASS SUPRES ANOTHER, THEN OcCERDING TO THE MARXIST DEFINITION OF STATE, THERE IS ALREADY A STATE. IT IS LOGICALLY IMPOSIBLE, USING THIS DEFINITION, FOR ONE CLASS TO SUPPRESS ANOTHER WITHOUT A STATE.

so maybe your using the other definition of state.. idk what its called but it sure as hel aint the marxist efinition its the bourgeois definition.

why is the marxist definition beter? becasue its MATERIALISt. it is based on class domination, instead of obourgeois definition which has no relation to lass and misleads you to believe that the state is not the bourgoiesie's method of raping your asshole.

"something about ideas"

you said ideas are authority. this is idealism

in materialism, material conditions are authority.

consciousness means ideas btw.

Subject: Re: Hi Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:00 pm

Hoxhaist wrote:: marx intrechanged from calling it comunism or socialism. he said lower or higher stages.

but now its ommon to just say socialism thaen communism, this is beter because

a) most people use it. so, zealot and stos dont have to convert the entire comunists to their definitions, the comunists must convert zealot and stos

b) if we use the same thing, we avoid semantic confusion

I already stated my personal posture towards the concepts "socialism" and "communism".

From a marxist perspective, though, they're the same thing.

Hoxhaist wrote:: "why we need supres with state?"

FUCK. did you ever know what the marxist definition of state is?
it is a organ of class supresion.

why we need supres with state? BECAUE< IF ONE CLASS SUPRES ANOTHER, THEN OcCERDING TO THE MARXIST DEFINITION OF STATE, THERE IS ALREADY A STATE. IT IS LOGICALLY IMPOSIBLE, USING THIS DEFINITION, FOR ONE CLASS TO SUPPRESS ANOTHER WITHOUT A STATE.

so maybe your using the other definition of state.. idk what its called but it sure as hel aint the marxist efinition its the bourgeois definition.

why is the marxist definition beter? becasue its MATERIALISt. it is based on class domination, instead of obourgeois definition which has no relation to lass and misleads you to believe that the state is not the bourgoiesie's method of raping your asshole.

Why would we need to supress who doesn't have power anymore? We'd be destroying the tool through which they control the workers therefore eliminating any need to suppress them through a state.

Hoxhaist wrote:: "something about ideas"

you said ideas are authority. this is idealism

No, it's objectivity.

Hoxhaist wrote:: in materialism, material conditions are authority.

And these, within a society, are determined by the kind of economic organization and development attained by a society within a determinate natural framework.

Hoxhaist wrote:: consciousness means ideas btw.

Are you stating that "consciousness" is a synonim for "ideas"? If so, you'r wrong.

Subject: Re: Hi Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:18 pm

Quote :: Why would we need to supress who doesn't have power anymore? We'd be destroying the tool through which they control the workers therefore eliminating any need to suppress them through a state.

nice utopia, my friend, but even after you overthrow the bourgoiese, they arent just gana become obedient workers. they still want they power back and you have to prevent them from doing so.

"this is objectivity"

Quote :: The way in which men produce their means of subsistence depends first of all on the nature of the actual means of subsistence they find in existence and have to reproduce. This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the production of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part. As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a2

you said ideas are authority. but it is the material conditions which determine the nature of men and therefore their ideas in the first place. therefore it is not ideas which are the authority. it is material conditions which are the authority.

Quote :: Consciousness is a type of mental state, a way of perceiving, particularly the perception of a relationship between self and other. It has been described as a point of view, an I, or what Thomas Nagel called the existence of "something that it is like" to be something.
Consciousness may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, dreams, and self-awareness.[1] It has been defined from a biological and causal perspective as the act of autonomously modulating attentional and computational effort, usually with the goal of obtaining, retaining, or maximizing specific parameters, such as food, a safe environment, family, or mates.

close enough

Subject: Re: Hi Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:35 pm

Hoxhaist wrote:: nice utopia, my friend, but even after you overthrow the bourgoiese, they arent just gana become obedient workers. they still want they power back and you have to prevent them from doing so.

They have no more workers under their command, how would they have power whatsoever?

Hoxhaist wrote:

Quote :: The way in which men produce their means of subsistence depends first of all on the nature of the actual means of subsistence they find in existence and have to reproduce. This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the production of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part. As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a2

you said ideas are authority. but it is the material conditions which determine the nature of men and therefore their ideas in the first place. therefore it is not ideas which are the authority. it is material conditions which are the authority.

Mankind has the ability to alter its material conditions depending on the ammount of development achieved.

We live within a certain geographical context as we develop we learn not only how to exploit it and adapt to it but also ho to control it.

Ideas, product of knowledge, are the tool that allow us said development and capability to control our material conditons, thus, they're the authority.

Hoxhaist wrote:: close enough

Related to, yes. Synonim? No.

Subject: Re: Hi Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:02 am

Quote :: They have no more workers under their command, how would they have power whatsoever?

that s the point they dont have it they want some power again. so they try to conterevulute.

Quote :: Ideas, product of knowledge, are the tool that allow us said development and capability to control our material conditons, thus, they're the authority.

material conditions control ideas, ideas control material conditions, okay i guess a little bit.

what came first the idea or the material condtions

Quote :: Related to, yes. Synonim? No.

close enough

Subject: Re: Hi Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:39 am

Hoxhaist wrote:: that s the point they dont have it they want some power again. so they try to conterevulute.

But they have no means to gain power again.

Hoxhaist wrote:: material conditions control ideas, ideas control material conditions, okay i guess a little bit.

what came first the idea or the material condtions

They're contemporary and they excert influence on each other so long as ideas are put into practice or have at least an influence in practice.

Subject: Re: Hi Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:45 am

ideas dont have copmleter control over material conditions but material conditions have completer contorl over ieas. MATERIAL WINS> IDEA SUCS

they can still group together and try to kill woring poeple.

its like your sayiong workers now dont have the means to revolt on the bourgeoisie. yeah, they just group together.

Subject: Re: Hi Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:54 am

Hoxhaist wrote:: ideas dont have copmleter control over material conditions but material conditions have completer contorl over ieas. MATERIAL WINS> IDEA SUCS

Not at all, specially if the idea produces a culture of labour.

Hoxhaist wrote:: they can still group together and try to kill woring poeple.

How?

Hoxhaist wrote:: its like your sayiong workers now dont have the means to revolt on the bourgeoisie. yeah, they just group together.

If the level of awareness among workers was high enough, cappies would be helpless.

Pioneer Posts : 32 Join date : 2008-12-29 Location : Berek

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: The thing is that socialism is intrinsically anarchic. Socialism requires no state nor leaderships. The only authority in socialism is that of valid ideas, in other words, the experts' ideas and that if they're democratically accepted regardless of wether tehy're valid or not.

Alright.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Well socialists don't take over the government they're fighting against, we abolish it. We don't keep a single trace of this socioeconomic system: we struggle for the abolition of state, money, trade and alienation.

But has this 'abolishment' ever worked?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: We see it as a battle to be fought world wide. The Russian oligarch is as as equally my enemy as the Chilean, French or German one. If socialism is achieved in a nation with autarchic capabilities or a group of nations achieving such an economic status, of course revolutions elsewhere will be supported by all means.

I have a question for you:
If the revolution in a capitalist state was run by only, lets say, 30% of the majority while the other 70% disagree/are uniformed about it, would you still support this state, even though the majority may not want Communistic ideals?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Exactly, because communist ideals had nothing to do with them.

Explain. I really don't understand your logic here.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: It was a system that employed capital monopolized by the state... how is that not capitalist?

Mainly because it had a dictator (Much unlike a president). Was originally fought for by the workers, and most of the capitalists during the revolution in these states were purged. 'State Capitalism' always seemed to me as a term just to attempt to re-blame Capitalists who had little to do with the fall of some socialist places. We could do the same by making a comedic type word, per se, State Communist (Lol), where Capitalism was originally implanted but turned moresoever into a failed Socialist state, even though most socialists had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Would you agree under Lenin socialism was doing well? And perhaps prosperous?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: There's no state per say in socialism, at least not as an entity dissociated from the people. Everyone form part of the government directly.

Yes, everyone is combined, blahetc, communist talk. Get to my point, do you, or do you not recognize that their would be a person who would be in charge of leading the peoples choices to the point of when it could dissolve?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: I'm not stating that dictators are demoratic. There are some political currents that favour a democratically supported dictator and others that argue that there can be a dictator that works more like an administrator executing popular will. Wether these ideas are flawed or not is not what I'm adressing, I'm just pointing out wether they're socialistic or not and why.

Alright, thats what i wanted to understand.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Vanguardism is a term to refer to those doctrines that consider people incapable of making their own minds implying that they need a leader to free them.

Im taking this as you feel Trotskyism would not work. Their main difference is the vanguard party.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: What do you mean by this?

I was agreeing to that one statement you made, i can't remember exactly what it was.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: I'm assuming people want more freedom.

But what makes you sure they want it threw Socialistic ways of meaning so? I want 'more freedom', but i dont want socialism.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: The way for people to have freedom is without having someone determining the way the should live, without breaking their backs for someone to thrive at their expense, being able to dedicate the greatest ammount of time possible to activities they enjoy, to dispose of as much time as possible in the way they want, to not fear wether they'll have something to eat or not, to have freedom of movement, to have freedom of choice, to be able to do what they want so long as they don't affect nonconsensual 3rd parties.

Hmm...I don't have anyone determining the way i live/
I do not break my backs for someone else, unless I choose to do so.
again, i do this situation with Science experiments, and i have all my life to do them and to continue with my genetic studies, no one can tell me not too. I never fear of lowing on food, because i actually try to become successful in life, thus, knowing that my planning will someday get me somewhere higher in Capitalism.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: I'm also assuming people prefer not to fuck other people up, I'm assuming people prefer to live in an economically stable environment.

Thats greenspeak. Most people "want" this goal but would not work for it, sadly enough.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Since workforce is no longer alienated and therefore no longer divided, it can be managed in a much more effective way: workforce will be democratically dispatched in accordance what society requires. If a certain requirement is urgent more workforce will be put into it, shifts will be modified accordingly and the societal need will be sufficed with the maximum efficience possible.

Explain "workforce is alienated." And why should the workforce be put into more strain when its needed? To provide for everyone else? What if i just want to provide for myself and thats it? What if i do not want to be put to work 'For the good of the nation'?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: I'm working on some mathematical models that serve as a scientific basis to prove that socialism can actually provide with much more productivity than capitalism while demanding less effort from workers and achieving egalitarianism. They'll be my proposal of socialist economy.

When your done i would be very interesting in seeing the results.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Which are?

-Socialism demands that people work for the good of 'society', often without direct benefit to themselves and sometimes at considerable personal cost.
-In a socialist society, decisions about what is good or bad for a person are made, not by the person, but by the government. It's like being forever a child, taking orders from a distant and uncaring 'parent' who doesn't have the faintest idea what the 'child' wants.
-There is no way to ever gain up. You will forever be a pawn in with the rest of them and have no choices to ever gain better living standards than the rest.
-Socialism in history has almost inevitably lead to a dictatorship.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Well, yeah, there would be no finances in socialism, everyone would be financially at 0.

Which sucks. I prefer to better myself than stay the same as everyone else.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: No one will force those who want to engage in BDSM economics to accept socialism, they're welcome to leave society whenever they want. Just they won't be able to impose their ways on anyone.

I'll be the first one out, before it turns to where so many leave they have to shut the borders down.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: Hmm... I wonder who it was. However, we socialists are not fond of parasites, what we do is just to expell them from society.

Or purge them. Heres the quote:
-----------------------

Quote :: Rename
Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:39 pm Topic: Re: [No title]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No starting to get into your preferred field is what i ment, not work early
Kenzu
Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:30 pm Topic: Re: [No title]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In socialist countries, people who are lazy bumbs go to jail!
Starting to work early (before finishing college) is the 100% safe way to stay poor for the rest of your life.

--------------------
Source: I took this from the: Democratic Party of the World Republic: Topic, Kenzu vs Rename. 1st post, the last statement.
And as you told me in a PM, hes the 2nd leader of this forum, is that not ironic?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: In socialism also, just you're to be expelled from society for slacking off unless you get some people to substain you economically.

But why? Because of a personal choice? Apparentely we don't have the freedom to be lazy and make our own choice to live without work.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: it necesary that utensils be clean? If so, the act of cleaning is important too.

Yes. They need to be cleaned, but it is not as important as the actual usage of the device. The doctors could clean it themselves if needed.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: I call myself "Eclectic Communist", I keep my mind open to all ideas on the stablishment of socialism and struggle for the objectively most valid ideas to prevail.

Never heard of such a word. I'll have to study it more sometime!

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:: I just want to know what your notion of "National Socialism" is.

To put it blunt, i have two standings on National Socialism:
1. As in the term used by Nazi's to declare themselves.
2. Nationalist type of socialism, with a lot of the same principals but more right with nationalism involved.
Probably incorrect, im not good with these type of terms.

Pioneer Posts : 32 Join date : 2008-12-29 Location : Berek

Stos wrote:: We are not trying to destroy the universe, so no.

....
Utopia has absolutely nothing to do with destroying the universe.
Utopia is a name for an ideal community, would you much rather my call it a dystopia?

Subject: Re: Hi Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:45 am

Poxca wrote:: But has this 'abolishment' ever worked?

Yes, in the anarchist communes in the Spanish civil war. They seized the economy and ran the society in a completely socialist fashion. It worked until two of the most powerful armies in Europe crushed them (the Nazi german and fascist Italian armies helping the Franquist army).

Though, even if it hadn't ever been stablished thus being any example of its workability unexistant, it would be irrelevant. The temporary unexistance of something does not counter its possibility to exist sometime.

Poxca wrote:: I have a question for you:
If the revolution in a capitalist state was run by only, lets say, 30% of the majority while the other 70% disagree/are uniformed about it, would you still support this state, even though the majority may not want Communistic ideals?

A revolution won't happen until a majourity supports it.

Poxca wrote:: Explain. I really don't understand your logic here.

USSR, Vietnam, NK, China and the rest of the COMECON were just a bunch of State Capitalist powers calling themselves "socialist".

Poxca wrote:: Mainly because it had a dictator (Much unlike a president). Was originally fought for by the workers, and most of the capitalists during the revolution in these states were purged.

But they still employed capital, it was just exclusively controlled by the state elite. The workers kept being workers subjugated by a political framework reliant in capital and political power. If that system's economy was based on a capital, why wouldn't it be capitalism?

Poxca wrote:: 'State Capitalism' always seemed to me as a term just to attempt to re-blame Capitalists who had little to do with the fall of some socialist places.

And this notion is absolutely mistaken. There were no socialist places and it's not an attempt to "blame capitalists" for their failure.

These systems relied on a state controlled capital. What happened is that a vanguard took out the previous capitalists and assumed their place in a context that allowed much more equality to workers but in which the workers were still working for a capitalist entity which, instead of being just groups of individuals with money, were a single group of people with political power and who controlled absolutely all the money within that country: the state.

Poxca wrote:: We could do the same by making a comedic type word, per se, State Communist (Lol), where Capitalism was originally implanted but turned moresoever into a failed Socialist state, even though most socialists had absolutely nothing to do with it.

And it wouldn't make the least sense because socialism is intrinsically stateless. And it would be avsolutely groundless. It would be just to play with words.

Poxca wrote:: Would you agree under Lenin socialism was doing well? And perhaps prosperous?

Not at all. There was no socialism under Lenin.

Poxca wrote:: Yes, everyone is combined, blahetc, communist talk. Get to my point, do you, or do you not recognize that their would be a person who would be in charge of leading the peoples choices to the point of when it could dissolve?

That was my point: that there wouldn't be such leading figure. It's absolutely unnecesary and actually it's counterproductive.

Poxca wrote:: Im taking this as you feel Trotskyism would not work. Their main difference is the vanguard party.

I'm simply attacking the concept of vanguard which it's not only unnecesary but an utter hindrance to a socialist movement. Revolution cannot rely on a handful of men.

Poxca wrote:: But what makes you sure they want it threw Socialistic ways of meaning so? I want 'more freedom', but i dont want socialism.

The thing is that socialism allows you freedom withouut having to break your back under the rule of anyone or by screwing anyone up.

Poxca wrote:: Hmm...I don't have anyone determining the way i live/

Are you so sure? How high was your level of participation in the way economy and infrastructure were to be run?

Poxca wrote:: I do not break my backs for someone else, unless I choose to do so.

So long as you can choose.

Poxca wrote:: again, i do this situation with Science experiments, and i have all my life to do them and to continue with my genetic studies, no one can tell me not too. I never fear of lowing on food, because i actually try to become successful in life, thus, knowing that my planning will someday get me somewhere higher in Capitalism.

In capitalism the only way to thrive is by having money and the only ways to get it are through 1) working your ass off for the owner of a business at the rate demanded by the market, 2) selling a product made by yourself 3) having people to work for you. 4)Inheriting or getting enough to allow you not to engage in any of the previous.

In socialism you don't have to do any of the previous for you do not need money. No one works to suffice the greed of a handful of men, no one has to sell or trade anything to survive (for there is no social alienation) and no one thrives on anyone's exploitation.

Economy is completely planned in order to achieve the maximum productivity and equality while demanding the least effort possible granting thus the greatest ammount time possible for people to dispose of it at their will.

Poxca wrote:: Thats greenspeak. Most people "want" this goal but would not work for it, sadly enough.

So you're arguing people are nt eager to struggle for what they want? Then what's the point of struggling?

Poxca wrote:: Explain "workforce is alienated."

Alienation is when individuals are isolated from each other in the sense that they don't naturally understand that they're interdependent.

In an industrial context, alienation doesn't allow people to realize that the food production industru relies on the electricity producing one and both on the construction one and viceversa thus treating each other as unlinked entities that must trade their goods, or worse, that belong to a certain individual for that individual to exchange those goods according to his convenience.

Poxca wrote:: And why should the workforce be put into more strain when its needed? To provide for everyone else?

It wouldn't be to put workforce into more strain but to increase the ammount of workforce to accomplish a production goal.

And, socialism is based on the premise that all workers provide each other with their needs.

Poxca wrote:: What if i just want to provide for myself and thats it?

Then I suggest you to isolate yourself fro any kind of economic interaction and do your best to suffice every need by yourself, taht's the only way you could achieve that. And if you set to that enterprise, I wish you good luck.

Poxca wrote:: What if i do not want to be put to work 'For the good of the nation'?

You can always leave it and expect to be able to selfsuffice all your needs. The premise is "work for the good of your nation for your nation works for your good".

Poxca wrote:: When your done i would be very interesting in seeing the results.

Without doubt I will.

Poxca wrote:: -Socialism demands that people work for the good of 'society', often without direct benefit to themselves and sometimes at considerable personal cost.

The thing is that people are part of the society and what some people prodce will be used by others that produce what the 1st producers produce.

Poxca wrote:: -In a socialist society, decisions about what is good or bad for a person are made, not by the person, but by the government. It's like being forever a child, taking orders from a distant and uncaring 'parent' who doesn't have the faintest idea what the 'child' wants.

That's a funny way to attack socialism, but absolutely non-functional.

Let me explain to you: In socialism in a 20 million workers' community the government consists of 20 million people. Everyone governs himself while considerating the rest of the members of the society. If, from that 20 million workers' society 11 million agree to a resolution and 9 million don't, the resolution is just applied within those 11 million taht accepted it without forcing the remaining 9 million.

It's not a daddy-child relationship, it's a worker-worker relationship that takes into account the real economic relationships within the production of both goods and services that suffice the needs of every individual.

Poxca wrote:: -There is no way to ever gain up. You will forever be a pawn in with the rest of them and have no choices to ever gain better living standards than the rest.

A pawn of whom? And why do you need better life standards than others? plus, there's actually a chance that it is democatically decided that those that work more may deserve more without this implying the possibility of those to excert power over others. Just a slight chance, though, it doens't even have a point.

Poxca wrote:: -Socialism in history has almost inevitably lead to a dictatorship.

I must have been missing something... all large scale attempts at building socialism were crushed by an external force so I don't see how they lead to a dictatorship.

Do you mean USSR, Cuba, NK, Poland , etc.? If so, no, there was absolutely no socialism within those countries.

Poxca wrote:: Which sucks. I prefer to better myself than stay the same as everyone else.

How do lack of finances represent an obstacle for you to better yourself?

Poxca wrote:: I'll be the first one out, before it turns to where so many leave they have to shut the borders down.

On which grounds can you assert that everyone wants the same kind of economic system you do in rejection of socialism?

Poxca wrote:

Or purge them. Heres the quote:
-----------------------

Quote :: Rename
Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:39 pm Topic: Re: [No title]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No starting to get into your preferred field is what i ment, not work early
Kenzu
Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:30 pm Topic: Re: [No title]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In socialist countries, people who are lazy bumbs go to jail!
Starting to work early (before finishing college) is the 100% safe way to stay poor for the rest of your life.

--------------------
Source: I took this from the: Democratic Party of the World Republic: Topic, Kenzu vs Rename. 1st post, the last statement.
And as you told me in a PM, hes the 2nd leader of this forum, is that not ironic?

Ah, that. Well, he calls himsefl dmeocratic socialist but says that democracy fails. He usually makes demonstrations of autocracy and is fond of reformism.

In other words, he's not really a socialist.

He's also the founder of the forum, by the way.

Poxca wrote:: But why? Because of a personal choice? Apparentely we don't have the freedom to be lazy and make our own choice to live without work.

No one can live without work unless workers decide to assist them living, in other words, being parasites.

If within a socialist framework you can get a handful of friends, relatives or lovers to substain you economically then you can live withi a socialist society without working, pretty much like in a capitalist society.

But, if you have no one to substain you or keep you within society, then you'll eventually be left out.

Poxca wrote:: Yes. They need to be cleaned, but it is not as important as the actual usage of the device.

Meaning that the device can be used regardless of wether its clean or not? I'd prety much say that those instruments would be useless if dirty, just like anything without mantainance.

Poxca wrote:: The doctors could clean it themselves if needed.

Therefore there's no need for a cleaner. May cleaning be part of the job and if not let it be a job apart, an important job that allows another job to be performed.

Poxca wrote:: Never heard of such a word. I'll have to study it more sometime!

Eclecticism stands for the combination of different elements.

Poxca wrote:: To put it blunt, i have two standings on National Socialism:
1. As in the term used by Nazi's to declare themselves.
2. Nationalist type of socialism, with a lot of the same principals but more right with nationalism involved.
Probably incorrect, im not good with these type of terms.

I must say this notion is pretty vague. The term, as used by nazis, was a completely incorrect yet strategic use of the word "socialism". As I explained, it was simply a nationalist welfare state based on the exploitation of foreign workforces and resources.

New Party Member Posts : 546 Join date : 2008-09-14

Hoxhaist wrote:: nice utopia, my friend, but even after you overthrow the bourgoiese, they arent just gana become obedient workers. they still want they power back and you have to prevent them from doing so.

Wow, a tiny little percentage of people are going to want power back. How frightening.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is when the revolution is not yet successful internationally, and thus the bourgeoisie still exists outside the place in which a revolution has succeeded. Inside it, one doesn't do anything about the bourgeoisie, because there isn't any. The state is the enforcement of one class' interests over another's, thus a workers' state is basically something like the Spanish communes, which were eventually destroyed by the bourgeoisie (Western and Russian).

Quote :: Utopia has absolutely nothing to do with destroying the universe.
Utopia is a name for an ideal community, would you much rather my call it a dystopia?

It's also a pun on the Greek term for 'no place' (or 'not a place').

Hi