Problems to build socialism

I have posted a thread to discuss the general understanding of socialism.
Why? Well, because it's within the understanding of socialism one of the main problems when building it. The way we understand socialism and its aims will determine the way we work to achieve it.

One general misunderstanding of socialism in my view is that socialism's objective is to provide everyone merely with material wealth. That is all workers will be able to enjoy a burgeoise life. Like if socialism promised workers to be able to have everything middle and upper classes have. In other words, like if socialism promised workers to allow them to falñl into excess.

In my view, socialism is designed to eliminate consumerism, to eliminate money and trade, to eliminate market, to eliminate capitalism.

I also posted a thread about the understanding of wellbeing. Why? Because within the understanding of wellbeing lays the objective of a certain system and thus the clarification of what that system pursues and how to achieve it.

Socialism has generally been understood merely as a system that makes everything of public property through the state. Basically as state capitalism and not really as socialism.

Socialism requires people to have a sense of brotherhood, a sense of fraternity, a sense of love to their surroundings and others, love to culture, love to diversity. Is not only making of a nation a big enterprise owned by its workers (put in a very simplistic way).

I'd like to know your views comrades.

socalism, econamy partly owend by the state= well posseble
Communism= imposseble

mattabesta wrote:

socalism, econamy partly owend by the state= well posseble

Socialism - All economy begins to be owned by the state and starts the buildup of the communist infrastructure.

mattabesta wrote:

Communism= imposseble

*impossible

On which grounds you say that?

becuse evryone how has tryed has failed

mattabesta wrote:

becuse evryone how has tryed has failed

They simply haven't tried.

right.........................
anyone how beleves cmmunism will always say that china and ussr are not communist and never were and din't even try probably becuse both cuntryes have no democacy usally end up with dictators who kill thousund if not millions .

I mean i'd be in for socalism if it would work

mattabesta wrote:

right.........................
anyone how beleves cmmunism will always say that china and ussr are not communist and never were and din't even try probably becuse both cuntryes have no democacy usally end up with dictators who kill thousund if not millions .

*communism,believes,Who,countries

mmm , they kill millions if you wanna know.
And

Quote :

Others, including Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_state

mattabesta wrote:

right.........................
anyone how beleves cmmunism will always say that china and ussr are not communist and never were and din't even try probably becuse both cuntryes have no democacy usally end up with dictators who kill thousund if not millions .

I mean i'd be in for socalism if it would work

We say that because simply it's true: Communism doesn't employ money, nor market, nor sales, nor wages. The whole communist economy is based on production and distribution by law.

If a country that claims to be communist employs money it's not communist, if a system that claims to be communist has markets, it's not communist. If in a country which claims to be communist you can buy things, it's not communist. If a country that claims to be communist allows class divisions, it's not communist.

If someone claims to be anchitect and doesn't design buildings, or doesn't know how to, he's not an architect. If someone claims to be a mathematician doesn't know how to solve a logarithmic equation, he's not a mathematician or at least a very mediocre attempt. If a man claims to be a woman that doesn't make him a woman.

As simple as this: claiming to be soemthing doesn't actually make you be what you're claiming to be.

NEITHER USSR, NOR CHINA, NOR VIET NAM, NOR THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF POLAND, NOR GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, NOR CUBA, NOR CZECHOSLOVAKIA, NOR YUGOSLAVIA, NOR CAMBODIA, NOR ETHIOPIA, NOR HUNGARY, NOR VENEZUELA, NOR YEMEN, BULGARIA, MOZAMBIQUE, ALBANIA, NICARAGUA, CHILE, AFGHANISTAN OR ROMANIA WERE OR ARE SOCIALIST NOR COMMUNIST, THEY ARE/WERE STATE CAPITALISMS.

If your country runs on money it's run like a business and it's reigned by the laws of capitalism. Either it produces money to keep feeding its economy or it fails. Why? Because you need money, capital to keep it running. You need money to pay workers and they need money to buy their goods to satisfy their needs.

IF YOUR COUNTRY IS RUN BY CAPITAL, IT'S CAPITALIST NO MATTER WHO CONTROLS THAT CAPITAL AND HOW THAT CAPITAL IS SPENT. IF THAT CAPITAL IS SPENT TO PRODUCE MORE CAPITAL THUS FUELING THE ECONOMY, IF YOUR CAPITAL GENERATES PROFITS, INCOME, PLUSVALY, IT'S A SUCCESFUL CAPITALISM. IF YOUR CAPITAL IS SPENT IN NON-PROFITABLE ACTIVITIES, LIKE IN A SOCIALIST TENDING STATE CAPITALISM, THEN YOUR CAPITALISM FAILS.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

right.........................
anyone how beleves cmmunism will always say that china and ussr are not communist and never were and din't even try probably becuse both cuntryes have no democacy usally end up with dictators who kill thousund if not millions .

I mean i'd be in for socalism if it would work

We say that because simply it's true: Communism doesn't employ money, nor market, nor sales, nor wages. The whole communist economy is based on production and distribution by law.

If a country that claims to be communist employs money it's not communist, if a money that claims to be communist has markets, it's not communist. If in a country which claims to be communist you can buy things, it's not communist. If a country that claims to be communist allows class divisions, it's not communist.

If someone claims to be anchitect and doesn't design buildings, or doesn't know how to, he's not an architect. If someone claims to be a mathematician doesn't know how to solve a logarithmic equation, he's not a mathematician or at least a very mediocre attempt. If a man claims to be a woman that doesn't make him a woman.

As simple as this: claiming to be soemthing doesn't actually make you be what you're claiming to be.

NEITHER USSR, NOR CHINA, NOR VIET NAM, NOR THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF POLAND, NOR GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, NOR CUBA, NOR CZECHOSLOVAKIA, NOR YUGOSLAVIA, NOR CAMBODIA, NOR ETHIOPIA, NOR HUNGARY, NOR VENEZUELA, NOR YEMEN, BULGARIA, MOZAMBIQUE, ALBANIA, NICARAGUA, CHILE, AFGHANISTAN OR ROMANIA WERE OR ARE SOCIALIST NOR COMMUNIST, THEY ARE/WERE STATE CAPITALISMS.

If your country runs on money it's run like a business and it's reigned by the laws of capitalism. Either it produces money to keep feeding its economy or it fails. Why? Because you need money, capital to keep it running. You need money to pay workers and they need money to buy their goods to satisfy their needs.

IF YOUR COUNTRY IS RUN BY CAPITAL, IT'S CAPITALIST NO MATTER WHO CONTROLS THAT CAPITAL AND HOW THAT CAPITAL IS SPENT. IF THAT CAPITAL IS SPENT TO PRODUCE MORE CAPITAL THUS FUELING THE ECONOMY, IF YOUR CAPITAL GENERATES PROFITS, INCOME, PLUSVALY, IT'S A SUCCESFUL CAPITALISM. IF YOUR CAPITAL IS SPENT IN NON-PROFITABLE ACTIVITIES, LIKE IN A SOCIALIST TENDING STATE CAPITALISM, THEN YOUR CAPITALISM FAILS.

Vietnam was close during the war. The tunnles the VC dug were run by men that were not paid((Because they were basically rebels..)) and they had a whole society that >WORKED< and could be run for months at a time, But when the "Communist"((Note the quotations because that is what they claimed to be.) Government started it lost it when it HAD to pay its debts to lets say China for the weapons it supplied.

Diogritor wrote:

Vietnam was close during the war. The tunnles the VC dug were run by men that were not paid((Because they were basically rebels..)) and they had a whole society that >WORKED< and could be run for months at a time, But when the "Communist"((Note the quotations because that is what they claimed to be.) Government started it lost it when it HAD to pay its debts to lets say China for the weapons it supplied.

Some of the closest approximations to communism have been either these forms of what is called "War Communism" and Communes.

"War Communism" like in the case of USSR during the Civil war was a first step. All industry was taken by force by workers while food, still retained by Kulaks was taken forcibly from them. However, this proved uneffective since Kulaks dropped production and so food started to scarce. Else that still implied class stratification so it can't be called communism.

Communes, on the other hand can have some level of workability but their dependance on extra-communal infrastructure and technology and the fact most resources are taken by the capitalist state make them just workable under relatively primitive conditions and within a relatively poor level of development. Else they would be a different class within a capitalist society. These two factors make it not communist yet, or perhaps "the most advaced possible form of primitive communism".

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

right.........................
anyone how beleves cmmunism will always say that china and ussr are not communist and never were and din't even try probably becuse both cuntryes have no democacy usally end up with dictators who kill thousund if not millions .

I mean i'd be in for socalism if it would work

We say that because simply it's true: Communism doesn't employ money, nor market, nor sales, nor wages. The whole communist economy is based on production and distribution by law.

If a country that claims to be communist employs money it's not communist, if a system that claims to be communist has markets, it's not communist. If in a country which claims to be communist you can buy things, it's not communist. If a country that claims to be communist allows class divisions, it's not communist.

If someone claims to be anchitect and doesn't design buildings, or doesn't know how to, he's not an architect. If someone claims to be a mathematician doesn't know how to solve a logarithmic equation, he's not a mathematician or at least a very mediocre attempt. If a man claims to be a woman that doesn't make him a woman.

As simple as this: claiming to be soemthing doesn't actually make you be what you're claiming to be.

NEITHER USSR, NOR CHINA, NOR VIET NAM, NOR THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF POLAND, NOR GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, NOR CUBA, NOR CZECHOSLOVAKIA, NOR YUGOSLAVIA, NOR CAMBODIA, NOR ETHIOPIA, NOR HUNGARY, NOR VENEZUELA, NOR YEMEN, BULGARIA, MOZAMBIQUE, ALBANIA, NICARAGUA, CHILE, AFGHANISTAN OR ROMANIA WERE OR ARE SOCIALIST NOR COMMUNIST, THEY ARE/WERE STATE CAPITALISMS.

If your country runs on money it's run like a business and it's reigned by the laws of capitalism. Either it produces money to keep feeding its economy or it fails. Why? Because you need money, capital to keep it running. You need money to pay workers and they need money to buy their goods to satisfy their needs.

IF YOUR COUNTRY IS RUN BY CAPITAL, IT'S CAPITALIST NO MATTER WHO CONTROLS THAT CAPITAL AND HOW THAT CAPITAL IS SPENT. IF THAT CAPITAL IS SPENT TO PRODUCE MORE CAPITAL THUS FUELING THE ECONOMY, IF YOUR CAPITAL GENERATES PROFITS, INCOME, PLUSVALY, IT'S A SUCCESFUL CAPITALISM. IF YOUR CAPITAL IS SPENT IN NON-PROFITABLE ACTIVITIES, LIKE IN A SOCIALIST TENDING STATE CAPITALISM, THEN YOUR CAPITALISM FAILS.

What if i'm really,really lazy?

mattabesta wrote:

What if i'm really,really lazy?

In a communist framework? You're a criminal.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

What if i'm really,really lazy?

In a communist framework? You're a criminal.

so i'll go to prison becuse i'm lazy?

No you would get executed to show the other labourers what happens to lazy people.

Voice of Reason wrote:

No you would get executed to show the other labourers what happens to lazy people.

yay communism amirite? wait..nope..

Nope. Right. Just independent.

mattabesta wrote:

so i'll go to prison becuse i'm lazy?

You're sent to forced labour, if you still refuse to work under such circumstances, you're either exiled or sent to an open-air prison in which you'll have to survive like an animal.

Voice of Reason wrote:

No you would get executed to show the other labourers what happens to lazy people.

In communism you're shot when you pose a threat to the communist society.

QED

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

so i'll go to prison becuse i'm lazy?

You're sent to forced labour, if you still refuse to work under such circumstances, you're either exiled or sent to an open-air prison in which you'll have to survive like an animal.

now i uderstand why communism is hated
this is bullshit
sent to forced labor for working less???????????????????

mattabesta wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

so i'll go to prison becuse i'm lazy?

You're sent to forced labour, if you still refuse to work under such circumstances, you're either exiled or sent to an open-air prison in which you'll have to survive like an animal.

now i uderstand why communism is hated
this is bullshit
sent to forced labor for working less???????????????????

no, you give what you can, but if you dont work at all these thigns will happen

I joined this group because I thought it would be filled with people who understand Socialism. I was wrong, I can tell I am the only person who ewas born in the USSR or any Socialist nation for that matter.

-you donot get sent to forced labor camps for not working....
- Communism is impossible for at least 300 years if at all.
- the Soviet Union which existed was the creation of stalin and with that
it was an abomination. It used none of Lenin's market based economic policies.

Well as a member of the Opposition here:

There will always be people like me who oppose any veiw. It is human nature to have our differences, Just like I support a Dictatorship with Capitalism and you support... a Dictatorship with Capitalism..

USSR= State Capitalism, But they claim to be Communist so I dont like it.

tEvansky wrote:

I joined this group because I thought it would be filled with people who understand Socialism. I was wrong, I can tell I am the only person who ewas born in the USSR or any Socialist nation for that matter.

-you donot get sent to forced labor camps for not working....
- Communism is impossible for at least 300 years if at all.
- the Soviet Union which existed was the creation of stalin and with that
it was an abomination. It used none of Lenin's market based economic policies.

who said you get sent to labour camps in the ussr or any self proclaimed socalist nation, no one, this is our view on how communism would work, if we implemented it, there are manyways to run different types of government, and we are talking about sommunism which has never been tried not socialism

mattabesta wrote:

now i uderstand why communism is hated
this is bullshit
sent to forced labor for working less???????????????????

Not for working less but for not working when being able to do so.