Socialism, Communism and General Leftism (An Explanation and Discussion)
95 replies, posted
I begin with a joke:
[quote]An old revolutionary walks across the Brooklyn Bridge one day, and he sees man of a similar age standing on the edge, about to jump. He runs over and says: “Stop. Don’t do it.”
“Why shouldn’t I?” he asks.
“Well, there’s so much to live for!”
“I’m just so depressed, I’ve been a communist all my life and the revolution seems as far away as ever”
“You’re a communist?”
“Yeah. Why?”
“I am as well! Did you originally join the Communist Party USA?”
“Yeah.”
“Me too! Did you join the pro-Trotsky Communist League of America in 1928, which later merged with the American Workers Party to form the Workers Party of America in 1934?”
“Yeah.”
“Spooky, Me too! After the WPA was expelled from the Socialist Party of America in 1936 did you then go on to join the Socialist Workers Party USA and the Fourth International?”
“I did actually…”
“Me too! In the 1940 dispute did you side with Cannon or Shachtman?”
“Cannon.”
“Me too! In 1962 did you join Robertson’s opposition caucus, the Revolutionary Tendency?”
“Yep.”
“Holy shit! And of course like me you were expelled and went on to join the International Communist League (Spartacist).”
“Well … that goes without saying!”
“In 1985 did you join the International Bolshevik Tendency who claimed that the Sparts have degenerated into an ‘obedience cult’?”
“No way!”
“Nah, me neither. In 1998 did you join the Internationalist Group after the Permanent Revolution Faction were expelled from the ICL?”
“Yeah! I can’t believe this! Maybe I won’t …”
“Die, counterrevolutionary scum!” his erstwhile savior screams, and pushes him off the bridge.[/quote]
This is an apt description of the history of socialism.
This will be the third time I’ve attempted to write this thread, not because I don’t know the topic matter, but because this is an incredibly complex topic at times and I’m not trying to write a book (in retrospect, I’ve failed this). Socialism is, to say the least, contradictory, broad, narrow, inclusive and exclusive- different definitions, different times and historical contexts, different phrasing…branches upon branches. It’s a tough topic to be able to explain how all these different ideologies are united under “socialism”.
The best explanation of socialism I can give at its most broad is:
[U]“A socio-economic and/or political model with the key feature of working-class control of the means of production”.[/U]
The contending points in socialism are:
How are the means of production controlled?
To what extent are the working class in control?
To what extent does the state play a role?
For the sake of understanding how all of these ideologies are related, I will be writing this out as a political history, as well as a political explanation. You will understand all the conflicts and splits, as well as the movements and beliefs that came out of them.
To know socialism, we do not need to know it from the beginning. We can, however, begin at the source of modern socialism: Marxism and Marxian economics.
[B][U]Marxism[/U][/B]
Marxian economics is based out of the Labor Theory of Value. This is a thread on its own, and since I’m not much of an economics person, it would be a crime to allow me to try to explain it efficiently. I’ll instead just link you to the [URL="http://theredphoenixapl.org/2008/12/09/labor-theory-of-value-a-simple-explanation/"]American Party of Labor’s explanation of Labor Theory[/URL]. For this thread, all that you need to know about Marxian economics is that is sees all commodities (useful things) as products of labor, and that the people who make commodities are entitled to the entire value of it, and as such capitalists who take part (or all) of the value of labor are exploiting-i.e. if you work in a factory making car parts, the capitalist would take the car parts, sell them, and give you back part of the profit- Marx says that all of the profit is yours because you made it. From this thread of thinking comes the common trend in all of socialism that says that the working class are the rightful heirs to all things produced. Marxian economics also throws in concepts like alienation (a worker is alienated, or separated, from the product of his labor because it is owned by someone else…he does not control his own production) and wage-slavery (conditions are created in society that cause reliance on the selling of one’s labor- conditions which require workers be exploited in order to survive).
Marxism sees economics as the underlying factor to all things. While other philosophers may see race, sex, or power as the underlying factors in society, Marx explains that all of society is based around an economic system. This base- the economic system- is responsible for the development of the society- the superstructure. All conflicts, ongoings, and the like that come out of that are products of this economic system. For instance- while movies are an important part of our culture, Marx would explain that movies how they are would not portray what they do portray, nor exist how they do exist, nor be accessible in the way they are, were it not for a capitalist economic system. Marx would also say that an event like the race riots of the 60s, while on the surface being issues of race relations and racial political status, is also a product of the capitalist system, for minorities would not be in the position they were had capitalism not saw benefit in exploiting them, had whites not benefited off of minority labor as an economic method, had blacks never been imported as slaves to fuel the market, etc.
In addition, Marx explains that history is created out of conflict. This is called historical materialism, or something dialectical materialism, which says that history is the study of events, and events are driven by conflict. At no point in history has anyone ever written “in this year nothing of interest happened”- there is always conflict…between man and man, man and society, man and nature. To Marx, though, the most important conflict is the class conflict. Marx saw the world’s population divided into classes based on their relationship to economically productive forces, and determined that in all economic systems thusfar (he was writing this at the beginning of European capitalism) were the result of a minority controlling the means of production, and the majority being wage slaves, slaves, or indebted to that minority for survival. Marx interpreted all of history’s changing and evolving economic systems as the result of one class being challenged by another. For instance, Marx gives the interpretation that early capitalism came about when artisans were able to produce and profit enough to challenge the land holdings and wealth supremacy of feudal lords and monarchs, and eventually these artisans were capable of overpowering the fuedalists and forcing them into non-existence when they became the dominant class. Marx believed that capitalism would eventually also collapse through class conflict. It’s this interpretation of historical evolution that Marxists support in their assumption that capitalism is doomed.
[U][B]Class[/B][/U]
Marx, at the beginning of European capitalism, was able to define the existing classes. At the time of his writing, these classes were:
-The bourgeoisie- those who controlled the economically productive forces…landowners, factory owners, etc.
-The petty (or petite) bourgeoisie- those who do not control productive forces, but may control labor, own land, or aspire to own means of production…shop owners, small business owners, managers, stock traders, politicians, etc.
-The proletariat- the working class, or those who do not own enough of the productive forces to constitute a living, and who are forced to sell their labor to survive.
-The lumpenproletariat- those who make a living by working, but not selling their labor. In general this means people like criminals who steal to sustain themselves.
-The peasantry- those who may own land and some means of production who survive directly form their own labor or under the command of landowners.
Additionally, later further classes would be developed or become ideologically canonical in certain forms of Marxism:
-The kulaks- those who own land and oversaw serfs and peasants. In Russia, this came in the form of landowning elites whose land was worked by indebted peasants. In America, it might be interpreted as those who own the land in a sharecropping situation.
-The salariat- those who neither own nor work means of production, nor themselves do useful labor, but whose labor is still sold- today this often translates to management.
-The neo-lumpenproletariat- the new interpretation of the lumpenproletariat as those who are self-employed or own their own labor- they are not indebted to sell their labor to an individual, but also do not control labor of others or own substantial means of production.
[B][U]Socialism[/U][/B]
Marx focused on the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, as the ones who control and the ones who are controlled. It is Marx’s opinion that capitalism was naturally doomed, like all other economic systems in the past, because it was creating its own demise: capitalism was concentrating the peasantry into the cities, where they were realizing their common ground as proletariats, organizing and forming strong bonds, and would eventually overpower the owning classes in class war. Marx saw this as being more immediate than it actually was, because he assumed that the exploitation of the proletariat was going to occur exponentially based on the necessity of maintaining and expanding capitalism. The working class would command the world, institute states of socialism, and together build a society where the workers were free to decide their own fate, control their own labor, and live how they wished. This socialism would eventually give way to a stateless society Marx called communism, where work needing to be completed would be done out of passion, interest, and enjoyment, and people would simply continue on the necessities of society without the guidance or ruling of the state. Idealistic, perhaps, but possible in the mind of communists.
[B][U]Ideology[/U][/B]
[U]Communism and Socialism[/U]
The first major split in socialist theory comes with the split between Communists and Socialists. Note that all of the ideologies presented here are socialist, but that there is a branch of socialism that identifies as socialists. Assume that “Socialist” means “those who identify with a socialist state” and “socialist” means “those who believe in the socialist ideology defined above”.
[U]Communists:[/U]
Those who believe that the workers in a socialist state will eventually be able to command society without the need of the state- the state will wither away to inexistence and a stateless society will be the norm.
[U]Socialists:[/U]
Those who believe that workers will maintain a socialist state, that a socialist state will be the best we can do and that socialism is the primary goal.
This conflict was from the beginning. Both socialists and communists are born out of the Marxist analysis, but one is more concerned with the immediate while the other is also concerned with the end goal. Socialists wish to see a state where workers control all, communists the same but with the goal of ending the state down the line. Thus, socialists tend not to worry much about the power of the state when it benefits the working class.
[B][U]Communism and Libertarian Socialism[/U][/B]
Libertarianism, or today most commonly known as libertarian socialism, is an ideology that sees the state as negative. The most prominent strain of libertarian socialism is anarchism, but I will have an anarchist thread in the future, because anarchism is often seen as a separate ideology.
The split between communism and anarchism came early. Both ideologies believe in essentially the same thing, but the difference comes with one key factor: the state.
[U]Anarchists:[/U]
Socialists who do not believe in the use of the state, but believe in the creation of stateless communism.
Anarchism comes out of Bakunin and Proudhon, contemporaries of Marx, who agreed with the concept of communism and most of Marxist theory but disagreed with the concept of the socialist state. The Marxist interpretation of the state is that the state is merely a tool, capable of being wielded for good and bad, built out of the economic forces of the time. Socialists and capitalists both make use of the state as needed, but anarchists proclaim the state to be a coercive and harmful entity by its very existence. For all practical purposes, there is no difference between communism and anarchism, but there is a difference between Communists and Anarchists, in that the process in getting to the stateless society is different.
The relationship between communists, Socialists, and anarchists is made messy from the start. Marx was able to get Bakunin expelled from the First International- an organization of socialists united together across borders with the goal of organizing world revolution. Additionally, during Marx’s time, the first socialist revolution occurred in Paris, where the three groups (anarchists, Socialists, and communists) united together to take control of Paris and formed the Paris Commune. They immediately created a socialist program, with varying forms of state control depending on the historical account and your definition of the state, and successfully began operation of true anarchism/socialism/communism. The Commune was crushed violently by the French armed forces, and the failure of the defense of the Commune was blamed on the other person: Marx claimed the state being too weak due to anarchist influence lead to its destruction, and Bakunin claimed the state being too powerful being the cause of the limited ability to produce defenses and organize militias as the cause of its destruction.
Additionally, social democrats entered the mix from the start. Social democrats are commonly seen as “capitalists for the working class”. SocDems hold the position of gradualism, or reformism, which holds that socialism is achievable through gradual reform of capitalism.
[U]Social Democrats:[/U]
Those who believe that capitalism can be reformed through legal channels into socialism over a long period.
At the time, they were universally hated by socialists because there were seen as “averting class conflict by alleviating the workers’ suffering” and “preventing socialism by creating a balance between workers and capitalists”- that is, the reforms that SocDems were creating were appeasing the working class so that they did not see capitalism as so bad, and as such were also appeasing capitalism because it limited workers’ antagonisms towards it and added to the longevity of capitalism. This moderate route between socialism and capitalism proved to be far more popular by the standards of both capitalists and workers. Sympathetic capitalists could support the SocDems without fear of causing their own demise, and workers could support them without fear of capitalist retribution while still getting benefits like better pay, less strenuous work, and safer work.
We’ll come back to Social Democracy later, because of its evolution over time creates significant benefits and harms to the socialist cause.
As time progressed, socialism became more popular among the working classes of the world. Industrialization brought bad working conditions, and initially Marx’s analysis that the workers would ally together in common cause across borders as capitalism continued seemed accurate. As the turn of the century came, capitalism had failed to collapse, but instead was growing stronger and further. Socialist groups were common place in most industrialized countries, and especially in Europe. The next major epoch for socialism would come in the 1910s, in the United States.
The US and Canada were often ignored by European socialists, as they lagged behind in industrialization at first. American surged forward, though, and by the 1910s had created an industrialized capitalist economy with no socialist opposition. The reasons for this are complex, but it is often cited that the reason was because the industrialization of America came more rapidly than in Europe, and the separation from the socialist ideological centers prevented the idea from becoming widespread. Anarchists caused quite a scare, as both Tsars and Presidents were being assassinated on different ends of the planet in the early 1900s. Police crackdowns on “reds” deincentivised even the most moderate of workers’ organizations from forming, and the state’s failure of protection and even open hostility to unions saw their formation as a failure. By the mid to late 1910s, though, America had formed its own brands of socialism from minority variants of European socialism: progressivism, syndicalism, and democratic socialism. These three movements never caught on like socialism in Europe, but provided a jumping board that started the socialist movement in America.
[U]Progressivism:[/U]
The belief in gradual social reform, often with the goal of creating a “fair capitalism” to replace socialism, sometimes to seek socialism.
[U]Democratic Socialism:[/U]
Socialism with a specifically anti-authoritarian and democratic method, that aims to create a socialist state out of capitalism without violent revolution. Democratic Socialism focuses on workplace self-management and tends also to support decentralized economies. Goes together well with progressivism and market socialism.
[U]Market Socialism[/U]
Often alongside Democratic Socialism, market socialism advocates a free market, or mostly decentralized market, where goods are still traded even though the working class controls the means of production or the state.
[U]Syndicalism[/U]
An ideology focusing on trade unions as revolutionary organizations, that focuses on placing radical and militant trade unions at the forefront of society. Syndicalism as an ideology is long dwindling, but is often adapted for use by anarchists and libertarian socialists as a method of organizing the working class. Syndicalists (ideological) wish to see the state replaced by federations of trade unions, while anarchist-syndicalists wish to see the state abolished and the federations of trade unions act on economic matters.
[U]DeLeonism[/U]
The brainchild of Daniel DeLeon, it’s sometimes also called Marxist-Syndicalism or Marxism-DeLeonism. DeLeon, a student of Marx, applied Syndicalism into the orthodox Marxist philosophy. DeLeonism is generally seen as the primary statist syndicalist alternative to the much more popular anarchist-syndicalism.
These socialisms would go on to compete on and off the electoral political battlefield in the United States. Anarchists and syndicalists, through the IWW and other organizations, acted generally against the state to attempt its downfall. During this time, these two ideologies became heavily intertwined, leading to the more-or-less death of syndicalism as an ideology and the creation of anarchist-syndicalism, which is now a major branch of anarchism. In the electoral field, democratic socialism and progressivism were pitted against one another as both challenged the liberal Democrats and the conservative Republicans in the presidential election of 1912. Wilson (D), Teddy Roosevelt (Progressive), Taft (R), and Eugene Debs (Socialist) all went to the federal elections. Progressivism proved more popular than Socialism, as was similarly the case with social democracy in Europe, but the limited progressivism of Wilson’s Democrats proved the most successful.
In 1917, the Russian revolutions occurred.
Upcoming in this thread: Socialism after the Communist Revolution in Russia, common misconceptions, FAQs, and criticisms.
[B][U]Previous Threads on political topics:[/U][/B]
[URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1275136&highlight="]Fascism[/URL]
[URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1284817&highlight="]Anarchism [/URL](by [URL="http://facepunch.com/member.php?u=246142"]soccerskyman[/URL])
[B][U]Upcoming (in order):[/U][/B]
[U]Socialism part II (to be posted in this thread)[/U]
The Political Spectrum
Anarchism
Liberalism
Progressivism
Conservatism
Nationalism
Liberation Theory
Religious Ideology
Despotism/Authoritarianism
Neoconservatism
Libertarianism and Ideological Capitalism
[B][U]Socialist Members:[/U][/B]
[URL="http://facepunch.com/member.php?u=435930"][Seed Eater][/URL] (Libertarian, Syndicalist)
[URL="http://facepunch.com/member.php?u=54632"]Yawmwen[/URL] (Libertarian, Anarchist)
[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/members/member.php?u=92352"]MercZ[/URL]
[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/members/54082"]Conscript[/URL] (Communist, Marxist-Leninist)
[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/members/member.php?u=171108"]Megafan[/URL] (Democratic, Progressive)
[highlight]Notice: This is a purely informative thread and is not intended to promote or sympathize with socialism. This is the intended second entry in a series of similar threads about various political ideologies by me. If anyone here recognizes me, you will know that I am a committed leftist, however I hope to inform and not promote via this thread. I chose to do this thread in a mostly unbiased manner so as to give socialism the same respect I would give any ideology, from an objective standpoint, and allow users to see it bare and without the usual spin or immediate reaction. Due to my personal bias, I will refrain from arguing for or against socialism in this thread, but will respond to inform.[/highlight]
Oooh, I can't wait to read, I loved the fascism one, sorry for posting early before reading, just can't at the moment.
Anyhow, thanks!
Anarcho-communist, reporting in.
-snip Seriously?
Progressive social democrat here! Please don't kill me.
Great read, by the way, I love what you've been doing with these threads!
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41674249]thread music:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk69e1Vcmvg[/media][/QUOTE]
billy bragg is a dick
woo socialism
While I admire the far-left they manage to meld autistic levels of specificity in ideology with a tendency to be unwaveringly dedicated to doctrine. It is an absolute nightmare for any political traction and really detriments their credibility
basically:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/S8n8ExJ.jpg[/IMG]
if everyone just became an anarchist this wouldn't be a problem!!
I think people really unfairly judge Stalinism for unfortunate teething issues that would come with any newly formed state and forces that were just plainly beyond the states control. It's not like he wanted to starve the Ukrainians but I mean you have to break some eggs to make an omelet right?
Oh and the whole gulag/purges thing is way overblown, personally I blame the trotskyist-fascists
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;41681924]I think people really unfairly judge Stalinism for unfortunate teething issues that would come with any newly formed state and forces that were just plainly beyond the states control. It's not like he wanted to starve the Ukrainians but I mean you have to break some eggs to make an omelet right?
Oh and the whole gulag/purges thing is way overblown, personally I blame the trotskyist-fascists[/QUOTE]
oohhhh man
ooooohhhh mannn
I'm trying to formulate the most inflammatory statement possible and I thought that was a solid start
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;41681924]I think people really unfairly judge Stalinism for unfortunate teething issues that would come with any newly formed state and forces that were just plainly beyond the states control. It's not like he wanted to starve the Ukrainians but I mean you have to break some eggs to make an omelet right?
Oh and the whole gulag/purges thing is way overblown, personally I blame the trotskyist-fascists[/QUOTE]
By 20 years, you're no longer a newly formed state.
That's actually pretty arguable
Russia would have been leagues better if the Russian Constituent Assembly wasn't dissolved and the provisional government of 1917 was allowed to form into a working state based upon western European models.
Also if at the same time, the Russians let the Finnish, Polish, Belarussians, Ukrainians, Baltic countries, etc leave peacefully to form their own respective nation states.
I'm not a radical left wing supporter, but I'm quite interested in functioning socialistic models like the Scandinavian ones focused on labor rights and welfare. The Norwegian one is a great example, because of our huge income through the oil industry which is all "given to the people".
Though, I don't really understand how a "anarchistic communistic" state would function, because the government having control of its citizens and economy is what made countries like China, North Korea and Soviet function. If everyone had the right to do whatever they wanted, it would require absolutely every citizen to be complete idealists who would be willing to work practically for free without a single selfish thought in their heads. I understand that some people would consider this form of ideology to be viable, but I would need a functioning example to be convinced.
[QUOTE=DrasarSalman;41684739]I'm not a radical left wing supporter, but I'm quite interested in functioning socialistic models like the Scandinavian ones focused on labor rights and welfare. The Norwegian one is a great example, because of our huge income through the oil industry which is all "given to the people".[/quote]
Well, as you will see in the second part of this thread, these countries are not socialist, but a branch of social democratic called third way, which promotes welfare capitalism and does not have the end goal of workers' control nor of a socialist system, meaning that social democracy, by the 1980s, has abandoned socialism and is merely a "capitalism light".
[quote]
Though, I don't really understand how a "anarchistic communistic" state would function, because the government having control of its citizens and economy is what made countries like China, North Korea and Soviet function. If everyone had the right to do whatever they wanted, it would require absolutely every citizen to be complete idealists who would be willing to work practically for free without a single selfish thought in their heads. I understand that some people would consider this form of ideology to be viable, but I would need a functioning example to be convinced.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory[/url]
Of course, there will be a thread dedicated completely to anarchism that will go into detail on these systems of anarchism-in-practice.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41685015']
Fair enough:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory[/url]
[/QUOTE]
Why are all these from countries with unresolved social and economic problems with little experience of the state beyond taxes and conscription?
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41685379]Why are all these from countries with unresolved social and economic problems with little experience of the state beyond taxes and conscription?[/QUOTE]
Because at the time the vast majority of the world was still pre-industrialized.
And Mexico, to be fair, has a long history of a powerful and intricate state, soooooo...
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41685015']Fair enough:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory[/url]
[/QUOTE]
I dunno about the others but revolutionary cataluña was a complete authoritarian bloodbath
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41685865']Because at the time the vast majority of the world was still pre-industrialized.[/quote]
All these countries had their anarchist/communist incidents in the 20th century. Most of Europe, parts of the Russian Empire (particularly the parts which tried to secede from the USSR given half a chance), the United states, etc had no such revolutions. At most they had moderate socialist movements.
[quote]And Mexico, to be fair, has a long history of a powerful and intricate state, soooooo...[/QUOTE]
Most persons experience of the state in Mexico has been far from positive. Remember that it was a Spanish colony until the 19th century, and then went through several revolutions and had little to no industrialization, political stability, etc.
Look at Spain as well. That was riddled with civil wars throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It seems utterly bizzare how all these forwards looking revolutionaries ending up taking the reigns of some tinpot dictatorship in the same manner as all the previous despots.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41687472]All these countries had their anarchist/communist incidents in the 20th century. Most of Europe, parts of the Russian Empire (particularly the parts which tried to secede from the USSR given half a chance), the United states, etc had no such revolutions. At most they had moderate socialist movements.
Most persons experience of the state in Mexico has been far from positive. Remember that it was a Spanish colony until the 19th century, and then went through several revolutions and had little to no industrialization, political stability, etc.
Look at Spain as well. That was riddled with civil wars throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It seems utterly bizzare how all these forwards looking revolutionaries ending up taking the reigns of some tinpot dictatorship in the same manner as all the previous despots.[/QUOTE]
no shit their experience with the state was far from positive.
if people had a positive experience with the state they wouldn't want to get rid of it now would they?
[editline]2nd August 2013[/editline]
why would people want to eradicate something they perceive as good? that's why a lot of socialists oppose social democrats, because they lower the militancy of the working class through appeasement.
This libertarian masses of Facepunch and their collective childboners for modern feudalism disgusts me. The 'anarchists' here are just libertarians. The Republican party is a caricature Disney supervillain in a clown suit, the democratic party is a passive rock that doesn't get anything done.
High social mobility in the US is impossible with the current congress, and with boomers in general. My consensus? Kill the baby-boomers.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41687923]no shit their experience with the state was far from positive.
if people had a positive experience with the state they wouldn't want to get rid of it now would they?
[editline]2nd August 2013[/editline]
why would people want to eradicate something they perceive as good?[/quote]
Of course. It seems most curious that in successful and prosperous states that are peaceful tend to have few people wishing to dismantle them. It seems much easier and more logical to improve states rather than attempting to get rid of them.
[quote]that's why a lot of socialists oppose social democrats, because they lower the militancy of the working class through appeasement.[/QUOTE]
People are getting what they want. The only reason the hard-left Socialists are angry is because in democratic societies they know that they will never win an election.
[editline]3rd August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=kalamari13;41690046]This libertarian masses of Facepunch and their collective childboners for modern feudalism disgusts me. The 'anarchists' here are just libertarians. The Republican party is a caricature Disney supervillain in a clown suit, the democratic party is a passive rock that doesn't get anything done.
High social mobility in the US is impossible with the current congress, and with boomers in general. My consensus? Kill the baby-boomers.[/QUOTE]
I hope you never get into a position of responsibility or power more important than a hotdog stand salesman.
[QUOTE=DrasarSalman;41684739]*words*[/QUOTE]
Those places are Social Democracies rather than pure socialist countries. Basically it means they have a very generous welfare system and although they pursue Capitalistic systems they don't pursue them as fiercely as Hong Kong as an example.
[QUOTE=DrasarSalman;41684739]*words*[/QUOTE]
The idea of having a complete anarchist state is that everyone will be in agreement with each other and everyone has everything for each other. The main flaw in the idea of collective property is that one person could disagree and suddenly say his property is his own and thus would be an Anarchist-Capitalist instead of a pure Anarchist society. The only way to make sure this doesn't happen is to have a state to enforce collective property and thus goes against Anarchism.
[QUOTE=kalamari13;41690046]*words*[/QUOTE]
I frequent many places and Facepunch isn't actually true libertarian. Keep in mind there is leftist-libertarianism (aka Libertarian Socialism) which believes in small government and collective property; the original version is right-libertarianism or Paleo-Liberalism which is minimal government and individual property. Many places I've been to has the majority of political ideals fall somewhere around Libertarian Socialism and so true libertarians are a minority.
The problem with the social mobility issue is laws killing small business while being beneficial to corporations. See [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy]Corporatocracy[/url] for more information.
Good thread, people need to be educated on this topic.
I am a democratic socialist, I don't see communism happening for a long time.
Marxist Communist here, good OP. I read his work ages ago but needed a little brushing up.
[QUOTE=MangoJuice;41702303]Marxist Communist here, good OP. I read his work ages ago but needed a little brushing up.[/QUOTE]
There's some good economics books on topics around that time. Marginalism and the Economic calculation problem are two good ones to get clued up on.
I'm something of an anarchist, but since graduating from my philosophy degree I've pretty much given up trying to make convincing arguments for the position. I think my current reaction to the state is one of extreme apathy/mild amusement. I can't even feel like I'm able to correctly isolate the problem, let alone a solution, so I guess I've essentially stopped playing the game of political philosophy and my view has just collapsed into general cynicism with regards to authoritarianism/cultural hegemony.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.