• Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein
    40 replies, posted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVKjFp5DEvk&t=302s
Socialism isn't communism you piece of shit clickbait thumbnail
Socialism also isnt bernie sanders style welfare, and socialism is simply the transition phase into communist society. Socialism is communism, and the terms have been used interchangeable since like 1870.
You're just flat out wrong; socialism is viewed as a transition phase in Marxist theory, but not everyone subscribes to it and given that socialism is generally more popular than communism I'd say the popular consensus goes against that view. Also, just because right wing fuck-wits in the US continue to delude and be deluded into thinking that all leftist theory is the same and ergo it's all SOCIALISM1111!!!!!!!!! does not mean that is the case. They are not as interchangeable as you seem to think. There's also more to the negative connotations of Communism than just the USSR
Albert Einstein didnt live in 2019, you can argue that if you want (even though the word has enough history behind it with popular movements and people that its definition shouldnt change just because of socdems) but in 1949 he was reffering to socialism as in worker control of the means of production.
I'm not trying to claim that Einstein meant to be a social democrat, which he wasn't. He was very much a socialist as if it wasn't patently obvious by this thread). I'm explaining that socialism has always been a distinct ideology from communism, and that conflating the two is really annoying and needs to stop.
Socialism at least up until recent history has not been distinct from communism. Can you give me an example of the difference that isnt social democracy or that its a transition!
Again, you're flat out wrong. Communism argues for a totally classless, stateless, and moneyless society, while socialism does not necessarily do so, and can often co-exist with a market economy, classes as a concept within society (though it always tries to minimise its role), and even the existence of the state itself. Just because they have worker self-management and a collective and social ownership of the means of production in common doesn't make them the same.
Oh look another 'My politics > reality and history' noncompete video. Also roflmaozedong at 'I've chosen to preserve the text as is', who the fuck are you again?
But see this is why its regarded as a transition phase, because the state is being utilized over generations to acchieve communism. Even if its market socialism the idea is that communism will naturally grow from a socialist republic eventually.
If you're a Marxist then sure, it is a transition phase. Not every red is a Marxist though, and many view socialism in whatever form it may take as the end itself, potentially preserving money, the state, and even class within society.
Sounds like some candy coating wishy washy shit to me esuk
Socialists who arent marxists? Except for anarchists or egoists or like nazbols I think thats an oxymoron. What kind of socialist wants to keep the concept of a ruling and working class also. Seems like people just wanna misrepresent what einstein believed or label it differently when his messagd is clear.
I have been seeing people with that perspective of yours a lot recently. A neutered and misleading position "see it's not that evil communism. See it's not that half-assed social democracy. It's just the stuff YOU want"
I want a democratic political system without a capitalist economic system. Thats it.
Not you
What I'm trying to break down leftist theory for someone, not advertise socialism. Second, if you thought me saying that communism was an attempted snipe to discredit it you'd be wrong. There are real and banal reasons as to why communism has negative connotations in various countries and cultures, such as in Britain with how people viewed it as connected to the Catholic communion rite.
MLK was a socialist, yeah, but I don't really see why that requires rehabilitation? Scandinavian socialism did exist back then though. Norway was the first country to implement universal healthcare, in 1912, many decades before other countries followed suit.
It doesnt require rehabilitation to me, I just mean liberals coviniently ignore it. Also scandanavia has welfare not socialism.
I did not accuse you of advertising. I certainly do think advertising is the source of the perspective you are putting forth though. Shift28 asked where you got all of this from a few posts ago (not social democracy, and not transition to communism). I am interested in knowing this as well, because I have only come across it on Twitter and the likes. (which is why I believe it to be ahistorical marketing) and no, I am not asking you to comb through books and present the answer to me on a silver platter. just a general direction to look into
I don't think it's so much that liberals ignore it as it is they're ignorant of anything he said or did that isn't to do with race. Welfare systems are inherently socialist, though that does not necessarily make a country socialist overall. The problem with these sorts of discussions is that they get bogged down in semantics.
Explain how welfare is inherently socialist.
Because it's the state providing something that was not technically earned. It's pretty typical, especially in America, for people on the right to criticise any welfare expansion or universal healthcare as socialist too. It doesn't make the country socialist, but welfare, universal healthcare, UBI and other things like that are what one should expect in a socialist system. I mean, welfare certainly isn't capitalist.
Socialism means working class control of the means of production, the state providing something doesnt make it socialist in any way. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/206080/bfa1f82f-4d88-49a5-aa4f-a38eeae3f44a/socialism.PNG
For communist theory itself it's hard to do better than "The Communist Manifesto" itself (it's a pamphlet, and start on page 14 as it's mostly prefaces and the index first.), but for socialism itself I'd honestly say that going through the Wikipedia articles for the various forms that socialism can take that can and often are viewed as an end goal distinct from communism, and then follow the sources for more in depth reading. It's what I did back in my school days.
So are you saying Soviet Russia was not socialist? As the workers there had no control over the means of production.
Yes. Just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not democratic. Just like how the 'Communist' party in China has gone hard core robber baron capitalist. Groups will often call themselves something they're not in order to obfuscate their operations. Like how the Republicans in America are "conservatives" but they are neither socially nor economically conservative, they just want to prop up the wealthy while pushing down the poor.
It tried to be socialist but ultimately failed miserably at it. Socialism isn't just any nationalised service, otherwise you could call any country with a military or police force "socialist".
Many thanks. This is essentially the source of my problem though. My understanding is that socialism by itself (the single word) refers to the communist variant. As I believe the wikipedia article you linked says, "state socialism" exists as a response to/critique of "socialism". This is a pretty important distinction, yeah? Yet the vast majority of activists and self-described radicals do not go "woohoo state socialism", do they? They just use the term "socialism" as some sort of nonspecific umbrella which I can only see as misleading. Is there something I am missing?
It's probably as simple as it not being as nice rolling off the tongue, or not being as well versed in theory. They just assume their knowledge of socialism is the same across the board. Happens pretty much everywhere.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.