Socialists set to gain a majority in French parliamentary elections - Polidicks

[QUOTE=thisispain;36281043]jeez who needs ayn rand when you have this dude[/QUOTE]Needs more crazy sex fantasies

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36281139]Actually, North Korea is as close to a socialist dystopia as possible.[/QUOTE] except NK is entirely government-planned and state-owned. social ownership, the name sake of socialism, is a very different thing from state ownership.

Yawmwen seems to be under the assumption that there's no private preoperty in a socialist system. Don't know where he got that idea.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36281200]except NK is entirely government-planned and state-owned. social ownership, the name sake of socialism, is a very different thing from state ownership.[/QUOTE] Arguably it can be called State Socialism

[QUOTE=thisispain;36281200]except NK is entirely government-planned and state-owned. social ownership, the name sake of socialism, is a very different thing from state ownership.[/QUOTE] Social ownership can also include state ownership [quote]In order of increasing decentralization (at least) three forms of socialized ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity.[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#cite_note-1[/url] [editline]10th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;36281223]Yawmwen seems to be under the assumption that there's no private preoperty in a socialist system. Don't know where he got that idea.[/QUOTE] There isn't private ownership of the means of production. No one said anything about personal property (i.e. your clothes, other items) [QUOTE=wanksta11;36281162]Did you take all that from the official republican website?[/QUOTE] I'm not a republican

you could call it state capitalism too considering most NK people earn their money from illegal capitalist ventures.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;36281223]Yawmwen seems to be under the assumption that there's no private preoperty in a socialist system. Don't know where he got that idea.[/QUOTE] There isn't private property in a socialist system. There can be personal property, but there is no private property. That's why countries like Sweden can't be classified as socialist, because they still have private companies and private property. [QUOTE=RichyZ;36281182]cant really be socialist if the government cant even give anything to the people, can it?[/QUOTE] The state DOES give stuff to the people though. Healthcare, food, land, everything is collectivised and rationed by the state. [QUOTE=thisispain;36281200]except NK is entirely government-planned and state-owned. social ownership, the name sake of socialism, is a very different thing from state ownership.[/QUOTE] No it isn't. The State is, in theory, the collective of workers in Socialism. Socialism is not an inherently stateless society like Communism.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36281273]you could call it state capitalism too considering most NK people earn their money from illegal capitalist ventures.[/QUOTE] It is pretty difficult for an independent Socialist state to exist in a world dominated by Capitalism, especially when they haven't reached an abundance of materials. So it makes sense they dip into capitalist ventures

[QUOTE=Noble;36281246]Social ownership can also include state ownership[/QUOTE] if you want to call it socialist based on that notion, you'd have to call feudalism socialist as well. NK is far from democratic so it can't be argued that there is any social ownership. [QUOTE=Noble;36281246]There isn't private ownership of the means of production. No one said anything about personal property (i.e. your clothes, other items)[/QUOTE] socialism is different from communism in that a socialist economy can still have a private sector. means of production doesn't always extend to every possible sector of the economy. [editline]10th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36281294]There isn't private property in a socialist system. There can be personal property, but there is no private property. That's why countries like Sweden can't be classified as socialist, because they still have private companies and private property. [/QUOTE] confusing communism and socialism. communism is the one that attempts to establish a class-less and state-less society without a capitalist bourgeois. [QUOTE=yawmwen;36281294]No it isn't. The State is, in theory, the collective of workers in Socialism. Socialism is not an inherently stateless society like Communism.[/QUOTE] NK isn't a theoretical state. functionally it doesn't represent the collective of workers in any way. lack of capitalism does not equal socialism.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36281338]if you want to call it socialist based on that notion, you'd have to call feudalism socialist as well. NK is far from democratic so it can't be argued that there is any social ownership. [/QUOTE] Feudalism is actually fairly close to socialism. They are both collectivist societies. The main difference lies in how centralized the system is.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36281369]Feudalism is actually fairly close to socialism. They are both collectivist societies. The main difference lies in how centralized the system is.[/QUOTE] feudalism is not and never was collectivist. feudalism was profit-motivated and completely based on classes and hierarchies.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36281398]feudalism is not and never was collectivist. feudalism was profit-motivated and completely based on classes and hierarchies.[/QUOTE] It wasn't profit motivated at all. I don't know what history books you've read, but Feudalism was incredibly collectivized. Money was hardly ever even used in a Feudal system. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] Farms were a collective of "free men" who swore an oath to the land. The food was given to the lord and rationed out to collective society. How is this not collectivist?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36281426]It wasn't profit motivated at all. I don't know what history books you've read, but Feudalism was incredibly collectivized. Money was hardly ever even used in a Feudal system. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] Farms were a collective of "free men" who swore an oath to the land. The food was given to the lord and rationed out to collective society. How is this not collectivist?[/QUOTE] I don't see how serfdom equates to free-men swearing an oath to the land

[QUOTE=draugur;36280134]When did I ever say anything like that? Extremists are never good, doesn't matter what it's about.[/QUOTE] They're not Communists are they? Though i disagree with you,left extremists are sometimes a good option.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36281457]I don't see how serfdom equates to free-men swearing an oath to the land[/QUOTE] That's how serfdom worked. It was a continuation of a Roman system. I say Free Men because that was their official name under Roman Law. They swore an oath to work the land, and for each of their descendents to work the land in perpetuity.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36281426]It wasn't profit motivated at all. I don't know what history books you've read, but Feudalism was incredibly collectivized. Money was hardly ever even used in a Feudal system. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] Farms were a collective of "free men" who swore an oath to the land. The food was given to the lord and rationed out to collective society. How is this not collectivist?[/QUOTE] It's not collectivist because people declared fealty to the king/lord, not the land. You paid taxes and had to join his army if he went to war and then you had to provide for yourself. They didn't ration food out "to collective society", you got rations based on your station. "Not a knight? Well fuck you I need them to fight my enemies." Life as a serf was like being a slave who wasn't beaten all the time.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36281426]It wasn't profit motivated at all. I don't know what history books you've read, but Feudalism was incredibly collectivized. Money was hardly ever even used in a Feudal system. Farms were a collective of "free men" who swore an oath to the land. The food was given to the lord and rationed out to collective society. How is this not collectivist?[/QUOTE] nope, collectivism refers to the dependence of all man within the system and creating social and government structures based on that notion. if we take the idea that you needed serfs ran by lords who take food as payment and call that collectivist, then we'd also have to take the idea that you need employees ran by a boss who take money as payment (IE capitalist) and call that collectivist. you're confusing a whole bunch of different ideologies with the inherent concept that exists in socialism. socialism stresses common ownership of the means of production, feudalism has ownership by lords who amass capital. [QUOTE=yawmwen;36281426]I don't know what history books you've read[/QUOTE] if Noble is free to take whatever insane thing the Austrian school came up with as fact, i should be free to use Marx's historical theory.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36281466]That's how serfdom worked. It was a continuation of a Roman system. I say Free Men because that was their official name under Roman Law. They swore an oath to work the land, and for each of their descendents to work the land in perpetuity.[/QUOTE] Ah, my misunderstanding

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;36281492]It's not collectivist because people declared fealty to the king/lord, not the land. You paid taxes and had to join his army if he went to war and then you had to provide for yourself. They didn't ration food out "to collective society", you got rations based on your station. "Not a knight? Well fuck you I need them to fight my enemies." Life as a serf was like being a slave who wasn't beaten all the time.[/QUOTE] Life in Socialist North Korea is akin to being a slave as well. Slavery and Collectivism are not mutually exclusive. Also, you DID swear fealty to the land. It didn't matter who owned the estate, you were sworn by honor to work it. It was Barons, Counts, and Dukes who swore fealty to individuals.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36281533]Life in Socialist North Korea is akin to being a slave as well. Slavery and Collectivism are not mutually exclusive. [/QUOTE] what?? slavery is a proto-capitalist concept. human capital amassed and sold.

semantics: the thread

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36281533]Life in Socialist North Korea is akin to being a slave as well. Slavery and Collectivism are not mutually exclusive. [/QUOTE] You're talking about capitalism here.

[QUOTE=znk666;36281607]You're talking about capitalism here.[/QUOTE] I don't get it. What's capitalist?

You're all incorrect. Canada is partially social democratic. The Nordic countries and much of Europe are social democratic. The difference between a social democracy and socialism is that socialists want one of two things: To see industry and wealth nationalized and planned under a government representative of the proletariat (i.e. Hugo Chavez) or To see industry in the control of workers. (i.e. the I.W.W.)(This is the preferred version for communism after the abolition of the state). (Socialism as a term is interchangeable with communism. Today we see these as separate political trends, but the meaning of the term is the same, originally: that of the second meaning. for the most part I'll say which meaning I'm using). A social democracy, on the other hand, wishes to see progressive values and greater state control in a capitalist system, a welfare state. This is not socialism nor has it ever been, but it is derived from Marxism. The French Socialists are reformist socialists acting as social democrats, while the Left Front are socialists of the first variety. That being said, feudalism is nothing like socialism or communism- feudalism was a system of hierarchical social structure and classism, characterized by lack of industry and primitive economies based on servitude and property ownerships. Socialism is characteristic of common ownership of property, abolition of a vertical hierarchical social structure, and worker means of production. The only thing at all in common would be the autonomy aspect- but in feudalism that autonomy was based on the lack of a real state and only for those who controlled, while in socialism and communism that's based on democratic rule of the masses. It's like comparing socialism and capitalism and attempting to say that they're similar because they both make use of democracy, when in reality the users of democracy and its uses are totally different. That being said, collectivism has about as much to do with communism as a republic does with capitalism- that is, nothing, they only go hand in hand because of their history and earlier theory. You can have socialism without collectivism and collectivism without socialism. In fact, we saw this during the reign of Mr. Stalin and today in upper Korea. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36281620]I don't get it. What's capitalist?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformed_workers_state[/url] All forms of the former socialist definition are, by proponents of the latter, state capitalism.

The PRC is state capitalist. North Korea is NOT state capitalist.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36281660]The PRC is state capitalist. North Korea is NOT state capitalist.[/QUOTE] By the definition of state capitalism as per Trotskyism and Left Communism, yes, they are. State capitalism is any form of state whereby the state, and not the workers, hold the means of production. That is, nationalizing of industry is state capitalism, no matter the economic form. In its earliest usage, this specifically targeted the USSR, and extended to China, Vietnam, North Korea, and even Venezuela and Cuba today.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];36281683']By the definition of state capitalism as per Trotskyism and Left Communism, yes, they are. State capitalism is any form of state whereby the state, and not the workers, hold the means of production. That is, nationalizing of industry is state capitalism, no matter the economic form. In its earliest usage, this specifically targeted the USSR, and extended to China, Vietnam, North Korea, and even Venezuela and Cuba today.[/QUOTE] State capitalism refers to a state that operates in a capitalist way.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36281620]I don't get it. What's capitalist?[/QUOTE] It's ''voluntary'' enslavement,workers are owned and their lives depend on their wages. Allowing anyone to live in poverty or die of hunger is disgusting. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36281660]The PRC is state capitalist. North Korea is NOT state capitalist.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=205[/url] [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36281702]State capitalism refers to a state that operates in a capitalist way.[/QUOTE] No,it means that the state directly owns profit based enterprises.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36281702]State capitalism refers to a state that operates in a capitalist way.[/QUOTE] The very original usage itself says it right out: [quote]The term itself was in use within the socialist movement from the late 19th century onwards. Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1896 said: "Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that [B]State Socialism is really State capitalism[/B]!"[/quote] State socialism according left communism and most social revolutionary movements is state control of the means of production so as to generate profit. It is control of the means of production by the state rather than the bourgeois. The only difference between the Chinese and Societ/Korean economic model is that China is open to trade and makes less use of collectivism- all else is the same in the methodology. It's comparing America to France- while there are notable differences, the actual functioning is the same. State capitalism, by proponents of the latter-variety of socialism, is equivalent to nationalization, and the former-variety socialism.

Also, are we going to use Trotsky's definitions of socialism or are we just going to cite any intellectual on the matter because different people have different definitions. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];36281755']The very original usage itself says it right out: State socialism according left communism and most social revolutionary movements is state control of the means of production so as to generate profit. It is control of the means of production by the state rather than the bourgeois. The only difference between the Chinese and Societ/Korean economic model is that China is open to trade and makes less use of collectivism- all else is the same in the methodology. It's comparing America to France- while there are notable differences, the actual functioning is the same. State capitalism, by proponents of the latter-variety of socialism, is equivalent to nationalization, and the former-variety socialism.[/QUOTE] That's one person's definition damnit. Are we going to do this like scrabble where we all have to use the same dictionary or what?