Is Western Socialism - Always National Socialism ?

Page 1 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

09 Jan 2014, 5:50 pm

Some of you here have identified as socialists, so I ask you ...

The slogan of the Socialist is "workers of the world unite" , see here, http://socialistparty-usa.net/

About "workers of the world unite" ...

Pamphlet written in 1848 by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to serve as the platform of the Communist League. It argued that industrialization had exacerbated the divide between the capitalist ruling class and the proletariat, which had become impoverished, and called on the proletariat to overthrow the capitalists, abolish private property, and take over the means of production. It predicted an eventual classless society and the gradual elimination of the need for a state. It ends by stating, The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite.

source, http://www.answers.com/topic/the-communist-manifesto

Imagine I go to a socialist meeting in a Western country, and I stand up, introduce myself, and pronounce, "I want to unite with our working brothers and sisters in Indonesia, and Bangladesh and share our wealth as a rich Western country with them !".

Would the room go silent ? Do Western socialist really want to share their wealth with poorer people in poorer non-Western nations ?

I have my doubts that many American socialists would sign up for an ideology of "share the wealth" with the world's poor ?? They appear to only want to share the wealth of richer people in their own country. That makes me think most Socialists in Western countries are national Socialists ??

I found this socialist here ,http://freedomroad.org/askasocialist/2012/07/ask-a-socialist-about-immigration/, she promotes a "world without borders". Are Western socialists so selfless that they accept a dramatically lower standard of living if it meant it could help a poorer worker somewhere else in the world ?

Does this ideology have any limits ? The current world population is about 7.2 billion, and expected to go to 8.3-10.9 billion by 2050. Doesn't this ideology ultimately lead to world poverty where everyone accepts to live with very little so it can be spread around to others ?

source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Thanks. Please point out my possible imbecility. :)



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

09 Jan 2014, 5:56 pm

I think that most socialists think of literal unions when they think about workers uniting. So 'uniting with Bangladesh' would mean extending (for example) the Garment Worker's Union to Bangladesh, and supporting them when and if they wanted to strike for higher pay.

I think that most American socialists, at least, understand that some sort of differential wealth is necessary to motivate people to work hard; we just disagree on how wide that differential should be. For example, I don't think that a Wall Street CEO is really worth 8K times more than a guy working three jobs at minimum wage.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

09 Jan 2014, 6:52 pm

By sharing the wealth they mean give us money, they have no intention of sharing what they have.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Jan 2014, 8:33 pm

Jacoby wrote:
By sharing the wealth they mean give us money, they have no intention of sharing what they have.


Yes I am sure that is a 100% accurate analysis of everyone who identifies as a socialist :roll: even though its contradictory to what socialism is.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Jan 2014, 8:40 pm

I think in order for the wealth of the U.S to be adequetely shared with other nations there would have to be a worldwide system of socialism...otherwise it would just be in effect dumping money into other countries that aren't nessisarily doing anything to benefit this nation. Basically the reason a socialist system would work in theory is because people pay taxes, then the taxes fund all the public services which the government then has the responsibility to provide...so unless people of other countries paid into the socialist system it wouldn't really work to just divide the wealth with them.

Not sure what is national socialist about that since national socialism is a form of facism, and as far as I know there haven't been any National Socialist nations since WW2 and I highly doubt the majority of 'socialists' are nazis which is what that would suggest.


_________________
We won't go back.


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

09 Jan 2014, 9:23 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
I think in order for the wealth of the U.S to be adequetely shared with other nations there would have to be a worldwide system of socialism...otherwise it would just be in effect dumping money into other countries that aren't nessisarily doing anything to benefit this nation. Basically the reason a socialist system would work in theory is because people pay taxes, then the taxes fund all the public services which the government then has the responsibility to provide...so unless people of other countries paid into the socialist system it wouldn't really work to just divide the wealth with them.

Not sure what is national socialist about that since national socialism is a form of facism, and as far as I know there haven't been any National Socialist nations since WW2 and I highly doubt the majority of 'socialists' are nazis which is what that would suggest.


National socialism does not have to be "NAZI". "NAZI" is a political party.

Western socialists appear to only promote socialism within their own country, so I call them "national socialists" ??

They do not appear to promote helping poor people in poorer countries. For example, consider a new factory to be built. A socialist in American should say, "Let's build that factory in a poorer country to help out our working brothers and sisters"? I doubt many Western socialist would ever say that, instead, they want that prosperity for themselves. No way are they going to share the wealth with poor people in other countries :)



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

09 Jan 2014, 10:20 pm

I believe in world anarchy, a big big network of communes communicating and aiding each other. Many people today say that my beliefs are too idealist and are impracticle. If we have the will to create states and markets they produce, we must also have the will to abolish them and return to gift economics, with a new iteration involving commonly owned capital.

I believe we can protect former national parks, initiate large scale public transportation projects, and have road saftey standards, with large scale agreements achieved with federalism.

The communes would have no incentive to isolate themselves or compete with each other. I believe Petr Kropotkin was right; mutual aid is a natural factor of evolution.



Last edited by RushKing on 09 Jan 2014, 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

09 Jan 2014, 10:36 pm

LKL wrote:
some sort of differential wealth is necessary to motivate people to work hard; we just disagree on how wide that differential should be.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iOeyNxHHAQ[/youtube]



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

09 Jan 2014, 11:23 pm

LKL wrote:
I think that most socialists think of literal unions when they think about workers uniting. So 'uniting with Bangladesh' would mean extending (for example) the Garment Worker's Union to Bangladesh, and supporting them when and if they wanted to strike for higher pay.

I think that most American socialists, at least, understand that some sort of differential wealth is necessary to motivate people to work hard; we just disagree on how wide that differential should be. For example, I don't think that a Wall Street CEO is really worth 8K times more than a guy working three jobs at minimum wage.


Do you call yourself a "National Socialist" since your only promote national socialism ? Or is "nationalism" inherent in the word "socialism"?

I would think Bangadesh socialists would promote international socialism (i.e., take from wealthy Western countries), ?? While Western country socialists want to hold onto their money, so they want only national socialism ??

Thanks.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

10 Jan 2014, 2:04 am

I call myself a socialist, and I generally disapprove of nationalism in whatever guise, political or economic, it appears.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

10 Jan 2014, 5:08 am

LKL wrote:
I call myself a socialist, and I generally disapprove of nationalism in whatever guise, political or economic, it appears.


Apologies. Let me rephrase that question. You only want to "share the wealth" from people within your national boundaries? Correct ? So,
your ideology appears to be nationalistic?

If you say no, then your ideology appears inconsistent, because the middle class and poor of the Western world are mega-wealthy compared to most in the world, so it would follow that their wealth should be shared with the world's poor (which is my original question)?

Thanks.



Almajo88
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 386
Location: Merseyside, UK

10 Jan 2014, 6:09 am

I don't think you understand what socialism is, it's a far more complex idea that "sharing money". Internationalism in the socialist sense is about promoting liberation and national sovereignty against imperialism, that for instance takes the form of past and present exploitation for example by colonial powers and the market - which tends to reinforce the hegemony of the old powers. Giving money to the world's poor is a temporary solution that does little to solve the global divisions produced and reinforced by capitalism. Thinking pragmatically, it's also fairly unaccountable and a risk to socialism in the hypothetical country given that most of the power in the world would oppose any alternative to capitalism - think about the endless sanctions on Cuba, for instance.

Socialism also tends to arise in the developing countries that have traditionally been exploited by capitalism. It may be necessary for these countries to bolster socialism within themselves before they take risks. I don't think that socialism will begin in the first world.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

10 Jan 2014, 6:39 am

Almajo88 wrote:
I don't think you understand what socialism is, it's a far more complex idea that "sharing money".
Internationalism in the socialist sense is about promoting liberation and national sovereignty against imperialism, that for instance takes the form of past and present exploitation for example by colonial powers and the market - which tends to reinforce the hegemony of the old powers. Giving money to the world's poor is a temporary solution that does little to solve the global divisions produced and reinforced by capitalism. Thinking pragmatically, it's also fairly unaccountable and a risk to socialism in the hypothetical country given that most of the power in the world would oppose any alternative to capitalism - think about the endless sanctions on Cuba, for instance.

Socialism also tends to arise in the developing countries that have traditionally been exploited by capitalism. It may be necessary for these countries to bolster socialism within themselves before they take risks. I don't think that socialism will begin in the first world.


I am sure socialism encompasses a lot of stuff (the respondent above noted that foreign trade unions are supported), however, wealth restribution appears to be a major component of the ideology.

Let me further clarify.

With regards to wealth redistrubution component of socialism, why is it the poor and middle class in the Western countries are not asked to share their wealth with the very, very poor workers in other countries ? Because socialists only want wealth to be restributed nationally ?



Almajo88
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 386
Location: Merseyside, UK

10 Jan 2014, 8:05 am

You seem to be asking me the same question again. Global wealth distribution isn't really effective outside of world communism because of the disparities between governments and ideologies. I believe that in a socialist system, the state would take the role that charities currently fill in giving aid according to need, and outside of that would trade favourably with socialist partners (see Latin American socialism) in order to bolster the socialist system and its perceptions. This will arise in developing nations which will see the greatest absolute benefit from socialism.

Anyway, according to your definition, isn't any government inherently nationalistic? Tell me what you mean when you say that.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

10 Jan 2014, 8:24 am

Almajo88 wrote:
You seem to be asking me the same question again. Global wealth distribution isn't really effective outside of world communism because of the disparities between governments and ideologies. I believe that in a socialist system, the state would take the role that charities currently fill in giving aid according to need, and outside of that would trade favourably with socialist partners (see Latin American socialism) in order to bolster the socialist system and its perceptions. This will arise in developing nations which will see the greatest absolute benefit from socialism.

Anyway, according to your definition, isn't any government inherently nationalistic? Tell me what you mean when you say that.


I see American socialists that want to take money from rich people and give it to themselves. However, these American socialists are very rich compared to people in other countries. Why don't they take their own money and give it to poor people in other countries ?



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

10 Jan 2014, 8:52 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
LKL wrote:
I call myself a socialist, and I generally disapprove of nationalism in whatever guise, political or economic, it appears.


Apologies. Let me rephrase that question. You only want to "share the wealth" from people within your national boundaries? Correct ? So,
your ideology appears to be nationalistic?

If you say no, then your ideology appears inconsistent, because the middle class and poor of the Western world are mega-wealthy compared to most in the world, so it would follow that their wealth should be shared with the world's poor (which is my original question)?

Thanks.

The vast majority of "socialists" (and I bet most people you'd classify as socialists wouldn't identify as such) do want an element of international wealth redistribution. Even conservatives like Cameron and Obama want to protect that.

The problem is, LKL has no real ability to make Senegal (for example) share its wealth equally. It is much easier for her to advance that cause in the USA, though still very hard.

If I say "we should reform our drug laws" rather than "Mongolia should reform their drug laws", that isn't me being nationalistic. A Mongolian politician doesn't care what I say one bit, but a British one has to pay a bit of attention to it because I vote, and I can motivate other people to vote.