The essential components of socialism

Post Reply New Topic

I'm sure in another breath you'll tell me that these high school flunkies are also overeducated intellectual elites who drink champagne.

So, you agree with the first part. A collectivist mentality is the worst and most dangerous part of socialism.

Socialism requires everyone to comply. That is forcing socioeconomic beliefs on those who don't want socialism.

I'm fine with the socialists going off and having their little "utopia", so long as I'm not required to participate.
And when that socialist society mutates into a fascist bureaucracy where everyone is a slave to "the system" and the standard of living is dirt, don't come crying back to me. I'll just tell you "I told you so."

Not necessarilly. Referring to it as a 'mentality' as though it is an illness does damage to the free exchange of ideas. I don't see it is a negative thing.

Can you elaborate why its dangerous? Minus points for throwing in the tired, cliched and desperate 'human nature' cannard. There is numerous examples in human anthropology that suggests collectivism or non collectivism is a nurtured construct rather than a natural phenomenon.

I'll tell you what is dangerous, is referring to political beliefs as 'mentalities'. This does a disservice to intellectual plurality and free discourse.

What is even more dangerous and harmful is wanting to reduce human society down to a mere framework of property relations and quid pro quo transactions.




There is no 'one idea' you can call socialism.

Socialism is actually a continum of beliefs, ranging from stateless communism to social democracy (which actually overlaps capitalism). It even manifests at different parts of the political spectrum. Its not an exclusively left wing badge.

How would that differ from any other socioeconomic system?

I live under a country ruled by a conservative government, how is that any less impeding on the rights of people who don't want to live under conservatism?

If anything, i would say revolutionary socialism is MORE democratic than elections. Elections only require a majority of an electorate to back a horse in a one or two horse race, whereas a revolution requires the participation of the social majority. That is democracy in its truest essence.

Why is it okay for capitalists to enforce capitalism on non capitalists but not the reverse?

Before you say "oooh socialists want to do away with elections" it is a falsehood that direct and electoral democracy cannot co-exist. There is multi-party elections in Bolivarian Venezuela.


You need to apply a fairer contextualisation.

That socialist countries that did mutate were
1. in a state of war which much larger antagonist countries
2. had harsh measures waged against them stopping short of actual war
3. whose proxy enemies recieve generous help from said antagonist countries.

As for slaves to the system and living in dirt, go and ask the veterans lying around the streets of american cities how its going for them as they freeze on the streets this christmas while parasitic bankers and financeers clink champagne glasses and toast this venom they call 'freedom'.

Revolution does not require a social majority. FARC has been carrying on their 'revolution' since 1964. Another good example would be the Malaysian insurgency. The very idea of revolutionary Bolshevism is antithetical to democracy because it requires a vanguard to go out in advance of the people, because, of course, they know know better don't they.



You're hilarious. I am a member of a left wing political party and favor many left wing economic policies but that is a terrible example.



I think you just threw up all over the discipline of comparative politics.

Neither do elections, and cherry picking examples that suit your point doesn't prove anything.

1917 Russia and Anarchist Catalonia are fairly reliable examples of where the revolution had a sizable backing of the non combatant populations.

When it ceases to have this backing, its no longer a revolution and becomes a coup de'etat.

Colonel Gadaffi talked about these issues at length in regards to the fallacies of electoral democracy in the first chapter of the green book. I found myself nodding my head at his words.


All political movements advocate a vanguard to a greater or lesser degree.

I would argue that the United States government is the most successful(ly violent) vanguard.

Give me evidence of this from the historical literature. If all you have is Gaddafi then try and publish that view in a proper journal.



Irrelevant to my original point. But at least you are consistent in you inability to engage anther in discussion. By all means do back to your sloganeering and I will return to ignoring you.

Oh for 'evidence', you need look no farther than a dictionary.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Coup+de+etat

If you wish to divulge the nuances in between this and a revolution we are splitting hairs but i think its fair to categorise FARC regardless of how well their intentions, as a 'small group'.

Politics is the art of convincing large numbers of people to agree with a subjective view.

Activists who parrot popular lines for the sake of winning elections are the worst sort of politicians. They are carpetbaggers and opportunist careerists. The most honourable are those who speak their percieved truths, regardless of how much slander and scorn they recieve. Thats why I want to wretch when i see the facade of western democracy. It isn't democracy in action, its little more than a reality TV popularity contest where the contestants appeal to lowest common denominators based on a institutionalised culture of misinformation and ignorance. Right down to the televised pageantry, staged voxpops and character assasinations based on the participants personal lives.

Having something published in a journal run by small numbers of wealthy individuals or organisations whose vested interests lie in the preservation the status quo achieves nothing. Moreover, outside of participating in online debates such as these my circumstances don't allow me the time.

The objective of my world view is for the silent masses to embrace the avant garde. For if they don't, things will get far far worse. You can kid yourself as much as you want, but the current system is living on borrowed time. Short of the victory of a radical replacement, we will see the 'great collapse' in our lifetime and it will be unprecedented.



Clearly we're at an impasse if you are unable to concieve the idea that disseminating unpopular views is somehow 'less correct' than appealing to the contemporary.

You have not satisfied the criteria that I asked you to. You stated that a revolution requires a social majority and that once it loses that support it becomes a coup. In response to my request you have given me the definition of a coup, which does nothing to explore its relationship with regards to a revolution. There is little relationship between these terms that would allows us to develop legalistic relationships between them. Rather, revolutions can be minority affairs, the US revolution did not attract the majority of the population to its support but it is still regarded as such. There are many others that would count as evidence against your proposition. I asked you to prove a relationship between terms, so do it.



It is interesting that you would regard distinguishing between these terms to be splitting hairs. Rather, it is a salient point. If a revolution can be a minority affair or take place in ways that are undemocratic then your position that revolutionary socialism is more democratic than an election is lost (if it was not blindly so from the beginning).



Having traveled through significant portions of the undemocratic world, I find the monotony of western politics rather reassuring.



I am going to save this quote up for when you next take a shot at creationists.



And there you go again.



I think you will find that you are in an automatic impasse with everyone you shout at. You did not come here to talk, you came here to shout slogans.

Whatever, I suck at debates.
I guess I'm stupider than you.
You have successfully proven your intellectual, verbal mastery over me with your surgical responses.

I still hate socialism.

Socialism is collectivism right along with fascism and communism. It requires that the individual subordinate himself to the group. The needs of the many out weight the needs of the one or the few.

Socialism is the political system of the bee hive. Fascism is the political system of the the herd.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 21 Dec 2013, 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm confused myself. On the one hand, I think that socialism is built on a platform of certain non-negotiable tenets in a similar way to the rules of chess. If the rule for moving a bishop changed then you have a chess like game but it isn't chess. On the other hand, I think that people who call themselves socialists have fruitlessly argued for over 100 years about what constitutes genuine socialism.

To cite an example, just about every socialist movement in Britain is steadfastly pro-choice. If a political organisation was created that was pro-life combined with what are generally considered to be economic socialist policies then would it or would it not be socialist or have the right to call it socialist? Also, what about a political organisation with economic socialist policies that decided not to continue with state schooling on the basis that developments in technology have rendered traditional schools with teachers obsolete.

Don't knock it until you've tried it.

The bodilly autonomy of women and workers liberation are part of the grander fight. You can't have socialism without one and not the other.

There are people around who are both pro-life and support the economic policies of socialism at the same time. It's possibly an uncommon syncretic stance outside of the conventional 'shopping baskets' of political ideology but it's still technically possible. Some of these people are religious whilst others are atheist.

There is no rule that says we can't work towards meeting the needs of all individuals. Capitalism doesn't do that. I believe I should have a say in decisions to the degree that they affect me. I don't want to vote on the clothes you wair tomorrow.

http://www.progressivepolicy.org/2011/0 ... ic-voters/

Those graphs show that political views and voting records correlate with education levels in the USA (state-by-state).

Of course, as the link says, that could be because Democratic states prioritise education (so Democrats end up being better educated), or because the top universities happen to tend to be in Democratic states (so graduates tend to live in those states).

However, I remember data being posted on here before (probably by Viper) that said high school dropouts tend to be left wing, high school graduates and undergraduates at university tend to be right wing, and people with some postgraduate education tend to be left wing. Again, this could be explained by other things (for example, people just protecting their own interests).