PDA

View Full Version : thoughts on socialism



Dex90
07-22-2008, 08:10 AM
i just wanted to see peoples thoughts on communism and socialism, and if everyone here that is american thinks being a communist is like being a terrorist. This thread is absolutely not anti-american i just want to see what people think

Little_Miss_1565
07-22-2008, 09:57 AM
I would say no, and whatever unfortunate backwater town it sounds like you're living in right now, I think I grew up there.

Communists would be too hungry from long waits in the bread line to perform any acts of terrorism, no?

wheelchairman
07-22-2008, 10:08 AM
I used to be a marxist/communist myself.

Oh and I'm an American. I'm still pretty left wing but I no longer consider myself a Marxist or communist, analytically as well as ideologically.

The major problems I disliked about Marxism as an analysis and ideology was the belief in a linear progression of society. The fact that the basis is a belief in that everything has a basis in the functions of the economy (but only Marxists can understand this). And one thing I disliked was that discussions concerning Stalin's executions always become number games, avoiding the other issues (like when is it/is it justifiable to execute people for political dissention. Would you support a regime like that etc.)

One thing that also bothers me about the orthodox movement as a whole is the hypocracy in supporting foreign entities. Example, they will support Hezbollah but not the Iraqi Communist Party. Hezbollah is supported because they are a movement for national liberation, while the Iraqi Communist Party is panned for participating in the "puppet regime" of Iraq, making it "corrupt" or "imperialist lackeys." It seems quite hypocritical to support Hezbollah and then not support the Iraqi Communist Party for not being "marxist" enough.

But I mean that's all critiques because I'm a former Marxist. I definitely think that it's important to recognize that this society is perhaps not the final and most natural form of human association. That there are things wrong with it etc. And I think Marxism is a simple way to approach societal critique.

Dex90
07-27-2008, 01:59 PM
"I used to be a marxist/communist myself.

Oh and I'm an American. I'm still pretty left wing but I no longer consider myself a Marxist or communist, analytically as well as ideologically.

The major problems I disliked about Marxism as an analysis and ideology was the belief in a linear progression of society. The fact that the basis is a belief in that everything has a basis in the functions of the economy (but only Marxists can understand this). And one thing I disliked was that discussions concerning Stalin's executions always become number games, avoiding the other issues (like when is it/is it justifiable to execute people for political dissention. Would you support a regime like that etc.)

One thing that also bothers me about the orthodox movement as a whole is the hypocracy in supporting foreign entities. Example, they will support Hezbollah but not the Iraqi Communist Party. Hezbollah is supported because they are a movement for national liberation, while the Iraqi Communist Party is panned for participating in the "puppet regime" of Iraq, making it "corrupt" or "imperialist lackeys." It seems quite hypocritical to support Hezbollah and then not support the Iraqi Communist Party for not being "marxist" enough.

But I mean that's all critiques because I'm a former Marxist. I definitely think that it's important to recognize that this society is perhaps not the final and most natural form of human association. That there are things wrong with it etc. And I think Marxism is a simple way to approach societal critique."

I agree with most of the stuff your saying, my political tendencies are very far left as well but i also think communsits and marxist today are quite hypocritical, thats why, at least in italy, i consider myself a socialist. Communists have become to close-minded. They preach acceptance and reject racism etc but if they happen to come across someone who from a more economically advantaged background they will immediately come to the conclusion that they cannot be a communist. And yes, communisms main ideology is the defence and well being of the working class, but just because someone is not part of the working class, it doesn't mean they support capitalism, imperialism and do not believe in sharing the wealth.
However, I do believe that if a country like Italy were to be under a socialist regime, it would function better on all fronts (economically,socialy etc).. I think that being under the rule of a fascist dick head like berlusconi could seriously bring this country to ruins. We need someone like zapatero in spain.

Hypno Toad
08-13-2008, 12:56 AM
You must understand what communism means, first. Communism is a even vaguer term than Capitalism.

I am not even sure what I am right now. I would lean myself towards social anarchism, I guess. But ever system has it's downsides.

"Communism" includes, but is not limited to:

-Stalinism:
-Marxism
-Leninism
-etc


You can't say you "hate communism" That's too vague of term, it's like saying you hate food.


And socialism is like "communism lite" Socialism goes hand in hand with anarchism, but it is often confused for a form of communism, which is not true.

wheelchairman
08-13-2008, 04:16 AM
In my post I used the Marxist definitions for socialism and communism. You're using undefined definitions that many people use but actually are quite vague.

metalmania
09-07-2008, 09:04 AM
socialism and communism were the way of liberation for humanity against capitalism and.1960's,1970's
world's important phylosophers told it(camus,sartre ....) anyway .but unfortunally capitalism won many years later,money won but humanity lost .ussr tried the socialism.and lenin was good really,but stalin was so bad.and many years later;ussr hold down afghanistan .usa/cia did help to afghan people.and dont forget that american people was to fear from communism but they dont know nothing about this system in these years.they gave many weapons and ussr lost this bad war,its the finish time of ussr and socialism for russia. but i think that russia couldnt use this system good.anyway now in our world's rule is capitalism.but you know that marx says" capitalism is just a eposide for socialism";) socialism,communism,anarchism(prudon,bakunin) they did work for people's freedom,maybe one day they can do it.
note:marxism has never been in iraq;)

Moose
09-08-2008, 10:43 AM
many things work in theory, but not in reality...

...for instance, countries that do have free healthcare, such as canada or england...well, the people who can afford their own healthcare, buy their own, because the free healthcare is so poor. They also (specifically canadians) come to the U.S. when they want to or need to see really good doctors.

Not to mention the limited rights and such that just happen to come with being under a communist or socialist country...

jacknife737
09-08-2008, 11:01 AM
many things work in theory, but not in reality...

...for instance, countries that do have free healthcare, such as canada or england...well, the people who can afford their own healthcare, buy their own, because the free healthcare is so poor. They also (specifically canadians) come to the U.S. when they want to or need to see really good doctors.

Canadians spend significantly less then what Americans spend on health care, not to mention we have longer life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rates. Canadians have access to everything that Americans do, yes there are slightly longer wait times on non-life threatening cases such as Hip Replacements, but that is the major difference. I don’t have to pay a bill when I leave the hospital. And should a Canadian be sent to an American hospital, by Canadian officials, the government will cover the costs. I know which system I prefer.

KHWHD
09-08-2008, 11:04 AM
many things work in theory, but not in reality...

...for instance, countries that do have free healthcare, such as canada or england...well, the people who can afford their own healthcare, buy their own, because the free healthcare is so poor. They also (specifically canadians) come to the U.S. when they want to or need to see really good doctors.

Not to mention the limited rights and such that just happen to come with being under a communist or socialist country...

OMG, you really have NO idea about Canada do you?

Sunny
09-08-2008, 11:24 AM
many things work in theory, but not in reality...

...for instance, countries that do have free healthcare, such as canada or england...well, the people who can afford their own healthcare, buy their own, because the free healthcare is so poor. They also (specifically canadians) come to the U.S. when they want to or need to see really good doctors.

Not to mention the limited rights and such that just happen to come with being under a communist or socialist country...

what are you smoking and where can i get some?

bighead384
09-08-2008, 11:45 AM
what are you smoking and where can i get some?

Stop being a bitch, Sunny.

Sunny
09-08-2008, 11:50 AM
i'll stop being a bitch the day you stop being an annoying moron. deal? deal.

bighead384
09-08-2008, 12:02 PM
i'll stop being a bitch the day you stop being an annoying moron. deal? deal.

You're calling me names. I'm calling you what you actually are. A fucking bitch.

jacknife737
09-08-2008, 12:05 PM
You're calling me names. I'm calling you what you actually are. A fucking bitch.

You're not a very happy person, are you?

bighead384
09-08-2008, 12:06 PM
You're not a very happy person, are you?

Alright. I'm done in this thread. Typical.

Superdope
09-08-2008, 12:08 PM
Alright. I'm done in this thread. Typical.

Yes. Yes it is.

Hombre
09-09-2008, 04:40 AM
I don't believe in communism.I think that it is work only in theory.
And I also dislike period of time,when my country was "socialistics".
I hate Lenin and Stalin!:mad:

T-6005
09-09-2008, 06:46 AM
...for instance, countries that do have free healthcare, such as canada or england...well, the people who can afford their own healthcare, buy their own, because the free healthcare is so poor. They also (specifically canadians) come to the U.S. when they want to or need to see really good doctors

I've never even heard of this except for maybe hard-to-find specialist types.

And, even if the free healthcare system is poor - which, as far as I have seen, it isn't - for those who can't afford it otherwise, poor healthcare is much, much better than none.

EDIT - Can't hurt to take a look at the CIA work factbook for life expectancies for the countries you compared, either. Both England (36th, with 78.85) and Canada (in 8th with 81.16) beat out the United States (a pretty dismal 46th for such a great system) in average life expectancy.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

wheelchairman
09-09-2008, 10:43 AM
The myth of people hating public health care in healthcare nations is entirely created by the American media....

It's so strange that people take this as a credible source... :/

Satanic_Surfer
09-10-2008, 05:40 AM
I don't believe in communism.I think that it is work only in theory.
And I also dislike period of time,when my country was "socialistics".
I hate Lenin and Stalin!:mad:

No one persons theory will work out perfectly in real life, that's the way it is with everything. Communism included. Although i have to agree with the basic idea of communism. But i dont believe it is possible through the ways that has been tried this far.

Any institutions or people with a large portion of power is a threat to the power of the people. be it in a communist country or a capitalist one. I believe that the general morals held by socialists are good values but if we ever want to reach a free and equal society, we have to work much harder than they do on several issues. Especially when it comes to self criticism.

Xerath
09-11-2008, 10:48 AM
I favor capitalism over socialism or communism. I'm for whichever system requires the least amount of government intervention. I believe that a government's job is to keep the peace at home, stop crime, and protect against foreign invaders. Nothing else.

Socialism and communism require the lending of too much power to the government, because it has to be able redistribute the wealth, and take over national industries. This kind of power lets the government micromanage your life by telling you how much of your money you can keep, what you are allowed to think, how much carbon you can emit, etc.

I wish I could say the USA didn't have these kinds of problems but the government gets in your face here too. We have high income taxes, crushing environmental regulations, and enough red tape to cover Mars.

I agree with Winston Churchill when he said "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. "

Sunny
09-11-2008, 11:25 AM
We have (...) crushing environmental regulations

how do you figure?

T-6005
09-11-2008, 12:53 PM
I wish I could say the USA didn't have these kinds of problems but the government gets in your face here too. We have high income taxes, crushing environmental regulations, and enough red tape to cover Mars.

Am I amazingly incorrect in saying that the United States is the only "developed" nation not to have ratified a treaty regulating carbon emissions?

EDIT - Wikipedia is cool. I think I'll trust this fact on the BBS if not in a debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Accord#United_States

The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified. The United States was, as of at least 2005 (and, according to various reports, to date), the largest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Xerath
09-11-2008, 12:55 PM
First, we have an energy crisis that environmental restrictions are doing nothing but worsening. We haven't built any new nuclear plants in 30 years on safety concerns, even though technological advancements have made such plants much safer to operate than they used to be. Even France gets 80% of its power from nuclear plants, and they've never had a safety issue.

We've got an oil shortage that's driving gas to 5$ per gallon, and vague environmental concerns prevent us from drilling in any new places to alleviate the burden. Since gas is needed to move goods from place to place, this has raised the cost of nearly everything. I'm all for developing new technologies to generate and use power, but we need to use what we have now as well, if for no other reason than to keep the costs down while we develop new techs. And there's ANWR. I don't care how much or how little petroleum they think they can get from there. There's no reason not to. The caribou actually like the warmth of the pipes.

We have a law going into effect that mandates automakers to increase fleetwide gas mileage to 35mpg by 2020. This is essentially an order to make smaller and lighter cars, and really none of the government's business. It doesn't matter if this standard is economically realistic or not, the government said so and now they have to do it.

And then there's the whole cap and trade thing being proposed. A cap on the estimated amount of carbon used by a company would be disastrous. Since everything requires electricity and the shipping of goods, it would essentially be a productivity limit on businesses. Paying for the right to emit carbon will cost too much and it will cost jobs.

Environmental regulations in the US seem to have as much to do with limiting economic growth as they do with protecting the planet.

Xerath
09-11-2008, 12:56 PM
Am I amazingly incorrect in saying that the United States is the only "developed" nation not to have ratified a treaty regulating carbon emissions?

EDIT - Wikipedia is cool. I think I'll trust this fact on the BBS if not in a debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Accord#United_States

Many of the other developed nations have actual socialism. The US is just (hopefully not) on the way.

Sunny
09-11-2008, 01:34 PM
*facepalm*

Little_Miss_1565
09-11-2008, 03:51 PM
First, we have an energy crisis that environmental restrictions are doing nothing but worsening. We haven't built any new nuclear plants in 30 years on safety concerns, even though technological advancements have made such plants much safer to operate than they used to be. Even France gets 80% of its power from nuclear plants, and they've never had a safety issue.

The nuclear plant nearest my mom's house has been shut down for the last 10 or so years because of safety regulation violations. They were trying to get it back online not by upgrading its various flaws, but by lowering the safety regulations. This does not make me have faith in nuclear power in this country. I haven't heard any such horror stories from France, so I think this is not a valid comparison.


We've got an oil shortage that's driving gas to 5$ per gallon, and vague environmental concerns prevent us from drilling in any new places to alleviate the burden. Since gas is needed to move goods from place to place, this has raised the cost of nearly everything. I'm all for developing new technologies to generate and use power, but we need to use what we have now as well, if for no other reason than to keep the costs down while we develop new techs. And there's ANWR. I don't care how much or how little petroleum they think they can get from there. There's no reason not to. The caribou actually like the warmth of the pipes.That's like saying we can combat our nation's heroin problem by growing poppies in Iowa. We have hybrid technologies now, and they're not being used to their full potential because of conservative agendas trying to keep their oil buddies in business. Also, "vague environmental concerns"? Have you ever been to a national wilderness preservation site? If you can go to one of the country's many and not feel profoundly moved, there is something wrong with you. Some things are more valuable than money.


We have a law going into effect that mandates automakers to increase fleetwide gas mileage to 35mpg by 2020. This is essentially an order to make smaller and lighter cars, and really none of the government's business. It doesn't matter if this standard is economically realistic or not, the government said so and now they have to do it.But it is the government's business to drill for oil in wilderness reserves? You should probably decide what the government's role is supposed to be in energy sourcing and then stick with it.


And then there's the whole cap and trade thing being proposed. A cap on the estimated amount of carbon used by a company would be disastrous. Since everything requires electricity and the shipping of goods, it would essentially be a productivity limit on businesses. Paying for the right to emit carbon will cost too much and it will cost jobs. The only way to cattle-prod industry to use alternate, non-oil-based energy is to hit them in the wallet. It could make a shitton of jobs if the old guard would stop living in the past and start building the future.


Environmental regulations in the US seem to have as much to do with limiting economic growth as they do with protecting the planet.The only thing that's true about this statement is that it is a lame and tired GOP talking point.


Stop being a bitch, Sunny.

Dude, you need to get a grip. If someone steps on your toe, you seem to think it's okay to beat them over the head with a baseball bat. It's not.

wheelchairman
09-11-2008, 04:26 PM
Many of the other developed nations have actual socialism. The US is just (hopefully not) on the way.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that one of those nations you are referring to happens to be a Scandinavian one. In which case many Scandinavian governments have had liberal* governments in control.

In which case, wtf? Scandinavia is quite interesting cause if you look at the political history. During times of economic downturn you will see that the market takes an ever increasing roll in society. The government will intervene more and more. Very Keynesian, sort of. During times of good economic conditions privitisation occurs.

The very superficial lesson I am trying to teach is that today with the global market crisis, Denmark has barely felt a finger of it. Our politics of...well....for lack of a better word "reasonability" allows us to isolate ourselves from global economic trends.** Meaning that our supposed socialism has had enormous benefits in not making us incredibly poor, in making us relatively wealthy. In fact our national healthcare system is amazing for one that is put under constraint strain due to recent (in the last decade) budget cuts. Our unemployment level is still at an all time low.

If we had a completely free market we would've been screwed by the whims of the invisible hand. Fortunately whether it be a left wing government or a right wing one, the founding philosophy always seems to lie in stability and reason. It's quite amazing actually comparing it to American politics where both qualities are lacking in both sides. (well except for Obama who in my opinion is a good American personification of these scandinavian values.)

*in Europe liberal means pro-free market and pro-opening up of trade borders. Not like in the Democratic Party of the US which subscribes to a solely American definition of liberal.

**global in the sense of western free markets