NationStates Jolt Archive

Well what do you think ultimately prevents socialists from uniting?

Is it the stance we take on the USSR and so called 'socialist' states?
Is it the idea of reform vs revolution as the method of achieving socialism?
Is it whether should be patriotic or not?

WHAT IS IT?

grr.

Turns out the socialists are pretty united.

Socialist International, check it out.

Other than that, most people are happy with the freebies that the major countries of the free market hand out to their citizens.

Well what do you think ultimately prevents socialists from uniting?
Um ... logic? :D

Well what do you think ultimately prevents socialists from uniting?

Is it the stance we take on the USSR and so called 'socialist' states?
Is it the idea of reform vs revolution as the method of achieving socialism?
Is it whether should be patriotic or not?

WHAT IS IT?

grr.

All that and more.

I don't know. Their mental instability?

Oh, that's right. I said it.

i'd guess that it pertains somehow to the fact that (in my opinion) socialism will only work in an idealist society. honestly, you cannot have a government without some level of corruption, which is exactly what socialism would require, and therefore we have socialist-democracies and other combinations of political ideas.

it's awfully difficult to unite when there's no set standard that works: there have been many forms of socialism, but there isn't really one success they can all come together beneath.

sam (lucida sans)

Well what do you think ultimately prevents socialists from uniting?

Is it the stance we take on the USSR and so called 'socialist' states?
Is it the idea of reform vs revolution as the method of achieving socialism?
Is it whether should be patriotic or not?

WHAT IS IT?

grr.

Everything divides the people of the left, although it is a mistake to call them "Socialists," they are, at heart, all Communists. Socialism is simply the stage that a nation passes in order to acheive Communism, Communism being a Political-Economic system where prisons, police, government (as we know it) doesn't exist, but is instead replaced with a proletarian militia establishing the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat."
Now, as for the divide. On one end of the spectrum you have the Statists or the Authoritarians, made up of jacobin-elitist Leninists, Stalinists, et cetera. The Statists believe in the absolute necessity of the state (nation, country). On the other end of the spectrum you have the Anarchists, also known as Anarcho-Communists and Anarcho-Syndicalists, who believe in the complete dissolution of the state and of skipping the Socialist stage straight to the Communist stage. The people in the middle are usually Libertarian Leninists, or "Early Leninists," since they believe in the eventual "withering away" of the state.

I hope you find this helpful.

EDIT: Forgot to include that in the middle of the Socialist/Communist spectrum are many Marxists, although some go futher left.

There aren't enough of us.

i'd guess that it pertains somehow to the fact that (in my opinion) socialism will only work in an idealist society. honestly, you cannot have a government without some level of corruption, which is exactly what socialism would require, and therefore we have socialist-democracies and other combinations of political ideas.

it's awfully difficult to unite when there's no set standard that works: there have been many forms of socialism, but there isn't really one success they can all come together beneath.

sam (lucida sans)

True Socialism requires the lack of government and the restructuring of society from "the bottom up."

Read the book "Anarchism" by Daniel Guerrin and read "The State and Revolution" by V.I. Lenin. Some other good people to read up on is Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and other famous communist/socialist philosophers.

As for the "Democratic Socialists" or "Social-Democrats" they aren't true Socialists nor Communists because they simply assume the bourgeiouse position.

Socialism is simply the stage that a nation passes in order to acheive Communism

this is a sort of misinterpretation, i think, of marxist philosophy. in marxism there are three steps to an ideal socialist state (note that karl marx did not envision socialism as the communsim utilized in the USSR and would have considered that to be a perversion of his ideas), and these are

1. revolution and overthrowing of the old, corrupt gov't
2. a temporary dictator is instated
3. dictator (and administration) abdicate(s) leaving all to live in a utopian society.

communism is really marxism which does not go beyond step two. in communism, there is always a dictator who calls the shots.

anyway, i need to do some homework.

respectfully, sam

True Socialism requires the lack of government and the restructuring of society from "the bottom up."

Read the book "Anarchism" by Daniel Guerrin and read "The State and Revolution" by V.I. Lenin. Some other good people to read up on is Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and other famous communist/socialist philosophers.

As for the "Democratic Socialists" or "Social-Democrats" they aren't true Socialists nor Communists because they simply assume the bourgeiouse position.

i would agree that democratic socialists are not pure, true socialists because they have attempted to make socialism possible by abandoning some of its idealism. while i cannot claim to be an expert on socialism even slightly, i have read "what is to be done" (lenin) and portions of "the communist manifesto" (marx/engels) in addition to a book called "the marx/engels reader". in AP european history last year i actually presented most of the information when we were studying communism/socialism because i was interested in it, so i have some idea of what i'm addressing.

i should like to check out "the state and revolution" however, cause lenin's a gripping read.

"There is no difference between a tyrant who lives in a palace and a despot who misused the revolution of workers and peasants to ascend into the Kremlin." Karl Kautsky.

Except instead of three, the society would devolve back to a fiefdom.

Marx also believed Capitalism would go far enough that the personal labour required to keep it ll going was minimal. This would be the point of transformation. Personally I think he was wrong about the violent revolution, it will probably be a smooth change (resisted of course but ultimately a peaceful evolution). I think it's the natural progression of things, capitalism is impermenant, so will Communism prove I have no doubt.

What divies us is how we would go about creating Communism.

I personally would rather reduce welfare but create more jobs in the public sector (people say we need more police, more nurses, more streetsweepers, fair enough, we'll bring National Service back) and try to promote movements like Scouting, teach people to be self-reliant and capable of social conciense. Hell maybe even switch to a Swiss-style military.

Others think there should be a violent revolution ith a dictator, I say it's bullshit because there's pretty much no dictator who stepped down since Cincinnatus (slight exaggeration maybe...)

Others say they need to lead this revolution (yeah, we saw how well that happened under Lenin...)

There's dozens of attitudes out there and while we all seek much the same goal our means are often diametrically opposed.

I've noticed Lucida Sans critiqueing my posts on Socialism/Communism, and I would just like to ask how much of Marx has he read. Although he is right that the idea of Socialism as a transitional phase became more popularly used by Socialists and Communists later, he seems to be claiming that Communism is utopian. Communism is NOT utopian, utopia is where everyone is absolutely happy, sort of like the Christian-Islamic view of heaven.

This is not the case for Communism. Remember, a key component of Communism is the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat', and in a dictatorship, not everyone is happy. This dictatorship though, is made up of militias of working people of all races, genders, ethnicities, and nationalities to protect the workers from capitalist aggression and to ensure self-government in the soviet and self-management in the factories.

Well what do you think ultimately prevents socialists from uniting?

Is it the stance we take on the USSR and so called 'socialist' states?
Is it the idea of reform vs revolution as the method of achieving socialism?
Is it whether should be patriotic or not?
Depends whether you would count Social Democrats as Socialists. If you do, it'd probably be the second.
If you don't, and we're somehow outside...hmm...probably the first, although today the pro-Soviet lobby has kind of lost steam.
So today, I'd say the main point is the disagreement on how to get to Socialism and later Communism, even between Leninist, Trotskyists and the various other groups (Anarchos?).

This is not the case for Communism. Remember, a key component of Communism is the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat', and in a dictatorship, not everyone is happy.
You're talking Pre-Communism (Socialism). The idea is that this dictatorship does the whole equitable distribution thing until everyone is organised so well that there is no more scarcity and everyone has everything they could possibly need/want. Then people would only work for fun.
And because the distribution is no longer needed, the dictatorship would disappear, leaving a type of anarchistic utopia. He's pretty much right.

I do believe you are right as for the dictatorship being in the transitional phase, but you must note that Communism is not utopian.

Capitalism could be considered utopian if Communism is considered utopian. Think back to the middle ages when feudalism and kings rained. Would anyone think that Capitalism is possible? NO WAY! Everyone was used to being ruled by their local landlord, and if someone would've brought up an idea like Capitalism they could easily have been dismissed as utopian! Also, Adam Smith in his book outlining Capitalism stated that the class differences would even out and the society would be fair... Doesn't that sound utopian to you?

As for the working part, yes, you are right, people would more work for 'fun' as you put it because they wouldn't be forced to do 8 hours of work a day. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" would become the norm, because food and other essentials would be distributed equally per person and each person would only work enough to make his portions worth.

I'm afraid I sound a little confusing here... :(

I'm afraid I sound a little confusing here... :(
Not really. The deeper meaning of various things is often debated here...and Communism is a favourite topic of some...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=448895&page=57

As for the difference between Capitalism and Communism, I'd think that there was no Capitalist Revolution. It evolved naturally out of people starting to trade stuff.
Socialism would have to be a rather more complex process...if Marx was right though, it'll happen by itself and we don't need Communist Parties, and if he wasn't, it'd probably be better if we didn't try and just stuck with Democracy etc and move towards Sweden for example.

Not really. The deeper meaning of various things is often debated here...and Communism is a favourite topic of some...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=448895&page=57

As for the difference between Capitalism and Communism, I'd think that there was no Capitalist Revolution. It evolved naturally out of people starting to trade stuff.
Socialism would have to be a rather more complex process...if Marx was right though, it'll happen by itself and we don't need Communist Parties, and if he wasn't, it'd probably be better if we didn't try and just stuck with Democracy etc and move towards Sweden for example.

Would you consider yourself a Communist though?

Well what do you think ultimately prevents socialists from uniting?

Is it the stance we take on the USSR and so called 'socialist' states?
Is it the idea of reform vs revolution as the method of achieving socialism?
Is it whether should be patriotic or not?

WHAT IS IT?

grr.

They didnt follow the ideas of Marx, they allways had a leader because of human greed. They allways had bad leaders.

No nation is really socialist who claim they are because they do not follow the book of Marx.

A nation with no leaders, you grow what you need.

Would you consider yourself a Communist though?
Nope.

I'm definitely on the Left, but I am committed to democracy and the freedom of people to choose the way their life turns out.
That means that poor people need support, but not that those that make it shouldn't be allowed to benefit from their work (and luck).

A Social Democrat, with a hang to pragmatism when it comes to Economics. And Pro-Globalisation and Free Trade.

Nope.

I'm definitely on the Left, but I am committed to democracy and the freedom of people to choose the way their life turns out.
That means that poor people need support, but not that those that make it shouldn't be allowed to benefit from their work (and luck).

A Social Democrat, with a hang to pragmatism when it comes to Economics. And Pro-Globalisation and Free Trade.

There are more versions of Communism than the Marxist and the Bolshevik one you know. In fact, Marxism is the purest form of democracy, or perhaps Anarcho-Communism of Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin is the purest form but no matter.

What makes you support the corporations that squandor all of the hard earned money of the workers?

I really don't get DHomme. Why aren't we united?

When I asked him about Kronstadt (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mhuey/KRN/KRN.2.Beginning.html/) he told me that Trotski had to kill them en masse, because they were anarchists (some were - but, hey, even they are Socialists. No Trot was complaining when they shed their blood in 1936-38 in Spain... 38, because they weren't around in 39, blame Stalin. Ah, well.)

It's the same about all leftist parties decimated in the Red Terror (Terror, DHomme! That's what it was). My first post quoted Kautsky on the subject of Social-Revolutionaries on trial in Russia. And Kautsky was quite receptive in a way - he joined the USPD later (a clue to why Rosa was quite different from Lenin, DHomme).

And now, the coup de grace! DHomme, why don't Trots join the Stalinists and the National-Bolsheviks? What's that you say?

It should be quite clear that the way you feel about them is the way Social-Democrats feel about you.

I really don't get DHomme. Why aren't we united?

When I asked him about Kronstadt (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mhuey/KRN/KRN.2.Beginning.html/) he told me that Trotski had to kill them en masse, because they were anarchists (some were - but, hey, even they are Socialists. No Trot was complaining when they shed their blood in 1936-38 in Spain... 38, because they weren't around in 39, blame Stalin. Ah, well.)

It's the same about all leftist parties decimated in the Red Terror (Terror, DHomme! That's what it was). My first post quoted Kautsky on the subject of Social-Revolutionaries on trial in Russia. And Kautsky was quite receptive in a way - he joined the USPD later (a clue to why Rosa was quite different from Lenin, DHomme).

And now, the coup de grace! DHomme, why don't Trots join the Stalinists and the National-Bolsheviks? What's that you say?

It should be quite clear that the way you feel about them is the way Social-Democrats feel about you.

The Kronstadt revolutionaries weren't all Anarchists, but they definately were Libertarian Communists (other words that define their ideology are: Libertarian Leninist and Libertarian Socialist). Unfortunately, the Jacobin-Elitist Leninists (that includes Trotsky) of the time didn't like anyone with any ideology similar to the Anarchists that was counter central government.

Lenin and Trotsky had to put down the Kronstadt uprising in order to insure their state capitalist system of so-called "War Communism" could endure and scare away future Libertarian uprisings.

hooray for patriotic state socialism!

What makes you support the corporations that squandor all of the hard earned money of the workers?
That they produce stuff I can use.
We need to specialise. Anarchistic societies don't do coordination very well, which seriously hurts the ability of single people to specialise in a single thing.

And unless you want to force people, there needs to be something in it if they are to start corporations, or start doing things for other people.

If you have a chance, talk to Disraeliland about it...he'll probably get sick of repeating it (although...on second thought I don't think he could ever get sick of it), but he has plenty of arguments relating Communism (or at least Marxism) to the things that were done in its name throughout the 20th century. And some of it has value - Pol Pot didn't just kill all those people because he was a psychopath.

Revolution/Evolution
Authoritarian/Libertarian/Anarchist

The dual root of the division is the fact that socialism is not a positive system that was initiated by a process of thought. It is at its root, a mere negation of capitalism, and the fact that socialism is based on fallacious economic ideas.

Social-democrats are only divided from other socialists by their reluctance to use force.

That they produce stuff I can use.
We need to specialise. Anarchistic societies don't do coordination very well, which seriously hurts the ability of single people to specialise in a single thing.

And unless you want to force people, there needs to be something in it if they are to start corporations, or start doing things for other people.

If you have a chance, talk to Disraeliland about it...he'll probably get sick of repeating it (although...on second thought I don't think he could ever get sick of it), but he has plenty of arguments relating Communism (or at least Marxism) to the things that were done in its name throughout the 20th century. And some of it has value - Pol Pot didn't just kill all those people because he was a psychopath.

How do you know that Anarchism couldn't efficiently distribute items? The idea of Federalism as outlined by Proudhon would seem to work quite well.

People wouldn't have to join 'corporations' because they'd already be working in their factory, so all that would change is that that factory would be self-managed and the pay would be equally distributed, such as in the Spanish Revolution.

Also, Jacobin-Elitist Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others cannot be considered Communists but some sort of revisionists. They didn't truly believe in the withering away of the state or Communism, they were just concerned with power.

The dual root of the division is the fact that socialism is not a positive system that was initiated by a process of thought. It is at its root, a mere negation of capitalism, and the fact that socialism is based on fallacious economic ideas.

Social-democrats are only divided from other socialists by their reluctance to use force.

Son, you really need to actually try to understand Socialism and Communism. You're clearly obese with Capitalist propaganda.

can't get people who prattle on about anarchy. It just wouldn't work, socialist principles need a strong state framework to ensure things run smoothly.

The dual root of the division is the fact that socialism is not a positive system that was initiated by a process of thought. It is at its root, a mere negation of capitalism, and the fact that socialism is based on fallacious economic ideas.

Social-democrats are only divided from other socialists by their reluctance to use force.
You keep saying stuff like that, and I might not be "divided by my reluctance to use force".

can't get people who prattle on about anarchy. It just wouldn't work, socialist principles need a strong state framework to ensure things run smoothly.

How much of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and even Marx have you read in your entire life?

If you've read one work or paper I'd be surprised.

Get the book "Anarchism" by Daniel Guerrin, and you'll understand how it works. Until then, do my sanity a favor, and shut up.

As with any ideological movement, each person has his or her own interpretation of what this movement should represent. Therefore, the movement will inevitably fraction. Some people fall so in love with their own conceptions, furthermore, that they seem to think they are above all else, and embody the movement. This, therefore, leads to a clash of egos. The result? It is nearly impossible for any one movement to be wholly coherent. The only thing that unites is having a common enemy. Socialists have no true enemy to band against.

How do you know that Anarchism couldn't efficiently distribute items? The idea of Federalism as outlined by Proudhon would seem to work quite well.
It's not so much about distributing items, it is about making them in the first place. Without a government, there is chaos, regardless if what economic system you follow.
Ultimately, you end up with a bunch of self-sufficient little communities that are incapable to produce something even as primitive as a car.

People wouldn't have to join 'corporations' because they'd already be working in their factory, so all that would change is that that factory would be self-managed and the pay would be equally distributed, such as in the Spanish Revolution.
Well, if there is pay, then it is Capitalism, just with a different type of boss.
Oh, and then there is the little problem of getting there in the first place. How exactly do you turn a country in to a Federalist Anarchistic "Society"?

Also, Jacobin-Elitist Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others cannot be considered Communists but some sort of revisionists.
Marx never told people how having an all-powerful state involved in everything and oppressing those that disagree (that too is written in Marx) would result in a free, oppression-free, anarchistic paradise.
Everyone who came after him had to solve that problem for himself, and every different form of Communism or Socialism is an attempt at that.
People like Mao and Pol Pot simply took the route of creating the new human necessary for Socialism to become Communism...and to them the ends justified the means.

How much of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and even Marx have you read in your entire life?

If you've read one work or paper I'd be surprised.

Get the book "Anarchism" by Daniel Guerrin, and you'll understand how it works. Until then, do my sanity a favor, and shut up.
I will buy the book as I am interested in seeing why exactly some seem to think Anarchism would work. However, books can make anything seem plausible. They may be correct. Yet, at best, they are theoretical. Plato's Republic suggests an ideal political system. Could it work? Perhaps. Depends on who is putting it in place. Books definitely help in enlightening one as to why certain notions may (or may not) work, yet ultimately they are the product of human intellect, and thus are inherently limited.

You keep saying stuff like that, and I might not be "divided by my reluctance to use force".

Over the Internet?

Let me guess... you'e going to use this smilie: :mp5:

Over the Internet?

Let me guess... you'e going to use this smilie: :mp5:
No. This one: :sniper: .


Better, huh?

No. This one: :sniper: .


Better, huh?


No... not really.

It's not so much about distributing items, it is about making them in the first place. Without a government, there is chaos, regardless if what economic system you follow.
I love when people make definitive statements without justification. Anarchism is government by the people. There's just no STATE. No rule from above does NOT equal NO RULE. The incentive to work and produce will be need for the products.

Ultimately, you end up with a bunch of self-sufficient little communities that are incapable to produce something even as primitive as a car.
Why? We're living in an age where information is so readily available, surely people can communicate and coordinate large projects.


Well, if there is pay, then it is Capitalism, just with a different type of boss.
No, nobody would be extracting the product of a person's labour and workers would manage themselves. Capitalism describes the relation between a worker and boss. If the worker IS the boss, there isn't capitalism. And most anarchists would like to see the abolition of money, and a barter type, needs based economy arise.

Oh, and then there is the little problem of getting there in the first place. How exactly do you turn a country in to a Federalist Anarchistic "Society"?
Revolution. ;) It would have to be a revolution of ideas first. Obviously you need a LOT of people to become revolutionaries, at least at heart. This is where we diverge from vanguradists. And revolution is not a one off event, it keeps going on, society changes as its needs change.


Marx never told people how having an all-powerful state involved in everything and oppressing those that disagree (that too is written in Marx) would result in a free, oppression-free, anarchistic paradise.
Everyone who came after him had to solve that problem for himself, and every different form of Communism or Socialism is an attempt at that.
People like Mao and Pol Pot simply took the route of creating the new human necessary for Socialism to become Communism...and to them the ends justified the means.
That's why we're anarchists. ;) We don't believe that the state can be used to smash itself, well most of us don't. Also while, speaking for myself here, many of my ideas are influenced by Marx, I do not consider myself a Marxist, and do not take his word as law... Neither do many other leftists today, even neo-Marxists!
Also in contemporary leftist thinking, particularly anarchist thinking; "the ends determine the means," so you're waaaaaaay off there.

Son, you really need to actually try to understand Socialism and Communism. You're clearly obese with Capitalist propaganda.

Bullsh*t.

You keep saying stuff like that, and I might not be "divided by my reluctance to use force".

The reluctance to use force is what makes social democrats different from socialists. Real socialism requires a massive theft, and if you really want to rob someone, you'd better bring a gun, and be prepared to use it. Social democrats are more like pick-pockets than armed bank robbers. They stick to the forms of theft least likely to provoke resistance, but these are also the least profitable forms.

The reluctance to use force is what makes social democrats different from socialists. Real socialism requires a massive theft, and if you really want to rob someone, you'd better bring a gun, and be prepared to use it. Social democrats are more like pick-pockets than armed bank robbers. They stick to the forms of theft least likely to provoke resistance, but these are also the least profitable forms.
Leonstein, wanna help me here? I cannot possibly deal with explaining this again to "uncompromising moralists".

I would like an Anarchist, concisely, to explain why his (or her) system of choice would work. Use whatever arguments you see fit.

The incentive to work and produce will be need for the products.
Okay. You want a computer.
No single person on this planet can build a computer by himself. It takes thousands of different types of work, from mining sand and other minerals to programming an OS.
If you don't use money to make person XYZ (who programs Super-Pascal) from 500km away work on this, why would he do it?

Or more to the point...would XYZ even exist? His skills are only meaningful as a part of a huge collective effort, that has to be coordinated by someone.

Why? We're living in an age where information is so readily available, surely people can communicate and coordinate large projects.
You'd think so, wouldn't you. But there is no chance that it would happen just spontaneously.
And besides...who does security? What stops your neighbour from killing you and living in "your" house?

Capitalism describes the relation between a worker and boss.
No it doesn't. Capitalism is a system in which stuff is privately owned and traded, usually involving money. No more, no less.

And most anarchists would like to see the abolition of money, and a barter type, needs based economy arise.
And then I'd have to call this an illusion. How many oranges are worth one car tyre?

And revolution is not a one off event, it keeps going on, society changes as its needs change.
Hehe, you know who else said that?

I really don't get DHomme. Why aren't we united?

When I asked him about Kronstadt (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mhuey/KRN/KRN.2.Beginning.html/) he told me that Trotski had to kill them en masse, because they were anarchists (some were - but, hey, even they are Socialists. No Trot was complaining when they shed their blood in 1936-38 in Spain... 38, because they weren't around in 39, blame Stalin. Ah, well.)
No, because they were effectively anarcho-revolutionaries calling for an uprising against the bolsheviks.


It's the same about all leftist parties decimated in the Red Terror (Terror, DHomme! That's what it was). My first post quoted Kautsky on the subject of Social-Revolutionaries on trial in Russia

Fight against the revolution, what do you expect?


And now, the coup de grace! DHomme, why don't Trots join the Stalinists and the National-Bolsheviks? What's that you say?

It should be quite clear that the way you feel about them is the way Social-Democrats feel about you.
Okay, listen. I started this as a debate over where the main ideological/practical differences in the left-wing movement lie and which ones are truly important. I did not start this as some bullshit hippy "cant we all just get along?" thread. I feel like you have already made this into a personal attack and that annoys me because, to be quite frank, you're fucking smart and resorting to petty insults is beneath you.

Leonstein, wanna help me here? I cannot possibly deal with explaining this again to "uncompromising moralists".
Hmm...I really made it a point not to get into this with him anymore.

The reluctance to use force is what makes social democrats different from socialists.
On a very basic level, that is true.

Real socialism requires a massive theft, and if you really want to rob someone, you'd better bring a gun, and be prepared to use it.
Accepting that would first require me to accept your definition of property, and the underlying moralistic theory underneath.
But Property is not independent of society. Property, your ownership of that PC in front of you, is an abstract concept. And abstract concepts are relative - if I don't accept the underlying philosophy, then your "theft" talk becomes irrelevant.
If the law says that all your stuff are belong to us, then you can claim and argue all you want, fact of the matter is that your right to your stuff no longer exists.

On a very basic level, that is true.

I think it is better understood in terms of levels of force, and where and against whom it is used.

Social democrats will operate a police force, and enforce basic laws, they will operate military forces, and go to war, and will willingly prosecute war (as Labor did in Australia in WW2).

But most types of governing party will do that.

They won't use huge amounts of violence domestically to push their agenda, they will tend to do it legally, mainly through legislation, though increasingly through the courts.

The most obvious schism between socialist camps is in the armed revolution vs democratic reform. I have a feeling that many socialists would be very opposed to armed revolution even if it did promote socialism.

However, I would say that biggest divide in idealogy would be in their ideas on methods of resource and labor distribution. Many socialists believe it should be dealt with by collective action through a democractic government, while others believe that would be faulty and prefer to have industry and the market run by trade unions and syndicates.

Everything divides the people of the left, although it is a mistake to call them "Socialists," they are, at heart, all Communists.
Oh shut it. Socialists are NOT all closet communists. Jesus.

What divides the left in general? Petty politics. Just like the right. Bullshit arguments about what colour a banner should be, and whether a liberal should be allowed to speak at a protest. Screw politics. It's all just an ego-trip, and nothing gets done anyway. Don't join a party, get off your ass and get something done instead.

What divides the left in general? Petty politics. Just like the right. Bullshit arguments about what colour a banner should be, and whether a liberal should be allowed to speak at a protest. Screw politics. It's all just an ego-trip, and nothing gets done anyway. Don't join a party, get off your ass and get something done instead.

Couldn't have said it better...

Though I occasionally get the odd elitist socialist/trotskyist/whatever that INSISTS that I can't be a communist or socialist without joining their particular group.

Oh shut it. Socialists are NOT all closet communists. Jesus.

What divides the left in general? Petty politics. Just like the right. Bullshit arguments about what colour a banner should be, and whether a liberal should be allowed to speak at a protest. Screw politics. It's all just an ego-trip, and nothing gets done anyway. Don't join a party, get off your ass and get something done instead.

I actually couldn't disagree more. Political thinking is divided because of the infinite number of viewpoints available to people, and it is the use of politics that keeps our governments and societies just a step behind human growth.

I actually couldn't disagree more. Political thinking is divided because of the infinite number of viewpoints available to people, and it is the use of politics that keeps our governments and societies just a step behind human growth.
I think you misunderstand. I'm not talking about suddenly becoming apolitical. God no. I mean, forget trying to win the popularity contest inherent in petty political groups...and find something that actually has some ability to move beyond "I'm better than you, because I'm MORE commie/libertarian/lesbian/indian/blahblahblah than you".

What divides the left in general? Petty politics. Just like the right. Bullshit arguments about what colour a banner should be, and whether a liberal should be allowed to speak at a protest. Screw politics. It's all just an ego-trip, and nothing gets done anyway. Don't join a party, get off your ass and get something done instead.

Hear hear!

Couldn't have said it better...

Though I occasionally get the odd elitist socialist/trotskyist/whatever that INSISTS that I can't be a communist or socialist without joining their particular group.
Who would do that? (http://www.worldrevolution.org.uk)

Just kidding