NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't see too much difference. I am a capitalist myself. Let's get a poll going to see what NS political demographics are...
wait, how do you make a poll?

Socialism is the way to go although theses days good old fashioned communism seems to have better politics in play....

ooc: This belongs, I think, in General rather than NationStates.
Also you create a poll by clicking on the Create A Poll option in the Additional Options Section. It can only be done on the first posts of a thread and can only be edited by a mod or in the first few minutes/seconds after the thread is posted.

ooc: This belongs, I think, in General rather than NationStates.

Indeed. To answer the question briefly, however, in Marxist theory, socialism is the stage which comes after capitalism. In socialism, there is still a government, which implements communal ownership of the means of production, and so forth. The next (and final) stage is communism, in which the State has withered away because it's no longer needed. Communism is a form of anarchy, of direct or "pure" democracy.

Then again, Marx believed all religion was a tool for the oppression of the lower classes. Personally, I take all his beliefs with a hefty pinch of salt.

I'd be anarchist in a dream world. This is no dream world.

ANARCHY! ANARCHY! Ok, I'm actually a Liberatarian but that wasn't up there and it's pretty close to ANARCHY! *Keeps yelling*

With or without the human equation?

Doesn't make much sense to call this thread Socialism vs. Communism if you're wondering what all our political thoughts are. I like to think of myself as an Independent/Libertarian and the closest thing to that up there is Anarchy.

I'm libertarian, but Anarchist is a bit of a streach (I'm more of a minarchist), so I choose Capitalist.

I am a libertarian communist with anarchist sympathies.

libertarian communist

Seriously? Your few and far between.

Seriously? Your few and far between.

Meh, not in my experience so much.

Meh, not in my experience so much.
Yea, one can be "libertarian" with any economic leaning, but the term "libertarian" on it's own usually denotes capitalism, which is probably why he's confused.

P.S. Like the sig ^.^

Yea, one can be "libertarian" with any economic leaning, but the term "libertarian" on it's own usually denotes capitalism, which is probably why he's confused.

Well, that's unusual that you recognise that, being a libertarian yourself. Points to you. :)

P.S. Like the sig ^.^

Thanks. :)

Marx's views are correct.

Umm... what about democrat? And capitalist is less a form of government as opposed to a way of running the country by said government. You could have a capitalist monarchy....

they both suck. Capitalism is the way to go.

Communism perhaps an acceptable idea to hold for the 19th century as real exploitation, alienation existed with no democracy or opportunites for most people.

But now with democracy and some socialist ideas like free education, healthcare and opportunities communisms negative view of capitalism no longer applies. Socialism will perhaps always be relivent and some socialist ideas will always be applied to ensure social justice and fairness

It does seem though capitalism is the most efficient and strongest system, particuarly in providing freedom, individuality and responicibility. Essentially taxes will always be there to provide the essential services for everyone to use but redistribution of wealth, nationalisation and government monopolies simply are foolish ideas when 21st century capitalism has evolved and performs so well.

If we're talking about true socialism, we're talking about the stepping stone to communism.

If we're talking about true socialism, we're talking about the stepping stone to communism.Anarchists are fake socialists then? What about democratic capitalist socialists, are they fake too?

Anarchists are fake socialists then? What about democratic capitalist socialists, are they fake too?

They're not following the true definition of socialism. True socialism is what the USSR had.

They're not following the true definition of socialism. True socialism is what the USSR had.From the Wiki:The term "socialism" was first used in the context of early-19th century Western European social critics. In this period, socialism emerged from a diverse array of doctrines and social experiments associated primarily with British and French thinkers—especially Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis Blanc, and Saint-Simon.
------------------------------------------------
Early socialists differed widely about how socialism was to be achieved; they differed sharply on key issues such as centralized versus decentralized control, the role of private property, the degree of egalitarianism, and the organization of family and community life. Moreover, while many emphasized the gradual transformation of society, most notably through the foundation of small, utopian communities, a growing number of socialists became disillusioned with the viability of this approach, and instead emphasized direct political action.Methinks you's the victim o' teh red scare.

Methinks you's the victim o' teh red scare.

According to Marx, socialism is the step between capitalism and communism.

According to Marx, socialism is the step between capitalism and communism.Marx didn't invent socialism, he was not the only socialist thinker of his time, and some socialist thinkers of his time disagreed with him. Simply invoking the name of one socialist thinker does not make your claim true. I'm sure Marx himself would be quite astonished at your conclusion.

Isn't socialism simply, - A mixed economy
- A managed economy (often Keynsian) with a rejecting of communisms rigid central planning
- the welfare state/redistribution of wealth.

Isn't socialism simply, - A mixed economy
- A managed economy (often Keynsian) with a rejecting of communisms rigid central planning
- the welfare state/redistribution of wealth.Not necessarily. Socialism can be a great many things. The wiki actually sums it up fairly well:Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.This doesn't by definition involve re-distribution of wealth, statism or anything else of the sort.

This doesn't by definition involve re-distribution of wealth, statism or anything else of the sort

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.

.

Thats pretty vauge. But then surely "social control" is by definition the state (on behalf of society). If not than we're no longer talking about socialism but anarchism or communism.

And all forms of socialism I've heard of offer a critique of unregulated capitalism and seek to manage/reform capitalism. Not to mention its egalitarian and social justice views will want to redistribute wealth/property via the hand of the state as opposed to the "invisible" hand.

Yea, one can be "libertarian" with any economic leaning, but the term "libertarian" on it's own usually denotes capitalism
Only in North America. Traditionally, Libertarianism has been on the far left.

Only in North America. Traditionally, Libertarianism has been on the far left.

Socially yes. Libertarianism however doesn't neccessarily imply left/right leanings economically but I tend it to assue right, unless stated as socialist libertarian or communist libertarian.

Thats pretty vauge. But then surely "social control" is by definition the state (on behalf of society). If not than we're no longer talking about socialism but anarchism or communism.

And all forms of socialism I've heard of offer a critique of unregulated capitalism and seek to manage/reform capitalism. Not to mention its egalitarian and social justice views will want to redistribute wealth/property via the hand of the state as opposed to the "invisible" hand.Anarchism is a socialist ideology (also known as Libertarian Socialism, mainly in the US where anarchism seems to be taboo). Capitalism isn't the only economic model. A popular alternative among Libertarian Socialists is parecon.

The problem you & others seem to have, is that you think socialism is about robbing some & giving to others. It isn't. Many socialists propose such methods, because they believe them to be the only way to ensure some measure of equality.

The basic idea of socialism, is what that wiki entry summed up. How to achieve that goal was, is & probably always will be a matter of heated debate among hundreds, if not thousands of highly diverse socialist factions.

The impression one gets from reading the posts in this thread, is as shortsighted, ignorant & stereotypical as claims that all conservatives are orthodox evangelicals with a burning lust for theocracy & protectionist capitalism.

Stop regurgitating silly Red Scare'esque propaganda, please. It doesn't suit any of you.

All the various factions of the left should combine. it's the petty mistakes that hold us back.

Me personally, I'm a marxist/communist/trotskyist/socialist/leftist whatever. And dont dare say, z0mg u k1ll 30 million. Because that was Stalin, he was not a leftist.

The problem you & others seem to have, is that you think socialism is about robbing some & giving to others. It isn't. Many socialists propose such methods, because they believe them to be the only way to ensure some measure of equality. .

"Many socilaists propose such methods" - sorry you say socialism isn't about taking money from the rich and redistributing to poor and imply I'm being ignorant for even suggesting this, than say many socialists do infact propose these ideas in the same paragraph? Most socialists I've talked to are infact pleased money is being taken from the (exploitative, greedy) rich and given to the people "who really need it".


The basic idea of socialism, is what that wiki entry summed up. How to achieve that goal was, is & probably always will be a matter of heated debate among hundreds, if not thousands of highly diverse socialist factions.
.

When the working class was a larger group and had the vote then perhaps this could have been done via democracy and state redistribution. As far as I see this has only been a matter of debate as its both ineffective/inefficient and politically unpopular.


The impression one gets from reading the posts in this thread, is as shortsighted, ignorant & stereotypical as claims that all conservatives are orthodox evangelicals with a burning lust for theocracy & protectionist capitalism.

Stop regurgitating silly Red Scare'esque propaganda, please. It doesn't suit any of you.

I've only come to this forum to discuss and ideas and to try and learn as much politics as I can, and I find learning from people who beleive what they're saying the best method. If you think I'm spouting inaccurate propaganda or ignorant claims please correct me.

Christian Theocracy all the way!!! im the only one thats voted for a theocracy so far 8(

Socialism and communism for me stopped being the same when Debs broke his socialist party (founded in Indianapolis, the only good thing from this state ever) from the communist party. Since then communism is the bastardization of socialism seen in many dictatorships, socialism is the economic control to better all in a nation, not the control of everyone in the nation.

Well, I simply believe in my own combo between Socialism/communism and Capitalism named Socially Divided Kapitalism or SoDiKalism in short. Sounds impossible huh??:P:P:P I found a way.

is the economic control to better all in a nation, not the control of everyone in the nation.

To better the underdog/disadvantaged in a nation, not everyone.

Communism blows. Socialism would dominate in a perfect world without corruption, but always seems to fail because of innate human greed. Welfare runs in cycles and is overly-abused...So capitalism is the most perfect for our imperfect world.

So simply run the economy with the help of computers, it's possible. ATM's are, and they're computers. And I've never heard of a corrupt computer, would there be one then we should have listened better to movies like the terminator.

So simply run the economy with the help of computers, it's possible. ATM's are, and they're computers. And I've never heard of a corrupt computer, would there be one then we should have listened better to movies like the terminator.


Sounds perfect...oh wait...who makes computers? Ah that's right, corrupt humanity (not computer programmers specifically.) Sorry, socialism doesn't work because people become lazy when their money arrives without regard to the quantity/quality of work they accomplish. It's a natural tendency.

None of the current systems work. Socialism will get corrupt, as will Capitalism. And with Communism there would theoretically not even be computers or any technology. All of those systems have pros and negs, there is pssoibly a way to combine the pros and work out most of the negs but it's a difficult concept. Working on it.

"Many socilaists propose such methods" - sorry you say socialism isn't about taking money from the rich and redistributing to poor and imply I'm being ignorant for even suggesting this, than say many socialists do infact propose these ideas in the same paragraph?Socialism isn't about redistributing wealth. Redistributing wealth can be a tool used to promote socialist goals. There's a difference.
Right-wing capitalists also redistribute wealth, only usually in the opposite direction. That doesn't mean the redistribution of wealth is an integral part of right-wing capitalist thinking, only that it's a tool often used by proponents of those ideals.

The rant of mine you intercepted, was in response to a poster claiming that True Socialism(tm) is the step before communism (presumably "true communism", heh). I'm sorry I snapped at you, but I hope you understand why I'd get the impression you supported his/her absurd claim.Most socialists I've talked to are infact pleased money is being taken from the (exploitative, greedy) rich and given to the people "who really need it".Same here, however that many think redistribution schemes are desirable, in no way means all share that view. I don't & I'm a socialist.
When the working class was a larger group and had the vote then perhaps this could have been done via democracy and state redistribution. As far as I see this has only been a matter of debate as its both ineffective/inefficient and politically unpopular.You'd be amazed of what people outside the US thinks are good ideas. Moreover, you'd be likely be amazed to find out those peoples often enjoy a higher standard of living than the average American.I've only come to this forum to discuss and ideas and to try and learn as much politics as I can, and I find learning from people who beleive what they're saying the best method. If you think I'm spouting inaccurate propaganda or ignorant claims please correct me.I think I already have, though I apologise if I was a bit harsh about it. Seeing the same old "Waaah! Socialism is t3h ebul commie baby eating madness FIDEL!" crap day after day can get a bit tedious.

Remember Good American Citizens: every time you doubt socialists are vile Satan-worshipping scum, baby Jesus cries... *Sigh*

Moreover, you'd be likely be amazed to find out those peoples often enjoy a higher standard of living than the average American.


No problem you explained it well. And as for the above snip, I'm sure some would happily live in such a world where everyone has a suitable standard of living. But such a world would crush a lot of ambition and effectivly hold back the most successful individuals while capitalism encourages it more effecively via material incentives.

While socialism may infact provide a higher quality of life for those at the bottom it would also reduce the quality of life for those at the top who have been successful in something. Not to mention under capitalism or atleast mild mixed economys the poor may not be as well off at the moment but they have the potential to flourish. Anyone can open up a business or rise up the ranks and be a successful capitalist.

While socialism may infact provide a higher quality of life for those at the bottom it would also reduce the quality of life for those at the top who have been successful in something.

Exactly, The rich are only as rich as the poor are poor. Whether that is good or not is your opinion but in all economies there either is a upper class and a lower class. or everybody is the working class as it is in socialism as i have seen it.

I cant believe us Theocrats(religous government) are losing to the Commies in the poll....

Exactly, The rich are only as rich as the poor are poor. Whether that is good or not is your opinion but in all economies there either is a upper class and a lower class. or everybody is the working class as it is in socialism as i have seen it.

And when you look at the fact supermarkets and industries provide mass products at low prices and the individual consumer has mass choice even the poor will have their needs cattered to better than should a government or society collectively offer such "neccessitys"

I'll take as San Haven said the good old fashioned communism & those Politics that dance around to 1960's USSR Dance.... :)