NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a little thread to reflect on and remember some of the most important moments in the struggle against capitalism, imperialism and all forms of inequity and oppression from the past year.

Including but not limited to-

The French students and workers occupying, striking and protesting to scrap the injust CPE law
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/032806_francelaborprotests2.jpg

The establishment of the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca in Mexico and recent attempts by the government failing to dislodge them.

http://www.narconews.com/images/1-DF-march-10-30.jpg

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants, socialists, trade unionists and students march to support immigrant rights in the face of attacks from the American right.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/bdaz01/Hollywood/DSC03564.jpg

So what about you? Any favourite moments of class conflict in the past year?

-

Whats is wrong with this guy?

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/74/loltj3.jpg

Look at his face!

Whats is wrong with this guy?

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/74/loltj3.jpg

Look at his face!

he's clearly livin it up

Yeah, like trade unionists are all the rage in the US...

http://www.forumspile.com/LOL-ROFL_Mao.gif

he's clearly livin it up

I like the cut of your jib.

The French students and workers occupying, striking and protesting to scrap the injust CPE law
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/032806_francelaborprotests2.jpg

Lazy dolts, lame. (http://www.despair.com/effort.html)

There's a reason France is falling behind in the world economy, and feels the increasing need to protect its industries: They suck.

The establishment of the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca in Mexico and recent attempts by the government failing to dislodge them.

http://www.narconews.com/images/1-DF-march-10-30.jpg
Triple-plus lame. As soon as Mexico City gets its shit in order and shows AMLO the door, Oaxaca is going down.

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants, socialists, trade unionists and students march to support immigrant rights in the face of attacks from the American right.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/bdaz01/Hollywood/DSC03564.jpg

Of course, the American right you're talking about here isn't big business or capitalists, but xenophobic rednecks. If anything, the unions want increased restrictions on immigration, because immigrants create competition for their jobs.


So what about you? Any favourite moments of class conflict in the past year?
Yeah, how the cause of socialism and communism continues to recede. It's amazing.

Yeah, how the cause of socialism and communism continues to recede. It's amazing.Not really. Class consciousness is definitely higher now than it was, say, 10 years ago.

Not really. Class consciousness is definitely higher now than it was, say, 10 years ago.

Pffft.

Pffft.It isn't anything for the cappies to worry about though, I imagine the politicians will throw the populace a bone to placate and sedate them.

It isn't anything for the cappies to worry about though, I imagine the politicians will throw the populace a bone to placate and sedate them.

Time was, when spouting socialist BS and strumming a guitar on campus could get you laid.

Doesn't work anymore. Now they want to know if you have some decent pot, so they can sleep through your attempt to get in their pants.

Not really. Class consciousness is definitely higher now than it was, say, 10 years ago.

Yeah, more and more people crying, "But...but he's got more money than I do!" Yeah, that's really productive. :rolleyes:

Time was, when spouting socialist BS and strumming a guitar on campus could get you laid.

Doesn't work anymore. Now they want to know if you have some decent pot, so they can sleep through your attempt to get in their pants.Well, there are people who will do anything to get laid. What's your point?

Time was, when spouting socialist BS and strumming a guitar on campus could get you laid.

Doesn't work anymore. Now they want to know if you have some decent pot, so they can sleep through your attempt to get in their pants.

That works now? Damn! I missed out. :p

Yeah, more and more people crying, "But...but he's got more money than I do!" Yeah, that's really productive. :rolleyes:No, there's the same ratio of those people to the populace that there always has been.

Yeah, more and more people crying, "But...but he's got more money than I do!" Yeah, that's really productive. :rolleyes:

Because all communists are secretly just jealous of rich people.

So what about you? Any favourite moments of class conflict in the past year?

The immigrants rights protests. ¡La lucha obrera no tiene frontera!

The best part was the way the crowd was so obviously more radical than the speakers.

Of course, the American right you're talking about here isn't big business or capitalists, but xenophobic rednecks.

Of course, the immigrant rights protests were not only anti-xenophobia but also adamantly pro-labor and fair wages. They were not only against restrictions on immigration, but also against the exploitation of immigrants by big business and capitalists.

DHomme is absolutely right to characterize them as instances of class struggle.

If anything, the unions want increased restrictions on immigration, because immigrants create competition for their jobs.

Did you go to any of the immigrant rights protests?

If you had, you would have noticed the large number of labor unions present.

Personally, I don't really see the big class struggle thing. Someone's "class" is really just a matter of chance. I tend to view the world more in terms of humanity's (feeble) struggle against its own stupidity. I haven't yet decided whether to bet for or against the human race.

Personally, I don't really see the big class struggle thing. Someone's "class" is really just a matter of chance. I tend to view the world more in terms of humanity's (feeble) struggle against its own stupidity. I haven't yet decided whether to bet for or against the human race.

That's why class struggle is ultimately an attempt to end class division.

bumpety bump.

Come on people, theres gotta be some lefties out there who have some fond memories of the past year.

bumpety bump.

Come on people, theres gotta be some lefties out there who have some fond memories of the past year.

Can't say I've done much this year. :( The leftist victories in South America were good news. And I finally decided to join the Green Party (http://www.greenparty.org.uk/).

And I finally decided to join the Green Party (http://www.greenparty.org.uk/).

booooooo.

bumpety bump.

Come on people, theres gotta be some lefties out there who have some fond memories of the past year.

Well I'm going to join a human rights group, Liberty, next year.

booooooo.

What?

EDIT: Yeah, Liberty too.

What?



A little sectarianism never hurt anyone. Except for in the Spanish civil war.

I liked the bit where Fidel fell over.

And the gap between rich and stupid poor increased yet again.

A clear victory for my side in the class war.

I liked the bit where Fidel fell over.

And the gap between rich and stupid poor increased yet again.

A clear victory for my side in the class war.

You did take a bit of a loss-

http://www.geocities.com/mreno81/mr.peanut.GIF


edit:

How could I forget?
PINOCHET DIED!

You did take a bit of a loss-

http://www.geocities.com/mreno81/mr.peanut.GIF

Hey, it's not my fault I thought the talking peanut was a side effect of being drunk! I was hungry!

Anyways, he was crazy-delicious.

Because all communists are secretly just jealous of rich people.Only the unsucessful ones... communists that is. There's not much to jealous about of a unsucessful capitalist.

How could I forget?
PINOCHET DIED!

One doesn't weep over the demise of one's servants. Especially those who are not allowed in the house.

bumpety bump.

Come on people, theres gotta be some lefties out there who have some fond memories of the past year.

I'm not a lefy, more of a moderate, but I was quite amused by the words never and surrender appearing in the same sentence on the French banner.

Come on people, theres gotta be some lefties out there who have some fond memories of the past year.

Not really. It was mostly witnessing the Howard government once again rub the proverbial collective nose of the working people in dog shit.

The last I heard the APPO wasn't doing that well in Oaxaca.

A true Christian renders onto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and does not partipate in "class rebellion" even if led down that path by leftist politicos.

The happiest moment? Every moment that the bankrupt idiocy of communism fades is a happy moment.

A true Christian renders onto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and does not partipate in "class rebellion" even if led down that path by leftist politicos.

Fortunately, this is not a problem for me. Oh, and it's Caesar.

A true Christian renders onto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and does not partipate in "class rebellion" even if led down that path by leftist politicos.
We also should not go along with right-wing governments who directly, or indirectly do not serve the will of God.

Passive resistance.

A little sectarianism never hurt anyone. Except for in the Spanish civil war.

You Trots always forget Kronstadt so easily.

*shakes head*

My favorite moment of class struggle was... hmm... can't think of any. The political class continued to gain at the expense of the producer class, as usual.

Oh, wait, you mean Marxist class struggle, not classic liberal. Ah well, I can't say; it's not part of my philosophy.

You Trots always forget Kronstadt so easily.

*shakes head*

I guess refusing to defend the gains of the revolution against the military threats of other nations is very sectarian.

Member of the Proletariat,Proud tool of the bourgeoise

I oppressed a crack dealer who came to my house looking for my sister. Do I feel bad? Nah. He does, 'cause he got a shovel to the ribs and a kick in the chest.

It feels good oppressing the proletariat...

The happiest moment? Every moment that the bankrupt idiocy of communism fades is a happy moment.

Revel in unhappiness, because it's not going away.

Member of the Proletariat,Proud tool of the bourgeoise

I oppressed a crack dealer who came to my house looking for my sister. Do I feel bad? Nah. He does, 'cause he got a shovel to the ribs and a kick in the chest.

It feels good oppressing the proletariat...

a crack dealer is a member of the lumpenproletariat. Why would anyone oppose you smacking him with a shovel if he was threatenin your sister? I think most people believe in the right to self defence.

Member of the Proletariat,Proud tool of the bourgeoise

I oppressed a crack dealer who came to my house looking for my sister. Do I feel bad? Nah. He does, 'cause he got a shovel to the ribs and a kick in the chest.

It feels good oppressing the proletariat...
What is your fixation on glorifying violence?

a crack dealer is a member of the lumpenproletariat. Why would anyone oppose you smacking him with a shovel if he was threatenin your sister? I think most people believe in the right to self defence.

I'd have hit him more than once with said shovel. :cool:

lumpenproletariat.

Now, that's a new one. Plz, explain.

Now, that's a new one. Plz, explain.

Basically, the dredges of society as created by capitalism. People who were once members of the working class (proletariat) who through hardship wound up homeless, theives, prostitutes, etc. Crack dealers fit under that heading.

Revel in unhappiness, because it's not going away.

Do you live under a rock?

You did take a bit of a loss-

http://www.geocities.com/mreno81/mr.peanut.GIF


edit:

How could I forget?
PINOCHET DIED!

And Stroessner.

The happiest moment? Every moment that the bankrupt idiocy of communism fades is a happy moment.

*high fives, gives you a gigantic cookie*

A true Christian renders onto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and does not partipate in "class rebellion" even if led down that path by leftist politicos.

Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right,
But when asked about something to eat,
They will answer in voices so sweet:

Chorus:
You will eat bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky.
Work and pray, (work and pray),
Live on hay, (live on hay),
You'll get Pie in the Sky,
When you die, (that's a lie!)

And the starvation army they play,
They sing and they dance and they pray,
Till they get all your coin on the drum,
Then they tell you when you're on the bum:

CHORUS

If you fight hard for the good things in life,
They will tell you to stop all the strife,
Be a sheep for the bosses they say
Or to hell you are surely on the way!

CHORUS

Workingfolk of all countries unite;
Side by side we for freedom will fight
When the world and its wealth we have gained,
To the grafters we will sing this refrain:

Last Chorus:

You will eat, bye and bye,
When you've learned how to cook and to fry;
Chop some wood, 'twill do you good
And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye.
(That's no lie!)

;)

;)That's a fun song to sing. I prefer "Solidarity Forever", though.

I guess refusing to defend the gains of the revolution against the military threats of other nations is very sectarian.

I would like to have sex with the irony.

All ur base r belong to us.

http://www.uhusnest.de/blog/media/o-rly.jpg

Lenin the shocked owl?

A true Christian renders onto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and does not partipate in "class rebellion" even if led down that path by leftist politicos.

Which is partly why I'm not a Christian (aside from the fact that my best friend is gay and I just don't see the evidence for it). I think the song Soheran posted really hits the nail on the head.

I'm not sure what my favorite class struggle related moment is, to be honest.

Lenin the sweet-talking counter-revolutionary tosspot who didn't die soon enough?


Yes.

Aww, Merry X-Mas to you too.

That's a fun song to sing. I prefer "Solidarity Forever", though.

If we're talking preferences, it's the "Internationale" for me, in any language.

But that one fit the context best.

Just a little thread to reflect on and remember some of the most important moments in the struggle against capitalism, and all forms of inequity and oppression from the past year.

While I can see an arguement being made for capitalism being inequitable, though it's a pretty horrible argument, just how the fuck is capitalism oppressive.

And how convienient of you not to give out any alternatives. but seeing what your OP said, it's a safe bet you just bleat out some bullshit about socialism/communism or anarchy, which means I can safely ignore anything you ever have to say again.

I support anarchist acts of sectarianism which would allow the revolutionary state to be crushed foreign imperialist armies

Yup, that was it.

edit: OH have a messy christmas one and all. Be you a commie, anarchist, socialist, trade-unionist, liberal, conservative, libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, centrist or whatever, enjoy yourselves.

Excluding fascists who obviously deserve to be beaten to a bloody pulp.

Not really. Class consciousness is definitely higher now than it was, say, 10 years ago.



Communism is dead and Socialism is dying a slow painful death. Capitialism is the future, ask the communists in Russia and China. Deal with it.:rolleyes:

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants, socialists, trade unionists and students march to support immigrant rights in the face of attacks from the American right.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/bdaz01/Hollywood/DSC03564.jpg





LMFAO! The minutemen are not racists and people across the board want the illegal immigration thing fixed. Socialism is dead in america and unions are dying as they are no longer needed. I have seen black mintuemen. This whole all hail illegal immigration thing is sad, illegal immigration needs to be stopped and now. There is nothing racist about it.

And that guy looks higher than a kite.

The minutemen are not racists

yeah, i'm sure they just are accidentally using racist code words and have known nazis running significant parts of their operations

Communism is dead and Socialism is dying a slow painful death. Capitialism is the future, ask the communists in Russia and China. Deal with it.:rolleyes:Uh, no. Your system fails to meet the needs of millions of people. People are looking for a better way. You deal with it.

revolutionary state


You're funny.

I oppressed a crack dealer who came to my house looking for my sister. Do I feel bad? Nah. He does, 'cause he got a shovel to the ribs and a kick in the chest.


Perhaps you should wonder why a crack dealer was looking for your sister...?

Uh, no. Your system fails to meet the needs of millions of people. People are looking for a better way. You deal with it.

That old gem of genuine wisdom works as well here as with democracy,
"the worst system except for all the alternatives." Capitalism is the same way.

Poverty is probably ineradicable in the world, and capitalism makes the greatest good for the greatest number.

Uh, no. Your system fails to meet the needs of millions of people. People are looking for a better way. You deal with it.

But it has had far more success than any other system, over a billion now live lives that surpass the comfort and wealth of ancient kings. I'd say that that's been some crazy-awesome success.

That old gem of genuine wisdom works as well here as with democracy,
"the worst system except for all the alternatives." Capitalism is the same way.

Poverty is probably ineradicable in the world, and capitalism makes the greatest good for the greatest number.

But it has had far more success than any other system, over a billion now live lives that surpass the comfort and wealth of ancient kings. I'd say that that's been some crazy-awesome success.

Unlike with democracy, capitalism doesn't have very many other systems to compete against that have actually been tried on a large scale. I mean there's feudalism, and various other forms of monarch/peasant relations, but that's about it. Of course capitalism is going to be better than those, but this doesn't mean that capitalism is the best possible system.

Unlike with democracy, capitalism doesn't have very many other systems to compete against that have actually been tried on a large scale. I mean there's feudalism, and various other forms of monarch/peasant relations, but that's about it. Of course capitalism is going to be better than those, but this doesn't mean that capitalism is the best possible system.

Socialism had quite a bit of a run when it ruled the lives of a third of the world's population. Unfortunately for said system, central planning led to starvation, poverty and slavery.

Socialism had quite a bit of a run when it ruled the lives of a third of the world's population. Unfortunately for said system, central planning led to starvation, poverty and slavery.Except, of course, for the fact that what you're talking about wasn't socialism.

Unlike with democracy, capitalism doesn't have very many other systems to compete against that have actually been tried on a large scale. I mean there's feudalism, and various other forms of monarch/peasant relations, but that's about it. Of course capitalism is going to be better than those, but this doesn't mean that capitalism is the best possible system.

Most people are sensible enough to realize, on the basis of thinking alone, the superior utility of capitalism.

Thought experiments and self-interest can thankfully go a long way towards preventing disasterous nonsense from being tried on a grand scale.

Most people are sensible enough to realize, on the basis of thinking alone, the superior utility of capitalism. I would say that these people need to do more thinking if they arrive at such an unsubstantiated conclusion.

Thought experiments and self-interest can thankfully go a long way towards preventing disasterous nonsense from being tried on a grand scale.Capitalism has already been tried on a grand scale, so clearly this isn't true.

I would say that these people need to do more thinking if they arrive at such an unsubstantiated conclusion.

Capitalism has already been tried on a grand scale, so clearly this isn't true.



Too many teardrops for one heart to be cryin'
Too many teardrops for one heart
To carry on
You're gonna cry ninety-six tears
You're gonna cry ninety-six tears
You're gonna cry cry, cry, cry, now
You're gonna cry cry, cry, cry
Ninety-six tears c'mon and lemme hear you cry, now
Ninety-six tears (whoo!) I wanna hear you cry
Night and day, yeah, all night long
Uh-ninety-six tears cry cry cry
C'mon baby, let me hear you cry now, all night long
Uh-ninety-six tears! Yeah! C'mon now
Uh-ninety-six tears!

/snipWas there a point to this? Oh wait, you're posting, of course not.

And it reached the point where the communists, unable to respond to the intellectuals, started to have them shot and put in jail.

Dont you people have a gulag to run?

And it reached the point where the communists, unable to respond to the intellectuals, started to have them shot and put in jail.

Dont you people have a gulag to run?You've posted nothing to respond to. Is that what intellectualism is to you?

You've posted nothing to respond to. Is that what intellectualism is to you?

The forum equivalent of airbrushing the news archives...

*groan*

See, this is why I no longer affiliate myself with any party or group.

The forum equivalent of airbrushing the news archives...I figured as much.

Except, of course, for the fact that what you're talking about wasn't socialism.

What I am talking about is most certainly socialism, perhaps not your preferred fantasy, story book version, but it was most certainly socialism.

I still can;t believe leftists support illegal immigrants...

What I am talking about is most certainly socialism, perhaps not your preferred fantasy, story book version, but it was most certainly socialism.

Did the workers control the means of production?

It is impossible for serious, reasonable and honest people to fail to divorce reality from discussion of fantastic political schemes.

This is why communists and anarchists are so irrelevant in political life.

The obtuse fringe will probably always exist on the margins, ranting and raving their nonsense while earnest and realistic people continue to go about the business of running things.

Except, of course, for the fact that what you're talking about wasn't socialism.

That depends on which definition of socialism you use.

I still can;t believe leftists support illegal immigrants...
Yay generalisation!
Did the workers control the means of production?
Nope.

That depends on which definition of socialism you use.

Unfortunately for that line of argument, the same is true for anything. I could say the Soviet Union's economy was defined by free-market capitalism if I chose to define free-market capitalism as "statist central planning by a dictatorial regime."

The actual definition of socialism - some sort of collective or worker ownership of the major means of production - is not what the Soviet Union practiced.

ranting and raving their nonsense

And laughing at people as obviously clueless as you.

I still can;t believe leftists support illegal immigrants...

Sometimes I can't understand why a leftist would oppose them, but then I remember that idiocy and nationalism (but I repeat myself) manifest themselves on this side of the political spectrum as well.

Some of us don't believe that justice should be reserved for US citizens.

I still can;t believe leftists support illegal immigrants...

Generally leftists take the side of those who are abused, exploited, overworked and mistreated. So it's only unbelievable if you don't know anything about the kind of hell immigrants have to go through and still cling onto the false belief that they're intent on taking your job, selling drugs to children, scrounging off the state and eating your family.

Marxian exploitation is nothing more than an exploitation of people with little understanding of economics (I don't remember who said that . . . some Austrian).

Seriously, don't get me started on idiot college socialists. Taken down to a purely philosophical level, what is socialism? The concept that EVERYBODY owns EVERYTHING. Think about that for a moment. If an artist creates a beautiful masterpiece, it is not his but EVERYONE's. If his country had a population of 8 million people, everyone would own 1/8,000,000th of the painting.

In capitalism EVERYBODY owns their own PROPERTY. Like, if an artist makes a painting it is his. If an inventor develops a machine which causes happiness and becomes a billionaire, it is his money. Socialists go on and on (and on and on) about exploited workers. First of all, we don't live in the 19th century anymore. In the first world countries (where many college armchair-revolutionary types reside) there is little "proletariat class". Thanks to capitalism and industrialization, the poor are a minority and most people are middle-class. Now, there are 3rd world countries where the poor are a large portion of the populace. But look at how Communism worked out in 3rd world countries.

Everyone obviously cannot own everything. Instead, the STATE owns EVERYTHING. Which is even worse. Even in democracies, the state can increase its power nearly infinitely to the point that it controls all businesses. The problem with a state controlling all the means of production is that there is no competition, and thus no economic motivation for innovation. Without an economy based on hard money (and all countries today are guilty of this), the government inflates the economy to pay for expenses not already paid for with stolen money (i.e. taxes). In true communism, you end up with a totalitarian dictator. The state becomes the bourgeoisie. In socialism, the government becomes a cancerous mass draining the economy and growing unchecked, slowly murdering the market.

Are you starting to see how ridiculous this is? I also take issue with most "liberals" today: it is no coincidence that the strongest advocates for the poor are rich upper middle class yuppies. I don't know what it is; rebellion against your parents? Taking up a false cause to ease your guilt? Who knows.

Perhaps you should read a textbook on economics before you go around telling people what to do with their money. Start with Keyes, then read his opponents. A free market, left to its own devices, strives towards perfection. Industrialization leads to increased wealth, and the people gradually become richer. There is constant innovation because of the monetary rewards, and anybody can become an entrepeneur. The concept of government "fine-tuning" is very new.

The actual definition of socialism - some sort of collective or worker ownership of the major means of production - is not what the Soviet Union practiced.


And laughing at people as obviously clueless as you.



.

"Actual" definition? Oh really? Where, pray tell, does one find communists who comport with the fairy-tale you for some reason mischaracterize as "actual" ?

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
The USSR?
The People's Republic of China?

Again: what seperates the ignored fringe from the relevant and influential is the ability to think realistically. Ranting and babbling about "buh buh buh... dats not de actual definition of socialism! wah wah wah!" might get your blog read by other irrelevants, but it doesnt contribute to the running of the world or the country.

Communism has proved itself again and again a miserable failure when combined with real life. Its proponents are juvenile or unreasonable just like anarchists. Laugh to your heart's content, doesnt change a thing.

"Actual" definition? Oh really? Where, pray tell, does one find communists who comport with the fairy-tale you for some reason mischaracterize as "actual" ?

Tell me, how many communists have you talked to?

Real communists - not people who just think the hammer and sickle looks cool?

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
The USSR?
The People's Republic of China?

There are most assuredly some in all of those places. The system in place, however, is by no means communist or socialist for reasons that are quite easy to understand.

Again: what seperates the ignored fringe from the relevant and influential is the ability to think realistically.

Actually, no. Those who are "relevant and influential" are regularly incapable of thinking realistically, and in such a society, it is very questionable as to what degree the "ignored fringe" actually ought to be ignored.

The swiftest glance at the past six years should prove this beyond all reasonable doubt.

Ranting and babbling about "buh buh buh... dats not de actual definition of socialism! wah wah wah!" might get your blog read by other irrelevants, but it doesnt contribute to the running of the world or the country.

Someone like you, who apparently enjoys repeating mindless nonsense again and again on every one of these threads, ought to reconsider his own behavior before lecturing to anyone else about "ranting and babbling" irrelevantly.

Anyway, correcting misconceptions about a political ideology is essential to the process of actually promoting said political ideology.

Communism is has proved itself a miserable failure when combined with real life.

Not really. At best, you might be able to argue that a few of the more authoritarian strains of socialism have proven themselves a failure at preventing subversion by authoritarian non-socialists, but even that is highly questionable; conditions were such that the chance of success without extraordinary developments (say, continent-wide revolution) was very low. That is not an indictment of socialism so much as it is an indictment of a certain approach to achieving socialism in specific conditions.

Keep on laughing, ace.

Oh, I shall.

Unfortunately for that line of argument, the same is true for anything. I could say the Soviet Union's economy was defined by free-market capitalism if I chose to define free-market capitalism as "statist central planning by a dictatorial regime."

I meant "which kind" as in whether defined "socialism" as state socialism (what the U.S.S.R. had) or used the following definition:

The actual definition of socialism - some sort of collective or worker ownership of the major means of production.

I meant "which kind" as in whether defined "socialism" as state socialism (what the U.S.S.R. had) or used the following definition:

The distinction has nothing to do with "state" and "not state," except perhaps in the degree of democratic control. The USSR did not practice socialism of any kind.

Trotskyists are genuine state socialists, because the state they propose (these days, anyway) is a radically democratic one whose ownership will be of a collective character. Kim Jong-il is not a genuine state socialist, because the state he rules would only be called democratic by a propagandist or a lunatic. (Though he does call the nation he rules the DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S Republic of Korea - as, indeed, most of the so-called "socialist" countries did. Why? Among other reasons, because they recognized that the two were inseparable.)

Socialists, even state socialists, have long differentiated between mere state ownership and actual socialist state ownership; they did so long before the USSR came into existence.

Tell me, how many communists have you talked to?

Real communists - not people who just think the hammer and sickle looks cool?

There are most assuredly some in all of those places. The system in place, however, is by no means communist or socialist for reasons that are quite easy to understand.

Actually, no. Those who are "relevant and influential" are regularly incapable of thinking realistically, and in such a society, it is very questionable as to what degree the "ignored fringe" actually ought to be ignored.

The swiftest glance at the past six years should prove this beyond all reasonable doubt.

Someone like you, who apparently enjoys repeating mindless nonsense again and again on every one of these threads, ought to reconsider his own behavior before lecturing to anyone else about "ranting and babbling" irrelevantly.

Anyway, correcting misconceptions about a political ideology is essential to the process of actually promoting said political ideology.

Not really. At best, you might be able to argue that a few of the more authoritarian strains of socialism have proven themselves a failure at preventing subversion by authoritarian non-socialists, but even that is highly questionable; conditions were such that the chance of success without extraordinary developments (say, continent-wide revolution) was very low. That is not an indictment of socialism so much as it is an indictment of a certain approach to achieving socialism in specific conditions.

Oh, I shall.


Still dont get it I see.

The reason whiney communists and their rambling anarchist counterparts are so easily and completely annoyed is that they insist upon talking about fantasies.

Like it or not, communism is what prevailed in the soviet union. Fantasy-land-fantasy-communism might be something else, but because people dont live in a fantasy world, it isnt worth discussing outside the context of fantasy.

Confusing fantasy communism with real communism disqalifies you from conversation with realistic people.

Certainly not everyone in the political mainstream cares for a realistic view, as has indeed been made evident in the last six years. The lesson here is clear though, fantasy-based politics is the most miserable kind of failure.

There is a good reason that once power was consolidated by fools under the banner of 'rule of the proletarians', realistic men killed all of the fantasy-communists and carried on as best suited their interests.

The silly dream of worldwide benevolent socialist paradise has always only been a silly dream, just like the silly dream of anarchist paradise. These dreams dissolve when the rude loudness of real life intrudes.

Until magical angels or space pixies come and change the way people think and act, men acting in their self interest will always be the ruin of utopia.

Serious people can't bellyache and hope for that kind of miracle, and that is why the fringe is ignored.

You can say "buh buh buh, dats not de actual definition of socialism!" all you want and 'correct misconceptions,' but the real misconception is in thinking that jumping through any ammount if trivial semantic hoops will make a bad theory work.

The USSR did not practice socialism of any kind.

State socialism, broadly speaking, is any variety of socialism which relies on ownership of the means of production by the state.

^ emphasis mine ^


That describes the U.S.S.R. pretty well.

^ emphasis mine ^


That describes the U.S.S.R. pretty well.

Buh, buh, buh, dats not de definition of socialism! wah wah wah!

Buh, buh, buh, dats not de definition of socialism! wah wah wah!

It is in my book (note: I know you're being sarcastic ;)).

Blah blah blah. Russia failed. Therefore communism sucks. blah blah blah. Same old tired and irrelevent arguments.

That's pretty much all I got from your last post.

Buh, buh, buh, dats not de definition of socialism! wah wah wah!

You're doing a good job of the whining yourself. I think you need to be taken away....

...in the waaaaaaahmbulance!

http://darkestspiral.greentinted.com/temp/wahmbulance.jpg

Like it or not, communism is what prevailed in the soviet union.

Like it or not, communism is not was prevailed in the Soviet Union. Not even the Soviet Union said it was.

Fantasy-land-fantasy-communism might be something else

No, actual communism is something else.

Confusing fantasy communism with real communism disqalifies you from conversation with realistic people.

Not understanding the meanings of words should disqualify you from conversation with serious, knowledgeable people, but I'm being nice.

Certainly not everyone in the political mainstream cares for a realistic view, as has indeed been made evident in the last six years. The lesson here is clear though, fantasy-based politics is the most miserable kind of failure.

Sure. You have so far failed to demonstrate that "fantasy-based politics" encompasses communism.

There is a good reason that once power was consolidated by fools under the banner of 'rule of the proletarians'

A good indication that we are not talking about real communists, if the proletarians themselves were not actually ruling.

realistic men killed all of the fantasy-communists and carried on as best suited their interests.

At best, then, you are critiquing a certain method of achieving communism - namely, one vulnerable to being abused by murderous opportunists.

The silly dream of worldwide benevolent socialist paradise has always only been a silly dream, just like the silly dream of anarchist paradise. These dreams dissolve when the rude loudness of real life intrudes.

Yay, random assertions. Your argumentation astounds, as always.

Until magical angels or space pixies come and change the way people think and act, men acting in their self interest will always be the ruin of utopia.

Serious people can't bellyache and hope for that kind of miracle, and that is why the fringe is ignored.

Thankfully communism rests on no such miracle. Admittedly a person as evidently clueless as you would not realize this, but perhaps it is time to learn. Whining about how other people are stupid is not the same thing as making a reasonable argument.

You can say "buh buh buh, dats not de actual definition of socialism!" all you want and 'correct misconceptions,' but the real misconception is in thinking that jumping through any ammount if trivial semantic hoops will make a bad theory work.

No, the real misconception here is the notion that this incoherent nonsense resembles a real argument.

And I still want an answer to my question:

Tell me, how many communists have you talked to?

Real communists - not people who just think the hammer and sickle looks cool?

That describes the U.S.S.R. pretty well.

No, it doesn't: "any variety of SOCIALISM that relies on ownership by the state." The Soviet economy did indeed rely on ownership by the state, but it was not socialist.

If you want Wikipedia definitions, we can see what it says about socialism:

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.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or it may be indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

The Soviet economy was not under "social control," it was under the control of an exclusivist tyranny.

Of course, all this is irrelevant. The only people who have the right to define socialism are the people who actually advocate it - for they, after all, are the best guides as to what they actually advocate. Find me a single socialist theorist in the past one hundred fifty years who advocated ownership of the means of production through a dictatorial state. Even better, find me one who thought it was synonymous with state ownership.

Once again: Did the workers control the means of production in the Soviet Union? It is a simple question with a yes/no answer, but none of the people who are saying that socialism existed in the USSR have answered it.

That's pretty much all I got from your last post.

Operator error in that case.

Once again: Did the workers control the means of production in the Soviet Union?

No. Next question.

If the workers didn't control the means of production how could it have been socialist?

Anyone post the link to the anti-sweatshop christmas carols yet?

http://www.web.net/~msn/5carols.htm

with such favorites as:

Learn to Sew! Learn To Sew! Learn To Sew!

and

Slaving in a Sweatshop Wonderland

If the workers didn't control the means of production how could it have been socialist?

I'm coming in on this conversation pretty late, and I haven't read everything that's been written so far, so pardon me if I'm missing the point or repeating what has already been said, but didn't Marx define socialism as a system in which the means of production was owned by the state?

He believed that socialism was a necessary intermediate step between capitalism and communism, and that communism was the utopian system in which the means of production were owned collectively. By this definition, many of the so-called communist nations of the twentieth century were socialist.

Now, I realize that not all modern day socialists agree completely with Marx, but can you really blame the other side for using Marx's original definitions?

didn't Marx define socialism as a system in which the means of production was owned by the state?

No. The key element of socialism in Marxist thought is the proletariat seizing the machinery of the state, and THEN using it to expropriate the bourgeoisie. Without the proletariat becoming the ruling class, mere nationalization is irrelevant. It follows that if the new ruling class merely claims to represent the proletariat, and in fact is dictatorial and unrepresentative, what exists is not really socialism but something else.