Socialism. We need it America......... For now

Unless you're talking about anarchist socialism then 'giving to the community' inevitably implies giving power to the state. It's also important to recognize that socialism has different degrees of elitism to it. There are many different types of socialism out there. The one thing all of them have in common, with the exception of the anarchist schools, is that they recognize the the need for excessive state power in certain affairs.

I'm just making sure you know that I was responding to another user with that, it wasn't necessarily my definition.

If you strip away the rhetoric this pretty much means things being redistributed and allocated by a state that is most likely democratically controlled.

Once again, not the case.

No it's not. And that's one aspect of the very problem. However, "the community", whatever that word really means, has only one way to come to a "collective agreement", whatever that really means (I am very skeptical of rhetoric). This is either through some sort of democratic process that uses the state as its tool of action, or through a more anarchistic mode of action which embodies more voluntary social interaction. Even then you could argue that some forms of anarchist socialism don't fit the bill with the "anarcho-syndicalist V. Anarcho-Communist" debate.

 

There is no other genuine sort of socialism. Giving control to the state just means giving control to elites again. It's no different from leaving the means of production in the hands of the private sector, because the same sort of people will be in charge either way. Socialism is the antithesis of a planned or command economy, regardless of who does the planning or commanding.

Those ideologies that believe in state power over the individual are not socialist at all. There are many varieties of socialism, but none of them advocate a command economy. There is little difference between the state and private power; and none at all if the state attempts to control the economy.

Not even slightly. It advocates a bottom-up orientation for power; it means that people decide for themselves what they need, rather than being allocated what other people feel they need from above. Whenever people are talking about a proposal for elites to control the distribution of resources that workers will receive, they are not talking about socialism.

Also; that was a straight up definition from dictionary.com. Not exactly a definition filled with rhetoric.

"Collective agreement" is not an example of rhetoric. It means an arrangement agreed upon by all involved parties.

Not all forms of socialism are anarcho-syndicalist, that's just the most widely promoted by anarchists. I'll agree that there's more to socialism than anarcho-syndicalism, but that doesn't mean I'll accept your claim that people who make proposals fundamentally opposed to the whole idea of socialism are socialists. Anyone talking about state control over the community is not talking about socialism.

 

Name one example of anarchist Socialism which has ever sustained a people. In history. Ever.

That's how unrealistic your views are. There is no such thing as "anarchist Socialism".

 

It's rarely been attempted seriously. The only modern example that actually had any lengthy success were the anarcho-syndicalist communities in the 30s. Those got taken care of by... well, everyone else in the Spanish Civil War. Literally every foreign power was opposed to them. They did, however, work. They increased productive output over pre-revolution numbers (this during a civil war, mind you), and more than sustained the people working there.

You may not want to acknowledge it, and we do tend to antagonize, well, everyone else, but it's still an option on the table.

 

There is no such thing as anarchist Socialism. You mention - but do not cite - examples of communities which were able to form and exist on the backs of the Governments in which they squatted. You will not and can not cite any countries upon which this notion was based.

Because it's impossible.

The experience of the OWS camps themselves should have proved that to you, what with their segregation and police forces formed, etc.

Anarchy is not the condition of the human spirit.

 

I really hate playing the "real name game". The fact is that there are many people who call themselves socialists who would argue that you are wrong and that their form of socialism was the only real form of socialism. Anarchism is only one branch of socialism, and by no means the most prominent one today.

There are very distinct differences between the two and I certainly disagree that they are in any way "the same". The fact is also that the usual socialist plan of action is for intense nationalization to whatever end, be it eventual anarchism or for the wonderful world of tomorrow, but by no means do most socialists argue against a command economy.

Most forms of socialism are incredibly anti-individualistic. The anarchist socialisms are very individualists whilst at the same time having a fetish for collective control and democracy, for some reason barring all attempts at individualized ownership.

One could argue that this would be the case if there was a truly democratic state, but for the most part I agree with you in principle of what should be, and that any top down approach is most likely quite negative, and that this is what the state will be to some extent. With all of this in mind that is in no way determined by the definition.

"community" "public" and "social" are all examples of words that can be used in many different ways.

Most people I've heard talking about things argue that it needs only be the majority, and what parties are involved is a matter of debate.

First of all I'm not saying that all forms of socialism are anarcho-syndicalist. But secondly no they are not necessarily against state power. Classical anarchism is a form of socialism but not even close to all socialisms are classical anarchisms. If you look at the early socialists then there's a mix of both anarchists and statists there and this is something that has continued. Most socialists do not advocate the overthrow of the government as such (the Marxists would argue until humanity is ready for it). You can argue all you want about "real socialism" but statists socialism is socialism under the definition which you provided and under classical usage. If you wish to separate yourself from such statists then I would recommend using the term anarchist just as I do.

 

How were they squatting on the backs of governments? They were in the middle of a civil war!

"You can't name any nails that aren't pointy at one end." If libertarian socialism was a common governing principle, we wouldn't have states or countries. "Anarchist state" is an oxymoron. The fact that I can't name one is irrelevant. It's like asking for a square circle, or some other similarly ludicrous idea. There have been self-managing organizations and communities at many points in history, and their usual fate is to be crushed by overwhelming external force.

OWS camps aren't anarchist communes with long-term plans for permanent occupation and social reform. They're political tools used by savvy organizers to make a point within the existing system, always intended to be temporary.

Sure it is. People hate being controlled.

 

The "real name game" is important. Language and common identity are extremely important. Allowing the language of the left to be subverted by those on the right has long been one of our biggest mistakes. I, for one, refuse to relinquish any more. It's time for socialists to reclaim the term. We've allowed our opponents to redefine it for too long.

Nationalization with the goal of later anarchy is Marx and Engel's hangup. That's what differentiates communists from socialists. Even their contemporaries saw that it was different from the usual socialist objectives of destroying both public and private accumulations of power. There's no "dictatorship of the proletariat" or similar organizations under classical socialist ideologies. That's straight up communism there, and the primary source of antagonism between socialists and communists.

You can't really be free individually if the people around you can control your circumstances through private ownership of property. Individual ownership of property makes genuine freedom practically impossible for any but the people on the very top--and many socialist philosophers have argued that even the elites aren't really free, because they're bound by the system to perpetuate their power.

It's not really a community if you take your orders from above. When only a subset of the people make the decisions, it's no longer a communal organization.

"Words that can be used many different ways," is the a self-referential definition of the term "word." Words with only one meaning are quite rare in the English language. Multiple meanings are not an attribute that distinguishes rhetoric from normal vocabulary words. Rhetoric in the political mode is basically just a synonym for jargon--language invented to describe terms with a great deal of attached and specific meaning.

It's not a communal agreement if only 50% +1 like it. Though one might make a case for excluding outliers on statistical grounds.

I would say to you that the term "socialist" has been maliciously co-opted to mean "statist" when such ideologies would never have been accepted by classical socialists. I would propose that the advocates of state power in the name of the people are communists, not socialists, and that communism is not simply a form of socialism, but rather a distinct ideology in its own right. There's certainly little similarity between traditional socialists and communists when it comes to theory, practice, philosophy, etc.

Only if you ignore the criticisms leveled at those so-called "statist" socialists by their older socialist contemporaries. It's not like the majority of socialists blithely went along with Marx and Engels without raising concerns about their use of the state. This idea that communism and its various ideologies are somehow a branch of socialism is mainly a modern invention of political scientists. It's a rather illogical taxonomy that puts the most strident anarchists in the same philosophical group as hardened statists like Bolsheviks. Such a wide definition strips the term of any meaning.

I refuse to concede the language and identity.

 

Good fellow, I am having difficulty understanding this as it is I who have been saying what you have just posted yet you are quoting me as if I need to be told. First I might ask, when did I say the two systems were 'complementary'? Secondly I would propose the question, when did I say socialism was about government control? Earlier posts of mine on this very thread indicate quite the contrary. After not being able to provide answers to these questions, you might understand why I have made such inquiries in the first place. Might this be an acceptable compromise?

 

Again, capitalism and socialism- by definition- are mutually exclusive. Those that suggest otherwise are merely confused. That ranges from desperately low brow comment (i.e. "government is socialism ain't it like") to the baffled (i.e. "the market is capitalism and capitalism is the market"). Market socialism, for example, can be consistent with Austrian theory (and actually get the closest possible to a free market) but that still represents a radical shift in property rights and the end of capitalism

 

This is wishful thinking. Can't you see when you look at the whole picture of what has been happening to the U.S, that the intention is to destroy the Country?

 

No such animal. You might as well say that we need a virgin who is also a whore.

 

There is no such thing as a temporary socialist and the regular person you malign knows more than a socialist.

America has a socialists but they whine because most Americans don't want him.

America need socialism like people need sexually transmitted disease.

 

Again, I havent suggested otherwise. Socio capitalism is its own idea and is thus mutually exclusive as well.

 

Nope. Its but a poor reference to the various flavours of capitalism exhibited in social democracy and liberal democracy

 

The wise one has spoken.

 

Ill reciprocate your lack of explication with..... you are incorrect. Is there a poor reference to, 'bobbins trolling the internet'?

 

You've chosen an 'analysis' which isn't high powered. It demonstrates no difference to liberal or social democracy (which are understood, for example, by how institutions develop to control poverty and therefore enable the reproduction of capitalist profit). Socialism, by definition, is a radical change in the economic paradigm. It is not an evolution along the economic spectrum which is what you've essentially referred to

 

I have never suggested any such evolution of an economic paradigm. I have only refered to socio capitalism, or, social capitalism.

 

It sounds like that is what the people of america want. After all, they are loafing around waiting for the gubment to give thm a job, and dependent of the unemployment, and want the gubment to cut services, and want the gubment to pay for education, and want the gubment to fight it's wars so they can loaf around and wait for the gubment to give them a job.

But these conservative fools all don't want "big gubment", they do not want gubment to regulate, they don't want gubment involved in their bidness, they don't want to pay taxes to the gubment.

If they hate the gubment so much why do they think they are amreicans? They are just privilaged spoiled free loaders and gold brickers who live off the sacrifices of the militiary, and expect others to do things for them when they do nothing to contribute to the great country of the USA.

So how can a facist capitalist nation turn around and be a civilized democratic socialist nation?

Will the corporatios who make massive profits and maipulate the citizens allow the transformation?

Who holds the power of the USA? It's not the government or the people.

 

Which, as I've indicated, is merely a margtinal shift in the economic spectrum. It is in no way on a par with 'socialism versus capitalism'. It could ultimately be summed up as liberal democracy with a specific social welfare function

 

WRONG! I PAY THEM! I get paid by my customer directly. Then I am forced to have to pay the OWNER of the operation. I cannot start my OWN independent operation because IT IS ILLEGAL. THAT is what happens when LARGE corporations COLLUDE with government. THEY make laws that PROHIBIT the small business operator from being independent.

So I am changing my flag to CHINESE. Maybe at least, if I am going to be forced to work in a corporate controlled world, I can get some basic SUPPORT to meet food, clothing and shelter requirements

 

What are you talking about? You think the Nazis were socialist? Germany was never led by socialists.

 

No, this is stupid, Obama has stated categorically that he is not a socialist and he doesnt act like one, so clearly he isnt.

 

This just in: Germany's "National SOCIALIST Party" wasn't socialist, despite nationalizing major industries.

lolwut.