Overcrowding nonsense

Remove all ads!

I think socialism has something to do with the fact that socialism doesn't succeed there.

 

huh?

(sorry - spamming.) Dont get, Shralp...


After below: I doubt either of us could add anything which hasn;t already been discussed. I sort of agreee with what you are saying if you're saying "wouldn't it be nice if everybody was nice" doesn;t work.

However, thats not really socialism - and to say that it will always be abused is proabley a bit sweeping...

[This message has been edited by Christopher_Lee (edited April 16, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Christopher_Lee (edited April 16, 2002).]

 

Socialism doesn't work in France because socialism doesn't work.

 

Shralp, there's a difference between socialism and communism.

The Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in. Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own new state apparatus. The workers’ state must give the old ruling class no opportunity to organize a counter-revolution; it must use its armed strength to crush capitalist resistance when it arises.


The Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state

The attitude of both parties toward the Soviet Union grows directly out of their approach to this problem. Generally speaking, Communist parties praise the Soviet Union; Socialist parties denounce it in varying degrees. For the Communists, the Soviet Union merits the applause of all true believers in socialism because it has transformed the socialist dream into a reality; for the Socialists, the Soviet Union deserves only condemnation because it has not built socialism at all—at least not the socialism they dreamed of.

Taken from http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm

 

The word "duh" springs to mind.

Socialism has never worked anywhere and never will for the reasons other posters listed above.

BTW, communism still has its defenders among those who decry Russia (and Cuba and China and North Korea) because they claim that the government structures there were not truly communist. They are right in that much, at least.

 

The reason I posted the above is because many people often jump to the conclusion that socialism and communism are the same. Especially Americans . I wasn't disagreeing with you that it hasn't created the utopia it aims for. But maybe if it wasn't for the Cold War, and all the western meddling it would have worked. I don't know. Now that capitalism is viewed as the superior form of governemnt, maybe we never will.

And I completely agree with you about the Soviet Union. Butchers like Stalin and Mao highjacked communism for themselves.

[This message has been edited by The Amazing Oopah (edited April 16, 2002).]

 

"Western meddling"?

I don't really want to get into a huge argument, but I hate it when people make random, unsubstantiated slams like that.

Russia is a Western nation. Marx and Engels were Westerners. Modern socialism and modern communism springs from the Western world. But if your argument is that communism would have worked better without Western influence, then what is your explanation for China and North Korea?

 

What was the Cold War, if not meddling by both sides?. The CIA funded many far-right groups to stage (counter)revolutions in countries with leftist sympathies. The Soviet Union viewed any leftist country as it's property. Both prime examples of meddling.
I meant western in the terms of the Cold War - the communist side, as opposed to the capitalist side.
And as I said in my earlier post, people like Mao highjacked communism for themselves.

Edit: Typos

[This message has been edited by The Amazing Oopah (edited April 16, 2002).]

 

Well, maybe it is time to start a new thread, but I wanted to comment on one statement:

Socialism, like communism, works on a small scale. But worldwide or on the scale of a country, it can never work and it never has. The issue is not competition from capitalist societies. The issue is human corruption. Both socialism and communism fail once greedy people gain the power to manipulate it to their own ends, as Oopah pointed out happened with Mao and others.

If you mean to say that socialism would work perfectly so long as everyone worked together for socialism (as happens every day in many communities), then I agree. But if by "adopted socialism" you just mean that global economic/government structures took on the dynamics of socialism -- then I and history must emphatically disagree.

[Edited to fix Oopah's name after I read his correction below.]

[This message has been edited by Shralp (edited April 16, 2002).]

 

Argh, i'ts OOPAH! NO M!

 

Actually Yugoslavia is a bad example. IMO it is the inherent weakness of socialism that indirectly brought about the desruction of Yugoslavia. Now as I said I have nothing against socialism (or even communism) as a theory. But in practice both are forced into some nasty compromises. Example: the socialism of Yugoslavia worked - in the sense of a workable economy and a strong poilitical position. However, two points that I would like to make:

First, the socialsim of SFRY was too dependant on the decision of individuals (that in itself was odd in a society of equals but nevermind).

Second, after Tito's death, a vacum of power remained. It had to be filled somehow, and in the ensuing power struggle what surfaced were mostly ambitious, pragmatic politicians. Among them, regrettably, several maniacs which then proceeded to destroy Yugoslavia by civil war, by allowing corruption, crime etc.

The main point I am trying to convey is that it was the abuse of the idea of socialism that brought upon its downfall. I believe the same case could be made for the USSR.

(BTW this seems to have gone way off topic - I apologise I started mentioning socialism)

 

China's current econmic/government structure is neither socialist nor communist. It hasn't been for decades. They themselves acknowledge this, hence their description "communism with Chinese characteristics."

And it's debatable whether a system that forces its people to worship only in state-approved churches, to have only one child, to obey or be slaughtered, etc., is one that really "works."

Don't pretend like I am merely mindlessly repeating a statement. I have pointed out philosophical flaws. Address them or not as you see fit, but do not attempt to belittle those you are speaking with.

[This message has been edited by Shralp (edited April 16, 2002).]

 

Is Shralp an All American Boy then?

There is a useful article in a UK paper today that you really should read before you say that any government is guilty of pushing its views on others.

Its a bit of an eye opener... (though admittedly nothing to do with socialism... )
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,685123,00.html



[This message has been edited by Christopher_Lee (edited April 16, 2002).]

 

So Communism has many faces. Will we ever agree? Or will this thread itself be overcrowded as its headline?

PS: hey Vukodlak, Sorry about the mess. I think we agree in the Original toppic afterall.

PPS: Shralp; I've added the link so you can secretly join the american communists.
http://arc.co.uk/345886.arx

[This message has been edited by ArchAngel (edited April 16, 2002).]

 

In response to both Shralp's and Vukodlak's posts; apply your statements to the USA today. Surely the White House is open to corruption? Look at Nixon. And is a society with widespread voter apathy, conspiracy nuts, anti-government militias, gang warfare, murders in the name of babies (pro-life groups), corporate run government and a president who was admitted to not believing global warming a "working" society?

EDIT - Of course, this isn't meddling with a leftwing government;

WASHINGTON, April 15 — Senior members of the Bush administration met several times in recent months with leaders of a coalition that ousted the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, for two days last weekend, and agreed with them that he should be removed from office, administration officials said today.

But administration officials gave conflicting accounts of what the United States told those opponents of Mr. Chávez about acceptable ways of ousting him.

One senior official involved in the discussions insisted that the Venezuelans use constitutional means, like a referendum, to effect an overthrow.

"They came here to complain," the official said, referring to the anti-Chávez group. "Our message was very clear: there are constitutional processes. We did not even wink at anyone."

But a Defense Department official who is involved in the development of policy toward Venezuela said the administration's message was less categorical.

"We were not discouraging people," the official said. "We were sending informal, subtle signals that we don't like this guy. We didn't say, `No, don't you dare,' and we weren't advocates saying, `Here's some arms; we'll help you overthrow this guy.' We were not doing that."

Mr. Chávez has made himself very unpopular with the Bush administration with his pro-Cuban stance and mouthing of revolutionary slogans — and, most recently, by threatening the independence of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, the third-largest foreign supplier of American oil.

*sigh*
Some things don't change

(Sorry to post the whole article, the link wouldn't work).

[This message has been edited by The Amazing Oopah (edited April 16, 2002).]

 

I think I have been misinterpreted. I did not wish to argue the inferiority of socialsim and/or communism. Whatismore, I think the ideas of both are humane and worthwhile. Of course other types of societies are open to corruption, crime and god knows what. I'm just trying to demonstrate that commuinism in practice, not only brought faliures but DOESN'T EXIST. What existed in Yugoslavia 1945-1980 was communism but with a substantial whif of constitutional monarchy. What existed in Serbia afterwards was closer to a nazi dictatorship. Similarly Romania, Czechoslovakia, Albania and the USSR resembled dictatorships during their communist periods. China as well and let's not even mention Cuba.

I suppose communism and socialism could work in some utopia in the future but nothing I have seen so far makes me believe that.

Too easily abused...

PS The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.


[This message has been edited by Vukodlak (edited April 17, 2002).]

 

Heh. Only on this board can a discussion of overpopulation turn to the problems with socialism and end up with references to American governmental corruption.

Let me restate what I've said before before: The problem with socialism and communism is that they do not take into account human greed. There will always be individuals that get into power in those systems and wreck them. Therefore, they will never work.

I'm not a hard core capitalist by any means, but it seems to be the best system out there.