Socialismphobia

[Frisivisia]

Stalinism is a socialist system, not a communist system. It advocates for money. It advocates for a state. It advocates of classes. It's barely socialist.

I didn't say it was a communist system or society, I said it was a communist ideology. There is a difference.

Does Stalinism advocate for a stateless, classless, moneyless society? No, it doesn't. Therefore, it is not a communist ideology.

[Mavorpen]

Oh my gosh.
What the founding fathers wanted was a LIMITED society controls and government so the INDIVIDUAL has the maximum of freedoms, not the other way around. And yes when your rights interfere with other individual rights is wrong, but what collectivism advocates is that society should be the one that decides what individuals get for rights.

Actually, no. They wanted a system where a select few, intellectual thinkers came together to form a government and solve collective action problems. By the time they wrote the Constitution, the myth of the founding fathers as hardcore libertarians who hated government was no more.

[Liberty of Republic]

Lied to? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Okay buddy.
First of all, I am more of a free thinker then all of the religious individuals and collectivists on this board, trust me on that one.

That's demonstrably false, but let's continue.

But you so called socialists are thinking you are atheists too I bet. Person that truly is free willed will not fall for the crap that these "socialists" spout. If you are for truly free society, then you want a society that ALLOWS the individual to have more rights, otherwise you are a drone.

Proving that you failed to read or address anything I posted, or read the OP of the thread I linked, or read the logical rebuttals of your point of any of the 4 people currently engaged in tearing your nonsense arguments to shreds.

Congratulations on your rebuttal.

I was calm several pages back, but when you have posters on here rebutting nothing after you give them distinct definitions from the dictionary what the words society, community, government, social, communism, socialism and whatever else I have been arguing, mean. And all they can say is your wrong. Right, you would be frustrated too.

[Mavorpen]

I didn't say it was a communist system or society, I said it was a communist ideology. There is a difference.

Does Stalinism advocate for a stateless, classless, moneyless society? No, it doesn't. Therefore, it is not a communist ideology.

Acutely, yes it does. Stalin himself stated that Russia was in transition to communism.

[Camelza]

He was a Marxian Socialist, who followed a less violent version of Marxism called Libertarian Socialism. So yeah, he is a socialist by marxist definition.

Libertarian socialism is not a variant of Marxism.

No. There can be socialist societies with states and without.

If it has a state: State socialism.
If it does not: S Libertarian socialism.
If it does not AND removes classes and currencies: Communism.

Corrected.

Finaly!THANK YOU,whoever you are,thank you.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I was calm several pages back, but when you have posters on here rebutting nothing after you give them distinct definitions from the dictionary what the words society, community, government, social, communism, socialism and whatever else I have been arguing, mean. And all they can say is your wrong. Right, you would be frustrated too.

Except that you are clearly and demonstrably wrong. Socialism is about worker control, not state control, while communism is anarchistic. The USSR and its ilk were neither.

Actuallly, yes it does. Stalin himself stated that Russia was in transition to communism.

When?

[Blakk Metal]

Says the drone. Sorry but my individual rights are hell of a lot more important then societies, otherwise you are advocating for slavery. No slavery in a mutual/volunteer society of capitalism. Of course some of you will argue that you get no choice if you have to leave a job.

The greatest good for the greatest number of people is what society should strive for. Individuals should have rights, and many of them, but individual rights are not God.

If rights are mutable, then they aren't rights, they're privileges.

Your individual rights stop where the loss of the rights of others begins. The founding fathers understood this, why do you not? The notion that somehow what happens to the society is of no importance to the individual is exactly why we need government in the first place.

Oh my gosh.
What the founding fathers wanted was a LIMITED society controls and government so the INDIVIDUAL has the maximum of freedoms, not the other way around.

They failed.

And yes when your rights interfere with other individual rights is wrong, but what collectivism advocates is that society should be the one that decides what individuals get for rights.

Which is why I am firmly against capitalism.

[Frisivisia]

Does Stalinism advocate for a stateless, classless, moneyless society? No, it doesn't. Therefore, it is not a communist ideology.

Acutely, yes it does. Stalin himself stated that Russia was in transition to communism.

True, true.

[Mavorpen]

When?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/manuils ... 01/x01.htm

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

When?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/manuils ... 01/x01.htm

Fair enough.

[Camelza]

Does Stalinism advocate for a stateless, classless, moneyless society? No, it doesn't. Therefore, it is not a communist ideology.

Acutely, yes it does. Stalin himself stated that Russia was in transition to communism.

Hmmmm,I recall a discussion we had which we never actually finished since you left from NS for a short period of time

here it is:

No, you don't. See, this is your problem. You think Marxism has a monopoly on communism. It doesn't, nor has it ever had a monopoly on communism. The Bolsheviks created their own communist ideology whose transition was different. Stalin knew that his country needed to industrialize. Usually in Marxism, the revolution would happen after industrialization, but Stalin chose to instead industrialize swiftly through a powerful state.

Firstly,I don't think marxism has the monopoly in communism as I prefer Kropotkin's version better. The bolsheviks created no communist ideology,they just created a socialist governmental system based in marxism with some important changes ,that doesn't make it communist(from any accepted philosophical view of the definition at least).As for Stalin,you can't ignore one part of an ideology and follow another ,and as I said before his economical policies had nothing worker-beneficial in them,they were purely there to benefit the state which could be of any structure ...and for the record,if you built a house but instead call it a boat that doesn't make it a boat.

Go ahead and give these works and quotes please. Prove he never tried to implement it in any way. Again, you're thinking from a purely Marxist perspective. From a Marxist perspective, he was doing it wrong. From his own Stalinist perspective, he was doing it right.

I'll give you one,although most of his policies can verify this without words:
"Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts."
-Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin

...which pretty much means that he didn't believe in changing the system at all while also supporting an eternal class struggle,therefore not believing he could ever reach an utopic society,therefore Stalin was not a communist,not even in theory.

1) Revolution begins with the Vanguard Party leading them.
2) The Party becomes the head of the state.
3) The Party weeds out capitalism by banning private property.
4) The Party uses command economics to industrialize rapidly and then the true transition to communism would begin, with lower communism taking hold.

What happened? The true transition through lower communism forming didn't happen because of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

No,it didn't happen because Stalin,his pals & successors really liked stage 2 and because stage 4 was just there for the proletariat to keep hoping.

[Liberty of Republic]

Oh my gosh.
What the founding fathers wanted was a LIMITED society controls and government so the INDIVIDUAL has the maximum of freedoms, not the other way around. And yes when your rights interfere with other individual rights is wrong, but what collectivism advocates is that society should be the one that decides what individuals get for rights.

Actually, no. They wanted a system where a select few, intellectual thinkers came together to form a government and solve collective action problems. By the time they wrote the Constitution, the myth of the founding fathers as hardcore libertarians who hated government was no more.

If I have to start posting old documents from Jefferson, Madison and such. You will probably say it some right wing clap trap and live in denial huh?

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." Thomas Jefferson.

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread." Jefferson

[Frisivisia]

Actually, no. They wanted a system where a select few, intellectual thinkers came together to form a government and solve collective action problems. By the time they wrote the Constitution, the myth of the founding fathers as hardcore libertarians who hated government was no more.

If I have to start posting old documents from Jefferson, Madison and such. You will probably say it some right wing clap trap and live in denial huh?

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." Thomas Jefferson.

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread." Jefferson

That's Jefferson hating unilateral governments, not government in general. By the way, socialism isn't advocating for the state, it's advocating for the workers.

[Mavorpen]

Acutely, yes it does. Stalin himself stated that Russia was in transition to communism.

Hmmmm,I recall a discussion we had which we never actually finished since you left from NS for a short period of time

here it is:

Firstly,I don't think marxism has the monopoly in communism as I prefer Kropotkin's version better. The bolsheviks created no communist ideology,they just created a socialist governmental system based in marxism with some important changes ,that doesn't make it communist(from any accepted philosophical view of the definition at least).As for Stalin,you can't ignore one part of an ideology and follow another ,and as I said before his economical policies had nothing worker-beneficial in them,they were purely there to benefit the state which could be of any structure ...and for the record,if you built a house but instead call it a boat that doesn't make it a boat.


I'll give you one,although most of his policies can verify this without words:
"Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts."
-Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin

...which pretty much means that he didn't believe in changing the system at all while also supporting an eternal class struggle,therefore not believing he could ever reach an utopic society,therefore Stalin was not a communist,not even in theory.

No,it didn't happen because Stalin,his pals & successors really liked stage 2 and because stage 4 was just there for the proletariat to keep hoping.

Okay...?

[Mavorpen]

If I have to start posting old documents from Jefferson, Madison and such. You will probably say it some right wing clap trap and live in denial huh?

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." Thomas Jefferson.

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread." Jefferson

Thank you for proving me correct. Jefferson did not hate government and he as well as the other founding fathers wanted a Republic, which the core idea is shown in that quote.

[Camelza]

Hmmmm,I recall a discussion we had which we never actually finished since you left from NS for a short period of time

here it is:

Okay...?

Well,you never actually responded and I just wondered what you thought about it,
I shouldn't bring this up now but I am curious.

[Kintuckistan]

Socialism is utopian and human beings are not perfect.

Attempts to make their society so border on insanity.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Socialism is utopian and human beings are not perfect.

Attempts to make their society so border on insanity.

Socialism is not in any way utopian. Nor does it require perfect human beings.

[Mavorpen]

Okay...?

Well,you never actually responded and I just wondered what you thought about it,
I shouldn't bring this up now but I am curious.

Well, I left around late September, so yeah.

[Camelza]

Well,you never actually responded and I just wondered what you thought about it,
I shouldn't bring this up now but I am curious.

Well, I left around late September, so yeah.

Oh,well,forget about it,it doesn't really matter.

[Indira]

Maybe it's the fear of more government control (of production) leading to corruption?

Nope, it's the unrealistic fear of America becoming a Stalinist Juche dystopia used to shout down any arguments for sensible moves like increasing the tax rates of the affluent or increasing business regulations.

This^^

[The Lost Generation]

I don't want socialism in America because I believe that a person should succeed or fail based on his own abilities; So should a business. Some businesses exist long after they should have failed, due to outside financial support (General Motors, Anyone?), because they are "no good" in their field; Some people remain employed at tasks at which they are no good, usually because someone else is making up for their failings. I despise socialism, and socialists, because the lesson it teaches is that, as long as you surround yourself with those who are competent, then it's acceptable to be INcompetent!

After all, Why try harder than you have to?

I don't want to live surrounded by folks like that...

Once again, the opposition presents its utter failure to comprehend the Socialist agenda.

In Socialism one would fail or succeed in relation to the amount and quality of their labor (labor includes ideas/intellectual contributions too, not just manual labor). If one doesn't lend labor into society, then you should expect no compensation or assistance from the community and you shall rightly be left to die from your own incompetence and selfishness.

Also subsidization of the economy by the state isn't an integral part of the Socialist mindset, but it is an intelligent policy decision if the business in question is of significant importance to the national economic stability. If the US government hadn't saved General Motors, how many more people to you think would've lost their jobs? The unemployment rate would've been even worse.

You claim that "In Socialism one would fail or succeed in relation to the amount and quality of their labor." while justifying the bailout of GM by questioning "how many more people to you think would've lost their jobs?" and Rationalizing that "subsidization of the economy by the state...is an intelligent policy decision if the business in question is of significant importance to the national economic stability."

Let's look at those...With GM (and really, the auto industry as a whole...), The unions had, in essence, established socialism within their companies; the associated expenses (in particular, the retirement benefits) became unworkable. By declaring bankruptcy, GM could have renegotiated their contractual obligations ACROSS THE BOARD; Instead, by occurring in the manner in which it did, the Investors lost an additional 60% of their investment than had GM gone BR...As this was DIRECTLY the result of Governmental intervention (an almost inconceivable event), this caused investment dollars in ALL industries to almost dry up overnight (and a Hoarding of Cash)! This cost HOW many jobs, one wonders?

[Blakk Metal]

Once again, the opposition presents its utter failure to comprehend the Socialist agenda.

In Socialism one would fail or succeed in relation to the amount and quality of their labor (labor includes ideas/intellectual contributions too, not just manual labor). If one doesn't lend labor into society, then you should expect no compensation or assistance from the community and you shall rightly be left to die from your own incompetence and selfishness.

Also subsidization of the economy by the state isn't an integral part of the Socialist mindset, but it is an intelligent policy decision if the business in question is of significant importance to the national economic stability. If the US government hadn't saved General Motors, how many more people to you think would've lost their jobs? The unemployment rate would've been even worse.

You claim that "In Socialism one would fail or succeed in relation to the amount and quality of their labor." while justifying the bailout of GM by questioning "how many more people to you think would've lost their jobs?" and Rationalizing that "subsidization of the economy by the state...is an intelligent policy decision if the business in question is of significant importance to the national economic stability."

Let's look at those...With GM (and really, the auto industry as a whole...), The unions had, in essence, established socialism within their companies; the associated expenses (in particular, the retirement benefits) became unworkable. By declaring bankruptcy, GM could have renegotiated their contractual obligations ACROSS THE BOARD; Instead, by occurring in the manner in which it did, the Investors lost an additional 60% of their investment than had GM gone BR...As this was DIRECTLY the result of Governmental intervention (an almost inconceivable event), this caused investment dollars in ALL industries to almost dry up overnight (and a Hoarding of Cash)! This cost HOW many jobs, one wonders?

They did not. The workers did not control the company %100.

[Steel Harvest States]

You claim that "In Socialism one would fail or succeed in relation to the amount and quality of their labor." while justifying the bailout of GM by questioning "how many more people to you think would've lost their jobs?" and Rationalizing that "subsidization of the economy by the state...is an intelligent policy decision if the business in question is of significant importance to the national economic stability."

Let's look at those...With GM (and really, the auto industry as a whole...), The unions had, in essence, established socialism within their companies; the associated expenses (in particular, the retirement benefits) became unworkable. By declaring bankruptcy, GM could have renegotiated their contractual obligations ACROSS THE BOARD; Instead, by occurring in the manner in which it did, the Investors lost an additional 60% of their investment than had GM gone BR...As this was DIRECTLY the result of Governmental intervention (an almost inconceivable event), this caused investment dollars in ALL industries to almost dry up overnight (and a Hoarding of Cash)! This cost HOW many jobs, one wonders?

They did not. The workers did not control the company %100.

I did say "Essentially", but still, I guess that's why the investors got to keep the measly 10% of their money (instead of the 70% they would have got if the BR had simply gone through)...BTW, FORDs union compromised, and is still working strong!

Also, Why did you not argue the other points I made? Oh yeah, because they're TRUE!

[Jassysworth 1]

I didn't say it was a communist system or society, I said it was a communist ideology. There is a difference.

Does Stalinism advocate for a stateless, classless, moneyless society? No, it doesn't. Therefore sadly, it is not a communist ideology however despicable, at least a more realistic ideology than communism.

Fixed for you.