Communism

[Mavorpen]

Your point is still not entirely reasonable regardless of this. Conservatism does not have a defined belief you must adhere to in order to be a conservative. It varies based upon the societal norms and traditions (i.e. what the society deems to be "traditional"). Tradition can range from women "getting back to the kitchen" for good and never entering the work force to women having equal rights, but seeking to preserve the social norm of women being housewives.

Maybe conservatism isn't the best example. There are others though.
Is a syndicalist a socialist or aren't they?
etc.

To be a socialist, must one advocate state control over the means of all production.
If not, why the doublethink

...what? You don't need to advocate state control over the means of production. Your logic isn't working here. The society must be stateless, cladsless, and moneyless. There is no middle ground or way around that to be communist. How you accomplish that is flexible.

[Aethelstania]

I don't oppose workers getting together and owning the means of production (I actually think its a really nice idea) but I still don't find capitalism unethical quite the contrarily! Also in practical terms its a bit of a shit storm - implementing a communist "state" as far can one exist I don't know where to begin! People have tried in the past and its failed see North Korea, China and the USSR.

That's not the fault of communism. It's the fault of violent revolution. Revolution virtually never go as intended.
For example, see the English Civil War in the UK. Aimed to establish a democratic republic, without a monarchy, governed by parliament. Ended up with an oppressive puritan dictatorship.

Except the glorious revolution is the return of the Monarchy to the UK ... Regardless I know its not Communism's "fault" - Communism is just an idea but if at just about every time an idea is implemented it goes a bit tits up then aren't people justified in saying "hang on somethings not quite right about this, does this work in practice? do we even agree with it in principle? ". I'm not blaming Communism of itself for the suffering of billions globally that would be ridiculous. However considering "Communism" has such a poor track record in how its implemented, who its influenced by and how successful it is when it does work "properly". Is it not fair to say that I think its stupid to call yourself a communist in the 21st century

[Ostroeuropa]

Maybe conservatism isn't the best example. There are others though.
Is a syndicalist a socialist or aren't they?
etc.

To be a socialist, must one advocate state control over the means of all production.
If not, why the doublethink

...what? You don't need to advocate state control over the means of production. Your logic isn't working here. The society must be stateless, cladsless, and moneyless. There is no middle ground or way around that to be communist. How you accomplish that is flexible.

Thats the original tenet of socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_de_Saint-Simon

Those are the goals we extrapolate, sure. But the means are explicitly laid out. Thats my point. Are all socialists who don't support state control not really socialists, or is it the goals that are actually important.

The goals of communism are x, x, and x.
Stalinism is a method of obtaining x, x and x. (It's a terrible method.)
What you would call communism is also a method of obtaining x, x and x. I suspect it's marxist communism.


Or worse:

Saint-Simon is considered to be a utopian socialist. For this doctrine, industrial society was divided into working people and non-working people (whom he called "thieves"). However, social improvement in his ideal society would depend on full employment on the one hand, and on the other hand on the absence of exploitation of individuals by each other. Society would be subdivided into three classes: owners, workers, and the wise and artists (who would rule society).

If you support democracy, are you not a socialist?
MUST one support rule-by-intelligentsia to be considered a socialist? I'd say no, ofcourse not. Having a belief which evolves from, or is based on these views (even if you don't realize it, and are basing it on something else based on it, based on something else etc.) makes it socialist provided you identify as socialist.

[Mavorpen]

Thats the original tenet of socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_de_Saint-Simon

I...where does it say that in those links?

Those are the goals we extrapolate, sure. But the means are explicitly laid out. Thats my point. Are all socialists who don't support state control not really socialists, or is it the goals that are actually important.

You've yet to actually show that socialism requires state control over the means of production.

The goals of communism are x, x, and x.
Stalinism is a method of obtaining x, x and x. (It's a terrible method.)
What you would call communism is also a method of obtaining x, x and x. I suspect it's marxist communism.

...Okay?

[Ostroeuropa]

Thats the original tenet of socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_de_Saint-Simon

I...where does it say that in those links?

Those are the goals we extrapolate, sure. But the means are explicitly laid out. Thats my point. Are all socialists who don't support state control not really socialists, or is it the goals that are actually important.

You've yet to actually show that socialism requires state control over the means of production.

The goals of communism are x, x, and x.
Stalinism is a method of obtaining x, x and x. (It's a terrible method.)
What you would call communism is also a method of obtaining x, x and x. I suspect it's marxist communism.

...Okay?

Potentially addressed in an edit which is more convincing. Note that they NOW call him a utopian socialist, despite the fact he's one of the founders of socialism in it's entirety.
Just like marx's work is "Marxist." NOT "communist."
Communism is a group, of which marxism is a subsection.
You do not need to be marxist to be a communist, you do not need to be utopian to be a socialist.

[Mavorpen]

I...where does it say that in those links?

You've yet to actually show that socialism requires state control over the means of production.

...Okay?

Potentially addressed in an edit which is more convincing.

Read the edit. Still not the least bit convincing.

[Ostroeuropa]

Potentially addressed in an edit which is more convincing.

Read the edit. Still not the least bit convincing.

In what sense.
Do you or do you not have to believe in government-by-intelligentsia to be a socialist. This is one of the men who founded and defined the movement. That is what he believed should happen.

Likewise: (From owens.)

His proposals for the treatment of poverty were based on these principles. Communities of about twelve hundred persons each should be settled on quantities of land from 1,000 to 1,500 acres (4 to 6 km2), all living in one large building in the form of a square, with public kitchen and mess-rooms. Each family should have its own private apartments and the entire care of the children till the age of three, after which they should be brought up by the community; their parents would have access to them at meals and all other proper times. He purposed to create a life of complete equality in regards to wages in which each person in the society (after the age of 15) would receive according to their needs.

Is supporting this necessary to be a socialist?

[Mavorpen]

Read the edit. Still not the least bit convincing.

In what sense.
Do you or do you not have to believe in government-by-intelligentsia to be a socialist. This is one of the men who founded and defined the movement. That is what he believed should happen.

Yes, it's socialism.

[Ostroeuropa]

In what sense.
Do you or do you not have to believe in government-by-intelligentsia to be a socialist. This is one of the men who founded and defined the movement. That is what he believed should happen.

Yes, it's socialism.

And do you think if you don't support that, you can't be a socialist?
(You didn't answer the question. Or rather, answered one that wasn't asked.)

[Mavorpen]

Yes, it's socialism.

And do you think if you don't support that, you can't be a socialist?
(You didn't answer the question. Or rather, answered one that wasn't asked.)

No.

[Ostroeuropa]

And do you think if you don't support that, you can't be a socialist?
(You didn't answer the question. Or rather, answered one that wasn't asked.)

No.

Then why is it that you hold a double-standard for communism?
Can you explain the difference?
here we have the foundational principles and goals of socialism, and you say deviation from them is permissable.
And yet for communism you say it is not permissable.

[Mavorpen]

Then why is it that you hold a double-standard for communism?
Can you explain the difference?
here we have the foundational principles and goals of socialism, and you say deviation from them is permissable.
And yet for communism you say it is not permissable.

The fuck are you talking about? What double standard?

[Conscentia]

No.

Then why is it that you hold a double-standard for communism?
Can you explain the difference?
here we have the foundational principles and goals of socialism, and you say deviation from them is permissable.
And yet for communism you say it is not permissable.

Just because Owens supported it doesn't make it a "foundational principle" of socialism.
Socialism is what it is: Public, Social, or Common ownership of the means of production.

[Stovokor]

Technically socialism is state control, however it's supposed to be counter balanced by having every person be the state. The best socialistic nation would be a purely democratic nation.

Incorrect.

Well then oh mighty smite-er correct me.

[Ostroeuropa]

Then why is it that you hold a double-standard for communism?
Can you explain the difference?
here we have the foundational principles and goals of socialism, and you say deviation from them is permissable.
And yet for communism you say it is not permissable.

The fuck are you talking about? What double standard?

I just explained what double-standard. You say it is fine to call something socialism even if it deviates from the original principles, but not to call something communism if it does.

[Mavorpen]

The fuck are you talking about? What double standard?

I just explained what double-standard. You say it is fine to call something socialism even if it deviates from the original principles, but not to call something communism if it does.

...No I didn't. The original principle of socialism is the public, communal, or worker ownership of the means of production. Anything within that is socialism.

[Ostroeuropa]

Then why is it that you hold a double-standard for communism?
Can you explain the difference?
here we have the foundational principles and goals of socialism, and you say deviation from them is permissable.
And yet for communism you say it is not permissable.

Just because Owens supported it doesn't make it a "foundational principle" of socialism.
Socialism is what it is: Public, Social, or Common ownership of the means of production.

Thats what it's been expanded to mean. Like communism.
Socialism originally had a very narrow definition, we expanded it to fit new ideologies that considered themselves socialist and were based on socialist ideas.
Communism has a narrow definition in your view. In my view, it should be expanded to encompass ideologies that consider themselves communist and are based on communist ideas.

[Ostroeuropa]

I just explained what double-standard. You say it is fine to call something socialism even if it deviates from the original principles, but not to call something communism if it does.

...No I didn't. The original principle of socialism is the public, communal, or worker ownership of the means of production. Anything within that is socialism.

That certainly isn't the original principle. Source that claim. Thats the expanded definition as it currently stands, something i'm arguing should be (And in fact, has been) done for communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism
Read the opening line. It's very simple.

[Conscentia]

Incorrect.

Well then oh mighty smite-er correct me.

I don't have too, we're living in the internet age.
You'll find corrections here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

(Bruce Almighty is an excellent film.)

[Mavorpen]

Socialism originally had a very narrow definition, we expanded it to fit new ideologies that considered themselves socialist and were based on socialist ideas.

The fuck? No. Socialism was coined to contrast it with the liberal form of "individualism," because early socialists believed it to be dangerous at the time for failing to address poverty adequately.

[Ostroeuropa]

Socialism originally had a very narrow definition, we expanded it to fit new ideologies that considered themselves socialist and were based on socialist ideas.

The fuck? No. Socialism was coined to contrast it with the liberal form of "individualism," because early socialists believed it to be dangerous at the time for failing to address poverty adequately.

Yes...and addressing poverty adequately was deemed as what exactly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism

Read the opening line.

[Mavorpen]

...No I didn't. The original principle of socialism is the public, communal, or worker ownership of the means of production. Anything within that is socialism.

That certainly isn't the original principle. Source that claim. Thats the expanded definition as it currently stands, something i'm arguing should be (And in fact, has been) done for communism.

Sure.

The term socialism is attributed to Pierre Leroux,[80] and to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud; and in Britain to Robert Owen in 1827, father of the cooperative movement.[81][82] Socialist models and ideas espousing common or public ownership have existed since antiquity. Mazdak, a Persian communal proto-socialist,[83] instituted communal possessions and advocated the public good. And it has been claimed, though controversially, that there were elements of socialist thought in the politics of classical Greek philosophers Plato[84] and Aristotle.[85]

[Denolas]

why so many nos please read the manifesto dont use real world experianse.

[Mavorpen]

The fuck? No. Socialism was coined to contrast it with the liberal form of "individualism," because early socialists believed it to be dangerous at the time for failing to address poverty adequately.

Yes...and addressing poverty adequately was deemed as what exactly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism

Read the opening line.

Okay...? What's your point?

[The New Sea Territory]

If any communist society truly could work, I'd be for it 100%.

But it doesn't. Using Animal Farm as an example, there is always a "Napoleon" that will corrupt the good system that "Snowball" and "Old Major" lead.

All major revolutions end up in totalitarian states.