Communism and Socialism megathread

[Ripoll]

Silly socialists, the internet is for hard working capitalist pigs, not red filth

[Udinia]

... just what?

A pair of extreme socialists eh?

No such thing as an extremist socialist. Is it considered extremist to oppose Capitalism, the most evil philosophy ever?

[United Marxist Nations]

Silly socialists, the internet is for hard working capitalist pigs, not red filth

>implying that socialists cannot be hard-working

[Ndaku]

A pair of extreme socialists eh?

No such thing as an extremist socialist. Is it considered extremist to oppose Capitalism, the most evil philosophy ever?

no because you are viewing socialism at a whole new personal perspective...

[Alsheb]

Hey, Leninist here :3

Join the club, Comrade!

[Alsheb]

To me socialism is my religion, it is more than a mere ideology, it is a lifestyle.

... just what?

It is only natural to have a lifestyle that is at least partially determined by your ideology. For example, militants of the Workers' Party of Belgium are forbidden from earning a wage that is above a certain pay grade. Parliamentarians and members of the Council are even banned from earning over 1500-1600 euros a month, with the General-Secretary having a monthly wage of 1400 euros.

I have always held that if you're not 100% convinced of the truthfulness of your idelogy, than politics is probably not something for you. It is supposed to be an encompassing system of thought and action that guides your life.

[Conscentia]

Socialism isn't a philosophy. It's a business model. And it doesn't have a spiritual side.

People like to see it that way, sure. But keep in mind socialism is an umbrella of related schools, not all branches of socialism are materialist and athiest. I don't see socialism is a linear " business model", I view it as an all encompassing moral, spiritual, and economic philosophy.

Socialism isn't materialist, atheist, idealist, or theist. It's a class of business models in which private ownership has been abolished in favour of social ownership. That's what it is.
You cannot view socialism as all encompassing, because it simply is not. To claim it can be is to remove all meaning from the word.

You can have an all-encompassing ideology which advocate socialism among other things, but that ideology is not socialism - it is a larger ideology that involves the advocacy of socialism.

[New Terricon]

I'm a strong, independent Maoist/Titoist who don't need no orthodox Marxism!

[The New Sea Territory]

Silly socialists, the internet is for hard working capitalist pigs, not red filth

[Udinia]

No such thing as an extremist socialist. Is it considered extremist to oppose Capitalism, the most evil philosophy ever?

no because you are viewing socialism at a whole new personal perspective...

Not really, my ideas on socialism are nothing new within the philosophy itself, especially considering the kind of socialism I adhere to. I'm a Sorelianist, look up Sorelianism...and my views won't seem so odd or misplaced.
http://www.netplaces.com/understanding- ... f-myth.htm

[The New Sea Territory]

I'm a strong, independent Maoist/Titoist who don't need no orthodox Marxism!

How does one go about synthesizing Maoism and Titoism?

[United Marxist Nations]

Silly socialists, the internet is for hard working capitalist pigs, not red filth

The irony of course being that, building socialism is one of the hardest kinds of work to do.

[Conscentia]

no because you are viewing socialism at a whole new personal perspective...

Not really, my ideas on socialism are nothing new within the philosophy itself, especially considering the kind of socialism I adhere to. I'm a Sorelianist, look up Sorelianism...and my views won't seem so odd or misplaced.
http://www.netplaces.com/understanding- ... f-myth.htm

Sorelianism isn't a kind of socialism. It's an ideology that advocates it, among other things.

[United Marxist Nations]

I'm a strong, independent Maoist/Titoist who don't need no orthodox Marxism!

How does one go about synthesizing Maoism and Titoism?

I've synthesized Hoxha, Stalin, and Trotsky pretty nicely, so I'd say it can be done.

[Conscentia]

How does one go about synthesizing Maoism and Titoism?

I've synthesized Hoxha, Stalin, and Trotsky pretty nicely, so I'd say it can be done.

How does that work?

[The New Sea Territory]

How does one go about synthesizing Maoism and Titoism?

I've synthesized Hoxha, Stalin, and Trotsky pretty nicely, so I'd say it can be done.

Stalin ... and ... Trotsky. Wasn't there division only over the Socialism in One Country vs Permanent Revolution debate? Wouldn't that make the two mutually exclusive?

[Udinia]

Not really, my ideas on socialism are nothing new within the philosophy itself, especially considering the kind of socialism I adhere to. I'm a Sorelianist, look up Sorelianism...and my views won't seem so odd or misplaced.
http://www.netplaces.com/understanding- ... f-myth.htm

Sorelianism isn't a kind of socialism. It's an ideology that advocates it, among other things.

It is a type of syndicalism....which in turn is a type of socialism. You're not going to win this.

[United Marxist Nations]

I've synthesized Hoxha, Stalin, and Trotsky pretty nicely, so I'd say it can be done.

How does that work?

Take elements of Trotsky's idea of the Degenerated Workers' State, accept it happened to the USSR (though, I use the term "proto-socialism", as there is slight difference in the exact meaning I use it), accept that Socialism in One Country is a primarily pragmatic strategy, but that it failed due to the backwardness of the USSR at its forming. At the same time, Trotsky's ideas probably would have failed due to the same backwardness, meaning that Socialism in One Country was a necessary policy. Had the USSR been developed educationally at the beginning of its existence, it would have been able to work.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

No such thing as an extremist socialist. Is it considered extremist to oppose Capitalism, the most evil philosophy ever?

I don't know about this particular example, but are you saying that the ends of socialism justify any conceivable means to achieve them?

Even killing everyone on the planet but a small group and starting over as socialist?

On an unrelated note, we had a discussion in another thread about socialism and secularism, and you felt that somehow spirituality could be integrated into socialist democratic politics and secularism should be done away with. That conversation got sidetracked (back onto the actual topic), but can I ask more about your reasoning in that area?

Why is secularism incompatible with socialism?

How can spirituality be integrated into democracy fairly?

What sort of things does a socialist society need to be able to do that secularism will not allow?

[Conscentia]

Sorelianism isn't a kind of socialism. It's an ideology that advocates it, among other things.

It is a type of syndicalism....which in turn is a type of socialism. You're not going to win this.

Syndicalism is a type of socialism - the specific type advocated by Sorelianism.
Sorelianism is not a type of syndicalism. It's an ideology to which syndicalism is integral.
Syndicalism is one of the constituents of Sorelianism, not the other way around.

On the contrary, you will lose this.
You cannot challenge a Semantics Soviet and win, гражданин.
It's like arguing with a Grammar Nazi about grammar.

[Kisinger]

No such thing as an extremist socialist. Is it considered extremist to oppose Capitalism, the most evil philosophy ever?

I don't know about this particular example, but are you saying that the ends of socialism justify any conceivable means to achieve them?

Even killing everyone on the planet but a small group and starting over as socialist?

On an unrelated note, we had a discussion in another thread about socialism and secularism, and you felt that somehow spirituality could be integrated into socialist democratic politics and secularism should be done away with. That conversation got sidetracked (back onto the actual topic), but can I ask more about your reasoning in that area?

Why is secularism incompatible with socialism?

How can spirituality be integrated into democracy fairly?

What sort of things does a socialist society need to be able to do that secularism will not allow?

1.) It's really up to debate among Socialists(imo) but I feel that it grants power to religious figures such as Patriarchs and Priests and it promotes irrationality by that(not saying one doesn't exist just doubt it) one being exists over them and is supreme in all rights when everyone should be truely equal in all figures a merger of all classes, even though to have a civilized society you must have a government, they work for the people and make sure the people carry out there duties for the greater good.

2.) Define spirituality for me it has a broad definition, and yes I know this wasn't for me just wanted to give my opinion on it.

[United Marxist Nations]

It is a type of syndicalism....which in turn is a type of socialism. You're not going to win this.

Syndicalism is a type of socialism - the specific type advocated by Sorelianism.
Sorelianism is not a type of syndicalism. It's an ideology to which syndicalism is integral.
Syndicalism is one of the constituents of Sorelianism, not the other way around.

On the contrary, you will lose this.
You cannot challenge a Semantics Soviet and win, гражданин.
It's like arguing with a Grammar Nazi about grammar.

The Post-Marshal of the Soviet Union approves of the post.

[Halnatorum]

Communism is evil.
Socialism is watered down Communism.
Watered down evil is still evil.

[United Marxist Nations]

Communism is evil.
Socialism is watered down Communism.
Watered down evil is still evil.

How is it evil?

[Kisinger]

Communism is evil.
Socialism is watered down Communism.
Watered down evil is still evil.

Bet you wouldn't say that to our face, capitalist/whatever your ideology is...