Communism and Socialism megathread

[Conscentia]

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

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

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.

Socialism is one of the political philosophies I've been considering, along with Anarchism, but I'm a staunch secularist so the general stance of socialists on this issue would affect how I feel about it.

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.

The experience of things that cannot be explained? A sense of oneness with some greater force? I honestly don't really know, but people seem fond of the word for all kinds of things.

[The New Sea Territory]

Communism is evil.

How is a classless, stateless, moneyless society where workers democratically manage the collectively owned means of production and goods are distributed according to need "evil"?

Socialism is watered down Communism.

No, socialism is an economic system that advocates social ownership of the means of production, while communism is an explicitly anarchist, communal way of practicing direct democracy.

Watered down evil is still evil.

Not only is communism not evil, but socialism isn't watered down communism. So, even if we assume communism is evil, you are still wrong.

[The New Sea Territory]

Socialism is one of the political philosophies I've been considering, along with Anarchism, but I'm a staunch secularist so the general stance of socialists on this issue would affect how I feel about it.

Hate to jump in here but if you are considering anarchism I'm open to telegrams. Always love to explain anarchist principles to others.

Come to the stateless side. Our democratically managed workplaces have cookies.

[United Marxist Nations]

Socialism is one of the political philosophies I've been considering, along with Anarchism, but I'm a staunch secularist so the general stance of socialists on this issue would affect how I feel about it.

Hate to jump in here but if you are considering anarchism I'm open to telegrams. Always love to explain anarchist principles to others.

Come to the stateless side. Our democratically managed workplaces have cookies.

The Vanguard Party knows how to throw down though.

[Kubra]

Actually, Fascism doesn't do war for war's sake. Fascism exalted war as an expression of
man's vitality and willingness to survive.

lol and that's war for war's sake

A national struggle was viewed not as two groups of people fighting but two distinct collective organisms.

yeah, two collective organisms expressing their vitality and willingness to survive

I mean don't get me wrong, war is great fun and propaganda on the left, but it's only ennobling if it's waged for particular political reasons, which usually related to national defense/liberation.

[The New Sea Territory]

Hate to jump in here but if you are considering anarchism I'm open to telegrams. Always love to explain anarchist principles to others.

Come to the stateless side. Our democratically managed workplaces have cookies.

The Vanguard Party knows how to throw down though.

Meeeerh. Well, we have better live music to throw down to. *begins punk moshpit*

[United Marxist Nations]

The Vanguard Party knows how to throw down though.

Meeeerh. Well, we have better live music to throw down to. *begins punk moshpit*

O rly?!

[The New Sea Territory]

Meeeerh. Well, we have better live music to throw down to. *begins punk moshpit*

O rly?!

Plz. For sure. Every Punk band barring skinhead fascist pig Skrewdriver fans are on our side.

EDIT: Done

[Kisinger]

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.

Socialism is one of the political philosophies I've been considering, along with Anarchism, but I'm a staunch secularist so the general stance of socialists on this issue would affect how I feel about it.

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.

The experience of things that cannot be explained? A sense of oneness with some greater force? I honestly don't really know, but people seem fond of the word for all kinds of things.

1.)Marxism is basically Anarchism in reverse where Anarchism abolishes the state and carry's out the revolution Marxism carry's the revolution out and then abolishes the state, both still are basically creating a stateless classless community.

2.)I really believe that it can't be because it's people's actions that determine the outcome, no higher force can possibly exist that can defy man's basic rights, so everything is man made there is no way for it to be properly incorporated in democracy fairly as it still gives power to someone above all, true democracy is where everyone is above no one and everybody is equal, so no I do not believe it can be immersed fairly without them giving up the conclusion that such a force can exist in the physical and only world, and such spirituality in my opinion is a way to instill religious faith which destroy one's perception of what is good for the state and what is good for their "god" and themselves, so basically it creates sorta of like a lapse that twists the ideal image of what democracy is and henceforth cannot exist fairly in such a scenario. Probably really confusing but to sum it up, no I do not think it can.

[Kisinger]

Socialism is one of the political philosophies I've been considering, along with Anarchism, but I'm a staunch secularist so the general stance of socialists on this issue would affect how I feel about it.

Hate to jump in here but if you are considering anarchism I'm open to telegrams. Always love to explain anarchist principles to others.

Come to the stateless side. Our democratically managed workplaces have cookies.

Marxism goes for the same thing in reverse, so come to the "dark" side we have cookies :3

[New Terricon]

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

How does one go about synthesizing Maoism and Titoism?

I apply it like this:

I believe in Mao Zedong's "New Democracy" where the peasents, workers, and petty bougarsie (or middle peasent as Lenin dubbed them) overthrow the bougarsie ruling class. From there, the three groups will integrate and annihilate the remaining capitalist elements through class struggle. And instead of the proletarian dictatorship, a people's democratic dictatorship will rise. But the important aspect of it all is the implementation of the petty bougarsie into the uprising. I for one see the petty bougarsie as hard-working and industrious while mostly lacking the greed that the bougarsie elite retain in their rule.
As for Titoism, I believe in one major aspect of it. That being the idea that socialism should be developed based off the specific society's needs rather than the following of a specific path (Stalin's Socialism in One Country), in order to achieve Communism. After the elite are overthrown and the counter revolutionaries defeated, the nation would then seek to make reforms and movements that work with the standing society. That way, a "flavor" of Socialism is achieved in that society so the masses will be more content with accepting Communism.
The problem I see with Orthodox Marxism-Leninism is that culture is destroyed on the path to achieve Communist perfection. And while that may not always be a bad thing, I feel some great Russian arts were destroyed or repressed because of the the October Revolution. Hence, I look more likely on "Cultured Socialism".

Edit: I'm sorry I took a while to respond, my computer crashed on me.

[Conscentia]

Meeeerh. Well, we have better live music to throw down to. *begins punk moshpit*

O rly?!

Not German enough, kamerad.

[United Marxist Nations]

O rly?!

Plz. For sure. Every Punk band barring skinhead fascist pig Skrewdriver fans are on our side.

EDIT: NVM hang on let me find it live.

Eh, to each their own.

[Kisinger]

Also side tracking a little, what is this NS Senate thing?

[Halnatorum]

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...

Come find me and find out for yourself.

[Kisinger]

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

Come find me and find out for yourself.

Okay, I'll gather up my Socialist Brethren from across the world and meet you somewhere of your choosing :3

[Udinia]

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.

If it is an idelogy of which syndicalism is integral, how is it not a branch of syndicalism itself?
Semantics Soviet, I honestly giggled as I read that!

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?

Maybe, I have thought of that, but I'm not a psycho so I'd prefer to not harm people if I can help it. Of course, if it were to come down to a war with capitalists I wouldn't be very merciful.

It's not that I don't believe socialism is incompatible with secularism, but that secular socialism would only be a half victory, a matetial victory. I don't believe secularism would allow for a full cultural and mental shift away from the material objectification of liberal capitalism. To me secularism would only allow an incomplete realization of socialism.

[Kubra]

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

Come find me and find out for yourself.

inb4 navy SEAL

[United Marxist Nations]

Come find me and find out for yourself.

inb4 navy SEAL

We don't need a Navy SEAL, because our Red Army is the Strongest of All!

[Kisinger]

inb4 navy SEAL

We don't need a Navy SEAL, because our Red Army is the Strongest of All!

All I'm going to say...

[Kubra]

inb4 navy SEAL

We don't need a Navy SEAL, because our Red Army is the Strongest of All!

What did you just say to me, you reactionary white? I'll have you know that I graduated at the top of my class in the Spetsnaz GRU....
If we make an original, does it count as memespam?

[Conscentia]

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.

If it is an idelogy of which syndicalism is integral, how is it not a branch of syndicalism itself?
Semantics Soviet, I honestly giggled as I read that!

It's not a branch of syndicalism because Sorelianism includes things that aren't syndicalism.
Syndicalism is a branch of socialism, because syndicalism is a form of social ownership of the means of production (ie. socialism).
But Sorelianism is not a branch of syndicalism, because Sorelianism involves more than just the organisation of industries into syndicates.

Syndicalism falls under the definition of socialism.
Sorelianism does not fall under the definition of syndicalism, though syndicalism is one of the defining criteria of Sorelianism.

[United Marxist Nations]

Udinia, about secularism, you say the last part of your post as if changing the material conditions of society wouldn't inherently change the culture of said society.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

It's not that I don't believe socialism is incompatible with secularism, but that secular socialism would only be a half victory, a matetial victory. I don't believe secularism would allow for a full cultural and mental shift away from the material objectification of liberal capitalism. To me secularism would only allow an incomplete realization of socialism.

I don't understand how this is the case.

How are you defining 'secularism' here?

To me, secularism is a system by which the state is restrained from mandating religious matters. Obviously if there's no state then secularism wouldn't really apply. Is that what you're talking about?