Socialism: What do we do now?

[Shefkland]

Cool, just totally neglect the ideas of Zoroastrianism which served as a basis for subsequent socialist scholars right... anyways,
the nations definitely ARE socialist, you can look at factors including government involvement in healthcare where they have one- payer systems, the levels of public transit, the regulations on private sectors, and the role the public sector plays in education, the role the states plays in financing and subsidizing industries such as production, energy, agriculture, transport, and arms manufacturing....

Socialism doesn't disallow or seize private property or seek equal property (again), it allows both the competition between private and public entities and people to own their own property and businesses, it only gives the state more involvement in regulating and setting the involvement of how both sides operate in the economic and social theaters... And the wages they garner from that are spent on goods, that's a truism statement.

And Yes, some of those countries don;t acknowledge being socialist, just how North Korea denies its a human's rights violator, threat to global stability, or a failed state.... the US following it being the "Champion of Capitalism" would take a ideological blow if it came to the realization that with public housing, national businesses, medicaid and medicare (which take up the majority of the federal budget) it claimed being socialist. In Europe they're also export- market drive, but champion their socialistic societies as well. the reality still stands that socialism is a powerful influence in all those countries societies and by extension the globe

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

[War Gears]

How did property first come about? The answer is through violence. Therefore violence is legitimate against property, because it was a legitimate method of claiming it.

so thats why Anarchists tend to smash everything they get their fucking grubby hands on.

No, it's because they're a largely irrelevant movement nowadays and mostly just attract criminals and edgy teenagers.

Kind of like Nazis, which explains the mutual like for skinhead culture.

[Hakons]

Cool, just totally neglect the ideas of Zoroastrianism which served as a basis for subsequent socialist scholars right... anyways,
the nations definitely ARE socialist, you can look at factors including government involvement in healthcare where they have one- payer systems, the levels of public transit, the regulations on private sectors, and the role the public sector plays in education, the role the states plays in financing and subsidizing industries such as production, energy, agriculture, transport, and arms manufacturing....

Socialism doesn't disallow or seize private property or seek equal property (again), it allows both the competition between private and public entities and people to own their own property and businesses, it only gives the state more involvement in regulating and setting the involvement of how both sides operate in the economic and social theaters... And the wages they garner from that are spent on goods, that's a truism statement.

And Yes, some of those countries don;t acknowledge being socialist, just how North Korea denies its a human's rights violator, threat to global stability, or a failed state.... the US following it being the "Champion of Capitalism" would take a ideological blow if it came to the realization that with public housing, national businesses, medicaid and medicare (which take up the majority of the federal budget) it claimed being socialist. In Europe they're also export- market drive, but champion their socialistic societies as well. the reality still stands that socialism is a powerful influence in all those countries societies and by extension the globe

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

For the first time in my life I might have to play the "that's not socialism" card.

Actual socialists would say the the nations mentioned are not socialist. People that don't actually know the ideology are the ones that go "look! The government did something! Socialism at work!"

[Greater Miami Shores]

Compare your statement to the European Communist and socialist parties who have political seats in Parliament. Compared that to banning non communist socialist parties and their supporters, excuting them, throwing them in prison, and exile.

Bans
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ ... -communism

Execution
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/asia/indo ... index.html

Prison and Exile
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Emma-Goldman

Ok fair enough, but their are European communists and socialist in Parliament. They even visit and support the Cuban government in the European Parliament. Their are communist and socialist political parties in other nations. Compared to non in the communist socialist nations as it has been practiced all over the world.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Compare your statement to the European Communist and socialist parties who have political seats in Parliament. Compared that to banning non communist socialist parties and their supporters, excuting them, throwing them in prison, and exile.

Bans
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ ... -communism

Execution
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/asia/indo ... index.html

Prison and Exile
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Emma-Goldman

Ok fair enough, but their are European communists and socialist in Parliament. They even visit and support the Cuban government in the European Parliament. Their are communist and socialist political parties in other nations. Compared to non in the communist socialist nations as it has been practiced all over the world.

And if you really want to argue the point and go their. The Ukraine was accoupied by the Soviet Union under a Russian Soviet Communist government, that outlawed and banned all political parties, all political opposition, excuted Ukrainians, imprisoned and exiled them from their own nation, just as it did its own ethnic Russian nationals. I had an acquientence friend I cant rember if she was from Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania, but she was from one of those 3 nations. She said to me, they don't understand you but I do. The Russian Soviets took over my nation and destroyed it.

The problem is if the communists had come to power in Indonesia they would have outlawed and banned all political parties, all political opposition, excuted and exiled them, just like it has been practiced all over the world, Just like it is practiced in Cuba, my native nation, of which I am very well informed on, for abvious reasons, in which I still have family and friends. Crazy Cuban Alberto.

[Major-Tom]

the left needs mixed market economics and social fairness, not socialism and social justice bs

[Great Minarchistan]

Tell chile, tell greece, tell russia, tell guatemala how US-exported capitalism works

That's actually funny because Chile is the most advanced country in South America, Russian economy rebounded pretty quickly post-USSR and Guatemala is a member of the ALBA.

[Great Minarchistan]

I would argue that we should move towards Social Democracy by helping maintain a healthy Middle Class and Lower class while using the upper class to bankroll social welfare programs.

1. Social-democracy is unsustainable. Come to Brazil and take a fresh dose of it.
2. Implying the rich people won't flee the country, à la français.
3. You'seem to forget how Scandinavia hosts one of the freest economies in the world and also have an extremely small corporate tax. The fact that their pensions are privatized is another pro, alleviating a big gulp from government spending. (yet it is still fading)

A society is only as good as how it treats its worst off citizens.

And you want to improve their lifes with welfare rather than education, small business incentives and infrastructure? Oh please.

Better business regulation, incentivization of community service, retooling of government structures and a move towards consumer freedom would be key components in an improved democratically socialist society.

Now you gonna tell me socdem = demsoc?

The key is realizing that socialism itself has failed, but we can look at its ideals and see how they can be used to get radical capitalism under control and back into the hands of consumers and citizens, rather than a corporate hegemony.

If you hate corporations and want power to the consumers, perhaps you'd like to take a look at right-libertarianism, or at least at Bourbon Democrats.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

So real communists and socialists don't allow multi political parties?

Personally, I don't like any political parties. I also do not like social democracy (aka Keynesianism). However, that is just my personal viewpoint. I have no objection to the existence of political parties - assuming they are supported democratically.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

In the case of democratic nations, capitalism remains in power because the majority of the voters are in favor of capitalism. Obviously large corporations try to influence the process, but democracies are largely capitalist because most people prefer capitalism.

Capitalism remains dominant because democracy is impossible under capitalism.

[Great Minarchistan]

In the case of democratic nations, capitalism remains in power because the majority of the voters are in favor of capitalism. Obviously large corporations try to influence the process, but democracies are largely capitalist because most people prefer capitalism.

Capitalism remains dominant because democracy is impossible under capitalism.

>US
>Switzerland
>France
>Germany
>UK
>Italy
>Canada

Huh.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

That's always going to happen under a capitalist system. Inevitably the upper class will seek ways to maintain their hold over power and capital. They key is maintaining a public class consciousness and being aware of that. If we are wise to the tricks that these people pull, then we can start working to bring power back to the actual citizens and not those who see the world as their personal piggy bank to smash.

Yes.

The reality is that the entire planet is economically intertwined in the capitalist market system. To avoid that for purely ideological reasons is to damn one's country to becoming a second-rate economic power and risk outside manipulation by those unwilling to control capitalism's worst urges like neo-colonialism.

I always refer to the title of Rosa Luxemburg's pamphlet, Social Reform or Revolution?

The capitalists won the ideological battle when Communism became synonymous with Stalinist authoritarianism. The more dignified option is to work within the system to try and improve it with an outside mindset, rather than to subscribe to old-school Marxist philosophy of world revolution which is, at this point, unfortunately highly unlikely.

The demise of Bolshevism had a silver lining. It freed communists to pursue other approaches.

[Greater Miami Shores]

In the case of democratic nations, capitalism remains in power because the majority of the voters are in favor of capitalism. Obviously large corporations try to influence the process, but democracies are largely capitalist because most people prefer capitalism.

Capitalism remains dominant because democracy is impossible under capitalism.

lol, Capitalism remains dominant because democray is impossible under real communism and real socialism, one political party state governments for life, where their cant be any opposition to anything. Those that are apposed to the communist socialist ideology are banned, excuted, imprisoned, and exiled. While the leaders live like a rich $ communist socialist capitalist elite. Just as it has been practiced all over the world, just as it is practiced all over the world, just as it is practiced in Cuba, my native nation of which I am very well informed on for abvious reasons, and in which I still have family and friends. Crazy native Cuban, American citizen Alberto

[War Gears]

Capitalism remains dominant because democracy is impossible under capitalism.

>US
>Switzerland
>France
>Germany
>UK
>Italy
>Canada

Huh.

Let's not forget the Nordic democracies.

[Vegaslovakia]

Imprison psychopaths in order to force them to contribute. Donate to compassionate causes while some of us may have to become double agents in order to usurp the bourgeoisie, and isolate but preserve callous artists. Compassionate ones shouldn't be punished, I am pro-compassion more than anything else, and I would hate for comrades to be corrupted through anthropocentrism... I don't think that communism is the best idea, but I think it's up there; I doubt morality can effectively be enforced within fascist or capitalist countries.

[Great Minarchistan]

>US
>Switzerland
>France
>Germany
>UK
>Italy
>Canada

Huh.

Let's not forget the Nordic democracies.

Yeah, there are several. Those I wrote were the first that came out of my head.

[Greater Miami Shores]

So I will ask again in a different way, do real communists and socialists accept and respect different political parties? Hopefully this time I will get a straight answer, with an optional explanation.

[Kubra]

So I will ask again in a different way, do real communists and socialists accept and respect different political parties? Hopefully this time I will get a straight answer, with an optional explanation.

I mean there are real parties consisting of "real" communists and socialists, many of whom have participated in coalition governments or even coalition parties.
Depends who you're asking man, we're a diverse bunch.

[Greater Miami Shores]

So I will ask again in a different way, do real communists and socialists accept and respect different political parties? Hopefully this time I will get a straight answer, with an optional explanation.

I mean there are real parties consisting of "real" communists and socialists, many of whom have participated in coalition governments or even coalition parties.
Depends who you're asking man, we're a diverse bunch.

Yes, many have participated in coalition governments or even coalition parties even with non communist parties especially in Europe. But my question is would a real communist socialist nation or real communists and socialists accept and respect different political parties which are based on real different political, economic and social views?

[Kubra]

I mean there are real parties consisting of "real" communists and socialists, many of whom have participated in coalition governments or even coalition parties.
Depends who you're asking man, we're a diverse bunch.

Yes, many have participated in coalition governments or even coalition parties even with non communist parties especially in Europe. But my question is would a real communist socialist nation or real communists and socialists accept and respect different political parties which are based on real different political views?

Oh, is your question "does the endgame of communism involve multiple political parties?"
In the purely utopic imagination, it doesn't involve any parties, communist included.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Yes, many have participated in coalition governments or even coalition parties even with non communist parties especially in Europe. But my question is would a real communist socialist nation or real communists and socialists accept and respect different political parties which are based on real different political views?

Oh, is your question "does the endgame of communism involve multiple political parties?"
In the purely utopic imagination, it doesn't involve any parties, communist included.

My question is do they accept and respect different economic, political and social views, represented trough different political parties and elections?

[Kubra]

Oh, is your question "does the endgame of communism involve multiple political parties?"
In the purely utopic imagination, it doesn't involve any parties, communist included.

My question is do they accept and respect different economic, political and social views, represented trough different political parties and elections?

As in: if a communist party got into power and rewrote the constitution, would it be structured along the same sort of political process?
Maybe, maybe not. Lenin wrote "all power to the soviets", even though those same soviets weren't obliged to vote bolshevik and before 1918 often did not. Lenin later, for a moment, reconsidered the "all power to the soviets" line, until they lost the duma election, after which the soviets were all of a sudden still real great. Allende's Chile never seemed to have considered modifying the constitution and organizing it in such a way that the party came before the chamber of deputies in terms of political power, and by the tail end of his doomed term his appeal was for chilean's to honour the constitution against those that were portrayed as wanting to violate it, which was also exactly how the right painted him (but I mean guess who suspended the constitution).
And then again, parties like the KKE or the Albanian CP were pretty adamant about party rule being firmly established. One can also mention Afghanistan, where by all accounts the party was composed of true believers, which is an absurd amount of optimism on their part given the location. They, of course, all believed firmly in party rule.
So, y'know, depends who you ask. We're a diverse bunch with different ideas of what a "communist polity" ought to look like.

[Greater Miami Shores]

My question is do they accept and respect different economic, political and social views, represented trough different political parties and elections?

As in: if a communist party got into power and rewrote the constitution, would it be structured along the same sort of political process?
Maybe, maybe not. Lenin wrote "all power to the soviets", even though those same soviets weren't obliged to vote bolshevik and before 1918 often did not. Lenin later, for a moment, reconsidered the "all power to the soviets" line, until they lost the duma election, after which the soviets were all of a sudden still real great. Allende's Chile never seemed to have considered modifying the constitution and organizing it in such a way that the party came before the chamber of deputies in terms of political power, and by the tail end of his doomed term his appeal was for chilean's to honour the constitution against those that were portrayed as wanting to violate it, which was also exactly how the right painted him (but I mean guess who suspended the constitution).
And then again, parties like the KKE or the Albanian CP were pretty adamant about party rule being firmly established. One can also mention Afghanistan, where by all accounts the party was composed of true believers, which is an absurd amount of optimism on their part given the location. They, of course, all believed firmly in party rule.
So, y'know, depends who you ask. We're a diverse bunch with different ideas of what a "communist polity" ought to look like.

Thank you Kubra for your interesting post, I will read it and re read it to understand it better.

Yes, many have participated in coalition governments or even coalition parties even with non communist parties especially in Europe. But my question is would a real communist socialist nation or real communists and socialists accept and respect different political parties which are based on real different political views?[/quote] Oh, is your question "does the endgame of communism involve multiple political parties?"
In the purely utopic imagination, it doesn't involve any parties, communist included.[/quote]

The problem is as you say yourself Utopic imagination, it is not practical in real life. Thus If they don't or cant accept different economic, political and social views, trough different political parties, proves my point.

Real communism and real socialism sounds nice and democratic, the problem is that once all the means of production and are in the hands of the people, they are really in the hands of the government and leaders that oversees it, thus creating an automatic dictatorship. If it really were in the hands of the people collectively it would still create an automatic dictatorship because individuals could not disagree or oppose the collective.

I have posted before on NS many times, that I really believe most real communists and socialists on NS are real nice people that would not do, what has been done and practiced all over the world in the communist socialist nations of the Soviet union, its eastern European Empire, China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba.

But my recent experience on NS when I post a thread or comment negative of Fidel, Raúl, the Castro family and Cuba, for abvious reasons, makes me wonder my statement. Actually it dosent because I do state most.

Native Crazy Cuban Alberto.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

lol, Capitalism remains dominant because democray is impossible under real communism and real socialism, one political party state governments for life, where their cant be any opposition to anything. Those that are apposed to the communist socialist ideology are banned, excuted, imprisoned, and exiled. While the leaders live like a rich $ communist socialist capitalist elite. Just as it has been practiced all over the world, just as it is practiced all over the world, just as it is practiced in Cuba, my native nation of which I am very well informed on for abvious reasons, and in which I still have family and friends. Crazy native Cuban, American citizen Alberto

I am a Luxemburgist, not a Bolshevik.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

>US
>Switzerland
>France
>Germany
>UK
>Italy
>Canada

Huh.

I would not call any of those countries - or, in fact, any other countries - democracies.