Socialism: What do we do now?

[Dooom35796821595]

http://www.poverty.com

Approx 8,640.

How many of them are in Africa?

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/caus ... y-country/

Most of them are in India or Africa.

[Shefkland]

I take note with this since the is the very thinking that allows capitalism to become such a disproportionate burden on so many and a championed ideology of a select few....

Yes morally people should be considered equal, but its when we say economically they can't that we allow abuses such a slavery, wealth gaps, gender and racial marginalization, and corruption to become rampant and accepted norms of life!

All children (YES ALL) should have a equal shot at learning and living an equitable life, but its when we let economics get in the way of this thinking that we have the piss poor wealth balance that defines our society. Children who go to a school that gets less revenues, that get inadequate materials, and don't have adequate accommodations and transportation CANNOT have a fair shot and ARE NOT given the same footing to "maintain competition and a healthy economy"... But when someone "makes it" in this system, they often tend to look down and completely forget the uneven footing that those who didn't make it had and that what they saw and took for granted as being normal/ standard, isn't for many.... causing them to find themselves in the economic predicament that they're in and furthering the disproportion of wealth....

The state has a duty to its citizens to empower them to the fullest extent and give them an equal chance at success, this allows the sustainment and continuity of the state (new and healthy producers= new and healthy consumers, vice - versa), but where i live we fail to see the correlation and fail to address the issue of class and fail to see the role that the private and public sector have in investing in and developing a fully functional state where we can have equitable standards of life....

How do you justify taking other people's property and redistributing it? Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they have the right to take other people's property, and vice versa.

The purpose of the State is not to "empower" it's citizens. At a basic level, it's for collective security.

All property has its roots in violence. John Doe buys his home from someone who bought it from someone who built it with money he got from working for someone who got the money from selling to someone goods that he manufactured with equipment he bought with money he borrowed from a bank whose money comes from investment of money from people who inherited the money from their family all the way back to the man who first said "this is mine, and my men can imprison anyone who disagrees". Why is that violence legitimate?

[Neo Balka]

How many of them are in Africa?

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/caus ... y-country/

Most of them are in India or Africa.

Makes sense.

[Neo Balka]

How do you justify taking other people's property and redistributing it? Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they have the right to take other people's property, and vice versa.

The purpose of the State is not to "empower" it's citizens. At a basic level, it's for collective security.

All property has its roots in violence. John Doe buys his home from someone who bought it from someone who built it with money he got from working for someone who got the money from selling to someone goods that he manufactured with equipment he bought with money he borrowed from a bank whose money comes from investment of money from people who inherited the money from their family all the way back to the man who first said "this is mine, and my men can imprison anyone who disagrees". Why is that violence legitimate?

what.

[Shefkland]

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.

[New Grestin]

I think it's more important to look at the failings of Socialism and adapt the benefits to a capitalist society.

Capitalism is necessary for a functional nation in a globalized world, so 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. A society is only as good as how it treats its worst off citizens. 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.

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.

[Neo Balka]

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.

[New Grestin]

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, they smash everything because "anarchist" is just a codeword for "edgelord."

[Big Brain City]

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.

Does that include their genitals?

[The Snazzylands]

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

Does that include their genitals?

Especially their genitals.

[MERIZoC]

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.

yeah I fuck what about it?

[Neo Balka]

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

Does that include their genitals?

Perhaps more than the healthy amount.

[Belkan America]

I agree with Gloriana Americana (but he should calm down). I want to work for myself, not because this or that. Only myself.

Socialism takes the property of the successful to the poor, that's ok but there's too many poor people in the world and too little means.

And what the hell is "kill the upper class"?, killing the rich?. That's a bit vague. What kind of rich people?, what if someone of the party has a nice salary?, he should be killed as well?, i should have shitty salary to not become a "bourgeois"?, we're talking about using violence like the fascists do?.

And Social-Democracy doesn't work neither. Soc-Dem politics depend on the Nation's society, that's why it works in Europe but not in the rest of the world.

[THE UNITED FEDERATION OF ALGORENIA]

I think it's more important to look at the failings of Socialism and adapt the benefits to a capitalist society.

Capitalism is necessary for a functional nation in a globalized world, so 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. A society is only as good as how it treats its worst off citizens. 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.

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.

For the most part i agree with this, but to claim socilaism has failed is base less. Honestly, with all the claims of vioence and land seizure, im picking up that people are confucing socialism with its more radical sibling communism. Socialism has coem to become the norm in the majorty of societies today. Anywhere where the government allows private industries to participate in the market place, while ALSO providing a comparable good or service, you have socialism!

When you attend a Public school, or in some areas take Public transportation, or see the erection of Public works projects, there's a government arm in the economy. When you also allow for the competition or purchasing of these entities (Private school, Private transit, Private works firms, you have a private non- governmental element, thats socialism!

Socialism isn't dead, in fact its far from it. In nations such as Germany, japan, denmark, sweden, russia, china, britain, france, mexico, brazil, south africa, canada, the USA, we see both private and public firms participating in the economy... so your assertion is wrong, however to the degree that socialism plays a role in shaping policy in the public & private realms and how the improve the living standards of citizens varies widely and could do with more improvement.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Socialism, in my opinion, is the best possible way to increase living standards to the greatest possible number of people, and in a few cases (Cuba, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia; feel free to disagree) it actually worked.

Socialism or communism is the democratization of the economy. Political democracy without economic democracy is a contradiction in terms.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

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.

That was essentially U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders' social democratic position when he was running for president last year. The problem with that approach, IMO, is that, if capitalists are allowed to remain in power, they will find some way to maintain their economic hegemony.

[Hakons]

How do you justify taking other people's property and redistributing it? Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they have the right to take other people's property, and vice versa.

The purpose of the State is not to "empower" it's citizens. At a basic level, it's for collective security.

You're failing to realize two things- One, my message supported the ideas of capitalize, but highlighted a dire flaw in how it sustains itself and discredits the role of the state in amplifying its affect, and two that in addition to security, no one would give a damn about state security if the state didn't also provide an element of improving the welfare of it's citizens! If you want a state solely concerned with security go to North Korea, or better yet if you want a capitalist nation solely focused on security go to the Democratic Republic of Congo where wealth is so isolated from the general public that the security apparatus in place is only there to sustain a state only in name, and see if thats what you want...

That is why I said the basic purpose of the State is for collective security. It's certainly not the only action of the State, but every State tries to provide security. I agree there are problems with capitalism, in which people pursue money at no end and disregard their neighbor.

How do you justify taking other people's property and redistributing it? Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they have the right to take other people's property, and vice versa.

The purpose of the State is not to "empower" it's citizens. At a basic level, it's for collective security.

Property is distributed and secured by the state, and as such the state can reclaim it for the national intrest.

Property is not distributed by the state, but it is secured. We pay taxes to secure and increase our prosperity, not to have it "reclaimed." The State can own public property, but it can't seize private property for the "national interest." In the few instances it can, like with eminent domain, the State must reimburse what it took. Even money is not distributed by the state, but instead by the non-governmental Federal Reserve.

How do you justify taking other people's property and redistributing it? Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they have the right to take other people's property, and vice versa.

The purpose of the State is not to "empower" it's citizens. At a basic level, it's for collective security.

All property has its roots in violence. John Doe buys his home from someone who bought it from someone who built it with money he got from working for someone who got the money from selling to someone goods that he manufactured with equipment he bought with money he borrowed from a bank whose money comes from investment of money from people who inherited the money from their family all the way back to the man who first said "this is mine, and my men can imprison anyone who disagrees". Why is that violence legitimate?

John Doe committed no violence, therefore no violence should be put upon him. I would speculate that one of your ancestors killed another human to save his own life By your logic, the state can kill you now, because you should not exist. Just as Doe's property was "stolen," so was your very life "stolen."

I also must challenge your eronious assumption that all property has originally been stolen. This follows the mercantilist principle that there is a limited amount of wealth, and prosperity is secured by gaining the largest share of the wealth. However, the vast majority of wealth is generated by human capital. This is especially true in Western nations, where service jobs take the lion's share of the market.

[The United Artherian Federation]

Nothing, it's dead. Capitalism regins supreme.

[Greater Miami Shores]

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.

That was essentially U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders' social democratic position when he was running for president last year. The problem with that approach, IMO, is that, if capitalists are allowed to remain in power, they will find some way to maintain their economic hegemony.

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

[Hakons]

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.

That was essentially U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders' social democratic position when he was running for president last year. The problem with that approach, IMO, is that, if capitalists are allowed to remain in power, they will find some way to maintain their economic hegemony.

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.

[Hakons]

I think it's more important to look at the failings of Socialism and adapt the benefits to a capitalist society.

Capitalism is necessary for a functional nation in a globalized world, so 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. A society is only as good as how it treats its worst off citizens. 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.

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.

For the most part i agree with this, but to claim socilaism has failed is base less. Honestly, with all the claims of vioence and land seizure, im picking up that people are confucing socialism with its more radical sibling communism. Socialism has coem to become the norm in the majorty of societies today. Anywhere where the government allows private industries to participate in the market place, while ALSO providing a comparable good or service, you have socialism!

When you attend a Public school, or in some areas take Public transportation, or see the erection of Public works projects, there's a government arm in the economy. When you also allow for the competition or purchasing of these entities (Private school, Private transit, Private works firms, you have a private non- governmental element, thats socialism!

Socialism isn't dead, in fact its far from it. In nations such as Germany, japan, denmark, sweden, russia, china, britain, france, mexico, brazil, south africa, canada, the USA, we see both private and public firms participating in the economy... so your assertion is wrong, however to the degree that socialism plays a role in shaping policy in the public & private realms and how the improve the living standards of citizens varies widely and could do with more improvement.

Public works have predated socialist ideology by thousands of years. While the nations you mentioned do have certain aspects that could be considered socialist, the large majority of the economy is based on capitalism. If European nations were more socialist than capitalist, they would not be in the EU, the text book example of an organization designed for free trade capitalism.

[THE UNITED FEDERATION OF ALGORENIA]

That was essentially U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders' social democratic position when he was running for president last year. The problem with that approach, IMO, is that, if capitalists are allowed to remain in power, they will find some way to maintain their economic hegemony.

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.

People don't prefer capitalism, they prefer quality of life. Now that capitalism allows for quality of life, but allows for the greater potential for them to also suffer is the issue. Socialism addresses the gaps in the capitalist platform while allowing that capital generating mechanism.
However, people neglect the fact that the state plays in allowing capitalism... and by default are too dumb or misinformed to support socialism

[Balloch]

For the United States, the best approach would be to start small with big ambitions. To me, social democracy is quite silly because as a libertarian socialist I believe that it maintains the hierarchal structure of capitalism. But in a nation like the US where anyone five cents to the left is basically considered a communist, we need more moderate policies like these to plant the seeds of socialist thought again. Bernie Sanders was great because he was able to galvanise support for social democratic policies in a country where they were missing for many decades. That is the starting point where you get people interested in the ideas that vaguely resemble true socialism. Then the red taboo will vanish, allowing young radicals to become engendered towards leftist positions via Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg, etc now that they live in a society that is pseudo-socialistic. For once people realise social democracy works (relatively) well, then they will explore more proper ideas. We see this now where socialist groups have seen increasing membership due to the excitement generated by the Bernie campaign.

Then what? If social democracy is the first step, what next? That is a tricky question for me as I live in Scotland, although the best would be to see which leftist tendency becomes predominant, as no economic doctrine fits every single country perfectly. Hopefully then we should move in the direction of real socialism after that,

[The Christonian Imperium]

Just a fair warning, if you think the equal distribution of goods is the greatest evil imaginable, you might want to stop reading and find another thread.

Socialism, in my opinion, is the best possible way to increase living standards to the greatest possible number of people, and in a few cases (Cuba, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia; feel free to disagree) it actually worked. However, between the Red scare and Stalin's power grab, the idea of a worker's paradise has been gasping for air until finally dying in the late 80's with American blockades against Vietnam and Cuba and the attempted Serbian conquest of Yugoslavia. At the end of it all, the bourgeois stands tall with his boot planted down on the working class. So here's the question, where do we go from here?

The issue is that while communes are still complete possible, years of red scare propaganda turned the public perception of Socialist liberation into a Stalinist nightmare. Short of forming an independent country on moon no one is ever going to accept a communist state of any meaningful size in the near future. But we can't just watch the world go to hell either.

Like I stated earlier I think our next move should be to pick up the pieces and form small scale communes in areas with low population. Any other ideas on cleaning up after Socialism's death?

Socialism: What do we do now? Die

[Greater Cesnica]

Just a fair warning, if you think the equal distribution of goods is the greatest evil imaginable, you might want to stop reading and find another thread.

Socialism, in my opinion, is the best possible way to increase living standards to the greatest possible number of people, and in a few cases (Cuba, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia; feel free to disagree) it actually worked. However, between the Red scare and Stalin's power grab, the idea of a worker's paradise has been gasping for air until finally dying in the late 80's with American blockades against Vietnam and Cuba and the attempted Serbian conquest of Yugoslavia. At the end of it all, the bourgeois stands tall with his boot planted down on the working class. So here's the question, where do we go from here?

The issue is that while communes are still complete possible, years of red scare propaganda turned the public perception of Socialist liberation into a Stalinist nightmare. Short of forming an independent country on moon no one is ever going to accept a communist state of any meaningful size in the near future. But we can't just watch the world go to hell either.

Like I stated earlier I think our next move should be to pick up the pieces and form small scale communes in areas with low population. Any other ideas on cleaning up after Socialism's death?

Socialism: What do we do now? Die

That's a tad bit extreme.