Socialism

Didn't read all posts but you seem to have a minor misconception of what socialism is and go for the 'what socialism usually is' unless I misread or read out of context posts.

A socialism does not require a government, state or planned economy though it is the common way we go towards a socialist state. Socialism is essentially like a democracy within companies. I can't believe you are considering military or oligarchian socialism to be good.

I'm sure you knew what the term meant but take a look again and imagine it applied in the world though starting off with being a socialism. Do you think it will be sustainable?

Socialism works for the abolition of hierarchy as well so the ultimate socialism would be that of anarchy.

I also saw some talk about the wait for a workers revolution which will never happen in the countries where people have it good enough. Instead the realistic method is by gradually with democratic methods approaching a more collectivist society as collectivism is the real goal for all of us. That is why social democracy is the realistic goal today and the easiest method for socialism. Make politics a hobby and join a socialist party. I don't know about your age, but there are always youth associations as well.

Oui, you're taking this farther than we are.
We are talking about socialism at it's barest form, the economic solution.

Yes, a stateless communism is the ideal goal, but that's not important at this time in the discussion.

---

@An Oligarchy - The way I took the argument, we were talking about an already established society adopting socialism.
That would usually be the case anyway. There aren't many new states coming into existence.

Wow, Oui really went far there. We were simply talking about it's economic application. I would prefer democracy over oligarchy but anarchism would be much more preferable, like you said. I think what we're mainly talking about, though, is the first step from capitalism to socialism.

we were talking about an already established society adopting socialism.

Click to expand...

krazedkat said:

Wow, Oui really went far there. We were simply talking about it's economic application. I would prefer democracy over oligarchy but anarchism would be much more preferable, like you said. I think what we're mainly talking about, though, is the first step from capitalism to socialism.

Click to expand...

Ok, I didn't read all posts, I skimmed through some.



I am positive socialism is the future for all countries, as everything is being democratized, the companies will too.

The revolutions will lead to democracies and not socialism, but from and with democracy create socialism. All countries follow a similar path now with globalism, so just look at what direction the most developed countries are taking. Which is northern Europe.

1. Industrialization 2. Democracy 3. Socialism. The main steps majority of countries will need to go through, oligarchical or totalitarian socialism will only be for a minority of countries.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm writing a paper of sorts on socialism/the 'perfect' government.
The theory of socialism is truly eye-opening, and I believe we will eventually become Socialist in the future.

Rhythm said:

I'm writing a paper of sorts on socialism/the 'perfect' government.
The theory of socialism is truly eye-opening, and I believe we will eventually become Socialist in the future.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised that most large countries aren't socialist, it truly would help everything economically.
The U.S. is in debt because of Capitalism, I wonder what it would have turned out like if we had a socialist economy.

ttomthebomb said:

Rhythm said:

I'm writing a paper of sorts on socialism/the 'perfect' government.
The theory of socialism is truly eye-opening, and I believe we will eventually become Socialist in the future.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised that most large countries aren't socialist, it truly would help everything economically.
The U.S. is in debt because of Capitalism, I wonder what it would have turned out like if we had a socialist economy.

Click to expand...

I think the only reason we aren't is because of the negative connotation it earned so quickly. If I'm not mistaken, Communism was one of the first variants of Socialism to be implemented, and it wasn't done well.

Rhythm said:

I think the only reason we aren't is because of the negative connotation it earned so quickly. If I'm not mistaken, Communism was one of the first variants of Socialism to be implemented, and it wasn't done well.

Click to expand...

That's because they didn't stick to Karl Marx's plan. Stalin implemented a state system that was not Socialist, nor Communist. It was an abusive system used against the workers.
Trotsky on the other hand, stuck somewhat to the plan and was able to implement a strong socialist system that stuck for a bit.

ttomthebomb said:

Rhythm said:

I think the only reason we aren't is because of the negative connotation it earned so quickly. If I'm not mistaken, Communism was one of the first variants of Socialism to be implemented, and it wasn't done well.

Click to expand...

That's because they didn't stick to Karl Marx's plan. Stalin implemented a state system that was not Socialist, nor Communist. It was an abusive system used against the workers.
Trotsky on the other hand, stuck somewhat to the plan and was able to implement a strong socialist system that stuck for a bit.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't know of Trotsky's government or how it was run, (I'll look it up after I'm done posting) but Stalin was simply corrupt.

Rhythm said:

ttomthebomb said:

Rhythm said:

I think the only reason we aren't is because of the negative connotation it earned so quickly. If I'm not mistaken, Communism was one of the first variants of Socialism to be implemented, and it wasn't done well.

Click to expand...

That's because they didn't stick to Karl Marx's plan. Stalin implemented a state system that was not Socialist, nor Communist. It was an abusive system used against the workers.
Trotsky on the other hand, stuck somewhat to the plan and was able to implement a strong socialist system that stuck for a bit.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't know of Trotsky's government or how it was run, (I'll look it up after I'm done posting) but Stalin was simply corrupt.

Click to expand...

It wasn't actually "Trotsky" who rose to power, it was people who believed in what he did that formed Trotskyism. I'd give it a nice read, seemed to be the better of the Soviet's political systems.

ttomthebomb said:

Rhythm said:

ttomthebomb said:

Rhythm said:

I think the only reason we aren't is because of the negative connotation it earned so quickly. If I'm not mistaken, Communism was one of the first variants of Socialism to be implemented, and it wasn't done well.

Click to expand...

That's because they didn't stick to Karl Marx's plan. Stalin implemented a state system that was not Socialist, nor Communist. It was an abusive system used against the workers.
Trotsky on the other hand, stuck somewhat to the plan and was able to implement a strong socialist system that stuck for a bit.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't know of Trotsky's government or how it was run, (I'll look it up after I'm done posting) but Stalin was simply corrupt.

Click to expand...

It wasn't actually "Trotsky" who rose to power, it was people who believed in what he did that formed Trotskyism. I'd give it a nice read, seemed to be the better of the Soviet's political systems.

Click to expand...

A quick read confirms this. I like the idea that he didn't believe in a multi-step process, everything could be done with, "permanent revolution."