Differences of socialism(s)?

[Legendary Apophis]

[spoiler][/spoiler]

Hard to tell, mustache, arm up, cult of personality, totalitarianism, tens of millions of deaths...

Differences? Hmm I can see two: -one is seen by most as the absolute evil while the other as a liberator.
I don't share the opinion about the other dude.
-one is on the defeat side the other on the victory side.

[[KMA]Avenger]

When you look at the core beliefs, both believe in centralised power and both have (and continue to) caused the deaths of 10 of millions of their own people as well as foreigners. though i'd have to say that Mao Tse-tung (or Zedong) killed more people than the other 2 combined. point being for the communist i would use Mao instead of Stalin.

So the details don't really matter in my opinion as both believe in the same thing, the difference being how they get there....if i understand the topic correctly Jim?

[Legendary Apophis]

When you look at the core beliefs, both believe in centralised power and both have (and continue to) caused the deaths of 10 of millions of their own people as well as foreigners. though i'd have to say that Mao Tse-tung (or Zedong) killed more people than the other 2 combined. point being for the communist i would use Mao instead of Stalin.

So the details don't really matter in my opinion as both believe in the same thing, the difference being how they get there....if i understand the topic correctly Jim?

That's more or less that yes.

I know Mao did even worse, but I didn't create this image and thus my observation Mao should have been picked instead would require me to do myself another image.
Picking Mao as example reminds me about the story of one stupid french mayor who before his death, ordered in the city of Montpellier (not the US city, the French one) to have statues built in the honor of "Great Men" of XXth century (you had people who deserved it like Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Charles De Gaulle, Nelson Mandela), among which two people hadn't -in my opinion, I'll explain why later- their place: Lenin and Mao. Hypocrisy went as far as avoiding the addition of these: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco,...because these had simply "too bad reputation", however I don't think Mao -or Lenin, except of course within communist parties- has a much better reputation but well, this mayor was an utter idiot.

[[KMA]Avenger]

I know Mao did even worse, but I didn't create this image and thus my observation Mao should have been picked instead would require me to do myself another image.

No, i know that, i was speaking generally

Picking Mao as example reminds me about the story of one stupid french mayor who before his death, ordered in the city of Montpellier (not the US city, the French one) to have statues built in the honor of "Great Men" of XXth century (you had people who deserved it like Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Charles De Gaulle, Nelson Mandela), among which two people hadn't -in my opinion, I'll explain why later- their place: Lenin and Mao. Hypocrisy went as far as avoiding the addition of these: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco,...because these had simply "too bad reputation", however I don't think Mao -or Lenin, except of course within communist parties- has a much better reputation but well, this mayor was an utter idiot.

Sadly, stupidity in public office is all to common these days.


On a side note, Winston Churchill was a murderer, warmonger and a paedophile who used to fly to Morocco to bugger little boys. his father was also a monster: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/jackther ... ul11.shtml


http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2012/10/eli ... 57584.html

[Sylus]

It always bothers me that no one actually understands what socialism is, and more to the point, they don't understand communism either, making them awkwardly use Communism and Socialism interchangeably as if they're the same thing.

I am someone who strongly believes that socialism is the most benevolent political ideology ever conceived, I think the Western world is in dire need of socialist policy.

In terms of what is being discussed I would argue that totalitarianism cannot also be socialist. Nor can facism. Ever. They are polar opposites. In saying this I also contend (as does the vast majority of literature) that there has NEVER been a socialist government.

In terms of this thread, you are arguing the negatives of a totalitarian regime pretending to be socialist in the face of a cold war bipolar context, and not defining what you believe socialism is.

The Soviet Union had built their self proclaimed socialist society from the 19th century ideals of the common ownership of production and distribution, democratic management and universal equality.

The problem is how to implement these policies, some socialist commentators argue for state control (Stalin himself stated this was his aim many times), whilst others argue against this.

The central authority approach unfortunately undermines peripheral socialist ideals, namely the concept that the state and the political sphere is to be absorbed by the social sphere (this is what Marx always argues was central to the physical manifestation of socialism - or Utopian socialism as it is often termed now).

In a practical sense, Stalin did arguably make some socialist-esque reforms: Soviet Union constitution in 1936. The new constitution promised full democratic rights to the people, equality in the eyes of the law, freedom of association and freedom of press as well as the protection and inviolability of privacy in the home and mail. (But in making this argument, he and the state completely disregarded it as soon as it was adopted).

But the biggest prohibiting factor within the USSR was the fact that it needed to achieve rapid industrialisation, and do this without both west assistance, and western models of achieving it. If you're not aware, the vast majority of socialist literature contend that industrialisation is a necessary precursor of achieving a socialist state. Stalin sought to achieve this through collectivisation and the state planned economy (which he succeeded in doing).

The immediate issue with an end justifying the means argument is that it largely violates the tenets of socialism. How can a social system that advocates equality, democratic management, and common ownership be obtained through dictatorial force and coercion? It cannot.

Additionally, in comparing collectivism with socialism, they do share links, but what prevents Soviet collectivism from ever conforming to any socialist ideal was the fact that the farmers never had control over their respective collectivist farms; where socialism contends, in almost every interpretation, that the means of production must be controlled democratically by those involved. This never happened.

[[KMA]Avenger]

Ob boy! someone's been brainwashed!

[Legendary Apophis]

It always bothers me that no one actually understands what socialism is, and more to the point, they don't understand communism either, making them awkwardly use Communism and Socialism interchangeably as if they're the same thing.

I am someone who strongly believes that socialism is the most benevolent political ideology ever conceived, I think the Western world is in dire need of socialist policy.

In terms of what is being discussed I would argue that totalitarianism cannot also be socialist. Nor can facism. Ever. They are polar opposites. In saying this I also contend (as does the vast majority of literature) that there has NEVER been a socialist government.

In terms of this thread, you are arguing the negatives of a totalitarian regime pretending to be socialist in the face of a cold war bipolar context, and not defining what you believe socialism is.

The Soviet Union had built their self proclaimed socialist society from the 19th century ideals of the common ownership of production and distribution, democratic management and universal equality.

The problem is how to implement these policies, some socialist commentators argue for state control (Stalin himself stated this was his aim many times), whilst others argue against this.

The central authority approach unfortunately undermines peripheral socialist ideals, namely the concept that the state and the political sphere is to be absorbed by the social sphere (this is what Marx always argues was central to the physical manifestation of socialism - or Utopian socialism as it is often termed now).

In a practical sense, Stalin did arguably make some socialist-esque reforms: Soviet Union constitution in 1936. The new constitution promised full democratic rights to the people, equality in the eyes of the law, freedom of association and freedom of press as well as the protection and inviolability of privacy in the home and mail. (But in making this argument, he and the state completely disregarded it as soon as it was adopted).

But the biggest prohibiting factor within the USSR was the fact that it needed to achieve rapid industrialisation, and do this without both west assistance, and western models of achieving it. If you're not aware, the vast majority of socialist literature contend that industrialisation is a necessary precursor of achieving a socialist state. Stalin sought to achieve this through collectivisation and the state planned economy (which he succeeded in doing).

The immediate issue with an end justifying the means argument is that it largely violates the tenets of socialism. How can a social system that advocates equality, democratic management, and common ownership be obtained through dictatorial force and coercion? It cannot.

Additionally, in comparing collectivism with socialism, they do share links, but what prevents Soviet collectivism from ever conforming to any socialist ideal was the fact that the farmers never had control over their respective collectivist farms; where socialism contends, in almost every interpretation, that the means of production must be controlled democratically by those involved. This never happened.

France has a "socialist" president since May 2012 (sure, not exactly the same as the totalitarian regimes, more likely a mix with socio-democracy) and all he's doing is tax tax tax, remove -good- reforms of the previous government and propose liberal nonsense laws mixed with outdated and counterproductive ideas. He's also applying the unique way to think of the "almighty political correctness".
In short, he's trying to turn France into another Greece economically speaking...and a not-free nation dominated by liberal political correctness nonsense. The so called "progress".

Socialism is a silly ideology that when applied, either you get a dictatorship, or you have a government obsessed with its ideology and heavily taxing everyone in the name of "fair state" while giving unfair advantages to those who never did anything and probably never will, realism is the last of their concern. When socialism is democratic, better run if you don't want to have all your money taxed more and more to keep the big state machine going to fund public sectors and public employments and also such stupid things as 100% free healthcare for illegal immigrants (nobody else has 100% free healthcare but them, thank you socialists for such double nonsense! ). Nothing can beat a socialist government when it's about taxes!

[Sylus]

Ob boy! someone's been brainwashed!

Amazing input guy.

Socialism is a silly ideology that when applied, either you get a dictatorship, or you have a government obsessed with its ideology and heavily taxing everyone in the name of "fair state" while giving unfair advantages to those who never did anything and probably never will, realism is the last of their concern. When socialism is democratic, better run if you don't want to have all your money taxed more and more to keep the big state machine going to fund public sectors and public employments and also such stupid things as 100% free healthcare for illegal immigrants (nobody else has 100% free healthcare but them, thank you socialists for such double nonsense! ). Nothing can beat a socialist government when it's about taxes!

I don't think you actually get what socialism is. And to be fair, a single leader who identifies with a specific field of thought does not then imply all his policies relate to that school.

Case and point, India's first Prime Minister (Nehru) was a socialist, but he never implemented socialism.

I need you to define what you think Socialism is, and I'll go from there.

[[KMA]Avenger]

Ob boy! someone's been brainwashed!

Amazing input guy.

Socialism is a silly ideology that when applied, either you get a dictatorship, or you have a government obsessed with its ideology and heavily taxing everyone in the name of "fair state" while giving unfair advantages to those who never did anything and probably never will, realism is the last of their concern. When socialism is democratic, better run if you don't want to have all your money taxed more and more to keep the big state machine going to fund public sectors and public employments and also such stupid things as 100% free healthcare for illegal immigrants (nobody else has 100% free healthcare but them, thank you socialists for such double nonsense! ). Nothing can beat a socialist government when it's about taxes!

I don't think you actually get what socialism is. And to be fair, a single leader who identifies with a specific field of thought does not then imply all his policies relate to that school.

Case and point, India's first Prime Minister (Nehru) was a socialist, but he never implemented socialism.

I need you to define what you think Socialism is, and I'll go from there.

I just couldnt be bothered to reply to such utter rubbish. besides, Jim saved me the job.

What Jim was trying to say and what anybody who professes to know about all the "isms" should know is that socialism is based on wealth distribution and to have that you need a powerful centralised Govt otherwise people will reject it outright. if a govt is hell-bent on being socialist they will need to force the people to accept it. so what's the difference between communism, socialism and nazism...not a damned thing since the people will be forced to accept things from a centralised govt regardless of the name.

Now, try and force me to share my wealth and i will defend my family, myself and my possessions...that does not mean everybody should do the same and to hell with those who incapable (medical reasons and the like) of looking after themselves. we all have a moral duty to help and support those who need it. the rest can either find a way to provide for them,selves or starve. but i will not do is share my wealth with lazy bums.

[Sylus]

I just couldnt be bothered to reply to such utter rubbish. besides, Jim saved me the job.

Wow. Just for fun, I am going to mimic your post style.

What Jim was trying to say and what anybody who professes to know about all the "isms" should know is that socialism is based on wealth distribution and to have that you need a powerful centralised Govt otherwise people will reject it outright. if a govt is hell-bent on being socialist they will need to force the people to accept it. so what's the difference between communism, socialism and nazism...not a damned thing since the people will be forced to accept things from a centralised govt regardless of the name.

What's the difference between socialism and nazism, and socialism and communism? Are you serious?

Comparing Nazism with socialism should suggest I don't even bother replying to this at all, seeing that you're obviously one of those opinionated retards that compares everything to nazism.

Let me guess, you did a single highschool history class, and thought "YEP. GOT THIS STUFF DOWN! DON'T EVEN NEED TO READ MORE BROADLY! HITLER AND STALIN CREATED SOCIALISM. WHO'S THIS MARX GUY!?"

Define socialism. Yes, it is one part wealth distribution. ONE PART. What else defines socialism? How does it relate to communism?

HERE'S A HINT: THE NAME IMPLIES KEY ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY
(bonus points if you look anywhere other than wiki or random unsourced webpages to define YOUR socialism - I say your socialism, because it is abundantly clear you define it disregarding every other acceptable theory on the subject)

Now, try and force me to share my wealth and i will defend my family, myself and my possessions...that does not mean everybody should do the same and to hell with those who incapable (medical reasons and the like) of looking after themselves. we all have a moral duty to help and support those who need it. the rest can either find a way to provide for them,selves or starve. but i will not do is share my wealth with lazy bums.

This paragraph is hilarious. Just. Slow clap hilarious. You sound like someone who'd fit right in during the coldwar era. "THOSE REDS ARE TRYING TO TAKE MY DEMOCRACY!"
http://youtu.be/768h3Tz4Qik

So. By your own reasoning, you're against any form of government assistance that doesn't conform to your "incapable" label?

Government assisted child care. Student loans. Unemployment benefits. Medicare.

Your tax dollars shouldn't go anywhere but what benefits you and your family personally!

But your argument doesn't stop there.

You'd be against any form of assistance that would try and uplift people in lower socio economic situations. They're own fault right? I mean, not your fault refugees flee oppression, but you certainly shouldn't have to put up anyone speaking a language other than your own in your own country. I mean. It's your country right? And it's your money! Hell, you shouldn't even pay taxes! All taxes do is go lazy worthless people that you'd rather see exterminated!

I mean, what possible benefit is there for trying to eradicate poverty, famine, disease. None. Fix it yourselves!

Let's bring those uneducated, uncivilised, barbarians democracy and capitalism at the end of a gun barrel. THEY NEED IT! THEY JUST DON'T KNOW IT! AMIRITE? Britain was right with imperial colonisation. Africa, the middle east, asia. They all profoundly improved in the wake of colonisation. I mean, that's why decolonisation is always spoken about so positively. I mean, it's not like the vast majority of dictatorships in history appeared in the wake of colonialism right?

[Stickm@n]

Keep it clean. Just remember, personal attacks are not tolerated.

[[KMA]Avenger]

I just couldnt be bothered to reply to such utter rubbish. besides, Jim saved me the job.

Wow. Just for fun, I am going to mimic your post style.

What Jim was trying to say and what anybody who professes to know about all the "isms" should know is that socialism is based on wealth distribution and to have that you need a powerful centralised Govt otherwise people will reject it outright. if a govt is hell-bent on being socialist they will need to force the people to accept it. so what's the difference between communism, socialism and nazism...not a damned thing since the people will be forced to accept things from a centralised govt regardless of the name.

What's the difference between socialism and nazism, and socialism and communism? Are you serious?

Comparing Nazism with socialism should suggest I don't even bother replying to this at all, seeing that you're obviously one of those opinionated retards that compares everything to nazism.

Let me guess, you did a single highschool history class, and thought "YEP. GOT THIS STUFF DOWN! DON'T EVEN NEED TO READ MORE BROADLY! HITLER AND STALIN CREATED SOCIALISM. WHO'S THIS MARX GUY!?"

Define socialism. Yes, it is one part wealth distribution. ONE PART. What else defines socialism? How does it relate to communism?

HERE'S A HINT: THE NAME IMPLIES KEY ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY
(bonus points if you look anywhere other than wiki or random unsourced webpages to define YOUR socialism - I say your socialism, because it is abundantly clear you define it disregarding every other acceptable theory on the subject)

Now, try and force me to share my wealth and i will defend my family, myself and my possessions...that does not mean everybody should do the same and to hell with those who incapable (medical reasons and the like) of looking after themselves. we all have a moral duty to help and support those who need it. the rest can either find a way to provide for them,selves or starve. but i will not do is share my wealth with lazy bums.

This paragraph is hilarious. Just. Slow clap hilarious. You sound like someone who'd fit right in during the coldwar era. "THOSE REDS ARE TRYING TO TAKE MY DEMOCRACY!"
http://youtu.be/768h3Tz4Qik

So. By your own reasoning, you're against any form of government assistance that doesn't conform to your "incapable" label?

Government assisted child care. Student loans. Unemployment benefits. Medicare.

Your tax dollars shouldn't go anywhere but what benefits you and your family personally!

But your argument doesn't stop there.

You'd be against any form of assistance that would try and uplift people in lower socio economic situations. They're own fault right? I mean, not your fault refugees flee oppression, but you certainly shouldn't have to put up anyone speaking a language other than your own in your own country. I mean. It's your country right? And it's your money! Hell, you shouldn't even pay taxes! All taxes do is go lazy worthless people that you'd rather see exterminated!

I mean, what possible benefit is there for trying to eradicate poverty, famine, disease. None. Fix it yourselves!

Let's bring those uneducated, uncivilised, barbarians democracy and capitalism at the end of a gun barrel. THEY NEED IT! THEY JUST DON'T KNOW IT! AMIRITE? Britain was right with imperial colonisation. Africa, the middle east, asia. They all profoundly improved in the wake of colonisation. I mean, that's why decolonisation is always spoken about so positively. I mean, it's not like the vast majority of dictatorships in history appeared in the wake of colonialism right?

You have absolutely no understanding of what i am talking about


I'm going on holiday shortly so this will be brief...

Firstly, your assumption that taxes should remain shows just how little you know. let me enlighten you, taxes in their current form are extracted from us with force by a govt that will punish and if needs be imprison you for failure to pay-up. they do this for 1 simple reason, our govts (every nation that has a central bank is guilty of this) handed the wealth of our nations to private bankers who in turn charge us interest for the privilege of using their money. this needs to stop and the power to issue currency needs to return to the govt and the people. currency has zero value, it is simply a means of exchange to allow us all to engage in commerce. it's either that or we go back to bartering which in today's world is impractical and unworkable.

Firstly correct the above situation then you can talk about our moral and civil/social duties, otherwise you are just spitting into the wind.

[Sylus]

I was obviously too subtle. So here we go.

I have zero interpersonal skills and zero debate skills. All I do is aggressively, dismissively, and obnoxiously belittle someone with a different point of view.

I failed to disclose any definition of socialism. And subsequently condemn it.

I failed to respond reasonably to any of the points Sylus raised.

I failed to understand the 'reductio ad absurdum' tactic used against me, and subsequently charged head long in.

I contend that taxes are taken by force for no reason other than debt management. I demonstrate that I have absolutely zero understanding of: Education, Policing, Judicial Systems, Prisons, Health and Welfare, Infrastructure, Transport, Environmental Management, Essential Services, Defence, Foreign Affairs, Trade, Immigration, Housing and Planning, the list goes on, but whatever it is, I assume that it's free, and I get zero benefit from any of them.

I have completely missed the point, and written some conspiratorial rant about how the convenience of currency in a globalised market has been the sole intention of a 3rd party to do a disservice to the world. And this is why socialism is wrong...probably.

I do all this with a straight face.

Edit: For the Mods, I was happy to discuss this civilly. This is in no way a personal attack. I am simply imitating the diatribe being thrown at me. There's only so much belittling I can take in the "General Intelligent Discussion" forum.

[Teus]

Firstly correct the above situation then you can talk about our moral and civil/social duties, otherwise you are just spitting into the wind.

So before you give a response towards your idea of what socialism is, Sylus need to change the entire world economic system?

Do you not have an idea of what it is before that happens?

[[KMA]Avenger]

Back from Holiday


In response to Sylus and Teus, i did state that the "core" of all these "isms" is the same, i never stated any more than that. that being said, the core of all these "isms" is force, how does that make communism, socialism and Nazism as well as democracy any different from each other?
If i fail to pay my taxes, i can go to prison in a democracy, if i did the same in communism, socialism or Nazism, would they take me by the hand and carefully explain why i should pay my taxes? the rest is all details and doesn't matter. the fact they will use force (yes they all have their own levels of said force, but it is still force) is all that matters because as i had stated above and have restated in this post, i was talking about the cores of these systems.


On to socialism, so you socialists want to take the planets resources and divide it all up equally amongst the people...please explain how this can be done in a fair to all-way and without force.

IMHO, what socialist fail to understand is that the planets resources already belong to us all, we don't need a centralised bunch of morons interested in their own political power to tell me what i can and cannot keep, how much i can have and who i have to share with.

So before you give a response towards your idea of what socialism is, Sylus need to change the entire world economic system?

Did i say it was a problem for Sylus to go out and fix for all of us? no, it's all our problem because we all allow it to continue.

The bottom line is this, Sylus suggested socialism would be far better than what we have today, but does Sylus understand what the problem is before suggesting socialism would fix the worlds problems?

Suggesting ANY form of Govt and political change you have to understand the problem otherwise you are wasting your time. to use an analogy, that's like having a problem with your cars engine but you are fixated on the problem being the wheel nut on the rear passenger wheel instead of looking under the bonnet (hood, for you yanks ).


Edit, as for what i said about people being put back to work, i was talking about able bodied people, do i really have to explain what an able bodied person is?

I thought i had made myself understood there...obviously i was mistaken