Soviet cogitations: 9
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Oct 2012, 04:30 New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
In theory and practice or reality?
What is the economic system that is associated with it? Are any of these political systems compatible with each other? Are these strictly political systems? Does the political system form the economic system?
Soviet cogitations: 3875
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Politburo
Really? Do you have to ask this here??
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21 Party Bureaucrat
I don't understand why some people voted "socialism" instead of "communism".
![]() "Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred "Loz, you are like me" Yami "I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
i think that if we the communist fall for the capitalist propaganda ''socialism = different system from communism '' then don't expect much
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37 Party Bureaucrat
In the end?
Anarchist communism. Soviet America is Free America!
Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo OP-Bagration wrote: Because any talk of Communism is far too speculative to be useful when answering questions such as this. For Marxists, Communism is the ultimate goal of course, but Socialism is the more immediate goal. Fellow Comrade wrote: Sounds like an excuse to keep capitalism. I have a feeling you're combining the DOTP and socialism. There isn't much of a difference from socialism and communism, they are both stateless and lack private property. Socialism, the lower form of communism, is part of the end goal. ![]()
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37 Party Bureaucrat
Traditionally, "socialism" is the period of intensified class struggle after a revolution/change over.
That being said, in modern parlance, socialism has come to mean "socialist influenced" so I am thinking it may be a useful distinction. Soviet America is Free America!
Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21 Party Bureaucrat
The question is very simple. There is no possibility to answer socialism. There is no discussion there.
Socialism will only benefit to the proletariat, and especially to those who, among the proletariat, are willing to work. In a socialist society, there is still some inequalities, and some remnants of the old society. Therefore, the socialist society can't benefit to everyone. A socialist society isn't stateless. On the contrary, in a communist society, there is no capitalism, no classes, no inequalities. Therefore Communism benefits to all. And what's nazism doing there? Who answered nazism? He should be shot. ![]() "Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred "Loz, you are like me" Yami "I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred silvermaster wrote: I believe that democracy, and socialism, are very much compatible. Per my definition, socialism is synonymous with economic democracy. I feel that the best social system would be a co-operative commonwealth. That's what I mean by democratic socialism. Not just a social market , but not state capitalism either. Conscript wrote: Very wrong. On so many levels. Please, re-read (or read first) the definition of SOCIALISM and then of COMMUNISM on some relevant site, ie Wikipedia. Tell me which country - according to you - was in communism in let's say 1985? Name 3, please. Then name 3 with socialism.
All i can say is...wtf?
EdvardK wrote: How? Marx and engels used the term interchangeably, and both lower and higher communism are stateless... Quote: I don't think I am the one that needs to do so. Quote: Wtf? Quote: None, and none. Also, a country doesn't just 'enter' communism/socialism. Not even glorious yugoslavia. Last edited by Conscript on 02 Jan 2013, 19:25, edited 1 time in total.
![]() Conscript wrote: So they are the ultimate authority on how to call regimes of Eastern Europe, being dead for 100 years at the time? That's what i call WTF! Conscript wrote: So, independent encyclopaedias are not relevant. I rest my case with you. Conscript wrote: Please, elaborate.
This is a really stupid discussion.
Quote: So you think warsaw pact countries deserve some special consideration, maybe a lazily crafted title of 'actually existing socialism', because they had a red flag and called their state capitalism 'socialism? This isn't a simple take on the definition of terms, you are breaking with historical materialism and a long held concept of what socialism/communism is and how it's achieved, if you want to argue the 'regimes of eastern europe' existed in something else other than capitalism. Quote: There is nothing independent about wikipedia, which doesn't even use marxist definitions, it is no different from peer-reviewed sources in the west. That is, anything can be claimed so long as there is evidence that supports it, because it is not about finding the truth, just regulating information posted. This is why some more dishonest work like conquest's black book of communism are accepted as an authority. Quote: Socialism is a world system, or at least holds most of the world's former capital. Otherwise the law of value applies and the 'socialism in one country' will remain in a phase of accumulation, like the rest of the capitalist world. Such conditions lead to a restoration of capitalism, if it isn't already signalled by the character of the party, in history the triumph of stalinists made it much more 'nationally-oriented' and rather corporatist, under the guise of socialism and national liberation. This is why yugoslav nostalgics and 'soviet patriots', aka stalinists, are such an anachronism. The system they fetishize only became relevant with the death of the revolution, and it was the burial of the coffin then. Socialism in one country, and its cousin the national liberation of yugoslav partisans, was a retreat, 'communists' became the left wing of capital, part of the same cloth as social democracy. And now, cretins today want to rebuild it, and a disturbing number of them use nationalist appeals to justify it. Also, I'm just going to leave this here. Quote: ![]() Conscript wrote: At least you named the regimes. Thank you. Conscript wrote: It's an imperialist-zionist conspiracy, yes? Conscript wrote: You prefer to disqualify that book rather than use arguments to debunk the alleged lies in them? Conscript wrote: Aha, so we're only philosophising about all this? I'm sorry. My bad. Conscript wrote: I hope you live a healthy life so you will be able to live to see that happen Our Sun will run out of fuel before that happens, comrade.
Most of your post is made up of non-arguments and I have cut them because there's nothing to reply to.
EdvardK wrote: You want me to engage conquest's work for you? Sorry I have much better things to do than read a hysteric propagandist's work. Even conquest's colleague's distance themselves from the book and the '100 million' fetish. Quote: Your impatience and selfishness doesn't change anything. ![]()
This will be a one-liner - wtf? Please, change your dealer and then we can discuss further.
Soviet cogitations: 8
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2013, 11:40 Ideology: Other New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!) OP-Bagration wrote: I vote was realistic. There never was communist country, yet, so I don't know how that would work out. I voted socialism because, socialism is for everyone, for all nationalities, races, classes etc. In socialist country like USSR, everything is owned by society. OP-Bagration wrote: He or she may have simply misunderstood, being unfamiliar with the term's historic use. It may have just sounded good, literally speaking, as even Mao Zedong could be considered a socialist with nationalistic patriotism and ideals! However, of course I'm not entirely certain why the option was included in the poll! I suppose silvermaster was just trying to list all the socialisms, and "national socialism" is technically socialistic, at least formally.
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21 Party Bureaucrat
Socialism is a society in which there is no private property of the means of production. In socialist countries there is no or little private property of the means of production. In the only so-called national-socialist country, Germany, and in all other fascist countries, private property of the means of production was the basis of the economy. During the 1930's, the government that had privatized the most in Europe was the Nazi government. Therefore, even formally, "national socialism" wasn't socialism, it was a capitalist dictatorship.
![]() "Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred "Loz, you are like me" Yami "I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||