Which Political System

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?

I don't understand why some people voted "socialism" instead of "communism".

i think that if we the communist fall for the capitalist propaganda ''socialism = different system from communism '' then don't expect much

In the end?

Anarchist communism.

OP-Bagration wrote:

I don't understand why some people voted "socialism" instead of "communism".

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

silvermaster wrote:

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?

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:

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.

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:

Very wrong. On so many levels.

How? Marx and engels used the term interchangeably, and both lower and higher communism are stateless...

Quote:

Please, re-read (or read first) the definition of SOCIALISM and then of COMMUNISM

I don't think I am the one that needs to do so.

Quote:

Wikipedia.

Wtf?

Quote:

Tell me which country - according to you - was in communism in let's say 1985? Name 3, please. Then name 3 with socialism.

None, and none. Also, a country doesn't just 'enter' communism/socialism. Not even glorious yugoslavia.

Conscript wrote:

All i can say is...wtf?
How? Marx and engels used the term interchangeably, and both lower and higher communism are stateless...

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:

Wikipedia.
Wtf?

So, independent encyclopaedias are not relevant. I rest my case with you.

Conscript wrote:

None, and none. Also, a country doesn't just 'enter' communism/socialism. Not even glorious yugoslavia.

Please, elaborate.

This is a really stupid discussion.

Quote:

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!

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:

So, independent encyclopaedias are not relevant. I rest my case with you.

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:

Please, elaborate.

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:

Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone? No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries—that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany. It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace. It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range." –Friedrich Engels, The Principles of Communism, 1847

Conscript wrote:

This is a really stupid discussion.
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?

At least you named the regimes. Thank you.

Conscript wrote:

There is nothing independent about wikipedia, which doesn't even use marxist definitions, it is no different from peer-reviewed sources in the west.

It's an imperialist-zionist conspiracy, yes?

Conscript wrote:

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.

You prefer to disqualify that book rather than use arguments to debunk the alleged lies in them?

Conscript wrote:

Socialism is a world system, or at least holds most of the world's former capital.

Aha, so we're only philosophising about all this? I'm sorry. My bad.

Conscript wrote:

Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone? No.

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 prefer to disqualify that book rather than use arguments to debunk the alleged lies in them?

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:

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.

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.

OP-Bagration wrote:

I don't understand why some people voted "socialism" instead of "communism".

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:

And what's nazism doing there? Who answered nazism? He should be shot.

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.

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.