Are there any modern Socialists?

plumjam said:
that wouldn't be Socialism, it would be Comeunism.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

1. Take a good long look at his nick.
2. It was a joke. A "little black book" is where you keep phone numbers for "booty calls." (And if I have to explain that one to you, you need to spend less time on the Internet.)
3. You're factually wrong, unless you don't think Mao Tse-Tung was a Communist.

Now, go, and sin no more.
 
No one has mentioned Noam Chomsky yet? He's the first name that came to my mind. He's written several books recently, though I believe he classifies himself as a Libertarian Socialist or a member of "anarcho-syndicalism".
 
You also might have more luck if you look for northern European writers. There's gotta be someone talking about what's going on in Scandanavia now, which is pretty close to this socialist views on how to run things.
 
Cleon said:
*sigh*

1. Take a good long look at his nick.
2. It was a joke. A "little black book" is where you keep phone numbers for "booty calls." (And if I have to explain that one to you, you need to spend less time on the Internet.)
3. You're factually wrong, unless you don't think Mao Tse-Tung was a Communist.

Now, go, and sin no more.
Click to expand...

Please go back and run your eyes over my reply once more. This time with your reading glasses on. :D
 
Sefarst said:
No one has mentioned Noam Chomsky yet? He's the first name that came to my mind. He's written several books recently, though I believe he classifies himself as a Libertarian Socialist or a member of "anarcho-syndicalism".
Click to expand...

Yeah, Chomsky is always worth listening to on politics. I didn't mention him because of, as you say, the whole anarcho-syndicalism thing. Not really a common or garden socialist as far as I could ever make out.
 
I guess I'm what you would call a democratic socialist, as I believe in capitalism and the pursuit of happiness and all that, but I'm not content with socialism stopping at the running of institutions. I believe in a society such as London, for instance, people should be bound to each other by more than just taxes.

Homelessness. I see it as a dramatic failure of capitalism and a frightening viciousness that proclaims that if the homeless simply motivated themself to find work, it would all be fine. In a time before mental illness, crack and heroin, that may have been a fine idea.

I'm a socialist in the sense that I believe a heavy investment should be put into projects that sustain society to the extent that its inhabitants can live fair lives of interaction. If you want to be left alone, move to the country.

IMO, people are too frightened of evolving a society that works as well as a human body. Because we see the frail nature of other humans and not their strengths, we see society as too much of a deck of cards.
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
Primarily, there aren't many socialist thinkers out there, which is kind of a shame.

Secondly, (WARNING: Rant ahead) the USSR was not socialist, nor was it communist. It cannot, in fact, have been Communist, because Communism is the goal, not the method.
Secondly, whatever they called themselves, that was not socialism. Socialism is not neccessarily as extreme as Marxism, and is definately not as extreme as Marxist Leninism or Stalinism. People who claim that they know Socialism is evil because of the Soviet Union do not tend to know what the difference is. This is not a personal failing, merely a lack of knowledge.

Socialism (when working within Capitalism) is the system whereby the government runs all the basic needs of the people, healthcare, transport etc. and controls some of the production facilities. This is a more lightweigt version really, but it's the one you most often hear about, since it's the one that has been included in a number of Western European countries in the form of a Labour Party. There's also a more forceful version, which is the one espoused by Marx, whereby the people (via the government) control ALL production equipment (the people's hammer etc.) and usethis control to ensure fair wages, good production and most of all, no shafting of the proles by the bourgeois and those above them. There are also a number of other additions thrown in.

Then you have the first major split from this trend. Marxist-Leninism. Lenin did not agree with Marx, and altered the docterine until it became almost unrecognisable. He instigated various degrees of force into his writing, and effectively created the idea of a strong leader to control from the top. He also removed most of the democracy from the system (at the time the proposed system) and this led to a split within the Communists in Russia. On one side, those who favoured Marxism (general democratic process within one party system, mobilisation of proles in order to move towards communism etc.) who were the Mensheviks, and those who favoured Leninism, the Bolsheviks.

After this split comes an even bigger one. The steady alteration from Leninism into Stalinism, which was not only controlling but positively oppressive and violent. More controls were added, and the last of the democracy was eliminated as the Gensek (General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party), a role empowered by Stalin, took total control of the state, with the rest of the party network effectively being left to run the system rather than discuss how it should be ran. (Rant over)

Appologies for the history lesson. I just can't help it some times. (I, by the way, am a Democratic Socialist. I believe in the first method mentioned above).
Click to expand...
Thanks Mark,

IMO, Lenin recognized a fatal flaw in Marxism. How does one achieve critical mass (my words) when it comes to implementing this type of economic system? How do you get sufficient numbers of people on board and focused to working for the good of everyone?

Lenin realized that a strong central authority would be necessary. He believed that efficiency would eventually lead to dissolving this power. Sadly his theory was also fatally flawed. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those with power are not likely to relinquish that power.

Finally, while it is accurate to point out that Marx's ideal has never been realized we have come to know governments like the People's Republic of China and the USSR as communist. That's the nature of the evolution of words.
 
I guess I'm what you would call a pragmatic realist. There is no ideal economic system or government or the combination of the two. Given human nature all systems are flawed. Please don't mistake this for cynicism. I'm not cynical at all. I'm an optimist. I just think we need to stop thinking in absolute terms of right and wrong. The trick is to understand the conflicting nature of humans and to put into place social and economic policies that are both robust and capable of change.

I don't see the point of being dogmatic about any ideology. The only thing I'm passionate about is Democracy governed as a republic with most of the standard libertarian civil and economic rights.

Economically I think a hybrid capitalist/socialist system works best. The question becomes then as to the ratio. I'm open.
 
Beerina said:
Comparing it directly might be a bit on the rude side, to be sure.

But it's worth noting that, if socialism slows technological development even just a little bit (say, 10-20%), after a century we'd have, for example, 1980 level technology in the year 2000.

Delta the difference in death rates due to medicine, medical machines, etc., and, well, I'll let you be the judge.

Basically it uses rhetoric to buy votes and please people now, at the cost of people's lives and healthiness down the road.

But the math cannot be avoided. It adds up.
Click to expand...

Well, which is better? Everyone has access to 1980s medicine, or 80% get access to 2000s medicine and the rest get nothing? If you are rich, American health care is the best in the world hands-down. If you are not rich, American healthcare can be pretty shoddy.

The wonderful scientific advancements in medicine are nice and all that, but if you don’t have access to them because of cost, what good do they do you?
 
I think the term 'communist' is perfectly acceptable as that is the primary goal, but all countries must pass through the rough transitional stage of 'socialism' to achieve it. There has been much dispute over what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" really means, however it seems to me that Lenin interpreted Marx correctly.

The fact of the matter is, that Stalin was a man of his time and the leftists just have to take it like it is. If one wishes to read some good Marxist literature, just check out Marxists Internet Archive.
 
RandFan said:
I guess I'm what you would call a pragmatic realist. There is no ideal economic system or government or the combination of the two. Given human nature all systems are flawed. Please don't mistake this for cynicism. I'm not cynical at all. I'm an optimist. I just think we need to stop thinking in absolute terms of right and wrong. The trick is to understand the conflicting nature of humans and to put into place social and economic policies that are both robust and capable of change.
Click to expand...

This is essentially the view I take. I don't really think I'm a politician, and although I would like to be commited to one particular ideal, I don't think I could do that.

Like you, the only thing I really believe in to my bones is democracy. I have no time for Islamism or Nationalism. If there was a 'pure democracy' party I'd probably join it. Want to start one up? :)

What I would campaign tirelessly against, if a real possibilty arose that it would gain a political majority, is libertarianism. I believe it would be a disaster for any country.
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Are there any modern Socialists?
Click to expand...

[OPINION]
1) Anyone who wants to take away part of my earnings, just to give them to someone else who did not earn them is a Socialist.

2) Any one who tries to refute the statement "What I earn is mine" is a Socialist.

3) Anyone who believes that I am responsible for the actions and misfortunes of people that I've never met or had authority over is a Socialist.

4) Anyone who wants, expects, or demands a handout from me is a Socialist.

5) Anyone who wants me to waive my civil rights in exchange for their "protection" (e.g., your friendly neighborhood committee) is a socialist.

6) Anyone who wants, expects, or demands that I give in to extortion by labor groups (i.e., AFL/CIO, IBEW, UAW, et cetera) is a Socialist.

7) Anyone who would prevent me from getting a job unless I first belong to their labor group is a Socialist.

And it does not matter to me if the "Anyone" I cited is an individual or group. And it certianly does not matter if they represent themselves or others, or if their interests are religious or secular.
[/OPINION]
 
So, Fnord, can we take it from that that you believe in zero taxation of any kind?
 
plumjam said:
So, Fnord, can we take it from that that you believe in zero taxation of any kind?
Click to expand...

No, I believe that a sliding scale is the "best" form of taxation, and that all forms of taxation are Socialist, thus...

[OPINION]
8) Anyone who supports taxation in any form is a Socialist (including me). So it seems that we can not escape Socialism and still expect to finance the running of a country.

9) Anyone who believes that I should lay the blame for my misfortunes or missed opportunities on any specific group (i.e. Athiests, Christians, Jews, et cetera) is a Socialist.
[/OPINION]
 
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus said:
This is essentially the view I take. I don't really think I'm a politician, and although I would like to be commited to one particular ideal, I don't think I could do that.

Like you, the only thing I really believe in to my bones is democracy. I have no time for Islamism or Nationalism. If there was a 'pure democracy' party I'd probably join it. Want to start one up? :)

What I would campaign tirelessly against, if a real possibilty arose that it would gain a political majority, is libertarianism. I believe it would be a disaster for any country.
Click to expand...
I do think that you and I are close in philosophy. However I suspect that I'm more libertarian and you are more socialist in our views. I'm not sure about strict libertarianism. I call myself libertarian because I like freedom but I'm not by any means strict libertarian. I'd like to see a pilot program somewhere.
 
Fair enough.
Though your definition of socialism is so wide-ranging that very few people would escape the label. Maybe only hermits living in the Rocky Mountains, or something. Unless that hermit asked you for a bite of your sandwich as you hiked past.
 
RandFan said:
I do think that you and I are close in philosophy. However I suspect that I'm more libertarian and you are more socialist in our views. I'm not sure about strict libertarianism. I call myself libertarian because I like freedom but I'm not by any means strict libertarian. I'd like to see a pilot program somewhere.
Click to expand...

I think I'm probably closer to the Labour Party UK in terms of philosophy (Although not at all happy with what they are up to now). For example, an area I differ strongly on philosophical grounds with conservatism is society as being an organic construct. Whilst I do not believe in revolutionary change, I do not believe it is organic, and change through institution rather than natural growth.

If I had to lay out my main priorities it would most likely be;

1: Freedom

In terms of freedom it would be secular democracy and freedom from capitalist power and capitalist abuse. Some libertarian values drop in, but certainly not the free market.

2: Justice


3: Solidarity


Which is really the social democratic viewpoint. It also shares the black movement's politics of the 20th century, in the degree of James Baldwin rather than Malcolm X.
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
[OPINION]
1) Anyone who wants to take away part of my earnings, just to give them to someone else who did not earn them is a Socialist.

2) Any one who tries to refute the statement "What I earn is mine" is a Socialist.

3) Anyone who believes that I am responsible for the actions and misfortunes of people that I've never met or had authority over is a Socialist.

4) Anyone who wants, expects, or demands a handout from me is a Socialist.

5) Anyone who wants me to waive my civil rights in exchange for their "protection" (e.g., your friendly neighborhood committee) is a socialist.

6) Anyone who wants, expects, or demands that I give in to extortion by labor groups (i.e., AFL/CIO, IBEW, UAW, et cetera) is a Socialist.

7) Anyone who would prevent me from getting a job unless I first belong to their labor group is a Socialist.

And it does not matter to me if the "Anyone" I cited is an individual or group. And it certianly does not matter if they represent themselves or others, or if their interests are religious or secular.
[/OPINION]
Click to expand...
Then it's my opinion that YOUR opinion is one of the biggest loads of rubbish I've read all year that wasn't intentionally rubbish. I mean good lord this is such a dramatic misrepresentation that deniers would be proud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom