SOCIALISM CONFUSION!!!!!!

Wow I've been hearing so many good sides about socialism and bad sides about socialism I get confused

Is socialism just a fake government that supposedly people are the power but elites are still in control? but wealth is distributed semi-evenly?but everything is nationalized right? and what types of socialism are there?

ahh confused.

state socialist
Democratic socialism
Fabian Society(reminds me of Obama)

Killuminati wrote:

Wow I've been hearing so many good sides about socialism and bad sides about socialism I get confused

Is socialism just a fake government that supposedly people are the power but elites are still in control? but wealth is distributed semi-evenly?but everything is nationalized right? and what types of socialism are there?

ahh confused.

state socialist
Democratic socialism
Fabian Society(reminds me of Obama)

Okay, there are many different types of socialism.

Usually, Marxism is what is what people refer to when saying "socialism", although there could even be anarchist socialists.
Marxism argues that class struggle is the basic agency of historical change, and that capitalism will be superseded by (state) "communism". A government redistributes land.

There's autonomism, which I like. Autonomism refers to a set of left-wing political and social movements and theories close to the socialist movement. Autonomism (autonomia) emerged in Italy in the 1960s from workerist (operaismo) communism. Later, post-Marxist and anarchist tendencies became significant after influence from the Situationists. So it's like state socialism, but you can "live by your own rules" (not completely true).

Democratic Socialism is generally state socialism which you elect into office (versus revolution). Sweden is democratic socialist.

There's so much more.

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS STATE SOCIALISM.


There are types of socialism that do not require a state.

Anarcho communism, anarcho syndicalism, etc.



My post was sloppy as hell, so anyone can edit it or add on in another post.

sure, sure, i want to add that i usually see the typical "state socialism with the intent of transitioning to communism" as being a state where the people elect representatives on a local level who can be pulled back immediately, and the people also vote for representatives in the larger, national congress, where people can be pulled back immediately...like the soviets, except none of that nonesense where the soviets elect larger soviets....think articles of confederation type of weak national government, and the retained power of the masses to overthrow the government....as those who have studied colonial to early american history recently or in the past know, this lead to the united states, a definite departure from its originally fairly libertarian tendencies (all this emphasis on state power, i like to think, as opposed to national power, was because people could control the states easily compared to an arbitrary national government)

so yeah...while the socialist stage in communist theory's intended purpose is to reallocate state capital to the masses in preparation of the communist stage, it endangers the entire movement by creating an overreaching government that people have no control over...

that's just how i see it, anyway -_- tell me when it started getting confusing, i'm tired lol

solpacvoicis wrote:

sure, sure, i want to add that i usually see the typical "state socialism with the intent of transitioning to communism" as being a state where the people elect representatives on a local level who can be pulled back immediately, and the people also vote for representatives in the larger, national congress, where people can be pulled back immediately...like the soviets, except none of that nonesense where the soviets elect larger soviets....think articles of confederation type of weak national government, and the retained power of the masses to overthrow the government....as those who have studied colonial to early american history recently or in the past know, this lead to the united states, a definite departure from its originally fairly libertarian tendencies (all this emphasis on state power, i like to think, as opposed to national power, was because people could control the states easily compared to an arbitrary national government)

so yeah...while the socialist stage in communist theory's intended purpose is to reallocate state capital to the masses in preparation of the communist stage, it endangers the entire movement by creating an overreaching government that people have no control over...

that's just how i see it, anyway -_- tell me when it started getting confusing, i'm tired lol

I'm tired as well. What you said seems to be 100% correct although if you were to see the said representatives, they would not truly represent the people. This has little to do with socialism, I had always disliked how a rich, white man in the suit with >his< own agenda 'represented' me as well as others.

I think they both summed it up nicely.
Marxist Socialism = Bad
Democratic Socialism = Good(Well anarchists probably don't like it)
etc etc

Rename wrote:

I think they both summed it up nicely.
Marxist Socialism = Bad
Democratic Socialism = Good(Well anarchists probably don't like it)
etc etc

Not at all, many democratic socialists are Marxists..

KenCat wrote:

Not at all, many democratic socialists are Marxists..

Falsely..democratic socialism is capitalism where you elect officials and have police, etc, its just a more-fair way with better health-care and that. It's somewhat hard to hate capitalism and be a democratic socialist, democractic socialism is kind-of like reform just a higher process of it.

when referring to democratic socialist countries today, you usually mean a reformed capitalist state, that would not be possible without their large accumulation of capital over the years (by sucking out the life, culture, and natural resources of other nations...)....in actuality...the very concept of socialism (that of a planned economy (or gift economy, or variation thereof) where the people who live in a region have control of the capital of that region) is incompatible with anything EXCEPT democracy

and marxist socialism is what i was describing....i honestly believe that that was the intention, the creation of a pseudo-state (or attempt at such) because they didn't have a solution for the appropriation of the newly public capital...

actually, the USSR (and other subsequent states that went along with the rigid governments of stalinism) were practicing, trotskyist beliefs aside, state capitalism. the state bureaucrats had full control of the capital of the USSR, instead of private business, but the people had no say as to who should be a state bureaucrats....

when people say "state socialism", they SHOULD say "state capitalism" (or deformed workers state -_- but whatever), since this is FAR more accurate.

without democracy, there is no socialism.

as to whether or not a truly socialist state is necessary or even feasible is another matter entirely. (i think its feasible, for at least a few years, but not necessary, and far too dangerous, as it can easily slip back into capitalism)

Rename wrote:

KenCat wrote:

Not at all, many democratic socialists are Marxists..

Falsely..democratic socialism is capitalism where you elect officials and have police, etc, its just a more-fair way with better health-care and that. It's somewhat hard to hate capitalism and be a democratic socialist, democractic socialism is kind-of like reform just a higher process of it.

No, democratic socialists are democratic socialists.
There are those who CALL themselves democratic socialists who are attempting to reform capitalism.

solpacvoicis wrote:

sure, sure, i want to add that i usually see the typical "state socialism with the intent of transitioning to communism" as being a state where the people elect representatives on a local level who can be pulled back immediately, and the people also vote for representatives in the larger, national congress, where people can be pulled back immediately...like the soviets, except none of that nonesense where the soviets elect larger soviets....think articles of confederation type of weak national government, and the retained power of the masses to overthrow the government....as those who have studied colonial to early american history recently or in the past know, this lead to the united states, a definite departure from its originally fairly libertarian tendencies (all this emphasis on state power, i like to think, as opposed to national power, was because people could control the states easily compared to an arbitrary national government)

so yeah...while the socialist stage in communist theory's intended purpose is to reallocate state capital to the masses in preparation of the communist stage, it endangers the entire movement by creating an overreaching government that people have no control over...

that's just how i see it, anyway -_- tell me when it started getting confusing, i'm tired lol

Yes they did do that in Russia and it worked but they had party leaders and you know what happen to leaders when there party wins.and I agree with your reallocate state capital to the masses is a bad idea

Also the idea thaty you can pull your delegate/representatiev immediately out of their position is very goood unlike in U.S. where you have to wait till their time frame is done

Isaiah wrote:

Yes they did do that in Russia and it worked but they had party leaders and you know what happen to leaders when there party wins.and I agree with your reallocate state capital to the masses is a bad idea

Also the idea thaty you can pull your delegate/representatiev immediately out of their position is very goood unlike in U.S. where you have to wait till their time frame is done

actually, in the u.s., you can pull back any representative, unless they revoked that right from the progressive time period - its just not ever practiced, because of the serious stigma attached to it (and a host of other reasons, but that's the primary one that comes to my mind currently)

and while being able to pull back a representative is fantastic - that's still a representative, pretending to be able to "represent the ideas/beliefs/etc of the area they were elected to represent"...which...isn't possible

delegates are great though, they HALF to act on your behalf, otherwise they get kicked out (should be rotated anyway, lol, but someone who is a delegate and does something against what they were sent to do probably shouldn't go again)...also, the idea that these delegates should be sent with the proposals agreed upon with either a majority of consensus to whatever body of delegates and then come back to have people vote on whether or not they approve of the tentative law...and go back and forth until either a law is established or isn't....that concept seems like a good idea to me (i hope i communicated that effectively)

solpacvoicis wrote:

Isaiah wrote:

Yes they did do that in Russia and it worked but they had party leaders and you know what happen to leaders when there party wins.and I agree with your reallocate state capital to the masses is a bad idea

Also the idea thaty you can pull your delegate/representatiev immediately out of their position is very goood unlike in U.S. where you have to wait till their time frame is done

actually, in the u.s., you can pull back any representative, unless they revoked that right from the progressive time period - its just not ever practiced, because of the serious stigma attached to it (and a host of other reasons, but that's the primary one that comes to my mind currently)

and while being able to pull back a representative is fantastic - that's still a representative, pretending to be able to "represent the ideas/beliefs/etc of the area they were elected to represent"...which...isn't possible

delegates are great though, they HALF to act on your behalf, otherwise they get kicked out (should be rotated anyway, lol, but someone who is a delegate and does something against what they were sent to do probably shouldn't go again)...also, the idea that these delegates should be sent with the proposals agreed upon with either a majority of consensus to whatever body of delegates and then come back to have people vote on whether or not they approve of the tentative law...and go back and forth until either a law is established or isn't....that concept seems like a good idea to me (i hope i communicated that effectively)

Yes the law says you can but does anyone ever do it they try to pass a legislation to impeach Bush and Nancy Pelosi wouldn't even sign it THERE ALL CROOKED the american people have know power Bush has a 24% approval rating but doesn't even get impeached or closely! Council Communism is one of the best ways to overthrow capitalism in my opinion and through it you can abolish the state also

like i said, there is a hell of a lot of stigma attached to it lol

and i agree ^_^