Browsing this forum, I have seen a lot of anti-leftist statements that reek of ignorance, as well as a blind acceptance of Western "democracy" being a workable system. The truth is, it isn't. The answers to the world's problems require that the people themselves take charge of their affairs, that they establish socialism.
The communist movement may be in poor shape today, but it is still the progressive path. The other political movements attempt to prevent progression or regression, locking us in our current system, lead us back to the past, in some form or another, or are communism under a different name and unaware of the mountain of theory they have at their disposal and their allies across the world.
A socialist state is by definition democratic, which today's Parliamentarian-style "democracies" cannot boast. It will be unable to oppress the people, because everyone is involved, and has a quality education so that they can perform to their full potential. In an ideal socialist state, everyone has equal rewards and lives in comfort, without outstanding needs--the world has more than enough resources to provide for this if they are spent efficiently. Communism is a theoretical state beyond socialism, which will be completely different from our system today and involve people working purely for their own benefit, their needs being provided for by machines owned by a community. It will not be close to our day, though, so it is not relevent to contemporary discussion.
The problem is attaining socialism. Each part relies on the others for its stability, so it is hard to construct it from a system reliant on inequality. It is clear that Soviet-style communism, more accurately Stalinism, will not work. It failed to achieve true socialism every time it was instituted, though the Warsaw Pact countries were arguably more egalitarian and humanitarian places after the Krushchev thaws. This leaves two likely paths--a Trotskyist worldwide "Permanent Revolution" leading all countries to socialism from whatever stage they are in, or a democratic transition remniscient of that Allende backed in Chile.
Socialism is the rational extension of classical liberalism. All progress since the dark days of laissez-faire has been criticised by conservatives a socialist; even the creation of the corporation was seen as communist. The victories of the working and non-elite classes throughout the twentieth century have proven that, at least on some level, there is a common understanding between people that things can be made better by popular effort and that these efforts are a productive and functional alternative to a pure dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
That said, the structures of the political systems of the more advanced liberal democracies are still based around elite control. It will take a lot more effort and activism by regular people to continue the kinds of popular struggle that, in the past, have placed some restrictions on state power and won legal rights and protections. One of the biggest problems, then, is corporate and state propaganda that hinders natural social and political progress.
Personally, I'm not sure about the benefits of strict collectivism. A good start would be to start using the world's resources and the market system for the good of normal people. Reliance on charity will never be enough, since it gives people with disproportionate wealth undue power in deciding when and where they will redistribute it.
Socialism is a fraud of political science. All it is is simply "cooperate to increase your negotiating power" yet socialists have made a huge deal out of it turning it into a cult with an explanation of the universe more all consuming than some religions.
Socialism is the opiate of the masses.
>A huge amount of dedicated and incorruptable revolutionaries are required in every country
The problem with any sort of administration or governence is that no one is incorruptible. Seriously, no one. Not even you, OP, despite your obvious philanthropic desires. You are correct in that the success of the West is not due to its democracy; it's because of the system of checks and balances.
What you need to do is set out clear, simple mandates for the government--enforce tariffs, fund schools, and so on--and keep the government heavily segmented, with each part patrolling all the others. Decentralize and limit power as much as you safely can. Then you've got a government safe and loyal to the people regardless of whether it's based on democracy, communism, or fiefdom.
>>15
The democratic system is a form of check and balance, by declaring the rights of man etc.. you are essentially creating those mandates you speak of. Free speech was not granted to you by a Gremlin living under a rock.
I find it hilarious how communists pretend that Lenin wasn't a dictator.
He was.
And a bit of a tyrant at that.
War communism, anyone?
And I doubt Trotsky would have been much different, in practice, from Stalin.
Maybe he was more of an internationalist, but he was still an authoritarian.
Oh, and before >>1 accuses me of being "anti-leftist", I'll point out that I'm a member of the socialist party in my country.
>Free speech was not granted to you by a Gremlin living under a rock
Simple, don't make regulating free speech one of the government's mandates, and they won't be able to restrict free speech. An army of garbage collectors and physicians can't ban books, after all.
Socialism operates on the pretense that everyone's contributions are equally valuable. They aren't. That guy pushing a broom around the local school or that homeless drug addict on main street... Did they try their best in school? Probably not. Socialism makes -everyone- responsible for the dregs of society.
Liberals want a system where everyone is completely dependent on the government. This is why Liberals are against gun ownership, homeschooling, et cetera. The premise of Liberalism is that you are an incompetant moron who is completely unable to take care of yourself.
See, everyone taking care of themselves and their own is what Capitalism is all about. It's about not punishing people for not being fuckups. Capitalism works. Before capitalism took root in the Renaiisance era, there was no real middle class and laborers had to work 14 hours a day.
I will be rewriting >>20's post so as to be free of mental retardation and personal feelings.
"..."
Done!
You could try refuting it instead of slinging insults, Socialist.
>>20
First paragraph: No it doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution
Second paragraph: No it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Third paragraph: You have a double negative there; let me get rid of it. Capitalism is "all about punishing people for being fuckups"
That's fine, but could you explain how all the manufacturing workers whose jobs were outsourced to China are fuckups?
Could you explain how the inner city kids who flunked out of school because they weren't trying hard enough (notwithstanding the facts that their classes are fifty kids large, their teachers have fake credentials, they have no textbooks, and their community fosters a view that academic success is uncool and a life of crime is more glamorous) are fuckups?
Capitalism works, yes.
It's an improvement over feudalism, yes.
We just think socialism would work even better.
>Before capitalism took root in the Renaiisance era, there was no real middle class and laborers had to work 14 hours a day.
Your knowledge of history is appalling.
I'm sorry, that was too abrupt. The eight-hour work day, 40-hour work week is something that socialists protested, threw strikes, and died for. The middle class wouldn't exist if it weren't for socialists introducing the "living wage" into the political lexicon. Pure unbridled capitalism is people getting killed in mineshaft collapses and factory fires. I hope you get sexually assaulted with a broomhandle by a strikebreaker.
>>The middle class wouldn't exist if it weren't for socialists introducing the "living wage" into the political lexicon.
Somebody go tell the burghers and bourgeoisie of Europe that they haven't existed for the past thousand years.
Socialism is about paying people in proportion to the amount of pain and sufferring they put in to their work.
The free market ensures people are paid in proportion to their actual contribution to the economy as decided by the market via supply and demand.
Under socialism you could nail your balls to a wall all day and get paid more than a scientist who discovers the cure for cancer even though your actual contribution to the economy is vastly different. This is why it is a failure.
> Socialism is about paying people in proportion to the amount of pain and sufferring they put in to their work.
No. Marx's own words: "The share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour time."
> The free market ensures people are paid in proportion to their actual contribution to the economy as decided by the market via supply and demand.
orly?
"In recent months, the pay packages of a number of financial executives have gained public attention, especially in the light of the collapse of mortgage-backed “alternative” or “exotic” investments. Despite Citigroup’s disastrous performance, its former CEO Charles Prince retired in November 2007 with a $68 million retirement package. In October 2007, after investment bank Merrill Lynch had written down over $12 billion in bad mortgage debt, its CEO Stanley O’Neal left with a severance package of $161 million, on top of his $48 million salary. In January 2007 retailer Home Depot ousted its CEO, Bob Nardelli, for poor stock performance and an abrasive personality. Nardelli, who went on to become CEO of automaker Chrysler, took a $210 million severance package. When pharmaceutical firm Pfizer fired its CEO, Hank McKinnell, in July 2007—amid layoffs of thousands of workers and $4 billion in losses—McKinnell took a severance package of over $180 million."
Such stories abound everywhere you look. Meanwhile, professions that form the backbone of our society - nurses and paramedics, police officers, teachers - are horribly underpaid. I can only conclude that the free market is retarded, or at least that it's no better a decider of people's actual contribution to the economy than anything else.
> Under socialism you could nail your balls to a wall all day and get paid more than a scientist who discovers the cure for cancer even though your actual contribution to the economy is vastly different.
No, you would get paid the same amount for doing the same amount of labor. This assumes that nailing your balls to a wall is of some utility to society (perhaps by removing you from the gene pool.) When Lenin co-opted the principle of "to each according to his contribution" he stated specifically that it applies to "socially-necessary work"; I think Marx would have agreed, but took for granted that no one in a socialist state would waste time doing unnecessary jobs.
> No. Marx's own words
socialism isn't marxism. he, in fact, entered the stage a good bit after many of the major socialist thinkers.
>>28
What exactly does that labourer do with his time? What skills does the labourer possess? Is the work wanted? How exactly do you determine what is "socially-necessary work"? If it is decided through consent rather than illegitimate use of force then how are the opinions of the 1000s of people in the economy decided? A marketplace?
>orly?
The examples you cited sound like someone desperate to fill the holes in some marxist conspiracy theory. If anything they prove that planned economies are inefficient since it was the federal reserve fiddling with interest rates, instead of permitting the business cycle to take it's course, that caused the sub prime mortgage crisis.
Charles Prince's "retirement package" consisted of stocks and salary that he had accumulated for years that he withdrew when he retired.
Stanley O’Neal's history is one of merit up until the sub-prime mortgage crisis, if anything he's a victim of state mismanagement and deserves the compensation.
The size of Bob Nardelli's severance package was a bad decision and the company is paying for it in the form of shareholders evacuating their equity.
Hank McKinnell's mergers are the subject to lengthy debate, it could be argued that it is a long term investment. Though I don't think you would understand or care.
I don't think socialist think their economic theorems through. Making everyone equal isn't the only issue, you also need a functional economy and mustn't step on anyone's rights to do it. Sorry but no. You don't have the authority to end people's economic freedoms, no matter how much good you think it will do.
Spoiler: You're capable of being an asshole and abusing your power as much as the evil capitalists.