Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Anarchism101, here is a quote from Wikipedia: "Anarchism is often defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. However, others argue that while anti-statism is central, it is inadequate to define anarchism. Therefore, they argue instead that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not only, the state system. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical free associations". A quote based on the view of the masses, such is Wikipedia.

    How can anarchists be socialists when all socialists talk about having a socialist state and all socialist states have hierarchies from workers to party leader or dictator? Anarchists cannot really be socialists. Someone who calls themselves an "anarchist socialist" is just someone who revels in revolutionary action on the path to a socialist state, they are not anarchists.

    Both Hitler and Mussolini were socialists, Mussolini even edited the main socialist newspaper in Italy for a while. No doubt about it, socialism leads to tyranny, Liberalism leads to freedom.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amholcroft)
    See Marx and Lenin both from the wealthy middle class.
    Sorry, ill rephrase into just driven by a peasantry. Countries were able to force communism as the population was mostly peasants, see Russia/China.

    The same tactics wouldnt really work in a developed country today.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    all socialists talk about having a socialist state
    No they don't. There's nothing in the definition of socialism which requires you to want a 'socialist state'.


    and all socialist states have hierarchies from workers to party leader or dictator?
    By the your reasoning process, I can just as validly cite that as proof that those states were not, in fact, socialist. The very definition of socialism is workers' control of the means of production, also known as autogestion. The only society I am aware of where such an economy has been brought about as a direct result of state intervention (and so the only society to which the label 'socialist state' can be accurately applied) is Titoist Yugoslavia.

    Both Hitler and Mussolini were socialists
    So just because you say so, that makes it true?

    Mussolini even edited the main socialist newspaper in Italy for a while.
    Which means nothing. So what if he was a socialist at one point? David Horowitz was a communist at one point, but now he's an unrepentant neocon.

    Interesting that you cite the wiki page on anarchism by the way: take a look at the 'People' drop-down list on the right; it's full of communists and socialists.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    If you look at the successful revolutions - whether the end of Communism in Easter Europe , or the 'Arab Spring', the key factor to success has been widespread public support .

    the support 'the radical Left' has in the UK consists of the following small groups

    - impressionable children ( including university students)
    - a few professional agitators - If the 'Socialist Worker Party' is for socialist workers how come there's so many of them free i nthe daytime to sell their litter tray liners ...
    - the Bitter and twisted remanents of those who were brainwashed by the unions in the 1970s and are still bitter about the euthanasia of their Public sector none job in nationalised Industry 30 years ago ( and their brainwashed offspring in some cases - but they are too lazy to get the jobs on their doorsteps)
    - the Idiot fringe of the TUC and the likes of Ken L and George G
    - various drug addled aging hippies

    Many People in work ( Public or Private Sector) , the 'client state' of New Labour simply would not support the radical Left and/or anarcho-syndicalists in their efforts at revolution

    the main issue would be do Dave and Nick have the stomach to
    a) Bring in Emergency powers at full strength
    b) Deploy troops to the streets of mainland to support the Police ( the Lefties will argue they did anyway - e.g. Orgreave )
    rather than just have a big push of PSUs to deal with protests / rioting ( using BTP, CNC and ModPlod PSUs in general policing - rather than location related) and use HMPS Tornado teams off HMPS property , UKBA enforcement teams and PCSOs for prisoner handling ... ( i.e. the Traffic warden with the SLR guarding the internment compouns in 'Threads' )
    c) let MI5 and 'them' perform decapitation actions on any organisation aobve the cell level ( the reason PIRA and others use the ASU / cell structure to minimise the impact of decapitation action)
    So what exactly do you want to tell me with this, besides the obvious fact that you're a conservative?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    The presence of welfare though (no matter how loud the Republicans shout) does not instantly equate to Communism/Socialism (though I accept that Social Fascism/Nationlism does exist) I mean we in the UK have the NHS , pensions, a welfare system(broke as it may be) I would hardly call us a Socialist/Communist country though, would you?

    Let's not forget though that Nazi Germany, was the "National Socialist" party, and Hitler had strong Socialist ideals despite the direction he took them in.


    Saying that I am not leader material, does not equate to there being no one worthy to lead now does it?
    So who will be the leader?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Anarchism101: "The only society I am aware of where such an economy has been brought about as a direct result of state intervention (and so the only society to which the label 'socialist state' can be accurately applied) is Titoist Yugoslavia."

    As a regular visitor to Croatia and Montenegro I can assure you this is not true. Also my point was that all socialist states end up with people like Tito so I think you are confirming it. He had a lovely presidential palace on the beach at Igalo.

    I can accept that you imagine "socialism" to be a utopia that has never been achieved. However, objectively, all attempts at creating fully socialist states have ended up with Tito, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Gaddafi, Assad, Saddam, Pol Pot, Mao etc.. and, yes, Hitler and Mussolini who are excluded from the socialist family because of WWII. It is dangerous to ignore reality.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amholcroft)
    So who will be the leader?
    How should I know, given how long it is till such an event occurs(in my uneducated estimation), it's probably someone who at the moment is still leaning to count.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sammynorton90)
    Isn't that like saying doing anything is pointless because inevitably you'll lose? Why give to charity, we'll still live in a capitalist world? That's like saying why try and cure one person's aids because millions will still die because the disease is still rampant. Even if giving to charity 'only' saves a couple of lives at least its done something and proves you're trying to practice what you preach. Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire.

    And also, its not just the capitalists living the good life. The amount of musicians and actors that are self-proclaimed socialists is quite high. They could give a lot of their money away and still live very comfortably, but oddly chose not to, almost as if they're hypocrites? Like Billy 'I'm a communist me' Bragg. Lives in a 1.5 million mansion in the whitest part of Britain but still claims to be down with the working-classes and multiculturalism. No one is asking him to give away all his money and live on a Kibbutz, but he could give away half, even quarter of his money, and still afford a very nice 500k house in a suburb.
    It isn't really the same thing as saying 'don't do anything'. Do something, and that something is revolution. Yes, giving to charity does help, but it isn't working effectively right now BECAUSE of the capitalist countries where the poverty is. Those countries cannot be saved solely by charitable people, that's a simple fact. What WILL help,however, would be a global socialist revolution, the kind of thing Marx envisioned.

    Also, many 'self-proclaimed socialists' are often far from it in reality. Celebrities often just say this to cause controversy and get media attention, whilst not actually holding socialist ideals. This is another example of how people are 'blinded' by common interpretations of socialism; many people think that the Soviet Union's government was socialist, but it wasn't, it was Stalinist and Marxist-Leninist; both of which differ to Marx's ideology.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I've never understood the Che Guveura worship. From what I understand the two attempted revolutions he was actually in charge of, in the Congo and Bolivia, he failed in both. So even if communism and revolutions float your boat, Che wasn't even all that good at it.
    That's all part of it. It's the old romantic view of standing up against it and being defeated anyway. It's all a bit like the Victorians looking back on Bonnie Prince Charlie.

    Winners aren't as appealing in many ways.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To all the people who said 'there's not enough people', how many do you need for a revolution or a coup? The Cuban revolution was originally started with just 80 people, you could easily find that many.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sammynorton90)
    And by revolution I don't mean a protest, or a riot where they just vandalise things, I mean an actual, well-organised, planned out, revolution
    You mean like the treasonous right-wingers who plotted against Her Majesty's Government in the 1970s and contemplated a coup against the elected government of the day?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by starmonster)
    You mean like the treasonous right-wingers who plotted against Her Majesty's Government in the 1970s and contemplated a coup against the elected government of the day?
    Would that be the treasonous plot dreamt up by this man to save his own neck?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Wallace#Imprisonment
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ferrus)
    I love spitting image. The funniest sketch is when Labour are in a bar with Kinnock "What's the point of Labour. To be incompetent".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Would that be the treasonous plot dreamt up by this man to save his own neck?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Wallace#Imprisonment
    Err, no. I'm surprised you're not aware of this episode in British history

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wright
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Tbf a lot of left-wing radicals in other countries do actually put their money where their mouth is, but I agree British Left-wing radicals are pretty useless and usually middle-class teenagers-early twenty year olds trying to be rebellious. What I don't understand is this constant waiting around and 'we're still organising' sort of attitude. 'Oh well we don't want to get arrested or shipped off to Guantanamo'. Surely the whole point is it's 'radical' politics. These are the same people who claim in online forums that they'd happily kill/be killed for the glorious revolution but then **** themselves at the prospect of a couple of nights in a prison cell. Meanwhile people who are actually committed to real change through parliamentary procedure and elections are called 'weak and ineffective' or 'sellouts' by people who never come close to their objectives (therefore ineffective) and are deterred from doing so because they're scared of the consequences (therefore weak)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    If there is no need for one, there won't be one.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe because even left-wing radicals know, deep down, how FUBAR their ideology is.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Seems appropriate that I should pop in.

    And yes, it's the tag of being a "radical"

    To be honest, it's not that their ideas on what's wrong with the current system are stupid, it's just that they have absolutely no plausible alternative.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.