Turn on thread page Beta

Socialists and Communists, some questions... watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    1. Why are you a Socialist and/or Communist?

    2. What are your opinions on Capitalism?

    3a. Socialists, how would you prevent governmental tyranny

    3b. Communists, how would the gradual disappearance of the state work?

    4. Why are you not Social Democrats?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Lenin tried to answer question 3a buy suggesting communes would rule the country, but when it came to it he realised that a small number of working class had
    enough understanding to run the country and the rest had petit bourgeois tendencies and so talked about a vanguard; a small educated class of workers and intellectuals . Later he suggested having a group of workers auditing or checking the soviets / Bolsheviks while they ruled. Socialism changes society from working for a
    minority while the rest suffer into a system were everyone works for the good of the majority.
    To get a better understanding of above I suggest reading Lenin's Political Thoughts vol 1&2 by Neil Harding. Of course it is easier to ignore old texts and just believe
    what is hashed out in British Media. Lenin changed his way out of necessity but if todays Lenin was to start off again he would face the same problem. International multinational capitalism which will surround and isolate him and will try to stifle him as they did the young Russian Revolution. As Lenin quite rightly pointed out there is no third way either wage worker/ proletarian's way or the bourgeois way.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I am a Libertarian Socialist because I believe that you cannot force people to do things which they don't want to do. It with eventually lead to a revolt. This can be evident in the cycles of Tory, Labour, Tory, Labour we have. I there for advocate the use of Co-operative business structures and trade unionism to give workers more bargaining power over capital. This model of doing things is possible under Capitalism and minimises conflict.

    Capitalism is fine when its left alone but for the past 40 odd years we have had Crony Capitalism in the form of Neo-Liberalism which has had terrible consequences. Trickle down has been a huge failure and the living standards of the poorest people has fallen. We have a housing crisis, utility cartel and transport exhortation racket. In a Ayn Rand perspective you could say that the aristocracy of pull is living the high life at everyone else's expense. I am not talking about the welfare state here but all the big corporations that milk the tax payer and the poor.

    I favour Democratic Socialism as a system of Government because if the party messes up you can kick them out. This stops tyranny by the masses being able to use their votes every 4-5 years. Democratic Socialism is the foundation of the Labour party but it has taken quite some time to restructure the party and that happened when Corbyn got elected. The only way you can stop Tyranny is by getting involved in your political party and change its internal structure.

    The state may disappear even within Capitalism pretty soon. The rise of crypto currencies mean there is little to no way Government can keep tabs on the monetary assets of companies who are using new block chains. This means tax revenues could plunge and Government would not be able to function if people refuse to participate. This is a eventuality of Capitalism and then Libertarian Socialism will be left to pick up the pieces as workers will need a alternative economic structure. So even Communism would fail for that matter because the internet breaks down old social norms, constructs and allows sovereign individuals to emerge. That or you police every household with the threat of being sent to work in Kirkby in Ashfield where lovely people such as Sam Ancliff and Ben Bradley MP come from. .

    I am a Democrat. You need to revise.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Capitalism is not fine for the British workers, the environment, and the majority of the people on earth. It has led to wars, now neo imperialism, division, and
    bourgeois values which depend on individualism, authoritarianism, and absolutism. In the UK it works for a minority and apart from the Health Service which is also
    under attack by privatisation, all other necessities such as housing, transport, utilities( water/gas/electricity/rates) and education are very expensive - It also leads to alienation by making people work extremely hard to pay for these essential life necessities. You and me may be very highly educated and have a special middle
    ground with a good wage but we have to decide who we support - the bourgeois democracy which propagates the status quo or the wage labourer majority which includes the majority. It does not lead to dictatorship as the rightist media will have you believe as the people will run their own affairs.
    Example: The government has had the ability to suppress wages for seven years to balance the books but says it cannot bring people of high importance and companies to pay their taxes, nor can it stop high pay outs to CEOs. So what good is that?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    I favour Democratic Socialism as a system of Government because if the party messes up you can kick them out. This stops tyranny by the masses being able to use their votes every 4-5 years. Democratic Socialism is the foundation of the Labour party but it has taken quite some time to restructure the party and that happened when Corbyn got elected. The only way you can stop Tyranny is by getting involved in your political party and change its internal structure.
    Democratic socialism encapsulates the same structure as a socialist society. A massive government, which as empirical evidence has shown ends up becoming authoritarian. It's not as simple as 'voting them out'. What if they then take away your right to vote? If you give a government, essentially unlimited power, the erosion of individual rights is inevitable. Just adding 'democracy' in front of a failed ideology won't fix that as it fails to address the core problem with socialism. Thoughts?

    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    I am a Democrat. You need to revise.
    I don't know what you mean by 'you need to revise'

    Social democrat and democrat are not the same thing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pabloneruda)
    Capitalism is not fine for the British workers, the environment, and the majority of the people on earth. It has led to wars, now neo imperialism, division
    It's great for British workers. Standards of living (average) have never been higher and wealth mobility is excellent. Capitalism has gotten over 1b people out of poverty....socialism/communism comes nowhere near. Every system leads to wars; fuedalism, capitalism, socialism etc.

    I will agree with your point about the environment, however.


    (Original post by pabloneruda)
    bourgeois values which depend on individualism, authoritarianism, and absolutism.
    I feel like you're just using buzzwords now. Individualism, sure, but authoritarianism?! The irony is unreal.

    (Original post by pabloneruda)
    In the UK it works for a minority and apart from the Health Service which is also
    under attack by privatisation, all other necessities such as housing, transport, utilities( water/gas/electricity/rates) and education are very expensive
    Are you from the UK? Education is free. Healthcare is free. The benefits system provides housing for free. Benefits also give utilities for free. Of course there is tax to pay for it, but that's with any system. I don't mean to sound rude, but what the f*ck are you on about?

    (Original post by pabloneruda)
    Example: The government has had the ability to suppress wages for seven years to balance the books but says it cannot bring people of high importance and companies to pay their taxes, nor can it stop high pay outs to CEOs. So what good is that?
    Here is something we can agree on. Many aspects of government are problematic. But my solution isn't to destabilise the whole system and make said government stronger...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    1. I originally approached the Socialist core idea of making sure each person was rewarded fully for the labour they contributed to the society free of exploitation of bosses creaming profits from the top, from lenders extracting value by coercion and land owners ammasing capital with no input from themselves. Since then I have, mainly through reading anarchist thinkers come to believe that it is impossible to know in particular the exact contribution made by all members of society to the production of some product. Societies are interlinked web's, not distinct chains, without one part the whole thing starts to fall to bits, that is even before we consider that knowledge, especially that of a historical nature simply cannot be attributed to one person. This leads to conclusion that the material, intellectual and spiritual developments of our species cannot be owned by one person, or some small sub-set of people, they are the collective property of all and all have equal right to them.

    2. Capitalism is a system of social and economic control. It is a system in which the value of human development is taken into the hands of the few who are then able to pursue actions which both cement and reinforce their position. The State is intimately linked with the Capitalist system, they are symbiotic, to destroy one, you must also destroy the other.

    3a. Prevention of all tyranny is why socialist systems are hard, they require the constant oversight of all within the society to make sure any one part is not allowed to exert undue influence over any other. The way you protect against this is by doubling down on the principle on which the socialist idea is founded; democratic control over ones life. Systems must be constructed such that people have direct and meaningful control of their lives, the decisions must be close to them, responive and immediate. This is just not possible in a representative style democracy. The reason this protects against tyranny is because all peoples lives are intrinsically linked to the freedom of others.

    3b.There should be no gradual decline of the State. There is but one way to achieve a Socialist society and that is by revolution. The State is designed to withstand and protect itself against dissolution even from within. The power a State can exert over the freedoms of its subjects allows it to use both soft and hard power to prevent and silence radical ideas. It is worth bearing in mind that the State operates very much under the 'bend don't break' protocol.

    4. Because Social Democracy achieves the exact opposite of what Socialism aspires to.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    by expensive education I meant higher education. I am in UK and in fact on a daily basis in my profession see the unfair society in UK both in terms of home and
    foreign policy. Those 3 words are not buzz words but what Lenin pointed out as the three characteristics of bourgeois societies. I am happy that you agree with some of the points that I make. It is the job of the minority such as me to persuade the majority to join them. As I say there are only two ways and man has not invented a
    third way as many appeasers wish to believe in. The benefits system is a minimum for those out of work and disabled and if you have ever tried to exist on it you will realise it is a fraction of large bonuses stolen by the elite from the state funds. The present system is no longer accepted by many as Natural Law, but an alienator of people. We are not stupid we know that some people are overpaid and overvalued to point of criminality ( legal criminality ) and others very much underpaid and
    undervalued. By making the present government stronger you merely exacerbate the problems , they are after all the executive committee
    of the ruling class.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    3b.There should be no gradual decline of the State. There is but one way to achieve a Socialist society and that is by revolution. The State is designed to withstand and protect itself against dissolution even from within. The power a State can exert over the freedoms of its subjects allows it to use both soft and hard power to prevent and silence radical ideas. It is worth bearing in mind that the State operates very much under the 'bend don't break' protocol.
    Are you a communist or socialist, because that question was meant specifically for communists, who by definition want a stateless society?

    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    4. Because Social Democracy achieves the exact opposite of what Socialism aspires to.
    The exact opposite is a bit harsh.

    They're founded upon the same principles as socialism, emphasising collectivism over individualism, as seen by their extensive welfare system and stringent policies promoting equality of opportunity/outcome.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pabloneruda)
    by expensive education I meant higher education. I am in UK and in fact on a daily basis in my profession see the unfair society in UK both in terms of home and foreign policy.
    If you can't pay it, or won't be able to pay, the government usually pays it for you. As for foreign policy, why is that bad?

    (Original post by pabloneruda)
    Those 3 words are not buzz words but what Lenin pointed out as the three characteristics of bourgeois societies.
    In all fairness, using what Lenin said as evidence to support your point does next to nothing. The man was a master provocateur, his purpose, to start a revolution. If anything, you've simply proven my buzzword critique. Moreover, the evidence is simply anecdotal.

    (Original post by pabloneruda)
    I am happy that you agree with some of the points that I make. It is the job of the minority such as me to persuade the majority to join them.
    I appreciate you willing to have a civil discussion

    (Original post by pabloneruda)
    The benefits system is a minimum for those out of work and disabled and if you have ever tried to exist on it
    I agree the benefits system is ineffective. Again, a problem with government bureaucracy not capitalism.

    (Original post by pabloneruda)
    By making the present government stronger you merely exacerbate the problems, they are after all the executive committee of the ruling class.
    I don't want to make the government stronger. Just so I can lay out some foundation, are you a socialist or a communist? Because if you're the former, this point makes no sense, as you WANT a big, and strong state. If you're the later, then again, we can agree that we need to reduce state prominence, I just feel like the state still has a role to play, whereas you, I'm guessing, don't.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Are you a communist or socialist, because that question was meant specifically for communists, who by definition want a stateless society?



    The exact opposite is a bit harsh.

    They're founded upon the same principles as socialism, emphasising collectivism over individualism, as seen by their extensive welfare system and stringent policies promoting equality of opportunity/outcome.
    I consider myslef to be an anarchist, in the broad school of libertarian socialism. I am not convinced by the differentiation between socialism and communism.

    What is the aim of Socialism/Communism/the wider leftist ideologies. I would say, in principal, it is to abolished embedded power structures, empower workers in their rights and abolish the structures which enforce these inequalities. Lets have a look at what Social Democratic policies have achieved. Have they achieved liberation for the working classes OR have they actuallty reinforced the status of the capitalist class with the aesthetic of caring about the poor? I would argue it is very much the later.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    To say such negative and I guess unresearched ideas about Lenin straight away tells me a lot about the person who makes such comments. Lenin was a
    practical Marxist and as he was the first person faced with having to transform a country from capitalism into socialism he had to practically develop such ideas.
    Many books by British non socialists and socialists tell us about his achievements. I will only mention a few here Lenin by prof Conquest, Lenin's political thoughts by Neil Harding and his own many books and pamphlets such as State and Revolution. Marx and Engels gave the theory and Lenin gave practical shape to the
    ideas.
    Famously he said that socialism cannot live in isolation and in one country , and he was right. Unlike the Economists and the gradualists he realised that it has to be all or non and just fighting for better pay or small changes did not give good results. While capital and means of production are held by a minority , then the
    majority will suffer as even they do today.
    Personally one cannot label oneself as a socialist or otherwise, others must decide based on one's belief's and actions. I think a lot of what Marx and later Lenin
    discovered make sense. Marx and his predecessors and followers gave us Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism with which to understand human
    history and social development and Lenin showed us that to emancipate the Residents on Earth you have to have a change everywhere and not just in one state.
    There are many people who agree with these ideas and it is the job of the minority to propagate these ideas amongst the people and change the hegemony of
    hundreds of years of Natural Law of present system which is drummed into all people's consciousness by media , education and the ruling elite.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pabloneruda)
    To say such negative and I guess unresearched ideas about Lenin straight away tells me a lot about the person who makes such comments. Lenin was a
    practical Marxist and as he was the first person faced with having to transform a country from capitalism into socialism he had to practically develop such ideas.
    Many books by British non socialists and socialists tell us about his achievements. I will only mention a few here Lenin by prof Conquest, Lenin's political thoughts by Neil Harding and his own many books and pamphlets such as State and Revolution. Marx and Engels gave the theory and Lenin gave practical shape to the
    ideas.
    Famously he said that socialism cannot live in isolation and in one country , and he was right. Unlike the Economists and the gradualists he realised that it has to be all or non and just fighting for better pay or small changes did not give good results. While capital and means of production are held by a minority , then the
    majority will suffer as even they do today.
    Personally one cannot label oneself as a socialist or otherwise, others must decide based on one's belief's and actions. I think a lot of what Marx and later Lenin
    discovered make sense. Marx and his predecessors and followers gave us Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism with which to understand human
    history and social development and Lenin showed us that to emancipate the Residents on Earth you have to have a change everywhere and not just in one state.
    There are many people who agree with these ideas and it is the job of the minority to propagate these ideas amongst the people and change the hegemony of
    hundreds of years of Natural Law of present system which is drummed into all people's consciousness by media , education and the ruling elite.
    I'll repeat myself, using what Lenin said to back up your points is useless - provide actual evidence for the things you believe such as examples of them working.

    Moreover, how can you say the majority suffer? Doesn't it go against your point about the minority trying to change opinions? If the majority are suffering, surely the people whose opinions need changing are in the minority.

    ...or...maybe, just maybe, the majority aren't suffering. Capitalism has gotten over a billion people out of poverty. We are in the most peaceful era of human history. Standards of living have never been higher. What has socialism done? If the majority truly suffering like you say they do, we wouldn't have capitalism in the UK, and Labour would have won every recent election. To claim the majority are suffering is an almost unforgivable lie - people, on average, have never been happier. Certainly not in Russia, or China, or Cuba, or Cambodia, or Rwanda, or Burma or any other place which adopted the foul ideology of socialism/communism.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    If you leave people alone they will always follow the money like Mr highongoofballs, ( Lenin ) It is the job of the vanguard to give the majority social consciousness. ( Lenin )
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    I'll repeat myself, using what Lenin said to back up your points is useless - provide actual evidence for the things you believe such as examples of them working.

    Moreover, how can you say the majority suffer? Doesn't it go against your point about the minority trying to change opinions? If the majority are suffering, surely the people whose opinions need changing are in the minority.

    ...or...maybe, just maybe, the majority aren't suffering. Capitalism has gotten over a billion people out of poverty. We are in the most peaceful era of human history. Standards of living have never been higher. What has socialism done? If the majority truly suffering like you say they do, we wouldn't have capitalism in the UK, and Labour would have won every recent election. To claim the majority are suffering is an almost unforgivable lie - people, on average, have never been happier. Certainly not in Russia, or China, or Cuba, or Cambodia, or Rwanda, or Burma or any other place which adopted the foul ideology of socialism/communism.
    Nobody really disputes that capitalism has delivered improved living standards and technological innovation. Marx himself acknowledged as much. Socialist critique of capitalism isn't so much about what capitalism has or hasn't achieved as it is about where it inevitably leads.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Nobody really disputes that capitalism has delivered improved living standards and technological innovation. Marx himself acknowledged as much. Socialist critique of capitalism isn't so much about what capitalism has or hasn't achieved as it is about where it inevitably leads.
    For Marx capitalism was a vital neccecery step required for communism to even be possible. This is one the most basic take away points from Marx's thinking. Which of cause alot of the the right wing critics haven't even bothered to contemplate, or do udnerstand, but would just like to argue in bad faith.


    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)

    What has socialism done? If the majority truly suffering like you say they do, we wouldn't have capitalism in the UK, and Labour would have won every recent election.
    Let me introduce you to the Marxist conception of false consciousness. Maybe try actually finding about what your political opponents think first. Do you think no leftists has ever thought about this before? :facepalm:

    What about a suffering minority? Another thing with capitalism is that manages to combine massive progress on the one hand, and massive deprivation on the other. One group of poeple are being lifted up to a better life whilst another group are being driven into the ground. Think about that as you use your computer to message me, where the components of said computer come from Chinese sweatshops where they use threatened suicide as a collective bargaining strategy.

    The NHS is still here. That got rid of a allot of the suffering of the majority. The Weekend is still here, ensures some of producitivty gain of capitalism are shared with workers by giving them more free time. These are both things that make my life much much better than it would be without it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Nobody really disputes that capitalism has delivered improved living standards and technological innovation. Marx himself acknowledged as much. Socialist critique of capitalism isn't so much about what capitalism has or hasn't achieved as it is about where it inevitably leads.
    Thats utter nonsense sorry. Research how much technological innovation there was in communist countries like Russia was well behind USA technologically before communism but it was pretty close by the time the Space Race Started.

    There will always be technological innovation regardless of what political system there is(unless it is deliberately designed to undermine innovation which would be daft) and in fact considering the rise in technological innovation in communist countries much faster than in capitalist countries then this would suggest that communism is the most efficient system.

    Once you've got the technological innovation then its simply politics which determines how the benefits are distributed to allow for an increasing in living standards.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Let me introduce you to the Marxist conception of false consciousness. Maybe try actually finding about what your political opponents think first. Do you think no leftists has ever thought about this before? :facepalm:

    What about a suffering minority? Another thing with capitalism is that manages to combine massive progress on the one hand, and massive deprivation on the other. One group of poeple are being lifted up to a better life whilst another group are being driven into the ground. Think about that as you use your computer to message me, where the components of said computer come from Chinese sweatshops where they use threatened suicide as a collective bargaining strategy.

    The NHS is still here. That got rid of a allot of the suffering of the majority. The Weekend is still here, ensures some of producitivty gain of capitalism are shared with workers by giving them more free time. These are both things that make my life much much better than it would be without it.
    I agree there are problems in capitalism societies. But I reject the notion that socialism or communism would fix that.

    Those people in Chinese sweatshops have invariably awful conditions, but their lives have been improved exponentially. They have been given jobs to allow them to move up the ladder. They are earning money to support their families. I ask you, why would these people work there if they would be better off without? The truth is, and I hate repeating myself, capitalism has improved their standard of living just like it has ours. $2 a day is better than being dead at the side of the steet. That's the beauty of capitalism. These workers are CHOOSING to work there because it betters their lives. It's consensual.

    Also, instead of diverting the coversation to international issues which is hard to discuss on a text based forum due to all their complexities, let's stick to matters in the UK.

    Sure, we have a very small 'suffering minoirty', but even then, standards of life for the poorest in the UK are comparable to royalty when put side by side against the average living standards of any communist country.

    I not only fail to see how socialism can solve the problems of capitalism, but I also fail to see how it wouldn't cause more...
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    Thats utter nonsense sorry. Research how much technological innovation there was in communist countries like Russia was well behind USA technologically before communism but it was pretty close by the time the Space Race Started.

    There will always be technological innovation regardless of what political system there is(unless it is deliberately designed to undermine innovation which would be daft) and in fact considering the rise in technological innovation in communist countries much faster than in capitalist countries then this would suggest that communism is the most efficient system.

    Once you've got the technological innovation then its simply politics which determines how the benefits are distributed to allow for an increasing in living standards.
    There was only technological innovation because the government focused most of its attention in war. When governments spread their attention widely, the result is limited because too much bureaucracy is inefficient. When a government, (especially an authoritarian one), chooses to invest most of its resources on a single aspect of society e.g. war, and therefore military tech, of course it's going to be efficient. However, in authortiarian regimes, this often occurs at the expense of other aspects of society e.g. education, environment.

    So while communism countries like Russia made technological advancements, these advancements came at the price of everything else. When compared to capitalise countries who made similar and even great technological advancements, this wasn't the case, and almosg everything thrived.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    Thats utter nonsense sorry. Research how much technological innovation there was in communist countries like Russia was well behind USA technologically before communism but it was pretty close by the time the Space Race Started.

    There will always be technological innovation regardless of what political system there is(unless it is deliberately designed to undermine innovation which would be daft) and in fact considering the rise in technological innovation in communist countries much faster than in capitalist countries then this would suggest that communism is the most efficient system.

    Once you've got the technological innovation then its simply politics which determines how the benefits are distributed to allow for an increasing in living standards.
    Both things can be true, you know. Just because the Soviet Union made great technological leaps it doesn't mean capitalism hasn't also facilitated innovation. You'll notice I didn't actually make any judgement on whether capitalism produces more or less innovation than communism - all I've said is that it has historically resulted in innovation. Plus it's simply not true that technological innovation is something that simply 'happens'. Under feudalism (or rather the varied and nebulous socioeconomic structures we conveniently refer to as feudalism), there is very little incentive to innovate outside of sheer necessity or gaining a military advantage. These were centuries of virtually zero growth and stagnant living standards. When rightly compared to the system it supplanted, I don't think anybody can seriously argue that capitalism has not produced innovation.
 
 
 

3,013

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.