Should socialism be achieved through revolution or democracy


Jersay
#1
Should socialism be achieved through revolution or democracy??

I think through elections because as Hugo Chavez and others show if you present your ideals to the public you will win in elections. You can beat conservative theory through democratic debate.

In the 1960s, and the 1970s was the time for revolution.
 
I think not
#2
Neither. It should be "wiped off the map"
 
Jay
#3
Why would we want to achieve socialism? Why can't you guys mind your own business and leave us alone?
 
Finder
#4
I do not believe Socialism, or anything can be achieved threw violance.

Orthadox Marxists, Most Communists (not all), Maoists and Trotskists highly believe that socialism does not have to be achieved threw violance but argue that when the workers come to power it is not the workers who will fire the first round but always the capitalists trying to hold onto the means of production. In every good lie their is a grain of truth and their is a grain of truth in this marxist theory. However I believe in reason, advancement and progress threw democratic means and a share of capitalism and socialism at one time.

This is the problem with a Utopian theorist, right wing or left wing it is always all or nothing. You can't believe in both and if you do you are always on the other side in their minds, you are the enemy. A hard communist government would see me as a fascist, or back in the 1930's they used to call left wing democrats, "social fascists" anyhow, that was their wording. A fascist government or an extremely right wing one would see me as a communist. Basically I'm screwed if either extreme wereto ever gain power.
 
cortezzz
#5
socialism should be established --
but only as a transition
to
communism

by any means mecessary
including nukes


sorry --if that is too politically correct
 
Jersay
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Neither. It should be "wiped off the map"

You can never wipe socialism off the map. We are here to stay.
Quote:

Why would we want to achieve socialism? Why can't you guys mind your own business and leave us alone?

Because if there is ineqquality between the rich and the poor and until equality is reached between the classes our job will never be complete.
 
Dexter Sinister
#7
Depends what you mean by socialism. In the usual meaning, I don't think it should be achieved at all, it's not necessarily a logical step in the development of economic and political systems, it's just another way of organizing certain things and I suspect it's fundamentally contrary to human nature, at least in its extreme forms. I've no objection in principle to certain "socialist" institutions, like SaskPower and SaskTel here where I live, they're instruments of social policy that have done much good for the province. I'd also agree that unbridled capitalism is a bad thing, it needs to be regulated and monitored. I like Keynes' observation on that one (at least I think it was Keynes) who said something like this: "Capitalism is the pecular notion that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the good of us all."

But to whatever extent you want socialism to be achieved, it should be through democratic means, and it should maintain the democratic institutions that got it there.
 
Finder
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by cortezzz

socialism should be established --
but only as a transition
to
communism

by any means mecessary
including nukes


sorry --if that is too politically correct


Socialism is not in the hearts of communists, and marxists understand socialism even less then capitalists do.
 
cortezzz
#9
we will make them understand
 
Finder
#10
Cortezz you do relieze that usually social democrats and socialists side with capitalists before letting a communist revolution to take hold.
 
the caracal kid
#11
We need the real, nation-wide terror which reinvigorates the country and through which the Great French Revolution achieved glory.
Vladimir Lenin

When one makes a Revolution, one cannot mark time; one must always go forward - or go back. He who now talks about the "freedom of the press" goes backward, and halts our headlong course towards Socialism.
Vladimir Lenin

While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State.
Vladimir Lenin
 
Finder
#12
the caracal kid, good quotes, but your last one was misquoted. That is taken to mean that in the final stage of communism the state/government/democracy/dictatorship will disappear, leaving everyone in a socialist Utopia because you no longer need government at all because everyone is equal... I know such things sends shivers down the spin of conservatives.... equility and all... But for me the persuite of Utopia only brings hell on earth.
 
I think not
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

You can never wipe socialism off the map. We are here to stay.

Sadly this is true, ignoring you is a good first step. Eradicating the left wing extremists would be step two when they get out of control.
 
cortezzz
#14
[quote="Finder"]Cortezz you do relieze that usually social democrats and socialists side with capitalists before letting a communist revolution to take hold.[/

quote]

stop trying to be rational
im trying to whip people up
 
Finder
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

You can never wipe socialism off the map. We are here to stay.

Sadly this is true, ignoring you is a good first step. Eradicating the left wing extremists would be step two when they get out of control.

any talk of eliminating.... anybody is somewhat extreme in itself. As I feel Right wing extremeists should be controled.
 
Finder
#16
[quote="cortezzz"]
Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

Cortezz you do relieze that usually social democrats and socialists side with capitalists before letting a communist revolution to take hold.[/

quote]

stop trying to be rational
im trying to whip people up

I'm a Deist man, I need to be rational. But keep whipping people, sooner or later you will discredit the entire left wing if that is your destiny.
 
I think not
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

You can never wipe socialism off the map. We are here to stay.

Sadly this is true, ignoring you is a good first step. Eradicating the left wing extremists would be step two when they get out of control.

any talk of eliminating.... anybody is somewhat extreme in itself. As I feel Right wing extremeists should be controled.

I agree, this a pinko thread though, so expect answers to that effect.
 
Finder
#18
ITN
True, why ask a question when the conclusion has already been made and any argument will not disway your dession. I believe violance in the name of anything be it socialism, communism, liberalism or conservatism, is wrong. There is of course times when you must use some level of order to keep the magority of the society safe. Like Quebec during the FLQ crisses.
 
I think not
#19
I see communism as a threat to humanity in its present form, history has shown me humanity isn't ready for a "system of equality", too many power hungry people take advantage of the situation. When humanity evolves (not in my lifetime) to the point it will acknowledge all people are truly equal, then it might be the time. Till then, every single individual that espouses asphyxiating oppressive tyrannical ideologies, should be dealt with accordingly, peacefully preferably, violently if necessary.

Communism is a disease, it needs to be eradicated.
 
Jay
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Depends what you mean by socialism. In the usual meaning, I don't think it should be achieved at all, it's not necessarily a logical step in the development of economic and political systems, it's just another way of organizing certain things and I suspect it's fundamentally contrary to human nature, at least in its extreme forms. I've no objection in principle to certain "socialist" institutions, like SaskPower and SaskTel here where I live, they're instruments of social policy that have done much good for the province. I'd also agree that unbridled capitalism is a bad thing, it needs to be regulated and monitored. I like Keynes' observation on that one (at least I think it was Keynes) who said something like this: "Capitalism is the pecular notion that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the good of us all."

But to whatever extent you want socialism to be achieved, it should be through democratic means, and it should maintain the democratic institutions that got it there.

Great post Dex!
 
Finder
#21
Quote:

Communism is a disease, it needs to be eradicated.

I agree with most of what you said besides that. Communism is a dream and a noble dream at that if you chose to believe everything Karl Marx said, I don't. I don't thik Communists are evil though it seems that most communist leaders tend to have the same flaws as capitalist ones. Also the fact that Lenin in his revision of Communism made matters worse with making it possible to form a communist party. Indeed before Lenin, Marx had said that communists should work in workers movements, unions, socialist parties and social democratic parties to achieve the goals of communism. Lenin changed that by allowing the formation of pure communist parties. In doing so if you read Orwell and Trotsky this has lead the "Communist Party" to become what it destoryed. The capitalist or bourgeoisie. Indeed you do not have to look at the Soviet union to see this, as it can be proven by this alone. But today all you have to do is look at modern China and see the Communist party for what it is. In fact the bourgeoisie have been replaced by the communist party leadership and middle managment. Indeed the communist party members today of any considerable rank enjoy the luxuries of the bourgeoisie class and reap the profits from the means of production and to some extents now it has come full circle with the incorperation of the capitalist econmey and privitization of indestries with communist leaders being the first allowed to buy or own these companies.

To this level it has gotten worse for the chiness worker. Leninism has made the worker who was supposed to own the means of production a virtual slave of the indestry to those of the communist party who control and sometimes privately own the means of production. Communism, socialism, even marxism truly doesn't exist in China, but the fruits of Leninism have encircled the working class in conditions which are worse then that of capitalism in the middle of the indestrial revultion when Marx and Englas wrote the menifesto which changed the world.

In deed a Marxist, even a Marxist Leninist could point out that workers are slaves to the wage and the difference between the rich and the poor in our nations and the level of explotation in American and even Canada. But the level of explotation in China and before that the Soviet Union was staggering. Workers were no more then slaves to their communist masters.
 
Jay
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by cortezzz


sorry --if that is too politically correct

 
the caracal kid
#23
indeed finder,

the success of the "elite" of the capitalist world was that it created the willing slave compared to the enforced slave of communism.

We can watch in amusement as the defenders of capitalism stand guard for their masters claiming some level of freedom when all they have is enslavement sold as snakeoil.
 
Finder
#24
The truth is workers are more free in democratic capitalist nations then those of the old communist nations like China, Soviet Union, Vietnam and The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. But while I say this I think both highly social Liberal, democratic socialist and social democratic nations like Canada, Sweden and so on workers have a lot more rights and both capitalism and socialism are praticed to certain extents.
 
Finder
#25
opps left a frag senatance in my first post their. Lenin, charged that a workers/communist party should be made, to be the vanguard of the working class. But as I stated this workers vanguard became what it was ment to replace by the supposed facade of leading the working class to achieve the revultion. Marx had no conceptions of such a party. He said the revultion would be a sort of microcossom, which would automatically happen at one level of capitalism. Lenin by-passed this idea and by-pass it with force as Russia was only barely entering the indestiral age at that time and capitalism was at it's infancy.
 
the caracal kid
#26
free to enslave themselves.

that is the point, freedom not exercised because of clever mechanisms that cause the worker to submit. Many of the great "socialist" ideals seen in capitalistic societies were born out of a desire to keep the workers working and obedient.
 
no new posts