So for anyone who is interested in learning what Socialism really is. Read this

[white_wolf]

I've decided to start a series of threads explaining socialism and trying to answer questions about it to clear up any misconceptions that people have. I'm also going to post links for further information. Here are the first two. The first is "Why Socialism" by Albert Einstein: http://monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php The second is very short, but gives a nice overview of the systems goals: http://www.marxists.org/archive/pankhurst-sylvia/1923/socialism.htm

[inademv]

1. second link is 404

[white_wolf]

3. Okay its fixed now.

[plumbob]

2. The Einstein piece is excellent. My senior economics students read it.

Their eyes really pop when they figure out who Einstein is, really.

Thanks for starting this, and bravely, too, since so many are wont to have their hair catch on fire when the word 'socialism' is used.

[Zanzoobar]

4. If you can't summarize it in your own words, it's not worth reading.

:)

[socialist_n_TN]

5. Oh wolf CAN summerize it...........

But this is for those folks who insist that socialism is something that it isn't.

[white_wolf]

6. haha. Seriously though if anyone wants a quick summary

I really don't mind.

[Zanzoobar]

10. By all means, do so. Anything more than three sentences is a burden.

[SoCalDem]

13. typical republi-think

soundbytes & mini-treatises may work for them, but most sentient people prefer more details:)

[white_wolf]

14. The second link

is explaining the goals of socialism. The author makes it clear that the goal isn't to make the current poor rich or the current rulers slaves. In his words "We wish to abolish poverty and to provide abundance for all." He talks about how so much land is owned by so few people and they hardly ever do anything with it, because they can't. Just like those people who have 3 houses or a 100 cars. Who needs that? He also talks about how capitalism creates unemployment as means to lower wages, and under socialism that would be eliminated.

[Dappleganger]

51. Which proves you spend too much time on reddit or tv.

Seriously.

[anneboleyn]

52. My thoughts exactly. How pathetic.

[datasuspect]

23. that has to be one of the most ignorant things i've ever read here

and that's saying a lot.

[Zanzoobar]

34. I agree 100 percent.

[Dappleganger]

50. If you can't read and summarize yourself...

here's a poptart.

[Catherina]

7. Rec'd. Highly appreciated. It's worth understanding what it is before

since it comes up in so many discussions here. I'll be looking for these.

[white_wolf]

12. Your welcome.

Once I go over the basics, I'm planning on trying to explain the various different ideologies within the movement, Democratic Socialism,Leninism, my personal favorite Trotskyism, and because I feel compelled on principle I'll even try to explain Stalinism and Maoism,despite my extreme contempt for the latter two.

[Catherina]

17. I'm looking forward to it even more now. n/t

[pnorman]

18. Don't forget "Libertarian Socialism", also known as 'Anarchisdm".

Noam Chomsky and Howard .Zinn are in that category, as well as George Orwell

[white_wolf]

19. An intersting note on that topic:

According to Noam Chomsky if Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were alive today, Chomsky, believes they would be Libertarian Socialists.

[grahamhgreen]

8. Nice post!

- learning -

[white_wolf]

9. Thanks.

[joshcryer]

11. Homage to Catalonia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia

[white_wolf]

20. I notice you have the anarchist A as your avatar

If you would like to help me with the section on anarchism I'd appreciate it. I honestly don't know much about it other than it seeks the same ends as socialism/Marxism but seeks to skip the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

[Selatius]

24. Anarchists favor less centralization of authority than more statist socialists.

In the days of the First International, there was debate on how to best achieve socialism. On one side, you had Karl Marx advocating the formation of parties and the running of candidates in elections to win state power with the goal of using it to enact change. On the other hand, you had Mikhail Bakunin, considered the "father of modern anarchism," who advocated more of a ground-up approach, a more organic approach as opposed to a vanguard party winning state power. This is where the conflict between anarchists and communists began.

[TBF]

26. Here is a link to read Mikhail Bakunin's writings -

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/index.htm

[white_wolf]

15. I had +9 now I'm down to 8.

I don't really care about getting recs, but at least tell me why your unrecing this post? Do you have something against learning?

[joshcryer]

16. Fixed.

I thought I rec'd it. :hi:

[slay]

21. Awesome post

and the way of the future - if we are to survive as a species. :hi: K&R.

[midnight]

22. Socialism is sharing, and capitalization is privatizing?

I will have to read more to verify if this statement is true, but to simplify I categorized them. I would love to find an economic approach that would end poverty....

[white_wolf]

40. Well the goals of socialism are to end poverty.

If you haven't I suggest reading my second link or the summary I provided.

[RickFromMN]

25. I couldn't help but feel we are repeating history.

I will be honest and say I don't really know the differences between Nazism and socialism and communism.
I will misuse these words when I try to use these words.

I looked up the Nazi Manifesto:
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/dachauscrapbook/25Points.html

I looked up the Tea Party Manifesto:
http://www.thecontract.org/
http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/

The two manifestos are different, but how similar is the result?

The Nazi manifesto puts faith in government. The Tea Party Manifesto puts faith in business.

One gives rise to an authoritarian state; the other gives rise to authoritarian business leaders.

In both cases, people have to be kept down and controlled and convinced this is good for them.

The articles from the original poster were from the past.

One article was during the rise of Soviet totalitarianism.
Forgive me but I consider the time of Lenin and Stalin to be totalitarianism, not communism.

The other article was after the fall of Nazism.
This article points out the weakness of Capitalism, when power is concentrated in the hands of large corporations.

Both outcomes lead to authoritarianism, and in extreme cases like the Soviet Union, totalitarianism.

I assume everyone would agree, authoritarianism, be it state or corporate authoritarianism, is bad.

How can we have socialism without going down the path of authoritarianism in one form or another?
How can we have any system without having authoritarianism in some form?

[white_wolf]

30. Okay I'll try to address this.

First of all Nazism and Communism really have nothing in common aside the name "National Socialism." Hitler didn't even want the name t be "National Socialist party." but he the head of the party convinced that it would be easier to appeal to workers and the poor. Also Communism has no racial ideology to it,it is an international movement. It views racism as tool of the capitalists to divide the working class against itself.

As for Lenin and Stalin, well Stalin was a tyrant, there is no doubt about it. Lenin however was not, he was voted down on several issues. On the question of getting out of WWI he was voted down several times, until he finally convinced everyone that Russia could not win the war and would be better served on the sidelines.

As for the concentrating power in the hands of few, well Trotsky addresses that in the Revolution Betrayed. He argued that Stalin had created an all-powerful bureaucracy that was as oppressive as the Tsar and called for the workers to rise up and take back power. He called the USSR a "deformed workers state." He wanted the the factories in the factories and the USSR to be ran by a series of workers councils called Soviets where the workers voted on how to run their factories and government. I hope that helps.

[RickFromMN]

38. Which groups would you expect would oppose unions?

I can believe the Nazi Party would be opposed to unions.
Unions would represent a challenge to Nazi power.

From the explanation for Lenin and Communism,
it would seem the workers Soviets would be similar to unions owning and running the companies.
Was Lenin (and Communism) opposed to unions?

I can understand Stalin being opposed to unions. Unions would represent a challenge to his power.

Where would one expect the Tea Party to stand in regard to unions?
If I believe, as I do, the Tea Party believes in large corporations,
I would expect the Tea Party to be opposed to unions.
On the other hand, the Tea Party claim to be made up of the common people, and champion individual rights,
which suggests the Tea Party should champion individuals rights to form unions, and bargain collectively.

Is the reason the Tea Party opposes unions is they've been convinced workers are forced,
by unions, to join the union, and they feel that's a threat to their individual rights?

Why can't we convince them powerful corporations are a threat to their individual rights and livelihood?

Corporations, be they insurance companies or banks or whatever, can deny you health care,
take your home, bankrupt you, stifle you with lawsuits, pollute your air and water.
I think only government is big enough and powerful enough to counter these powerful corporations.
Unfortunately, government seems to want to do the bidding of the very corporations it should police.

Corporations have much better leverage when it comes to negotiating with an individual over pay.
Corporations have demonstrated a willingness, almost feels like a zeal, to move jobs overseas.
I don't hear many people willing to move overseas, to follow the jobs.

[white_wolf]

39. On the topic of Unions.

Hitler did in fact ban all Unions. The right to strike is an important one for any socialist country and should never be removed. It is likely however that will over time become unnecessary in a socialist system since the workers control the factories, however I don't think anyone aside from Stalinists would be opposed to them existing, rather they would likely say they would cease to be needed as the socialist society progressed.

[TBF]

27. Thank you for the link WW - I will be looking forward to the installment on anarchism. nt

[Zephie]

28. Yay! I hope this will help people who don't understand gain some knowledge on the subject

:yourock:

[hansberrym]

29. This is what it really is....

Economic Decision-Making Is an Activity Subject to Congress’s Commerce Clause Power.
Economic Decision-Making Is an Activity Subject to Congress’s Commerce Clause Power.
Economic Decision-Making Is an Activity Subject to Congress’s Commerce Clause Power.
Economic Decision-Making Is an Activity Subject to Congress’s Commerce Clause Power.


Einstein: The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?


Some will argue that we are achieving in the US today is not Socialism, but it doesn't matter to me what we call it, our federal government is rapidly becoming the all-powerful. individual crushing, leviathon that is inevitable result of the centralization of power. That we have been warned by so many (Eisnstein, Orwell, Lord Acton to name a few) about the danger of such a concentration power seems not to matter.

[white_wolf]

31. To address the problem Einstein is posing

I would suggest two things. The first is Trotsky's worker councils or "soviets" to run the factories, stores, or whoever people work at. The second is getting rid of our two-party system and creating a multi- party one, because as we have it now, it seems like a lot of people feel like neither party is really working for them, but they have no options.

[socialist_n_TN]

33. ALL P0WER TO THE SOVIETS!

I just wanted to say it. :)

[socialist_n_TN]

32. Kick. I read the part on socialism and of course

liked it. I DO think in the transitional period though, there WILL be some sort of exchange medium, i.e., money. I also think that a small scale capitalism or profit based enterprises (with the boot of the worker on it's throat BARELY allowing it to breathe) should be allowed for anything above necessities. I could even forsee a demand economy, but ONLY WHEN EVERYBODY HAS THE NECESSITIES PROVIDED FOR.

Then we'll see if the state withers away. Although, I do think that there will always be the need for a "referee" which IMPLIES government of some limited sort.

[white_wolf]

35. As to you last point:

I agree, I'm not completely sure I agree with Marx or Trotsky on their views that the state will wither away. I think we will always need a referee, but if there are no massive corporations to influence the government and we have fair elections, I think it work out.

[Shagbark Hickory]

36. Could use a Cliff's Notes version or a comparison chart of problems and solutions by economic system

That's just my 0.02

[white_wolf]

41. I'll try and put that in my next OP. n/t

[white_wolf]

37. So anyone have any questions I can answer?

If so feel free to ask and I'll answer. Also if anyone has any preferences on which type of socialism/Marxism I work on next just let me know.

[socialist_n_TN]

42. I'd like to see a couple of things on anarchism..........

As I've said that's kind of a blind spot for me. I'm not familiar with that philosophical system at all other than in the most general terms.

[white_wolf]

43. I'll try and get to it eventually.

Where do you think would be a good starting point for my socialism 101 threads? I'm not sure if should start with a specific ideology or just give the basic definitions of the terms and try and debunk a few myths.

[socialist_n_TN]

47. IMO, start with the DSA versions...........

the mixed economic versions and then go on to the more militant ones. But you know, you're doing pretty damn good on your own. :)

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. The 2nd link is far-reaching - the abolishment of money, and all trade

Everyone gets whatever they want. Pankhurst ('she', by the way - you call her a man further up) is proposing a very radical reordering of human society. Is that your own personal goal? Would you say it's a typical view of socialism?

[white_wolf]

46. First of all, thanks for the catching that mistakte. I was way too tired when I wrote this.

As to your question, I would say that is the final goal of communism, however I do not think we will see that in my lifetime. She was writing about the final ends of the system, but we are long way from that. As to what I would do, I would suggest for starters turning all factories, shops, or wherever people work, over to the direct control of the workers. That is where socialism must begin, the pubic ownership of the means of production. I also feel that I should touch on an important misconception that a lot of people have about socialism. Socialism does not seek to abolish personal property as in your house, car, tv, videogames, or whatever. They seek to abolish "private property" as in the private ownership of the means of production.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. But Pankhurst did seek to make cars, radios etc. available on demand, for free

which I also think we would be a long way from, and which would also have far-reaching environmental effects that I think Pankhurst would never have realised.

I think turning all factories, shops etc. over to direct worker control would be a huge and difficult 'start'. Where such a radical change has been tried so far, it hasn't gone very well. A state in which the necessities of life are guaranteed by the state looks a bit more achievable, to me.

[Catherina]

45. Not right now but I need a place to for this little swing gem I just found

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP4l_PeBMyk

Sorry, just found it from a tweet and needed a place to stick it :P

A swing version. Who knew.


Arise, ye workers from your slumber,
Arise, ye prisoners of want.
For reason in revolt now thunders,
and at last ends the age of cant!
Away with all your superstitions,
Servile masses, arise, arise!
We'll change henceforth the old tradition,
And spurn the dust to win the prize!
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.

No more deluded by reaction,
On tyrants only we'll make war!
The soldiers too will take strike action,
They'll break ranks and fight no more!
And if those cannibals keep trying,
To sacrifice us to their pride,
They soon shall hear the bullets flying,
We'll shoot the generals on our own side.
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.

[freshwest]

49. I'll keep watching this thread to see how it goes. Tried to talk in other places, no interest.