Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Authentic Socialist" States

dogparktom
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2010 4:59:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Two Hundred and ninety-seven members in this forum identify their ideology as 'socialist.' One member states:

"Yes, I'll say it. I am a socialist. I will say it once and only once: Socialism isn't what was in the Soviet Union or China. Anybody who claims that the USSR or any other place are/were authentic Socialist states needs to do some research."

To you folks I put this question: What criteria defines an "authentic socialist state"?

And, also, why hasn't an authentic socialist state arisen to date in history?
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2010 5:23:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/13/2010 4:59:13 AM, dogparktom wrote:
Two Hundred and ninety-seven members in this forum identify their ideology as 'socialist.' One member states:

"Yes, I'll say it. I am a socialist. I will say it once and only once: Socialism isn't what was in the Soviet Union or China. Anybody who claims that the USSR or any other place are/were authentic Socialist states needs to do some research."

To you folks I put this question: What criteria defines an "authentic socialist state"?

And, also, why hasn't an authentic socialist state arisen to date in history?

Well it has. In fact there have been, and still are many.

Don't get socialism confused with communism - they are as different as free-market capitalism and fascism.

The majority of European countries are run, or have in the recent past been run, by socialist governments and the largest grouping in the EU Parliament is the socialists.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2010 8:42:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/13/2010 5:23:53 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:59:13 AM, dogparktom wrote:
Two Hundred and ninety-seven members in this forum identify their ideology as 'socialist.' One member states:

"Yes, I'll say it. I am a socialist. I will say it once and only once: Socialism isn't what was in the Soviet Union or China. Anybody who claims that the USSR or any other place are/were authentic Socialist states needs to do some research."

To you folks I put this question: What criteria defines an "authentic socialist state"?

And, also, why hasn't an authentic socialist state arisen to date in history?

Well it has. In fact there have been, and still are many.

Don't get socialism confused with communism - they are as different as free-market capitalism and fascism.

The majority of European countries are run, or have in the recent past been run, by socialist governments and the largest grouping in the EU Parliament is the socialists.

No, those are Social Democrats. There's differences.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2010 8:50:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/13/2010 4:59:13 AM, dogparktom wrote:
Two Hundred and ninety-seven members in this forum identify their ideology as 'socialist.' One member states:

"Yes, I'll say it. I am a socialist. I will say it once and only once: Socialism isn't what was in the Soviet Union or China. Anybody who claims that the USSR or any other place are/were authentic Socialist states needs to do some research."

To you folks I put this question: What criteria defines an "authentic socialist state"?

And, also, why hasn't an authentic socialist state arisen to date in history?

Did you ever aspire to be a public defender?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2010 10:16:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/13/2010 8:42:49 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
No, those are Social Democrats. There's differences.

To be fair, Francois Mitterand and Harold Wilson were pretty much socialists...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2010 3:52:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No, they aren't. Socialism: Government is allodial owner. Same with communism. Same with fascism. Capitalism is the exception here :) The only consistent difference: Socialism is generally a broad term that includes, among other things, both communism and fascism. Communism specifically upholds the proletariat as the purpose of socialism, whereas fascism upholds the state as such as the purpose.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2010 4:07:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/13/2010 3:52:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, they aren't. Socialism: Government is allodial owner. Same with communism. Same with fascism. Capitalism is the exception here :) The only consistent difference: Socialism is generally a broad term that includes, among other things, both communism and fascism. Communism specifically upholds the proletariat as the purpose of socialism, whereas fascism upholds the state as such as the purpose.

Socialism sucks.
Communism sucks too.
dogparktom
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2010 4:12:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/13/2010 8:50:36 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:59:13 AM, dogparktom wrote:
Two Hundred and ninety-seven members in this forum identify their ideology as 'socialist.' One member states:

"Yes, I'll say it. I am a socialist. I will say it once and only once: Socialism isn't what was in the Soviet Union or China. Anybody who claims that the USSR or any other place are/were authentic Socialist states needs to do some research."

To you folks I put this question: What criteria defines an "authentic socialist state"?

And, also, why hasn't an authentic socialist state arisen to date in history?

Did you ever aspire to be a public defender?

I worked as a public defender for about five years.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2010 4:18:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/13/2010 4:12:02 PM, dogparktom wrote:
At 1/13/2010 8:50:36 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:59:13 AM, dogparktom wrote:
Two Hundred and ninety-seven members in this forum identify their ideology as 'socialist.' One member states:

"Yes, I'll say it. I am a socialist. I will say it once and only once: Socialism isn't what was in the Soviet Union or China. Anybody who claims that the USSR or any other place are/were authentic Socialist states needs to do some research."

To you folks I put this question: What criteria defines an "authentic socialist state"?

And, also, why hasn't an authentic socialist state arisen to date in history?

Did you ever aspire to be a public defender?

I worked as a public defender for about five years.

You seem to have that attitude.
If i go that route i would be a Public prosecutor.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2010 4:22:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/13/2010 4:07:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/13/2010 3:52:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, they aren't. Socialism: Government is allodial owner. Same with communism. Same with fascism. Capitalism is the exception here :) The only consistent difference: Socialism is generally a broad term that includes, among other things, both communism and fascism. Communism specifically upholds the proletariat as the purpose of socialism, whereas fascism upholds the state as such as the purpose.

Socialism sucks.
Communism sucks too.

Wow, very convincing argument. I suppose having millions of suffering people worldwide doesn't suck though. :)
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2010 4:43:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/13/2010 4:22:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:07:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/13/2010 3:52:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, they aren't. Socialism: Government is allodial owner. Same with communism. Same with fascism. Capitalism is the exception here :) The only consistent difference: Socialism is generally a broad term that includes, among other things, both communism and fascism. Communism specifically upholds the proletariat as the purpose of socialism, whereas fascism upholds the state as such as the purpose.

Socialism sucks.
Communism sucks too.

Wow, very convincing argument. I suppose having millions of suffering people worldwide doesn't suck though. :)

Oh, so that's why you're not against socialism/communism...

Everything makes just a little more sense now.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2010 5:01:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/13/2010 4:43:07 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:22:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:07:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/13/2010 3:52:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, they aren't. Socialism: Government is allodial owner. Same with communism. Same with fascism. Capitalism is the exception here :) The only consistent difference: Socialism is generally a broad term that includes, among other things, both communism and fascism. Communism specifically upholds the proletariat as the purpose of socialism, whereas fascism upholds the state as such as the purpose.

Socialism sucks.
Communism sucks too.

Wow, very convincing argument. I suppose having millions of suffering people worldwide doesn't suck though. :)

Oh, so that's why you're not against socialism/communism...

Everything makes just a little more sense now.

Says the Anarchist... Unless you're the other kind of Anarchist?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2010 7:56:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/13/2010 5:01:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:43:07 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:22:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:07:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/13/2010 3:52:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, they aren't. Socialism: Government is allodial owner. Same with communism. Same with fascism. Capitalism is the exception here :) The only consistent difference: Socialism is generally a broad term that includes, among other things, both communism and fascism. Communism specifically upholds the proletariat as the purpose of socialism, whereas fascism upholds the state as such as the purpose.

Socialism sucks.
Communism sucks too.

Wow, very convincing argument. I suppose having millions of suffering people worldwide doesn't suck though. :)

Oh, so that's why you're not against socialism/communism...

Everything makes just a little more sense now.

Says the Anarchist... Unless you're the other kind of Anarchist?

I don't know what you mean, but I'm probably not the type you like if you disagree with R_R.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2010 8:38:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/13/2010 7:56:18 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 1/13/2010 5:01:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:43:07 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:22:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:07:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/13/2010 3:52:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, they aren't. Socialism: Government is allodial owner. Same with communism. Same with fascism. Capitalism is the exception here :) The only consistent difference: Socialism is generally a broad term that includes, among other things, both communism and fascism. Communism specifically upholds the proletariat as the purpose of socialism, whereas fascism upholds the state as such as the purpose.

Socialism sucks.
Communism sucks too.

Wow, very convincing argument. I suppose having millions of suffering people worldwide doesn't suck though. :)

Oh, so that's why you're not against socialism/communism...

Everything makes just a little more sense now.

Says the Anarchist... Unless you're the other kind of Anarchist?

I don't know what you mean, but I'm probably not the type you like if you disagree with R_R.

I was referring to the type of Anarchist that believes in collectivisation. Haha.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2010 8:49:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/13/2010 8:38:17 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/13/2010 7:56:18 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 1/13/2010 5:01:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:43:07 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:22:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:07:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/13/2010 3:52:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, they aren't. Socialism: Government is allodial owner. Same with communism. Same with fascism. Capitalism is the exception here :) The only consistent difference: Socialism is generally a broad term that includes, among other things, both communism and fascism. Communism specifically upholds the proletariat as the purpose of socialism, whereas fascism upholds the state as such as the purpose.

Socialism sucks.
Communism sucks too.

Wow, very convincing argument. I suppose having millions of suffering people worldwide doesn't suck though. :)

Oh, so that's why you're not against socialism/communism...

Everything makes just a little more sense now.

Says the Anarchist... Unless you're the other kind of Anarchist?

I don't know what you mean, but I'm probably not the type you like if you disagree with R_R.

I was referring to the type of Anarchist that believes in collectivisation. Haha.

Yeah, he's not that.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2010 8:55:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/13/2010 8:49:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/13/2010 8:38:17 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/13/2010 7:56:18 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 1/13/2010 5:01:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:43:07 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:22:31 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:07:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/13/2010 3:52:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, they aren't. Socialism: Government is allodial owner. Same with communism. Same with fascism. Capitalism is the exception here :) The only consistent difference: Socialism is generally a broad term that includes, among other things, both communism and fascism. Communism specifically upholds the proletariat as the purpose of socialism, whereas fascism upholds the state as such as the purpose.

Socialism sucks.
Communism sucks too.

Wow, very convincing argument. I suppose having millions of suffering people worldwide doesn't suck though. :)

Oh, so that's why you're not against socialism/communism...

Everything makes just a little more sense now.

Says the Anarchist... Unless you're the other kind of Anarchist?

I don't know what you mean, but I'm probably not the type you like if you disagree with R_R.

I was referring to the type of Anarchist that believes in collectivisation. Haha.

Yeah, he's not that.

Well that clears things up. I didn't think he was on my side. :(
dogparktom
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 5:48:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/13/2010 4:18:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:12:02 PM, dogparktom wrote:
At 1/13/2010 8:50:36 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:59:13 AM, dogparktom wrote:
Two Hundred and ninety-seven members in this forum identify their ideology as 'socialist.' One member states:

"Yes, I'll say it. I am a socialist. I will say it once and only once: Socialism isn't what was in the Soviet Union or China. Anybody who claims that the USSR or any other place are/were authentic Socialist states needs to do some research."

To you folks I put this question: What criteria defines an "authentic socialist state"?

And, also, why hasn't an authentic socialist state arisen to date in history?

Did you ever aspire to be a public defender?

I worked as a public defender for about five years.

You seem to have that attitude.
If i go that route i would be a Public prosecutor.
______________________________

My first job after graduation and passing the bar was working as a criminal prosecutor.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 5:52:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/13/2010 5:23:53 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:59:13 AM, dogparktom wrote:
Two Hundred and ninety-seven members in this forum identify their ideology as 'socialist.' One member states:

"Yes, I'll say it. I am a socialist. I will say it once and only once: Socialism isn't what was in the Soviet Union or China. Anybody who claims that the USSR or any other place are/were authentic Socialist states needs to do some research."

To you folks I put this question: What criteria defines an "authentic socialist state"?

And, also, why hasn't an authentic socialist state arisen to date in history?

Well it has. In fact there have been, and still are many.

Don't get socialism confused with communism - they are as different as free-market capitalism and fascism.


So not very dfferent at all?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 1:44:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 5:52:46 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/13/2010 5:23:53 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:59:13 AM, dogparktom wrote:
Two Hundred and ninety-seven members in this forum identify their ideology as 'socialist.' One member states:

"Yes, I'll say it. I am a socialist. I will say it once and only once: Socialism isn't what was in the Soviet Union or China. Anybody who claims that the USSR or any other place are/were authentic Socialist states needs to do some research."

To you folks I put this question: What criteria defines an "authentic socialist state"?

And, also, why hasn't an authentic socialist state arisen to date in history?

Well it has. In fact there have been, and still are many.

Don't get socialism confused with communism - they are as different as free-market capitalism and fascism.


So not very dfferent at all?

Umm...no, they are. Fascism has a corporatist type economic system which obviously different from a unregulated Free-Market Laissez-Faire type system. As for Socialism/Communism, many people use the two words interchangeably. However, one can be a socialist, but not a communist while one must be socialist first in order to be a communist.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 1:51:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 5:48:05 AM, dogparktom wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:18:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:12:02 PM, dogparktom wrote:
At 1/13/2010 8:50:36 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:59:13 AM, dogparktom wrote:
Two Hundred and ninety-seven members in this forum identify their ideology as 'socialist.' One member states:

"Yes, I'll say it. I am a socialist. I will say it once and only once: Socialism isn't what was in the Soviet Union or China. Anybody who claims that the USSR or any other place are/were authentic Socialist states needs to do some research."

To you folks I put this question: What criteria defines an "authentic socialist state"?

And, also, why hasn't an authentic socialist state arisen to date in history?

Did you ever aspire to be a public defender?

I worked as a public defender for about five years.

You seem to have that attitude.
If i go that route i would be a Public prosecutor.
______________________________

My first job after graduation and passing the bar was working as a criminal prosecutor.

Cool.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 1:53:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 5:48:05 AM, dogparktom wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:18:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:12:02 PM, dogparktom wrote:
At 1/13/2010 8:50:36 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/13/2010 4:59:13 AM, dogparktom wrote:
Two Hundred and ninety-seven members in this forum identify their ideology as 'socialist.' One member states:

"Yes, I'll say it. I am a socialist. I will say it once and only once: Socialism isn't what was in the Soviet Union or China. Anybody who claims that the USSR or any other place are/were authentic Socialist states needs to do some research."

To you folks I put this question: What criteria defines an "authentic socialist state"?

And, also, why hasn't an authentic socialist state arisen to date in history?

Did you ever aspire to be a public defender?

I worked as a public defender for about five years.

You seem to have that attitude.
If i go that route i would be a Public prosecutor.
______________________________

My first job after graduation and passing the bar was working as a criminal prosecutor.

Your ideology seems geared closer to a public defender.
Lukas
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 8:59:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yugoslavia under Tito was a Socialist republic and was completely non-aligned to the Soviets, they took no marching orders from Moscow. Under Tito the historically diveded people of 'the balkans' were united under a cause for the common good of all there people. One only has to look at the breakdown of the nation(s) and the catastrophic rise in abhorent nationalism after Tito's death as proof that Yugoslavia was a succesfull Socialist republic.
As for other Socialist states well ther have been many. Whats more interesting to me is the Socialism of my own country, The U.K. Okay so it has never been a true 'Socialist Republic' but our Socialist leagacy is rich non-the-less. The right to universal health care, education, housing, greenbelts and many other admirable british political traits were entirly Socialist ventures and that should never be forgotten. Even before the 'Communist Manifesto' and Marx and Engles, in 17th century Britain ther were groups called 'the Levellers' and my personal favorites 'the Diggers' who were certainly Socialists http://en.wikipedia.org...
Its a heritage im proud of and one thats all too often forgotten.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 9:48:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 8:59:59 AM, Lukas wrote:
Yugoslavia under Tito was a Socialist republic and was completely non-aligned to the Soviets, they took no marching orders from Moscow. Under Tito the historically diveded people of 'the balkans' were united under a cause for the common good of all there people. One only has to look at the breakdown of the nation(s) and the catastrophic rise in abhorent nationalism after Tito's death as proof that Yugoslavia was a succesfull Socialist republic.

A dictatorship forged out of political convenience and good old fashioned strong-arming seems to be far from the "success" that most socialists want to associate with.

And while Tito was a unifier, he didn't do it out of the kindness of his quasi-socialist heart. Slavs have always had a manifest destiny-like vision for the Balkans - Tito was simply the one to make it a reality, with the initial support of the USSR, I might add. But this grand vision isn't because of socialism, for any Tom, Dick or Harry, of any ideology, with enough drive and in the right situation, could build the same state.
Lukas
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 10:51:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 9:48:01 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/18/2010 8:59:59 AM, Lukas wrote:
Yugoslavia under Tito was a Socialist republic and was completely non-aligned to the Soviets, they took no marching orders from Moscow. Under Tito the historically divided people of 'the Balkans' were united under a cause for the common good of all there people. One only has to look at the breakdown of the nation(s) and the catastrophic rise in abhorrent nationalism after Tito's death as proof that Yugoslavia was a successful Socialist republic.

A dictatorship forged out of political convenience and good old fashioned strong-arming seems to be far from the "success" that most socialists want to associate with.
I would hardly call the rise of Fascism in Europe a 'political convenience'. And as for good 'old fashioned strong arming' well...revolutions don't happen by handing out cakes.

And while Tito was a unifier, he didn't do it out of the kindness of his quasi-socialist heart.

I find your use of words both misguided and condescending. Your quite right it was not 'out of the kindness of his heart', it was far more than that. The Partisan movement and subsequent Socialist government was nothing to do with kindness, it was to do with being a force against Fascism and movement towards a less divided and equality driven society. Kindness doesn't really come into it, none of it was an act of charity rather it was an act towards true reform where charity is no longer an issue.

Slavs have always had a manifest destiny-like vision for the Balkans - Tito was simply the one to make it a reality, with the initial support of the USSR, I might add. But this grand vision isn't because of socialism, for any Tom, Dick or Harry, of any ideology, with enough drive and in the right situation, could build the same state.

I shall respond to this shortly....
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 11:49:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
it was to do with being a force against Fascism and movement towards a less divided

Fascism is all about getting rid of "dividing." The very root of the word bundles people up like lathes in the name of the State. Nothing could be more fascist than the notion of the "common good."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 1:40:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This thread suffers a lack of definition.

It is true when people say Socialism (read: Marxism) has never existed. The closest examples have been in Latin America, such as current-day Bolivia or Venezuela. They have nationalized their natural resources, sponsored direct-democracy by way of local union collectives and they've expanded their social programs. Not perfect examples, but pretty good.

Democratic socialism, however, is a much more general concept. Using only the best examples, we can say that socialism currently exists in the Scandinavian countries.

Communism is junk and I don't want to talk about it.
Lukas
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 2:47:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 11:49:40 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
it was to do with being a force against Fascism and movement towards a less divided

Fascism is all about getting rid of "dividing." The very root of the word bundles people up like lathes in the name of the State. Nothing could be more fascist than the notion of the "common good."

Perhaps my use of grammar was misleading. Yugoslavia was not a fascist country before it became socialist, although it was under siege by fascists. I was not saying they were moving toward a less divided society out of fascism, merely that it was another objective (as I perceive it) of the movement.
Lukas
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 2:55:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 1:40:28 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
This thread suffers a lack of definition.

It is true when people say Socialism (read: Marxism) has never existed. The closest examples have been in Latin America, such as current-day Bolivia or Venezuela. They have nationalized their natural resources, sponsored direct-democracy by way of local union collectives and they've expanded their social programs. Not perfect examples, but pretty good.

Democratic socialism, however, is a much more general concept. Using only the best examples, we can say that socialism currently exists in the Scandinavian countries.

Good point. There is also the distinction between Fabian Socialism and revolutionary Socialism that is worth taking into account.