Debate over socialism, anarchism

[TruthSpeaker1]

I suspect that those who don't believe in the concept of 'all people are created equal' also don't believe in the possibility of a Utopia...

Not viable in the real world with such a large population. One of the reasons why socialism failed is because Marx believed that human nature could be changed.

 

[ebola?]

>>Not viable in the real world with such a large population. One of the reasons why socialism failed is because Marx believed that human nature could be changed.>>

Or more accurately that human nature was to produce change in humans.

ebola

 

[LiveIllegal]

One of the reasons why socialism failed is because Marx believed that human nature could be changed.

What at all do Marx's beliefs about human nature have to do with the failure of socialism in Russia? Authoritarian socialism fell flat on its face, as had been predicted by followers of various political ideologies. Fortunately, authoritarian socialism is not the only socialist model.

 

[TruthSpeaker1]

What at all do Marx's beliefs about human nature have to do with the failure of socialism in Russia?

I was merely stating an example of a flaw of socialism. "One of the reasons why socialism failed is because Marx believed that human nature could be changed."

The emphasis that Marx had on the human nature was one of the many flaws of his Manifesto. To put it simply, he created a flawed style of government. Has history not been consistent with my assumptions about communism?

Or more accurately that human nature was to produce change in humans.

Are you saying that the essence of human nature is to evoke changes in other humans? How so?

 

[LiveIllegal]

I was merely stating an example of a flaw of socialism. "One of the reasons why socialism failed is because Marx believed that human nature could be changed."

The emphasis that Marx had on the human nature was one of the many flaws of his Manifesto. To put it simply, he created a flawed style of government. Has history not been consistent with my assumptions about communism?

Communism and socialism are not one and the same. They are closely related and the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but Marxist communism is not the only version of socialist thought.

And no, history has not been totally consistent with your ideas, which are rather ambiguous and incomplete anyway. Look up the Spanish Revolution. That's an example of an effectively functioning socialist society. It no longer exists because it was stamped out by communist/fascists.

Are you saying that the essence of human nature is to evoke changes in other humans? How so?

I am not arguing for Marx. Please reread my posts.

 

[TruthSpeaker1]

I am not arguing for Marx. Please reread my posts.

that comment was directed toward ebola, i was trying to understand what he's saying.

And no, history has not been totally consistent with your ideas, which are rather ambiguous and incomplete anyway. Look up the Spanish Revolution. That's an example of an effectively functioning socialist society. It no longer exists because it was stamped out by communist/fascists.

The Spanish Revolution had both socialist and anarchist elements to it. It also didn't last too long, approximately 3 years. In the end, the spirit of the revolution faded away due to WWII and the rising power of Spain's Communist party. Although a few cases of a working socialist government may exist, has this style of government been consistent? Compare those 3 years with a span of 100+ years of countries who have endured the capitalistic ideals and have experienced a prosperous nation.

Communism and socialism are not one and the same. They are closely related and the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but Marxist communism is not the only version of socialist thought.

Yes I'm aware of that. I only named Communism because it is the most well known and most influential.

 

[LiveIllegal]

The Spanish Revolution had both socialist and anarchist elements to it. It also didn't last too long, approximately 3 years. In the end, the spirit of the revolution faded away due to WWII and the rising power of Spain's Communist party.

Like I said, it was stamped out by the communist/fascists.

Although a few cases of a working socialist government may exist, has this style of government been consistent?

What do you mean by consistent? Has it lasted? No, because those in power overtook it. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have worked on its own.

Compare those 3 years with a span of 100+ years of countries who have endured the capitalistic ideals and have experienced a prosperous nation.

Well, that would be a useless comparison. In the hundreds of years of capitalist society there have been many atrocities commited, which persist today. We simply don't know whether they would have occured in a socialist society had it been allowed to continue. Likewise, we don't know how prosperous it would have become. We do know, however, that it was working. The fact that there already existed a more powerful movement that overtook it does not discount that the socialist/anarchist model has been demonstrated to be effective in that instance.

that comment was directed toward ebola, i was trying to understand what he's saying.

Oh yeah, duh. Sorry, I read that while I was writing my reply.

Yes I'm aware of that. I only named Communism because it is the most well known and most influential.

No, you brought up Marx and used his ideas to explain why socialism failed, not communism.

 

[TruthSpeaker1]

What do you mean by consistent? Has it lasted? No, because those in power overtook it. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have worked on its own.

Well you could argue that the power overtook the movement, but all movements run out of motivation at some point. I believe that if the majority of the people truly believed in a socialist government the government would have been powerless to stop them.

What do you mean by consistent? Has it lasted? No, because those in power overtook it. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have worked on its own.

There are reasons why it did not work. It may have worked, it may have not.

Well, that would be a useless comparison. In the hundreds of years of capitalist society there have been many atrocities commited, which persist today. We simply don't know whether they would have occured in a socialist society had it been allowed to continue. Likewise, we don't know how prosperous it would have become. We do know, however, that it was working.

Your right, we don't know how prosperous it would have become. I do not, howerver, agree with your assumption that a style of government may work and thrive currently only because it has worked in other isolated situations. Do you propose we try until we get it right?

Oh yeah, duh. Sorry, I read that while I was writing my reply.

No problem, I make mistakes like that all the time .

No, you brought up Marx and used his ideas to explain why socialism failed, not communism.

okay, my mistake.

I realize that there are other types of socialism, what are the basic traits of any socialist society? Can you agree with these general statements?

Socialism attempts to divide the wealth of a nation among the population. While Capitalism provides equality in terms of opportunity, Socialism provides equality in terms of rewards. For example, everyone in a socialist government shall get the same pay, the same house, the same land, etc. However, not everyone will have the same job due to the needs of the population. This leaves us with an unfair system of government because a doctor and a mechanic will get the same results but one has put in more work than the other.

 

[ebola?]

>>Do you propose we try until we get it right?>>

In a word, yes.

>>Can you agree with these general statements? >>

In a word, no.
...
[no time. gotta read.]

ebola

 

[TruthSpeaker1]

In a word, no.
...
[no time. gotta read.]

ebola

haha, no time to debate? Let me hear your definition of socialism then.

In a word, yes.

Why would you want to force a system of government upon a people? Are you saying that you would be willing to try to make socialism work regardless of the consequences?

 

[LiveIllegal]

haha, no time to debate? Let me hear your definition of socialism then.

Well, libertarian socialism is defined as a society in which the means of production are owned collectively by the people.

Why would you want to force a system of government upon a people?

I don't recall anyone ever mentioning that. In fact, that is precisely what anarchists are vehemently opposed to.

Are you saying that you would be willing to try to make socialism work regardless of the consequences?

No, to make society work with favorable consequences. The idea is that socialism will achieve that.

 

[knight_marshall]

going a little back... human nature is to change human nature...

as evolved beings both physically and mentally, it is quite obvious that our nature is to evolve.. ie change. as for whether we can control this... either way, we still effect it.

 

[TruthSpeaker1]

Well, libertarian socialism is defined as a society in which the means of production are owned collectively by the people.

yes but libertarian socialism is obviously more complicated than this, reminds me a lot of anarchism.

"Libertarian socialists in conjunction with Marxists dispute the notion that capitalist economic relations arise spontaneously in the absence of suppression, but in fact require active political suppression in the form of property law that is enforced either by a state or by private force "

if the market is collectively owned, who is the enforcer in this case? Leaders must exist in any government structure (excluding governments with extemely small population).

I don't recall anyone ever mentioning that. In fact, that is precisely what anarchists are vehemently opposed to.

i asked ebola if we should keep on trying to build a socialism gov, he said yes.

No, to make society work with favorable consequences. The idea is that socialism will achieve that.

okay, but how can one decide when too much effort has been put in establishing a government that may not work out?

 

[LiveIllegal]

yes but libertarian socialism is obviously more complicated than this, reminds me a lot of anarchism.

"Libertarian socialists in conjunction with Marxists dispute the notion that capitalist economic relations arise spontaneously in the absence of suppression, but in fact require active political suppression in the form of property law that is enforced either by a state or by private force "

if the market is collectively owned, who is the enforcer in this case? Leaders must exist in any government structure (excluding governments with extemely small population).

There is no enforcer. That's why it's called libertarian socialism. It reminds you of anarchism because that's exactly what it is.

i asked ebola if we should keep on trying to build a socialism gov, he said yes.

No one mentioned government. You asked if we should keep trying until we make it work, and ebola said yes. You were the one that brought up the notion of forcing a form of government on the people.

okay, but how can one decide when too much effort has been put in establishing a government that may not work out?

It will decide itself.

 

[ChoGrass]

confusion overwhelming me...

actually, what do we really know anyway? the more i try to think why we are equal, the more i find how we are NOT equal. but as soon as i feel we are NOT equal, i start to argue we ARE equal...

 

[protovack]

The isolated socialist areas of the spanish revolution failed for two reasons:

1. They were attacked and isolated by capitalist/communist forces

2. Factional in-fighting erupted, dissolving the unity of the collective


If you look at the history closely, you'll find that the factionalization began far before the escalation of violence. These were divisions within the communes between the pure anarchists and those who hoped to maintain some ties to the larger population. Basically, it was a matter of how leftist you were.

Then when the outside pressure began.....you first saw an enormous defense program organized by the socialists. Everybody wanted to go fight the fascists.

As time went on....the moderate socialists stopped fighting. They weren't *really* anarchists. They were just caught up in the rhetoric of the charismatic anarchists. They worked the farms...practiced the socialist values....but in the end were not willing to fight for them.

The strange thing is that the fascist military forces never really made an overt strike. It was like they were trying to test the socialists. Some might say that the socialists failed the "defense" test.

 

[TruthSpeaker1]

There is no enforcer. That's why it's called libertarian socialism. It reminds you of anarchism because that's exactly what it is.

In such a complex society, officials are needed to regulate the community.

"capitalist economic relations arise spontaneously in the absence of suppression, but in fact require active political suppression in the form of property law that is enforced either by a state or by private force"

No one mentioned government. You asked if we should keep trying until we make it work, and ebola said yes. You were the one that brought up the notion of forcing a form of government on the people.

Isn't socialism a form of government?

It will decide itself.

yes, either peacefully or violently.

 

[ebola?]

>>Are you saying that the essence of human nature is to evoke changes in other humans? How so?>>

Sort of. I am saying that for Marx, human nature is for the human being to produce her means of subsistence in varying ways because of the creative capacity afforded by labor. Since we are also social beings, this entails that we at the same time produce relations with one another. These relations also vary across the course of history.

>>haha, no time to debate? Let me hear your definition of socialism then.
>>

I actually ran out of time to post on here in general. Socialism is a body of economic relations whereby property is somehow shared.

>>Why would you want to force a system of government upon a people? Are you saying that you would be willing to try to make socialism work regardless of the consequences?>>

I am an anarchist. I don't wish that any system be forced. I do, however, advocate that we try different forms of social organization until we find one that works. The current arrangement is NOT working.

>>yes but libertarian socialism is obviously more complicated than this, reminds me a lot of anarchism>>

They are synonymous.

>>if the market is collectively owned, who is the enforcer in this case? Leaders must exist in any government structure (excluding governments with extemely small population).>>

The "enforcer" would be the population at large. Anarchism entails the complete decentralization of force. Also, most anarchist economic ideas don't include a market of any sort.

>>In such a complex society, officials are needed to regulate the community. >>

We disagree. At the worst, temporary representatives without coercive authority.

>>The isolated socialist areas of the spanish revolution failed for two reasons:

1. They were attacked and isolated by capitalist/communist forces

2. Factional in-fighting erupted, dissolving the unity of the collective>>

This is a good point and raises an additional question. What drove this factionalization? Was it the duress of defense against fascists? What can anarchists learn from the Spanish revolution?

ebola

 

[TruthSpeaker1]

I am an anarchist. I don't wish that any system be forced. I do, however, advocate that we try different forms of social organization until we find one that works. The current arrangement is NOT working.

That explains a lot . The last sentence in the quote is strictly your own opinion.

Also, most anarchist economic ideas don't include a market of any sort.

Is this possible?

"capitalist economic relations arise spontaneously in the absence of suppression"

meaning that capitalist markets will always eventually appear in locations that discourge it.

We disagree. At the worst, temporary representatives without coercive authority.

Right, but who has to check these authorities? And who has to check the authorities who checks the authorities? And so on.

 

[ebola?]

>>The last sentence in the quote is strictly your own opinion. >>

As is any other sentence someone utters. We can continue to discuss, though, if we come up with a common conception of what it is for a politico-economic system to function effectively.

>>"capitalist economic relations arise spontaneously in the absence of suppression" >>

Okay. You, for some inexplicable reason, have been quoting a scrap of this sentence out of context in a way that completely reverses its meaning.

The full blurb is actually the following:

"Libertarian socialists in conjunction with Marxists dispute the notion that capitalist economic relations arise spontaneously in the absence of suppression, but in fact require active political suppression in the form of property law that is enforced either by a state or by private force "

Now do you see?

>>Right, but who has to check these authorities? And who has to check the authorities who checks the authorities? And so on.>>

1. These are not authorities. They are strict and temporary representational tools recruited only for tasks that require such representation.
2. Their power is kept in check by the populace at large.

ebola