Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dominus Paradoxum · 03-30-2003, 11:10 PM

First off, I'll agree that socialism sounds like a good idea in theory, but, as with all other ideas, the test of viability lies in successfull implementation, and not theoretical soundness. My question would be then, if socialism (however you may choose to define it) is a feasible form of society, then how come all attempts to implemt it have degenerated from "true" socialism into some form of fascistic Stalinism? Is this decay inevitable, or could a real form of socialism be established? If so, what kind of resources or circumstances would it take to successfully establish it, and what steps do you think would need to be taken to stop the party from becoming usurped by would be Stalins or Maos?

Krieger · 03-30-2003, 11:50 PM

I don't have the time to type a lengthy reply at the moment, but here are some brief notes on a large topic:

The major problem a socialist country immediately faces is that all of the other capitalist countries in the world are trying to destroy it as soon as it appears. Obviously, this puts a lot of pressure on the revolutionary party that led the successful revolution. For example, the bourgeois White Army in the Soviet Union during the civil war was reinforced and helped by 14 nations (including the US). Also, the revolution might have taken place in a really industrially backward country like Russia in 1917, (this led to many of the problems involved with rapid industrialization in the 1930s).

Anyway, another problem that socialist countries have to deal with is the enemy within (right-wing members inside of the revolutionary party that try to betray the revolution with capitalistic ideas). Basically, I think a revolutionary party should be founded on principles, not individuals (or the "cult of personality"). Also, I think the revolutionary party needs to be more open (regarding debate). Hehe, and lets avoid having a secret police!

All for now... (and keep in mind that I was a right-winger for most of my life, I became an ideological centrist (social democrat/liberal/progressive) about three years ago, and I became a socialist only eight months ago). So I'm not open for debate on ideology (I've already rejected all of the other political ideas!)

RED DAVE · 03-30-2003, 11:56 PM

Socialism is not some "ideal" form of utopia imposed on society by those who want it against those who don't. It's an attempt by the mass of the population to solve a situation where capitalism is in total crisis and can't provide for the welfare of its citizens or the capitalist regime is so politically odious that revolt is a natural response.

As such, socialism is a world system. It can't happen in one country. Any attempt of a socialist society to exist in the presence of capitalism neighbors must fail or "decay" either from military or economic pressure. Socialism will succeed when a socialist revolution (peaceful or otherwise) begins and spreads to encompass. substantially, the entire world.

'm not trying to be grandiose. These are the conditions: capitalist crisis, worldwide, and the spread of revolution to the major industrial countries. This, very, super briefly, is an answer

Rosa Luxemburg once said: "Every revolution is doomed to failure, except the last one."

RED DAVE

RED DAVE · 03-31-2003, 02:06 AM

York, why delete? Here's a good start.

William Morris on Socialism

RED DAVE

meritocrat · 03-31-2003, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominus Paradoxum
First off, I'll agree that socialism sounds like a good idea in theory, but, as with all other ideas, the test of viability lies in successfull implementation, and not theoretical soundness. My question would be then, if socialism (however you may choose to define it) is a feasible form of society, then how come all attempts to implemt it have degenerated from "true" socialism into some form of fascistic Stalinism? Is this decay inevitable, or could a real form of socialism be established? If so, what kind of resources or circumstances would it take to successfully establish it, and what steps do you think would need to be taken to stop the party from becoming usurped by would be Stalins or Maos?

There are different forms of socialism. What is 'true socialism'?

RED DAVE · 03-31-2003, 02:44 AM

Socialism (hopefully true), is a society where the commanding economic decisions that effect peoples' lives, locally, nationally and globally, are made democratically by those directly affected by those decisions.

"True socialism" (to define it negatively) is not the former USSR or any of its satellites, the former Yugoslavia, Cuba, China, North Korea or Sweden.

RED DAVE

Wounded King · 03-31-2003, 03:07 AM

Are there any societies out there which represent a successful textbook application of any form of political/economic governance. I havent seen any real free market economies anywhere yet.

RED DAVE · 03-31-2003, 03:10 AM

I think that the US is a perfect, text book example of living, breathing capitalism. The bestest with the mostest.

RED DAVE

Syphor · 03-31-2003, 04:00 AM

Not really, it's a mixed market system incorporating aspects of both a free market and a planned economy. Capitalism and Socialism are two extremes at opposing ends of the economic spectrum, and neither have ever existed in their truest form, anywhere.

meritocrat · 03-31-2003, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominus Paradoxum
First off, I'll agree that socialism sounds like a good idea in theory, but, as with all other ideas, the test of viability lies in successfull implementation, and not theoretical soundness. My question would be then, if socialism (however you may choose to define it) is a feasible form of society, then how come all attempts to implemt it have degenerated from "true" socialism into some form of fascistic Stalinism? Is this decay inevitable, or could a real form of socialism be established? If so, what kind of resources or circumstances would it take to successfully establish it, and what steps do you think would need to be taken to stop the party from becoming usurped by would be Stalins or Maos?

Marxism was not 'sucessfully implemented' because no capitalist society has shown the signs of social polarisation that Marx believed would occur.

03-30-2003, 11:10 PM	#1
Dominus Paradoxum Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: California Posts: 1,000	A question for Socialists: First off, I'll agree that socialism sounds like a good idea in theory, but, as with all other ideas, the test of viability lies in successfull implementation, and not theoretical soundness. My question would be then, if socialism (however you may choose to define it) is a feasible form of society, then how come all attempts to implemt it have degenerated from "true" socialism into some form of fascistic Stalinism? Is this decay inevitable, or could a real form of socialism be established? If so, what kind of resources or circumstances would it take to successfully establish it, and what steps do you think would need to be taken to stop the party from becoming usurped by would be Stalins or Maos?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-30-2003, 11:50 PM	#2
Krieger Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: ... Posts: 2,191	I don't have the time to type a lengthy reply at the moment, but here are some brief notes on a large topic: The major problem a socialist country immediately faces is that all of the other capitalist countries in the world are trying to destroy it as soon as it appears. Obviously, this puts a lot of pressure on the revolutionary party that led the successful revolution. For example, the bourgeois White Army in the Soviet Union during the civil war was reinforced and helped by 14 nations (including the US). Also, the revolution might have taken place in a really industrially backward country like Russia in 1917, (this led to many of the problems involved with rapid industrialization in the 1930s). Anyway, another problem that socialist countries have to deal with is the enemy within (right-wing members inside of the revolutionary party that try to betray the revolution with capitalistic ideas). Basically, I think a revolutionary party should be founded on principles, not individuals (or the "cult of personality"). Also, I think the revolutionary party needs to be more open (regarding debate). Hehe, and lets avoid having a secret police! All for now... (and keep in mind that I was a right-winger for most of my life, I became an ideological centrist (social democrat/liberal/progressive) about three years ago, and I became a socialist only eight months ago). So I'm not open for debate on ideology (I've already rejected all of the other political ideas!)

03-30-2003, 11:56 PM	#3
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	Socialism is not some "ideal" form of utopia imposed on society by those who want it against those who don't. It's an attempt by the mass of the population to solve a situation where capitalism is in total crisis and can't provide for the welfare of its citizens or the capitalist regime is so politically odious that revolt is a natural response. As such, socialism is a world system. It can't happen in one country. Any attempt of a socialist society to exist in the presence of capitalism neighbors must fail or "decay" either from military or economic pressure. Socialism will succeed when a socialist revolution (peaceful or otherwise) begins and spreads to encompass. substantially, the entire world. 'm not trying to be grandiose. These are the conditions: capitalist crisis, worldwide, and the spread of revolution to the major industrial countries. This, very, super briefly, is an answer Rosa Luxemburg once said: "Every revolution is doomed to failure, except the last one." RED DAVE

03-31-2003, 02:06 AM	#4
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	York, why delete? Here's a good start. William Morris on Socialism RED DAVE

03-31-2003, 02:44 AM	#6
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	Socialism (hopefully true), is a society where the commanding economic decisions that effect peoples' lives, locally, nationally and globally, are made democratically by those directly affected by those decisions. "True socialism" (to define it negatively) is not the former USSR or any of its satellites, the former Yugoslavia, Cuba, China, North Korea or Sweden. RED DAVE

03-31-2003, 03:07 AM	#7
Wounded King Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 1,211	Are there any societies out there which represent a successful textbook application of any form of political/economic governance. I havent seen any real free market economies anywhere yet.

03-31-2003, 03:10 AM	#8
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	I think that the US is a perfect, text book example of living, breathing capitalism. The bestest with the mostest. RED DAVE

03-31-2003, 04:00 AM	#9
Syphor Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 991	Not really, it's a mixed market system incorporating aspects of both a free market and a planned economy. Capitalism and Socialism are two extremes at opposing ends of the economic spectrum, and neither have ever existed in their truest form, anywhere.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.