Socialist and/or Communist Revolutionaries: discuss stuff

<p>Anyone else out there?</p>

<p>What’s there to discuss? it sucks :D</p>

<p>You shall fall in the Revolution!</p>

<p>communism only works on a small scale. i don’t mind socialism though. except i have problems with this damn canadian socialized medicine.</p>

<p>I would say that Communism works best on either a small, isolated scale or an international scale.</p>

<p>Socialism is the more reasonable possibility, I think. What have your negative experiences been with Canadian healthcare? Surely it is better than here, where people die for want of a treatment that could save their lives, if only they had enough green cotton-fiber paper, or if a massive corporation okayed their paid privilege to life.</p>

<p>^^ Of course. That is why we need to abolish artificial national boundaries! btw, it’s not just Canada. Most 1st world countries now have popular medicine.</p>

<p>I’m reading the Communist Manifesto right now since a friend loaned it to me (then I’ll go back to my beloved Proust :b ) but I think Bakunin and Proudhon are going to be even more eye-opening when I get to them</p>

<p>Of course I agree with the idea of socialized medicine, but [at least here in canada] if you’re not lucky enough to get your hands on a family practitioner [who is still of course paid by the state], then you could wait months for a CAT scan and then months more for an appointment regarding your CAT scan. The system is very backed up and inefficient. I’m not saying it’s bad, because of course slow medical care is better than none.</p>

<p>I had been a Socialist for a while, but I learned a lot more about Communism through a Philosophy course. And in a later course, I read from the Communist Manifesto and the Wealth of Nations, and how anyone would respect the latter is beyond me. Though I suppose it was just seen as a welcome alternative to an economy dominated by a king.</p>

<p>However, since most people who do not understand or respect either Socialism or Communism will shut their ears to the Communist Manifesto and the writings of other Socialists/Communists, I often find myself using the Declaration of Independence to start the conversation, then move on from there. Or, if they’re a member of the “Christian right”, I demonstrate how Jesus was socialist.</p>

<p>Right now, I’m actually reading the chapter called “The Inexorable System of Karl Marx” in The Wordly Philosophers: The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers by Robert L. Heilbroner.</p>

<p>Judging from what Marx wrote in his titanic volumes of Das Kapital, the idea of Communism seems incredibly ridiculous and unrealistic. I like the idea of the socialists, especially that of John Stuart Mill, although absolute socialism also seems unrealistic. Many western societies, including the U.S., are heading towards a politic system that’s predominately capitalistic with socialist influences; this type of system, I believe, will be better in the long run as it avoids the impracticality of socialism and the risk of extreme capitalism. </p>

<p>In modern times, a Communist revolutionary would certainly fail in all countries. Even in modern “Communist” countries, their system is not entirely Communist: China is essentially capitalist with some Communist policies and even North Korea is more authoritarian than Communist. An authoritarian revolutionary have a better chance of achieve realistic goals than a communist one. Socialist revolutionaries would not be too much different since their radical beliefs (a moderate socialist would not be called a revolutionary) would place them on the same level of ludicrousness as a communist revolutionary.</p>

<p>

Well, I can’t speak on the efficiency of the system, but I would rather have a system for all than an efficient system for only the rich. Anyway, systems can be improved. As long as they stand for what is right, the rest will come.</p>

<p>

Do remember, you are reading selected excerpts and/or summaries. What seems “ridiculous and unrealistic” to you?</p>

<p>

I don’t like Utilitarianism, so that’s usually what I think of when he’s brought up.</p>

<p>

China, Cuba, and North Korea are often called Communist, but this is far from the truth. China practices State Capitalism, and is becoming more internally capitalist now, too. It is also too tyrannous to follow the principles of democracy that go with Socialism and Communism. When the regime came to power, workers did not benefit, simply the new ruling class. Cuba is similar, though they at least have affordable medicine and such. North Korea is just a blatant insane dictatorship.</p>

<p>The greatest obstacle a Socialist or Communist revolutionary would face would be escaping the connotation assigned to Socialism and Communism by capitalist countries during the Red Scare. A peaceful Socialist Revolution (but still involving massive demonstrations, radical social change, and the punishment and weakening of capitalist oppressors) is possible in the United States, when the poor realize the power that democratic government gives them, and the justice that a democratic economy would bring.</p>

<p>@Billy - Give me your arguments for communism or socialism or whatever. I’m interested.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The main reason you don’t see Communist Revolutions today is that the proletariat as a class has shrunk in size over the last 100 years or so. That said, if we continue to see big business taking liberties as they currently do with sweat shops, outsourcing, and Enron/Bernie Madoff type deals, it is not at all impossible that the lower classes may reappear. That said, most modern socialists of every type would agree that a national revolution is not preferable to a local one, because the former easily can turn into a power trip. My ideal of a leftist state remains the Paris Commune of 1871, and not the Soviet Union at any point in its history.</p>

<p>It’s all about Swedish socialism.</p>

<p>

I’ll start like I would if I didn’t know whether or not the person I was talking to had studied philosophy (I don’t, actually). While I could argue for either, right now I feel more like arguing for Socialism. Parts of this are directed specifically at Americans.</p>

<p>There are a few key things that are necessary for Socialism. Included is the belief that all human beings have the innate rights to Life, Liberty, Justice, and Equality. I often simplify this by saying “Socialism is most basically the assurance of every human’s right to life.” While this may not be entirely accurate, it is a good starting place. I base this area off of what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, about what the rights of the people and duties of the government are:

When I quote this, many people say that the Declaration of Independence has no legal power, and this is true. However, I do like to think that the United States should act in a manner fitting these founding principles. The right to life must include the rights to all things necessary for the continuation of life, including (but not limited to) the rights to food, water, shelter, safety, and health. If we recognize that all human beings are innately equal, and that these rights are innate, then they are assured to all human beings, regardless of their social standing.</p>

<p>Furthermore, it must be noted that these are not simply the rights of the people; they are the duties of the government. A just government must provide for these rights, lest it be judged as unjust, and altered or abolished by the people it is meant to serve. Though our government is democratic, our economy is an oligarchy (ruled by the few, the rich, the elite), and advocates of this undemocratic “private sector” often oppose the use of power by the government. But our government is a democracy (though indirect, as a republic), and that power is the power of the people. That is what democracy is: Demos Kratos, Power to the People. So when people say that the government has too much power, they mean that the people have too much power. And when they say that more should be left to the private sector, they are advocating an oligarchy of the rich.</p>

<p>Indeed, a thoroughly democratic system is another thing that is needed for socialism to thrive. For socialism is a realization of democracy, a government of the people, for the people, by the people. When government in the United States become corrupt, it is the fault of greed built into the capitalistic system. When a legislator values cotton fiber paper with made up values assigned to it more than the beating hearts and thinking minds of those he represents, then democracy has been compromised. If, however, billionaires and multimillionaires were not allowed by the system, and the oligarchy of the capitalist economy was replaced by a democratic economy, we might emerge into a world where everyone could eat, everyone could have a home, and everyone would truly be treated properly, their right to life intact.</p>

<p>Now, why must we ensure that their are no billionaires or multimillionaires? The Earth produces enough resources to provide for the needs of eight billion people. At our current population of six point eight billion, everyone should therefore have what they need. This is not the case, though. Resources are distributed unequally as wealth. When so much wealth is concentrated in so few people, then it becomes impossible for others to have what they need to live. If someone has one million times the wealth they need to survive, then that is one million less people the remaining wealth of resources can support. There is so much wealth concentrated in the rich that it has become IMPOSSIBLE for the poor to live under the current system, worldwide. Through the amassing of these great fortunes, the rich have violated the rights to life of the poor.</p>

<p>If we are to operate under the philosophy that everyone should act in a manner that they would wish for everyone else to act in (including the assumptions that everyone acting as such would be possible and desirable for the good of society), we can see that no one should be allowed to amass wealth beyond the point that if everyone did such it would impede the right to life of even one human being. Given that it is the duty of government to provide for the right to life of every human being it governs (and to ensure that the rights to life of all humans period are respected and not violated), government (the will of the people) ought to ensure that no one has too little and no one has too much. The thought that any one human being has too much while any other human being has too little is reprehensible.</p>

<p>Also, there’s this if you want to read more: [Why</a> Socialism? Albert Einstein - Monthly Review](<a href=“Monthly Review | Why Socialism?”>Monthly Review | Why Socialism?)</p>

<p>Bonus Section for Christians:</p>

<p>Conservative Evangelical Christians are usually the ones most against Socialism, so I present for them an argument that incorporates their beliefs. This section is not intended to sway anyone who does not believe in Christianity. This is for anyone who has ever said “America is a Christian nation.” Here goes:</p>

<p>Jesus Christ, the man that Christians consider to be God, was, indeed, Socialist on many counts. I present, for your reading pleasure, a few select quotes from the Bible:</p>

<p>“He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise”
-Luke 3:11</p>

<p>“If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.”
-Proverbs 21:13</p>

<p>“He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses.”
-Proverbs 28:27</p>

<p>“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
-Proverbs 31:8-9</p>

<p>“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”
-Matthew 6:24</p>

<p>“Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’”
-Matthew 19:23-24/Mark 10:24-25/Luke 18:24-25</p>

<p>“Better a poor man whose walk is blameless than a rich man whose ways are perverse.”
-Proverbs 28:6</p>

<p>“The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.”
-Proverbs 29:7</p>

<p>“Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless.”
-Ecclesiastes 5:10</p>

<p>“People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.”
-1 Timothy 6:9-10 </p>

<p>Bonus Section for Sarah Palin</p>

<p>Jesus said that if there is a man dressed richly and a man dressed poorly, not to treat the man dressed richly better, for it is he who oppresses you. You spent $150,000 on wardrobe and makeup for your Vice Presidential Campaign. That is all.</p>

<p>I’m a Socialist. </p>

<p>That is all.</p>

<p>lol you guys are cute. Wait til you hit the real world.</p>

<p>Any form of Communism is impossible for humans to achieve. True communism asks for a Utopian society, it is human nature to never achieve that. We are animals, and we are ingrained to be aggressive and ruthless when needed. So no, every communistic society has failed, but almost all republican societies have succeeded. As humans, we can’t achieve a pure communistic society and a pure democratic society. Its next to impossible.</p>

<p>^^LOL I agree.</p>

<p>^^ We created our entire system of money and government, so there’s nothing that says we can’t abolish inequality and the currency and nationalism that begot it</p>