|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:26 pm
Reformist socialism:
An attempt to establish a socialist system through working within the existing political system.
Possible Issues with Reform:
It forces socialists to work within the existing corrupt and capitalist-dominated political system. This means that the ideals and goals of socialists (including other political philosophies) will have to be toned down or even sacrificed in order to score victories at the polls and to gain more supporters, thus distorting their true objectives and values. Political incentives as well as being forced to form coalitions and work with opposition parties or groups will only further erode away at what the socialist party stands for, until the very definition of socialism itself becomes associated with the mixture of policies that results from this synthesis - this has happened in European countries like Sweden.
Revolutionary socialism:
An attempt to establish socialism through (usually) violent revolution by replacing all aspects of capitalist society, including the old state, with a new government and economic system.
Possible Issues with Revolutionary methods:
Revolutionary means have a much higher likelihood of corruption due to the rapid changes that take place in the government, economic system and social structure. Hasty decisions are more likely to be made when people are under stress, and temporary authoritarian measures that are intended to secure what has been attained in the revolution from reactionary forces can easily lead to corruption of the revolutions’ original ideals by political opportunists.
Revolution also has the potential to create far more dissident because it quickly forces society to change its desires, expectations, habits and lifestyles which are already ingrained in the minds of the people from living in a capitalist society. The result will likely be stronger reactionary movements because individuals will feel the revolutionary system is forcing them to adopt something against their will. People who are forced to adopt something are usually less likely to be open-minded and accepting of the ideas and goals espoused by the revolutionaries. Without gradually exposing individuals to the ideas and objectives of socialism and letting a natural interest in such develop in the population, the revolutionary system will feel “unnatural” to many people.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:27 am
I feel your "Issues with Revolutionary methods" are very unsound
What does it mean for a government to become corrupt? Furthermore, how does a system (Soviet Democracy) that is run by and serves the masses corruptible? The masses work to serve themselves! Many claim that the party becomes the new head of state. But where does the party actually stand? The party that takes power is responsible for propagandizing the power of soviet democracy, eradicating bourgeoisie ideology and extending the revolution to every sector of the globe. To do this however some authoritarianism must be implemented. We understand this and we must be unafraid to accept this fact. Civil war is inevitable. Whats left of the capitalist state apparatus must be used to crush whats left of the bourgeoisie. Its vital, it's necessary. It's unfortunate that it has to be that way and that people have to die, it hurts me to think that such must take place, but there is no alternative. However, if the party has done its job right, the majority of the workers should already be on their side via propaganda, minimizing the opposition. But as it has been said before, gradually exposing socialist ideas to the working masses is a step taken before the revolution takes place. It is of course apparent that a feeling of unnaturalness will exist among the workers, for it'll be the first time they have held absolute power...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miza_Radioaktiv Vice Captain
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:51 pm
Wow, all votes so far for revolutionary means.
Sadly enough, most countries that have been influenced by capitalism for long periods of time that they will have to be overthrown in order for socialism to become the primary system. By just adding in socialist programs to a "hardcore" capitalist system will not change anything. It only works for a society that already has the mindset to be willing to change.
Let's use the U.S. as an example. Socialism can not be implemented with the strong capitalist system it has. There would have to be a successful revolution in order for socialism to advance.
What I'm saying is that either means could work depending on the system that is already in place and the society that lives in said system. Both methods have problems, yes, but there is no other way to advance socialism in this era other than those.
I still feel that revolution is the best way to create a socialist nation.
@Comrade Rob: I agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:56 pm
It tires me greatly when people say socialism isn't possible in the U.S. Socialism is possible anywhere there is industry. It's one of the most powerful capitalist nations in the world. Though it may be losing that power, the ills inherent in a capitalist economy are still present, therefore making the U.S. not exempt from a proletarian revolution, even though some others in this guild may profess otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miza_Radioaktiv Vice Captain
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:22 pm
Comrade Rob It tires me greatly when people say socialism isn't possible in the U.S. Socialism is possible anywhere there is industry. It's one of the most powerful capitalist nations in the world. Though it may be losing that power, the ills inherent in a capitalist economy are still present, therefore making the U.S. not exempt from a proletarian revolution, even though some others in this guild may profess otherwise. I didn't say it wasn't possible. I said the only way for the U.S. to be a socialist system was for a revolution to occur and force it in. If you were agreeing with me and just commenting on how other people in the guild (excluding you and I) don't believe that the U.S. is able, that's fine and please disregard the comment I stated above. I personally hope the American proletariat will wake up and revolt. I will be ready on that day. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:55 am
Comrade Rob It tires me greatly when people say socialism isn't possible in the U.S. Socialism is possible anywhere there is industry. It's one of the most powerful capitalist nations in the world. Though it may be losing that power, the ills inherent in a capitalist economy are still present, therefore making the U.S. not exempt from a proletarian revolution, even though some others in this guild may profess otherwise. It would be a different kind of socialism due to US's stress on individualism which had a huge effect on its labor movement. Note that most other 1st world countries have a strong pro labor party of any kind in their Parliaments. I mean one obvious difference...just look how different populations play video games alone... US has console based which stresses real isolation but connected through the internet. Japan while they too have consoles also have strong arcades as well wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:19 am
SoViEtTaNkT34 Comrade Rob It tires me greatly when people say socialism isn't possible in the U.S. Socialism is possible anywhere there is industry. It's one of the most powerful capitalist nations in the world. Though it may be losing that power, the ills inherent in a capitalist economy are still present, therefore making the U.S. not exempt from a proletarian revolution, even though some others in this guild may profess otherwise. It would be a different kind of socialism due to US's stress on individualism which had a huge effect on its labor movement. Note that most other 1st world countries have a strong pro labor party of any kind in their Parliaments. I mean one obvious difference...just look how different populations play video games alone... US has console based which stresses real isolation but connected through the internet. Japan while they too have consoles also have strong arcades as well wink Individualism would lead only to a bloodier civil war. Any remnants could be eradicated through propaganda and transforming the culture. I don't think it's accurate to accredit the lack of a labour movement to individualism, most 1st world capitalist countries all have an individualistic culture to some degree so I really do see it as a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:58 am
Comrade Rob SoViEtTaNkT34 Comrade Rob It tires me greatly when people say socialism isn't possible in the U.S. Socialism is possible anywhere there is industry. It's one of the most powerful capitalist nations in the world. Though it may be losing that power, the ills inherent in a capitalist economy are still present, therefore making the U.S. not exempt from a proletarian revolution, even though some others in this guild may profess otherwise. It would be a different kind of socialism due to US's stress on individualism which had a huge effect on its labor movement. Note that most other 1st world countries have a strong pro labor party of any kind in their Parliaments. I mean one obvious difference...just look how different populations play video games alone... US has console based which stresses real isolation but connected through the internet. Japan while they too have consoles also have strong arcades as well wink Individualism would lead only to a bloodier civil war. Any remnants could be eradicated through propaganda and transforming the culture. I don't think it's accurate to accredit the lack of a labour movement to individualism, most 1st world capitalist countries all have an individualistic culture to some degree so I really do see it as a problem. Im not saying the pro individualism favor in US culture is the only cause but its one of the major ones. Other factors is the Union movement here's looking at you IWW and AWU (?) Another is the powerful capitalist guilds made up of Merchants and wealthy with private armies or financing local govs "militia" in the US. So of course its not just the stress of individual worth but it does and in my view did fracture/prohibit growth with the US labor movement in the late 19th early 20th century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:29 pm
Quote: What does it mean for a government to become corrupt? It means the government, or in this case the revolutionaries in charge of the revolution, deviate from their original, stated objectives without consensus of the masses. Miza_Radioaktiv, I agree with you that socialism can be implemented in the United States, but only if a significant portion of the population have the proper ideals and goals. The biggest issue is the cultural bias in the US towards alternate systems, as well as a distaste for real individuality in terms of thinking for yourself. But I would agree, under these ideal conditions, I feel revolution is a better way to create a socialist system. Quote: I mean one obvious difference...just look how different populations play video games alone... US has console based which stresses real isolation but connected through the internet. Japan while they too have consoles also have strong arcades as well SovietTank, Do not confuse individuality and introversion with the ideology of economic individualism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:55 pm
iRage Revolutionary socialism:An attempt to establish socialism through (usually) violent revolution by replacing all aspects of capitalist society, including the old state, with a new government and economic system. Possible Issues with Revolutionary methods:Revolutionary means have a much higher likelihood of corruption due to the rapid changes that take place in the government, economic system and social structure. Hasty decisions are more likely to be made when people are under stress, and temporary authoritarian measures that are intended to secure what has been attained in the revolution from reactionary forces can easily lead to corruption of the revolutions’ original ideals by political opportunists. Revolution also has the potential to create far more dissident because it quickly forces society to change its desires, expectations, habits and lifestyles which are already ingrained in the minds of the people from living in a capitalist society. The result will likely be stronger reactionary movements because individuals will feel the revolutionary system is forcing them to adopt something against their will. People who are forced to adopt something are usually less likely to be open-minded and accepting of the ideas and goals espoused by the revolutionaries. Without gradually exposing individuals to the ideas and objectives of socialism and letting a natural interest in such develop in the population, the revolutionary system will feel “unnatural” to many people. I'm a revolutionary, but I do see the issue with the changes being so sudden and whatnot outlined in the very large second section here. That's why I see merit to the Commissariat that the Soviet Union had. If you put a political officer who's fully dedicated to the cause through and through, then there's much more likelihood of it working, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:13 pm
iRage SovietTank, Do not confuse individuality and introversion with the ideology of economic individualism. I view them the same there is no confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
