Are we reverting to Socialism again?

[20000miles]

I'll just repeat what I said earlier in the thread:

[COLOR=navy]People believe, rightly or wrongly (mostly wrongly), that private enterprise has failed them in this financial crisis. Theres no doubt in my mind that there's going to be a huge shift back towards a Keynesian demand-management economic model - even though the theory is completely bunk.

Bank nationalisations and government managed stock markets are to me, [/COLOR][COLOR=green]a definition of true socialism[/COLOR][COLOR=navy]. Once capital is centrally allocated it's game over for capitalism.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]Call it what you want - either way, it ain't good.[/COLOR]

20000miles, I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Coolio.

I'm personally into the Subjective Theory of Value - an object is valuable because the human mind attatches value to it.

Physical objects such as a banana or an automobile do not possess intrinsic economic value. On the contrary, only a human mind can attribute value to such items, and only then do economists classify them as goods. An object is valuable only because there is at least one human being who believes that this object can help satisfy his or her subjective desires. For example, even if a particular root cures cancer, if no one knows this fact, then the root has no economic value, and people will not trade money for it. Consequently, value is caused by an individual's subjective desires and his or her beliefs about the causal properties of a particular item.

Source: Are You an Austrian? :: Mises Institute

And:

"The measure of value is entirely subjective in nature, and for this reason a good can have great value to one economizing individual, little value to another, and no value at all to a third, depending upon the differences in their requirements and available amounts...Hence not only the nature but also the measure of value is subjective. Goods always have value to certain economizing individuals and this value is also determined only by these individuals."

Subjective theory of value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[dublinclontarf]

Nowhere is socialist theoretics does it state that Workers are subjects at the states will by force. You are saying Authoritharianism is socialism. Whilst Socialism can become Authoritarian the same is true for any other Idealistic Governance i.e. Capitalism, Fascism etc...

Capitalism is not a form of government but an economic system, Fascism is authoritarian by it's very definition (it doesn't become authoritarian, it's born that way). And Socialism is not a science, and therefore is does not have theoretics. Perhaps in socialist theory workers are not subject to state force, at least not explicitly, this is not the case for the "bourgeois" or "reactionaries".

In practice, to date... Soviet Russia, China, hundreds of millions of lives, need I say more.

Russia is not a good example of socialism. Russia was a Marxist-Leninist state. Lenin short-circuited Marxist theory for imposition in Russia. While Autocratically its reasonable to compare Stalinist Russia with Nazi Germany there were quite a few differences.

What would you like for a better example? China, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam?

The NAZI's, for example, considered themselves a "Third Way" between laissez-faire capitalism and socialism, in that rather than completely nationalizing industry and taking over the means of production, the government had a very powerful influence.

Some important characteristics of socialism is government administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Some interesting facts about Nazi Germany was that the government enforced wage, rent and price controls. And although factories were not nationalised the government controlled what was produced, and capital (in the form of banks) were also directed where to lend.

Are these not the factors of production? Land, labour, and capital? Is this not control of the means of production? The fact that these were "private" it did not matter, they were still under government control.

So yes, a powerful influence indeed.

And it is interesting to note that China, once they realised the impracticality of socialism how easy it was for them to switch to Fascism and slowly ease a little bit of a market economy back in.

So its absurd to say "in name only".

It is entirely appropriate to say "in name only" as that is what it is.

No the capitalists dont become anyone's slave. I never said anything remotely implying that. The Appropriation of wealth is instead to be used for the workers benefit.

Where does this wealth that is appropriated, i.e. stolen, taken by force come from? It does not grow on tree's, gold does not dig itself up from the earth, computers don't invent themselves, iron doesn't turn itself into steel, and building don't design themselves.

For the workers to continue to enjoy having wealth for "their own benefit" someone must continue creating it no? It's not the workers who are going to create it, if they could they would have done so already; they would already be wealthy, in which they would be the capitalists.

Since they (the "workers") cannot create wealth for themselves they need the capitalists to create it for them. And the only way to make capitalists work for free (or very little) is by force. In short you need slaves, you need serfs you need the creators of wealth.

What about wealth forced from labour? Such as Serfdom?

I haven't noticed any free country that allows forced labour, however recent examples of socialist nations I have many.

Where did I say anything about seizing power? or for that matter a Minority seizing power? or that I was anti-democratic? And what minority seizing power do you speak of?

How might workers seize the means of production if not by force? Would not any democratic country allow such a thing to happen? The term seize is used because no one would voluntarily give their wealth away. What factory/business owner would give their livelihood away? And after the fiasco of the Soviet Union why would anyone in the free world vote for socialism. You don't state it explicitly but seizing power is the only method for socialism to gain control of government apparatus.

What has Marx's personel life to do with his theories?

You see Marx's theories are a reflection of life that he lived, just like Marx who was a parasite his entire life; socialism is a parasite of those who create wealth, the productive people of our world.

Why would anyone listen to a such a person who looks on with jealous eyes at those who create wealth (he lived during the industrial revolution, where huge numbers were making a fortune improving the lives of others) and think it unfair that it did not come to him and that all he need do is take it, and that it would be justice.

Why is it not possible in Irish society for Socialist policies to be applied in the Dail by a elected representive?

How could it? Who would vote for the abolition of private property or the nationalisation of any industries, who would vote themselves into poverty and starvation?

Maoism is not something that Socialists en masse would accept or agree with.

This is Autocratic terrorism which could happen in any state. I not defending the action as I have a strong dislike for any Authoritarian Implimented by a government but I dont believe the people who carried out this slaughter were real socialists, Because its unbecoming of a socialist.

Well then I guess Hitler & Mussolini were not real fascists then. Oh and how would a real socialist seize the means of production if not by force?

Thats a very naive view of capital akin to that of the "American Dream" concept. But I must hammer home the concept that its the exploitation of the worker's labour in order to produce capital by what Marx called "the Bourgeois" that is the problem here its not "stealing" in its clearly defined principles that bothers the leftist.

Oh well I guess it's not really stealing if it's from the "bourgeos" then.

As for the naive view of capital akin to the "American Dream" I point your head in the general direction of reality. Where hundreds of thousands of businesses in Ireland (hundreds of millions across the world) are a living, breathing, working fact. They employ countless individuals, and are the lifeblood of the economy, and the government that lives off their effort.

It has been proven true by fact and history. Colonial powers DID amass huge amounts of wealth through forced labour and exploitation.

So your saying socialism is a political system that evolved to oppose an economic & political system that ended well over 100 years ago?
If that is the case then why should we need it now?

And if my memory is correct it was until the late 80's that forced labour and exploitation ended in the Soviet Union(with it's collapse), about 30 years ago in China,and has yet to end in North Korea or Cambodia.

The huge buildings in Dublin were created mostly by a foreign colonial power the United Kingdom.

All the buildings built by the UK were paid for by the UK, do you oppose to the idea of a foreign government giving business to the people of this country in the construction of a beautiful building? And the same goes for all these works in Dublin and across Ireland.

These buildings are a part of Irish history, in and of themselves they are beautiful, and they are the property of either private individuals or the Irish government. No slave labour was used in their construction.Do you have an objection to large buildings?

The worker is seizing the means of production and taking something into public ownership. Call it stealing if you want I dont care.

Well of course a thief or a robber would not care if stealing is wrong, nor a murderer care that they kill. If they did then they wouldn't do it, or at least they would feel guilty about it.

"Seizing the means of production" is a socialist euphemism for robbery, theft and murder.

[Red Boyneside]

The problem with the term "socialism" is that it means many things to many people, it is not a concrete philosophy or fixed doctrine. So when you say by definition I have to ask by whom?

As defined by the founders of the Socialist movement. Saint-Simon, William Morris, William Thompson, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Mikhael Bakunin, William Liebknicht etc. And those who kept the flame alive in the 20th century, Lenin, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebnecht, Antonio Gramsci to name but a few. Marx's The Civil War in France or Lenin's The State and Revolution are the best sources for this and they are both on Marxists Internet Archive

Merriam-Webster, Britannica and Wikipedia all mention collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production.

Because that is the definition of Socialism handed down from our ruling class to frighten people like you. A dictionary or an open sourse web page is hardly the best place to go for a definition of a political ideology.

Socialism without a state results in Somalia, with a state it's Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam etc.

Somalia? Are you on drugs? What was Socialist about that?

In who controls the wealth as opposed to who creates it? By what right should workers control the wealth CREATED by others, and by control don't you mean seized?


Wealth doesn't just exist, it has to be created; gold has to be mined from the earth, food has to be grown & harvested, technology must be developed with R&D. Houses have to be designed & built, steel has to be refined from Iron ore, electricity has to be generated etc.

Er, when was the last time a major shareholder of a fortune 500 company got their hands dirty down a gold mine? See you inadvertantly prove my point here. Who creates wealth? Workers! Workers are the ones who go down the mines, who build the houses, who grow the food, who develope new technology, who generate electricity, who refine steel! This is why workers should control the wealth!

Your view is that there is a fixed amount of wealth, and the only way to get it is to take it from someone who has it already (well how did they get it in the first place?).

Where did you get that idea? Wealth is constantly being created by workers, my point is that they should control what they create.

Companies in the Fortune 500 such as HP,Dell, Microsoft, Intel, & Cisco all these companies created vast amounts of wealth from hard work and innovation. They have vastly improved the lives of people across the world; their products have allowed the creation of entire industries (everything now uses computers) why this very computer you use is the result of their work.

Who's hard work? Who's innovation? See above!

And who owns these companies? None are the property of a single person, everyone is free to buy a share of any of them. You say 70% of the wealth of the world (that these companies created) is controlled by 500 companies (and by controlled we mean property of). These companies are the property of millions, shoot even hundreds of millions across the world, anyone who cares to want a piece.

60% of that wealth is controlled by 200 families. Small shareholders own squat in the greater scheme of things.

Art? Wealth thats created, by the artist, not the workers.

Music, artists not workers.

Books, writers not workers.

I don't see the relevence of this.

So you mean to say the best example of socialism in practice was only able to survive for a period of months at best?

I clearly said it wasn't Socialism. I said it was a movement towards Socialism.

Flexible meaning you can throw around the phrase and have it mean what you like or that human nature can be changed? And some of those qualities you have named happen to be a part of human nature.

No flexible in that we adapt to the situation at hand. That is why we are successful as a species.

"From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority, have learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into their own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism — from this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear altogether. The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it becomes unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" which consists of the armed workers, and which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away.

"Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society [Socialism] to its higher phase [Communism], and with it the complete withering away of the state.

Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt 5. The higher phase of Communist Society

[Pastradamus]

Capitalism is not a form of government but an economic system

It influences political ideals and governance. Its a centrepiece of Irish Governmental ideals.

And Socialism is not a science, and therefore is does not have theoretics.

Ever hear of Political Science? or Social science?

China, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam?

Which one of these states are you describing as Socialist?

Some important characteristics of socialism is government administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Some interesting facts about Nazi Germany was that the government enforced wage, rent and price controls. And although factories were not nationalised the government controlled what was produced, and capital (in the form of banks) were also directed where to lend.

Are these not the factors of production? Land, labour, and capital? Is this not control of the means of production? The fact that these were "private" it did not matter, they were still under government control.

So yes, a powerful influence indeed.

And it is interesting to note that China, once they realised the impracticality of socialism how easy it was for them to switch to Fascism and slowly ease a little bit of a market economy back in.

The Nazis viewed private property rights as conditional upon the mode of use. If the property was not being used to further Nazi goals, it could be nationalized. Government takeovers and threats of takeovers were used to encourage complance with government production plans, even if following these plans cost profits for companies. For example, the owner of the Junkers (aircraft) factory refused to follow the government’s directives, whereupon the Nazis took over the plant, placed the owner Hugo Junkers under house arrest, then compensated him for his loss. While the Nazis transferred public ownership and services in the private spector, they increased state control, regulation, and inference in economic affairs. Under the Nazis, free competition and regulation by the market greatly decreased. Nevertheless, Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him reluctant to disregard competition and private property. Privately, Hitler stated in 1942, “I absolutely insist on protecting private property… we must encourage private initiative”.

Despite the Fact you mentioned (correctly) how it is quite easy for a marxist-leninist state to transfer to a Fascist state this in no way makes the two ideologically connected. The same could be said of how easy it was for Hitler to transfer from a Capitalist Democracy to a Nazi Regime.

It is entirely appropriate to say "in name only" as that is what it is.

No its not.

Where does this wealth that is appropriated, i.e. stolen, taken by force come from? It does not grow on tree's, gold does not dig itself up from the earth, computers don't invent themselves, iron doesn't turn itself into steel, and building don't design themselves.

All activities carried out by workers. Wealth produced by the hard graft of the worker.

For the workers to continue to enjoy having wealth for "their own benefit" someone must continue creating it no? It's not the workers who are going to create it, if they could they would have done so already; they would already be wealthy, in which they would be the capitalists.

Im not sure your grapsing this Concept.
Back to Marx:
Two main groups exist as you know.
The proletariat: "those individuals who sell their labour power, (and therefore add value to the products), and who, in the capitalist mode of production, do not own the means of production". According to Marx, the capitalist mode of production establishes the conditions that enable the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat due to the fact that the worker's labour power generates a surplus value greater than the worker's wages.

The bourgeoisie: those who "own the means of production" and buy labour power from the proletariat, thus exploiting the proletariat. The bourgeoisie may be further subdivided into the very wealthy bourgeoisie and the petit bourgeoisie.

The proposed Solution to this does not mean the worker will become the bourgeois or capitalists' but rather will replace them in a different aspect by controling the means of production and distributing it between them for equal privilage based on the work they put in. They will continue to work as they always have done but will enjoy the fruits of their labour which was unevenly allocated in the previous scenario when the Bourgeois ran the show.

I haven't noticed any free country that allows forced labour, however recent examples of socialist nations I have many.

Such as?

You see Marx's theories are a reflection of life that he lived, just like Marx who was a parasite his entire life; socialism is a parasite of those who create wealth, the productive people of our world.

Workers are the productive people of our world. Not the Huge business owners. They simply profit off the labour of others.

Why would anyone listen to a such a person who looks on with jealous eyes at those who create wealth (he lived during the industrial revolution, where huge numbers were making a fortune improving the lives of others) and think it unfair that it did not come to him and that all he need do is take it, and that it would be justice.

They listened because they were at the bottom rung of society and could understand his reasons. People were making a fortune off the backs of others.

How could it? Who would vote for the abolition of private property or the nationalisation of any industries, who would vote themselves into poverty and starvation?

Starvation and poverty? please
Socialism differs from communism mainly by coming through the ballet box rather then by the gun. We've already socialised a large portion of our society such as An post, Schools etc...

Well then I guess Hitler & Mussolini were not real fascists then. Oh and how would a real socialist seize the means of production if not by force?

Hitler was a Nazi, Mussolini was a Fascist. Modern Nazi's just about worship Hitler.

Oh well I guess it's not really stealing if it's from the "bourgeos" then.
As for the naive view of capital akin to the "American Dream" I point your head in the general direction of reality. Where hundreds of thousands of businesses in Ireland (hundreds of millions across the world) are a living, breathing, working fact. They employ countless individuals, and are the lifeblood of the economy, and the government that lives off their effort.

How are they doing by the way? Still keeping up their 'famous' employment figures? Still looking out for the best interests of their Workforce I hope?

So your saying socialism is a political system that evolved to oppose an economic & political system that ended well over 100 years ago?
If that is the case then why should we need it now?

Well....yes. Its not the primary reason socialism evolved but it definetly became anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist.Oh yes, and Colonialism was still in existance less than 100 years ago.

All the buildings built by the UK were paid for by the UK, do you oppose to the idea of a foreign government giving business to the people of this country in the construction of a beautiful building? And the same goes for all these works in Dublin and across Ireland.

These buildings are a part of Irish history, in and of themselves they are beautiful, and they are the property of either private individuals or the Irish government. No slave labour was used in their construction.Do you have an objection to large buildings?

Yes they were built by the UK. But some and part of others were built with capital exploited from other countries. Why would I be against the creation of a beautiful building? or large buildings for that matter? or Irish History?

"Seizing the means of production" is a socialist euphemism for robbery, theft and murder.

Its in the English language. Its clear what it means. Murder does not come into it.

[Red Boyneside]

The word "socialism" can indeed mean all things to all people and more. Kind of like "liberalism". But you do see the confution people get when they read the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto - a section that looks favourable on extreme Statism.



As I mentioned before, Bohm-Bawerk's work discussing how capitalists with differrent capital/labour ratios can earn similar profits. Then there is also the transformation of commodity prices into market prices and the explanation of the average rate of profit, also known as the transformaton problem.

OK, I see where you could get that idea if you only read the "ten planks", but as it happens, the manifesto was written in 1848 before Marx's ideas were complete in any way. It doesn't really deal with what kind of society would exist under Socialism at all. The Critique of the Gotha programme and The Civil War in France or even Engels's Anti-Duhring are much more useful for those purposes.

On Bohm-Bawerk and Marx, I don't see how Marx could have refuted his criticisms from his plot in Highgate Cemetary.

[dublinclontarf]

It influences political ideals and governance. Its a centrepiece of Irish Governmental ideals.

This does not make it a form of government, simply because Irish people(and as a result the government) see it essential to have private property(of which a market is the natural result).

Which one of these states are you describing as Socialist?

You can pretend as much as you like that these regimes don't truely represent socialism. Dance around the idea of having an actual definition for your belief so you can't have anything pinned on you. But you cannot escape the reality that these countries are the face of socialism in all it's glory.

By no other means can socialism come about or be achieved; states begin to devour themselves in an attempt to reach this contradictive, utopian, unachievable ideal.

Under the Nazis, free competition and regulation by the market greatly decreased.

That is an understatement if ever I read one; decreased to the point of being almost non existent.

Nevertheless, Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him reluctant to disregard competition and private property. Privately, Hitler stated in 1942, “I absolutely insist on protecting private property… we must encourage private initiative”.

Of course, even Hitler, as off his rocker as he was knew the results of abolishing private property. He needed everyone in the country being as productive as possible so it stands to reason that he would encourage "private initiative".

Yet the facts remain, that on a massive scale the means of production were under the direct control of the government.

Despite the Fact you mentioned (correctly) how it is quite easy for a marxist-leninist state to transfer to a Fascist state this in no way makes the two ideologically connected. The same could be said of how easy it was for Hitler to transfer from a Capitalist Democracy to a Nazi Regime.

Yes Fascism in Italy & Germany were incredibly popular, and it was through democracy that they came to power; which is something I think everyone in a free country should be mindful of.

It's also interesting to note that it is a Fascist regime that is in power in Russia , another former socialist nation. Quite a coincidence don't you think? Fascism is only one step away from Socialism, one step behind.

No its not.

Yes it is

All activities carried out by workers. Wealth produced by the hard graft of the worker.
Im not sure your grapsing this Concept.
Back to Marx:
Two main groups exist as you know.
The proletariat: "those individuals who sell their labour power, (and therefore add value to the products), and who, in the capitalist mode of production, do not own the means of production". According to Marx, the capitalist mode of production establishes the conditions that enable the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat due to the fact that the worker's labour power generates a surplus value greater than the worker's wages.

No I don't think you grasp the concept!
There is no proletariat or bourgeoise they are one and the same.

A man born with no means of production other than his own labour(the proletariat) can save, which he can then use as capital to rent land, and other labour if he so needs which will then allow him to produce, he now has the means of production(and is now a proud member of the bourgeoisie).

Equaly a man born with land and wealth will not keep it unless he is able to make it productive. Marx himself is a perfect example, being born into a wealthy family, marrying into aristocracy and still dieing with nothing to his name while his family lived in squalor, he was not even a worker, a member of his precious proletariat. He was a living contradiction of what he espoused and an example of it's results. He was a bum, a parasite.

Apple, Microsoft, HP, Dell all companies that were founded by two or three people who worked their asses off, for themselves and created companies that have changed the world, while making themselves and others a fortune.

Apple & HP started in the garages of their parents home, Dell started in the room of Michael Dells university dorm. Who did these people exploit? Themselves? It was their labour, their genious, their effort and in many cases their meager savings that created this stupendous wealth, and those that invested in them took huge risks that paid off.

There is no monopoly on the means of production, there is no monopoloy on wealth or it's creation.

So tell me some more about how the bourgeoise exploit the proletariat. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it so, you can't refute reality with a mantra.

This is why socialism is not in anyform scientific, as it refuses to see how it's theory has been disproven and refuted (time and again)by the simple reality of the world we live in. Reality is a contradiction of socialist thought. Socialism is the intelligent design of economic & political theories.

The proposed Solution to this does not mean the worker will become the bourgeois or capitalists' but rather will replace them in a different aspect

Proposed solution to what?
And what has stopped the workers from buying or renting the means of production (in their case land since their savings would be capital and they already have labour, they're the workers it seems). And then keeping the extra wealth created for themselves?

Oh wait that's what happens when someone starts a business!

So it is the workers who cannot do this that are not productive that are left, they are the ones who stand to benefit from seizing the means of production from the wealth creators.

It also stands to reason that these same workers would not be able to create wealth even with the means of production(Soviet Russia & Communist China were great examples of this, countries blessed with land and natural resources, couldn't even feed their own people). because if they could they would already have done so.

So again this would bring us to the point of slavery, where this useless group of "workers" need the productive to live off because they are unable to create wealth themselves. And only by use of force would any productive person create wealth to have it taken from them.

In short, logically socialism, it's theories (and it's practice) is nothing but a path to serfdom. But it seems logic, the rational, and reality are something that evaids the minds of dogged socialists.

by controling the means of production and distributing it between them for equal privilage based on the work they put in. They will continue to work as they always have done but will enjoy the fruits of their labour which was unevenly allocated in the previous scenario when the Bourgeois ran the show.

Based on the work they put in?
This is a(nother) fatal flaw of socialism, that the value of something is dependant on the effort put into it.

A "worker" could exert tremendous effort polishing rocks, in socialist theory these rocks are then valuable.

Is a doctors work not worth more than a bin man?
Is a teachers work not worth more than the staff in McDonnalds?

Under capitalism this worker is free to enjoy the full fruits of his work, but I hope he has a thing for polished rocks because no one else will pay for it.

No something is not of value because of the work put into it; value, like love is in the eye of the beholder. A lot of work can go into building a home, even a €1Million worth, but unless someone is willing to pay €1Million the home is not worth €1Million, no matter how much work goes into it.

Why would someone pay so much for a work of art from someone such as Da Vinci? Surely the same amount of work went into the creation of his painting as anyone elses, so why are his paintings worth so much more?

It is because someone is willing to pay, it is because those paintings are worth something to the eye of the beholder. Not the work put in.

Workers are the productive people of our world. Not the Huge business owners. They simply profit off the labour of others.

Heh, the majority of businesses and employers across the world are small to medium in size, not huge. And as I have pointed out above these businesses became huge because of the their founders, and the people who were employed and work there. And these very same people have all been made tremendously wealthy because of it.

On top of that these big companies are up for sale to anyone who cares to purchase, you can right now if you so whish, go and buy a portion of Google, HP, Apple, Microsoft etc. As much as you can afford, and then the wealth that these companies create can be yours too.

But if capitalism has created wealth for all those willing to work and save, let us examine what the result of socialism, this seizing of the means of production.

Shortages, in food, consumer goods, poverty, famine. There is a reason socialist nations tend to be so millitarised, it is in order to put down the population, who would (and did) revolt as a result of such shortages, the socialist government would not remain in power for long.

In short, socialism results in the destruction of wealth, and impoverishment of all.

They listened because they were at the bottom rung of society and could understand his reasons. People were making a fortune off the backs of others.

No, people listen because socialism gives the impression that you can get something for nothing. That all those have nots can become haves if they would only take it from them. Never once thinking why they are the have nots in the first place. They listen because they are the most uneducated and most easily manipulated group in society, they are the braun, not the brains. It takes little thought to pick up a weapon and rob your neighbor.

Starvation and poverty? please
Socialism differs from communism mainly by coming through the ballet box rather then by the gun. We've already socialised a large portion of our society such as An post, Schools etc...

AnPost is a business (a government granted monopoly) and lives off it's revenue, apart from it's monopoly status it is not being subsidised by the state. Who pays for the schools and everything else? Businesses, the creaters of wealth, without whom the state would have nothing to pay their beuracrats and politicians or anyone else on the pay roles.

It is not socialism that provides these things in our country but capitalism, the wealth created from the capitalists. And as I said, who would vote to kill the golden goose, to kill the very motor that has kept them alive?

For an example of socialism in action look at Venezuela , as the country progressively nationalises more industries and private property things get worse. The country has 31% inflation, and now food shortages have started. How long before the country moves from having food lines to having no food at all with outright famine?

Hitler was a Nazi, Mussolini was a Fascist. Modern Nazi's just about worship Hitler.

Both were Fascists, one happened to be out of his god damn mind.

How are they doing by the way? Still keeping up their 'famous' employment figures? Still looking out for the best interests of their Workforce I hope?

Better unemployment than famine I should think, or are you thinking our nation needs a diet?

Well....yes. Its not the primary reason socialism evolved but it definetly became anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist.Oh yes, and Colonialism was still in existance less than 100 years ago.

Colonialism came to an end as a movement with WWI, it's last remnants fell apart shortly after WWII so why is socialism still around? What purpose has it when capitalism, even in it's hampered form is better able to provide for the needs of the people of the world than socialism was ever able to provide?

Its in the English language. Its clear what it means. Murder does not come into it.

How would workers seize the means of production?

It would not be handed over voluntarily, this requires the use of force. And what happens if someone resists?
I point you towards the pages of history to find your answer. Russia, China, Korea,Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba etc. Mass murder is the term.

And the killing doesn't stop there, this is only the begining. As when all property has been nationalised the state then turns on the very workers that supported it. And they become it's new victims, and a bloodletting of unimaginable proportions is ensues.

[bormotello]

As defined by the founders of the Socialist movement. Saint-Simon, William Morris, William Thompson, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Mikhael Bakunin, William Liebknicht etc. And those who kept the flame alive in the 20th century, Lenin, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebnecht, Antonio Gramsci to name but a few. Marx's The Civil War in France or Lenin's The State and Revolution are the best sources for this and they are both on Marxists Internet Archive

First quotes what I found

Accounting and control--that is mainly what is needed for the "smooth working", for the proper functioning, of the first phase of communist society. All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state, which consists of the armed workers. All citizens becomes employees and workers of a single countrywide state “syndicate”. All that is required is that they should work equally, do their proper share of work, and get equal pay; the accounting and control necessary for this have been simplified by capitalism to the utmost and reduced to the extraordinarily simple operations--which any literate person can perform--of supervising and recording, knowledge of the four rules of arithmetic, and issuing appropriate receipts

Let’s skip discussion about efficiency of Irish public services for now and try to impose equal pay for all public worker to check their reaction

When the majority of the people begin independently and everywhere to keep such accounts and exercise such control over the capitalists (now converted into employees) and over the intellectual gentry who preserve their capitalist habits, this control will really become universal, general, and popular; and there will be no getting away from it, there will be "nowhere to go".

You have to catch capitalists, because in case, when they escaped – you lost. Without their brains, socialism is way down to bottom

The whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory, with equality of labor and pay.

Bolsheviks had to restore money and unequal pay, as soon as they realized nobody want to work for equal pay

Lenin's “The State and Revolution” was very interesting 90 years ago, but now every paragraph can be easily beaten by real examples

Because that is the definition of Socialism handed down from our ruling class to frighten people like you. A dictionary or an open sourse web page is hardly the best place to go for a definition of a political ideology.

If you remove all pathetic from definitions, you will see that socialism is only forced redistribution of wealth between economically active parts of population to economically passive.
Difference between robbery and socialism is only explanation, why it is done

Er, when was the last time a major shareholder of a fortune 500 company got their hands dirty down a gold mine? See you inadvertantly prove my point here. Who creates wealth? Workers! Workers are the ones who go down the mines, who build the houses, who grow the food, who develope new technology, who generate electricity, who refine steel! This is why workers should control the wealth!

What workers can do without capitalist brains?
Why workers are not doing what you mentioned themselves?

Where did you get that idea? Wealth is constantly being created by workers, my point is that they should control what they create.

Why they are staying in capitalist factory, instead of leaving and organizing their own?

[Dios]

Why workers are not doing what you mentioned themselves?

That really is the only question that needs to be asked. How hard would it be for people to organise their own worker owned companies, its not illegal, and then they can test the superiority of their ethos against the rest of the economy.

[atlantic]

We know the answer to that,fear of risk and failure.

That really is the only question that needs to be asked. How hard would it be for people to organise their own worker owned companies, its not illegal, and then they can test the superiority of their ethos against the rest of the economy.

[dublinclontarf]

As defined by the founders of the Socialist movement. Saint-Simon, William Morris, William Thompson, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Mikhael Bakunin, William Liebknicht etc. And those who kept the flame alive in the 20th century, Lenin, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebnecht, Antonio Gramsci to name but a few. Marx's The Civil War in France or Lenin's The State and Revolution are the best sources for this and they are both on Marxists Internet Archive

You do realise that the span of thought of these people ranges from Utopian socialists, who believed roast chickens would fly in peoples windows onto their dinner plates and the sea's would turn to lemonade (these influenced Marx's thinking) if socialism were attained, and that this could be done peacefully; all the way to Lenin who believed and used violence in the seizing control of state aparatus.

There is no coherent definition between the lot of them since the all contradict each other in so many essential areas. You say they provide the definition of socialism but they all have their own wildly different definitions and beliefs. It's like asking for a definition of physics on which you reply that Alchemists all the way to sir Isaac Newton have already provided it.

Because that is the definition of Socialism handed down from our ruling class to frighten people like you. A dictionary or an open sourse web page is hardly the best place to go for a definition of a political ideology.

I for one welcome our new Wiki overloards, but seriously you can choose two types of definitions, one provided by the theory and since the theory cannot agree with itself about anything (when you include all those authors) then we must use practical examples of when theory is applied. Soviet Russia, Communist China, North Korea etc.

Please god give me a definition, whats your definition, what do you think socialism is? Don't keep telling me to find it in that lots writings as anytime I come back to you you'll simply say:
Thats not real socialism, thats Marxism, or Marxist-Lininist, or Stalinism etc. You see where I'm going with this?

You won't tell me what it is you believe, I can sum up what I might believe if I were a capitalist, free trade and private property, plain and simple.

Somalia? Are you on drugs? What was Socialist about that?

Somalia is what happens when you remove government, socialist or not thats the result. Soviet Russia or Communist China is socialism with government.

Er, when was the last time a major shareholder of a fortune 500 company got their hands dirty down a gold mine? See you inadvertantly prove my point here. Who creates wealth? Workers! Workers are the ones who go down the mines, who build the houses, who grow the food, who develope new technology, who generate electricity, who refine steel! This is why workers should control the wealth!

Dell began in the dorm room of Michael Dell, working himself, exploiting himself if we were to use your language. Apple & HP were created in garages, by two people each. Fabulous wealth ensued for these founders and many of their hardest working employees. Not to mention how these companies have improved the lives of millions across the world as a result of their work.

For a more in dept rebuttal to your crumbling argument please see this http://www.politics.ie/economy/49633...ml#post1480750

Where did you get that idea? Wealth is constantly being created by workers, my point is that they should control what they create.

Again for a rebuttal see above link. But I have to ask why do you keep saying they should control the wealth as opposed to keep? Surely if the wealth they create is their own property they have full control over it?

Who's hard work? Who's innovation? See above!

Steve Jobs & Wozniaks, Bill Gates, Hewlett & Packard, their hard work, their innovation, their wealth, see above!

60% of that wealth is controlled by 200 families. Small shareholders own squat in the greater scheme of things.

Again why do you keep saying controlled instead of owned or property of? What does it mean to control wealth instead of own it?

And again why should it be any problem whom has what amount of wealth if wealth can be created? If you can create wealth why worry about what someone else has, just make your own.

Unless of course you think there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world.

I don't see the relevence of this.

Because artists, musicians, and writers create their own wealth, and Marxist theory has difficulty classifying them, are they the exploiters or the exploited? Does it depend on how much wealth they gain from their work?

It is a gaping hole in socialist theory as more people across the world start their own businesses gather the means of production and create wealth, with ever increasing numbers falling into this catagory.

How would you classify these creators?

I clearly said it wasn't Socialism. I said it was a movement towards Socialism.

So the best example of socialism you can give me lasted only a few months and didn't even get there? How practical or realistic is that?Can you give me an example of "real socialism" that is working?

No flexible in that we adapt to the situation at hand. That is why we are successful as a species.

We do have the power to adapt to our environment, as do most living animals but it is not what makes us successful. Our success is the opposite of what you espouse, it is our ability to change our situation, our environment to suit us, not the other way around.