...and what is communism? Seems like the caf doesn’t agree on a definition.
In addition, where do you personally align with? Discuss.
In addition, where do you personally align with? Discuss.
What is socialism?
- Thread starter Florida Man
- Start date
Socialism is subsidizing farmers.
Socialism is giving huge tax breaks to corporations.
I am a communist in theory, or maybe an anarchist. My personal ideological beliefs are grounded in the works of Karl Marx and the Frankfurt school.
maybe true socialism is the friends we made along the way
Its a wide umbrella, if you look up economic socialism you will find some of the richest countries in western Europe. I'm quite sure the caf is devided as there are quite a lot of ignorant members. You only have to read 'Venezuela, failed socialist state' to know these people have not researched or do not know the difference between socialism and corruption.
I am a socialist.
I am a socialist.
to me socialism means shared ownership
communism involves more state control I guess, not really sure
communism involves more state control I guess, not really sure
There are no socialist countries in western Europe... Those are social democratic. Big difference. Reformists Vs revolutionaries, system change or not, the question of property and all that jazz...
Communism in theory means the abolition of state and structure.
...and what is communism? Seems like the caf doesn’t agree on a definition.
In addition, where do you personally align with? Discuss.
If my post in the Trump thread is the cause of this thread I want to clarify that I wasn't being entirely serious and just wanted to insult Trump with words his supporters think they understand.
To me communism means shared/state ownership of everything. Socialism means the state actively tries to level the field between the stronger and weaker members.
...and what is communism? Seems like the caf doesn’t agree on a definition.
In addition, where do you personally align with? Discuss.
I think we use the word socialism incorrectly. I think what most consider socialist country is more like a welefare state. Socialism is basically having all means of production owned and controlled by the state. Having the governmemt run a post office isnt socialism. Having the government run health and care sector isnt soicalism. Its just something that would be in a socialist country. Canada and the scandanavian countries are welfare states. I dont think there has ever actually been a truly socialist country.
If memory serves you cant have a free market economy and proclaim to be a socialist country.
Wasn’t inspired by your post.
What’s the difference between that and anarchy?
What you are describing is state socialism/Leninism and social democracy.
Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more
Anarchy is not an ideology, anarchy is a condition
Anarchism as an ideology is by and large very similar to communism. Where they differ is on questions of authority and laws. Where communists were not totally against some form of authority to direct the classless world society, the anarchists rejected any form of authority. But the abolition of the nation state is deemed necessary by both.
pick one
In the sense that we can't say a country is truly socialist if the state doesn't control all means of production, can a country where the state controls some areas be considered truly capitalist?
Anarchy and anarchism are not the same thing...
Socialism is a contradiction. The point was the abolition of the class system which was based on personal wealth and the advanced of common ownership of society's product. That got replaced by a different class system based on how high you were in the command of the socialist party and power of ownership replaced by power of command. Ergo, it was miserably failing in its primary objective and creating a fertile ground for rampant corruption that was sinking the the countries that adopted it.
I sincerely question the sanity of those who still have faith in it.
I would argue those two are 2 possible incarnations of communism/socialism.
Ah ok. I used the two rather indiscriminately and without putting much thought in it earlier so thought it a possibility.
Last edited:
That's like saying socialism and a socialist state are not the same thing. It's state of affairs underpinned by a certain ideology and in the context of a political theory discussion, they are basically interchangeable.
I visited Cuba in the Castro era. Everybody was given a home and a job and payed exactly the same wage. Doctors, taxi drivers, dish washers,etc all on same money. They also have the best healthcare in the Americas and it's free for all its people. I can see the appeal in a way, really communism is the opposite of capitalism.
There are some plus points but communism does take away personal freedom in many respects. Though offers much more security and fairness.
There are some plus points but communism does take away personal freedom in many respects. Though offers much more security and fairness.
No they are not... Anarchy is a condition. That is not ideological. Anarchy is, for example, a key explanatory factor in the realist school of thought in international relations theory, but has absolutely nothing to do with anarchism as an ideology.
I contest that notion. Anarchy in realism is the belief in there is no central authority and organisation in the international relations scene (debatable) and anarchists don't believe in the power of authority in the national level either. And since we're talking about national level organisation in this thread, I find it bemusing to be drawing a distinct line between anarchy and anarchism in the particular context. A bit like splitting hairs if you will. But I don't want to press this much further lest we bore people to death.
I think he’s referring to the nuance of definitions, which makes sense. But you are also correct in the sense that it is used interchangeably, which was what I did by accident.
That’s the general honest opinion I tend to get when I ask Cubans who used to live there. Kind of how I feel about communism too to be honest.
I agree let's leave it at that. But I would not say that we are talking about the national level since anarchism (and communism) can only (theoretically) work on a global level, after the abolition of borders and the nation...
In someone's opinion of fairness anyway. If there's one thing that there is general agreement on with regards to fairness, is that it's subjective. If I studied for 15 years to become a heart surgeon and held peoples' lives at my hands on a daily basis, while being at the same (sorry) financial state as a dish-washer, I would hold an entirely opposite view of the system's fairness to yours.
Then that would stem from the idea of individualism vs collectivism.
I'm not so sure it's debatable. There literally is no central authority or sovereignty in the international system. In Waltzian Realism (aka Realism, aka Structural Realism, aka Neo-Realism), the anarchic system incentives states to help themselves (self-help) to advance their own interests explicitly because there is no central authority to stop them. There is no world government - hence the system is anarchic.
Yep.
In my understanding, anarchy is merely the absence of a unifying authority ruling over society. This can apply to very different conditions. Extreme example: the situation in a country ravaged by civil war, where social structures have largely collapsed, might be called anarchy. Anarchism is obviously something very different from that, a non-etatistic conception of socialism.
(Which also stands in contradiction with your other notion, that socialism and state socialism are necessarily one and the same.)
An authority doesn't need to have the title to be one and it isn't always in perfect control. Else every government would have eliminated unemployment and poverty. You could argue that the US for the 20 years following the fall of the USSR was exerting strong control over international affairs of most nations (if certainly not all). The state of international affairs in a changing, more fluid state than at national level, with very large periods of anarchy but occasionally with periods of some order.
Last edited:
The US certainly had a lot of influence but it was never (nor will ever be) considered a sovereign in the international system. In the Weberian sense, it will never have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force at the international level as most nation states have within their borders. The entire idea behind structural realism is that no one is legitimately or legally in charge. The US, as the world's most powerful state (and China and Russia behind them) can get away with more than smaller states because they have the power to do so and anarchy allows them to. The absence of anarchy would be a world state where each current nation state would have to in some way abide by a common global law, much as US states have to abide by federal laws. We aren't nearly there yet though.
I'll help you http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
You're welcome
Yep, fair enough.
That seems to be written by the international authority peerform. Great googling
It's fair if you choose to become a doctor knowing that you will only ever get same wages as everyone else. You would do it because you want to be a doctor rather than for the money.
As I mentioned before, it’s how much you value individualism vs collectivism.