Socialism

ttomthebomb

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Posts
216
Reacts
0
Reputation
0
Credits
0
The Socialist political theory was a theory in which the workers would be able to control industries and have them common property. They were organized together under the banner of common management, power distribution, and an end to a bureaucratic oppression.

The Socialist economic system, however, is planned system unlike Capitalism. There could never be unforeseen market fluctuations, allowing products to be easily distributed through markets, such as the socialist market. The sense of socialism is that nothing is privately owned.

One of the most brilliant people of the world was a socialist himself, Albert Einstein.

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."
-Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?, 1949

Let us discuss Socialism, comrades.
 
I believe that socialism is only plausible as a road to Marxism.
A government that followed a socialist economic regime would really only work on a small scale economy that was already thriving or doing well.

I don't have much more to say about socialism, until someone else posts something that I can reply to.
 
After a proletariat revolution, the state becomes the instrument of the workers, initially.
Eventually it would fall completely into the hands of the workers.

I do agree that pure socialism would not completely work in a large country, say China, who have a socialist market which uses some aspects of the capitalist market (sale-wise).

However, I'm sure that a hybrid Socialist regime would most likely be able to flourish in large countries.
 
Which political system do you think a socialist economy would work best in?
I kind of think that Marx's ideas were flawed as well, but I think with revision and new theory, they could be successful.
 
My political belief rests in Socialism, so I love it. It's a great political theory.
 
Krazed, that sounded so ignorant that it's not even funny.
Developed theories of socialism (ie Marxism, Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, etc.) are political theories, but bare socialism is only an economic system/theory.
 
Provenance said:
Which political system do you think a socialist economy would work best in?
I kind of think that Marx's ideas were flawed as well, but I think with revision and new theory, they could be successful.
Click to expand...

Honestly, it would probably work best under a Dictatorship. The dictatorship would allow the public funds to build, it's essentially everyone gets a share in the pool of funds. Now, if it were say a Socialist Democracy, there would be everyone cutting into the funds claiming it to be for reforms.

What are your thoughts on what political system would work best?

Also, Socialism isn't a political system, Marxism is. Socialism is an economic system.
 
Dictatorships get out of hand, and I think many bodies would account for that possibility.
I think that a well developed oligarchy formed based on factors other than monetary worth could possibly work.
 
Provenance said:
Krazed, that sounded so ignorant that it's not even funny.
Developed theories of socialism (ie Marxism, Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, etc.) are political theories, but bare socialism is only an economic system/theory.
Click to expand...
Silly me, forgot to put Marxism after Socialism . (Should have been Socialist-Marxism)
 
Provenance said:
Dictatorships get out of hand, and I think many bodies would account for that possibility.
I think that a well developed oligarchy formed based on factors other than monetary worth could possibly work.
Click to expand...

A Socialist Oligarchy would work as long as it was not run by a military or corporate power.
Seeing as how those two things would contradict the very meaning of a Socialist system.
 
That's fairly obvious. Oligarchy would work well with socialism. I'm just wondering: what do you guys think of a Socialist Democracy? Would it work out well? And what about Technocracy? That is where the most intelligent run the country's affairs and such. (those who are experts in a field make the decisions about said field in the governmental realm)
 

I think that a slightly military oriented oligarchy would fair quite well as a socialist state. As long as the military leaders/representatives weren't as war hungry as some of the leaders we've seen in the past.


I don't think a socialist democracy would work well at all. Democracies are usually made up of learned politicians who spend a great amount of funds on promoting their glorified image. Some even require large financial benefactors to do so.
 
By those leaders are you talking about former Socialist leaders or do you speak of any leader? Like Bush and Cheney?


What if political campaigns were comprised of only what they would do for the country? Like, just a speech or two...
 
I was speaking of a lot of previous leaders.
Most of which were leaders of monarchies or more modern dictatorships.
 

Ignore my edit about the military, I had Communism on my mind.

If there was a military leader in power, I'm sure he would try to expand, like all military leaders. Now this wouldn't quite abolish Socialism but it would greatly impact it, because the workers would be taken into the military, essentially. However, I could see this working on a small to medium scale. This wouldn't work in say, the U.S.
 
Like Kim Jong Il? Anyways, I definitely agree with you. Military could have a minor overtone role but my opinion stays that an oligarchy of just military personal would be catastrophic.
 

Well, it could be a mixed group, so that all major government interests are given the ability to promote thought.
 
That can be said about most systems, a mixed economy is by far one of the easiest things to maintain.

Explanation: With much more diversity in the economy, it could lead to reforms that suit the needs of all aspects of the economic system.
 
I meant a mixed board of leadership.

What if political campaigns were comprised of only what they would do for the country? Like, just a speech or two...
Click to expand...

It would be way easier to deceive your target audience that way.
 
Provenance said:
I meant a mixed board of leadership.
Click to expand...

Oh right, well either way both would fit a socialist system fairly.

A mixed leadership could always turn ugly, depending on their beliefs.
Otherwise, I would agree with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…