State Socialism

I think is pretty much in the center of the pile, actually.

If you aren't willing to advocate insurrection, class warfare, or revolution. Then you might as well abandon socialism in general, because all the reformist schools have either died or turned modern social democratic.

Communism is only one form of socialism. Not all socialists believe in achieving communism.

Edit:

Stalinism isn't so much an ideology, it's basically a declaration of agreeing with the decisions that Stalin made. There are a lot of 'Pure' leninists and trotskyists who would beg to differ, though. (Worth noting that Trotskyists, for the most part, consider Trotskyism in the same way)

My opinion on syndicalism is that it is a suitable tactic, and should be used.

Anyway can we stop having debates over the definition of socialism take up half of the coffee house?

If only.

Well now my question has been answered, then just let this be the thread where we discuss any kind of socialism, or ideology that is similar to socialism.

I don't think you've seen the WW1 thread...

No. That is not what many socialists advocate at all. In fact, I know many socialists and none of them have gone with the stereotypical call for revolution and terrorism.

Maybe 3 threads have had a few pages on the definition of socialism....that's hardly half the coffee house. And actually that's what forums are for, sharing information and having hypothetical debates on random shit. Interspersed with that, is maybe a few threads that actually talk about something useful.

One of the primary beliefs in socialism is that class warfare exists, and as a result, socialists are expected to oppose the 'System' in any way they can. Hell, most forms of socialism teach that socialism cannot possibly be achieved
via election, and that violent insurrection and revolution at the only means to overthrow the dictatorship of the bourgeois/upper class. The only real exception to this are the classical social dems.

See, even Ler admits his ideology is dangerous and radical.

I think that the State being the population employer is as dangerous as total deregulation.

What's wrong with having different classes? Whats wrong with struggle and the desire to better your standing in the world. If you eliminate class you elminate incentive.

I was starting to worry about Fascist not posting in this thread.

Not all socialists believe in state control/nationalization - That is only the authoritarian socialists. There are a lot of moderate socialists, libertarian socialists and the likes who don't believe in nationalization, or whom even believe that nationalization is anti socialist. If I had to guess,I'd say that socialism is split about 1/3 authoritarian, 1/3 moderate socialist and 1/3 libertarian socialist.

@ Shaw - A quote from the US declaration of independence

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that whenever any form of government becomes self destructive, it is their right, their duty, to throw off such government".

No matter how you divide Socialism is still comes down to hating success and having an undeserved sense of entitlement.

Well, obviously that's not one of my beliefs. You do understand one of the reason socialism doesn't catch on is because people believe socialism would require a violent revolution? If fascism can be achieved through elections than socialism sure can too.

Yours is radical too. I don't know about dangerous, but definitely radical.

I still think that you can do that without violence.

I know, now that I re read my comment I realize it's a little ambiguous. I believe that key sectors of the economy should be run by the State, but in that case I was talking about the total ownership of the means of production by the State.

That's not really what state socialism is. State socialism does not totally control all means of production.

I think the term for what you are describing is 'Market socialism'. The term state socialism is generally used to describe authoritarian types of socialism (Vanguard socialism/Leninism, trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc)

Sorry then, I got confussed due to translation of terms.

Another quote from Thomas Jefferson -

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

If you use violence to overthrow a violent regime, then you are no different than the regime you overthrew. You still advocate the use of force to get what you want.