State Socialism

But if you then create a country in which the people can be happy, then you are different from the regime you overthrew. You don't have to turn into a violent regime after using violence to overthrow a violent regime.

No, read the definition I posted. I think your just thinking of State Socialism that way. State Socialism is similar but different from market socialism.

That's because socialism does require some kind of revolution. Be it by means of open class struggle, general strike, ect. Just admit to being a social democrat and stop trying so damn hard to fit in with the reds.

Fascism has never been achieved though any sort of fair election. The likes of Hitler and Mussolini were rather fond of their paramilitary goon squads.

Yes it is. Yes it does.

Peaceful overthrow should always be preferred - However, realistically speaking, in the case of pretty much every country or dictatorship that has ever existed, it is impossible. If it comes down to either accepting the current dictatorship and throwing away your rights and values, or violently overthrowing the current system, I think it is clear which choice anybody should make.

If being communist is red, being socio democrat is being pink?

It kinda depends. About half of social democrats relate as socialists, and about half disassociate with it entirely. I suppose 'Pink' would be an accurate term for most of them.

For the record, I've grown to accept Market socialism, and democratic socialism as forms of socialism.

democratic socialism is very different then social democrat mind you.

Both of them, like state socialism, are very close cousins of socialism, just not quite the real thing.

No, Democratic Socialism calls for complete ownership of the means of production, social democracy doesn't and is not a close cousin of socialism, it used to be but its more like the disowned 6th cousin. I also advise you to read the whole wikipedia article.

God dammit, where do you get all these names?

Egypt

Revolutions can be peaceful. And I have already said I'm not a socialist. However, I'm not a social democrat. In fact, my beliefs perfectly fit the definition of that of state socialist. Why are you and Kali on some sort of a crusade to tell me what I believe?

True enough. I think a fair election could still put a state socialist government in power though. Their style of government wouldn't be too far fetched and foreign to Americans or Europeans.

No. I guess you need the definition again...
2.) an economic system in which the government owns most means of production but some degree of private capitalism is allowed

"State socialism" may also be used to classify any variety of socialist philosophies that advocates for ownership of the means of production by the state apparatus, either as a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism, or as an end-goal in itself.

State socialism is one of the dividing lines within the broader socialist movement, and is often contrasted non-state or anti-state forms of socialism, such as those that advocate direct self-management, adhocracy and direct cooperative ownership and management of the means of production, and political philosophies such as libertarian socialism, anarchist socialism, anarchist communism, syndicalism, free-market socialism, De Leonism and economic democracy. These forms of socialism are opposed to hierarchical technocratic socialism, scientific management and state-directed economic planning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism#Criticism


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism#State_socialism_in_Communist_states


Also the source is Webster, A dictionary I do not like.

Gandhi lead a peaceful protest that was eventually so widespread the British were forced out due to sheer economics. Like Mosh said, Egypt lead a mostly peaceful revolution. You should never accept that your rights be repressed, but does that give you license to kill your fellow man?

And this is why socialism has never really taken hold....there are way too many types. and each type does not support the others, and usually ridicules them. The fact that just that one sentence named that many types of socialism is insane. Capitalism isn't split up like that. Socialists need to realize that all their ideologies hold common ideals. I realize that is where a socialist revolution needs to start, by uniting its own factions.

Thank you! A revolution to make life better for people should do its best not to kill the people its trying to "save".

Well, there are plenty schools, but one tend to generalize it as capitalism.


(One does not simple post while doing chemistry homework)

Yes capitalism is split up like that, Theres neoliberalism, social democracy, Austrian...

Anyway I support most types of socialism, so long as its socialist.

Yeah have fun with that.

inb4thepurgingofcounterrevolutionaries/enemiesofthestate

That is not what I mean whatsoever. And its not what would come out of such a thing. What would come out of uniting all the socialist factions is a common socialist ideology, one which all socialists could agree upon. One that could stop the disunity between socialist faction because without a unified front, socialism or any type of ideology associated with socialism, will never prevail.

Its not split up quite as much. And there certainly isn't as much disunity. They recognize their common ideals, while socialists don't seem to recognize theirs.

That makes you an exception, many socialists do not.

Not quite true. As a supporter of Austrian economics (though I'll be the first to admit that I don't know too much about it besides what my brother has taught me and what few books I've read) I believe that Keynesian economics is extremely hurtful and counter-productive to the economy.

Key words in my post were too much and as much. I understand there are still disagreements and differing opinions, but not nearly as much as there are in socialism.

Mosh, why are you so utterly infatuated with the dirty reds, when you don't even share their values or ideology? Stop trying to redefine socialism so that you can 'fit in'. It's pathetic that anyone would ever even attempt to do so.