Inkwell Institute
Professor’s Classroom
Subject: Government/Socialism/Politics/Political Theory
Paper #27
“There are exactly 200 card carrying Communist in the State Department”
“How many Communists are there Senator?”
There are exactly 52 Communists”
(From the original “Manchurian Candidate”)
The point I am trying to make is that since 1917 there have been closet socialists trying to take over the government…at least, that is what the paranoid lame brain morons would have you believe……..it all boils down to YOUR definition of a socialist…..in the beginning almost all socialists were social democrats…that changed in 1917 with the rise of the Communists and the ideological battles fought between socialist and communist and somewhere along the way the social democrats became as liberal political movement not the radical movement of the communists/socialists…..
I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to educate idiots that the use of the word socialist or Communist or Marxist is just plain lame and is nothing more than a boring tactic to incite fear…..
Would a socialist accept the concept that political change could be brought about peaceably and constitutionally?
Would a socialist accept capitalism as the ONLY reliable means of generating wealth?
Would a socialist see the defects in capitalism and rectify them economics and social engineering?
Would a socialist view the nation state as a meaningful unit of political rule with a significant capacity to regulate economic and social life?
From what you know about socialism…answer the questions……
If you know anything then your answers would have to be NO!
There is a way of looking at social democracy, which above is…if you take a few of the “sociaslists ideals like redistribution of wealth, economic management and equality then we can make a case of Social Democracy being a sort of “socialist lite”……..but NOWHERE is this a radical form of socialism if anything it is a bit liberal in thought, modern definition not classical.
Personally, I do NOT consider social democracy as a form of socialism, but then I am not a pundit that wants to create hate and fear….to me this is what use to be called “neorevisionism”, a way to find a bridge between capitalism and socialism which to me looks a lot like what now is called neo-liberalism (a post for the future…watch for it). Yes, there are too many “isms” in this post but I wanted to show just how complicated we can make political philosophy….
To me socialism is NOT about the ballot box and because social democracy depends on the ballot box I do NOT consider it as an indication of what is truly socialism….but then again I am not a traditional political philosopher by any stretch of the imagination….
Hmmm… a good and interesting post! Of course, there are as many definitions of socialism as there are people, although there are SOME common features. Communism is probably the only viable (up to a point) method of delivering socialism – in theory – though it never actually does.
The real trouble for me is that pretty much ALL of these “isms” aimed at redistribution of wealth do nothing of the sort and NEVER will, so why waste time, energy and money on attempting them?
All you ever do is to change one set of cheating, thieving assholes for another – but redistribution in terms of everyone gets an equal share, or even an equal crack at an equal share? THAT is just pure utopian bullshit and given what we have discussed about human nature, it’s probably not even desirable if by some miracle it COULD be delivered.
Social democracy? Ah, now that’s something else entirely – a vast subject – although it does skirt around and flirt with some elements of socialism.
Good comment……like I said…..to some it is a form of socialism and I can understand why they think this…..but from my days as a radical pinko…the ballot box does nothing to further socialism…..I believe Emma Goldman said, “If voting changed anything it would be outlawed”……..I kinda agree with her….
Emma Goldman… ah, now there’s a lady with a nice cycnical take on things. I don’t agree with much of her opinion, but nice little “realisms” like that are almost beautiful in their truth and clarity. So I too do agree with that statement 100% since it perfectly sums up the elitist attitude to democracy extremely succinctly.
And she drank tons of coffee…that could explain the attraction for me….
Not a redhead with big ta-tas then?
That was how I was converted in the first place and the fact that I was there at her bra burning….a sight to behold….