Left VS. Right The Political Spectrum Explained

61 posts / 0 new
Last post

Comments

ah2
poly, simply put you are

poly, simply put you are guilty of the same sin as Sherriv, Liberty-PAC and the creator of the youtube video.  You find a singular definition of Socialism that you like and fits your particular ideological purposes and attempt to essentialize Socialism's definition as singular - you are right and everyone else is wrong.

ALL concepts such as this are simply more complex than that.  Socialism is a broad category which includes but is not limited to the description you have provided for it.  It includes but is not limited to the descriptions sherriv, liberty-PAC, and the youtube video have provided.

I have provided this resource in the past that I have found very helpful - this is a chapter from Eric Olin Wright's book Envisioning Real Utopias, called "The Socialist Compass."  http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/ERU_files/ERU-CHAPTER-5-final.pdf

He attempts to create a typology utilizing the three concepts of economic, state, and social power to better understand what is and what isn't a socialist arrangement.  To be fair, he might partially agree with a lot of your statements.  He would call USSR and Cuba, for example a "Statist Socialism" system with very intentionally putting "Statist" first in the equation.  He also does a really good job of explaining the possibility of Hybrids and why such an essentialized definition for Socialism like the ones you are all are attempting to enforce is simply insufficient for real world application.

 

Liberty-Pac
Liberty-Pac's picture
Reference:

Reference: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Marx & Engels - "....the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of Democracy. "

Liberty-Pac - Some of the below measures are similar to varying degrees of Federal and State policies in place within our current political social model. The establishment 2 party monopoly (R) & (D) have been leading us down Marxs road to Socialism for a very long time.

Marx & Engelss - "These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production"

My favorite Marx quote:

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

Liberty-Pac
Liberty-Pac's picture
I reject the above social

I reject the above social model and I reject the 2 party monopoly. Restore the Constitutional Republic. Good day!

ah2
Liberty-Pac wrote: Reference:

Liberty-Pac wrote:

Reference: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Marx & Engels - "....the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of Democracy. "

Liberty-Pac - Some of the below measures are similar to varying degrees of Federal and State policies in place within our current political social model. The establishment 2 party monopoly (R) & (D) have been leading us down Marxs road to Socialism for a very long time.

Marx & Engelss - "These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production"

My favorite Marx quote:

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

The only thing we have on this list is public schools.

polycarp2
poly wrote: Pre-Soviet State

poly wrote:

Pre-Soviet State definitions of socialism were much different than post-Soviet State definitions of socialism. That's why I prefer Parecon,. It's way, way closer to the original meanings of the term. ..If you'd prefer I say the U.S. had a Parecon society rather than a socialist society at its founding, I can do that. They are one and the same to me.

.--------

A monastic community is probably socialist. It fits that definition. Each monk is totally in charge of his own workplace. There is no "boss". Economically, exchanges are no more than an indirect barter. One's work is exhanged for the work of another. 

Bottom up rule rather than top down. The hierarchy exists to implement policies determined by the majority at a weekly council. The hierarchy  coordinates those decisions rather than dictates. them. If it oversteps those bounds, it's quickly replaced. That's the opposite of any government model I know of.

Marx . made many valid observations on how the system of his day functioned. Many of those functions are still in operation. with some of the contradictions within the system becoming more and more apparent as one economy after another collapses. Concentration of wealth has increased.

However, his solutions were contradictory. He was a twit in that respect. The state does not wither away with government ownership. It strengthens. Power corrupts and the hierarchy becomes ever more powerful and self-serving ...

.I agree with Chomsky's view....particulary as to U.S. socialism. Workers of the early U.S. socialist movements weren't striving for governent ownership...they were striving for direct worker ownership of their workplace. A return to the nation's roots.

Holding up Marx as the model for U.S. socialism is nonsense. and misses the primary focus of socialism. Ultimate direct worker ownership of their workplace. .Replacing one boss with another isn't socialism.

A fire department is an element of a social democracy. It isn't socialist. The firemen don't own/control their own workplace. Elements of a social democracy are democratically determined....and compensation should equal the norms of the society in which they occur.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

.

The Conservative
The Conservative's picture
With the richest 1% paying

With the richest 1% paying more in taxes than the top 95% of taxpayers. And the number of REAL taxpayers out of all US adults being less than 45%

H.P. Wells
strange comment to make

strange comment to make conservative, you're implying that paying more in taxes entitles you to skirt the law? Or that rich Americans should be the ones in control?

polycarp2
Our "republic" has morphed

Our "republic" has morphed into a form more resembling feudalism than a democatic republic.

Private ownership of Kings and Lords over nearly the entire nation's wealth is coming  full circle. Only the names and  titles have changed.....with the majority again working their tails off to support oppulent life-styles of a minority.

Going to the trouble of overthrowing that sort of structure, merely to ultitmately replace  it with a twin was probably a  wasted effort.

At a monastery, one doesn't dine on steak while another dines out of a dumpster..and that isn't because of socialism. Everyone is guaranteed equal access to basic human needs by the "Rule". The Constitution. It's an element of a social democracy, like Food Stamps...or  the guarantees of many Native American cultures who had never heard the word "socialism".

 They operated for the most part as social democracies and socialist in the respect that everyone had access to the means of a livelihoood...dependent on  no one..Socialism. Access to  assistance when it was required.was there. That's an element of a social democracy. ...

The Father of  Genetics was a monk, Fr. Mendel.,..controlling his own  work place . No one dictated his  work to him. It wasn't an "I'm the boss,, you're the worker" system that gave rise to new field of scientific inquiry...though the command system of corporate structures can do the same thing

A command system is still a command system whether privately owned or government owned. The Soviets subsidized their command system their way, we do it our way...and pretend we don't have one.

A command system isn't socialism..An exchange of bosses isn't socialism. Socialist thought arose out of  wanting a replication of the American experience...where the majority owned their own means of livlihood...and retained the full fruits of their labor...without sharing it with  an owner.

The plantation system of an owner reaping the rewards while "workers" received bare sustenance wasn't something Americans wanted to  imitate off the plantation. . Prior to the Industrial Revolution, they didn't..They unsuccessfully fought it.

 Europeans were fed up with the plantation-type of existence themselves. A slave life-style wtth "freedom"...as long as you worked for another.If you didn't, you were thrown in jail or given over to involuntary servitude to earn your keep... Opportunties to repeat the American experience.., be a self-employed craftsman, farmer or shop keeper were purposely limited..Maximum wage laws kept it that way.

That's what gave rise to socialism. Marx was merely just another contributor of ideas.   His observations were valid. His solutions were total B.S. . Had the Soviets not touted his very obvious observations he'd be just another odd-ball in the trash bin of history. The observations gave him credibility. His solutions were way off base.  His ideas  couldn't possibily replicate the American experience of economic independence.  They merely traded one plantation owner for another.That was never the ultimate goal.

Exchanging one boss for another isn't socialism, nor was it ever the ultimate goal.even with Marx's wacky solutions.

Reteired Monk -"Ideology is a disease"..

.

ah2
Here we go again.  Let's

Here we go again.  Let's break down the etymology, poly.

Fuedalism - means of production owned by Fuedal Lords.

Capitalism - means of production owned by capitalists.

Socialism - means of production owned by society.  As in SOCIAL ownership.  Not private ownership.

Poly likes to redefine words and ignore about 250 years of literature on the subject, cherry picking the one scholar out of the entire history of socialism that he agrees with and say that everyone else was just "incorrect."

 

polycarp2
Yep. That's why the economist

Yep. That's why the economist Michael Hudson refers to it as neo-feudalism. Same old effect....new titles.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".