Which system of socialist variant do you choose?

[PassionFruit53]

Which variant of the socialist system do you think is the best one?

Personally in China itself I call myself as a "democratic socialist", but also I greatly admire certain aspects of "left-communism" (who who oppose Chairman Mao in the past, and those who believe in socialism today is also opposed to the totalitarian Chinese Communist Party).

Some people I greatly admired were both Leon Trotsky, and from a more modern theoretical outlook, Rosa Luxembourg and Antonio Gramsci.

I thoroughly despised Stalinism and his successors such as Mao, and Kim Il-Sung.

 

[tumbleweed41]

A Participatory Socialist Democracy would be my choice.

 

[Random]

I'm working towards a society where individual, personal freedom is maximized in the context of a binding social contract: true freedom has to be both provided for and also defended.

It's a simple exchange: if the State provides a guaranteed basic income, housing and universal healthcare to all of its citizens free of charge, then citizens must agree to personally abide by and be subject to the Rule of Law (ie. the same rules as everyone else bound by the social contract) with due process.

The original liberals, that is, Leftist Libertarians who are today called Libertarian Socialists, are IMO the only true, authentic socialists. I am from that school.

Modern so-called 'liberals' are nothing like the original one's in that they are the flip-side of the fascist and statist coin: they are actually just another shade of the Right, even though they are mistakenly called the 'Left' in today's political parlance.

Same goes for modern so-called 'libertarians', they are the same right-wing fascist coin as those they claim to oppose, only in many ways much, much worse. In the pits of their black hearts, they are piratical exclusive elitists and that makes them more dangerous than any 'conservative' or modern 'liberal'.

The U.S. Republican Party in the 1800's until the Gilded Age were a truly liberal party: it is unbelievable to see what they've become today.

 

[PassionFruit53]

The original liberals, that is, Leftist Libertarians who are today called Libertarian Socialists, are IMO the only true, authentic socialists. I am from that school.

I know this, but I do not like this label of liberalism. I used to just call myself a "liberal", but after I came to a better understanding of socialist ideology, I do not do it anymore, because of the negative correlation of reactionary ideas.

Same goes for modern so-called 'libertarians', they are the same right-wing fascist coin as those they claim to oppose, only in many ways much, much worse. In the pits of their black hearts, they are piratical exclusive elitists and that makes them more dangerous than any 'conservative' or modern 'liberal'.

I do not tolerate the conservative ideas. I always noted that the people who say to adhere to "tradition" really want to adhere to power alone, things like tradition is just there excuse. It is often the same to those who say they want to protect "culture" or "nation". Most of the time they just wanted to have a dictatorship.

I observed with very much interest the 2012 election. I was unimpressed by the so-called "libertarian" Ron Paul. And his supporters seemed very fanatical much like the Red Guards from Chinese history.

 

[dust1n]

I
The original liberals, that is, Leftist Libertarians who are today called Libertarian Socialists, are IMO the only true, authentic socialists. I am from that school.

This would best apply to my beliefs as well, to put it as shortly as possible. I'm always happy to see anarcho-communists on this board.

 

[Darkness]

There are so many confusing titles that people create for themselves on the extreme left. To this day I have no idea what half of them are. What are libertarian socialists? Is that just another way of saying market socialists?

I just call myself a plain old Communist.

 

[PassionFruit53]

There are so many confusing titles that people create for themselves on the extreme left. To this day I have no idea what half of them are. What are libertarian socialists? Is that just another way of saying market socialists?

I just call myself a plain old Communist.

I can agree with "too many label" but after the rise of deformed worker's states like the USSR under Stalin, the PR China under Mao and the DPRK under Kim Il Sung people created theories to explain what had happened. Maybe that is why there were so many theories. Also we should remember that the Orthodox Marxist thinking is based on the 19th century and its economic model so in some ways it needed to be modernized.

I'm always happy to see anarcho-communists on this board.

Dustin, I too consider myself a bit of an anarchist as well but then if you lived here in China you might too. The government is just a group of villains and thugs, and I will not be sad, if somehow, those people suffered some tragedy while they had the Party Meeting

 

[Alceste]

There are so many confusing titles that people create for themselves on the extreme left. To this day I have no idea what half of them are. What are libertarian socialists? Is that just another way of saying market socialists?

I just call myself a plain old Communist.

Libertarian socialists are pretty much the same thing as anarcho-socialists. We are inclined to believe institutionalized / centralized / hierarchal power structures are inherently corrupt and coercive, and the only truly free society would be founded on mutual, voluntary cooperation. Decisions affecting whole communities would ideally be arrived at via consensus, with each community having final say on what kind of activity occurs in their own back yard.

We are unlike free market libertarians because we acknowledge that this freedom could never be achieved unless we are able to establish a truly level playing field. It can't work when a minority of individuals are born with a huge disparity in economic power from the majority. Any effort at libertarianism from the platform we are coming from would only entrench new corrupt and coercive power structures controlled by the wealthy, with no accountability to the collective will of the communities affected by their actions.

In practice, we accept the necessity of centralized government. Libertarian idealism can only be a direction in such a complex society, never a destination. Due to this orientation, we advocate democratic socialist public policies that help to level the playing field, restraint, transparency and accountability for lawmakers and law enforcers, establish and patronize institutions based on voluntary cooperation and community participation (credit unions, coops, farmer's markets, etc.), advocate diplomacy and persuasion over might and force, etc.

Noam Chomsky would be accurately described as a libertarian socialist / anarcho-socialist. Also, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama.

What is a market socialist?

 

[Valjean]

Socialize the commons, privatize other economic activity.
Regulate activity that could negatively impact the planet or society.

 

[PassionFruit53]

Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama.

Those are all people who I admire because of their contributions to humankind. Also Martin Luther King, but I am not sure that he was a socialist.

In fact I consider His Holiness to be a more correct socialist than our current leaders in China!

But that is a small point...

I think Bakunin was very correct to state, "freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."

 

[Darkness]

Libertarian socialists are pretty much the same thing as anarcho-socialists. We are inclined to believe institutionalized / centralized / hierarchal power structures are inherently corrupt and coercive, and the only truly free society would be founded on mutual, voluntary cooperation. Decisions affecting whole communities would ideally be arrived at via consensus, with each community having final say on what kind of activity occurs in their own back yard.

We are unlike free market libertarians because we acknowledge that this freedom could never be achieved unless we are able to establish a truly level playing field. It can't work when a minority of individuals are born with a huge disparity in economic power from the majority. Any effort at libertarianism from the platform we are coming from would only entrench new corrupt and coercive power structures controlled by the wealthy, with no accountability to the collective will of the communities affected by their actions.

In practice, we accept the necessity of centralized government. Libertarian idealism can only be a direction in such a complex society, never a destination. Due to this orientation, we advocate democratic socialist public policies that help to level the playing field, restraint, transparency and accountability for lawmakers and law enforcers, establish and patronize institutions based on voluntary cooperation and community participation (credit unions, coops, farmer's markets, etc.), advocate diplomacy and persuasion over might and force, etc.

Noam Chomsky would be accurately described as a libertarian socialist / anarcho-socialist. Also, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama.

What is a market socialist?

A market socialist means that a market-economy still exists, but there is merely no private ownership. Workers own the businesses. It would be like making all businesses into cooperatives you could say. Are libertarian socialists Communists? Do you believe in "From each according to his ability, from each according to his needs?" So in other words: would community A exchange with community B on market-principles, so to speak, or would the intention be that what is produced should be to the benefit of all? My confusion really has to do with the fact that I see very little distinction sometimes between those who call themselves libertarian socialists, anarcho-communists, and plain old communists such as myself. I don't know what vague terms like "voluntary cooperation" mean. Is that a call for syndicalism? Is it a call for the more altruistic understanding of Marx?

 

[Alceste]

Those are all people who I admire because of their contributions to humankind. Also Martin Luther King, but I am not sure that he was a socialist.

In fact I consider His Holiness to be a more correct socialist than our current leaders in China!

But that is a small point...

I think Bakunin was very correct to state, "freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."

Martin Luther King was absolutely a socialist. That's where my current signature comes from. That's also most likely the reason he was assassinated. He was mobilizing the people against a dysfunctional and corrupting economic system with the same skill, charisma and persuasiveness with which he led the civil rights movement.

 

[Alceste]

A market socialist means that a market-economy still exists, but there is merely no private ownership. Workers own the businesses. It would be like making all businesses into cooperatives you could say. Are libertarian socialists Communists? Do you believe in "From each according to his ability, from each according to his needs?" So in other words: would community A exchange with community B on market-principles, so to speak, or would the intention be that what is produced should be to the benefit of all? My confusion really has to do with the fact that I see very little distinction sometimes between those who call themselves libertarian socialists, anarcho-communists, and plain old communists such as myself. I don't know what vague terms like "voluntary cooperation" mean. Is that a call for syndicalism? Is it a call for the more altruistic understanding of Marx?

Anarcho-syndicalism is pretty compatible, as I understand it. The difference between communism and anarcho-socialism is that libertarian socialists dream of a world without hierarchies and central government, because there seems to be no escape from the inevitability that power is corrupting. Doesn't matter if you're a capitalist or a communist. Power is the problem - too much of it in the hands of too few people.

 

[PassionFruit53]

Martin Luther King was absolutely a socialist. That's where my current signature comes from. That's also most likely the reason he was assassinated. He was mobilizing the people against a dysfunctional and corrupting economic system with the same skill, charisma and persuasiveness with which he led the civil rights movement.

I didn't notice that! I will have to read more speeches by Dr. King so I can understand his business.

But it is good to know that all the heros of history are on our side!

Thanks fr clarifying it for me.

 

[Alceste]

I didn't notice that! I will have to read more speeches by Dr. King so I can understand his business.

But it is good to know that all the heros of history are on our side!

Thanks fr clarifying it for me.

I am all fired up and feeling well informed after reading this article yesterday.

Stop celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. - Matt Rindge - Red Letter Christians

 

[dust1n]

A market socialist means that a market-economy still exists, but there is merely no private ownership. Workers own the businesses. It would be like making all businesses into cooperatives you could say. Are libertarian socialists Communists? Do you believe in "From each according to his ability, from each according to his needs?" So in other words: would community A exchange with community B on market-principles, so to speak, or would the intention be that what is produced should be to the benefit of all? My confusion really has to do with the fact that I see very little distinction sometimes between those who call themselves libertarian socialists, anarcho-communists, and plain old communists such as myself. I don't know what vague terms like "voluntary cooperation" mean. Is that a call for syndicalism? Is it a call for the more altruistic understanding of Marx?

Naturally, opinions differ. I can't really find any substantial difference between anarcho-communist thought and libertarian-socialism. There are synonyms for all important aspects.

The central tenet here is voluntary association (or voluntary cooperation), or in other words, abolition of wage labor and government. The idea behind voluntary association is that people will work together, namely, production. Proudhon would have considered anyone who didn't work that was capable of it a thief... unwelcome to whatever association people have formed. And of course, these would be operated via direct democracy. And, you would generally correct in equating it with syndicalism.

I don't know if I'd call it specifically a call for an altruistic understanding of Marx... some do, though. A good read in that is Marx's Concept of Man by Erich Fromm. But generally, the supposed different in the liberation-socialist and the communist is the association of the state. But, socialist elements and all would indicate a heavy influence from Marx, especially the criticisms of capitalism, the nature of alienation, class distinctions, etc.

More specifically though, I'm a post-anarchist, but that is a whole new can of worms.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I consider myself anarcho-socialist.

 

[dust1n]

I consider myself anarcho-socialist.

It's a growing breed.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It's a growing breed.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

[DanaTheJewishYogini]

I am a democratic socialist liberal.