[Social_Critic]

I would say you go the radical route, and become like Christ, say the rich won't go through the eye of a needle and stuff like that, and then go burn yoru bra.

[Negotiator]

That is besides the piece of the bible I am currently constantly thinking about.

I would be glad if somebody could explain to me what exactly Jesus wanted to say with that.

Okay, completely wrong forum, most likely.

[daft punk]

I'm a little new to the whole socialism idea...

I think its good in theory, almost perfect, actually

and the only problem I have with it is that the leaders were all corrupt in some way, shape, or form. That's why I think it hasn't succeeded very well. If there was an honest leader, socialism would prevail.

I sound like an idealist.

But I don't want to be branded as a "socialist" or "communist".

So I've come to the forum. Any help?

Lenin and Trotsky were not corrupt. They were honest leaders. The revolution degenerated because it was isolated in a backward country. This would be expected by Marxists. To survive and move towards socialism it needed help from advanced countries in the 1920s. It degenerated, and Stalin was the personification of that, the leader who best reflected the change for the worse.

Libertarian socialism, otherwise known as anarchism, is a kind of "socialism from below." It lacks a leader or separate political class, and instead involves free association and direct democracy based on consensus. The means of production are held in common, and production is coordinated among workers through non-hierarchical federations. This decentralized, non-hierarchical system gets rid of the problem of corrupt leaders that you brought up.

But the anarchists wasted one of the best opportunities ever for socialism, in Spain. Their leader admitted they could have taken power, but refused to, on principle. Then they joined a Stalinist-capitalist government!

If there were any real, valid reasons, they'd be because a lot of the countries that have tried it [socialism] haven't benefited from it in the long run. And I blame that on the leaders, in my opinion.

And I'll check it out, thanks!

There has never been a socialist country. Only Russia tried it really. The leaders can make a crucial difference, but the objective conditions are fundamental. Stalin rose to power because of the degeneration, not vice versa. Of course he speeded it up and made it worse etc.

[AnthonyLeeScott]

I dont know what to believe. I read this blog about Socilism and wanted a different view point. It did make me think though. The blog site was called rejectedrhetoric ,and it was saying something about utopia?

[daft punk]

Utopia is where you imagine an ideal society. It's not a very practical thing. You have to start with what exists, what we have, and what we know (eg history).

try reading this and browsing the site it comes from

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books_ ... _Socialism

let me know what you think, jot down questions and if they still arent answered by the end post them here.

[Negotiator]

I cant see whats wrong with trying to start from an ideal, i.e. an Utopia.

If we just stay where we are, well we are in the midst of a disaster. The rich have taken over and tear our civilization down, somehow not caring that ultimately they will fall down with us.

[daft punk]

the way I see it, it's like going on an expedition. To start with you have to know where you are, what resources you have, and have an idea of how to get the thing started. You have to work with what you have got. You have to have a map and a plan. It's ok to imagine what you will do when you get there but immediate thing is to obtain the vehicle and equipment, plus necessary knowledge.

[Someone5]

I'm a little new to the whole socialism idea...

I think its good in theory, almost perfect, actually

and the only problem I have with it is that the leaders were all corrupt in some way, shape, or form. That's why I think it hasn't succeeded very well. If there was an honest leader, socialism would prevail.

If you're looking for a leader--someone to tell you what to do--you've picked the wrong ideology. Socialism is about freedom, not about finding a leader to guide you around like a chess piece. You can get plenty of that with capitalism.

[Fraqtive42]

If you're looking for a leader--someone to tell you what to do--you've picked the wrong ideology. Socialism is about freedom, not about finding a leader to guide you around like a chess piece. You can get plenty of that with capitalism.

Why must all varieties of Socialism essentially be about freedom? Socialism is merely the notion that the workforce should be owned cooperatively, hence it comes in many different varieties (some which see the individual as having moral primacy over any collective entity, some devaluing individual will in its entirety, etc.).