TL Challenge

Or are you one of those people who uses Socialism and Communism interchangeably?

Well, communists themselves do it all the time. You had all these 'socialist republics' down in Eastern Europe a while ago. Ofcourse, there's a substantial amount of difference between social democracy, socialism and communism. While socialism isn't quite as authoritarian as communism, it is rather undemocratic. Here in the Netherlands, we had a 'scandal' half a year ago about how the dutch Socialist Party (that's it's name, and it fits perfectly) suppressed party members wo didn't follow the party leader's line.
 
Well, communists themselves do it all the time. You had all these 'socialist republics' down in Eastern Europe a while ago. Ofcourse, there's a substantial amount of difference between social democracy, socialism and communism. While socialism isn't quite as authoritarian as communism, it is rather undemocratic. Here in the Netherlands, we had a 'scandal' half a year ago about how the dutch Socialist Party (that's it's name, and it fits perfectly) suppressed party members wo didn't follow the party leader's line.

Which is exactly what all the other parties do :p
Ever heard of the whip?
Not saying that it's right, but it's a bit unfair to hold the Socialists to an unusually high standard for no reason.

Anyway, I don't think arguing about etymology is getting us anywhere. It's quite clear that our definitions of Socialism aren't the same so for now I'll call it Democratic Socialism for clarity. Anyway, capitalism is quite undemocratic, when it's laissez-faire, it's only through a combination of democratic socialism and capitalism that we can get anywhere.
 
Socialism has so many meanings...:p
I'm sorry, this is just not true. One of the first socialist parties was the Social Democratic Worker's Party of Germany. Hell, before Blair, Labour was socialist, or at least paid lip service to it. Or are you one of those people who uses Socialism and Communism interchangeably?

Those terms can be used any which way; the first Socialist party ever to get into power were the Russian Social Democrats, AKA Bolsheviks, AKA Communists. Various groups have called themselves Socialist.

To make conversation easier, I have taken to using Socialism when talking about Marxists and other extreme groups who don't respect private property, democracy, etc, and Social Liberalism when discussing moderate parties such as the Social Democrats of Sweden or Labour in Britain who just want high taxes and expensive welfare within a democratic framework.

Marxism, in and of itself, is inherently undemocratic in its vision, and this remains true for most "modified" versions.
 
Those terms can be used any which way; the first Socialist party ever to get into power were the Russian Social Democrats, AKA Bolsheviks, AKA Communists. Various groups have called themselves Socialist.


Since the Civil War didn't end until 1920, wouldn't it be more accurate to say the first Socialists to gain power were the Social Democrats in Germany, 1919?
 

Susano

Banned
Can we please stop confusing European socialists with east bloc "oscilaims"? Might be better to just label the latter as communists.
 
Since the Civil War didn't end until 1920, wouldn't it be more accurate to say the first Socialists to gain power were the Social Democrats in Germany, 1919?

They were recognised as the legit government by 1918, IIRC. The non-Bolshevik Socialists never really held the chance to win the Civil War, after Kolchak's defeat it was basically just clean-up.
 
if the koean war went like the vietnam war... plus no sino-soviet split, and generaly better managment in the soviet block...
generaly what got comunism down in most parts was incompetent party rule, but this is hard to change
maibe if you could get a major industrialised european nation to become socialist or comunist, like germani or italy, there would be a totaly diferent form of comunism, and with a les rural mindset it could even work longterm

but its dificult to do that worldwide
maybe if most of asia became comunist, then africa foloved, parts of the midle east were moving that way but then cia got the shah in power and that got homeini on power later

maibe a rightist rule in usa during the depresion might of started more leftist movements, or in a wanky scenario even a revolution in america, but thats unlikely

longer more opressive fashist rule in brazil, and bigger economic catastrofy in argentina might see a rise of more radical socialism, or even revolution, likevise for most of south america

i dont know...that song alwais depresses me somehow...
 
How do you define Socialism if not as what most Socialists think?

If so, Nazism doesn't include genocide because most modern-day Nazis don't advocate it (or at least, claim they don't). Far easier to just look at the documents. Socialism is what Marx called for, i.e. the total dictatorship.

Also, don't most democratic "Socialists" call themselves Social Democrats or somesuch these days?
 
If so, Nazism doesn't include genocide because most modern-day Nazis don't advocate it (or at least, claim they don't). Far easier to just look at the documents. Socialism is what Marx called for, i.e. the total dictatorship.

Also, don't most democratic "Socialists" call themselves Social Democrats or somesuch these days?

That's Marxism. Those are the ones who follow Marx.
Socialism as a term predates Marx.

Well, as far as I know they're still called Socialists where I live, maybe it's different where you do. It's a minor name change anyway.

Ugh, see, we're arguing over etymology again. Let's just leave it, shall we? The word clearly has different meanings in different places. *offers hand* :p
 
Last edited:
Top