Comments by "BlackFlagsNRoses" (@blackflagsnroses6013) on "Bernie Explains Socialism To Fox News Viewers" video.
-
2
-
2
-
Jack Jaunt The Soviets were Marxist-Leninist. This is one strain of Socialism informed by Lenin’s revolutionary politics and interpretation of Marxist thought. Lenin’s ideas included rule of the Vanguard Party, the elitist bureaucrats leading the worker’s, and an authoritarian top-bottom organization called Democratic Centrism. His ideas were always criticized by other Socialists who thought him too authoritarian, most notably Rosa Luxembourg.
Socialism advocates social or worker’s ownership of the factors of production and a post-Capitalist classless socioeconomic system. Socialism isn’t opposed to markets depending on the school, but are against Capitalism. That is private ownership of the factors of production, wage labor, commodity production, profit interest etc... And not all Socialism advocates State control, Marxism does. Marx called for the worker’s to take over the State and develop a Socialist worker’s State. This didn’t mean it had to be a dictatorship or authoritarian. Indeed the only revolution to have Marx’s stamp of approval was the Paris Commune and that was a highly bottom-up worker’s democracy. As for Communism, it is one form of Socialism where there is Stateless, classless, and moneyless society and there is common ownership of the means and distribution. It has not been achieved by Marxist-Leninists. Anarchists came close.
The progressives of today aren’t much different from Modern Liberals of the past in FDR’s days. They want reforms and regulations but aren’t looking beyond Capitalism. They aren’t Socialist really though they think they are. In truth they want to preserve Capitalism as FDR did. Social Democrats of the Nordic Countries have robust middle classes and successful Capitalists. That’s the model they want. They aren’t Socialists. Due to Marxist-Leninism everyone has this misconception about Socialism that it’s all State control, government doing things, social programs, authoritarianism etc.... Nope that was one Socialist strain it did not encompass all of Socialism. Socialism doesn’t need the State or government, it can be democratic and at it’s most extreme anarchist.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Shydawg hanbowski There are many problems with your assessment. Permit me to correct your misconceptions.
Nazis weren’t Socialists at all. Hitler called the party National Socialist, but he always made clear his hatred of the Bolsheviks, Communism, and Socialism. He always said to him Socialism means the collective society working towards the goals and ambitions of the State. Fascists are Corporative. In fact Hitler would later say he wished he had called the party National Revolutionary instead.
The Soviets were Marxist-Leninist. This is one strain of Socialism informed by Lenin’s revolutionary politics and interpretation of Marxist thought. Lenin’s ideas included rule of the Vanguard Party, the elitist bureaucrats leading the worker’s, and an authoritarian top-bottom organization called Democratic Centrism. His ideas were always criticized by other Socialists who thought him too authoritarian, most notably Rosa Luxembourg.
Socialism advocates social or worker’s ownership of the factors of production and a post-Capitalist classless socioeconomic system. Socialism isn’t opposed to markets depending on the school, but are against Capitalism. That is private ownership of the factors of production, wage labor, commodity production, profit interest etc... And not all Socialism advocates State control, Marxism does. Marx called for the worker’s to take over the State and develop a Socialist worker’s State. This didn’t mean it had to be a dictatorship or authoritarian. Indeed the only revolution to have Marx’s stamp of approval was the Paris Commune and that was a highly bottom-up worker’s democracy. As for Communism, it is one form of Socialism where there is Stateless, classless, and moneyless society and there is common ownership of the means and distribution. It has not been achieved by Marxist-Leninists. Anarchists came close.
The progressives of today aren’t much different from Modern Liberals of the past in FDR’s days. They want reforms and regulations but aren’t looking beyond Capitalism. They aren’t Socialist really though they think they are. In truth they want to preserve Capitalism as FDR did. Social Democrats of the Nordic Countries have robust middle classes and successful Capitalists. That’s the model they want. They aren’t Socialists. Due to Marxist-Leninism everyone has this misconception about Socialism that it’s all State control, government doing things, social programs, authoritarianism etc.... Nope that was one Socialist strain it did not encompass all of Socialism. Socialism doesn’t need the State or government, it can be democratic and at it’s most extreme anarchist.
1
-
1
-
AT THE CORE I think it funny you try to explain Socialism to a Socialist.
The Soviets were Marxist-Leninist. This is one strain of Socialism informed by Lenin’s revolutionary politics and interpretation of Marxist thought. Lenin’s ideas included rule of the Vanguard Party, the elitist bureaucrats leading the worker’s, and an authoritarian top-bottom organization called Democratic Centrism. His ideas were always criticized by other Socialists who thought him too authoritarian, most notably Rosa Luxembourg.
Socialism advocates social or worker’s ownership of the factors of production and a post-Capitalist classless socioeconomic system. Socialism isn’t opposed to markets depending on the school, but are against Capitalism. That is private ownership of the factors of production, wage labor, commodity production, profit interest etc... And not all Socialism advocates State control, Marxism does. Marx called for the worker’s to take over the State and develop a Socialist worker’s State. This didn’t mean it had to be a dictatorship or authoritarian. Indeed the only revolution to have Marx’s stamp of approval was the Paris Commune and that was a highly bottom-up worker’s democracy. As for Communism, it is one form of Socialism where there is Stateless, classless, and moneyless society and there is common ownership of the means and distribution. It has not been achieved by Marxist-Leninists. Anarchists came close.
The progressives of today aren’t much different from Modern Liberals of the past in FDR’s days. They want reforms and regulations but aren’t looking beyond Capitalism. They aren’t Socialist really though they think they are. In truth they want to preserve Capitalism as FDR did. Social Democrats of the Nordic Countries have robust middle classes and successful Capitalists. That’s the model they want. They aren’t Socialists. Due to Marxist-Leninism everyone has this misconception about Socialism that it’s all State control, government doing things, social programs, authoritarianism etc.... Nope that was one Socialist strain it did not encompass all of Socialism. Socialism doesn’t need the State or government, it can be democratic and at it’s most extreme anarchist.
1
-
1