Free beer, and a question...

Hmmmm beeeeer.

Socialism is simply a more even spreading of wealth and resources, to ensure that rich folk understand the concept of 'enough money' and poor people will always have some food and shelter. Higher taxes, free education etc. It assumes that people are 'good', especially when they have food and shelter. It doesnt make everyone equal nor does it make the state all-powerful and ruling. It just ensures that people can go on about their lives more or less freely, knowing that things can never get REALLY bad (nor can you ever get so rich you want to swim in a pool of money).
Socialism also implies general well-being (health) and sustainability in lifestyle, as there is much less waste in a socialistic system - people do not need to go to extremes to get rich or to get food. Art and science can genuinely prosper in a socialistic environment.
And of course free beer.

reply to post by hmmmbeer


The fact that anarchists are socialist proves by logic that socialism is an economic system, and requires no state.

Why else would anarchists be socialists? My question, 'how can anarchists be socialists', should make people question what they've been told, but the conditioning is so strong they will not answer the question directly.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by hmmmbeer

 

The fact that anarchists are socialist proves by logic that socialism is an economic system, and requires no state.

Why else would anarchists be socialists? My question, 'how can anarchists be socialists', should make people question what they've been told, but the conditioning is so strong they will not answer the question directly.

"The fact that anarchists are socialist" - how do you call this fact? I have never been told this. The other major aspect of socialism is 'the economy' is not #1 - basic humanity is #1, and decisions are made based on human/life requirements, not money/profit.

Where is that free beer?

Originally posted by ANOK

Oh yeah sorry, no free beer.

Socialists always promise free beer, but one soon finds that beer is completely out of stock.

Socialism is usualy defined as common ownership of the means of production (factories, resources..). It is an economic system, so Id say it is theoretically compatible with both anarchy and statism. Many (all?) communists consider socialism a transitional phase towards communism, a stateless and classless utopia.

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
"The fact that anarchists are socialist" - how do you call this fact? I have never been told this. The other major aspect of socialism is 'the economy' is not #1 - basic humanity is #1, and decisions are made based on human/life requirements, not money/profit.

Did you read my OP?

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

"Politically we are anarchists, and economically, communists or socialists." Adolph Fischer, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis as Defined by Some of its Apostles (1887)

The Anarchists themselves say they are socialists, so that makes it a fact.

You are wrong, in a capitalists economy decisions are made based on profits, not people. Socialism was and still can be an answer to that problem. Socialism puts the emphasis on meeting the needs of the community, not making profit for private owners.

Anarchism can only be socialist because anything else is exploitation, privilege and injustice, whether the economy is controlled by the state or by private property owners. Both have a monopoly on the means to produce, and control it for their own benefit at the expense of the rest of us.

But socialism can only be anarchist, because anything else is slavery and brutality.

"freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

Socialism is divided into three main trends : reformism, anarchism and Marxism....

Anarchism Or Socialism, December, 1906 — January, 1907?

Here we present a short summary of why individualist anarchism implies socialism and not capitalism. While it is true that people like Tucker and Warren placed "property" at the heart of their vision of anarchy, this does not make them supporters of capitalism. Unlike capitalists, the individualist anarchists identified "property" with simple "possession," or "occupancy and use" and considered profit, rent and interest as exploitation....

Why does individualist anarchism imply socialism?

...Anarchism has always been associated with the left, with socialism...

An Anarchist critique of Anarcho-Statism

"It is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake. Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism, archistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and free. Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to increase or decrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual. As they increase they are archistic; as they decrease they are anarchistic." 'Anarchism: What It Is and What It Is Not', Joseph A. Labadie

A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?

Socialism is the idea that every laborer should be the possessor and manager of the tools that they work with. ...

Can There Be Socialism Without Anarchy?

Originally posted by Maslo
Socialism is usualy defined as common ownership of the means of production (factories, resources..). It is an economic system, so Id say it is theoretically compatible with both anarchy and statism. Many (all?) communists consider socialism a transitional phase towards communism, a stateless and classless utopia.

Yes correct, except for the socialism being the transitional stage.

Socialism and communism are the same thing, the transitional stage is simply the transitional stage.

Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism...

Edgar Hardcastle Socialists Do Stand for Equality

Originally posted by zonetripper2065

And socialism is a step to communism.

What you are reffering to is the transition period, not socialism (see my post above)

“Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” K. Marx, 'Critique of the Gotha Programme'.

reply to post by ANOK


socialism is when a goverment has the ability to own everything you have... and guess what.... they do. if you ask how i will tell you

socialism only for israel.other bombing,change gov, hunger blockade sanctions sabotage diverSIONs

But I like beer!

1961-1989 out inflation, free accommodation medicine education kindergarten ... and yes natural beer 0,7rubles liter not chemistry for 70 rubles liter now .work 250 rubles month in 1989=357 liter good beer,~20000 month in 2013=285 liter poison

I just came for the beer not the message

inform beer it take three

reply to post by ANOK
Ummm.....What exactly is the point of this thread anyways? Another question, who gives a rats ass?
The reason for these questions..........There is no such thing beyond the conceptualizing. When has a Socialist, Anarchic, Marxist, or Communist society...moved beyond the transitional phase and left governmental structure behind on the ashheap?................NEVER...
This is all just an exercise in futility and regardless of the society or structure not one of them ever moved beyond capitalism either...rather they coopted and centralized, becoming vertical while portraying themselves as horizontal structures.
None of this works beyond a small village size, which is why Amish communities maintain an upper limit just over one hundred for their communities. Even then it all boils down to control. None of the societal models works longterm. Peoples like to think that they have attained an evolved state, yet somehow can't seem to leave the territorial primate behind. In a nutshell, that's why these attempts always fail, the irony is thinking that evolution had been achieved when clearly nothing had changed.
If any of these social structures were to work then they must move away from economics and the territorial...frankly...were to close our origens to accomplish that, quite yet. We love the smell of masters, in the morning, love to be shepherded and cuckholded, led and placated. Otherwise, we would throw down the material and let economy die. The real question is if we hate the masters so damn much why do we continue to feed them?

YouSir

Originally posted by lucifer6
socialism is when a goverment has the ability to own everything you have... and guess what.... they do. if you ask how i will tell you

OK then please answer my question, the point of this thread is for you to explain not just claim...

How can Anarchists be socialist by your definition of socialism?

Originally posted by mangust69
socialism only for israel.other bombing,change gov, hunger blockade sanctions sabotage.

OK then like the last poster, please explain how Anarchists can be socialist by your definition of socialism?

Originally posted by Kadmiel
I just came for the beer not the message

There was no message, there was just a question.

Please don't be a troll.

Originally posted by YouSir
Ummm.....What exactly is the point of this thread anyways?

To point out the contradiction of the thinking that socialism means some kind of government.

Another question, who gives a rats ass?

I do. If you don't then there are some threads about the world ending somewhere you can troll in.

The reason for these questions..........There is no such thing beyond the conceptualizing. When has a Socialist, Anarchic, Marxist, or Communist society...moved beyond the transitional phase and left governmental structure behind on the ashheap?................NEVER...

Not the point of the thread. Can you answer the question?

How can Anarchists be socialists if socialism is some kind of state system?

I'm not falling for it Anok, in 1923 a bunch calling themselves national socialists were offering free beer at the Bürgerbräukeller beer hall in Munich Germany and look how that turned out...