welcome back kowalskil, here's a posting tip:
RAZD wrote:
(pasted quoted material)
if you type [qs=RAZD](pasted quoted material)[/qs] it comes out as
RAZD writes:
(pasted quoted material)
You can also use the PEEK function to see how any post is formated. You can also use the REPLY button next to the PEEK button at the bottom of each post to direct your reply to the person indicated. (note how my post says it is a reply to your post
Message 12).
... the program of SPUSA (Socialist Party of USA) is not clear to me. I was asking for clarifications. ...
Then I would ask SPUSA, not an Evo vs Creo forum.
Socialist Party USA - Hotel Mosca
With the caveat that they may be misusing the term.
Socialist Party USA - Wikipedia
quote:
The Socialist Party USA is a multi-tendency democratic socialist political party in the United States. The party considers itself to be the continuation or successor of the Socialist Party of America-Social Democratic Federation (founded in 1901), which had previously adopted the name Socialist Party USA in 1962.[1]
The party is officially committed to left-wing democratic socialist ideas. The Socialist Party USA, along with its predecessors, has been met with varying support. Some attribute this to the party having to compete with the financial dominance of the two major parties, as well as the limitations of the United States' legislatively[2][3] and judicially[4] entrenched two-party system.
The party is opposed to both capitalism and "authoritarian Communism" and supports a socialist solution of bringing big business under public ownership and workers' control rather than direct state control.[5] The Party advocates independent electoral action aimed at promoting socialist alternatives and categorically opposes the candidates of the two major parties. Its youth affiliate is the Young People's Socialist League (YPSL).
Socialism would seem to work within democratic governments, as evidenced by various governments around the world with varying degrees of social(ist) programs
Socialism - Wikipedia
quote:
Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] A socialist society is characterised by a free association, which is not based on wage labour. It is organized on the basis of relatively equal power relations, self-management, collective decision-making and adhocracy rather than hierarchical, bureaucratic forms of organization in the economic and political systems.
Personally I am not sure that a pure socialist state could work, however I also do not think this has been tried yet. I also am not convinced that any form of mandated production can be an efficient means of management, and it seems to me that some basic level of capitalism allows for rather simple mass voting on what people would like to have produced.
2) The word "socialism," by the way, means different things to different people.
Which is why I asked you to provide your definition of what you think it means, and so we can better understand each other in this discussion.
... When I was young I was taught that Socialism is proletarian dictatorship. It was introduced to us (in Poland) as the transitional system between capitalism and communism. ... I do not wish anyone to experience proletarian dictatorship.
I don't see that as a good definition of socialism, rather it seems to promote the slide into the autocratic oligarchies of the "communist" countries - propaganda.
The failure of Bolsheviks, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, is a very powerful argument against Marx's idea of proletarian dictatorship. But some disagree, saying that the theory is good but was not applied properly. They blame an individual--Stalin. This implies that communist ideology is not falsifiable. Facts consistent with the theory are used to validate it while facts that are not consistent are attributed to something else. A theory that is not consistent with reality must be either revised or rejected. Marx, if he were alive, would not miss an opportunity to compare his theory of proletarian dictatorship with the results of its implementations.
My feeling is that he would say that it has not yet been implemented according to his theories, rather that the autocratic oligarchies that have risen are just dictatorships using "communism" or "socialism" as a political slight of hand (the way the fascists in germany called themselves a democracy?). Calling yourself something does not make it so.
Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
™ Version 4.2
