Lets talk socialism for a change

[Cyrus]

suggest instead that you talk change for socialism?

Wouldn't hurt to try.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
To be considered successful (that is, better than what we have), the anarchist system has to promote more productivity than the existing capitalist structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not correct. If you believe this then socialism is clearly not for you and no amount of arguing will pursuade you. If you frame the success of socialism from a capitalist viewpoint then of course you will find it lacking. I will respond to the rest of your post later.

edit : or maybe not, I'm going to bed.

[FlFishOn]

"Yeah, those stupid Muslims

All they ever came up with was coffee, the pinhole camera, numbers, algebra, and many other things. "

Wait! There's More! Suicide Bombing! Clitorectomies! Jihad As A Way Of Life! Zero! And don't forget the musical comedy!

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
edited to add: I just don't get what you're saying. The Nazi's killed Jew, b/c the Nazi's were socialists and the Jews didn't like socialism? Is this the same reason the Nazi's murdered the gypsies, homosexuals, the physically and mentally disabled etc etc etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying that those who rise to the absolute power of the state, in this case the national socialists, get to dictate whatever central plan they want to. In this particular case, the central plan included eliminating Jews, Slavs, etc.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
The expansion of either the USSR or Nazi Germany (not a socialist country obviously) did not eliminate nationalism in the states they conquered. This is just an obvious empirical fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to the nations that supreme statism (socialism, fascism, other varieties) consume.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Another example is China. EXTREMELY nationalistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hong Kong is nationalistic, too. What happens to that nationalism when the supreme, centralized state of China consumes Hong Kong?

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
A socialist society has no state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, then what do socialist parties intend to do when they are elected to rule?

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A socialist society has no state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, then what do socialist parties intend to do when they are elected to rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hand over the means of production to the proletariate and disband the government.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another example is China. EXTREMELY nationalistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hong Kong is nationalistic, too. What happens to that nationalism when the supreme, centralized state of China consumes Hong Kong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, nothing? Nationalistic Hong Kongians (or whatever) will remain nationalistic regardless of what state controls their land.

[moorobot]

I really like how when 'we' talk capitalism we talk about it theoretically, how it is supposed to work in some wished for or imagined world. But when we talk socialism, we talk about one attrocious normative example that clearly is not even close to even being socialist in the first place.

Although 'socialism' is a somewhat equivocal term, under no (correct) definition of the term are the Nazis socialists, they named themselves for political purposes and their strongest opposition in politics were actual socialists/communists. In Spain the socialists and communists fought the fascists (nazis) in the civil war that occured there during this era (pick up George Orwell's 'Homage to Catalonia; it is one of the best books of all time-A citizen of what is now the UK, Orwell went to Spain in order to fight in this war on the side of the socialists, and it documents his experience during the war; a war like no other I have ever heard about.)

The Nazis did not believe in the theory, practice or ideals of socialism; in fact they killed many people who did believe in socialism simply because they did.