Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
@Roo
In socialism, there is no feudal lord and no capitalist, the workers themselves own the land and they become the share holders, and they decide things together and run it democratically
But there are 2 main schools of socialist thought:
Authoritarian socialism, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Deng Xiaoping, Xi Jinping
Libertarian socialism, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Bookchin
Social democrats were originally socialists too and I'll talk about that too, but they aren't socialists anymore
The difference between these 2 schools of thoughts is that they have two different approaches to how they think socialism should be built
The authoritarian socialist approach is, you win elections or do revolutions, and use the power of the state to make socialist reforms of the economy, and the idea is that the workers are empowered by those reforms, and eventually because the workers get so empowered, the role of the state stops having a role, the state withers away, and you end up with a stateless society run by the workers' organisations
The libertarian socialist approach is, you built workers organisations today, that on their own, through strong unions and such, get more powerful, because people would be less and less reliant on the state or on trying to get capitalists to raise wages through voting on policies, but instead rely on their own organisational power, and that bit by bit, that's how you end up with a society where workers run their own workplaces
Libertarian socialists criticise authoritarians' approach, saying that the means and ends to achieve a method are inter-connected, so that if you empower the state more and more, like authoritarians do, it is impossible to end up at a stateless worker-run society, because the means the authoritarians take do not lead to that end, and they also say that the authoritarians just replace the role of the shareholder
In the USSR, a group of capitalists didn't own the company you worked for, Stalin and his government owned the company you worked for
Same thing practically, workers don't own the means of production, someone else does, and they produce the value that those owners extract a part of, just for owning it
And social democrats originally were socialists that said the way to get to socialism is to win elections and reform capitalism with good pro-worker laws, and that that way you end up at socialism
Libertarian socialists also criticise authoritarian socialists, and say that authoritarians are just edgy social democrats
Which imo is true cause both social democrats and authoritarian socialists end up with the same things in practice, capitalist economy with some pro-worker laws"
___________________________________________________
What I said about authoritarian and libertarian socialism
In socialism, there is no feudal lord and no capitalist, the workers themselves own the land and they become the share holders, and they decide things together and run it democratically
But there are 2 main schools of socialist thought:
Authoritarian socialism, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Deng Xiaoping, Xi Jinping
Libertarian socialism, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Bookchin
Social democrats were originally socialists too and I'll talk about that too, but they aren't socialists anymore
The difference between these 2 schools of thoughts is that they have two different approaches to how they think socialism should be built
The authoritarian socialist approach is, you win elections or do revolutions, and use the power of the state to make socialist reforms of the economy, and the idea is that the workers are empowered by those reforms, and eventually because the workers get so empowered, the role of the state stops having a role, the state withers away, and you end up with a stateless society run by the workers' organisations
The libertarian socialist approach is, you built workers organisations today, that on their own, through strong unions and such, get more powerful, because people would be less and less reliant on the state or on trying to get capitalists to raise wages through voting on policies, but instead rely on their own organisational power, and that bit by bit, that's how you end up with a society where workers run their own workplaces
Libertarian socialists criticise authoritarians' approach, saying that the means and ends to achieve a method are inter-connected, so that if you empower the state more and more, like authoritarians do, it is impossible to end up at a stateless worker-run society, because the means the authoritarians take do not lead to that end, and they also say that the authoritarians just replace the role of the shareholder
In the USSR, a group of capitalists didn't own the company you worked for, Stalin and his government owned the company you worked for
Same thing practically, workers don't own the means of production, someone else does, and they produce the value that those owners extract a part of, just for owning it
And social democrats originally were socialists that said the way to get to socialism is to win elections and reform capitalism with good pro-worker laws, and that that way you end up at socialism
Libertarian socialists also criticise authoritarian socialists, and say that authoritarians are just edgy social democrats
Which imo is true cause both social democrats and authoritarian socialists end up with the same things in practice, capitalist economy with some pro-worker laws"
___________________________________________________
What I said about authoritarian and libertarian socialism