I believe the idea of using a state, even if it's intended to be a democratic one, to bring about socialism will not work for the following reason. It would require the election of a group of people to govern the entire nation. If they are to be recalled, the entire country would have to ground to a halt in order to elect new leaders, hence elections couldn't take place regularly, and there would be plenty of time for those in power to be corrupted by it before the next election takes place. This is why I believe democracy and socialism can only function with small numbers of people, smaller democracies allow those elected to be recalled quickly. Large scale democracies make it too easy for those who have been elected to seize control.

“It would require the election of a group of people to govern the entire nation.”
Why would it require elections? Dictators have led socialist states without the need for elections (real ones).

“If they are to be recalled, the entire country would have to ground to a halt in order to elect new leaders.”
Why? The UK didn’t grind to a halt when socialist Britain (1945-79) held elections.

We disagree on the definition of the word socialism. To me socialism is a form of democracy, and cannot have a dictator by definition. Neither do I believe Britain (45-79), counts as socialism, to me socialism means that all or at least the vast majority of the means of production are controlled by the workers.

Socialism is the owning by the population of all major industry.
State socialism is the owning by the state of all major industry.
Which are we talking about?

'Socialism is the owning by the population of all major industry.
State socialism is the owning by the state of all major industry.
Which are we talking about?'

I was talking about attempts to use a state to create a situation where the population owns all major industry.

So why can’t a dictator use the state to create a situation where the population owns all major industry. The definition you propose also correlates with the goals set out by old Labour prior to 1993. My original argument stands, so why would socialism require elections and why would the entire country grind to a halt in order to hold such elections?

The dictator would have the freedom to end the situation where the population owns all major industry. Since power corrupts and the corrupt are attracted to power, I believe dictatorships are dangerous to say the least. Or to put it another way, a dictatorship by its very nature controls the population, so how can the people control the means of production, if they are being controlled from above?
Socialism would require elections so that corrupt leaders could be removed before they do much harm. I believe that only immiediete recall is sufficient to remove a leader before they become corrupt, but this would be unfeasible for an entire nation, which is why I believe democracy should be kept on a small scale, perhaps groups of a few thousand.

What do you think of direct democracy?

I strongly believe in direct democracy. I disagree with representative democracy mainly because it only allows people to vote yes or no on issues but it does not allow them to decide on what to vote upon.
Despite my strong belief in democracy, I should stress that I believe tyranny of the majority is a great evil, and that the majority does not have the right to take away the basic human rights of the minority.
Redstar could you summarise your political views, I'd like to see on what issues do we agree and on what do we disagree.

I would describe my self as a Marxist above all else as well as a communist and a socialist. My political views incorporate a lot of philosophy like materialism, monism, fatalism, positivism, so it is hard to keep my views short and to the point. As a Marxist I recognise capitalism as a necessary evil in the establishment of communism but that it is evil none the less and so have no positive feelings towards any political methods established under capitalism, be they parliamentary, presidential or any other form of governance. What form of anarchism do you advocate?

It's hard to put a specific label on my anarchist principles, because in almost every anarchist thinker's political beliefs I find that there is as much that I strongly disagree with as I strongly agree with. I think I could be described as a collectivist. I actually started off as a Marxist but I came to believe that even a state with socialist intentions is in danger of becoming corrupted.

In Marxist ideology, in order for communism to work their can be no state. You sound like you could be an anarcho-communist.

'In Marxist ideology, in order for communism to work their can be no state.'

There are many interpretations of Marxism, but the most common one involves a state 'withering away'. In my opinion this cannot happen, a temporary state will always attempt to make itself a permanent state. Or do you support a different view on what Marx advocated?


'You sound like you could be an anarcho-communist.'

I think the word 'communist' has become diluted and lost all meaning, for example some say it means everyone recieving the same ammount of money regardless of profession , others say a society can be communist without equal pay, and others say it means there would be no money at all. If someone asks me what my politics are I usually say, 'socialist''libertarian socialist' or 'anarchist'. If we take the view that, 'anarcho-communism,' means everyone gets an equal ammount regardless of what their job is, I don't necessarily agree with that. While it's true that a person who stacks shelves is just as important to society as someone who works in a mine, it's also true that a person in a mine has to work harder in order to give their equally important contribution. However, if people want to set up a commune where everyone recieves the same ammount, they have a right to do so, and it's also possible that an anarcho-socialist society would work to develop machinery that would eliminate the more gruelling jobs.

"In Marxist ideology, in order for communism to work their can be no state. You sound like you could be an anarcho-communist"




he's right about communism only working if their is no state, it wont work with a government. but you dont sounnd like an anarcho-communist

I would argue that a state founded and administered by a vanguard party consisting of a web of international councils based on non-hierarchical grounds would be able to successfully remove ideology from the minds of humanity and eventually wither away as the task is completed. For me, a true communist is someone who has the best interests of the proletariat at heart in every action of their lives.
Black Flag, as an anarchist what would you say would happen in a world were leadership has been abolished?

State socialism does work and it's been proven. America in the deppresion and Britain after the war. They both worked well. Socialism doesn't need to be communist to work. It just takes one narrow minded communist to say," Hey, state socialism doesn't work because it always gets voted out." well unfortunatly, you can't in democratic politics, just withdraw from a policy immediately and not leave the situation in a total shanbles. The next party has to carry on that policy until it has had enough time to pull out. True, democratic socialism is irritating, but you don't have to be a dictator to be a socialist.

Hey guys, this is my first post in this forum

With regards to this topic, I personally believe that although 'socialism' is a broad term, I think that in general a socialist agenda in any Western society should strive to achieve a state of participatory democracy. By this, I mean a re-structuring of the political set-up in order to combat the political apathy caused by:

- 'Commodity Fetishism' - the obsession with personal possessions and pretty, manufactured goods which weakens people's interest in real world issues. We live in a society in which the next person to be evicted from Big Brother is more important than the next Foreign Secretary, for example.

- Mass media. The 'freedom of the press' has essentially led to a corporate, sensationalist media which focuses on scare tactics and lowest-common-denominator stories to mildly amuse rather than seriously engage the masses.

- The centralism and political cowardice of the majority of parties in the Western world, especially Europe. People don;t vote because they see no particular difference between, say, New Labour and the Conservative Party. Almost every party can be classed as Neo-Liberal, voting becomes a case of fancy.

- The death of the Left. Most Western nations do no have a prominent left-wing party. Historically, the left has been the last bastion against the monopolisation of politics eithr by ruthless political demogogues and megalomaniacs or by huge, relentless corporations - now find me one powerful left-wing party in Western Europe or the United States.


State Socialism IS the non-radical, pacifist solution to all these problems. Why would things grind to a halt? Governments who are genuinely controlled by their people and know that they face a recall should they fail the people should, naturally, be more efficient than what we have at the moment. Inastead of 5-year-terms, another, more effective system of voting and discussion would be for the interests of the majority rather than the minority.

What the socialist agenda must prioritise above all is the availability of GENUINE choice. When people feel a sense of empowerment, they wield that power.