The word "socialism" also means many different things to different people. There is a scientific definition and at least two commonly believed bullshit definitions. The following chart may help:

Same as above. Scientific socialism (ie: the rule of society by the working class) has never existed (except in embryonic form such as the Paris Commune of 1871 or the early period of the 1917 revolution in Russia). The words "communism" and "socialism" are commonly mis-used to describe a society in which a popular revolution against the ruling class and foreign imperialism results in a radical transformation of property relations and an improvement in the living conditions of the masses.

National Socialism is simply the application of the laws of Nature-the operating laws of God in this universe-to human affairs. As such, it incorporates a specific and special call to Aryankind.

In its present application, it¹s just the opposite. It¹s being used as a tool for "free enterprise" and fierce competition. A socialist health plan would guarantee access for all Americans. There is nothing required of managed care that would lead to universal access.

Socialism is evil because it denies the origin of life, the Creator, and replaces it with humanism/naturalism, which claims that the supreme goodness is in human and it does not emanate from God.

No. Every member of the Church is excommunicated automatically from it, once socialism is adopted as a conviction.Because it contradicts the Credo of our belief. They are incompatible.

While National Socialism had many fine aspects in relation to community-orientated politics, environmentalism, technological innovation, active encouragement of a healthy life-style, racial-genetic improvement, cultural and traditional preservation, etc.... it was a complete catastrophe for Europe with its Jingoistic aggressive need for "living space" and dogmatic self-righteous national glorification against its own race of people living outside its national boundaries.

Self-management means having a say over decisions that affect you; it means having control over your life. This means people being able to collectively manage the industries they work in; it also means controlling the places you live in. Corporate hierarchies in industry would be dismantled and replaced by workers direct management, through democratic industrial organizations rooted in face-to-face meetings. To most people in the U.S., "socialism" means the government running things.

Ask most people what socialism means and they will point to the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba and a host of other authoritarian, centralised and oppressive party dictatorships. These regimes have in common two things. Firstly, the claim that their rulers are Marxists or socialists. Secondly, that they have successfully alienated millions of working class people from the very idea of socialism.

Some Marxists, such as the International Socialist Tendency, like to portray their tradition as being "socialism from below." Under "socialism from below," they place the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, arguing that they and they alone have continued this, the true, ideal of socialism (Hal Draper's essay "The Two Souls of Socialism" seems to have been the first to argue along these lines).

discussed in the last section, Marx and Engels left their followers with an ambiguous legacy. On the one hand, there are elements of "socialism from below" in their politics (most explicitly in Marx's comments on the libertarian influenced Paris Commune). On the other, there are distinctly centralist and statist themes in their work. From this legacy, Leninism took the statist themes. Which explains why anarchists think the idea of Leninism being "socialism from below" is incredible.

Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based socialist group with ties to the...

If we accept one traditional definition of socialism -- "advocacy of government ownership of the means of production" -- it seems that anarchists are not socialists by definition. But if by socialism we mean something more inclusive, such as "advocacy of the strong restriction or abolition of private property," then the question becomes more complex. Under the second proffered definition, some anarchists are socialists, but others are not.

Yes. Anarchists have always argued that real socialism cannot be created using a state. The basic core of the argument is simple. Socialism implies equality, yet the state signifies inequality -- inequality in terms of power. As we argued in section B.2, anarchists consider one of the defining aspects of the state is its hierarchical nature. In other words, the delegation of power into the hands of a few. As such, it violates the core idea of socialism, namely social equality.

A key idea in most forms of Marxism is that the evolution of capitalism itself will create the preconditions for socialism. This is because capitalism tends to result in big business and, correspondingly, increased numbers of workers subject to the "socialised" production process within the workplace. The conflict between the socialised means of production and their private ownership is at the heart of the Marxist case for socialism.

What do Technocrats mean by Social Change? Their use of the term seems to differ from that of the popular understanding.

Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of "anarchism," have used other terms to emphasize the inherently positive and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are "free socialism," "free communism," "libertarian socialism," and "libertarian communism." For anarchists, libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable.

Liberty Round Table strategy is not utopian. The most radical thing about the LRT vision is that it doesn't condemn mankind for perceived "baseness", nor does it depend on the sudden appearance of superhuman wisdom and benevolence. LRT does not claim that all evil and sadness will disappear if people would but follow us. All we are saying is that things will be better if we try to align human institutions so that they are consistent with human nature. Personally, I am an optimist.

Quick Links Infoshop Home AMP (About Us) Store Anarchist FAQ Forums InfoJournals Calendar Portals Features Calendar Directory Infoshop A to Z Site Map Add a Link! AMP Projects Breaking Glass Press Practical Anarchy Infoshop News I-News Home News Archive Library News Prison News Science News Youth News By language Deutsche Español Francais Italiano Português Svenska Wikis OpenWiki Matrix Science Fiction & Fantasy Infoshop Portals Activism Libertarian Marxism Anarchism Portal Anti.

Another area in which Marxists misrepresent anarchism is in the assertion that anarchists believe a completely socialist society (an ideal or "utopian" society, in other words) can be created "overnight." As Marxist Bertell Ollman puts it, "[u]nlike anarcho-communists, none of us [Marxists] believe that communism will emerge full blown from a socialist revolution. Some kind of transition and period of indeterminate length for it to occur are required." [Bertell Ollman (ed.

Quick Links Infoshop Home AMP (About Us) Store Anarchist FAQ Forums InfoJournals Calendar Portals Features Calendar Directory Infoshop A to Z Site Map Add a Link! AMP Projects Breaking Glass Press Practical Anarchy Infoshop News I-News Home News Archive Library News Prison News Science News Youth News By language Deutsche Español Francais Italiano Português Svenska Wikis OpenWiki Matrix Science Fiction & Fantasy Infoshop Portals Activism Libertarian Marxism Anarchism Portal Anti.

For anarchists, the idea that socialism can be achieved via state ownership is simply ridiculous. For reasons which will become abundantly clear, anarchists argue that any such "socialist" system would simply be a form of "state capitalism." Such a regime would not fundamentally change the position of the working class, whose members would simply be wage slaves to the state bureaucracy rather than to the capitalist class.

Yes. As Murray Bookchin puts it, "[i]n Spain, millions of people took large segments of the economy into their own hands, collectivised them, administered them, even abolished money and lived by communistic principles of work and distribution -- all of this in the midst of a terrible civil war, yet without producing the chaos or even the serious dislocations that were and still are predicted by authoritarian 'radicals.