Farms were a collective of "free men" who swore an oath to the land. The food was given to the lord and rationed out to collective society. How is this not collectivist?
Life as a serf was like being a slave who wasn't beaten all the time.
if we take the idea that you needed serfs ran by lords who take food as payment and call that collectivist, then we'd also have to take the idea that you need employees ran by a boss who take money as payment (IE capitalist) and call that collectivist.
you're confusing a whole bunch of different ideologies with the inherent concept that exists in socialism. socialism stresses common ownership of the means of production, feudalism has ownership by lords who amass capital.
Also, you DID swear fealty to the land. It didn't matter who owned the estate, you were sworn by honor to work it. It was Barons, Counts, and Dukes who swore fealty to individuals.
semantics: the thread
You're all incorrect.
Canada is partially social democratic. The Nordic countries and much of Europe are social democratic. The difference between a social democracy and socialism is that socialists want one of two things:
To see industry and wealth nationalized and planned under a government representative of the proletariat (i.e. Hugo Chavez)
To see industry in the control of workers. (i.e. the I.W.W.)(This is the preferred version for communism after the abolition of the state).
(Socialism as a term is interchangeable with communism. Today we see these as separate political trends, but the meaning of the term is the same, originally: that of the second meaning. for the most part I'll say which meaning I'm using).
A social democracy, on the other hand, wishes to see progressive values and greater state control in a capitalist system, a welfare state. This is not socialism nor has it ever been, but it is derived from Marxism.
The French Socialists are reformist socialists acting as social democrats, while the Left Front are socialists of the first variety.
That being said, feudalism is nothing like socialism or communism- feudalism was a system of hierarchical social structure and classism, characterized by lack of industry and primitive economies based on servitude and property ownerships. Socialism is characteristic of common ownership of property, abolition of a vertical hierarchical social structure, and worker means of production. The only thing at all in common would be the autonomy aspect- but in feudalism that autonomy was based on the lack of a real state and only for those who controlled, while in socialism and communism that's based on democratic rule of the masses. It's like comparing socialism and capitalism and attempting to say that they're similar because they both make use of democracy, when in reality the users of democracy and its uses are totally different.
That being said, collectivism has about as much to do with communism as a republic does with capitalism- that is, nothing, they only go hand in hand because of their history and earlier theory. You can have socialism without collectivism and collectivism without socialism. In fact, we saw this during the reign of Mr. Stalin and today in upper Korea.
All forms of the former socialist definition are, by proponents of the latter, state capitalism.
The PRC is state capitalist. North Korea is NOT state capitalist.
Allowing anyone to live in poverty or die of hunger is disgusting.
State socialism according left communism and most social revolutionary movements is state control of the means of production so as to generate profit. It is control of the means of production by the state rather than the bourgeois.
The only difference between the Chinese and Societ/Korean economic model is that China is open to trade and makes less use of collectivism- all else is the same in the methodology. It's comparing America to France- while there are notable differences, the actual functioning is the same. State capitalism, by proponents of the latter-variety of socialism, is equivalent to nationalization, and the former-variety socialism.
Also, are we going to use Trotsky's definitions of socialism or are we just going to cite any intellectual on the matter because different people have different definitions.
Are we going to do this like scrabble where we all have to use the same dictionary or what?
In free market capitalism companies would compete for labor, driving wages and working conditions up. The workers would also have the freedom to start businesses based on unique and innovative ideas.
When you're talking leftism, EVERYTHING has multiple definitions because EVERYTHING has thirty goddam ideas and trends and theories and they all mean different things. Socialism means A, but it means B, and yet is is actually state capitalism, and it's nationalism, yet B is also communism, yet it's not socialism in the form of A, and so on.
I chose to adhere to both the definition that I believe in per my ideology, as well as the one that is shared by the largest chunk of revolutionary thought.
This is what this entire state capitalism issue is over. A planned economy is socialism of the first variety- nationalised industry and arguably state capitalism. The second variety is free market socialism, and arguably the original and intended meaning, but definitely the economic ideal for communism.
You may not be a Republican, but you're sure as shit an apologist for them.
I'm all ears Governor Goblin, please tell me exactly what socialism is, and what countries fall into the criteria of socialist.
I'm tired of everyone saying "well this isn't socialist!" because I have no idea what your definition is.
Technically there has never been such a system in practice,at least not the way i described it.
You're the one claiming it's socialist, boyo.
YOU made the argument.
It's a bit difficult to disprove a notion locked away inside your skull.
You'd be a lot of fun in a court room.
But you're right, I'm dodging the point, I'm purposely not using my mind reading device to see what you think a "socialist dystopia" is.
It's a socialist system that utterly failed. They try and provide for the general welfare of the population, but can't. The state is supposed to provide everything for the citizens but cannot.
Burden of proof isn't on me. It's on you. So tell me, what definition of socialist are you using so we can argue that. Or are you just going to be a complete dunce, like always?
Ignoring the fact you basically just invented that label up, you're not really making a point.
This may come as a shock to you, but when a country can't facilitate a system, it does not have that system in use.
That's like me labelling myself rich, but I don't have the capability of being rich - Therefore I am not rich.
I said it's not socialist now, and you just basically said mostly why.
I like how in the same sentence you call me a "dunce" (Who the fuck uses that?), you demonstrate you have absolutely no fucking clue what burden of proof means. YOU made the fucking claim, YOU prove it.
stay classy. Your posts are a constant stream of arguing the most asinine and completely retarded points humanly possible.
A Stalinist style system that's basically a mutated version of communism but isn't actually communism, or could be considered as, was tried.
Even then, even if you want to bullshit and say that the idea or concept was to be employed, the fact it failed has nothing to do with anything.