snapped shot

Where in the hell are you getting this "socialist" nonsense? Syria is socialist? Give me a freaking break.

At best, the Baath party is just another authoritarian, nationalist party like the Nazis - who also used the "socialist" label to bring a populist sentiment to their totalitarian philosophy. Syria is about as socialist as Texas, in reality.

I know that you guys like to throw around words like "socialist" like mud, but I doubt you'd even know a real socialist if he walked up and hit you across the back of the head with a baseball bat.
Reply  

Just because someone uses a label doesn't mean it is correct. None of the countries you list (except for Venezuela - which shouldn't even be there) had any history of democracy prior to their revolutions and none of them reached the level of capitalist development before the revolution that Marx indicated was practically a requirement before a successful workers' state could be established.

The USSR was "socialist" in that it had state-owned industries, but it was by no means Marxian socialism. After Lenin's stroke, the Stalinist wing of the party took control and went for authoritarianism instead of Marxist socialism. Russia had a desperate, dismal and feudal system with almost no industrialization. Socialism, as Marx defined it, could never have taken root there because their economy and their labor force wasn't advanced enough yet.

Yugoslavia was a client state of the USSR, as well as having limited industrialization prior to Soviet involvement. See above.

Saddam's Iraq was "socialist" in that it had state-owned businesses, but again it wasn't Marxist. The Baathists were just Arab versions of Nazis - who also misappropriated the socialist label. Saddam was an authoritarian, not a socialist.

Hugo Chavez' Venezuela isn't (yet) socialist and is by no means a totalitarian system. He's come closer to Marxist socialism than anyone outside of Europe - but he still has a long way to go. Comparing Venezuela to the USSR, Cuba, China, etc. is like comparing apples and oranges, my friend. Just because Faux News labels him a threat just don't make it so!

And don't blame Marx for the failures of the USSR and other "socialist" systems. They didn't follow his "recipe" and were doomed to failure. If you want to see real, Marxist socialism you should look more closely at Northern Europe where they come nearer and nearer to it every day.

Do some homework, Brian. Read the <i>Manifesto</i> and see for yourself what Marx envisioned. You'll understand where I am coming from once you get the facts.
Reply  

One more thing, Brian. You left North Korea off your list. They're "socialist" too, aren't they?

The official name for North Korea is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", i.e., the DPRK. So this would seem to claim that they are (1) democratic and (2) a popular republic. Of course, they are neither. The Juche system in the DPRK allows for no democracy, no debate, no challenge to the existing power structure, i.e., the "Dear Leader". But following the logic you laid down, they should be assumed to be a democratic republic, right, like the United States?

Again... just because someone labels themselves as something doesn't mean that they're telling the truth. I can call myself Latino all day, but even if I speak fluent Spanish, get a good tan and hang out with Mexicans all day I am still a just a Euromutt white boy from North Georgia.

PS: Don't assume that you know my "persuasion" from the content of a couple of comment posts. Just like I can't assume, from your negative remarks about Pelosi and others, that you are a mouthbreathing, braindead neoconservative. We are all much more complex than the assumptions we make about one another. That, IMHO, is what makes the world an interesting place.

PPS: I really do like your site, particularly the coverage of "Rage Boy". Keep up the great work.
Reply  

Brian, I am not trying to make you into a socialist. I am simply pointing out that the usage of the term in the context of people like Assad, the Baathists, etc. is inaccurate and by associating monsters like Assad, Saddam, Stalin, etc. with socialism does the real socialist movement a great disservice.

Marx laid down the foundation for a communal, socialist economy and society. He died long before Stalin reached power. You can't hold Marx responsible for Stalin's brutality, even if Stalin claimed to be a "communist" or even a "Marxist". Stalin twisted Marx's ideas to such a degree that he ignored the entire POINT of socialism. Soviet authoritarianism itself was anathema to Marx's idea of a free and egalitarian society.

I challenge you on your "confident" notion that Marxism is "responsible for more death, destruction, and poverty than any other force in the world." I think that you will find that the culprit who is responsible for the bulk of these problems is RELIGION, not Marx or socialism. More men have been killed in the name of God than by any other ideology. Jews, Christians and Muslims all have a legacy of blood that was inherited from those who twisted religion to suit their own ends. In fact, people are still being slaughtered each and every day in the name of God. Is Jesus or the apostle Paul (for example) guilty of murder just because someone who came after them twisted their words and ideas and killed in the name of Christianity?

Had Marx lived to see the Soviet revolution, he'd have been appalled. Had he lived to see the terrors of Stalin and Mao, he'd go out of his mind. True socialists, true Marxists and true liberals recoil from the dictatorships and authoritarian systems implemented in the name of "socialism". Socialism is freedom, not slavery.

I'll have to get back to you on the specifics you mentioned re: Sweden. I need to do a bit more research into the details of the employment situation to answer your comment in any detail. However, the notion that people can opt out of working and live off the dole doesn't make sense in a socialist context - or any other, quite frankly. Someone has to work, or else there won't be any dole for anyone.

You mentioned Malmö, by which I assume you're referring to the problem Sweden is having with its Muslim immigrants. I am not sure what that has to do with socialism, per se, but Sweden is struggling like other European nations to deal with an immigrant population that won't integrate. I'd love to discuss multicultualism and the inability of Muslims to participate in multicultural societies, but that's another conversation altogether.

Thanks for an engaging discussion.
Reply