Whenever an independent strikes out away from the Repubs or Dems, and have an original idea or plan, we are called "socialist"-

For us independents, what would your definition of socialism be? Classic model? Mixed economy? State run economy? Worker run economy? Any original ideas that break the mold in this category?

I don’t know what a socialist is, read a lot of theory but like most nations a mixed economy is usually used. I am pro democratic socialism, I don’t like most any other party. I see socialism as a way to make people deal with issues such as over population and government corruption, and a whole range of things.

I think as America starts to get pourer and the lifestyle of many people start to slip we should be there trying to unite them for votes, we should go to people who have had their lives destroyed by corruption, the families that have always been poor. I don’t think you could work through such bodies current leaderships because they too are most likely corrupt.

I have many ideas socialism could make being environmental a success and lucrative, but besides that I don’t really hold many ideas on socialism as of yet on how it should change and or be worked with.

Its a nasty way to gain power and votes, but if society allows for a majority of its people to live a life of waste with no way out to benefit the power or elite of its society, that two me is just another nifty name for slavery.

A socialist is a Marxist who believes that the means of production should be controlled by the working class as part of a "dictatorship of the proleteriate", that is to say a state where the working class functions as a ruling class.

Socialists normally believe in redistribution of wealth, public ownership of utilities and the means of production, and have radical social view, though those are features associated with socialists and not part of the definition.

That is not the universal declaration of a socialist. It is the definition of a Marxist.

You can be a Marxist without being a socialist. All a Marxist is is a dialectical materialist, someone who views society in terms of class and class struggle. Boris Yeltsin for intance, is, regardless of whether he admits it openly, a Marxist, he is simply a Marxist who doesn't want the working class to win. (though obviously the vast majority of Marxists are socialists)

But you really can't be a socialist without being a Marxist anymore. It makes no sense to advocate a Marxist position without calling yourself a Marxist.

The obvious exeptions would be utopian socialists, like, Catholic Workers, but that is hardly socialism in anything but name. The Nazi's called themselves National Socialists, but there is nothing socialist about Fascism, and they knew that (and they also called themselves Fascists).

I would disagree that Yeltsin was anything but an Oligarch that used Marxism as a tool for his rise to power, and in fact was a pragmatic black market capitalist.

This is where everything gets so murky, I would lump everyone who actually claims to be a communist or socialist that has held actual positions of power in a goverment as a "syndicist" with no actual practise of socialism or communism actually being performed, with the exception of the "utopian"communists such as the early Christians or as tragic clown pointed out, some Catholics or other isolated communes.

I see some mixed economies in the world that actually practise very small bits and pieces of socialism, but I think it is more the definition of the role of goverment and the mission of the service goverment is providing being diametrically opposed to the mission of the actual service. For example, I would say that the medical field is diametrically opposed to the profit motive, so therefore, should be a function of goverment.

I would also suggest that a pragmatist vs utopian would be a big chunk of the actual debate, since a pragmatist would say that no form of goverment sponsored communism or socialism by definition has ever been practised, and a utopian saying it is something to strive for, and in the end makes the perfect society.

That's a good definition of a Marxist/Leninist or a Bolshevik, but not a socialist. Socialist was a word used by Karl Marx and Frederick Engles to describe to system in between Capitalism and Communism: a system in which the means of production were owned by the proletariate. Therefore, a socialist as someone who works towards that goal.


I believe that terms like "dictatorship of the proleteriate" and "vangaurd party" were terms that Lenin coined, therefore making someone who operated on those things as their basis of government would be a Marxist/Leninist, not just a socialist. Marxism/Leninism is form of socialism, but it's just one type. There's numerous socialist/communist parties in the United States, and they're not all Marxist/Leninist. In fact, none really promote those kinda ideas, though the Communist Party was certainly sympathetic to the Soviet Union.

actually socialism is described by marx as "the dictatorship of the proletariat" lenin did come up with the idea of the vanguard party (a party that works in the interest of the workers) though I don't know if he ever ussed the phrase (he may have)

a socialist is someone that advocates the system of socialism. so what is the system of socialism? socialism is a system where every one gets the basics of survival. if you want more than the basics you need to work and be productive. it is a system that organizes production under control of workers with them recieving the benefits. it is not a system that is meant to expand government, in fact it is the opposite, and needs the government to be reduced to work properly, eventually withering away (while the state exists, there will be no freedom, when freedom exists, there will be no state: Vladimir Illich Ulyanov (lenin) The State and Revolution)

Eh, Lenin thought the state would be discarded eventually, but he recognized the need to take state-power in the mean time.

Socialism requires state-power to survive and defend itself, otherwise imperialists will simply recolonize it.

Hypothetically the state can fade away after all of the imperialist states are gone, but since that hasn't happend, it is safe to assume that the only successful type of socialism that can be practiced today is state-socialism.

Anyone who disagrees with this point is likely to call themselves an anarchist (or some type of anarchist) and not a socialist.