Well, Marx didn’t get a chance to put his theories into practice. However, are you implying that either Lenin or Stalin actually went around consulting “workers” and implementing the true will of the working classes? They were both thugs who used their extremely strong will to power to rule. They were both expert at political machinations: at raising some to power, and killing them when they rose too far, keeping all on tenter hooks. Nevertheless, at any point in time, there was clearly a small minority running the country. Socialism is an ideology that sanctions statism; what you then see is statism, with a small minority taking control of the state. Go around the world to every country that speaks the language of socialism – all sorts of countries in Africa and Asia and elsewhere – everywhere, socialism is the ideology that allows the state to take control of various aspects of life. Once the state has such powers, it is too tempting to people with a dictatorial bent.
That sounds like Marxism. Socialism has many definitions. Ie:
Dictionary.reference.com says
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
This doesn’t seem contradictory to socialism at all, really. In fact, everything you mentioned in this quote is an example of mixed capitalism, which is what you mentioned before. Mixed capitalism is defined as a combination of capitalism and socialism.
And Stalin? Slapping Hugo Chavez? For what? Why would Stalin be mad at Hugo Chavez, for any reason other than perhaps rivalry of dictatorship?
Ok, I’m not wasting much time on this, it’s all very well documented in modern historical literature and the sources are available to anyone who is truly interested in this topic. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. When I say Lenin, I’m talking about prior to 1917 Lenin, before taking power, destroying organs of workers control, the soviets, factory councils, etc. etc. this clearly has nothing to do with socialism, it’s the exact opposite, he was merely being opportunistic, in fact, he didn’t even believe that it was possible to have socialism in the Soviet Union. Now, when I say Stalin, well, he was obviously not a socialist, we don’t ever bother to talk about it, at least I’m not gonna, but what I was trying to point out is that he was, in my view, superior to Chavez in his methods and closer to socialism in his ideology. You know, everyone can have their say. I didn’t think it would be necessary to go deep into this. Yes, well, what I said is approximately what you (softwareNerd) said, I don’t think it’s much related to my answer, but sure I would agree with the last part of your post. Now, Black Wolf, *sigh* I’m not going there, seriously… You’ll have to do your own homework. I think I was clear enough when I said “traditional socialism or, say, Marxist tradition, or left libertarian tradition”, but if you think that “feudal socialism”, “German socialism”, “petty-bourgeois socialism”, “conservative socialism”, “stalinism”, “social democracy”, “nazism”, “libertarian socialism”, etc. etc. are all “socialism”, and “socialism” means absolutely all of them because you found this internet dictionary two-line definition, then “anarcho-capitalism”, “corporate capitalism”, “crony capitalism”, “state capitalism”, “finance capitalism”, “technocapitalism”, “state monopoly capitalism”, etc. etc. are all capitalism, including the Soviet Union! There. “Some socialist tolerate capitalism”? And you even stressed this?? What would you call a “capitalist that tolerates socialism”? A capitalist? And, excuse me?? Bourgeois class in a socialist system? And you think that “this doesn’t seem contradictory to socialism at all”?? Ok, that’s enough, I should stop here. And I know what “mixed capitalism” is, which BTW is a very very loose generality, I just don’t see why you would even raise this completely unnecessary point.
