Aspies For Freedom

In that I believe in justice, community and respect for others, yes I am a socialist.

If by socialist you mean 'left-wing' or 'progressive' (ie that criminals shouldn't be punished, that people's fears about crime and anti-social behaviour should be dismissed etc), than no, I am not a 'socialist'.

I am currently on leave from an acute mental health ward, where there are several individuals (who don't actually appear to be that 'unwell') who consistently behave in an anti-social manner, with no regard or appreciation what other people are going through; it's disgusting.  I cannot understand why peaceable, law-abiding mental patients like myself should have to put with this nonsense.  I constantly try and do something about this, but apparently that means I'm a 'racist' (I have white skin, and the four ASBOs have black skin so, i'm a racist).

The problem with being a socialist (whether libertarian or statist) and autistic, is that how can you want the best for (the great mass of) humanity, when most human beings certainly do not want the best for you.  This contradiction, unless denied by the individual it effects, leads to an worldview which involves desiring a just society, but recognising that most human beigns aren't capable of such a thing (hence the need for a - fairly authoritarian - state).  The only historical phenomenon that solves this contradiction is Bolshevism.  Those aspies who presently yearn for the masses to free themselves from all forms of 'oppressive state apparatus' (ie governments, legal systems, police, armies etc) will find themselves arrested/detained/assasinated by those same glorious workers (such as those brave, brave sailors at Kronstadt, and those heroic Makhnovistas), and they will only have their own folly to blame.

As the Soviet Union et al were the only so called Socialist nations to have existed, and since there will probably be no more (we can only hope) I reckon what we saw there was indeed Socialism.

Ian

Public utilities definitely should be owned by the state. When they are privatised, service levels generally go down and prices go up.

I don't care what the rich bastards do tbh. at least in capitalism you can one day become one.

if you work hard.

I'm a socialist and a member of a democratic socialist party, the SSP. As far as I'm concerned USSR and its allies were not remotely socialist and under Stalin, for example, a factory manager got paid 25 times more than a worker. Socialism to me is not about blindly following "Marxist dogma", it is about recognising that another world is possible and about finding practical solutions for improving the lives of ordinary people. Without democracy a socialist society can never be established for power and wealth will simply be monopolised by the minority who get to take all the decisions, replacing one ruling élite with another.

You do not talk about any form of socialism and I used an example to help explain why the USSR was not socialist. There has of course never been a perfect socalist society but if you want to see a better example of how things might work then this is an interesting article about the social revolution which took place in Spain during the civil war: http://libcom.org/history/1936-1939-the-...revolution

I never said that the typical capitalist representative democracy was the best type of system to have. Socialism is about extending democracy, it is about allowing everyone a direct say over all aspects of their lives and that does not just mean having a political élite who take all the decisions and can be elected every 4 years.

No I don't and I can't be bothered trying to find out what it is and how it applies to this particular discussion.

Really? When did I advocate extending government control? Although even if I had it would not necessarily equate to fascism. I don't think people in Norway, a country with extensive public ownership, a strong welfare state and very high taxes, feel as if they live under any sort of fascist system.

If you had read the site I posted about the events in Spain you would see that I advocate a libertarian socialist society where things are run not by any state but democratically by working people.

Maybe according to some warped American definition of the term. Libertarian infact originates from the word "libertaire", which was used by 19th century anarcho-communists in France to describe their philosophy, and in Europe it has always been associated with the left. In my view capitalism and libertarianism are mutually incompatible since the existence of the former inevitably results in a system where a wealthy minority are able to use their economic power to coerce and impose their will upon everyone else.

Do you even know what "fascism" means? Can I ask you if you consider Norway, arguably the most socialist nation around, to be a fascist country?

Freedom cannot be imposed upon people and in a libertarian socialist society everyone will be given the means to take control over their own lives and cooperate with others in the building of a better society, one where noone rules over anyone else and where all forms of coercion and exploitation cease to exist.

A libertarian society would allow ordinary people to have control over their own lives and obviously certain types of state socialist societies would not be incompatible with that but neither, in my view, is a system of corporate capitalism where a tiny élite are able to use their power and wealth to coerce and exploit everyone else (sorry if you don't understand all these terms). But socialism does not have to make use of the state, as events in Spain during the civil war made clear, and a libertarian socialist society would involve oppressed people organising themselves and fighting for their rights without having to be directed from above by any government or political party.

That should be "would be incompatible with that".

I know that's what you think you're talking about but as I argued these countries did not adopt any form of socialism.

  
It might do if you have a very warped definition of the term and one which bears no resemblence to the original meaning of the word.

Really? And where is all the evidence of that?

I don't consider myself a Marxist (and neither do most socialists) but still I know for a fact that nowhere did Marx or Engels call for the establishment of a brutal dictatorship in which every aspect of people's lives are controlled and manipulated by the state.

You still haven't given me any proof that the CNT-FAI were "mass murderers".

How about answering my points and putting forward some evidence to justify your view that the states you mentioned were socialist?

You stated, as if it was a fact, that "libertarianism requires a free market and rejects socialism in any and all forms". Well what I said in response was that libertarianism had always been associated with the left until recently when a few right-wing Americans have been trying to hijack the term. Maybe you can explain to me how it is libertarian for a tiny élite to have all the wealth and power in our society and to use their position to manipulate and coerce everyone else.

What Max has said is absolutely right and I don't know why I bother debating with people who clearly don't take the faintest notice of anything I say but nevertheless I'm about to do it again:

You have proven nothing. As I said if you believe these really were "stridently and supremely socialist states" then why won't you respond to any of the objections I have raised with that point of view? And there will never be a "perfect" anything but there is a vision, which I and other socialists, have of how to build a better world and that vision was not followed by those countries you refer to.

But what is "socialism in the real world"? Because it seems to me that you have a very fixed idea of what it's supposed to mean and if anyone challenges these ideas you ignore them. I don't believe any society at present is socialist but I'd certainly say that Norway is more socialist than any of the nations you mentioned. For one of the best examples of how a socialist society may work why don't you read the article I posted on anarchism in Spain (on that point may I for the third time ask you to explain how the CNT-FAI were "mass murderers"?).

I believe in having a social safety net so that people can get ready access to proper medical and dental care and housing even if they are on a very low income. I guess that is probably socialist to a degree.