Do you find yourself agreeing with Socialism?

I should point out that the Vanguard Party isn't an "Enlightened elite." However, it is composed of the most class conscious of workers at any given time in the struggle. The "professional revolutionaries," as Lenin called them, are members of the working class who are employed by the Party (and paid worker's wages) in order to monitor the political situation at any given time and develop strategies for pushing the struggle further. It doesn't mean that the party's members act on behalf of workers or force them to do anything. On the contrary, and as Lenin stated many times, ONLY the working class can overturn capitalism.

It's best to think of the Party itself as seeking to personify the memory of the working class. Its members learn from past struggles, adapt strategy to struggle, learn from and assess mistakes made in the past, etc. It is a very fluid organization and is in no way "elite," in the bourgeois sense of the term.

The Party and the worker's state (i.e. the collection of workers's councils), however, are two different organizations. As I said before, the means of production belong to the workers, who, pretty much exactly as you described in your last paragraph, collectively and democratically make decisions about production and distribution of society's resources.

The vanguard party does not intervene in these matters. it concerns itself exclusively with political strategy. for instance, figuring out key moments, places, etc. for strikes/protests/etc; knowing how belligerent the bourgeoisie's activities are at a given moment; etc.

I think that these theoretical distinctions are typically confused because of what happened in Russia during the Civil War. But I think it's important to point out how destitute Russia was economically during this time period. The Bolshevik Party took on all political, economic, and ideological roles at that time because of the imperialist invasion, White Terror, and the decimation of the working class at the hands of counterrevolutionary forces. Without a working class, the Party has no one to represent. Especially when fighting the newly ascendant right-wing. But that's a different story altogether, of course. I assume you're well-versed in all of this history.

I think that my overall point is this: because of how well-organized the capitalist class is, we have to be just as organized. And I don't think revolution (let alone, the ability to safeguard successes) is possible without a strong party organized on Leninist principles and which represents the most militantly anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-xenophobic, anti-oppression, etc members of the working class. It's not that its members are morally superior, but it is true that at any time in a struggle, due to different experiences or some other reason, some members of the working class are more advanced in political consciousness than others. And it is through these political avenues that the Party gains the support and confidence it requires to deserve the role as Vanguard party.

I wouldn't be a member of any organization or party that I thought implemented a top-down bureaucratic anti-democratic method.

I guess that concludes our discussion. It was a very good one, I think.

Money RULES!!! BURN YOU COMMIES BURN MUHAHAHAHAAA

Working socialism would be nice, but it doesn't work with real people. So I rarely agree with them.

socialism is much more better than democracy of course, but again in this case we will be "equal" each other, which is unacceptable

Killed-By-Death said:
I'm a social democrat and I hate it when people think socialism and communism are equal, that's just fucking bullshit.

When I hear an American talking about socialism it's always the same bullshit over and over: socialism=communism=fascism=evil=against gods will and more of that type of shitThey are different in degree and not type. They both take as a core ideology the belief that the collective mass of people can work together to create better economic outcomes for society than individuals pursuing their own ends can. If you reject that premise then they are more or less synonymous to the critic because they both stem from the same idea - the details and differences are largely irrelevant.

"I'm a social democrat and I hate it when people think socialism and communism are equal, that's just fucking bullshit. "

QFT thanks.

Also whoever said capitalism is evil - bullshit. I can't believe an atheist would claim something to be 'evil'. Wtf is evil, really? Capitalism can be crap, but it's not 'evil', lol. It's not even conscious.

I am a socialist in the sense that I disagree with the capitalist organisation of ownership. To me, socialism is all about ownership. It's all about who owns the means of production, and where the profit of our labour ends up. I am against capitalism, as in ownership monopoly/oligopoly, but I am not necessarily against the market economy. A Soviet-like "communist" system is nothing but "government capitalism" to me, since the government owns all the means of production, which is as bad as a system where a few rich families and/or corporations owns everything (that is, the capitalist system as we know it). A Cuban-like system, with virtually no free market at all, is doomed from the start. The US system may work, but it generates a lot of economical injustice, which in turn leads to social injustice, and that's what I want to see less of. I advocate a free market consisting of worker-owned companies, where the profit ends up with the workers themselves instead of in the capitalists' pockets. In addition to this, I believe that some things in a society should not be subjected to free market competition, but rather be seen as services to the citizens: health care, education, energy and water supply - things that everyone needs. These things don't have to make a profit. They should be available to all citizens as basic securities. (It would be helluvalot easier for me to explain my point of view in Swedish, but that wouldn't really help you, would it.) I don't know if my views make me a socialist or not, but that's what I label myself as, for lack of a better description.

Justiciability said:
Im from Venezuela. Come here and taste the good cuban-marxist-stalinist ''socialism'' and tell me if you still like the left wing afterwards.
I haven't been to Venezuela, but I have been to Cuba - and, like I said, that system is doomed (although I have no doubts that the intentions initially were all very good, as I'm sure mr. Chavez's intentions were). That doesn't mean I have to renounce socialism though. Socialism is open to interpretation and modification - there are many possible ways of organizing a socialist society, and they may not all be bad. Keeping a free market is one way that hasn't been implemented yet. And socialism without democracy will never be an option.

Lurholm and KazetNagorra : I respect your opinions. A lot. And yes, i would like to experience a socialist system like Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc.. i bet it works well, however, the venezuelan ''socialism'' seems to be closer to 1984 than to a society of welfare.

KazetNagorra said:
Sweden is probably as close to socialism as it gets

so it was until the last election (19th september 2010). now the extreme-right nationalists got 5.7%, the government is capitalistic-liberal and are slowly destroying the social system we have (or rather had) in sweden. even National Socialistic Front got into the City Council of a smaller town with 2.8% of the votes and got one mandate there, so that sucks. :-/

That's a bit of a vague question as with religion, people cannot decide on what "socialism" actually is. But I agree with the concept. It just makes sense. The real question is whether it could work. That's the big issue.