[ingliz]

It depends, some socialists believe in the market some don't, but communists who also call themselves socialists do not.

[Xel]

Okay that makes sense. I'm guessing this is because of the Marxist view of property. You answered for markets, but what about free trade? I'm a bit torn on that issue. Could it be made better under socialism?Does it disregard domestic workers by it's nature or only because Capitalism's exploitive nature?

[Kasu]

Socialism is internationalist, but it's not technically "free trade".

[FallenRaptor]

Marx believed that capitalism would create a global economic system because the pursuit of profits would drive capitalists to go all over the world. He was actually in favor of free trade since he believed it would lay the foundations for world socialism/communism. Leninists are more militant against free trade as capitalism has achieved it's most mature form: imperialism. The most advanced capitalist(imperialist) countries export capital into lesser developed countries to exploit cheap labor and resources for higher profits, which they are able to use to pacify first world workers by giving into some of their demands, make reforms, pay off working class leaders, etc.

[ingliz]

"We have shown what sort of brotherhood free trade begets between the different classes of one and the same nation. The brotherhood which free trade would establish between the nations of the earth would hardly be more fraternal. To call cosmopolitan exploitation universal brotherhood is an idea that could only be engendered in the brain of the bourgeoisie. All the destructive phenomena which unlimited competition gives rise to within one country are reproduced in more gigantic proportions on the world market. We need not dwell any longer upon free trade sophisms on this subject." Marx, 'On the Question of Free Trade'

I would rather say that he recognised the revolutionary potential of an extreme capitalism, it is a stretch to say Marx supported free trade as a system.

"But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade." ibid

Marx, 'On the Question of Free Trade'

[GeneCosta]

I think the best definition for socialism would be the emancipation of labor. It's a very obtuse definition, but few would disagree with it. Most wealth accumulated today is not from one's contributions, but rather their ownership of products. Even a radical minimalization of this disparity, as Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner advocated, would be a good sign of progress.

[Erebus]

Ohh, glad to see this thread is still rather active. I read through the pages I'd missed and ingliz you have some interesting points of discussion. Care to expand on your quote:

"We have shown what sort of brotherhood free trade begets between the different classes of one and the same nation. The brotherhood which free trade would establish between the nations of the earth would hardly be more fraternal. To call cosmopolitan exploitation universal brotherhood is an idea that could only be engendered in the brain of the bourgeoisie. All the destructive phenomena which unlimited competition gives rise to within one country are reproduced in more gigantic proportions on the world market. We need not dwell any longer upon free trade sophisms on this subject." Marx, 'On the Question of Free Trade'

[ingliz]

What is there to expand on, I think the quotes explain themselves - Free trade is bad for the worker; good for the revolution in the sense that it may hasten it.

Laissez faire shows plainly that the true interests of the bourgeoisie are in naked opposition to the interests of the proletariat. This is difficult for many of the 'aristocracy of labour' to grasp unless capitalism is stripped of the fuzzy feel good reformism of social democracy. 'Capitalism with a human face' only benefits a few workers at the expense of the many.

Does that mean communists should pretend to be libertarians to hasten the revolution or, conversely, morph into social democrats to mitigate neoliberal excesses? - No, I don't think so, we can stand aloof while offering an alternative.

[Erebus]

Free trade is bad for the worker; good for the revolution in the sense that it may hasten it.

But why? Why is it good for the revolution? How do we know it would hasten it?

[ingliz]

An unregulated free market does not encourage social cohesion. Keeping up the pretence that you are a member of an integrated community, sharing values and opportunities, is hard to sustain when faced with growing structural inequalities. Doing away with the managed economy would mean falling standards of living, hardship and real poverty for many which would make for a substantial number of very pissed off people; 100+ millions in the US even if the new regime were introduced relatively slowly and many more if libertarian reforms were just pushed through with no regard for the consequences - Pissing off enough people, enough, leads to discontent; which manifests itself in civil unrest; which degenerates into chaos; which turns to revolution. Whether the left could take advantage of this mayhem in any organised way is another question altogether.

[Erebus]

Pissing off enough people, enough, leads to discontent; which manifests itself in civil unrest; which degenerates into chaos; which turns to revolution. Whether the left could take advantage of this mayhem in any organised way is another question altogether.

Yeah, that was it.

[Vera Politica]

For me socialism stands for 'equal to all' fundamentals.

Doesn't the bourgeois liberal system purport to be a fair system and have equality for all (before the law)?
You need to be more specific - but even with specifics I think your assertion is false.

[Erebus]

Doesn't the bourgeois liberal system purport to be a fair system and have equality for all (before the law)?

Evidently.

For me socialism stands for 'equal to all' fundamentals. There should be an equal and wise control of all in the social activities.

Are you quoting this from another source, or do you really think so? If so, why? How?

[Erebus]

Bump.

Why did this thread suddenly die? There is still no true "definition".

[ingliz]

Erebus:

There are as many definitions of socialism as there are socialists and each of them is 'true'; if true means only that it's consistent with the ideology of that faction, or fraction of a faction, who espouse it. Given that these self styled 'socialists' cannot agree amongst themselves who are the true believers and who are the heretics the sensible thing to do, in my opinion, is to qualify each variation as socialism according to x party or y individual and move on. You will never find a catch-all definition that satisfies everybody, and why would you expect to, when you have both communists and capitalists calling themselves socialist.

[Vera Politica]

You will never find a catch-all definition that satisfies everybody, and why would you expect to, when you have both communists and capitalists calling themselves socialist.

Definitely true. Look at how divided liberalism has become: you have monarchists (well not many any more, expect maybe Canada, etc that still have constitutional monarchies), neo-conservatives, conservatives, social liberals, collectivists, anarchists, classical liberals (libertarians),social democrats, etc etc each have their own definition of capitalism, the individual, the collective of rights, etc etc. I think the liberal camp is far more divided than the communist camp (although socialists oscillate)

I propose one proponent of socialism, in its definition: socialism is anti-liberal.

[FallenRaptor]

Hmm.. Isn't fascism also anti-liberal? Feudal ideologies as well?

[Vera Politica]

Hmm.. Isn't fascism also anti-liberal? Feudal ideologies as well?

Of course... That's why I said one proponent or, rather one component of the definition would be anti-liberalism (and I think this is an important component).

[Erebus]

You will never find a catch-all definition that satisfies everybody, and why would you expect to, when you have both communists and capitalists calling themselves socialist.

Yes, I know but a general definition could be found and then left open for moderation and interpretation.

[Vera Politica]

Yes, I know but a general definition could be found and then left open for moderation and interpretation.

Here is a general one: socialism is anti-liberal and anti-capitalist.