A question for the communists, and socialists

[Berzerker]

Spiffor -

In France and Germany, lobbying is very different and less significant than in the US, while these countries are much more social-democrat than the US. OTOH, there is a strong US-like lobbyism in EU institutions, although they are much more pro-free market (heck, let's call it "Liberal - European Meaning", and be done with it).
Not that I'm saying there is necessarily an opposite correlation, but I think your theory doesn't hold water.

Nothing you said contradicts my assertion that special interest lobbying here has increased as we travel down the road to a European "social democratic" system where government assumes more control over people, especially with wealth being viewed as the property of the state. As for the EU being more susceptible to lobbying and more free market oriented, there would be NO lobbying of the EU if there was a free market there. When wine producers in France want either a government subsidy or tariff on competition, do they have to pay off French politicians to get what they want? If not, that still doesn't mean France doesn't have lobbyists corrupting their political system, it just means the politicians and lobbyists have a different method for vote buying and selling.

[Spiffor]

Actually, the lobbying in the EU is a wide array of political, social, international and economic concerns just like in the US. And a very efficient lobbying is exerted by businesses which demand a faster and more complete liberalization within EU. They have professionals who use all the flaws in the current EU institutions to get to their views.
Was the EU completely liberalized, you'd see many worker's lobbies or unions pushing for social legislations, and the same businesses pushing for holding the upper hand as well.
Lobbying has to do with the political structure, not the economic one. In France, the politicians are rather "father-know-best" and doesn't strongly feel the need to thouroughly ask interest groupstheir opinions on an issue (things are slowly changing). In the EU, lobbies are considered a valuable asset to understand what society wants.
Again, it has hardly anything to do with economics.

[Az]

How did you exactly get from communism to parliamentary lobbying?

[Ramo]

Well, there are a wide variety of socialist movements, but they all revolve around the idea of worker control over the means of production. Now, the idea of worker control is where the various movements diverge. In the one extreme, you have Stalinism, where "control" is exclusively exercised through the state, and on the other extreme you have individualist anarchism which rejects the state totally, where control is exercised directly by the workers.

[Az]

So, Ramo, how will that "worker's control", be any better than capitalism, as long as the whole system is still driven by profit?

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I am mainly a communist, pretty much a Marxist communist. But I am still working out if violent struggle is required, or democracy can lead to communism.

I agree with U.R.. The thing that I disagree with Communism the most is the fact that Marx and HIS communist ideals revolve around violent struggle. I believe that there can be change, but it should be done in a slow-to-moderate manner.

Violent change would create resentment in those who outwardly despise communistic ideals. I would rather there be gradual reform of governmental policies that are more communistic. Socialism and socialist parties (IMHO) have gotten off on the right foot, but have a lot more to go.

[Ramo]

I'm not sure exactly what your question is, Dal.

The way socialism is better than capitalism is that workers have less constraints in their actions under a socialist system than under a capitalist system (all else being equal). They get to determine how their businesses are run.

In addition, there will be much more of a pressure for wages to be more egalitarian, a lesser degree of hierarchy, a greater sense of communal solidarity, and greater worker productivity.

[Frankychan]

Furthermore, (IMHO)

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx constantly uses overt and covert inflammatory remarks to spark violence. I think that (like Che says)

Communists are more prone to violence than Socialists. Communists are more "voice their opinion and gripe" whereas Socialists keep a lower profile and try to change the system gradually within the bounds of the government.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Frankychan
I agree with U.R.. The thing that I disagree with Communism the most is the fact that Marx and HIS communist ideals revolve around violent struggle. I believe that there can be change, but it should be done in a slow-to-moderate manner.

Marx once wrote that in democratic societies where the state had not fully formed (the US, the UK and the Netherlands were specifically listed--but that day is long gone) it might be possible to achieve socialism by parliamentary means. It would be more accurate to say we believe in forceful revolution. Hopefully it will be forceful enough that the counter-revolutionary elements will be deterred from using violence.

[Az]

I'm not sure exactly what your question is, Dal.

Under such a decentralized, what's it's name... "Syndicalist" way, what would prevent these companies from screwing the people, except the fact that they're controlled by workers, and workers would obviously never do that to each other.

[chequita guevara]

I'm leaning towards a system that is mixed centralized and syndicality. Workers control the means of production, but we elect boards to determine macro questions of production while the workers deal with the micro questions.

[Az]

Yeah, well, I don't see how this can be done. A syndicalist system is based on profit and thus, nothing changes.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Communists are murderers and Socialists are weenies. At least, that's how they tend to see each other.

communists are stuck up relics of the past (where they belong) and socialists are sold out to capitalism - is another way they see eachother

[Az]

and who are you?

[Bereta_Eder]

neither