Olá, Visitante. Por favor entre ou registe-se se ainda não for membro.

Entrar com nome de utilizador, password e duração da sessão
 

Autor Tópico: Social-democracia e Socialismo  (Lida 11337 vezes)

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Social-democracia e Socialismo
« em: 2015-11-14 23:46:23 »
o que é
e o que não é

é aqui

L
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #1 em: 2015-11-14 23:59:30 »
eh tudo a mesma coisa mas os politicos fingem que sao coisas muito diferentes para dar ao tonto do cliente a falsa sensacao de oferta variada
eh como com o mcdonalds, tem 6 hamburguers todos iguais... mas fingem que nao, que sao diferentes e metem nomes e cores variadas para enganar

e com isto encerro a participacao, esta tudo dito  :D
« Última modificação: 2015-11-15 00:39:17 por Camarada Neo-Liberal »

Jsebastião

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 1258
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #2 em: 2015-11-15 00:00:37 »
Para já vou repetir a mensagem que coloquei no outro tópico. Mais tarde actualizarei este tópico com mais transcrições sobre o assunto, a propósito dos debtes que houve na Assembleia Constituite, durante o PREC.

O seguinte segmento foi retirado do livro "Da Revolução à Constituição", por Jorge Miranda, e é uma transcrição presente nos diários da Assembleia Constituinte. No caso concreto, este discurso foi proferido por Vital Moreira num debate sobre o sistema de planteamento na organização económica, nas sessões de 3, 4, 6 e 11 de Novembro de 1975.

Citar
«Mais do que qualquer outra, a matéria da organização económica é o lugar privilegiado de definição dos projectos políticos de cada partido. Mais do que qualquer outra, a matéria da organização económica demarca campos, define opções de classe. Mais do que qualquer outra, a matéria da organização económica não é lugar para formulações ambíguas, para compromissos entre interesses de classe antagónicos.

E, no entanto, olhando para as disposições já aprovadas, nenhum outro capítulo da Constituição será tão equívoco como aquele que estamos a discutir. Uns princípios são anulados por outros. Directivas gerais vêem-se inutilizadas na sua especificação. O artigo 1.º afirma que a Constituição económica visa a construção de uma sociedade socialista, mediante “a apropriação colectiva dos meios de produção(…). Mas logo o artigo 5.º admitiu o princípio da liberdade da empresa privada, enquanto o artigo 3.º (3) admite iniciativa privada, mesmo em sectores básicos da economia. O artigo 8.º (1) afirma que o Plano visa a construção de uma economia socialista, através da transformação das relações de produção e de acumulação capitalistas (…). Mas logo o n.º 3 do mesmo artigo liberta as empresas privadas, mesmo aquelas que operam nos sectores básicos, desse mesmo Plano.

Não podiam imaginar-se exemplos mais flagrantes de equivocidade e de contradição.

As razões deste fenómeno não são difíceis de encontrar. É que enquanto uns partidos falam de socialismo como um sistema assente na apropriação e gestão colectiva planificada da economia, outros falam de socialismo apenas para melhor defenderem o capitalismo, com permanência da apropriação privada dos meios de produção e direcção privada do processo económico. É que enquanto certos partidos entendem que o socialismo é uma tarefa a realizar, outros entendem que o socialismo já está realizado e resta apenas “pôr as coisas em ordem”. É que enquanto certos partidos entendem que o socialismo exige a planificação colectiva da actividade económica, outros entendem que o socialismo assenta na concorrência privada. Só assim se entende que a Assembleia, depois de no artigo 1º ter falado em apropriação colectiva dos meios de produção, tenha depois recusado votar num artigo que impunha a nacionalização do grande capital, não tendo faltado a afirmação incrível de que já não há grande capital para nacionalizar. Só assim se entende que a Assembleia, depois de definir o Plano como instrumento da transformação das relações de produção e acumulação capitalistas, tenha recusado admitir a obrigatoriedade do Plano para as empresas privadas.

A isto tudo não é alheia a conduta dos partidos que, reclamando-se do socialismo ao nível dos grandes princípios, não hesitam em abandoná-los quando se trata de o aplicar. Que dizer, na realidade, de um partido que, acusando outro de ser um partido da burguesia – nem sequer social democrata -, acaba por alinhar com ele em todas as questões fundamentais da organização económica? Que dizer do mesmo partido que, posto perante formulações do seu próprio projecto de Constituição, vota contra elas, preferindo-lhes formulações inegavelmente mais recuadas.

Enfim, que dizer de uma Constituição económica que, proclamando-se socialista, não impõe nada que a ele conduza, antes permite recuperar tudo o que já se fez a caminho de o alcançar? Que dizer de uma Constituição económica que se proclama socialista, mas que não impõe novas nacionalizações, não garante as já feitas, que não proíbe a indemnização dos grandes capitalistas e latifundiários, que admite a iniciativa privada em sectores básicos da economia, que estabelece o princípio da livre empresa privada, que se limita a afirmar o carácter meramente indicativo do Plano?»

Já agora, a Constituição Portuguesa, na sua versão actual, tem o seguinte preambulo:

Citar
VII REVISÃO CONSTITUCIONAL [2005]


PREÂMBULO

 A 25 de Abril de 1974, o Movimento das Forças Armadas, coroando a longa resistência do povo português e interpretando os seus sentimentos profundos, derrubou o regime fascista.

Libertar Portugal da ditadura, da opressão e do colonialismo representou uma transformação revolucionária e o início de uma viragem histórica da sociedade portuguesa.

A Revolução restituiu aos Portugueses os direitos e liberdades fundamentais. No exercício destes direitos e liberdades, os legítimos representantes do povo reúnem-se para elaborar uma Constituição que corresponde às aspirações do país.

A Assembleia Constituinte afirma a decisão do povo português de defender a independência nacional, de garantir os direitos fundamentais dos cidadãos, de estabelecer os princípios basilares da democracia, de assegurar o primado do Estado de Direito democrático e de abrir caminho para uma sociedade socialista, no respeito da vontade do povo português, tendo em vista a construção de um país mais livre, mais justo e mais fraterno.

A Assembleia Constituinte, reunida na sessão plenária de 2 de Abril de 1976, aprova e decreta a seguinte Constituição da República Portuguesa:
«Despite the constant negative press covfefe,» - Donald

«Name one thing that can't be negotiated...» - Walter "Heisenberg" White---Breaking Bad

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #3 em: 2015-11-15 00:32:43 »
Para ser simples: não são a mesma coisa.
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #4 em: 2015-11-15 00:35:39 »
Para já vou repetir a mensagem que coloquei no outro tópico. Mais tarde actualizarei este tópico com mais transcrições sobre o assunto, a propósito dos debtes que houve na Assembleia Constituite, durante o PREC.

O seguinte segmento foi retirado do livro "Da Revolução à Constituição", por Jorge Miranda, e é uma transcrição presente nos diários da Assembleia Constituinte. No caso concreto, este discurso foi proferido por Vital Moreira num debate sobre o sistema de planteamento na organização económica, nas sessões de 3, 4, 6 e 11 de Novembro de 1975.

Citar
«Mais do que qualquer outra, a matéria da organização económica é o lugar privilegiado de definição dos projectos políticos de cada partido. Mais do que qualquer outra, a matéria da organização económica demarca campos, define opções de classe. Mais do que qualquer outra, a matéria da organização económica não é lugar para formulações ambíguas, para compromissos entre interesses de classe antagónicos.

E, no entanto, olhando para as disposições já aprovadas, nenhum outro capítulo da Constituição será tão equívoco como aquele que estamos a discutir. Uns princípios são anulados por outros. Directivas gerais vêem-se inutilizadas na sua especificação. O artigo 1.º afirma que a Constituição económica visa a construção de uma sociedade socialista, mediante “a apropriação colectiva dos meios de produção(…). Mas logo o artigo 5.º admitiu o princípio da liberdade da empresa privada, enquanto o artigo 3.º (3) admite iniciativa privada, mesmo em sectores básicos da economia. O artigo 8.º (1) afirma que o Plano visa a construção de uma economia socialista, através da transformação das relações de produção e de acumulação capitalistas (…). Mas logo o n.º 3 do mesmo artigo liberta as empresas privadas, mesmo aquelas que operam nos sectores básicos, desse mesmo Plano.

Não podiam imaginar-se exemplos mais flagrantes de equivocidade e de contradição.

As razões deste fenómeno não são difíceis de encontrar. É que enquanto uns partidos falam de socialismo como um sistema assente na apropriação e gestão colectiva planificada da economia, outros falam de socialismo apenas para melhor defenderem o capitalismo, com permanência da apropriação privada dos meios de produção e direcção privada do processo económico. É que enquanto certos partidos entendem que o socialismo é uma tarefa a realizar, outros entendem que o socialismo já está realizado e resta apenas “pôr as coisas em ordem”. É que enquanto certos partidos entendem que o socialismo exige a planificação colectiva da actividade económica, outros entendem que o socialismo assenta na concorrência privada. Só assim se entende que a Assembleia, depois de no artigo 1º ter falado em apropriação colectiva dos meios de produção, tenha depois recusado votar num artigo que impunha a nacionalização do grande capital, não tendo faltado a afirmação incrível de que já não há grande capital para nacionalizar. Só assim se entende que a Assembleia, depois de definir o Plano como instrumento da transformação das relações de produção e acumulação capitalistas, tenha recusado admitir a obrigatoriedade do Plano para as empresas privadas.

A isto tudo não é alheia a conduta dos partidos que, reclamando-se do socialismo ao nível dos grandes princípios, não hesitam em abandoná-los quando se trata de o aplicar. Que dizer, na realidade, de um partido que, acusando outro de ser um partido da burguesia – nem sequer social democrata -, acaba por alinhar com ele em todas as questões fundamentais da organização económica? Que dizer do mesmo partido que, posto perante formulações do seu próprio projecto de Constituição, vota contra elas, preferindo-lhes formulações inegavelmente mais recuadas.

Enfim, que dizer de uma Constituição económica que, proclamando-se socialista, não impõe nada que a ele conduza, antes permite recuperar tudo o que já se fez a caminho de o alcançar? Que dizer de uma Constituição económica que se proclama socialista, mas que não impõe novas nacionalizações, não garante as já feitas, que não proíbe a indemnização dos grandes capitalistas e latifundiários, que admite a iniciativa privada em sectores básicos da economia, que estabelece o princípio da livre empresa privada, que se limita a afirmar o carácter meramente indicativo do Plano?»

Já agora, a Constituição Portuguesa, na sua versão actual, tem o seguinte preambulo:

Citar
VII REVISÃO CONSTITUCIONAL [2005]


PREÂMBULO

 A 25 de Abril de 1974, o Movimento das Forças Armadas, coroando a longa resistência do povo português e interpretando os seus sentimentos profundos, derrubou o regime fascista.

Libertar Portugal da ditadura, da opressão e do colonialismo representou uma transformação revolucionária e o início de uma viragem histórica da sociedade portuguesa.

A Revolução restituiu aos Portugueses os direitos e liberdades fundamentais. No exercício destes direitos e liberdades, os legítimos representantes do povo reúnem-se para elaborar uma Constituição que corresponde às aspirações do país.

A Assembleia Constituinte afirma a decisão do povo português de defender a independência nacional, de garantir os direitos fundamentais dos cidadãos, de estabelecer os princípios basilares da democracia, de assegurar o primado do Estado de Direito democrático e de abrir caminho para uma sociedade socialista, no respeito da vontade do povo português, tendo em vista a construção de um país mais livre, mais justo e mais fraterno.

A Assembleia Constituinte, reunida na sessão plenária de 2 de Abril de 1976, aprova e decreta a seguinte Constituição da República Portuguesa:

Basicamente ele estabelece a diferença de que aqui falamos, correctamente.
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Jsebastião

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 1258
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #5 em: 2015-11-15 00:45:25 »
Basicamente ele estabelece a diferença de que aqui falamos, correctamente.

Sim. O discurso é também dirigido ao PS da altura (o penúltimo parágrafo é incisivo), denunciando a diferença entre o que tinha na sigla e depois o que permitia na prática.
« Última modificação: 2015-11-15 00:46:01 por Jsebastião »
«Despite the constant negative press covfefe,» - Donald

«Name one thing that can't be negotiated...» - Walter "Heisenberg" White---Breaking Bad

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #6 em: 2015-11-15 00:47:18 »
Basicamente ele estabelece a diferença de que aqui falamos, correctamente.

Sim. O discurso é também dirigido ao PS da altura (o penúltimo parágrafo é incisivo), denunciando a diferença entre o que tinha na sigla e depois o que permitia na prática.

Basicamente era social-democrata deste o início. Aliás, se não o fosse não teria combatido o PCP (excepto na medida em que para um verdadeiro socialista não interessa somente um país evoluir para o socialismo, mas também ocupar as cadeiras interessantes SE o país evoluir para o socialismo. Ser da ralé num país verdadeiramente socialista é horrível, bem pior que se ser pobre num país capitalista).
« Última modificação: 2015-11-15 00:48:29 por Incognitus »
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #7 em: 2015-11-15 00:53:19 »
lark, se achas que o comunismo eh o manifesto comunista... ehs um piiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!
o leninismo eh que interessa...meu nabo !!! deixaste de fora o essencial, haha !
« Última modificação: 2015-11-15 00:56:09 por Camarada Neo-Liberal »

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #8 em: 2015-11-15 02:09:47 »
I Congress of the Socialist International, Frankfurt 30 JUNE-03 JULY 1951

AIMS AND TASKS OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM
 
Declaration of the Socialist International
adopted at its First Congress held in
Frankfort-on-Main on 30 June-3 July 1951

 
1.   From the nineteenth century onwards, capitalism has developed immense productive forces. It has done so at the cost of excluding the great majority of citizens from influence over production. It put the rights of ownership before the rights of man. It created a new class of wage-earners without property or social rights. It sharpened the struggle between the classes.

Although the world contains resources which could be made to provide a decent life for everyone, capitalism has been incapable of satisfying the elementary needs of the world’s population. It proved unable to function without devastating crises and mass unemployment. It produced social insecurity and glaring contrasts between rich and poor. It resorted to imperialist expansion and colonial exploitation, thus making conflicts between nations and races more bitter. In some countries powerful capitalist groups helped the barbarism of the past to raise its head again in the form of Fascism and Nazism.
 
2.   Socialism was born in Europe as a movement of protest against the diseases inherent in capitalist society. Because the wage-earners suffered most from capitalism, Socialism first developed as a movement of the wage-earners. Since then more and more citizens — professional and clerical workers, farmers and fishermen, craftsmen and retailers, artists and scientists — are coming to understand that Socialism appeals to all men who believe that the exploitation of man by man must be abolished.
 
3.   Socialism aims to liberate the peoples from dependence on a minority which owns or controls the means of production. It aims to put economic power in the hands of the people as a whole, and to create a community in which free men work together as equals.
 
4.   Socialism has become a major force in world affairs. It has passed from propaganda into practice. In some countries the foundations of a Socialist society have already been laid. Here the evils of capitalism are disappearing and the community has developed new vigour. The principles of Socialism are proving their worth in action.
 
5.   In many countries uncontrolled capitalism is giving place to an economy in which state intervention and collective ownership limit the scope of private capitalists. More people are coming to recognise the need for planning. Social security, free trade unionism and industrial democracy are winning ground. This development is largely a result of long years of struggle by Socialists and trade unionists. Wherever Socialism is strong, important steps have been taken towards the creation of a new social order.
6.   In recent years the peoples in the underdeveloped areas of the world have been finding Socialism a valuable aid in the struggle for national freedom and higher standards of life. Here different forms of democratic Socialism are evolving under the pressure of different circumstances. The main enemies of Socialism in these areas are parasitical exploitation by indigenous financial oligarchies and colonial exploitation by foreign capitalists. The Socialists fight for political and economic democracy, they seek to raise the standard of living for the masses through land reform and industrialisation, the extension of public ownership and the development of producers’ and consumers’ cooperatives.
 
7.   Meanwhile, as Socialism advances throughout the world, new forces have arisen to threaten the movement towards freedom and social justice. Since the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Communism has split the International Labour Movement and has set back the realisation of Socialism in many countries for decades.
 
8.   Communism falsely claims a share in the Socialist tradition. In fact it has distorted that tradition beyond recognition. It has built up a rigid theology which is incompatible with the critical spirit of Marxism.
 
9.   Where Socialists aim to achieve freedom and justice by removing the exploitation which divides men under capitalism, Communists seek to sharpen those class divisions only in order to establish the dictatorship of a single party.
 
10.   International Communism is the instrument of a new imperialism. Wherever it has achieved power it has destroyed freedom or the chance of gaining freedom. It is based on a militarist bureaucracy and a terrorist police. By producing glaring contrasts of wealth and privilege it has created a new class society. Forced labour plays an important part in its economic organisation.
 
11.   Socialism is an international movement which does not demand a rigid uniformity of approach. Whether Socialists build their faith on Marxist or other methods of analysing society, whether they are inspired by religious or humanitarian principles, they all strive for the same goal — a system of social justice, better living, freedom and world peace.
 
12.   The progress of science and technical skill has given man increased power either to improve his lot or to destroy himself. For this reason production cannot be left to the play of economic liberalism but must be planned systematically for human needs. Such planning must respect the rights of the individual personality. Socialism stands for freedom and planning in both national and international affairs.
 
13.   The achievement of Socialism is not inevitable. It demands a personal contribution from all its followers. Unlike the totalitarian way it does not impose on the people a passive role. On the contrary, it cannot succeed without thorough-going and active participation by the people. It is democracy in its highest form.
 
POLITICAL DEMOCRACY
 
1. Socialists strive to build a new society in freedom and by democratic means.
 
 
2.   Without freedom there can be no Socialism. Socialism can be achieved only through democracy. Democracy can be fully realised only through Socialism.
 
3.   Democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people. It must secure:
 
a. The right of every human being to a private life, protected from arbitrary invasion by the state.
b. Political liberties like freedom of thought, expression, education, organisation and religion.
c. The representation of the people through free elections, under universal, equal and secret franchise.
d. Government by the majority and respect for the rights of the minority.
e. The equality before the law of all citizens, whatever their birth, sex, language, creed and colour.
f. Right to cultural autonomy for groups with their own language.
g. An independent judiciary system; every man must have the right to a public trial before an impartial tribunal by due process of law.
 
4.   Socialists have always fought for the rights of man. The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man which has been adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations must be made effective in every country.
 
5.   Democracy requires the right of more than one party to exist and the right of opposition. But democracy has the right and duty to protect itself against those who exploit its opportunities only in order to destroy it. The defence of political democracy is a vital interest of the people. Its preservation is a condition of realising economic and social democracy.
 
6.   Policies based on the protection of capitalist interests cannot develop the strength and unity needed to defend democracy from totalitarian attack. Democracy can only be defended with the active help of the workers, whose fate depends on its survival.
 
7.   Socialists express their solidarity with all peoples suffering under dictatorship, whether Fascist or Communist, in their efforts to win freedom.
 
8.   Every dictatorship, wherever it may be, is a danger to the freedom of all nations and thereby to the peace of the world. Wherever there is unrestrained exploitation of forced labour, whether under private profit or under political dictatorship, there is a danger to the living and moral standards of all the peoples.
 
ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY
 
1.   Socialism seeks to replace capitalism by a system in which the public interest takes precedence over the interest of private profit. The immediate economic aims of Socialist policy are full employment, higher production, a rising standard of life, social security and a fair distribution of incomes and property.
 
2.   In order to achieve these ends production must be planned in the interest of the people as a whole.
 
Such planning is incompatible with the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few. It requires effective democratic control of the economy.
 
Democratic Socialism therefore stands in sharp contradiction both to capitalist planning and to every form of totalitarian planning; these exclude public control of production and a fair distribution of its results.
 
3.   Socialist planning can be achieved by various means. The structure of the country concerned must decide the extent of public ownership and the forms of planning to apply.
 
4.   Public ownership can take the form of the nationalisation of existing private concerns, municipal or regional enterprise, consumers’ or producers’ cooperatives.
 
These various forms of public ownership should be regarded not as ends in themselves but as means of controlling basic industries and services on which the economic life and welfare of the community depend, of rationalising inefficient industries or of preventing private monopolies and cartels from exploiting the public.
 
5.   Socialist planning does not presuppose public ownership of all the means of production. It is compatible with the existence of private ownership in important fields, for instance in agriculture, handicraft, retail trade and small and middle-sized industries. The state must prevent private owners from abusing their powers. It can and should assist them to contribute towards increased production and well-being within the framework of a planned economy.
 
6.   Trade unions and organisations of producers and consumers are necessary elements in a democratic society; they should never be allowed to degenerate into the tools of a central bureaucracy or into a rigid corporative system. Such economic organisations should participate in shaping general economic policy without usurping the constitutional prerogatives of parliament.
 
7.   Socialist planning does not mean that all economic decisions are placed in the hands of the Government or central authorities. Economic power should be decentralised wherever this is compatible with the aims of planning.
 
8.   All citizens should prevent the development of bureaucracy in public and private industry by taking part in the process of production through their organisations or by individual initiative. The workers must be associated democratically with the direction of their industry.
 
9.   Democratic Socialism aims at extending individual freedom on the basis of economic and social security and an increasing prosperity.
 
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND CULTURAL PROGRESS
 
1.   While the guiding principle of capitalism is private profit the guiding principle of Socialism is the satisfaction of human needs.
 
2.   Basic human needs must make the first claim on the distribution of the fruits of production; this need not deprive the individual of the incentive to work according to his capacity. Socialists accept as self-evident the individual’s right to be rewarded according to his efforts. But they believe that there are other incentives, like pride in work well done, solidarity and team spirit which can be strengthened when men work for the common interest.
 
3.   Socialism stands not only for basic political rights but also for economic and social rights. Among these rights are:
 
the right to work;
 
the right to medical and maternity benefits;
 
the right to leisure;
 
the right to economic security for citizens unable to work because of old age, incapacity or unemployment;
 
the right of children to welfare and of the youth to education in accordance with their abilities;
 
the right to adequate housing.
 
4.   Socialists strive to abolish all legal, economic and political discrimination between the sexes, between social groups, between town and countryside, between regional and between racial groups.
 
5.   Socialism means far more than a new economic and social system. Economic and social progress have moral value to the extent that they serve to liberate and develop the human personality.
 
6.   Socialists oppose capitalism not only because it is economically wasteful and because it keeps the masses from their material rights, but above all because it revolts their sense of justice. They oppose totalitarianism in every form because it outrages human dignity.
 
7.   Socialism fights to liberate men from the fears and anxieties from which all forms of political and economic insecurity are inseparable. This liberation will open the way to the spiritual development of men conscious of their responsibilities and to the cultural evolution of complete personalities. Socialism is a powerful factor in promoting this cultural development.
 
8.   Socialism seeks to give men all the means to raise their cultural standard and foster the creative aspirations of the human spirit. The treasures of art and science must be made available to all men.
 
INTERNATIONAL DEMOCRACY
 
1.   The Socialist movement has been an international movement from the beginning.
 
2.   Democratic Socialism is international because it aims at liberating all men from every form of economic, spiritual and political bondage.
 
3.   Democratic Socialism is international because it recognises that no nation can solve all its economic and social problems in isolation.
 
4.   Absolute national sovereignty must be transcended.
 
5.   The new world society for which Socialists strive can develop fruitfully in peace only if it is based on voluntary cooperation between nations. Democracy must, therefore, be established on an international scale under an international rule of law which guarantees national freedom and the rights of man.
 
6.   Democratic Socialism regards the establishment of the United Nations as an important step towards an international community; it demands the strict implementation of the principles of its Charter.
 
7.   Democratic Socialism rejects every form of imperialism. It fights the oppression or exploitation of any people.
 
8.   A negative anti-imperialism is not enough. Vast areas of the world suffer from extreme poverty, illiteracy and disease. Poverty in one part of the world is a threat to prosperity in other parts. Poverty is an obstacle to the development of democracy. Democracy, prosperity and peace require a redistribution of the world’s wealth and an increase in the productivity of the underdeveloped areas. All people have an interest in raising the material and cultural standards in those areas. Democratic Socialism must inspire the economic, social and cultural development of these areas unless they are to fall victim to new forms of oppression.
 
9.   Democratic Socialists recognise the maintenance of world peace as the supreme task in our time. Peace can be secured only by a system of collective security. This will create the conditions for international disarmament.
 
10.   The struggle for the preservation of peace is inseparably bound up with the struggle for freedom. It is the threat to the independence of free peoples which is directly responsible for the danger of war in our time.
 
Socialists work for a world of peace and freedom, for a world in which the exploitation and enslavement of men by men and peoples by peoples is unknown, for a world in which the development of the individual personality is the basis for the fruitful development of mankind. They appeal to the solidarity of all working men in the struggle for this great aim.
 
« Última modificação: 2015-11-15 02:10:51 por Lark »
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #9 em: 2015-11-15 02:12:15 »
THE WORLD TODAY: THE SOCIALIST PERSPECTIVE
 
Declaration of the Socialist International endorsed
at the Council Conference held in Oslo on 2-4 June 1962


The Socialist International reaffirms the principles of the Frankfurt Declaration of 1951 on the ‘Aims and Tasks of Democratic Socialism’.
 
In the ‘fifties, it became apparent that the many new scientific discoveries, if applied for peaceful purposes, made possible for the first time in history the elimination of hunger and poverty from the face of the earth. The same discoveries, used for military purposes, could cause the end of our civilisation.
 
There are few decades in history which have produced such vast and varied changes. The work which Socialist governments began of responding to the urge for independence among colonial peoples was carried forward. By 1960, most countries of Asia and Africa had won their independence and joined the concert of free nations. Thus, for the first time in history, peoples of all continents meet together freed from alien domination. The Socialist International greets the thousand million people of the new states and welcomes their participation in the common quest for justice, equality and peace for all mankind.
 
Nevertheless, colonisation still survives. It is significantly entrenched in countries where no Socialist movement has been allowed to exist and where democracy itself has been suppressed. The Socialist International finds no moral justification for the continued existence of colonialism and condemns it in all its forms.
 
In many democratic countries in the past decade, economic expansion enabled striking progress to be made towards the welfare society, and consequently the age-old insecurities of their citizens were substantially reduced. Yet at the same time, the gap in the standard of living between rich and poor nations has widened still further. Hundreds of millions still suffer from hunger and poverty.
 
In the ‘fifties, the will of the human spirit for freedom and dignity was repeatedly asserted. In many countries of Latin America, dictatorships were overthrown. In some parts of the Communist world, the iron grip of Stalinism was weakened. Stalin himself was condemned. The proclamation of desalinisation was prompted by popular pressure to break with the detested past and to initiate new policies. But the brutal repression of freedom in the Communist world and the ceaseless efforts of Communism to extend its sphere of influence continue.
 
In the decade that is over, the world faced many crises. In some parts of the world, armed conflict broke out. However, the deep-seated hostility to war that characterises peoples everywhere helped to avert world war.
 
 
SOCIALISM AND INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRIES
The most dynamic impulse towards social change has come in countries where democratic Socialist parties have been able to exert effective influence. History has not confirmed the doctrine of the increasing misery of the proletariat. The worst excesses of capitalism have been corrected through the constant activity of the Socialist parties, the trade unions, and the cooperative societies. New forms of ownership and control of production have emerged. Mass unemployment has been eliminated, social security extended, working hours have been reduced and educational and vocational opportunities widened.
 
Even where democratic Socialists have been in opposition, their opponents have often been obliged by public opinion to adopt essentially Socialist solutions for the problems of full employment and social welfare. Likewise, in the United States of America, pressures of trade unions and other progressive social forces have made their influence felt.
 
Despite these improvements, serious problems continue to plague industrialised societies. We believe that they cannot be solved without the application of the principles of democratic Socialism.
 
Permanent control by the state and public institutions over the economy undoubtedly diminishes the danger of the recurrence of economic crises. Nevertheless, recessions, which interrupt steady economic expansion, still continue.
 
The increasing concentration of economic power and the growth of monopoly when not controlled also create serious problems. The increasing size of industrial undertakings has brought into being a new class of managers, who enjoy great power without being responsible to the community for the manner in which they exercise it. A task facing Socialism is to make this group aware of its social responsibilities.
 
In many countries, the level of investment, though higher than it was, is still far below what could be achieved in a properly planned economy. Investment is, moreover, frequently wasteful. Too often, it is directed towards immediate capitalist profit, instead of strengthening in a planned fashion the basis of the economy or meeting urgent social and cultural needs.
 
Notwithstanding the considerable improvement in the standard of living of the mass of the people, gross inequalities in the distribution of wealth and income remain. The greater part of the privately-owned wealth is still in the hands of very few. Tax evasion and the immense appreciation of capital values perpetuate this evil. Society is still divided into social classes with differences in status and living standards, based on the accident of birth and inheritance, and resulting in differences in opportunities for education and training. Exaggerated emphasis on purely materialist aims is increased by modern business advertising and by the commercialisation of cultural activity, imposing a trend towards drab conformity.
 
Democratic Socialism has achieved much, but greater tasks still lie ahead. There is no single method to remedy the evils of present-day society. To achieve a fair distribution of wealth, we require an extension of public ownership and control and other legislation to curb private monopolies, to effect a radical reform of the tax system and to protect consumers.
 
State action, authorised by democratic decisions, is essential to provide for a rapid rate of economic expansion, a sufficiently high level of investment and the swift application of modern scientific techniques. This involves economic and social planning as a central government responsibility.
 
In democracy, a framework must be created within which the workers can effectively influence decisions and conditions in industry and the economy generally.
 
The democracies must improve and extend the techniques which will enable them to direct their economic resources so as to serve the long-term interests of the people and to facilitate a more substantial contribution to world economic development. They have yet to establish sufficiently close co-operation with one another to assist the steady development of international trade, unimpeded by high tariff barriers and undisturbed by exchange and currency crises. Economic planning outgrows the borders of national states. The establishment of regional economic organisations is a recognition of this fact.
 
The free development of the human personality can be ensured only by a reform of the existing social and economic structure. For those still living in poverty, improvement of conditions must be realised by a system of fair wages and of effective social security and family allowances and individual care and help. A basic requirement is the provision of a general system of education with a truly democratic character and ensuring genuine equality of opportunity for all. Education in citizenship, vital to democracy, should be promoted both by the state, and by voluntary organisations, such as political parties, trade unions cooperatives and educational associations.
 
Democracy can hope for survival only if it can base itself on the keen interest and active participation of citizens in its functioning. The democratic process can be extended and deepened through territorial decentralisation and industrial democracy. Press, radio and television, free from undemocratic controls and pressures, should provide ample opportunities for free, responsible debates on political issues.
 
The challenge of the generation that inherited the changed society of the sixties is to find the ways and means of completing the task begun. To meet its challenge, this generation must direct its ingenuity and energy to the world as a whole.
 
 
SOCIALISM AND EMERGENT NATIONS
The emergent nations, with their hundreds of millions of people, have a heavy burden of poverty to overcome. Their difficult task is an exciting one because independence has released great reservoirs of vitality. There should be available to the new states the whole stock of science, technology and political experience that has been accumulated by the developed countries.
 
The new states have the opportunity of escaping the evils of capitalism and Communism alike. The capitalist methods of ruthless exploitation of the workers, involving the uprooting of the peasants and driving them into urban slums, are not only obnoxious, but also unnecessary. The Communist method is equally obsolete, consisting as it does of abstracting surplus value through terror and undertaking break-neck industrialisation by the sacrifice of the needs of the people and more particularly at the cost of agricultural development.
 
The future belongs no more to Communism than to capitalism. Communism and capitalism point back to an age where human beings were treated as raw materials and not as the source and objective of all efforts. The Socialist International greets with satisfaction the fact that so many of the new states, striving to plan their economic future, are inspired by the ideas of democracy and Socialism.
 
The new states have the opportunity to plan their economy, combining agriculture with industry, reviving agriculture through improved peasant farming and cooperative organisation. Better distribution of industries and decentralisation of the productive process can obviate the growth of new urban conglomerations. The new states, which began their industrial journey not with steam power but with electricity, have greater freedom to plan their development.
 
The emergent nations, with the co-operation of the developed countries, can avoid many conflicts such as those between urban and rural populations. The new nations suffer from stagnant economic conditions and an ossified social structure. Balanced development depends on releasing and co-ordinating the forces of individual and economic initiative, without allowing private enterprise to reap the profits for the enrichment of a small minority. Fair play and fair shares must now become the basis of their policy.
 
These possibilities can be fully realised only if the new states pay due attention to the spread of education, for children as well as adults, to the diffusion of skills and general knowledge among the people and to helping families to plan their growth.
 
The future of emergent nations in this age of transition depends on the efforts of Socialists and other democratic progressive forces in new nations and on aid from the developed countries. The need is greatest in training, in the provision of skilled technicians and in the accumulation of investment capital. Industrialised countries should provide at least 1 per cent of their national income for grant aid programmes. It should be the consistent policy of the Socialist International to unite the Socialist forces of all countries in the great endeavour of accelerating the progress of the new states.
 
The Socialist International recognises the right of all nations to self-determination. Nationalism has often been a liberating and uplifting force, but when it is taken to extremes, it can threaten human freedom and progress. The dangers of nationalistic excesses, where the welfare of the Socialists in the richer countries succeed in raising the sights of their people above their national needs, and, on the other hand, Socialists in the new countries develop their economy in such a way that the yardstick is human welfare and not national prestige.
 
There is the danger that the people of new states will be lured by the false perspectives of authoritarianism. Recent experiences in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America show how barren this repudiation of democracy can be.
 
The countries of Latin America, although long free from colonial rule, share some of the problems of emergent nations. Here, scores of millions of people also present democratic Socialism with the insistent problems of hunger, illiteracy and disease.
 
The developing countries face a tremendous task of transformation involving basic reorientation of the rhythms of life and work of their people. The Socialist International recognises that these far-ranging changes in patterns of thought and behaviour among hundreds of millions of people cannot be brought about unless the developed countries also undertake some fundamental adjustments in their patterns of thought and action. To that pioneering task of social innovation and adjustment, the Socialist International will dedicate its main efforts.
 
 
SOCIALISM AND THE COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
Substantial economic expansion in the Soviet Union has led to improved living standards but, above all, to greater military potential. In China, industrialisation is advancing. The fact that the formidable power of a state containing 600 million people is subject to totalitarian rule and severe discipline cannot be ignored. It presents a threat to other Asian countries. Industrialisation and modernisation at the tempo at which they are realised in the Communist sphere are maintained only at the cost either of preventing the essential freedoms from developing or destroying them where they are already in existence.
 
In the case of Russia this was accompanied, especially in the earlier part of the decade, by ruthless exploitation of the countries of Eastern Europe. The rising of the people in East Germany, Poland and Hungary, who showed such dauntless courage against overwhelming odds, were in part provoked by these policies. Although the revolts were suppressed, they forced the Soviet leaders to make concessions. However, the Soviet Union strives to retain political control over the countries of Eastern Europe. The ban on the activities of the Socialist parties in these countries has continued, though their ideals and traditions have been kept alive in the minds and hearts of countless supporters.
 
The Communist world is no longer led from one centre of power. The Russian and Chinese leaders differ on essential issues of policy. Their divergent interests lead to a clash of ideology. This is the most important open breach so far in the structure of the Communist bloc.
 
Despite opposition from the Chinese Communists, the Soviet leaders abandoned the theory of an inevitable was between capitalism and Communism. As a consequence, they now claim to base their foreign policy on the principle of peaceful co-existence. In practice, however, this is only a change of tactics, and the struggle against the non-Communist world is continued in a different form. The Communists admit that the conflict is not diminished, but the emphasis merely shifted from the purely political to the economic, social and ideological fields.
 
Communism is not merely a social, political and economic system, but a set of doctrines, which its advocates claim to be infallible, and which they strive to extend all over the world.
 
Rivalries in the Communist sphere between different centres of Communist power and currents of opinion concerning Communism, make it manifest that Communist pretensions to totalitarian control over the individual, the nation and the development of society, are incompatible with the nature of man, the role of the nation and the evolution of human society.
 
For Communists, the end justifies the means, and there is a permanent contradiction between what they say and do.
 
Although the Communist countries claim to be peace-loving, the way in which they have used their military power has aggravated tension in the world. Although they encourage the non-aligned countries when they can exploit the attitude of the latter in their own favour, they condemn them when they cannot.
 
Although the Communist countries use the strongest anti-colonial language, they have enslaved scores of millions of people.
 
Misusing the word Socialism, their one-party dictatorships represent in fact tyranny, denying those freedoms of speech, religion, criticism, voluntary organisation and contacts with the outside world which are the essence of a democratic society.
 
 
SOCIALISM AND WORLD PEACE
 
The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government. As a first step towards it, they seek to strengthen the United Nations so that it may become more and more effective as an instrument for maintaining peace. Nations should settle their disputes peacefully, without resort to force. The Charter of the United Nations and the decisions based on it should be respected by all. Its constitution and structure must reflect the increasingly important role which the new countries play on the world scene. Membership of the United Nations must be made universal, so that all nations, including China, may be represented by their governments in power.
 
We deny that the world is forever destined to be polarised into blocs. Our constant endeavour is to put an end to the Cold War. East-West rivalry has largely been imposed upon an unwilling world by the Communist leaders. In Asia tensions have been aggravated by Chinese actions in North India and elsewhere, but also by some aspects of American policy. This rivalry is dangerous. It diverts energies from constructive tasks. To democratic Socialists co-existence is not enough. International co-operation is the need for our time.
 
The Socialist International stands for complete disarmament both in nuclear and conventional weapons, including all countries and subject to truly effective controls. We shall never give up the patient search for practical solutions to outstanding disputes between nations.
 
Democratic Socialists seek nothing but lasting peace, but they will firmly defend their liberties. They therefore reject the idea that democracies should disarm unilaterally. The power of defence in the event of attack must therefore be preserved as a deterrent to aggression.
 
The United Nations has often helped to resolve disputes between nations. However, it is, in its present form, not in the position to grant protection to a country which is the victim of aggression and to guarantee the security of every country. In these circumstances, each nation must accept responsibility for its own security. Some consider that a non-alignment foreign policy serves the security and the political stability in their own area in the best way. The International respects the desire of nations to be free to pursue their destiny without commitment in power relations of the world. Most of the Western democracies have joined to form the NATO Alliance. The democratic Socialist parties in the countries of the Alliance consider this a powerful bulwark of peace and declare their firm determination to uphold it.
 
While it is vital that the uncommitted countries should not fall under Communist control, no attempt should be made to draw them against their will into the Western alliance. Nor must the opposition to Communism be allowed to develop into support for Fascist, reactionary and feudal régimes. On the contrary, pressure should be continually maintained for the restoration of liberties and for social and economic reforms.
 
 
FUTURE PROSPECTS
 
In 1951, we declared in Frankfurt:
 
‘Socialists work for a world of peace and freedom, for a world in which the exploitation and enslavement of men by men and peoples by peoples is unknown, for a world in which the development of the individual personality is the basis for the fruitful development of mankind.’
 
These words sum up our faith.
 
We now stand at a great divide in history. Man, through his mastery over nature and the maturing of feeling for justice and equality, is struggling to shed the old moulds of work and thought.
 
We democratic Socialists proclaim our conviction that the ultimate aim of political activity is the fullest development of every human personality, that liberty and democratic self-government are precious rights which must not be surrendered; that every individual is entitled to equal status, consideration and opportunity; that discrimination on grounds of race, colour, nationality, creed or sex must be opposed; that the community must ensure that material resources are used for the common good rather than the enrichment of the few; above all, that freedom and equality and prosperity are not alternatives between which the people must choose but ideals which can be achieved and enjoyed together.
 
We are determined to build peace not by conquest but by understanding.
 
We repudiate alike the soulless tyranny of Communism and the wasteful injustice of capitalism.
 
To us, both freedom and equality are precious and essential to human happiness. They are the twin pillars upon which the ideal of human brotherhood rests.
 
In proclaiming once again our faith in that ideal, we know that we speak for humanity everywhere.
 
The Socialist International calls upon the people of the world, and youth in particular, to seize the opportunities that the efforts of earlier generations have at long last opened up for all, and to continue the struggle for a better world.
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #10 em: 2015-11-15 04:06:44 »
Várias conclusões:

1) É difícil achar tanta estupidez em um só texto. Sim, é tudo bonito e bom no socialismo, mas um sistema baseado em intenções -- como é o caso -- não funciona. Mais valia dizerem que a sua ideologia era a de toda a gente ser rica, bonita, com muita saúde e que tudo o resto é inaceitável. De resto, a ideia de que se pode abolir o capitalismo é ridícula pois o capitalismo é intrínseco ao sistema especialização-comércio-moeda, é uma evolução natural e previsível, daí não espantar que funcione bem, e que o seu abolir funcione muito pior. Em certa medida seria o mesmo que abolir a moeda e esperar que o comércio funcionasse bem ou melhor.

2) Os textos mostram o que importa, que é o facto de socialismo e social-democracia não serem o mesmo. De resto, nem faria sentido que fossem -- não existiriam 2 conceitos diferentes se fossem sinónimos, sem o indicarem.

3) Uma coisa curiosa é esta cena das Conferências e grandes papeladas. Já no "liberalismo" era a mesma coisa. Mas o liberalismo original era individualista, e o individualismo não é dado a comunicados centralizados a esclarecer as posições do mesmo, porque essas posições variam de pessoa para pessoa e não "obrigam" a ideologia. Portanto dá a ideia (como já parecia) que estes comunicados são gerados por uma mesma forma de pensar "colectivista".

4) O mesmo é aparente nas guerras internas (comunistas vs socialistas vs outros socialistas -- vide Internacional Socialista/Socialista Internacional). Como já disse, para o socialismo não chega atingir o socialismo: é preciso estar-se na elite do mesmo, porque só quem está na elite beneficia do tratamento diferenciado.
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Jsebastião

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 1258
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #11 em: 2015-11-15 10:40:37 »
Basicamente ele estabelece a diferença de que aqui falamos, correctamente.

Sim. O discurso é também dirigido ao PS da altura (o penúltimo parágrafo é incisivo), denunciando a diferença entre o que tinha na sigla e depois o que permitia na prática.

1 - Basicamente era social-democrata deste o início. 2 - Aliás, se não o fosse não teria combatido o PCP (excepto na medida em que para um verdadeiro socialista não interessa somente um país evoluir para o socialismo, mas também ocupar as cadeiras interessantes SE o país evoluir para o socialismo. Ser da ralé num país verdadeiramente socialista é horrível, bem pior que se ser pobre num país capitalista).

1 - Sim, olhando para as definições, essa é a conclusão a retirar. Paralelamente, é de notar que o termo "Socialismo"continua presente na nossa Constituição como um objectivo a atingir, embora a única vez que apareça enquanto termo seja mesmo no preâmbulo. Penso que sejam um left-over da Constituição original de 75, e que, nessa altura, fosse olhado mais como um termo dogmático de oposição à política da ditadura, tanto que todos os partidos de que foram eleitos deputados para a Constituinte professavam seguir a via socialista. Ou seja, para alguns partidos não importava tanto obedecer à risca ao princípio doutrinário do controlo estatal dos meios de produção, mas importava dizer que eram socialistas.

2 - Não considero que esta dedução seja assim tão directa ou que faça 100 % de sentido---porque talvez mais do que a defesa de uma ideologia (o socialismo, seja como ponto de chegada, seja como ponto intermédio para outra "coisa", posições do PS e do PCP, respectivamente), estava em aberto o perigo da queda para uma ditadura comunista (nas ruas era mesmo isso que estava a suceder), e foi concretamente contra uma tomada de poder pela força que o PS agiu, mesmo que a sua acepção prática do termo "socialismo" estivesse mais próxima da Social-democracia. Socialista, ou não (ou apenas um pouco), o PS queria o poder nas mãos da população, e o PCO queria o poder nas suas mãos.
« Última modificação: 2015-11-15 10:42:10 por Jsebastião »
«Despite the constant negative press covfefe,» - Donald

«Name one thing that can't be negotiated...» - Walter "Heisenberg" White---Breaking Bad

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #12 em: 2015-11-15 12:43:09 »
Basicamente ele estabelece a diferença de que aqui falamos, correctamente.

Sim. O discurso é também dirigido ao PS da altura (o penúltimo parágrafo é incisivo), denunciando a diferença entre o que tinha na sigla e depois o que permitia na prática.

1 - Basicamente era social-democrata deste o início. 2 - Aliás, se não o fosse não teria combatido o PCP (excepto na medida em que para um verdadeiro socialista não interessa somente um país evoluir para o socialismo, mas também ocupar as cadeiras interessantes SE o país evoluir para o socialismo. Ser da ralé num país verdadeiramente socialista é horrível, bem pior que se ser pobre num país capitalista).

1 - Sim, olhando para as definições, essa é a conclusão a retirar. Paralelamente, é de notar que o termo "Socialismo"continua presente na nossa Constituição como um objectivo a atingir, embora a única vez que apareça enquanto termo seja mesmo no preâmbulo. Penso que sejam um left-over da Constituição original de 75, e que, nessa altura, fosse olhado mais como um termo dogmático de oposição à política da ditadura, tanto que todos os partidos de que foram eleitos deputados para a Constituinte professavam seguir a via socialista. Ou seja, para alguns partidos não importava tanto obedecer à risca ao princípio doutrinário do controlo estatal dos meios de produção, mas importava dizer que eram socialistas.

2 - Não considero que esta dedução seja assim tão directa ou que faça 100 % de sentido---porque talvez mais do que a defesa de uma ideologia (o socialismo, seja como ponto de chegada, seja como ponto intermédio para outra "coisa", posições do PS e do PCP, respectivamente), estava em aberto o perigo da queda para uma ditadura comunista (nas ruas era mesmo isso que estava a suceder), e foi concretamente contra uma tomada de poder pela força que o PS agiu, mesmo que a sua acepção prática do termo "socialismo" estivesse mais próxima da Social-democracia. Socialista, ou não (ou apenas um pouco), o PS queria o poder nas mãos da população, e o PCO queria o poder nas suas mãos.

O PS era social-democrata, o PCP era socialista. Comunistas, só há de nome. Quando conseguem o que querem, criam sociedades socialistas como a Coreia do Sul. São socialistas, porque existem níveis de vida diferentes consoante a importância para a sociedade. Uma sociedade socialista mantém-se não só por causa da repressão, mas também porque a generalidade da sua elite tem razões para preferir a sua manutenção. Seria impossível manter a repressão de outra forma, de resto (pois a elite, e não um único líder, controla a repressão).
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #13 em: 2015-11-15 13:05:19 »
se socialismo quer dizer socialismo bolchevique (o socialismo do PCP) entao claro que sao muito diferentes
pensei que falavam do socialismo do PS

para perceber esse socialismo eh ler sobre o leninismo e saber contar os mortos
« Última modificação: 2015-11-15 13:14:24 por Camarada Neo-Liberal »

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #14 em: 2015-11-15 13:13:49 »
O camarada Lenin em 1923, depois de sofrer 3 AVCs e tendo já perdido a fala.

Seria o líder da URSS até 21 de Janeiro de 1924, dia em que morreu, de resto.

"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #15 em: 2015-11-15 13:15:14 »
estava em perfeitas condicoes para governar  :D
« Última modificação: 2015-11-15 13:26:54 por Camarada Neo-Liberal »

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #16 em: 2015-11-15 13:26:05 »
o PCP afirma-se como um partido marxista-leninista e ate parece que sao 2 coisas, mas nao...

o marxismo-leninismo eh o nome que eles dao ao leninismo, nao interessa agora porque


Jsebastião

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 1258
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #18 em: 2015-11-15 17:29:01 »
se socialismo quer dizer socialismo bolchevique (o socialismo do PCP) entao claro que sao muito diferentes
pensei que falavam do socialismo do PS


para perceber esse socialismo eh ler sobre o leninismo e saber contar os mortos

Não estavamos a falar de nenhuma corrente em particular, mas a debater precisamente as diferenças de perspectiva sobre o que significa o termo (já vem do outro tópico, onde a questão se colocou).

«Despite the constant negative press covfefe,» - Donald

«Name one thing that can't be negotiated...» - Walter "Heisenberg" White---Breaking Bad

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30961
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Social-democracia e Socialismo
« Responder #19 em: 2015-11-15 19:34:32 »
Um exemplo extremo de socialismo/colectivismo. Tudo pelo bem comum. As opções individuais dobram-se às necessidades do colectivo.

« Última modificação: 2015-11-15 19:35:34 por Incognitus »
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com