Socialism is total crap. But there are plenty of socialists which really shine when you ignore their economic ideas. I'm fond of:
George Orwell
Noam Chomsky
George Galloway
Malcolm X (? well he was an apologetic)
Who are yours?
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Emma Goldman
Gabriel Kolko by a long shot
'Triumph of Conservatism' has to be one of the best books written by a socialist
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Bertrand Russell was pretty okay.
Christopher Hitchens
Chomsky
I don't know how broad 'socialist' is being interpreted, but I'd throw out:
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Peter Kropotkin
Albert Einstein
Benjamin Tucker and his coterie
And there are great anti-state socialists around today, bleeding into the libertarian left.
Who are your favorite socialists?
You might as well have asked: what is your favorite poison?
mine's sodium fluoride. or marx. slow, super illogical, and kills me slowly cause while claiming to be in my interest.
no seriously, bertrand russell, orwell, and h.g. wells. ooooohhoohh the conspiracy. one world socialist empire eugenically cleansed; total and absolute science.
Eating Propaganda
What do you mean i don't care how your day was?!
My favorite socialist is the dead socialist.
I had no idea that book is written by a socialist. I've been picking through a few of its passages since it was noted in Rothbard's The Case Against the Fed when discussing lobbying efforts on behalf of the meatpacking industry in order to pass the Pure Food and Drug Act. Is the rest of the book filled with other interesting licensing/regulation history?
SouthernLiberty: 'Triumph of Conservatism' has to be one of the best books written by a socialist I had no idea that book is written by a socialist. I've been picking through a few of its passages since it was noted in Rothbard's The Case Against the Fed when discussing lobbying efforts on behalf of the meatpacking industry in order to pass the Pure Food and Drug Act. Is the rest of the book filled with other interesting licensing/regulation history?
I havent read it in a while but it does go into other types of regulations and critiques other industries as well. He goes into talking about monopoly and how the auto industry, steel industry and railroad industry maintained a monopoly. One of my favorite quotes from that books is this: It is not the existence of monopoly that caused the federal government to intervene in the economy but the lack of it...
The book of course has its little jabs here and there against laissez faire or capitalism.(remember the author is a socialist) but the book as a whole is a fantastic read.
There are many, but I don't really have a list handy.
Do anarcho-socialists count too?
If so Subcomandante Marcos by a fair margin.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: My favorite socialist is the dead socialist.
cruel, but true :D
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
In terms of hardcore activist types I concur. They drive me nuts all around. I can't think of a single case of a known socialist impressing me with aptitude in any subject.
Without thinking, I would of said no one. Then someone stated Einstein.
This brings up a point about Einstein, while incredibly intelligent, he was inherantly flawed with coming to conclusions, especially if they went against his personal beliefs.
I could understand why anyone would think, initially, socialism could work, but a little study and history on the matter would begin to cast doubts. I'm sure Einstein believed in socialism for the same reasons we all do at first.
There is no doubt that he was one of the greatest theoretical physicist and scientist of all time (the man did discover the equations that govern the universe), however, he relunctantly didn't believe in his own equations and all the new physics that was being discovered during his tenure at Princeton (namely statistical mechanics and quantum theory). He would of recieved the Nobel Prize at least several times more if he would of just accepted his own theories and that of his peers. Amongst a large percentage of the physics community, he's viewed as a dichotomy of tragedy and triumph. Even in the areas he knew most, he made tragic and disasterous conclusions. This was the primary motivator why in the latter half of his life his publications didn't bear groundbreaking research.
This seems to be a basic flaw that I run into with a lot of socialist, they don't accept cause and effect unless it's based on their agenda. Their conclusions are ultimately based on the well intentions of any economic or social policy they support- turning a blind eye to any negative consequences their socialist agenda bears forth. Maybe that's what some socialist are- people who don't apply and/or deduce logic across the spectrum of reason. The rest of the socialist... well their just power hungry.
there is no such thing as a socialist, there are only people who have confused language
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Also when looking at a sane liberterian, progressive, socialist, or leftie of any stripe I think the outlook is the same: cosmopolitan technocracy. I think one of the differences is that liberterian types look at the process as a sort of "thing in itself" and that is essentially what the market is - where lefties take such a society as an actual objective value that can be strived for, comrehended, and discussed - hence their confusion and idiocy.
We are more in the world of Heraclitus and perspectivism, a world of ever changing asserting uniqueness - where the lefties are confused by looking at the world of ideas (which is why they require subsidy to survive) and than modeling things off such things -be it "science", or anything else.
Definetly have to say Che Guevarra. He ,like myself, comes from a long line of Spanish Basque revolutionaries.
If it is an element of liberation for Latin America, I believe that it should have demonstrated that. Until now, I have not been aware of any such demonstration. The IMF performs an entirely different function: precisely that of ensuring that capital based outside of Latin America controls all of Latin America. An interview for Radio Rivadavia of Argentina (3 November 1959)
The interests of the IMF represent the big international interests that today seem to be established and concentrated in Wall Street. An interview for Radio Rivadavia of Argentina (3 November 1959)
--Che--Ccfbsdh
Che Guevara
Gandhi?
Charles Fourier. He was supposedly very good at imitating animal sounds.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael