"Democratic Socialism is not Socialism"

SecondClass · April 10, 2016, 05:48:51 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 10, 2016, 05:47:14 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 10, 2016, 04:45:15 PM
Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 04:42:28 PM
Like, Stalin literally put DemSocs, or the equivalent at the time, into Gulags.
Fixed...
Not true.

Stalin's policies were a logical extension of Lenin's. The first Red Terror literally happened under Lenin, after the first assassination attempt.

Stalin went corrupt with power, he wasn't an idealist like Lenin or Trotsky. He cared about himself, he didn't give a shit about Communism or the USSR.

More Than Mortal · April 10, 2016, 05:51:48 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 10, 2016, 05:48:51 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 10, 2016, 05:47:14 PM
Quote from: SecondClass on April 10, 2016, 04:45:15 PM
Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 04:42:28 PM
Like, Stalin literally put DemSocs, or the equivalent at the time, into Gulags.
Fixed...
Not true.

Stalin's policies were a logical extension of Lenin's. The first Red Terror literally happened under Lenin, after the first assassination attempt.
Stalin went corrupt with power, he wasn't an idealist like Lenin or Trotsky. He cared about himself, he didn't give a shit about Communism or the USSR.

While true, that doesn't actually have anything to do with what I said.

Ideological or self-absorbed. . . A tyrant's a tyrant.

SecondClass · April 10, 2016, 05:53:26 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 10, 2016, 05:51:48 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 10, 2016, 05:48:51 PM
Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 10, 2016, 05:47:14 PM
Quote from: SecondClass on April 10, 2016, 04:45:15 PM
Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 04:42:28 PM
Like, Stalin literally put DemSocs, or the equivalent at the time, into Gulags.
Fixed...
Not true.

Stalin's policies were a logical extension of Lenin's. The first Red Terror literally happened under Lenin, after the first assassination attempt.
Stalin went corrupt with power, he wasn't an idealist like Lenin or Trotsky. He cared about himself, he didn't give a shit about Communism or the USSR.
While true, that doesn't actually have anything to do with what I said.

Ideological or self-absorbed. . . A tyrant's a tyrant.

One is certainly more justifiable. And Lenin never did anything as evil as the Great Purge.

Meh T.Z.E · April 10, 2016, 05:54:21 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 10, 2016, 05:48:51 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 10, 2016, 05:47:14 PM
Quote from: SecondClass on April 10, 2016, 04:45:15 PM
Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 04:42:28 PM
Like, Stalin literally put DemSocs, or the equivalent at the time, into Gulags.
Fixed...
Not true.

Stalin's policies were a logical extension of Lenin's. The first Red Terror literally happened under Lenin, after the first assassination attempt.
Stalin went corrupt with power, he wasn't an idealist like Lenin or Trotsky. He cared about himself, he didn't give a shit about Communism or the USSR.

I wouldn't say that, I've read most of his private writings and he's actually quite fond of them. Practice, however, is debatable.

More Than Mortal · April 10, 2016, 05:55:55 PM

Stalin probably did believe in socialism; his involvement with the Bolsheviks early in life point to this.

But he was definitely a psychopath, which unsurprisingly probably corrupted how he decided to pursue his ideological goals.

More Than Mortal · April 10, 2016, 05:58:07 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 10, 2016, 05:53:26 PM

And Lenin never did anything as evil as the Great Purge.

Only in terms of magnitude.

He still ordered the Red Army to conduct arbitrary executions, the seizure of peasant property, the suppression of political enemies etc.

I mean, come on, Lenin was the one who shut down the Constituent Assembly when the Bolsheviks lost the election.

SecondClass · April 10, 2016, 06:02:07 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 10, 2016, 05:58:07 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 10, 2016, 05:53:26 PM
And Lenin never did anything as evil as the Great Purge.
Only in terms of magnitude.

He still ordered the Red Army to conduct arbitrary executions, the seizure of peasant property, the suppression of political enemies etc.

I mean, come on, Lenin was the one who shut down the Constituent Assembly when the Bolsheviks lost the election.

Lenin was no hero, I'm not trying to argue that. But it's like comparing Jefferson Davis to Hitler. One is kinda fucked up, the other is straight up evil.

More Than Mortal · April 10, 2016, 06:03:43 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 10, 2016, 06:02:07 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 10, 2016, 05:58:07 PM
Quote from: SecondClass on April 10, 2016, 05:53:26 PM
And Lenin never did anything as evil as the Great Purge.
Only in terms of magnitude.

He still ordered the Red Army to conduct arbitrary executions, the seizure of peasant property, the suppression of political enemies etc.

I mean, come on, Lenin was the one who shut down the Constituent Assembly when the Bolsheviks lost the election.
Lenin was no hero, I'm not trying to argue that. But it's like comparing Jefferson Davis to Hitler. One is kinda fucked up, the other is straight up evil.

Fair enough; my only point is that we shouldn't underestimate how easy Lenin effectively made it for Stalin to turn it up to 11.

Verbatim · April 10, 2016, 06:06:41 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 05:36:16 PM

you always forget to put this shit in relation to the economic system as a whole

Probably because it isn't relevant to the question of "is this a socialist policy."

A socialist policy is a socialist policy.

Quote

It can only be 'socialist' if it was made to benefit the workers and not to benefit the capitalist class

Says the fuck who?

The point is that it does benefit the working class. All of the things I mentioned help the working class.

Just because they happen to benefit the "capitalist class" as well, as an ulterior motive, doesn't make them inherently un-socialist--that's just an example of how capitalism corrupts everything. But they're still socialist by nature.

More Than Mortal · April 10, 2016, 06:09:35 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 10, 2016, 06:06:41 PM

A socialist policy is a socialist policy.

If that's the label you want to attach to such policies, that's not necessarily an issue. The problem is with the suggestion that enacting "socialist policies" makes an individual meaningfully socialist.

It doesn't. Welfare states and public ownership have existed since before socialism was even a properly-formed ideology, and to apply the label "socialist" to anybody whose end goal is ultimately not the total collective ownership of the economy is at best confusing, and at worst dishonest.

Meh T.Z.E · April 10, 2016, 06:41:34 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 10, 2016, 06:06:41 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 05:36:16 PM
you always forget to put this shit in relation to the economic system as a whole
Probably because it isn't relevant to the question of "is this a socialist policy."

A socialist policy is a socialist policy.
Quote
It can only be 'socialist' if it was made to benefit the workers and not to benefit the capitalist class
Says the fuck who?

The point is that it does benefit the working class. All of the things I mentioned help the working class.

Just because they happen to benefit the "capitalist class" as well, as an ulterior motive, doesn't make them inherently un-socialist--that's just an example of how capitalism corrupts everything. But they're still socialist by nature.

"A socialist policy is a socialist policy."

How about instead of r-re-repeating yourself, you actually give a formidable non-circular non-semantics-based argument that recognizes what I said and looks at it in relation to whatever you've been trying to say at whatever given time. Saying that it isn't relevant to the question of whether it's a socialist policy is completely ignorant and fails to recognize the view of actual socialists in what they say their economic system does and doesn't allow for and what outside of their economic system can be described as socialist. It is completely relevant, considering dialectical materialism, part of Marx's philosophy for socialism, explains material needs and how they are allocated as being a central tenet to the ideology, and that anything that benefits the capitalist class over the working class does not fit within socialism and cannot be a socialist whatever.

"Says the fuck who?"

Are you really this absent-minded to believe that Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Mao (even Stalin), or any other socialist/communist theorist wouldn't have pointed out instantly to anyone that socialism is meant to benefit the working class and the working class only, and that the bourgeoisie, or capitalist class, should only be brought lower and lower by 'socialist' policies, otherwise those policies don't fit within the range of socialism? This is obvious stuff. This is socialism 101. This is the entry-level stuff that people go into communist theory think and come out hating, this isn't even remotely arguable.

"socialist by nature"

Socialism, by nature, combats capitalist ideology and destroys the bourgeoisie. Capitalism, by nature, combats communist ideology and hinders the proletariat. Anything that benefits the capitalist class is not socialist, by nature. That's all there is to it.

Verbatim · April 10, 2016, 06:42:48 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 10, 2016, 05:37:50 PM

Socialism is about public ownership of the means of production; welfare is an irrelevancy.

If you want to be overly-reductionist, sure.

The whole point of allowing the working class to control the means of production is to dismantle social hierarchy, because anything with a hierarchical structure, by its nature, can and will beget the exploitation, the extortion, the abuse, and the outright controlling of those individuals who are on the lower rungs of society.

In vague terms, that is the problem that socialists wish to solve. The oppression of the working class has come only as a result of having higher-ups who are more concerned about profits than they are about a healthy society. That's the conjecture.

Socialism is about creating that healthy society, where everyone is accounted for and everyone is cared for--and it doesn't matter how much money you have in your bank. You can live comfortably without having to worry about money. (Whether or not you believe that's necessary or efficacious is another story.)

Social security stems from this sentiment, and that's why I'd consider it a socialist program.

Quote

Are there examples of publicly owned capital and infrastructure? Yes, but again, this is not socialism. Socialism, by definition, is about collectively controlling the entire economy.

Which, again, is why I've been very careful to use the word socialist instead of socialism. I don't think it's as black and white as you're making it.

More Than Mortal · April 10, 2016, 06:49:55 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 10, 2016, 06:42:48 PM

You can live comfortably without having to worry about money.

This is too wide a net to throw. People across the spectrum share this aim, from liberals to some of the most free-market capitalists. On this basis, proposals like basic income and NIT are socialist; when they clearly are not.

Verbatim · April 10, 2016, 06:53:54 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 06:41:34 PM

part of Marx's philosophy for socialism, explains material needs and how they are allocated as being a central tenet to the ideology, and that anything that benefits the capitalist class over the working class does not fit within socialism and cannot be a socialist whatever.

Right, and if Marx says it, then there's no debate, right? There couldn't possibly be any other interpretations of socialist theory.

It should be obvious that Marx wasn't perfect, and any rational person who wishes to take on Marxian ideology would be wise to take a revisionist approach to it. I'm sorry if that compromises your pristine definition of socialism too much, but not all socialists are fucking Marxists. Sorry.

Meh T.Z.E · April 10, 2016, 07:12:03 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 10, 2016, 06:53:54 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 06:41:34 PM
part of Marx's philosophy for socialism, explains material needs and how they are allocated as being a central tenet to the ideology, and that anything that benefits the capitalist class over the working class does not fit within socialism and cannot be a socialist whatever.
Right, and if Marx says it, then there's no debate, right? There couldn't possibly be any other interpretations of socialist theory.

It should be obvious that Marx wasn't perfect, and any rational person who wishes to take on Marxian ideology would be wise to take a revisionist approach to it. I'm sorry if that compromises your pristine definition of socialism too much, but not all socialists are fucking Marxists. Sorry.

Let me see if I can point out where I said that Marx was the end-all be-all to any argument about socialism. Or let's see where I used Marx not as an example, but as the literal god of all socialism and completely undebatable. I only used Marx as an example of relevancy, considering he is the creator of the most followed sect of socialist ideology and all socialist ideology after that came primarily based off of and respecting of Marx. Try and find another interpretation of socialist theory where it supports your argument, with this sect of socialism being respected by any other sect as legitimate and that particular view supporting your view legitimate.

Obviously not all socialists are 'fucking Marxists", I never said that all socialists are Marxists. Don't try to infer any implications in what I am saying, if you hadn't inferred, you might have come up with a semi-respectable argument. Which, by the way, have you really given any? Like, at all?

Maybe you should actually try and put up an argument for everything that I've been saying instead of just picking and choosing which parts of my argument you think you can make a rebuttal to. I see you quoting one part of my entire post and using it as my entire argument, like it's some sort of thesis statement that you can just undermine the premise to. I'm not making a singular argument here. Try and actually make a legitimate rebuttal for once.

Verbatim · April 10, 2016, 07:39:29 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 07:12:03 PM

Let me see if I can point out where I said that Marx was the end-all be-all to any argument about socialism.

Oh, so he's not?

Then there's no issue with having my own interpretation of socialism, or what counts as socialist policy. Thanks.

Quote

Try and find another interpretation of socialist theory where it supports your argument, with this sect of socialism being respected by any other sect as legitimate and that particular view supporting your view legitimate.

I don't need to--I have my own. In my opinion, socialism is not so black and white. It is possible for a society to be 90% capitalist and 10% socialist. It's not an ideal--it's certainly not what I want, but it's still a possibility, and we are, in fact, living the possibility as we speak.

You can argue that any policy that could be described as socialist is nullified if it benefits the bourgeoisie, but the way I look at it, as long as the working class is the primary beneficiary--hell, they don't even have to be the primary beneficiary--it remains socialist by nature, because everyone is being accounted for, indiscriminately.

Dismantling the upper class, quashing social hierarchy--these are just lofty ideals. These goals simply do not need to be achieved in order for your society to be described as "socialist" to a specific, if minor, degree.

Quote

I see you quoting one part of my entire post and using it as my entire argument

Because a lot of it is just meandering bullshit, stuff I feel as though I've already covered, or just something I can't be bothered to respond to at all. I feel like I've given everything substantial a response.

You're still blustering and spitting venom because I called you an idiot for having a shitty and flawed conception of socialism, and as a result, your posts are a bit of a chore to read through. You repeat yourself a lot, you beleaguer points ad nauseum, and your language is ambiguous and vague. So forgive my lack of patience for your shit.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · April 10, 2016, 07:50:09 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · April 10, 2016, 07:52:54 PM

Quote from: Yulius Kaisar on April 10, 2016, 07:50:09 PM

ITT: public works are somehow inherently Socialist now.

Uh, yeah. If everyone benefits/can benefit from it, and it's paid for by the government.

Super Irish · April 10, 2016, 08:21:13 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 10, 2016, 07:52:54 PM

Quote from: Yulius Kaisar on April 10, 2016, 07:50:09 PM
ITT: public works are somehow inherently Socialist now.
Uh, yeah. If everyone benefits/can benefit from it, and it's paid for by the government.

Huh, maybe the Nazi's weren't so fascist what with the Reichsautobahn. Good to hear they had some redeeming qualities about them.

Meh T.Z.E · April 10, 2016, 08:21:56 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 10, 2016, 07:39:29 PM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 07:12:03 PM
Let me see if I can point out where I said that Marx was the end-all be-all to any argument about socialism.
Oh, so he's not?

Then there's no issue with having my own interpretation of socialism, or what counts as socialist policy. Thanks.

Obviously Marx has made a lot of the central tenets of socialism, and many of these are unable to be debated as not socialism: such as the abolition of private property. Others, however, are obviously debatable, like his beliefs regarding the family in regards to socialism. There's a difference between what Marx believes about socialism and what he has defined as socialism. A lot of what he said is debatable, but some of it you can't argue without straying away from socialism into a new or separate economic theory.

You can't just decide on your own what's socialism to you: everything must be reconciled with previous theory. Picking and choosing between parts of theory, the central tenets, that is, cannot be done within the bounds of the theory.

Quote

just something I can't be bothered to respond to at all.

The rest, I don't care about because that's legitimate, but as soon as you believe that you just can't be bothered, your arguments just don't matter. It's like giving up.

Quote

You're still blustering and spitting venom because I called you an idiot for having a shitty and flawed conception of socialism, and as a result, your posts are a bit of a chore to read through. You repeat yourself a lot, you beleaguer points ad nauseum, and your language is ambiguous and vague. So forgive my lack of patience for your shit.

Why wouldn't I be 'blustering and spitting venom', it's only self-defence: someone calls you an idiot, you have the option to call em an idiot right back, so there's nothing wrong with it. However, if you're the first, you have absolutely no right to complain.

I repeat myself to get certain points through and sometimes add extra to it, as for the rest: I'm on my phone watching Fear the Walking Dead, so it only follows that parts of my post might be difficult to go back through and edit, but it's able to be read and understood no matter the trouble it might put you through to read it.

Meh T.Z.E · April 10, 2016, 08:27:59 PM

Quote from: PsygnI on April 10, 2016, 08:21:13 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 10, 2016, 07:52:54 PM
Quote from: Yulius Kaisar on April 10, 2016, 07:50:09 PM
ITT: public works are somehow inherently Socialist now.
Uh, yeah. If everyone benefits/can benefit from it, and it's paid for by the government.

Huh, maybe the Nazi's weren't so fascist what with the Reichsautobahn. Good to hear they had some redeeming qualities about them.

Don'tcha know? The Nazis said they were socialist, so they must have their own ideas about socialism and we should recognize them as legitimate.

Mmmmm Napalm · April 10, 2016, 09:05:02 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 10, 2016, 05:43:26 PM

As an aside, it's probably worth noting socialists have historically not had a great relationship with welfare. The modern welfare state is invariably the result of either old conservative notions of hierarchy (or, in the case of Bismarck, conservatives trying to cut off socialism's appeal) or liberals like Beveridge and Keynes seeking to extend some form of social justice into the government's function.

Mein main mann Bismarck. Fucking with socialists was one of his main pastimes.

Luciana · April 11, 2016, 04:17:06 AM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 04:42:28 PM

Like, Lenin and Stalin literally put DemSocs, or the equivalent at the time, into Gulags.

Stalin just put anyone in gulags who so much as looked at him funny

Meh T.Z.E · April 11, 2016, 05:51:37 AM

Quote from: Luciana on April 11, 2016, 04:17:06 AM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 04:42:28 PM
Like, Lenin and Stalin literally put DemSocs, or the equivalent at the time, into Gulags.
Stalin just put anyone in gulags who so much as looked at him funny

Now, I'm no serious tankie, but even I know that was just western propaganda.

challengerX · April 11, 2016, 09:34:58 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · April 11, 2016, 09:36:58 AM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 11, 2016, 05:51:37 AM

Now, I'm no serious tankie, but even I know that was just western propaganda.

You could end up in the gulag by being late for work, making jokes about government officials or simply stealing potatoes from a sovkhozy.

So it's a lot closer to the truth than any other piece of propaganda I've seen.

More Than Mortal · April 11, 2016, 09:46:24 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 10, 2016, 07:52:54 PM

Quote from: Yulius Kaisar on April 10, 2016, 07:50:09 PM
ITT: public works are somehow inherently Socialist now.
If everyone benefits/can benefit from it, and it's paid for by the government.

What?

Now you're definitely throwing the net way, way too wide. Under this, market contractors performing infrastructure projects on the government's budget are performing some kind of socialist activity. . . Which is ridiculous on the face of it. When your definition of socialism includes economic activity performed by private market actors, your definition is too inclusive.

Verbatim · April 11, 2016, 10:05:26 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 11, 2016, 09:46:24 AM

Now you're definitely throwing the net way, way too wide. Under this, market contractors performing infrastructure projects on the government's budget are performing some kind of socialist activity. . .

But does everyone benefit from that?

Not just "benefits some; does not affect others." I mean literally benefiting everyone in the country, if not the world.

I don't use these words for the fuck of it, Meta. All of the things I cited as examples of socialism in America benefit everyone in the country. Roads, police, social security, vaccines--everyone benefits from this. Not everyone benefits from the activities of market contractors.

Verbatim · April 11, 2016, 10:09:21 AM

Quote from: Mehtta on April 10, 2016, 08:21:56 PM

There's a difference between what Marx believes about socialism and what he has defined as socialism. A lot of what he said is debatable, but some of it you can't argue without straying away from socialism into a new or separate economic theory.

Like democratic socialism.

Quote

Why wouldn't I be 'blustering and spitting venom', it's only self-defence: someone calls you an idiot, you have the option to call em an idiot right back, so there's nothing wrong with it. However, if you're the first, you have absolutely no right to complain.

Who says I'm complaining? I'm just explaining to you why your posts are such a chore to read through, because you're trying so hard to impotently puff your chest out at me. You're boring.

More Than Mortal · April 11, 2016, 10:12:24 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 11, 2016, 10:05:26 AM

Not everyone benefits from the activities of market contractors.

What? They clearly can (which is a condition you imposed) in the case of market contracted infrastructure projects. Come on, that was the entire point of the Obama stimulus.

Verbatim, who do you think actually builds the roads? Companies contracted by the government, or workers directly employed by the government?