By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - What is "socialism"? - An attempt to clear up myths/misconceptions

DonFerrari on 30 January 2018
Pyro as Bill said:
'Capitalists' acquire capital by freely exchanging their time/labour/knowledge and consuming less than they produce. Socialists should give it a try instead of complaining about the free trade that has given them their billionaire lifestyles (compared to 1918).

They do that with their money... the socialism they envision is about the other people money... since we do have a lot of millionaires and billionaires socialists.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
donathos on 30 January 2018
sc94597 said:
donathos said:

Socialism (in whatever guise) requires people to act, not out of their own individual interest, but for the good of the state, or society, or the community, etc. 

This is actually a false premise. Many socialists are/ were strong individualists. Egoist communism, based on the theories of Max Stirner is a thing. 

Usually the argument is that social cooperation benefits the individual, as there are many interests which overlap. 

In so much that interests don't overlap nobody should be forced into a social institution or contract. 

I'm responding to such "socialism" as I've read about/witnessed. The ideas that have actually played some role historically. If there are other theoretical types floating around -- and it is a wide world, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear it -- I don't think they are as relevant.

Regardless, I stand by what I'd written. If you mean to argue that "social cooperation benefits the individual," and that individuals should be left free (e.g. have "liberty") to pursue their own interests -- then that's a fine argument for charity or socially responsible action within a system that is yet fundamentally capitalist. (And for the record, as a capitalist, I completely agree that much social cooperation benefits the individual.) There's nothing there I would disagree with, except I would see no reason to describe it as "socialism."

But were we to adopt such a label, the real question I'm interested in is: what happens when the government believes that some measure of social cooperation stands to benefit a given individual... but that individual disagrees, and does not wish to live his life in the prescribed manner?

I have no doubt that the Soviet planning authorities thought that collectivization of the farms would lead to increased yields and generally more food for everyone; but not only were they incorrect in the end, they also had to deal with those Soviet farmers who did not buy into their plan, and who did not wish to relinquish their grain. They dealt with those folks harshly, which I think is typical of socialist arrangements, because if you're not willing to enforce your idea of socialism (whether you call it "egoist" or not), even against the wishes of other individuals, then you will default back to something like a market economy/capitalism. I think socialism and liberty are, for this reason, fundamentally incompatible.



Cubedramirez on 30 January 2018
Leadified said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes it is nonsense... but at least here in Brazil when socialists are defending the model and we present all the failures they will point the Nordic countries as examples of socialism that went right, ignoring everything that shows it aint socialist.

Social democrats will probably only consider criticism from the left since it's less inherently hostile than right wing ideologies. But social democrats have also wiped out the left in most countries and they themselves adopted the title of "socialist" so they've set themselves up in a trap.

The irony is that like any other capitalist nation, a social democracy still needs to rely on the same sources of cheap labour from the third world and material, which also often time comes from the third world. While the people of Sweden may live well, their nation is still built upon the backs of people who will never enjoy it and thus the whole world cannot hope to live as well as those do in Sweden. You don't have a choice whether or not you want to participate in the exploitation because you need to pay taxes, you need clothes, you need technology and so on. 

I consider the socdems to be lucky for now since they've been blessed with stable societies and resources such as oil to fuel their welfare states but times are changing and they have no answers.

Cubedramirez said:

That's assuming there isn't a salt famine going on where said true red socialist lives. Which come to think of it if they actually are true socialist at heart chances are they don't live in a socialist country and are enjoying the fruits and labors of the capitalist system they live in which has no salt famine to speak of. 

And  on the initial post, bingo. I do find it laughable that people cannot see the irony of their position when one of their key points is that it hasn't been implemented correctly, ever, after countless attempts. 

It's almost like you need a system that encourages innovation and achievement... hmm...

Nice, whatever helps you sleep at night.

A very nice California King plush top. 

Something socialist societies would have never developed due to the large use of resources.  It's glorious.

Well it is when none of my kids decide to jumping in at night.

Last edited by Cubedramirez - on 30 January 2018

Gamer147 on 30 January 2018

Socialism is bad. They take money from hard working companies. If you open a successful business you would not want to give most of your profit to government.



ArchangelMadzz on 30 January 2018
DonFerrari said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

Thanks.

Yeah we have that here in the UK too which I'm very happy about. 

I hate the idea that someone gets a serious illness and they have to worry about debt from healthcare bills. 

But do you like the idea that the government will take money from everyone to give it to possible ones that didn't make their own plans, savings, etc?

You're acting like somehow without healthcare taxes would be less?

The money is being taken regardless, if someone is paying taxes and they get a serious illness, or get into a car crash going to work, why shouldn't their own taxes be used? It's their money.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Around the Network
DonFerrari on 30 January 2018
Cubedramirez said:
Leadified said:

Social democrats will probably only consider criticism from the left since it's less inherently hostile than right wing ideologies. But social democrats have also wiped out the left in most countries and they themselves adopted the title of "socialist" so they've set themselves up in a trap.

The irony is that like any other capitalist nation, a social democracy still needs to rely on the same sources of cheap labour from the third world and material, which also often time comes from the third world. While the people of Sweden may live well, their nation is still built upon the backs of people who will never enjoy it and thus the whole world cannot hope to live as well as those do in Sweden. You don't have a choice whether or not you want to participate in the exploitation because you need to pay taxes, you need clothes, you need technology and so on. 

I consider the socdems to be lucky for now since they've been blessed with stable societies and resources such as oil to fuel their welfare states but times are changing and they have no answers.

Nice, whatever helps you sleep at night.

A very nice California King plush top. 

Something socialist societies would have never developed due to the large use of resources.  It's glorious.

Well it is when none of my kids decide to jumping in at night.

As said by a very wise man "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert,

in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand

Gamer147 said:
Socialism is bad. They take money from hard working companies. If you open a successful business you would not want to give most of your profit to government.

And the government is even worse when taking hard earned money through taxes.

ArchangelMadzz said:
DonFerrari said:

But do you like the idea that the government will take money from everyone to give it to possible ones that didn't make their own plans, savings, etc?

You're acting like somehow without healthcare taxes would be less?

The money is being taken regardless, if someone is paying taxes and they get a serious illness, or get into a car crash going to work, why shouldn't their own taxes be used? It's their money.

I'm acting like if government were smaller the taxes would be less.

The point is the government shouldn't be taking your money to offer you a service unless you request the service and accept the costs, just like you do to any private corporation.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

ArchangelMadzz on 30 January 2018
DonFerrari said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

You're acting like somehow without healthcare taxes would be less?

The money is being taken regardless, if someone is paying taxes and they get a serious illness, or get into a car crash going to work, why shouldn't their own taxes be used? It's their money.

I'm acting like if government were smaller the taxes would be less.

The point is the government shouldn't be taking your money to offer you a service unless you request the service and accept the costs, just like you do to any private corporation.

The government isn't a private corporation.

The government has responsibility for the well-being of it's citizens. Unless you want to pay for the Police, fire service and the army, I don't see how that's different to their responsibility to provide a health service as part of that well-being.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

VGPolyglot on 30 January 2018
DonFerrari said:
VGPolyglot said:

I'm giving you mass statistics while you're just giving anecdotal answers. Now, as to why people don't buy $500 cars, maybe it's because there aren't $500 cars for people to buy?

https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/auto-industry/used-car-prices-reached-all-time-high-in-2016.html

And again with your survivorship bias. Here's a good picture for you:

Some hard number that wasn't hard to find https://www.ebay.com/itm/2004-Saturn-Vue/323034555322?hash=item4b365c23ba:g:GCoAAOSws0JaZh5C&vxp=mtr

You call it survivor Bias, I call it depending on oneself instead of others. Lottery is random, effort isn't. But you may keep your world view if you so much prefer, while I'll keep looking at people that prefer short term gratification and when you look deeper have very expensive luxury but doesn't cover their basics because they will wait the government to do it.

Yeah, I could also show examples on Pornhub of a guy having sex with 20 girls, that doesn't mean that everyone will be able to re-create that scenario. There are only a finite number of cars, if $19,000 is the average then the number of $500 cars would be very small in proportion to the number of cars out there. And capitalism requires reliance on others, the owners extract the surplus from the labour of their worker.



sc94597 on 30 January 2018
donathos said:
sc94597 said:

This is actually a false premise. Many socialists are/ were strong individualists. Egoist communism, based on the theories of Max Stirner is a thing. 

Usually the argument is that social cooperation benefits the individual, as there are many interests which overlap. 

In so much that interests don't overlap nobody should be forced into a social institution or contract. 

1. I'm responding to such "socialism" as I've read about/witnessed. The ideas that have actually played some role historically. If there are other theoretical types floating around -- and it is a wide world, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear it -- I don't think they are as relevant.

2. Regardless, I stand by what I'd written. If you mean to argue that "social cooperation benefits the individual," and that individuals should be left free (e.g. have "liberty") to pursue their own interests -- then that's a fine argument for charity or socially responsible action within a system that is yet fundamentally capitalist. (And for the record, as a capitalist, I completely agree that much social cooperation benefits the individual.) There's nothing there I would disagree with, except I would see no reason to describe it as "socialism."

3. But were we to adopt such a label, the real question I'm interested in is: what happens when the government believes that some measure of social cooperation stands to benefit a given individual... but that individual disagrees, and does not wish to live his life in the prescribed manner?

4. I have no doubt that the Soviet planning authorities thought that collectivization of the farms would lead to increased yields and generally more food for everyone; but not only were they incorrect in the end, they also had to deal with those Soviet farmers who did not buy into their plan, and who did not wish to relinquish their grain. They dealt with those folks harshly, which I think is typical of socialist arrangements, because if you're not willing to enforce your idea of socialism (whether you call it "egoist" or not), even against the wishes of other individuals, then you will default back to something like a market economy/capitalism. I think socialism and liberty are, for this reason, fundamentally incompatible.

1. Why do that when the socialists in this thread aren't talking about state socialism? We've made it clear that we support libertarian-socialism, which is thoroughly individual oriented, even more so than liberalism I'd assert. 

2. Rather than charity or "socially responsible action" I'd talk about mutual aid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(organization_theory)

This is where people of equal social status support one another in horizontal and voluntary social organizations according to the principles of reciprocity and mutuality. 

3. Like capitalism? Yes, capitalism is imposed on us by the government. Without the state capitalism cannot exist. 

4. Markets =|= capitalism. A market that doesn't have private property*isn't capitalist. A market with no wage labor isn't capitalist. So on and so forth. Some socialists are supportive or neutral on markets. Furthermore, it needs to be made clear that market-society isn't necessarily "natural." In fact, there isn't really anything natural to all humans. Gift economies, markets, barter, etc all have come to exist as means of gifting and trading goods. None of them are "natural" and all will continue to exist in the absence of the state. 

*Not all alternatives to private property entail collectivization. Property can remain individualized without being private.

See: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct

As I've recommended to others, I recommend reading State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far they Agree and Where they Differ.  Or at least the poem at the end. 

There are two Socialisms.

One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.

One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.

One is metaphysical, the other positive.

One is dogmatic, the other scientific.

One is emotional, the other reflective.

One is destructive, the other constructive.

Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.

One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.

The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed worse than others.

The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.

One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.

One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.

Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.

The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.

The first has faith in a cataclysm.

The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.

Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.

One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.

The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.

The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.

The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.

The one wishes to expropriate everybody.

The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.

The first says: ‘Do as the government wishes.’

The second says: ‘Do as you wish yourself.’

The former threatens with despotism.

The latter promises liberty.

The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.

The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.

One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world.

The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.

The first has confidence in social war.

The other believes only in the works of peace.

One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.

The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.

One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.

The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.

The first will fail; the other will succeed.

Both desire equality.(1 ¶ 75)

One by lowering heads that are too high.

The other by raising heads that are too low.

One sees equality under a common yoke.

The other will secure equality in complete liberty.

One is intolerant, the other tolerant.

One frightens, the other reassures.

The first wishes to instruct everybody.

The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.

The first wishes to support everybody.

The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.

One says:

The land to the State.

The mine to the State.

The tool to the State.

The product to the State.

The other says:

The land to the cultivator.

The mine to the miner.

The tool to the laborer.

The product to the producer.

There are only these two Socialisms.

One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.

One is already the past; the other is the future.

One will give place to the other.

Today each of us must choose for the one or the other of these two Socialisms, or else confess that he is not a Socialist.



Cubedramirez on 30 January 2018

The purpose for government is to repeal illegitimate force against the nation and citizens. They are supposed to accomplish this through the legal system and our national defense forces.

Socialism robs the very spirit of the very citizens any society needs to thrive. Socialist believe everyone to be equal; utter nonsense. Unique men and women drive society, not the masses who are afraid to take risk or follow through with what is required to achieve success. They create a society where the only true motivation is held in political power.

Capitalism is the only true system that embraces the inner spirit of human beings and motivates otherwise lower tier people to achieve greatness. Let it be known the human experience has grown and achieved more in the time since the implementation of capitalism than any other point in our existence. And the people fighting against it at doing so with the tools provided by products and services that would never have existed with the animal spirits driving men and women to achieve personal gain; the foundation of capitalism.