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

Leadified said:
o_O.Q said:

"Ah, good old "not real capitalism"."

with regards to what? be specific because honestly i'm lost now

we went from talking about hitler's socialist policies (which you have not addressed btw) to talking about... well honestly i'm lost now

 

"Using your logic, Mr. Dawkins. That means we're all socialists"

that what? americans are all socialists? what are you talking about? please state clearly what i've posted that means we're all socialists

 

" Capitalism is not an ideology, it's a mode of production."

when did i claim that its an ideology? this what i stated about capitalism

"capitalism on the other hand is about leaving people to run their business with minimal or no government intervention"

 

" Of course it means something, you don't align with someone that you completely disagree with lmao."

i'm going to assume this is about your laim that hitler was allied with right wingers

...ok so what about his many socialist policies?

which is more important in determining his stance? his actions and policies or who he claims to be allies with?

something i'm really curious about btw is are you in denial that him seizing various private businesses is a socialist measure?

 

"How about you put down your dictionary and read some socialist literature, maybe you'll learn a bit about what socialists believe."

i have... i've gone all the way back to the origins of the word "liberal" which no one talks about now lol and i'm sure you don't know... since if you did you wouldn't be advocating for this ideology but this a digression are you giving up on talking about hitler's socialist policies?

 

is this like some kind of cop out now or something? lol if so its amusing thank you 

You're hilarious, dude. I am greatly amused by your posts.

First go back and read my post, I already debunked your post: Yes and HOT DOGS are also made out of real dogs! Maybe you don't live in a first world country but surprise, we do all of the things you listed here.

YOU equated social security with socialism when you listed Hitler's "socialist policies", somehow you didn't realise that most of those policies are also implemented in practically ever developed country today. Whoops! I thought you were trying to debunk socialism here?

Your definition of capitalism is a fantasy, it doesn't work like that in the real world, and it never did.

Are you in denial about Hitler privatizing the economy?

Nice, which socialist literature did you read? Let us all know, I eagerly await to see.

 

"Maybe you don't live in a first world country but surprise, we do all of the things you listed here."

 

yeah i shouldn't have agreed with this entirely before that was my mistake, its just that these discussions have been so ridiculous that at some point it'd inevitable that i'd miss something anyway

 

using america as an example

in terms of healthcare have you missed the recent debates on that? (socialists have been advocating for socialised healthcare)

in terms of education i suppose you have a point there

in terms of putting everyone to work... that's not a policy america has (again socialists have been advocating for this)

gun control... again this not a policy (and again socialists have been advocating for this)

abortion... well yeah you have a point there

blaming all of the ills of society on the rich... well you know i'm sure you can see the pattern by now

 

"YOU equated social security with socialism when you listed Hitler's "socialist policies", somehow you didn't realise that most of those policies are also implemented in practically ever developed country today."

most countries have been going down a socialist path... and your point is? did i ever deny that? 


"Your definition of capitalism is a fantasy, it doesn't work like that in the real world, and it never did."

its ideal capitalism but yes it doesn't work like that because the social needs of the community exert some degree of control on how businesses operate and didn't say otherwise

as i said before what actually happens is that there is some compromise between both capitalism and socialism although many times thoughtout history things have tilted too far to the socialist end and resulted in situations like hitler's germany and soviet russia

 

"Are you in denial about Hitler privatizing the economy?"

how did hitler guarantee jobs for everyone in germany if the economy was privitised?

 

"Nice, which socialist literature did you read? Let us all know, I eagerly await to see."

i've studied the history of the jacobins and the illuminists all the way back to the knights templar... as i've said i'm sure i know more about the history of these ideas than you do but that's irrelevant



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
Leadified said:

You're hilarious, dude. I am greatly amused by your posts.

First go back and read my post, I already debunked your post: Yes and HOT DOGS are also made out of real dogs! Maybe you don't live in a first world country but surprise, we do all of the things you listed here.

YOU equated social security with socialism when you listed Hitler's "socialist policies", somehow you didn't realise that most of those policies are also implemented in practically ever developed country today. Whoops! I thought you were trying to debunk socialism here?

Your definition of capitalism is a fantasy, it doesn't work like that in the real world, and it never did.

Are you in denial about Hitler privatizing the economy?

Nice, which socialist literature did you read? Let us all know, I eagerly await to see.

 

"Maybe you don't live in a first world country but surprise, we do all of the things you listed here."

 

yeah i shouldn't have agreed with this entirely before that was my mistake, its just that these discussions have been so ridiculous that at some point it'd inevitable that i'd miss something anyway

 

using america as an example

in terms of healthcare have you missed the recent debates on that? (socialists have been advocating for socialised healthcare)

in terms of education i suppose you have a point there

in terms of putting everyone to work... that's not a policy america has (again socialists have been advocating for this)

gun control... again this not a policy (and again socialists have been advocating for this)

abortion... well yeah you have a point there

blaming all of the ills of society on the rich... well you know i'm sure you can see the pattern by now

 

"YOU equated social security with socialism when you listed Hitler's "socialist policies", somehow you didn't realise that most of those policies are also implemented in practically ever developed country today."

most countries have been going down a socialist path... and your point is? did i ever deny that? 


"Your definition of capitalism is a fantasy, it doesn't work like that in the real world, and it never did."

its ideal capitalism but yes it doesn't work like that because the social needs of the community exert some degree of control on how businesses operate and didn't say otherwise

as i said before what actually happens is that there is some compromise between both capitalism and socialism although many times thoughtout history things have tilted too far to the socialist end and resulted in situations like hitler's germany and soviet russia

 

"Are you in denial about Hitler privatizing the economy?"

how did hitler guarantee jobs for everyone in germany if the economy was privitised?

 

"Nice, which socialist literature did you read? Let us all know, I eagerly await to see."

i've studied the history of the jacobins and the illuminists all the way back to the knights templar... as i've said i'm sure i know more about the history of these ideas than you do but that's irrelevant

Which socialists advocate for gun control? Most don't as they see violent revolution as the only means of achieving revolution.

Also, I showed you that Germany didn't guarantee jobs for everyone, women and Jews were not guaranteed jobs.



VGPolyglot said:
o_O.Q said:

 

"Maybe you don't live in a first world country but surprise, we do all of the things you listed here."

 

yeah i shouldn't have agreed with this entirely before that was my mistake, its just that these discussions have been so ridiculous that at some point it'd inevitable that i'd miss something anyway

 

using america as an example

in terms of healthcare have you missed the recent debates on that? (socialists have been advocating for socialised healthcare)

in terms of education i suppose you have a point there

in terms of putting everyone to work... that's not a policy america has (again socialists have been advocating for this)

gun control... again this not a policy (and again socialists have been advocating for this)

abortion... well yeah you have a point there

blaming all of the ills of society on the rich... well you know i'm sure you can see the pattern by now

 

"YOU equated social security with socialism when you listed Hitler's "socialist policies", somehow you didn't realise that most of those policies are also implemented in practically ever developed country today."

most countries have been going down a socialist path... and your point is? did i ever deny that? 


"Your definition of capitalism is a fantasy, it doesn't work like that in the real world, and it never did."

its ideal capitalism but yes it doesn't work like that because the social needs of the community exert some degree of control on how businesses operate and didn't say otherwise

as i said before what actually happens is that there is some compromise between both capitalism and socialism although many times thoughtout history things have tilted too far to the socialist end and resulted in situations like hitler's germany and soviet russia

 

"Are you in denial about Hitler privatizing the economy?"

how did hitler guarantee jobs for everyone in germany if the economy was privitised?

 

"Nice, which socialist literature did you read? Let us all know, I eagerly await to see."

i've studied the history of the jacobins and the illuminists all the way back to the knights templar... as i've said i'm sure i know more about the history of these ideas than you do but that's irrelevant

Which socialists advocate for gun control? Most don't as they see violent revolution as the only means of achieving revolution.

Also, I showed you that Germany didn't guarantee jobs for everyone, women and Jews were not guaranteed jobs.

 

"When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. "

 

why were child care centers set up if women were not supposed to be working? can you explain that?

and yes of course the jews weren't given jobs because they were exterminated...

 

"Which socialists advocate for gun control? "

 

huh? so are you now going to claim its the right and conservatives advocating for gun control? if its not them then who?



o_O.Q said:

 

"Maybe you don't live in a first world country but surprise, we do all of the things you listed here."

 

yeah i shouldn't have agreed with this entirely before that was my mistake, its just that these discussions have been so ridiculous that at some point it'd inevitable that i'd miss something anyway

using america as an example

in terms of healthcare have you missed the recent debates on that? (socialists have been advocating for socialised healthcare)

in terms of education i suppose you have a point there

in terms of putting everyone to work... that's not a policy america has (again socialists have been advocating for this)

gun control... again this not a policy (and again socialists have been advocating for this)

abortion... well yeah you have a point there

blaming all of the ills of society on the rich... well you know i'm sure you can see the pattern by now

 

"YOU equated social security with socialism when you listed Hitler's "socialist policies", somehow you didn't realise that most of those policies are also implemented in practically ever developed country today."

most countries have been going down a socialist path... and your point is? did i ever deny that? 


"Your definition of capitalism is a fantasy, it doesn't work like that in the real world, and it never did."

its ideal capitalism but yes it doesn't work like that because the social needs of the community exert some degree of control on how businesses operate and didn't say otherwise

as i said before what actually happens is that there is some compromise between both capitalism and socialism although many times thoughtout history things have tilted too far to the socialist end and resulted in situations like hitler's germany and soviet russia

 

"Are you in denial about Hitler privatizing the economy?"

how did hitler guarantee jobs for everyone in germany if the economy was privitised?

 

"Nice, which socialist literature did you read? Let us all know, I eagerly await to see."

i've studied the history of the jacobins and the illuminists all the way back to the knights templar... as i've said i'm sure i know more about the history of these ideas than you do but that's irrelevant

Yeah, we have social services because of the increasing demands of everyday life. But how you do it, whether it's private or government, doesn't really matter as long as it goes through the capitalist mode of production. Social services are provided by taxes, which come from people's wages from their jobs. Modern society is defined by capital accumulation and commodity production. Social democrats, a group of people who would agree with your definitions of socialism, like their social services by the government but also like the capitalist mode of production. But I don't, it's a weak definition.

The Nazis liked this system and effectively wanted to transformed the country into one giant state corporation, it's your boss with some benefits as long as you remain loyal to the Nazi regime. The Soviet system was based around workplace participation and democracy but eroded away from the increasing authoritarianism from the Soviet central leadership, but had eliminated the capitalist mode of production. You see the difference?

Authoritarianism is currently rising in the West as wealth becomes more concentrated in a few group of people and the government begins to serve their interests over everyone else. If the government acts in a way they don't like, they'll just move somewhere else and take everything with them, which is why governments are reluctant to act on radical policies.

I mean I was expecting at least some John Locke or Adam Smith or Rousseau, this wasn't unexpected by still somehow disappointing.

Last edited by Leadified - on 07 February 2018

o_O.Q said:

"Which socialists advocate for gun control? "

huh? so are you now going to claim its the right and conservatives advocating for gun control? if its not them then who?

Radical left supports gun rights and arming workers to stand up to the state, liberals want to work within the system so they don't like guns.

Last edited by Leadified - on 07 February 2018

Around the Network
sc94597 said:

1. Works "at what?" is the question. It certainly doesn't work at being democratic, which was my point. Democracy means "people power", in a representative democracy the people don't have the power if their representatives don't represent them. The representatives have the power. With tactical voting it is not necessarily true that you'll lose support "if you do not represent your voters in the way they expected you to", because there is no alternative individual whom will in the choosing-mechanism (election.) There is also heavy filtering of whom can fill a particular position in representative democracy before you even get to vote, which means that your choice of representative is limited from the start. An actually representative democracy would involve many people appointing their representatives to represent them independently of any electoral process. Checks and balances are meant to limit majoritarian democracy and mob-rules. You might say that it is necessary, I'd agree, but I'd argue that it is only necessary because majoritarian democracy isn't all that democratic. Depriving a part of the demos of their autonomy does not make a democracy. 

2. It's liberal in the political sense of the word. Both modern social democracy and modern conservativism are now merged with branches of liberalism which emphasize different areas of liberal ideology. In 1788, conservatives were pro-monarchists and absolutist, and social democracy (whether in its socialist or liberal form) wasn't a thing yet. The Bill of Rights was the codification of liberal beliefs with respect to human rights. I don't see how it can get any more ideological than that. The idea that majoritarian democracy must be limited and there must be a separation of powers is itself ideological, based on classical liberal ideology.  Democracy (in the general sense) is not a system, it's a state of human social relationships where all people (not merely a subset; whether it be a minority or majority) have political power. What you mean when you are referring to democracy is liberal-democracy, the dominant form of government today, denoted by the institutionalization and standardization of liberal values through the state-mechanism. Liberal democracy is more democratic than the absolutism and feudalism which preceded it, but I wouldn't say it is all that democratic by the standards of a radical democrat or a deliberative democrat (both of which are alternative conceptions of democracy.) 

"Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. Also called western democracy, it is characterised by fair, free and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society and the equal protection of human rightscivil rightscivil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world."

3. So you're going to have to provide some evidence for this "evolutionary tendency." The fact that most of human (and hominid) history was denoted by small tribal/familial egalitarian groups kind of disputes this evolutionary determinism you're trying to imply. Of course, evolution is complex, and since humans have subjected ourselves to different environments and social contexts it's possible that we'd lean toward egalitarianism (and anarchy) in one context and hierarchy in another (which is what I've argued.) I don't agree that "it would require a massive dedication from the people to do so." Most of the changes in social organization throughout human history weren't done by design, but by social forces which no individual (or group of individuals) had total control of. Basically these forces acted spontaneously and unconsciously, as a sort of social evolution. If we were to speak of it in Dawkinian terms, the mechanism of social change was (and is) the meme, in the same way the mechanism of evolution is the gene.  

Organization =|= hierarchy, one can have organization without hierarchy. For example, the industrial revolution brought a level of organization unheard of under feudalism, but it was far less hierarchical (but still capitalism is very hierarchical) than feudalism. Fewer mandates and rules were imposed on the lower classes by the upper classes under capitalism than under feudalism, and this lead to much more productive forces. Socialism prescribes that the lower class of workers obtain total freedom in their workplace and organize according to principles which they choose free from the constraints of their bosses. The prediction is that productivity will increase considerably as people sort into those occupations, positions, work-hours, etc that they feel most suited and which incentive them to perform more efficient work.  

I agree, that we should look at the empirical data. And the data doesn't necessarily imply that humans are evolutionary predisposed toward hierarchical organization. If anything, the data shows that it requires active social-engineering by those whom gain short term advantages to cement said advantages in violent institutions. When these institutions are dismantled, so is the hierarchy dismantled and if it is replaced, it is replaced by a much weaker but more flexible hierarchy. 

1. But democracy is a form of social construction, it is not dependent on if the right choices are made or not. I think you are focusing to much on the result of a democratic system, not the system in itself. No country has a true democracy but rather variations of it. In Sweden we have a representative democracy where the representatives fulfil some of their promises and break others. It doesn´t take away my democratic right to vote and, if I am not happy with their work, to change my vote aswell. If I am not happy with the parties that run in the elections, I can form my own party and try to get support for my ideas. I don´t see how that is not a democratic system.

2. I´m not questioning ideological influences on laws that govern societies, what I questioned was how they are view as a protections against democracy? Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press are important parts in enabling everyone the possibility to vote.

3. No, it doesn´t since even those had their hierarchies, albeit on a smaller scale. Hierarchies denote position in a group, hether is is abobe, below or on the same level and can denote different assignments dependent on your abilities. It is true that early human groups and families where less segmented than society as we know it today, but that is likely because of the size of the population. This is a behaviour we share with most, if not all, primates. It is simply a survival mechanic that has proven to be very benefitial to us.



o_O.Q said:
VGPolyglot said:

Wait, if no one has more power over the others how would classes develop? And yes people are different, but do you know what classes are? In today's current society there are people belonging in the same class that are drastically different.

"Wait, if no one has more power over the others how would classes develop? "

are men for example stronger than women? 

continuing on from that are some men also stronger then other men?

what about bravery? what about cunning? what about psychopathy?

 

i mean you've interacted with other people right?

 

" but do you know what classes are?"

well i'm assuming that since we appear to be having a conversation about classes, that we both acknowledge what classes are but to clarify what are you calling a class?


"In today's current society there are people belonging in the same class that are drastically different."

in what ways?

Haven't you learn that Lenin, Trotsky and some others weren't socialists since they hated and killed one another? That is enough to say they don't adhere to similar ideology.... let's forget they all wanted more power than the other.



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."

o_O.Q said:
VGPolyglot said:

You know what? How about I put you on the defensive for once, since you obviously love to try to just shift what we're saying in attempt to denounce us rather than coming up with sources yourself. Show me sources that explain that socialism means "anything the government does", and that socialist movements actually adopted this position. Also, while we're at it, yes, they do get their wealth instantaneously, because it's often inherited, so it's not from their labour or effort as you're trying to insinuate.

", since you obviously love to try to just shift what we're saying in attempt to denounce us rather than coming up with sources yourself. Show me sources that explain that socialism means "anything the government does""

 

government definition: the governing body of a nation, state, or community.

socialism definition: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

can you give me anything other government used to regulate on a society wide basis?

 

" Also, while we're at it, yes, they do get their wealth instantaneously, because it's often inherited, so it's not from their labour or effort as you're trying to insinuate."

 

did their parents just wave a magic wand and pull the money out of the aether? or did they work for it and pass it down to their descendants?

shouldn't it be obvious that i'm not talking about inheritance? 

are you now advocating for the state to take away the money from rich people when they die? i'm not saying you are implying this i'm just curious and lets not say state lets say "community" because that's different somehow

Isn't it funny that the billions are inherited and yet their average age is 64... or that a lot of the billionaires from USA and China are new guys that made it from almost 0?



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."

o_O.Q said:
VGPolyglot said:

A business is a body that governs its community of workers, so if a body that governs a community counts as government, then every business is a government, and through your claim that government action is socialist, that means that every business is socialist. So, what is capitalism then if every business is socialist? People that work on their own or people that work without registering as a business?

 

" so if a body that governs a community counts as government"

we are talking on a state wide basis not down at the level of individual companies obviously... whenever you've heard the term government what were the  people referring to? i mean are you playing dumb right now?

 

" So, what is capitalism"

as i've said capitalism refers to private ownership of businesses 

if the government then chooses to seize control of a business that is socialism at work as i said to the other guy

Easier way to put it.

Capitalism is of free trade. So even though a company manage all its people and how the production is made, people are free to enter or leave, buy or not, obey interal rules, negotiate wages and price, etc.
Socialism and government are about mandatory because mainly it goes against the individual wishes of individuals.



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."

DonFerrari said:
o_O.Q said:

 

" so if a body that governs a community counts as government"

we are talking on a state wide basis not down at the level of individual companies obviously... whenever you've heard the term government what were the  people referring to? i mean are you playing dumb right now?

 

" So, what is capitalism"

as i've said capitalism refers to private ownership of businesses 

if the government then chooses to seize control of a business that is socialism at work as i said to the other guy

Easier way to put it.

Capitalism is of free trade. So even though a company manage all its people and how the production is made, people are free to enter or leave, buy or not, obey interal rules, negotiate wages and price, etc.
Socialism and government are about mandatory because mainly it goes against the individual wishes of individuals.

So, if it was voluntary why would we need laws and the courts for property rights, along with a police force and military to enforce them?