Controversial General Political Discussion

[Logiko]

Okay then we agree that it should crash and burn

I think the problem here is not really the feasibility of socialism, rather than the fact that you are a lot more scared by socialism than by capitalism.

I get your viewpoint, it seems you come from a place where bad stuff happened linked to the soviet collapse.. so it's normal to feel horrified by the mention of socialism as a system.. but when we look at the reality objectively, the balance between the risks of socialism and the risks of capitalism are not even comparable.

One can indeed end up in dictatorships.. true.. but the other slowly destroys everything in its path: genocides, exploitations, complete poverty, complete inequalities, imperialism, racism, patriarchy...

I get your fear of socialism.. but in the balance, capitalism is so much scarier. no system on earth is perfect and we can make mistakes... but we are living live the horror of a system we all know will be much more damaging in the long term than anything else...

It's not rational nor ethical to keep protecting capitalism.

I'm not sure how socialism takes away private ownership of businesses without authoritarianism or prevents individuals from doing so, without authoritarianism.

We must not confuse the dictatorship of the proleteriat > meaning giving the power back to the working class to prevent anyone from getting monopole of capitals

.. and authoritarianism (like Staline for ex). These are two different process.

But there is also the possibility of a bottom > up revolution. Instead of creating a socialist system from the top, we create it from the bottom through syndicalism, anarchic groups, communities, mutualization etc. It's a lot longer of course..

 

[Uncle Van]

I'm not sure how socialism takes away private ownership of businesses without authoritarianism or prevents individuals from doing so, without authoritarianism.

Socialism by definition is NOT a type of authoritarianism. Capitalism by definition is NOT a type of a authoritarianism. Both of them has lead to authoritarian regimes via circumstance. It is not like fascism which IS a type of authoritarianism by definition.

For Socialism, it is presented as a replacement for Capitalism, in response to the failures of Capitalism. You don't need to use authoritarianism to implement socialism; it is the fact that they almost always choose the method of overthrowing the government and eliminating political opposition. Removing the one in power always creates a power vacuum.

It doesn't matter what ideology or political system you have...if the method involves forcibly taking power, it will always be an authoritarian regime to deal with the instability regardless of ideology. That is the issue with socialism.

 

[TheAncientCenturion]

Socialism by definition is NOT a type of authoritarianism. Capitalism by definition is NOT a type of a authoritarianism. Both of them has lead to authoritarian regimes via circumstance. It is not like fascism which IS a type of authoritarianism by definition.

For Socialism, it is presented as a replacement for Capitalism, in response to the failures of Capitalism. You don't need to use authoritarianism to implement socialism; it is the fact that they almost always choose the method of overthrowing the government and eliminating political opposition. Removing the one in power always creates a power vacuum.

It doesn't matter what ideology or political system you have...if the method involves forcibly taking power, it will always be an authoritarian regime to deal with the instability regardless of ideology. That is the issue with socialism.

If we're living in a socialism society and I decide I want to have private ownership of a business, people engage positively with that and I do perform capitalism by freely selling to them and them paying me with something I find valuable, what would your socialist society do?

We do have communes in capitalism, you can practice socialism to a degree in Western societies. But a core tenant of socialism is the abolishment of private ownership and you'd need to use force to keep people from acting in that way.

 

[GalaxyLevelShanks]

I believe the lens you are looking at society with is completely biases here and perhaps I prevented you from understanding by talking about incentive. When I talk about incentive in this context, I'm talking about the one we have today. Being mostly money and social recognition. But in a socialist world, there will still be incentive, people won't work only for the fun of it (some could but not all), the incentive and social reward will simply take a new shape.

Also, it's important to understand that we still can work without incentive. It's the reason why artist do art in the first place. Not because it's art; art is no different from any other field of work. But because we put a different value on the field of art, that pushes us - socially - to seek this kind of work. This can be achieve with anything. That's one of the main thing that will change in a socialist society. A simple field work will be valued just as much as being an artist.

Why would someone spend 4 years of their life being mentally tortured to become an engineer if it’s valued the same as a garbage cleaner? I’m sorry but your socialist society doesn’t exist in this world. Most humans would not spend years of hard work to do a job that’s valued the same as a garbage cleaner and it doesn’t make sense either. You do more and you should get more. I’m not pro capitalism completely either because I believe it has a lot of issues that completely ignores the poor and just feeds the rich. But it’s still a lot more realistic.

Would you spend 4 years of your life pursuing an engineering degree if it didn’t have an extra incentive over doing any other normal job? Sorry but most people including me wouldn’t. I don’t wanna spend 4 years of my life for other people. It’s selfish but it’s fair.

I understand where you come from but at the end of the day all of this is gonna be possible only in your ideal “socialist society” which is against most human nature. It’s as realistic as abolishing the military and hoping we all get together. Yeah, a great goal on paper but it’s never gonna work. We have to function on the grounds of reality as well.

 

[Uncle Van]

If we're living in a socialism society and I decide I want to have private ownership of a business, people engage positively with that and I do perform capitalism by freely selling to them and them paying me with something I find valuable, what would your socialist society do?

We do have communes in capitalism, you can practice socialism to a degree in Western societies. But a core tenant of socialism is the abolishment of private ownership and you'd need to use force to keep people from acting in that way.

You speak as if I believe Socialism>capitalism?

How should I know what a Socialist society would do? What kind? Is it a dictatorship? Baby capitalism? A social democracy? A society with lots of political unrest? We are assuming a lot of things here, and its ignoring my point(again).

Socialism isn't intrinsic with authoritarianism. You are thinking of delibrate scenarios that would involve authoritarianism. Can easily do the same with capitalism when it is also not intrinsic with authoritarianism.

 

[GalaxyLevelShanks]

@Logiko btw I’m not a capitalist. I’m someone who’s volunteered for charity organisations for years and believe in a lot of socialist ideals. But the best we’re gonna get is a society that’s a mix of both.
[automerge]1767665226[/automerge]

Socialism isn't intrinsic with authoritarianism.

Why does it always boil down to authoritarianism then?

 

[TheAncientCenturion]

How should I know what a Socialist society would do?

How you envision a socialist society working. How does it approach me performing capitalist acts and owning my own means of production and eventually hiring employees?

. You are thinking of delibrate scenarios that would involve authoritarianism

I am thinking of a scenario in which I want to perform a freedom every good place in the world today allows.

You have socialist ran businesses from Oregon to Paris, they don't always do well but you have that choice.

How does your version of socialism handle TAC the Business Tycoon?

 

[Roo]

You speak as if I believe Socialism>capitalism?

How should I know what a Socialist society would do? What kind? Is it a dictatorship? Baby capitalism? A social democracy? A society with lots of political unrest? We are assuming a lot of things here, and its ignoring my point(again).

Socialism isn't intrinsic with authoritarianism. You are thinking of delibrate scenarios that would involve authoritarianism. Can easily do the same with capitalism when it is also not intrinsic with authoritarianism.

Again you claimed socialism unchecked is perfectly fine, yet you clearly ignore the enforcement mechanism in which it would exist which is a clear feature of socialism

TAC is just pointing out the obvious. I don’t think neither of us nor Nat thinks unchecked capitalism is good, yet you died on the “socialism on its own good” hill

 

[TheAncientCenturion]

TAC is just pointing out the obvious. I don’t think neither of us nor Nat thinks unchecked capitalism is good, yet you died on the “socialism on its own good” hill

Yeah, nobody wants a return to 1910s, 1890s or 1860s capitalism where children were sent into complex machines to grease small cogs. Just like how I know no socialist wants to go living in the 1920s, 1930s, 1950s or 1960s Soviet Union

It's just capitalism has gotten much better as time went on and socialism has led to the same predictable issues. Without capitalism, socialism doesn't work.

 

[Roo]

Yeah, nobody wants a return to 1910s, 1890s or 1860s capitalism where children were sent into complex machines to grease small cogs. Just like how I know no socialist wants to go living in the 1920s, 1930s, 1950s or 1960s Soviet Union

It's just capitalism has gotten much better as time went on and socialism has led to the same predictable issues. Without capitalism, socialism doesn't work.

Irrc he said something like “capitalism is an inherent exploitation of the working class”

like in Marxist analysis (which is not widely accepted btw) sure. But if you want to go that route you have to bite the bullet that socialism is inherently authoritarian and against the fundamental individual freedoms in service to the collective

 

[Logiko]

If we're living in a socialism society and I decide I want to have private ownership of a business, people engage positively with that and I do perform capitalism by freely selling to them and them paying me with something I find valuable, what would your socialist society do?

Capitalism. You wouldn't really be a fully socialist society. As long as you will own the means of productions, you will own a exploitative power over your employee, even with a small business. It can be seemless, but it will be there, even if everyone is happy.

By nature, the private ownership of the ressources of production creates an imbalance of power that will eventually end up as detrimental to the workers.

But a core tenant of socialism is the abolishment of private ownership and you'd need to use force to keep people from acting in that way.

Not necessarily. We could very well all become marxist tomorrow and organize society without force. In a parallel world, we did just that yesterday. The main problem with socialism is the opposition to socialism.

Why would someone spend 4 years of their life being mentally tortured to become an engineer if it’s valued the same as a garbage cleaner?

Do you think it's easy to be a farmer? And yet, people are still seeking these lives.. why?
The pay?
The social value?
Or the impression to do something that really matters?

People find value in their work outside of the pay. It's the reason artist exist and why doctor exist to. Not necessarily because it's easy, but because it's meaningfull.

Under capitalism, most jobs (even the most exciting ones) are rendered meaningless. So of course you would ask why someone would spent years to train to have the same recognition as a garbage cleaner in socialism.

But what you forget, or perhaps doesn't really understand yet, is that under socialism, being a garbage cleaner, would also gain more meaning.

In socialism, it's not about the competition of the values, it's about what YOU can do for the REST of the community and treasuring that feeling of serving something bigger than yourself. A social world.

You do more and you should get more.

What is "more" ?

Would you spend 4 years of your life pursuing an engineering degree if it didn’t have an extra incentive over doing any other normal job?

I don't know. Never tried it.

I don’t wanna spend 4 years of my life for other people. It’s selfish but it’s fair.

Ask yourself why.. perhaps you will find a bigger truth..

But the best we’re gonna get is a society that’s a mix of both.

Sadly, this is not enough. We already have a mix of both.

Why does it always boil down to authoritarianism then?

Because people oppose it with force.

Venezuela is one exemple.

which is not widely accepted btw

by capitalists and liberals* lol

socialism is inherently authoritarian

Is health care authoritarian to you?

 

[Uncle Van]

How you envision a socialist society working.

I don't and never advocated for it. Yet another makes an assumption on something I never said or implied.

Again you claimed socialism unchecked is perfectly fine, yet you clearly ignore the enforcement mechanism in which it would exist which is a clear feature of socialism

TAC is just pointing out the obvious. I don’t think neither of us nor Nat thinks unchecked capitalism is good, yet you died on the “socialism on its own good” hill

I never said socialism on its own is good, or that unchecked is perfectly fine.

I don't know how many times I gotta say Socialism isn't intrinsic with authoritarianism, that socialist policy is needed to keep capitalism in check, that capitalism works if it is regulated etc..

I'm focused on the policies and certain principles of socialism that are good that gets mixed with capitalism. You guys are obsessed wirh socialist societies and governments, and pretend that I claimed that it is all good.

To suffer under socialism, you need a dictator or shit government to implement it in the usual shitty ways. To suffer under capitalism, you just leave it alone which is why it needed regulation and government intervention in the first place.

 

[TheAncientCenturion]

Irrc he said something like “capitalism is an inherent exploitation of the working class”

like in Marxist analysis (which is not widely accepted btw) sure. But if you want to go that route you have to bite the bullet that socialism is inherently authoritarian and against the fundamental individual freedoms in service to the collective

And tbh there isn't going to be a system that isn't exploitative. We can't fine tune societal economics to every person, but to what helps the most people and gives the most upward mobility opportunities.

 

[GalaxyLevelShanks]

Capitalism. You wouldn't really be a fully socialist society. As long as you will own the means of productions, you will own a exploitative power over your employee, even with a small business. It can be seemless, but it will be there, even if everyone is happy.

By nature, the private ownership of the ressources of production creates an imbalance of power that will eventually end up as detrimental to the workers.



Not necessarily. We could very well all become marxist tomorrow and organize society without force. In a parallel world, we did just that yesterday. The main problem with socialism is the opposition to socialism.



Do you think it's easy to be a farmer? And yet, people are still seeking these lives.. why?
The pay?
The social value?
Or the impression to do something that really matters?

People find value in their work outside of the pay. It's the reason artist exist and why doctor exist to. Not necessarily because it's easy, but because it's meaningfull.

Under capitalism, most jobs (even the most exciting ones) are rendered meaningless. So of course you would ask why someone would spent years to train to have the same recognition as a garbage cleaner in socialism.

But what you forget, or perhaps doesn't really understand yet, is that under socialism, being a garbage cleaner, would also gain more meaning.

In socialism, it's not about the competition of the values, it's about what YOU can do for the REST of the community and treasuring that feeling of serving something bigger than yourself. A social world.



What is "more" ?



I don't know. Never tried it.



Ask yourself why.. perhaps you will find a bigger truth..



Sadly, this is not enough. We already have a mix of both.



Because people oppose it with force.

Venezuela is one exemple.

by capitalists and liberals* lol



Is health care authoritarian to you?

Do you think an engineer should be paid the same as a garbage cleaner? Don’t try to beat around the bush and answer the question.

 

[Roo]

Is health care authoritarian to you?

“Socialism is when government does stuff”

It’s such a dumb answer. Healthcare in like 99% of mixed economies allow for private ownership alongside a nation health system. That is not authoritarian and in fact capitalist

 

[TheAncientCenturion]

“Socialism is when government does stuff”

It’s such a dumb answer. Healthcare in like 99% of mixed economies allow for private ownership alongside a nation health system. That is not authoritarian and in fact capitalist

Our country is literally the #1 spender on Healthcare too, so the "most socialist" by that definition.

 

[Natalija]

 

[Roo]

To suffer under socialism, you need a dictator or shit government to implement it in the usual shitty ways.

The collective can decide to punish you for creating your own business?

 

[Uncle Van]

I don't understand how emphasizing the importance of socialist policy in a capitalist society is so controversial

 

[Roo]

I don't understand how emphasizing the importance of socialist policy in a capitalist society is so controversial

You didn’t emphasize, you wrote a post that clearly labels socialism as inherently good and capitalism as inherently bad in contrast