Why are socialism and communism equated with one-another in the US?

[aelf]

I like how you answered yourself before you gave me a chance, like this were a televised debate. Seeing as how you've already made up your mind that anybody who disagrees with you doesn't know what they're talking about, should I even bother? Feel free to stay trapped in your intellectual pothole if you'd like.

But, wait, don't try to avoid the question. Do you really know what you're talking about? If I'm right that you don't, then whatever you say doesn't matter since I'm not the one who is trapped in an "intellectual pothole".

Ah, ad hominem fallacy. If you want to disprove the notion that Marx was an antisemite, then do so by proving Marx was probably not an antisemite, not subtly implying that everybody who disagrees with you is not only ignorant but also bigoted.

Nope. I'm not concerned about whether he's an antisemite. Maybe he was, and that in no way invalidates what he said. Your suggestion that he's necessarily wrong because he's an antisemite is ad hominem fallacy itself.

I'm saying you're bigoted because of your obstinate and irrational animosity towards Marxist ideology. You are convinced of your own opinion despite knowing little to nothing about the ideology itself and its varied and non-monolithic characteristic. Evidently, you don't even know the salient critiques of the various movements. Heck, you can't even seem to tell me anything about the main points of Marxist critique, things like commodity fetishism. Rather, when you're even concerned with criticising the ideology itself, you're merely parroting stuff that are bandied about on the internet.

The accusations you've made thus far are hence wonderfully ironic. And I don't think there's any argument that you need to make as it is. Study a field (and Marxism is widely studied and critiqued enough to be one) before your views on it can be taken seriously.

 

[LightSpectra]

But, wait, don't try to avoid the question. Do you really know what you're talking about? If I'm right that you don't, then whatever you say doesn't matter since I'm not the one who is trapped in an "intellectual pothole".

Sorry, I have no interest in doing a quiz show on the Internet to demonstrate to a person knee-deep in logical fallacies that I in fact understand the terminology of a man whose almost entire ideology has been repeatedly discredited. Not that it matters because you've already decided I don't know what I'm talking about before investigating if I do. If you want to believe that anybody who disagrees with your opinion is just less well-read or less intelligent than you are, then go right ahead, I encourage it for the lulz.

Nope. I'm not concerned about whether he's an antisemite. Maybe he was, and that in no way invalidates what he said. Your suggestion that he's necessarily wrong because he's an antisemite is ad hominem fallacy itself.

Good point if that were my actual assertion. I'm merely pointing out that Marx was a man who was confined to his times. Following his opinions on sociology or economics are just as silly as believing in astronomy according to Ptolemy or biology according to Aristotle. What does this have to do with neo-Marxism or subsets of Marxism? Not that much, actually. Only insofar that their premises are shared with Marx's.

I'm saying you're bigoted because of your obstinate and irrational animosity towards Marxist ideology.

The definition of bigotry is intolerance towards beliefs differing from your own. I am in fact intolerant of discredited socio-economic systems, so you got me there. If that's morally equal to being intolerant of Jews because they're greedy bastards that perpetuate a socio-economic system that you don't like, then you got me there as well.

Evidently, you don't even know the salient critiques of the various movements.

You draw this from what, exactly?

Heck, you can't even seem to tell me anything about the main points of Marxist critique, things like commodity fetishism.

I'm unwilling to feed your narcissism by pretending that my opinion's validity is based on whether or not it's in conformity with your view of my intelligence, if that's what you meant.

Rather, when you're even concerned with criticising the ideology itself, you're merely parroting stuff that are bandied about on the internet.

My criticisms of Marxism are that (a) many of its premises have been refuted, (b) many of its predictions did not come true, and (c) many of its effects have been entirely negative. I'm being woefully vague here because I'm waiting to be drawn into one of these points before I be more specific, which is why I'm rather confused at how you can say that I'm "merely parroting stuff." Merely parroting what, exactly? I haven't made any points yet.

 

[aelf]

Sorry, I have no interest in doing a quiz show on the Internet to demonstrate to a person knee-deep in logical fallacies

Internet keyboard warrior stuff.

that I in fact understand the terminology of a man whose almost entire ideology has been repeatedly discredited.

Citation needed.

Not that it matters because you've already decided I don't know what I'm talking about before investigating if I do.

I'm waiting.

If you want to believe that anybody who disagrees with your opinion is just less well-read or less intelligent than you are, then go right ahead, I encourage it for the lulz.

I said nothing about your intelligence, merely noting your ignorance on the subject. I'm still waiting for evidence that points to the contrary.

Good point if that were my actual assertion. I'm merely pointing out that Marx was a man who was confined to his times. Following his opinions on sociology or economics are just as silly as believing in astronomy according to Ptolemy or biology according to Aristotle.

Doesn't follow.

What does this have to do with neo-Marxism or subsets of Marxism? Not that much, actually. Only insofar that their premises are shared with Marx's.

You have done nothing to show that the premises are wrong. Not even pointed out what they are.

The definition of bigotry is intolerance towards beliefs differing from your own. I am in fact intolerant of discredited socio-economic systems, so you got me there.

Citation needed.

You draw this from what, exactly?

Your conspicuous silence on things that are actually pertinent.

I'm unwilling to feed your narcissism by pretending that my opinion's validity is based on whether or not it's in conformity with your view of my intelligence, if that's what you meant.

I see you're readily conforming to your own accusations.

My criticisms of Marxism are that (a) many of its premises have been refuted,

Like?

(b) many of its predictions did not come true,

That only matters if you value an ideology chiefly for its predictive capabilities.

and (c) many of its effects have been entirely negative.

Effects of what exactly?

I'm being woefully vague here because I'm waiting to be drawn into one of these points before I be more specific, which is why I'm rather confused at how you can say that I'm "merely parroting stuff." Merely parroting what, exactly? I haven't made any points yet.

The burden of proof doesn't lie on me here, pal.

 

[Agent327]

Citation needed.

Not really. In what century do you live exactly? No economist in this day and age takes Marx's Capital serious.

Doesn't follow.

Actually, it does - to a point, as Marx's economic theories were never even part of the mainstream of economic theories in the first place.

You have done nothing to show that the premises are wrong. Not even pointed out what they are.

See above.

The burden of proof doesn't lie on me here, pal.

Not really. (See above.)

And you do seem more interested in ad hominem attacks than in the ideology you're supposedly defending. Which differs little from the practices of the late Communists regimes and marxists in general towards people not in agreement with their doctrines, pal.

 

[aelf]

Not really. In what century do you live exactly? No economist in this day and age takes Marx's Capital serious.

What do you mean seriously? I know quite a few economists who take it seriously, even if they disagree with some of the stuff it says. Have you never had any experience with Marxism in academics?

Actually, it does - to a point, as Marx's economic theories were never even part of the mainstream of economic theories in the first place.

What do you mean by economic theories? Do you mean the labour theory of value? That was part of mainstream economics. Marx's contribution is the critique of political economy. He didn't invent a new theory on economics.

See above.

What is it? I don't even see any real mention of the premises you're criticising here.

Moreover, the fact that economists go on happily about economics as if Marx's critique doesn't exist doesn't seem to disprove anything.

Not really. (See above.)

Err, I'm not the one who began making strong assertions about something. One would think that someone who comes to a place and makes assertions about something ought to back up what he's saying first.

And you do seem more interested in ad hominem attacks than in the ideology you're supposedly defending. Which differs little from the practices of the late Communists regimes and marxists in general towards people not in agreement with their doctrines, pal.

What ad hominem attack did I make? Am I wrong to point out that there's nothing so far that indicates Lightspectra knows much about what he's criticising? I think that's a legitimate and pertinent criticism when trying to discuss a subject. After all, how do you propose to discuss something with someone if he knows little about it?

 

[Plotinus]

You know, when a discussion consists almost entirely of people quoting single lines of other people and giving responses of only a few words to each one, as if they're a teacher writing comments in a pupil's essay, no-one comes out of it looking very good.

 

[aelf]

You know, when a discussion consists almost entirely of people quoting single lines of other people and giving responses of only a few words to each one, as if they're a teacher writing comments in a pupil's essay, no-one comes out of it looking very good.

I would do more if I had the time, and I think it's unfair to say this when there are a grand total of two posts to that effect. Besides, it would greatly help if there's actually something to discuss, rather than a string of baseless assertions and repeated accusations of various fallacies.

 

[Traitorfish]

Almost all communists nowadays are Marxists so it's rather nitpicky to establish the dichotomy.

If you wish to conflate nitpickery and accuracy, be my guest, but you'll find it hard to construct anything resembling a sensible argument if you do.

 

[Earthling]

I don’t think that the majority of Americans use the terms interchangeably. Students in the United States are taught the difference between the two very early in their education. We are taught that socialism is an economic system where the government controls most or all aspects of the economy. We are also taught that communism is a system of government where either a dictator or an oligarchy uses the power of government to enforce a socialist system, often through tyrannical measures. Unlike a socialist system in a free society the dictator or the oligarchy are the only ones to enjoy any financial benefits from the system. This is what is taught in American schools and I can only imagine that it would be the understanding of the majority of the people in the United States.

No, that's not right; no, they're not; no, that's not even a good definition; no, again, it isn't. (obviously some anecdotes could be true but /national curricular standards)

 

[innonimatu]

Actually, it does - to a point, as Marx's economic theories were never even part of the mainstream of economic theories in the first place.

That's not true. Marxism, as described by Marx, was the final refinement of classical economics, and you couldn't get more mainstream that that at the time.

What Marx added was a political layer over that. And it scared the "mainstream" of the time so much that economics changed course to avoid its conclusions!

Government can be eliminated, but what follows wont be anarcho-communism, but anarcho-capitalism.

I still hope that someday you'll understand that there can be no capitalism without a state.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes yes everyone will give their property over cheerfully to the community and not resist the would be communal planning.

Its simple really, the more communal the property management, the more government is required to enforce it. Youre confusing no government for total government, as that is what the would-be anarcho-communist society would need to function.

Government can be eliminated, but what follows wont be anarcho-communism, but anarcho-capitalism.

I do not believe the Right Honourable Gentleman quite understands the fundamental principals of communitarian thought. Perhaps he should research the subject more thoroughly before issuing opinions on it.

 

[Kawalimus]

American discourse is dominated by know-nothing pundits who spout all kinds of nonsense. Words don't even have meaning, especially those like 'socialist' and 'communist'. They are used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense. If you want higher wages for workers you're called a socialist or a communist sometimes. Hell a staunch capitalist like Barack Obama is referred to as a socialist.

It just shows the sad state of America's public discourse.

 

[aelf]

I do not believe the Right Honourable Gentleman quite understands the fundamental principals of communitarian thought.

Just a point of interest, and not to contradict what you're saying at all, doesn't the label 'communitarian' apply largely to some critics of John Rawls' theory of justice?

 

[Traitorfish]

Just a point of interest, and not to contradict what you're saying at all, doesn't the label 'communitarian' apply largely to some critics of John Rawls' theory of justice?

Um... Maybe? I was just using it in the sense of "non-individualist". Honestly, it may not have been the best choice of words, which does rather undermine the point I was trying to make, doesn't it? Probably should've said "collectivist", in retrospect. Silly me.

 

[aelf]

Um... Maybe? I was just using it in the sense of "non-individualist". Honestly, it may not have been the best choice of words, which does rather undermine the point I was trying to make, doesn't it? Probably should've said "collectivist", in retrospect. Silly me.

I don't think it undermines your point, really, especially since that's why they are called communitarians in the first place. It's just a highly contextualised term. Well, you can blame it on the jargonised treatment it has received.

 

[Traitorfish]

So how about educating me instead of acting like a smart ass know it all? I have no idea what mistake i made.

Well, as I said, you should go off and research the topics more thoroughly. Just bash "collectivism" and "anarchism" into Wikipedia for a start, go from there. A more sophisticated understanding of the nature of power and government would also be helpful, although for the life of me I'm not sure where I'd give you a single source for that; for all my smart-arsery (for which I apologise), this really isn't my area of expertise. Certainly, you need to learn a bit more than I am likely to be able to provide.

 

[Patronus Potter]

The two ideologies are used interchangeably in the US by the majority of the US population, and I am wondering, how did this happen?

For one thing, many people who respond to these terms do not know that there is a difference. For another, I would guess that while the Republicans wanted to smear the Democrats as communists from the beginning of the 2008 election cycle, they didn't want to use the actual word "communism" since it brings to mind the 50's and McCarthy so directly, so they just substituted another word which they intend to mean exactly the same thing. What's also interesting is that since Obama was elected he is interchangeably called a communist or a fascist on a regular basis, and also his appointment of "czars" to handle specific government duties is further evidence of his being a communist

 

[Karalysia]

The best is this demotivator which calls Obama a Fascist but shows Mao, and Lenin and I believe Marx in the background. People really are stupid:

 

[civ_king]

Like I've stated before:
Obama is an Islamofascistic God-hating Communistic Jew

I r lernd fum fokz newds!

 

[aelf]

Because in practice, they are the same thing.

In practice? How do you know?