So socialism

[sophie]

I don’t think we were shackled by this miasma of “would Adam Smith do this?”

 

[Gorbles]

However, in the economic sphere I think it is fair to call them socialists because they believed in Marx, Lenin, and tried to implement policy based on those debates; I think the capitalist West had a much more results-driven policy than debating whether it was ideologically sound to allow private-plot farmers to sell onions for ten or fifteen kopecks. The Soviets and the Chinese did this, and I don’t think we were shackled by this miasma of “would Adam Smith do this?”

I think divorcing the economic sphere into something that stands alone, just so we can call the regime socialist is a bit of a stretch. If we're talking about the spectre of things having lasting connotations that are untrue, "the USSR was socialist" is not the same thing as "the USSR could be argued as having socialist aspects to their economic policy" (and I'm no expert, but I am gonna call that arguable).

 

[Lexicus]

I don’t think we were shackled by this miasma of “would Adam Smith do this?”

In the US we are instead shackled by a miasma of "would Thomas Jefferson do this" which is arguably worse

 

[Lohrenswald]

@Lexicus you're a smart guy

what do you think about socialism broadly

does it have merits?
If it does what should for example I do about it

 

[Senethro]

Heres a depressing thought: Where in the world is it possible to do a peaceful transfer into socialist style government without getting couped by the CIA or your native capitalists making an alliance of convenience with your local fascists, which they may or may not subsequently lose control of?

 

[Lexicus]

Socialism is cool all, but a lot of people who call themselves socialists in the western countries are just liberals trying to differentiate themselves from the mainstream. I don't mean to discourage this trend (because it's cool and all) but the extent to which, for example, the Democratic Socialists of America are "socialist" is debatable.

Anyway yeah I'm generally in favor of socialist policies, I think there are some sectors of the economy that should be nationalized and we should encourage unionization and the formation of worker cooperatives in the rest of the economy.

without getting couped by the CIA or your native capitalists making an alliance of convenience with your local fascists

or both

 

[Ajidica]

"Socialism" by itself means nothing. A quick perusal of sub-Saharan Africa and all the countries run by "socialist" parties or old left-wingers and their descent into kleptocracy should make it clear 'socialism' is no more or less open to abuse and corruption and exploitation than 'capitalism'.

And as Lexi pointed out, "Socialism" is a lot more than just funding schools, state infrastructure investment, and financial regulation. One saw all of that with a certain insufferable Frenchman (deGaulle) and he was no socialist!

 

[Plains-Cow]

In the US we are instead shackled by a miasma of "would Thomas Jefferson do this" which is arguably worse

Imagine unironically basing your life around the morality and actions of Thomas Jefferson.

 

[amadeus]

"Socialism" by itself means nothing. A quick perusal of sub-Saharan Africa and all the countries run by "socialist" parties or old left-wingers and their descent into kleptocracy should make it clear 'socialism' is no more or less open to abuse and corruption and exploitation than 'capitalism'

Preface this by saying I’m constrained by time so I’m not ignoring other replies to me in this thread.

I think you’ve got the right idea here, taking the case of Zimbabwe as a good example: ZANU was/is a socialist party, but they enacted neither meaningful socialist policy nor did they allow capitalism in the sense of private property or open markets*, they were just arbitrary and kleptocratic as you say.

*important to note that countries even with high social welfare systems like Sweden have open markets. I’m not talking about unfettered Randianism.

 

[Gorbles]

ZANU was/is a socialist party, but they enacted neither meaningful socialist policy nor did they allow capitalism in the sense of private property or open markets*, they were just arbitrary and kleptocratic as you say.

So . . . how are we defining "socialist" here, then? As it seems (bearing in mind I have very little political knowledge of Zimbabwe) that it's about as accurate as any other party that takes a name purely as a label and whose actions go off in a very different direction.

 

[Ajidica]

I would actually point to other countries, like Tanzania or Uganda. I respect Nyerere over in Tanzania and he was probably one of the better Cold War African leaders, but it would not be wrong to say Tanzanian policies post-independence largely consisted of keeping everyone poor.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

I think one of the larger barriers in mainstream / conventional discourse is the fact that the USSR wasn't socialist.

You are telling me that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics isn't socialist? But it's in the name! Next thing you will be telling me is that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't actually democratic!

 

[Gorbles]

You are telling me that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics isn't socialist? But it's in the name! Next thing you will be telling me is that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't actually democratic!

I'm very much appreciating the fact that you saved me having to post something that someone would invariably yell GODWIN at. It's one of those kinda threads.

 

[Ajidica]

You are telling me that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics isn't socialist? But it's in the name! Next thing you will be telling me is that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't actually democratic!

I don't see any reason to not call the Soviet Union 'socialist'. Their government certainly considered themselves socialist.
The Soviet Union is also not the end-all be-all of Socialism; no more than the United States is 'Capitalist' to the exclusion of, say, Gaullist France or post-war Austerity Britain as being not capitalist.

 

[Arwon]

Whole thread smacks of revisionism

 

[Lexicus]

@Lexicus you're a smart guy

schlaufuchs is smart, i dumb

 

[sophie]

schlaufuchs is smart, i dumb

 

[amadeus]

So . . . how are we defining "socialist" here, then?

In terms defined by ZANU, or in general? ZANU didn’t start as a socialist movement but adopted it as a policy, the typical kind of revolutionary movement against colonialism and white minority rule. I don’t know enough about the orthodox tenets of Marxism of how you would, as I understand it, make the necessary historical conditions to transcend both capitalism and socialism to create communism, in a colonial country. Again, I’m pleading ignorance on this but I believe the idea was that the revolution would happen amongst the industrial working class, of which then-Rhodesia had a very small one, most of whom were white and incentivized to keep the system they had.

As it seems (bearing in mind I have very little political knowledge of Zimbabwe) that it's about as accurate as any other party that takes a name purely as a label and whose actions go off in a very different direction.

In the context that ZANU ruled Zimbabwe from the time of 1980 up until the adoption of multiracial democracy in South Africa, I would say they had a kind of force against them that limited their ability to follow through on the policies they espoused.

Of course, the economic and military influence of white South Africa, but also domestic conditions in the country whereby I think if they had undergone a radical reorganization program even absent the threat of S. African intervention, ZANU might not have held power; there was also an internal struggle during the early and mid-1980’s that saw Joshua Nkomo, another pre-independence leader, vying for control of the government.

Now’s my train stop!

 

[GenMarshall]

I’m not a huge fan of socialism nor am I fan of communism (Ironic since I consider myself a social democrat. Though my stance is to have a mixed economy system with a harmony of capitalism and socialism). My views are largely formulated from anti-communism growing up and experiences and encounters with tankies, SJWs, and wokescolds on the internet over the past decade and their display of authoritarianism. Given the culture war zeitgeist of present year and the purity spiral the left has undertook (I still recall being made fun of by tankies when I rather have reform and the process of voting over a violent revolution), I'd be treated the same way the Kulaks were in the USSR and the "class enemies" in Maoist China during their Cultural Revolution. I'm not wholly convinced that socialists don't want to take my stuff (Who gets to decide that my property is personal or private? Will my retirement fund be seized because I put it into a 401k and Mutual Fund?) nor would they wont wokescold me over playing a modded Fallout 4 game with a big tiddy character, playing game that they deemed "problematic", or consuming and enjoying Japanese culture without being accused of cultural appropriation.

I'd be more amicable towards socialism if the crazies and authoritarians haven't ruined the optics and the saner voices drowned them out.

Sir, are you okay? You sound like one of those crazy incels.

Given his vibes the last time I interacted with him. It's no different from conservatives blaming all ills on society on video games.

Marxists are mean spirited, hypocritical, have violent tempers, are unreasonable, non pragmatic, plus have daddy issues and one dimensional sexual identities which they base their entire personality on.

They are always looking for intersectionality in everything, shoot themselves constantly in the foot through their terroristic accelerationism, are indeed the actual ecofascists or are unwittingly pushing for it with said accelerationism, and quite frequently rat out on their own friends for not being "pure enough" however they define that. NO LOYALTY! AWFUL FRIENDS PERIOD!

Never do they forgive or move on. Are weirdos, cannibalistic vegans, and creeps.

All Marxists ? I think you're just describing a bunch of entitled tankie keyboard warriors and wokescolds on Twitter and/or Tumblir.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Trust me that's most Marxists, or at least the one's I've met.



Incels are a myth that the Marxists invented for their anti-capitalist agenda.

There are only volcels and they are the glorious clergy members fighting night and day the demonic forces which possess people towards Marxism.

Oh, so you are saying that Kyle Rittenhouse (a terrible mass murderer) and the man that murdered 4 innocent college students in Moscow, Idaho were righteous people. What is wrong with you?
"It is harder for a rich man to go to heaven than a camel to go through the eye of a needle." - Frickin Jesus Christ.