Jump to content

Yet Another Socialism Thread


BrythonLexi
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yes, with the others dead in the water - and the drama in Orbis Central - i'm rekindling this bonfire.  If we're going to have a debate on communism v. capitalism, or other systems, let's do it properly.

Note: I am very much an anarcho-socialist, so I am clearly biased on this matter.

What I am presenting here is some misconceptions people seem to have about the left in general, and why they're misguided.

Communism?  So you mean the Soviet Union?

While yes, the Soviet Union was a leftist county, it does not portray all leftist thoughts - much like the United States, while the example of capitalism, is not what capitalism inherently is - nor is it the purest example.  The Marxist-Leninist ideaology of the Soviet Union was very much its own thing.  Marxist-Leninists believe in particular that a two-phase revolution is required for the success of communims; that is, underdeveloped nations must first go through a "bourgoise revolution" installing capitalism, before a communist revolution can successfully take place.  The communist revolution would be lead by a vanguard party, such as the Bolsheviks - who would eventually pave the way for the eventual destruction of class and state.  I am not a Marxist-Leninist, so I am not the best to go into gritty details of the theory.

Marxism-Leninism is not the only leftist ideaology.  Diametrically opposed to them include a myriad of anarchist beliefs, which are also leftist in that they believe in collectivism and the end of private business and property.  Most famously, anarchist movements included the Catalonians in the Spanish Civil War, the Ukranian Black Army in the Russian Revolution, and the Zapatistas in Mexico to this day.

But Communism always fails!

The belief in the failure of communism stems largely from the collapse of the Soviet regime, as well as the end of many Latin American leftist experiments.  As for the Soviets, this is in part due to the authoritarianism of the Bolsheviks and their crushing of revolts.  Thus, when information finally started to flow into the country, people could see just how much better Western Europe had it.  However, this is also not a fault of communism - you can look to Cuba and Vietnam for successful Marxist-Leninist states in particular.  Despite a massive US embargo and the devastating warfare to the country, respectively, Cuba and Vietnam have been some of the better places to live.  Cuba's literacy rate is famously high, and Vietnam has had a fair standard of living after rebuilding from the Vietnam War.

For Latin America, the failures in those countries are easily attributable to the CIA coups in leftist governments across the region.  These coups are very much a well-known thing, and are often the direct reason why those countries established dictators like Pinochet or fell into chaos like Venezuela - I can't tell you what those nations would be like without CIA involvement, but I can assure you that had the USA not interfered as it had, things would be much more stable in South America.

Weren't the Nazis socialists?

While calling themselves National Socialists, the Nazis were not socialists by any means.  People often point to the collectivist policies of Nazi Germany, there is a distinct difference - fascism is a nationalist ideaology that promotes the race over others.  Socialist ideaologies, on the other hand, are internationalist; that is, socialists promote the global proletariat as a class fighting against the global elite.  Additionally, the Nazis very much privatized the country - not nationalize it (outside of World War 2, where almost all nations nationalized some part of industry).

Don't Communist Countries Have Famines?

Yes, many famines occured in the Ukraine and other leftist states.  However, the same happened under capitalism - and even happens to this day.  The Bengali and Irish famines are famous mass deaths under capitalist and imperialist regimes, and often were made worse by the governments in power.  One can even point to the large-scale poverty in African nations as an extention of colonialism, as the nations there have been reduced to being exporters of raw resources to the West.  "African diamond mines" are a common phrase, and oftentimes these unstable countries are unstable because various rulers seek to make money off the resources they are fighting for.  France still makes it so its former colonies pay France a debt from "development under our rule"!  Are those, then, not deaths because of capitalism?  Are those starvations not because of profits?  Dehydration not being capitalism's fault, when Nestle owns the local water well and charges for use?
 

I hope we can have a fruitful debate.

Edited by BrythonLexi
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are people fleeing California and New York (two states famous for a high tax burden and a more invasive government) en masse for places like Texas which has a reputation for smaller government and lighter taxes?

  • Upvote 1

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Thalmor said:

Why are people fleeing California and New York (two states famous for a high tax burden and a more invasive government) en masse for places like Texas which has a reputation for smaller government and lighter taxes?

For exactly those things, yeah.  California and New York are also infamously expensive to live in, with rents being much higher than average.

If the connection you're making is that California and New York are more "socialist", that would also be inaccurate.  Socialism is not when the government does more stuff (Again, look at anarchist groups like the Zapatistas).  The Democrats are often derided as socialists, when they have similar business motivations to the Republican party.  The Democratic platform does not advocate the abolition of capitalism, but merely a higher minimum wage and more protections.  While this sounds like a transition to communist wants, it is not - Democrats also advocate laws such as New York's Taylor Law, which bans strikes in favour of mandated collective bargaining.  Democrats promote social equality not because it is the "morally right" thing to do, but because inequality "hurts business".  They use identity politics as an argument for it hurting the economy, not people's lives.  Look how hard mainline Democrats fought against Bernie Sanders in the primary - a self-described social democrat who also disavowed socialism!

Edited by BrythonLexi
Typo of Taylor Law
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try to add on I suppose.  The TL;DR of why Democratic governments are not leftist is because they support, by and large, the status quo + some social justice elements.  Leftists challenge the status quo - we hate police, we hate bosses, we hate the inequality inherent in capitalism.  The mainline Democrats still love money and bosses, so long as 50% of those bosses are women / black / etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

you can look to Cuba and Vietnam for successful Marxist-Leninist states in particular

I’d hardly call Cuba a Communist paradise as much of its success comes from before it became communist. As for Vietnam, it has started becoming more accepting of free enterprise and the people’s lives have improved because of it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Largely agree, though the USSR, and associated states, was not leftist in any sense, and instead represented the collapse of worker's power into a different form of capitalism. It merely had support from mistaken sections of the left because the workers power, albeit brief, was genuine. 

Socialism isn't some spectrum of how much the government intervenes in society and production, it is the ownership of the means of production by the working class. None of the "communist" countries are set up like that, instead either the state itself is the boss, or in countries such as Vietnam or Cuba, they eventually reintroduce the bosses. The "communism" of these countries merely means they aligned with the imperialism of the USSR over that of the US. And while yes the US did intervene in many if these countries, they often collapsed of their own doing, due to the crises of capitalism or lack of understanding of revolution (be it due to falsely believe in Stalinist or Maoist ideas, or being hostile to communist ideas because of the distortions by the "communist" states)

Edited by The Oceanic Council
Typo and added more to last line
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nukey6 said:

I’d hardly call Cuba a Communist paradise as much of its success comes from before it became communist. As for Vietnam, it has started becoming more accepting of free enterprise and the people’s lives have improved because of it.

I'm quite confused about this argument, honestly.  For Cuba, what you're saying is that even after decades of communist rule under Castro, the maintaining of such is still a success of capitalism?  Generations have grown up and died in a socialist state, yet its success was capitalist even with the near-total US embargo?  This seems especially jarring given the complete revamp of the economy under Castro, as well as the economic instability from the blockade, a world collapse in sugar prices, and even further changes to the economy after the collapse of the USSR.

For Vietnam, that is a fair point.  The opening of the Vietnamese economy has done well, but it also hasn't completely eschewed socialist policies; given the large presense of state owned enterprise and worker cooperatives.

9 minutes ago, The Oceanic Council said:

Largely agree, though the USSR, and associated states, was not leftist in any sense, and instead represented the collapse of worker's power into a different form of capitalism. It merely had support from mistaken sections of the left because the workers power, albeit brief, was genuine. 

Socialism isn't some spectrum of how much the government intervenes in society and production, it is the ownership of the means of production by the working class. None of the "communist" countries are set up like that, instead either the state itself is the boss, or in countries such as Vietnam or Cuba, they eventually reintroduce the bosses. The "communism" of these countries merely means they aligned with the imperialism of the USSR over that of the US. And while yes the US did intervene in many if these countries, they often collapsed of their own doing, due to the crises of capitalism or lack of understanding of revolution (be it due to falsely believe in Stalinist or Maoist ideas, or being hostile to communist ideas because of the distortions by the "communist" states)

I'd definitely be inclined to agree that a large part of what people call "communist" is indeed a butchered attempt.  However, to cut them out of the argument basically means there have been no long-lasting socialist countries; which, of course, would give us very few examples for us and others to discuss - and also feeds into the narrative of "communism always fails" or the meme of "but real communism has never been tried before".

Of course, we could look at how mixed economies do extremely well, or at anarchist autonomous areas like the Zapatistas, Rojava, and and isolated regions, but those also don't have international recognition as a country and don't have as easily accessible statistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

For exactly those things, yeah.  California and New York are also infamously expensive to live in, with rents being much higher than average.

If the connection you're making is that California and New York are more "socialist", that would also be inaccurate.  Socialism is not when the government does more stuff (Again, look at anarchist groups like the Zapatistas).  The Democrats are often derided as socialists, when they have similar business motivations to the Republican party.  The Democratic platform does not advocate the abolition of capitalism, but merely a higher minimum wage and more protections.  While this sounds like a transition to communist wants, it is not - Democrats also advocate laws such as New York's Taylor Law, which bans strikes in favour of mandated collective bargaining.  Democrats promote social equality not because it is the "morally right" thing to do, but because inequality "hurts business".  They use identity politics as an argument for it hurting the economy, not people's lives.  Look how hard mainline Democrats fought against Bernie Sanders in the primary - a self-described social democrat who also disavowed socialism!

 

33 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

I'll try to add on I suppose.  The TL;DR of why Democratic governments are not leftist is because they support, by and large, the status quo + some social justice elements.  Leftists challenge the status quo - we hate police, we hate bosses, we hate the inequality inherent in capitalism.  The mainline Democrats still love money and bosses, so long as 50% of those bosses are women / black / etc.

Thanks for the info. Busy rn so I can't meditate on this and form a good response but I want to come back to this later.

Is anarchism not viable in your view? Government is what interferes with my life and goals more than anything. I think I could live a much more fulfilled and productive life without faceless bureaucrats telling me what I can and can't do while talking a sizable chunk of my income. 

  • Upvote 1

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Thalmor said:

 

Thanks for the info. Busy rn so I can't meditate on this and form a good response but I want to come back to this later.

Is anarchism not viable in your view? Government is what interferes with my life and goals more than anything. I think I could live a much more fulfilled and productive life without faceless bureaucrats telling me what I can and can't do while talking a sizable chunk of my income. 

I'm an anarchist, that's what I believe in!  I also believe that heavy government is what interferes with the worker's attempts at survival.

People often believe anarchism and chaos are synonyms, that anarchism is the state of there being lawlessness.  In reality, what politically literate people mean by anarchy is the various forms of leftist liberalism.  To keep it very brief, anarcho-socialists believe that the most powerful government should be at a local (town / county) level, instead of at a national level.  Government in anarchist societies would be a directly democratic process, where the people of a local community work together on what to produce and how to survive.  They would be socialists, as it would be the workers of that community owning their farms / textiles / etc., instead of some far off CEO or commissar.

If you want some good resources for the theory of anarcho-socialism, I recommend the "Anarchist FAQ" and "Anarchy Works" by Peter Gelderloos.  Both are free, and approach the topics of anarcho-socialism in a Q&A format.  (Example: Section H of the Anarchist FAQ discusses why anarchists are against state socialism [Marxists, Maoists, etc] and has several questions somebody may have about that topic).  The latter is an easier read, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

However, to cut them out of the argument basically means there have been no long-lasting socialist countries; which, of course, would give us very few examples for us and others to discuss - and also feeds into the narrative of "communism always fails" or the meme of "but real communism has never been tried before".

We don't have to have these states, we have examples of working class power through out history without having to cede ground to brutal regimes. Throughout history we have glimpses, the Paris Commune, the Russian revolution, the revolutionary upheavals of the 60-70s, the revolutions that tore the Eastern bloc apart and more recently the Arab revolutions, many have reignited today and the many struggles since 2018, most not consciously communist and none had lasting success, but it is there that we find worker power in an embryonic form . Not to mention countless examples throughout the struggle of the working class, through union militancy. We have yet to see a lasting example of it, but that isn't an issue, capitalism is still relatively young, and capitalism itself failed many times before it became the dominant form of society

Edited by The Oceanic Council
Changed some wording, replaced communism with worker power
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Oceanic Council said:

We don't have to have these states, we have examples of working class power through out history without having to cede ground to brutal regimes. Throughout history we have glimpses, the Paris Commune, the Russian revolution, the revolutionary upheavals of the 60-70s, the revolutions that tore the Eastern bloc apart and more recently the Arab revolutions, many have reignited today and the many struggles since 2018, most not consciously communist and none had lasting success, but it is there that we find communism in an embryonic form . Not to mention countless examples throughout the struggle of the working class, through union militancy. We have yet to see a lasting example of it, but that isn't an issue, capitalism is still relatively young, and capitalism itself failed many times before it became the dominant form of society

That's also fair points, thank you!  I guess I fear too much that people go "lol its always failed" and then drop the argument right there.

Can I ask, myself, about the capitalism failing at first part?  My education has left me.. unaware of that - mostly going "Wealth of Nations!!!1!" and then capital

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BrythonLexi said:

That's also fair points, thank you!  I guess I fear too much that people go "lol its always failed" and then drop the argument right there.

Can I ask, myself, about the capitalism failing at first part?  My education has left me.. unaware of that - mostly going "Wealth of Nations!!!1!" and then capital

Yeah sure I will have to dig up a text or something that goes through it 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

I'm an anarchist, that's what I believe in!  I also believe that heavy government is what interferes with the worker's attempts at survival.

People often believe anarchism and chaos are synonyms, that anarchism is the state of there being lawlessness.  In reality, what politically literate people mean by anarchy is the various forms of leftist liberalism.  To keep it very brief, anarcho-socialists believe that the most powerful government should be at a local (town / county) level, instead of at a national level.  Government in anarchist societies would be a directly democratic process, where the people of a local community work together on what to produce and how to survive.  They would be socialists, as it would be the workers of that community owning their farms / textiles / etc., instead of some far off CEO or commissar.

If you want some good resources for the theory of anarcho-socialism, I recommend the "Anarchist FAQ" and "Anarchy Works" by Peter Gelderloos.  Both are free, and approach the topics of anarcho-socialism in a Q&A format.  (Example: Section H of the Anarchist FAQ discusses why anarchists are against state socialism [Marxists, Maoists, etc] and has several questions somebody may have about that topic).  The latter is an easier read, in my opinion.

Thanks fam.

I'm always been right wing. Had a spout as a Libertarian before swinging hard right. Still kinda am there but recently I've started listening to a writer named Michael Malice who's an anarchist and his presentation and arguments for anarchism have been beautiful, simple, and compelling for me (he does a lot of podcasts and guest speaking on other shows and such).

Thanks for making the thread. This community is very much capable of decent conversations contrary to what you've seen thus far on other boards. 

  • Upvote 2

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Thalmor said:

Thanks fam.

I'm always been right wing. Had a spout as a Libertarian before swinging hard right. Still kinda am there but recently I've started listening to a writer named Michael Malice who's an anarchist and his presentation and arguments for anarchism have been beautiful, simple, and compelling for me (he does a lot of podcasts and guest speaking on other shows and such).

Thanks for making the thread. This community is very much capable of decent conversations contrary to what you've seen thus far on other boards. 

Of course!  I used to be hard-right as well, being a very strong supporter of Trump.  The thing that did it in for me was when he fired Comey, as that conflicted with my strong sense of 'justice' that my libertarian dad struck in me.  I was then a liberal, until I suffered a back injury at work and was barely compensated for it.  What I realised was that the state (and Walmart for that matter) were doing only the bare minimum to help somebody out who had nothing - and even more, I realised I was not the only one.  That was my watershed moment for becoming an anarchist; that feeling of the state leaving behind its most vulnerable instead of guiding them through.

I hope that some of the links I gave, if a bit heavy on reading, can give some insight onto why i'm an anarcho-communist instead of anything else.  The sections on anarcho-capitalists would probably serve well in that regard.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BrythonLexi Not a huge text, but it is discussed briefly in the introduction to the English edition of Engel's Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Mainly on the role of religion in the rise of capitalism in England, with some mentioning of France which itself took a few revolutions to become permanently capitalist. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Introduction - History) (marxists.org). Can't recall if it is discussed more elsewhere in the text and I can't recall anything more substantial at the moment

Edited by The Oceanic Council
Specifying the edition the introduction is from
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering this was probably posted with me somewhere in the back of your mind, I feel inclined to put on my "Don't Tread on Me" hat grab my stars and stripes and get involved in this debate. Firstly, "I hope we can have a fruitful debate." I agree. I will refrain from calling you s-daw shit I did it again. /s XD
For real though, I'm excited to have this debate with you due to the possibility of having my mind changed or changing yours.
Let's get started.

24 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

Communism?  So you mean the Soviet Union?

While yes, the Soviet Union was a leftist county, it does not portray all leftist thoughts - much like the United States, while the example of capitalism, is not what capitalism inherently is - nor is it the purest example.  The Marxist-Leninist ideaology of the Soviet Union was very much its own thing.  Marxist-Leninists believe in particular that a two-phase revolution is required for the success of communims; that is, underdeveloped nations must first go through a "bourgoise revolution" installing capitalism, before a communist revolution can successfully take place.  The communist revolution would be lead by a vanguard party, such as the Bolsheviks - who would eventually pave the way for the eventual destruction of class and state.  I am not a Marxist-Leninist, so I am not the best to go into gritty details of the theory.

Marxism-Leninism is not the only leftist ideaology.  Diametrically opposed to them include a myriad of anarchist beliefs, which are also leftist in that they believe in collectivism and the end of private business and property.  Most famously, anarchist movements included the Catalonians in the Spanish Civil War, the Ukranian Black Army in the Russian Revolution, and the Zapatistas in Mexico to this day.

Hopefully this wasn't inspired by the song ascribed to your alliance, but I digress. Nothing you said is any surprise when some words are substituted, like how the Nazis were not the only rightist ideology or (like how you correctly stated) the US of A is the only capitalist country. But, you'd be daft to assume that when someone thinks of fascists they don't think of Nazis, as US to capitalists, or as communists to soviets. And there is good reason behind that. They are the historical leader of their respective ideologies, and you can't say otherwise. I will address the "anarchist beliefs" later in this post.

24 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

But Communism always fails!

The belief in the failure of communism stems largely from the collapse of the Soviet regime, as well as the end of many Latin American leftist experiments.  As for the Soviets, this is in part due to the authoritarianism of the Bolsheviks and their crushing of revolts.  Thus, when information finally started to flow into the country, people could see just how much better Western Europe had it.  However, this is also not a fault of communism - you can look to Cuba and Vietnam for successful Marxist-Leninist states in particular.  Despite a massive US embargo and the devastating warfare to the country, respectively, Cuba and Vietnam have been some of the better places to live.  Cuba's literacy rate is famously high, and Vietnam has had a fair standard of living after rebuilding from the Vietnam War.

For Latin America, the failures in those countries are easily attributable to the CIA coups in leftist governments across the region.  These coups are very much a well-known thing, and are often the direct reason why those countries established dictators like Pinochet or fell into chaos like Venezuela - I can't tell you what those nations would be like without CIA involvement, but I can assure you that had the USA not interfered as it had, things would be much more stable in South America.

I have to call you out on your first sentence, because people were certain communism was a failure at the get go. Prime economists, and even progressives, didn't expect the reds to last until 1920. They did, but there was still no doubt that it would eventually fail. Now that's not to say people didn't start to believe in it, they most certainly did. And upon finding out the conditions of the Soviet people and what was happening they either became anarchists or liberals. 
Cuba has as much of a "successful Marxist-Leninist state" as Belize has a "successful western-liberal state". I am not saying that's the government's fault, it's just a tropical island that doesn't have much to go off of. 
As for Vietnam, you're surely joking. Firstly the whole of the country is slums. Secondly, the country is run by a handful of corporate leaders who monopolize everything. The state is corrupt, crime rates are rampent, and people have a terrible standard of living. You could throw that onto the USA's doorstep, but your point is still mute.

I beg to differ. Not because you are wrong, but because you are missing a key point. The United States itself wasn't what started the chaos in South America, it was the Banana Republics. They, at first, were not American at all. US intervention didn't happen in South America (other than Panama) until the 50s. At which point South America was already a humid hot bed of hellish helos. The Soviets took advantage of this and pushed for their own dictators to get into power, and when they did the US was kinda pissed. They weren't bad leaders, and the people liked them, but they had Soviet sympathies which was a no go. And, btw, Pinochet was noted for hating the United States after getting into power. The people also loved him and Chile went through a period of prosperity under his reign. If the United States hadn't interfered at all, the only difference is it wouldn't be America's fault.

1 hour ago, BrythonLexi said:

Weren't the Nazis socialists?

While calling themselves National Socialists, the Nazis were not socialists by any means.  People often point to the collectivist policies of Nazi Germany, there is a distinct difference - fascism is a nationalist ideaology that promotes the race over others.  Socialist ideaologies, on the other hand, are internationalist; that is, socialists promote the global proletariat as a class fighting against the global elite.  Additionally, the Nazis very much privatized the country - not nationalize it (outside of World War 2, where almost all nations nationalized some part of industry).

The more I read this, the worse it became lol. Socialism is not strictly internationalist. There are nationalist, and even racist socialist ideologies. The Nazis were certainly socialist, if not by your perception of the term. They nationalized industry before the war, implemented lots of social polices and welfare, and in practice were near identical to the Soviets. The only difference being the prosecution of races, but oh wait..
The Soviets did that too! In fact, it can be argued that's how Stalin died! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors'_plot
The Soviets killed off Jews for, in essence, being too smart. Nazism and Marxism-Leninism are only different on paper, in practice they are very very similar. Nationalization, authoritarianism, racism, etc. etc.

1 hour ago, BrythonLexi said:

Don't Communist Countries Have Famines?

Yes, many famines occured in the Ukraine and other leftist states.  However, the same happened under capitalism - and even happens to this day.  The Bengali and Irish famines are famous mass deaths under capitalist and imperialist regimes, and often were made worse by the governments in power.  One can even point to the large-scale poverty in African nations as an extention of colonialism, as the nations there have been reduced to being exporters of raw resources to the West.  "African diamond mines" are a common phrase, and oftentimes these unstable countries are unstable because various rulers seek to make money off the resources they are fighting for.  France still makes it so its former colonies pay France a debt from "development under our rule"!  Are those, then, not deaths because of capitalism?  Are those starvations not because of profits?  Dehydration not being capitalism's fault, when Nestle owns the local water well and charges for use?

Whataboutism not withstanding (because I don't care, thought I'd note it though in case you try and use it against me...again), Colonialism =/= Capitalism. In Ireland and Africa the people had no economic liberties. They were under a mercantilist economic system, which is entirely different. And I can defend that too, but that's a different point. As for "when Nestle owns the local water well and charges for use?" something similar is going on in Flint, Michigan. Stuff like this happens. Then it is usually resolved because bad publicity isn't good for business. If it isn't then it wouldn't be resolved under a communist government, not only that but they never last nearly as long as similar events in socialist nations do. Those are issues, sure, but not one you can blame capitalism for.

1 hour ago, BrythonLexi said:

If the connection you're making is that California and New York are more "socialist", that would also be inaccurate.  Socialism is not when the government does more stuff (Again, look at anarchist groups like the Zapatistas).  The Democrats are often derided as socialists, when they have similar business motivations to the Republican party.  The Democratic platform does not advocate the abolition of capitalism, but merely a higher minimum wage and more protections.  While this sounds like a transition to communist wants, it is not - Democrats also advocate laws such as New York's Taylor Law, which bans strikes in favour of mandated collective bargaining.  Democrats promote social equality not because it is the "morally right" thing to do, but because inequality "hurts business".  They use identity politics as an argument for it hurting the economy, not people's lives.  Look how hard mainline Democrats fought against Bernie Sanders in the primary - a self-described social democrat who also disavowed socialism!

They are more socialist, in the conventional sense at least. They aren't socialist, exactly, but they are more socialist.
Time to address your anarchism. I'm a libertarian, so don't misconstrue my words. Many people like you say "oh we're progressive" and what not, which isn't true. Anarchism, and certainly Anarcho-Socialism, is very regressive. The last time that system worked, or was truly tried, was in the stone age. In those times a group of 10 people all depended on each other and shared everything. That is not modern society, and you can hardly imagine it as any society. Anarchism is not compatible with modern or the future of humanity, and shouldn't even be a talking point. And in Anarcho-Socialism specifically, who is stopping people from starting businesses? Or monopolizing the whole area? No government = no control. No control = it's not happening. Libertarianism is the utopian (in the original sense of the word) ideology in which everything that needs to be covered by the government is and everything else is left out. That way the government can protect the people, organize projects, supervise social/public works and regulate the market. The people have control over who their government is and how they want to live their lives. 

The democratic party is split pretty violently lol. There are conservative democrats that just want more liberal policies and market regulation, then there are...others. In America if you are a communist/anarchist you are going to vote for the democratic party. After this point I'm confused to what you are saying. NY is very socialized, I live in Upstate. democrats aren't AnComs, no. At least not the majority. Some of them are socialists though (see Sanders, Cortez), but they believe a bigger issue is capitalists taking advantage of minorities rather than the workers as a whole. The bulk of the democratic party is pretty centrist, but they go along with what the loud minority (AKA the far left) want. Why? I have no clue.

29 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

I'm an anarchist, that's what I believe in!  I also believe that heavy government is what interferes with the worker's attempts at survival.

People often believe anarchism and chaos are synonyms, that anarchism is the state of there being lawlessness.  In reality, what politically literate people mean by anarchy is the various forms of leftist liberalism.  To keep it very brief, anarcho-socialists believe that the most powerful government should be at a local (town / county) level, instead of at a national level.  Government in anarchist societies would be a directly democratic process, where the people of a local community work together on what to produce and how to survive.  They would be socialists, as it would be the workers of that community owning their farms / textiles / etc., instead of some far off CEO or commissar.

If you want some good resources for the theory of anarcho-socialism, I recommend the "Anarchist FAQ" and "Anarchy Works" by Peter Gelderloos.  Both are free, and approach the topics of anarcho-socialism in a Q&A format.  (Example: Section H of the Anarchist FAQ discusses why anarchists are against state socialism [Marxists, Maoists, etc] and has several questions somebody may have about that topic).  The latter is an easier read, in my opinion.

Oh boy. Yes, heavy government sucks. I'm the first one to say !@#$ the bureaucrats in NYC that are ruling the rest of the state. Anarchy and chaos are not synonyms, but they are pretty damn close. Anarchism isn't strictly leftist, seeing as AnCaps exist. That's not anarchism, thats called confederatism. Again I refer to my previous point, see "stone age". Indeed, but I don't think a CEO in LA has control over a soccer mom suburban town in Delaware. As of now, local governments are run by elected representatives of the local citizenry. They aren't anarchists.

I have no clue who that guy is, but it looks interesting so I'll take a look.

21 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

Of course!  I used to be hard-right as well, being a very strong supporter of Trump.  The thing that did it in for me was when he fired Comey, as that conflicted with my strong sense of 'justice' that my libertarian dad struck in me.  I was then a liberal, until I suffered a back injury at work and was barely compensated for it.  What I realised was that the state (and Walmart for that matter) were doing only the bare minimum to help somebody out who had nothing - and even more, I realised I was not the only one.  That was my watershed moment for becoming an anarchist; that feeling of the state leaving behind its most vulnerable instead of guiding them through.

I hope that some of the links I gave, if a bit heavy on reading, can give some insight onto why i'm an anarcho-communist instead of anything else.  The sections on anarcho-capitalists would probably serve well in that regard.

Oh wow you're new to this whole commie (/s) thing. Personally, I had issue with that too. I hate Trump. I would only vote for him strategically as opposed to the Democrats. As a Libertarian, I hate career politicians and political dynasties. Trump fits into the latter, so screw him. But Clinton and Biden fit into both of those. Better of two evils. And about your injury, I'm sorry to hear that. But how minimum is the bare minimum? If you are not working, money has to come from somewhere. Money should come no doubt, but how much? It should be the minimum so that you are encouraged to get back to work, but it should be enough to help you get off your feet. I shall refer to something I said previously in a different thread about the UBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl39KHS07Xc. I wholeheartedly support this, and I don't think many capitalists would be against it. And it'd be more efficient and less bureaucratic than the current welfare system.

To give some points that I generally use in these debates but I couldn't find a place to say them as a rebuttle against you...
1. Human Nature. Humans are naturally competitive and greedy, even if not intentionally. This was intentional on nature's part. Darwinism at it's finest. The best we can do about that is use it to society's advantage and make people build themselves up while pulling everyone else up a little bit as well. Hell, you are looking at this thread through a device that was the result of some capitalist competition. Worked out, din'nit?
2. Modern Society. Human evolution be damned, the foundation that everything is built on is capitalist. It has been proven time and time again that capitalism is the most efficient route and the path of least resistance. 
3. Alternatives? Even with all the flaws capitalism has, it's the same with democracy. As Churchill said, "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." This rings true for capitalism as well. Our best bet is to tweak it as time goes on. Workers being abused? Free media will fix that, because no one likes immoral companies anymore. Backdoor business fraud? Arrest them. Tax evasion? Hire them (XD). Allow everyone the ability to get the amount of money they desire, and they can balance home life and work life. There are plenty of other things that can be done to make capitalism ideal, but anarchism/communism/revolution/socialism is not one of them.

Conclusion. 

"Oh Aquaaa..."

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruh, bets that @Josef The II didn't even read the message they just downvoted?
.-.

Fricken, heard the notification and was excited to read their response.

Nope, just a random downvote from a random person.

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

[A lot of stuff]

I'll try to keep the words brief (mostly because it's getting late for me), but let's do this!

  • Actually, you weren't really on my mind at all for this!  ^^;  I was honestly just thinking about it while browsing my memes folder.  My actions are my own in this case.
  • Yeah, people do think of the USSR as the communist vanguard.  I'm... pretty sure I didn't deny that people think of Germany/USA/USSR - just that it's much more nuanced than that.
  • I don't have enough information on how people believed the Bolsheviks would fail or not, but there were socialists in the West before and after the Russian Revolution.  That and there are still tankies out there, so people didn't simply just become anarchists or liberals.  And even if they all did, that represents growth and adjusting belief systems from data.
  • For Cuba/Belize/Vietnam, I do have to criticise that.  Cuba's GDP is 76th in the world by capita, and has the 70th highest Human Development Index - putting it around the 2nd quartile for both.  Vietnam is, however, 115th and 117th respectively - which isn't as great.  I must criticise the slums argument, however, as that would come into whataboutism for me (many Americans *do* live in slums or are fully homeless; my grassroots campaigning in Greene County was to repair the Section 8 housing there in Catskill).
  • As for the banana republic argument, that was indeed the United States through and through - like that  Sam O'Nella meme you linked states.  The countries would be overthrown only when they starting promoting workers rights laws, minimum wages, etc; often with American support.  I'd tie the two into eachother immediately and continually, as it was mostly American companies that would push for such coups.
  • I'm skeptical of the attribution of Nazis with socialism, as they literally imprisoned socialists as part of the Holocaust.  This article goes into direct quotes that Hitler discusses about workers being "unable to understand socialism" and "worker's councils getting in the way" which is... pretty anti-socialist given that the common definition of socialism is when workers own the means of production.
  • I'd argue that colonialism is capitalism - directly.  The reason that European empires went to conquer new lands was to bring material wealth of gold and riches to the motherland.  Is the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few not, in some way, capitalism?  Be it the direct conquest of lands for the Crown (just the monarch), or the settlement of trade companies like the Dutch East India Company.  Marx does go into discussion the transition from feudalism, to colonialism, to capitalism.
  • "Stuff like this happens" re: Nestle and Flint.  Is that not what we're trying to change, yeah?  For me, that is why I am anarchist - the local people should control their destiny, including their own water supply.
  • Anarchism was not only in the stone age, by any definition of the word.  You have the Frisian freedom, Catalonia, Freetown Christiania, worker co-ops, and I can go on and on.
  • Anarchists don't say no government, we say local government.  People who would band together when threatened - against those external or internal threats like somebody charging money for goods all make.
  • The Democrats really don't follow the far-left at all.  They make promises and don't follow through.  😕  I wish they did, or that NY was socialist, though.
  • Local governments do exist, yes, but what power do they have compared to the State, or Washington?  And yes, a California CEO doesn't control a Delawarian mother - but when half of Congress are millionaires, capitalists basically do control the government.
  • Humans are naturally helpful, in my experience.  After natural disasters, people pitch in to help eachother for free.  People start charities, donate to others, and so forth.  Captialism forces us to compete, not because we want to, but because we have to.  I see so many artists who want to give their stuff out for free, but cannot because they have to sell their work to eat.
  • Capitalism has only been around for a few centuries.  Before that, people didn't invent to drive profits - they invented to help their country, or local area.  Private enterprise did exist for millenia, but that was back when the peasantry owned the farms they worked on - instead of renting it out for a small fee every month.  Additionally, many of the inventions you claim as successes of capitalism are not.  While created in those capitalist societies, the workers who actually designed your iPhone or built your Android got paid only some small chunk of change, with the rich or whoever getting the bulk of the share.
  • Alternatives argument is always a defense of the status quo.  We are biased to believe our current system is best - because otherwise we would not be in it, right?  I know, change is scary - we've all been there.  But how do you know that?  When our American founding fathers created a republic, they did not know if the experiment would last - it was just as likely that they would've all been hanged by redcoats within the year.
  • And I know it.  I've lived in anarchism.  Mutual aid, people helping eachother out for nothing but the promise of paying it forward - that is what got me through my 2 years and a month of homelessness.  People are more anarchist in general than you may think.
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

[snip]

Props for the response, I loved reading it. Most of our disagreement boils down to semantics and personal experience, so it's kinda hard to argue. So I'll just focus on the good of people. I didn't say people aren't naturally helpful. But the majority of people will care for themselves and their kin/friends above the world at large. And that isn't bad. Personally, if I don't know the person I don't give half a shit what happens to them. And as for my friends (!@#$ my family lol), we treat each other to our specializations and give gifts to the poorer of us. But out of the people I know, the poorer ones are the people who knowingly and willingly put less work into their career. Which is perfectly fine, btw! They chose something else to prioritize, religion family food hobbies etc, and work is just down the list. Consequently they get paid less so that people who do want to put a lot of effort into work get paid more. I suppose greed isn't the right word, but every human wants to better themselves one way or another. Capitalism allows people to decide if they want to make work their life, and be rich, or make something else their life, and not be rich.

As for the alternatives, see ancient greek. And at first everyone wanted George Washington to be a King.

  • Like 1

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

Props for the response, I loved reading it. Most of our disagreement boils down to semantics and personal experience, so it's kinda hard to argue. So I'll just focus on the good of people. I didn't say people aren't naturally helpful. But the majority of people will care for themselves and their kin/friends above the world at large. And that isn't bad. Personally, if I don't know the person I don't give half a shit what happens to them. And as for my friends (!@#$ my family lol), we treat each other to our specializations and give gifts to the poorer of us. But out of the people I know, the poorer ones are the people who knowingly and willingly put less work into their career. Which is perfectly fine, btw! They chose something else to prioritize, religion family food hobbies etc, and work is just down the list. Consequently they get paid less so that people who do want to put a lot of effort into work get paid more. I suppose greed isn't the right word, but every human wants to better themselves one way or another. Capitalism allows people to decide if they want to make work their life, and be rich, or make something else their life, and not be rich.

As for the alternatives, see ancient greek. And at first everyone wanted George Washington to be a King.

I suppose that is a good place to stop, agreeing to disagree.

My last words, myself, will be this:  To care for our kin is important - and while I understand the nature to be ambivalent towards strangers, I feel it's best to extend that hand; as maybe someday you will be the one in need of help from strangers.  We are all together in this world - be it he who reaps the corn, sews the shirts, or keeps the internet intact.  Thank you for your kindness in this discussion, and I hope you sleep well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a surprisingly wholesome conversation and I'm glad that it's stayed civil thus far, and I do hope it continues to remain such. I have always avoided the P&W forums as a whole over the general toxicity and in my earlier years I would try to remain civil only to get into devolved pissing matches and dick measuring. I'm sure i'll jump in at some point but this is solid back and forth and I'm quite enjoying it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point, what of the people that don't want to live in a commune or anarchy? Right now it is perfectly legal to start a commune/anarchy, provided you do not harm the welfare of the local civilians. Are you in support of a world-wide commune/anarchy @BrythonLexi? And if you are, I encourage you to read Anthem by Ayn Rand. I know, I know. She's a known free market advocate. But the book made me awestruck when I first read it in 8th grade. I feel as though that isn't too far off to what a few decades in a perfect commune would do. Individuality would cease to exist. 

Personally, I am deathly afraid of anything like that. The idea of total equality sends chills to my bones. There are a few reasons for that, and it's just my personal experience in life thus far. Such as my blood disorder. It wasn't "fair" that I have a terminal blood disorder. It wasn't "fair" that my childhood consisted of hospital visits. But  it's made me who I am. I don't want to be equal to anyone, I want to stand out in some degree. I feel like wanting equality is a disservice to yourself, as you are voluntarily giving up your humanity.

And to be objective, how would humanity get off this planet if we are just a massive confederation of communal city states? That inherently puts a cap on our technological advancement. At least Marxism/Leninism supports the idea of a functioning central government, and the Soviets/Chinese were able to do large national projects (albeit much less efficiently and humanely than western nations). How would Anarchism ever measure up to that?

But if being Anarchist is just to force compromise (meaning you are an anarchist with the hope that you can force the world to be more left/liberal rather than actually anarchist) then I have nothing really against it. It's great leverage on businesses. Cuz revolution is bad for profits. But if you truly believe that Anarchism is the way forward, then I really don't understand. Could you explain why/how Anarchism is better than any other systems we currently have?

 

Edited by Aqua-Corpsman
missed a letter smh

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

Another point, what of the people that don't want to live in a commune or anarchy? Right now it is perfectly legal to start a commune/anarchy, provided you do not harm the welfare of the local civilians. Are you in support of a world-wide commune/anarchy @BrythonLexi? And if you are, I encourage you to read Anthem by Ayn Rand. I know, I know. She's a known free market advocate. But the book made me awestruck when I first read it in 8th grade. I feel as though that isn't too far off to what a few decades in a perfect commune would do. Individuality would cease to exist. 

Personally, I am deathly afraid of anything like that. The idea of total equality sends chills to my bones. There are a few reasons for that, and it's just my personal experience in life thus far. Such as my blood disorder. It wasn't "fair" that I have a terminal blood disorder. It wasn't "fair" that my childhood consisted of hospital visits. But  it's made me who I am. I don't want to be equal to anyone, I want to stand out in some degree. I feel like wanting equality is a disservice to yourself, as you are voluntarily giving up your humanity.

And to be objective, how would humanity get off this planet if we are just a massive confederation of communal city states? That inherently puts a cap on our technological advancement. At least Marxism/Leninism supports the idea of a functioning central government, and the Soviets/Chinese were able to do large national projects (albeit much less efficiently and humanely than western nations). How would Anarchism ever measure up to that?

But if being Anarchist is just to force compromise (meaning you are an anarchist with the hope that you can force the world to be more left/liberal rather than actually anarchist) then I have nothing really against it. It's great leverage on businesses. Cuz revolution is bad for profits. But if you truly believe that Anarchism is the way forward, then I really don't understand. Could you explain why/how Anarchism is better than any other systems we currently have?

 

Cool, aight.

  • Simply put, the communes would give people who don't want to take part in it the materials they need to be independent - their own land and the materials to use said land.  Those who want to join communes would be signing some sort of contract for living there - those who don't, again, would have the ability to go off on their own and do what they wish.
  • The myth of individuality being erased under communism and anarchism is just that, a myth.  Nobody is saying that everybody must be the same - in fact, i'd argue that capitalism is more a risk of people becoming "the same".  So many people have dreams of things like the arts, or writing, or being a scientist - and must shelve that for factory work or the service industry because the arts don't pay.  People's professions today are based on what pays - and for most Americans, that means retail or fast food, with no sense of what the worker wants in life.  Under the anarchist system, people in communes would indeed be obligated to work some number of hours to keep society running - but after those few (10-20 hr/wk estimate) hours of work, those people could expand out and explore themselves, free of the exhaustion that full-time capitalist labour gives.  Under anarchism, artists could explore their talent without being shackled to 40-60 hours a week of useless "service" and be too tired to expand themselves.
  • I'm greatly sorry that you've gone through such medical issues, and it's such a shame.  But that is not what we want to throw away - we believe the individual can be even greater than before, once their bread has been secured (in the way it hasn't in today's society).
  • Capitalism is not the most innovative system, first off.  Humans have been developing their craft of invention since our dawn, and our ceaseless tinkering has never ended.  I've done so much programming, myself, not to innovate or drive a profit - but because I enjoy my craft.  I wouldn't throw that out the door.
  • And why would you say techological advancement is the goal of society?  While that is one valid answer to things, think about other ways to measure society.  Even if capitalism is the most efficient and innovative system, I measure a society based on how the least among it are treated.  To me, capitalism is a poison because it inherently means that those at the bottom of the chain - the disabled and poor - are left to suffer (See: The Reserve Army of Labor)
  • I truly believe anarchism is the way forward, and here's why - we rely on eachother, not the elites.  Growing up, the biggest people in my life have been those in my community - my family, my friends, my coworkers.  When all went to hell, the state left me with only enough for food (finding a job was impossible - small town, back injury, and my motel being so far away from any job it would be impossible to keep one).  But who rescued me but friends, and offered help but charities?  To me, i'm living in anarchism already - mutual aid, our core tenant, is something I live every day; helping others not for profit, but so that we are all better off.  I wish to destroy the states and eat the rich because, in my eyes, us workers can do more alone than we can under those bosses.  Us workers help eachother sustain ourselves, even under a system that incentivises personal greed.  Us workers don't give food to he who can pay most - in my experience, we share food amongst ourselves so everybody eats.  It's the most natural system, and capitalism poisons the tree and leaves innocent victims of poverty and disease in the richest country on Earth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.