[Truth To Power]

Huh?? What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about?

The first several lines of your objections, gripes, and whines are about this one point to which you seem entirely resistant. Maybe I can solve this by asking you a question: "do you believe every instance of capitalism that has ever appeared in the world is exactly and precisely a duplicate copy of every other one?"

No -- but none of them ever consisted of public, state, or any other collective ownership of the means of production.

So your point would be....?

That should be obvious enough for you.

It's obvious you think you have an argument, but don't.

Now apply that concept of variations in occurrences to socialism and reread that part of my post.

And...? Obviously there are degrees of capitalism and socialism, as ownership of land and capital is typically somewhere on a continuum between private and collective. Whether a society is capitalist, socialist, or something else (yes, Dave, there is a something else) depends on where it falls on the continuum. It is notable that of all major modern economies, China (following Hong Kong's example) has moved off the capitalism-socialism continuum by combining private ownership of capital with public ownership of land, with self-evident success.

I see there is really no chance of resolving "misconceptions" with you as your confusion is intentional, purposeful, and unreasoned. And therefore there is no point in discussing this because you refuse to hear.

My clarity is intentional, purposeful, and very reasoned. It is YOUR confusion that is intentional, purposeful, and unreasoned.

Now go ahead and deceive yourself into believing you "won". After all, a person whose understanding of the world is no more than a product of their own fantasies "wins" every time.

Readers are invited to read what I have written and what Dave has written, and decide for themselves who is clear and who is "confused."

[The Immortal Goon]

Two errors here: "state capitalism" is an oxymoron, as capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production

The dictionary disagrees with you and does not state that to be a precondition as you describe.

This is just a dishonest way of blaming capitalism for the evils and failures of socialism by calling socialism, "state capitalism." It's just a stupid lie.

Definitions, Lesson 1: Socialism is an ideology in which the working class, on the co-operative principle, control the means of production. This is not the same as a bourgeois democracy:

One of the most significant signs of our times is the readiness with which our struggling middle class turns to schemes of State or Municipal ownership and control, for relief from the economic pressure under which it is struggling. Thus we find in England demands for the nationalisation of the telephone system, for the extension of municipal enterprise in the use of electricity, for the extension of the parcel system in the Post Office, for the nationalisation of railways and canals. In Ireland we have our middle class reformers demanding state help for agriculture, state purchase of lands, arterial draining, state construction of docks, piers and harbours, state aid for the fishing industry, state control of the relations between agricultural tenant and landlord, and also nationalisation of railways and canals. There is a certain section of Socialists, chiefly in England, who never tire of hailing all such demands for state activity as a sign of the growth of the Socialist spirit among the middle class, and therefore worthy of all the support the working-class democracy can give. In some degree such a view seems justifiable. The fact that large sections of the capitalist class join in demanding the intervention of the State in industry is a sure sign that they, at least, have lost the overweening belief in the all-sufficiency of private enterprise which characterised their class a generation ago; and that they have been forced to recognise the fact that there are a multitude of things in which the ‘brain’, ‘self-reliance’, and ‘personal responsibility’ of the capitalist are entirely unnecessary. To argue that, since in such enterprises the private property-holder is dispensed with, therefore he can be dispensed with in all other forms of industrial activity, is logical enough and we really fail to see in what manner the advocates of capitalist society can continue to clamour for such state ownership as that alluded to – ownership in which the private capitalist is seen to be superfluous, and yet continue to argue that in all other forms of industry the private capitalist is indispensable. For it must be remembered that every function of a useful character performed by the State or Municipality to-day was at one time performed by private individuals for profit, and in conformity with the then generally accepted belief that it could not be satisfactorily performed except by private individuals.

But all this notwithstanding, we would, without undue desire to carp or cavil, point out that to call such demands ‘Socialistic’ is in the highest degree misleading. Socialism properly implies above all things the co-operative control by the workers of the machinery of production; without this co-operative control the public ownership by the State is not Socialism – it is only State capitalism. The demands of the middle-class reformers, from the Railway Reform League down, are simply plans to facilitate the business transactions of the capitalist class. State Telephones – to cheapen messages in the interest of the middle class who are the principal users of the telephone system; State Railways – to cheapen carriage of goods in the interest of the middle-class trader; State-construction of piers, docks, etc. – in the interest of the middle-class merchant; in fact every scheme now advanced in which the help of the State is invoked is a scheme to lighten the burden of the capitalist – trader, manufacturer, or farmer. Were they all in working order to-morrow the change would not necessarily benefit the working class; we would still have in our state industries, as in the Post Office to-day, the same unfair classification of salaries, and the same despotic rule of an irresponsible head. Those who worked most and hardest would still get the least remuneration, and the rank and file would still be deprived of all voice in the ordering of their industry, just the same as in all private enterprises.

Therefore, we repeat, state ownership and control is not necessarily Socialism – if it were, then the Army, the Navy, the Police, the Judges, the Gaolers, the Informers, and the Hangmen, all would all be Socialist functionaries, as they are State officials – but the ownership by the State of all the land and materials for labour, combined with the co-operative control by the workers of such land and materials, would be Socialism.

Schemes of state and municipal ownership, if unaccompanied by this co-operative principle, are but schemes for the perfectioning of the mechanism of capitalist government-schemes to make the capitalist regime respectable and efficient for the purposes of the capitalist; in the second place they represent the class-conscious instinct of the business man who feels that capitalist should not prey upon capitalist, while all may unite to prey upon the workers. The chief immediate sufferers from private ownership of railways, canals, and telephones are the middle class shop-keeping element, and their resentment at the tariffs imposed is but the capitalist political expression of the old adage that “dog should not eat dog.”

It will thus be seen that an immense gulf separates the ‘nationalising’ proposals of the middle class from the ‘socialising’ demands of the revolutionary working class. The first proposes to endow a Class State – repository of the political power of the Capitalist Class – with certain powers and functions to be administered in the common interest of the possessing class; the second proposes to subvert the Class State and replace it with the Socialist State, representing organised society – the Socialist Republic. To the cry of the middle class reformers, “make this or that the property of the government,” we reply, “yes, in proportion as the workers are ready to make the government their property.”

Capitalism and socialism are both based on the same false assumption: that there is no crucial difference between land and capital. Socialists pretend capital is land to justify stealing capital, capitalists pretend land is capital to justify stealing land. But land is not capital any more than capital is land. So there is at least one additional systemic alternative to Wolff's false dichotomy: a system that respects the facts of objective physical reality, and treats land and capital according to their distinct character.

In order to maintain this conclusion in the past, you've had to renounce your own sources, denounce the dictionary, maintain that every socialist has been brainwashed, and that the best academic institutions in the world are ignorant of the great truths that you made up.

For someone that values, "clarity," that's a lot of conspiracy theories at work!

Definitions, Lesson 2: Socialism, as has been implied earlier in the thread, is a basic premise for a system. While all communists are socialists, not all socialists are communists.

Typically, many of them (like Bernie Sanders) are so called, "Democratic Socialists," that believe that the system can be put into place by increasing reforms or directing current powers that be. A prominent modern thinker (now dead) in the United States was Michael Harrington with this transition.

Definitions, Lesson 3: Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. Unlike other forms of socialism, it takes a strictly dialectical-materialist point of view and uses the subsequent understanding of history to inform the ideology of how to reconcile a process of property and human interaction that started in the Neolithic with conditions today.

For the communists, socialism is only the first step—an important first step:

And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.

This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.

Now, there are no other rules than those of "bourgeois law". To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products.

The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.

Marx continues:

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished, after labor has become not only a livelihood but life's prime want, after the productive forces have increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly--only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be left behind in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Only now can we fully appreciate the correctness of Engels' remarks mercilessly ridiculing the absurdity of combining the words “freedom” and “state”. So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state.

The economic basis for the complete withering away of the state is such a high state of development of communism at which the antithesis between mental and physical labor disappears, at which there consequently disappears one of the principal sources of modern social inequality--a source, moreover, which cannot on any account be removed immediately by the mere conversion of the means of production into public property, by the mere expropriation of the capitalists.

This expropriation will make it possible for the productive forces to develop to a tremendous extent. And when we see how incredibly capitalism is already retarding this development, when we see how much progress could be achieved on the basis of the level of technique already attained, we are entitled to say with the fullest confidence that the expropriation of the capitalists will inevitably result in an enormous development of the productive forces of human society.

Socialism, for the communist, is a tool for reconciliation of historical forces of material in human history. For most other socialists, it's the end itself.

[Truth To Power]

Two errors here: "state capitalism" is an oxymoron, as capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production

The dictionary disagrees with you and does not state that to be a precondition as you describe.

Yes, well, if you look a little further in the same source, you will find this gem of clarity:

"state capitalism
noun 1. a form of capitalism in which the state owns or controls most of the means of production and other capital: often very similar to state socialism

This is just a dishonest way of blaming capitalism for the evils and failures of socialism by calling socialism, "state capitalism." It's just a stupid lie.

Definitions, Lesson 1: Socialism is an ideology in which the working class, on the co-operative principle, control the means of production. This is not the same as a bourgeois democracy:

I've just checked half a dozen standard dictionaries, which I use professionally, and cannot find anything resembling that definition in any of them. Can you give an actual dictionary source, i.e., other than marxists.org?

Webster's New World Dictionary defines "socialism" as "any of various theories or systems of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private interests." Nothing about the working class or co-operative principles, so sorry, you're just factually wrong.

Webster's defines "capitalism" as, "the economic system in which all or most of the means of production and distribution, as land, factories, railroads, etc., are privately owned and operated for profit, originally under fully competitive conditions," so as I previously informed you, but you refused to know, "state capitalism" is an oxymoron.

Why would I care what some Marxist know-nothing said 100 years ago? Oh, wait a minute -- other than to demonstrate his stupidity, of course:

To argue that, since in such enterprises the private property-holder is dispensed with, therefore he can be dispensed with in all other forms of industrial activity, is logical enough

No, that is a blatant logical fallacy, equivalent to claiming that since we can do without clothing in the tropics, we can do without it everywhere. It's just arrant, bone-headed idiocy. So Connolly was simply a fool, a nitwit who must have struggled to tie his shoes in the morning, and nothing he said is credible.

For it must be remembered that every function of a useful character performed by the State or Municipality to-day was at one time performed by private individuals for profit, and in conformity with the then generally accepted belief that it could not be satisfactorily performed except by private individuals.

Wrong again. Construction of large-scale hydrological projects, for one, has never been performed by private individuals for profit, and there has never been a generally accepted belief that only private individuals could perform it satisfactorily.

But all this notwithstanding, we would, without undue desire to carp or cavil, point out that to call such demands ‘Socialistic’ is in the highest degree misleading.

Wrong again, as proved above.

Socialism properly implies above all things the co-operative control by the workers of the machinery of production;

No it doesn't, as proved above.

without this co-operative control the public ownership by the State is not Socialism – it is only State capitalism.

<yawn> This stupid, dishonest garbage again? Webster's also (surprise!) has an entry for "state capitalism." It says, "a loose term sometimes equivalent to state socialism."

So Connolly's spew is just garbage, just absurd blather.

The demands of the middle-class reformers, from the Railway Reform League down, are simply plans to facilitate the business transactions of the capitalist class.

Reminding us that Marxism is, in fact, one big conspiracy theory.

State Telephones – to cheapen messages in the interest of the middle class who are the principal users of the telephone system;

State Railways – to cheapen carriage of goods in the interest of the middle-class trader;

Connolly the Economic Know-Nothing strikes again. State railways may cheapen the carriage of goods, but this is not in the interest of the middle class trader, as he must pay a landowner full market value for access to the cheap railway. State provision of transportation infrastructure is exclusively in the interest of landowners, no one else.

State-construction of piers, docks, etc. – in the interest of the middle-class merchant;

Nope. Wrong again. Landowners, for the same reason explained above.

in fact every scheme now advanced in which the help of the State is invoked is a scheme to lighten the burden of the capitalist – trader, manufacturer, or farmer.

Garbage, garbage, garbage, garbage, garbage. It is exclusively the LANDOWNER who benefits from these schemes, no one else.

Were they all in working order to-morrow the change would not necessarily benefit the working class;

It would benefit only landowners.

we would still have in our state industries, as in the Post Office to-day, the same unfair classification of salaries,

Unfair? By what criterion?

and the same despotic rule of an irresponsible head.

This fool hasn't worked in a Post Office in the last century, that's for sure. I have. The featherbedding, laziness and irresponsibility of the workers were appalling.

But in any case, most importantly, state industries result in an even bigger share of production going to landowners in return for nothing.

Those who worked most and hardest would still get the least remuneration, and the rank and file would still be deprived of all voice in the ordering of their industry, just the same as in all private enterprises.

This fool has never worked in a modern government enterprise. I have.

Therefore, we repeat, state ownership and control is not necessarily Socialism – if it were, then the Army, the Navy, the Police, the Judges, the Gaolers, the Informers, and the Hangmen, all would all be Socialist functionaries, as they are State officials –

Wrong again, like the fool he is. The Army, etc. are not engaged in PRODUCTION, so state operation of those functions does not involve public ownership of the MEANS of production.

See how that works?

but the ownership by the State of all the land and materials for labour, combined with the co-operative control by the workers of such land and materials, would be Socialism.

Co-operative control by workers is not necessary to socialism -- which is probably a good thing, as it is infeasible.

Schemes of state and municipal ownership, if unaccompanied by this co-operative principle, are but schemes for the perfectioning of the mechanism of capitalist government-schemes to make the capitalist regime respectable and efficient for the purposes of the capitalist;

Refuted above.

in the second place they represent the class-conscious instinct of the business man who feels that capitalist should not prey upon capitalist, while all may unite to prey upon the workers.

This fool has also never worked in business.

The chief immediate sufferers from private ownership of railways, canals, and telephones are the middle class shop-keeping element, and their resentment at the tariffs imposed is but the capitalist political expression of the old adage that “dog should not eat dog.”

Wrong. Landowners lose most when private owners of infrastructure extract the rents that would otherwise go to the landowner.

It will thus be seen that an immense gulf separates the ‘nationalising’ proposals of the middle class from the ‘socialising’ demands of the revolutionary working class. The first proposes to endow a Class State – repository of the political power of the Capitalist Class – with certain powers and functions to be administered in the common interest of the possessing class; the second proposes to subvert the Class State and replace it with the Socialist State, representing organised society – the Socialist Republic. To the cry of the middle class reformers, “make this or that the property of the government,” we reply, “yes, in proportion as the workers are ready to make the government their property.”

Marxist claptrap.

Capitalism and socialism are both based on the same false assumption: that there is no crucial difference between land and capital. Socialists pretend capital is land to justify stealing capital, capitalists pretend land is capital to justify stealing land. But land is not capital any more than capital is land. So there is at least one additional systemic alternative to Wolff's false dichotomy: a system that respects the facts of objective physical reality, and treats land and capital according to their distinct character.

In order to maintain this conclusion in the past, you've had to renounce your own sources, denounce the dictionary,

No, Goon, that is not what happened. I invite readers to go to the thread you just linked, read it all, and verify for themselves that you falsely claimed that a quote from Marx in a work by Isaak Rubin was Rubin's view, not Marx's. I corrected you, and you -- wisely -- let it drop. And I did not "denounce" the dictionary; I merely pointed out that good dictionaries list more than one sense of many words; it is an equivocation fallacy to use one sense of a word in one part of an argument, another sense in another part, and pretend you are talking about the same thing.

maintain that every socialist has been brainwashed,

That's certainly true, except for the self-serving power-seekers who know exactly what they are doing. And it's also true of every apologist for capitalism, except the rich and privileged ones who know which side their bread is buttered on.

and that the best academic institutions in the world are ignorant of the great truths that you made up.

Institutions cannot know or be ignorant (though academics working in them certainly can), and the truth is what it is. I have identified it, but have made up none of it.

For someone that values, "clarity," that's a lot of conspiracy theories at work!

So you are denying that there has ever been a conspiracy? Or are you merely denying that there has ever been a conspiracy we don't already know about? Well, I am pretty sure there have been conspiracies we don't know about -- after all, if conspiracy kooks did not exist, conspirators would have to invent them.

Oh. Right.

In most cases, though, no conspiracy need be invoked. Just self-interest responding to incentives -- and laziness, stupidity, greed, cowardice, ignorance, conceit and dishonesty, of course.

< Marxist claptrap mercifully deleted >

[Davea8]

TTP, you said:

I've just checked half a dozen standard dictionaries, which I use professionally, and cannot find anything resembling that definition in any of them. Can you give an actual dictionary source, i.e., other than marxists.org?

You are trusting an anti-socialist source to be the most accurate and trusted authority on the nature of socialism. If I want to know what the essence of Buddhism is I wouldn't go to a Christian authority or an atheist. If I wanted to know what communism is all about I wouldn't go to a capitalist. So rejecting Marxism in your quest for a description of socialism is like rejecting medical experts in a search for an explanation of how cancer spreads.

Corporate publishing companies are not reliable sources of definitions of socialism. You should go to those who originated and/or advanced the theory and practice of socialism for reliable information on socialism.

There is no country yet that has fully implemented socialism. They are all in some stage of development or other. Some have tried violent revolution. Some have tried seizing state power through the ballot box. Some are trying to gradually build socialism by developing production facilities ("businesses") based on the socialist worker-controlled model and spreading the practice. (Reference Mondragon Corporation in Spain.) So asserting that the "definition" of socialism is that or that is not valid.

[The Immortal Goon]

Yes, well, if you look a little further in the same source, you will find this gem of clarity:

"state capitalism
noun 1. a form of capitalism in which the state owns or controls most of the means of production and other capital: often very similar to state socialism

If you look even closer, you can see this gem of clarity:

often very similar

Which, actually, disproves your point that socialism and state capitalism are the same thing as there is a distinct difference that the dictionary points out.

I've just checked half a dozen standard dictionaries, which I use professionally, and cannot find anything resembling that definition in any of them. Can you give an actual dictionary source, i.e., other than marxists.org?

How about the Oxford English Dictionary:

Freq. with capital initial. A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy.

The range of application of the term is broad. It is typically understood to involve the elevation of the social position and interests of the working class, esp. through redistribution of land or wealth, nationalization of industry and services, and the creation of workers' cooperatives. It is sometimes used synonymously with (esp. Soviet) Communism, although in some Marxist contexts it is used specifically to denote a transitional stage between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

Your professional dictionaries don't include the definitive one, eh? Well, maybe you'll get a better job some day.

It's just arrant, bone-headed idiocy. So Connolly was simply a fool, a nitwit who must have struggled to tie his shoes in the morning, and nothing he said is credible.

Wrong again. Construction of large-scale hydrological projects, for one, has never been performed by private individuals for profit, and there has never been a generally accepted belief that only private individuals could perform it satisfactorily.

Not only is that not true in the United Kingdom (where Connolly was talking about), but it also isn't true in the United States.

Wrong again, as proved above...No it doesn't, as proved above...

Fail.

<yawn> This stupid, dishonest garbage again? Webster's also (surprise!) has an entry for "state capitalism." It says, "a loose term sometimes equivalent to state socialism."

Here are the OED uses of the word before Connolly wrote the piece:

1886 M. J. Salès Master-key Social Reform iv. 20 Their education and placement in life would be as good from the State as from their parents (on my system), except for businesses requiring capital (of which there would be few under State capitalism).

1903 D. Modell tr. P. Kropotkin Mod. Sci. & Anarchism x. 94 Anarchism cannot see in the next coming revolution a mere exchange of monetary symbols for labor-checks, or an exchange of present Capitalism for State-capitalism.

Seems legit.

So Connolly's spew is just garbage, just absurd blather.

Reminding us that Marxism is, in fact, one big conspiracy theory.

False.

State Telephones – to cheapen messages in the interest of the middle class who are the principal users of the telephone system;

You laugh at that, but the legislation was there specifically to cut costs so people could conduct business over the phones:

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton) I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down. It may be desirable to have night messages, but I do not know why half rates should be charged for them, inasmuch as somebody would have to remain in each office during the night, and an additional charge would thus be imposed upon the Post Office. Nor do I understand why there should be a reduction in the rates upon long messages. I regard it as one of the advantages of the present system that it induces us to cultivate 1057 brevity, and no doubt the brevity of the speeches delivered in this House is much increased by the habit when drawing up telegrams of trying to save as many halfpence as possible. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General will tell us something about the exact position of the Post Office with regard to telephones. In my opinion it is desirable that the telephone business should be acquired as soon as possible by the Government, and that it should be constituted a branch of the telegraphic service. Owing to the present high charges, very few persons put themselves in general telephonic communication. I should like to see at every telegraph office a telephone, which could be used by any person for one, two, or three minutes at a very small charge. I believe some of the telephonic patents will soon lapse, and I hope that the Post Office will, without recognizing vested interests, acquire the telephonic service for the use of the public.

§MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith, &c.) I wish to say a word in support of what has been urged by my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) in regard to the development of the telephone system. Anyone who has seen the working of that system in America must be aware of how backward we are in this country in regard to it. It would be a most useful thing to have telephonic communication between the various post-offices.

And lots more.

Connolly the Economic Know-Nothing strikes again. State railways may cheapen the carriage of goods, but this is not in the interest of the middle class trader, as he must pay a landowner full market value for access to the cheap railway. State provision of transportation infrastructure is exclusively in the interest of landowners, no one else.

I have absolutely no idea why you think a middle class merchant would not want access to cheap transportation of goods. Even if you, with no real reason, think that transportation infrastructure only helps landowners (which, I'm assuming you've eaten or used something today that has used transportation infrastructure), that's certainly not why it was built.

Nope. Wrong again. Landowners, for the same reason explained above.

There was no reason given above, just your bizarre assertion that eminent domain doesn't exist.

Garbage, garbage, garbage, garbage, garbage. It is exclusively the LANDOWNER who benefits from these schemes, no one else.

The Economist disagrees with you.

There are entire economic models based upon it.

This fool hasn't worked in a Post Office in the last century, that's for sure.

10 June 1899

And, of course, I'm assuming you know nothing about the irony in you ranting and raving about James Connolly not having gone to a post office

Wrong again, like the fool he is. The Army, etc. are not engaged in PRODUCTION

Even if you were to deliberately ignore the entire point in that he is stating that the military is not a socialist organization, you're still incorrect.

Co-operative control by workers is not necessary to socialism

As the Oxford English Dictionary, my definition, and Lightman's definition makes clear nobody pretends the term, "socialism," is totally based upon class control, though it is mostly understood to mean it. There are, as I mentioned, Harringtonites and others that don't accept the workers' control, necessarily, being needed.

Really, that covers everything in your attempt to dismantle Connolly on grounds that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

I invite readers to go to the thread you just linked, read it all, and verify for themselves that you falsely claimed that a quote from Marx in a work by Isaak Rubin was Rubin's view, not Marx's.

Really, I can't imagine anybody wanting to read more of whatever ideology you keep screaming about, but I posted it for a reason. And you cited Rubin;s quote of Marx instead of Marx, which was rather confusing and overly complicated.

Really, in academics, that wouldn't fly either.

And when I spelled everything out and put a summary from Purdue on it so you might be able to understand it, you came up with the conspiracy theory to explain why the dictionary was wrong, Purdue was wrong, and I was brainwashed to not understand your conspiracy theory.

Really, that's all that needs to be said about it.

As to your defense of the conspiracy theories:

So you are denying that there has ever been a conspiracy? Or are you merely denying that there has ever been a conspiracy we don't already know about? Well, I am pretty sure there have been conspiracies we don't know about -- after all, if conspiracy kooks did not exist, conspirators would have to invent them.

Oh. Right.

In most cases, though, no conspiracy need be invoked. Just self-interest responding to incentives -- and laziness, stupidity, greed, cowardice, ignorance, conceit and dishonesty, of course.

Just because there have been conspiracies in the past, does not mean academics, dictionary manufacturers, and brainwashed socialists are involved in an elaborate conspiracy to subvert the public's understanding of a text that you didn't interpret correctly.

[Truth To Power]

TTP, you said:

I've just checked half a dozen standard dictionaries, which I use professionally, and cannot find anything resembling that definition in any of them. Can you give an actual dictionary source, i.e., other than marxists.org?

You are trusting an anti-socialist source to be the most accurate and trusted authority on the nature of socialism.

So, all lexicographers are in on an anti-socialist conspiracy...?



To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, "Dictionary definitions have a well known anti-socialist bias."

If I want to know what the essence of Buddhism is I wouldn't go to a Christian authority or an atheist.

Buddhists are atheists.

If I wanted to know what communism is all about I wouldn't go to a capitalist.

Well, that would be uncharacteristically astute of you, as capitalists and communists make the same mistake, though for opposite reasons.

So rejecting Marxism in your quest for a description of socialism is like rejecting medical experts in a search for an explanation of how cancer spreads.

No. Medical experts are trying to arrive at the truth about cancer. Marxists are trying to obscure the truth about socialism.

Corporate publishing companies are not reliable sources of definitions of socialism.

Lexicographers are.

You should go to those who originated and/or advanced the theory and practice of socialism for reliable information on socialism.

So, I should go to my local Kingdom Hall for reliable information on Jehovah's Witnesses....?

I think not.

There is no country yet that has fully implemented socialism. They are all in some stage of development or other. Some have tried violent revolution. Some have tried seizing state power through the ballot box. Some are trying to gradually build socialism by developing production facilities ("businesses") based on the socialist worker-controlled model and spreading the practice. (Reference Mondragon Corporation in Spain.)

Just as there are differing degrees and forms of capitalism or feudalism. So what?

So asserting that the "definition" of socialism is that or that is not valid.

Yes it is. When you don't use standard definitions, you are in the unfortunate position of not knowing what you are talking about. But I have a feeling that might be an accustomed and comfortable position for you...

[Davea8]

So, all lexicographers are in on an anti-socialist conspiracy...?

Your lexicographers all live in and have bought into the capitalist society or at least their bosses certainly have, and so their world outlook is like yours, --thoroughly indoctrinated into capitalist ideology. So they will reflect capitalist values and never notice it for the most part. Hence, due to either world outlook or a combination of that outlook plus their realization of their obligation to please their bosses, their work will comply with the capitalist view and values. Call it a conspiracy if doing so comforts you.

[Truth To Power]

So, all lexicographers are in on an anti-socialist conspiracy...?

Your lexicographers all live in and have bought into the capitalist society or at least their bosses certainly have, and so their world outlook is like yours, --thoroughly indoctrinated into capitalist ideology.

Wrong and wrong. They have no such agenda, and I'm almost as anti-capitalist as anti-socialist. Remember: of the two of us, I am the one who understands that capitalism and socialism are both based on essentially the same false premise.

So they will reflect capitalist values and never notice it for the most part.

That well-known anti-socialist bias....?

Hence, due to either world outlook or a combination of that outlook plus their realization of their obligation to please their bosses, their work will comply with the capitalist view and values.

The old "bourgeois logic" nonsense.

Call it a conspiracy if doing so comforts you.

I call it paranoid Marxist silliness.

[Davea8]

Your lexicographers all live in and have bought into the capitalist society or at least their bosses certainly have, and so their world outlook is like yours, --thoroughly indoctrinated into capitalist ideology.

Wrong and wrong. They have no such agenda, and I'm almost as anti-capitalist as anti-socialist.

We all know that if a worker does not do what his boss wants, he will not be working for that boss very long. And bosses who truly have no agenda and are objective are as rare as hen's teeth. All want to advance their business.

Remember: of the two of us, I am the one who understands that capitalism and socialism are both based on essentially the same false premise.

No, you don't "understand" that. You believe it. And you are wrong. Capitalism is based on the premise of private ownership of business and profits. Socialism is based on the premise of worker ownership and control of business and profits. If you really are as smart as you claim, you know this.

Hence, due to either world outlook or a combination of that outlook plus their realization of their obligation to please their bosses, their work will comply with the capitalist view and values.

The old "bourgeois logic" nonsense.

And here you are denying that workers must do as their bosses require.

[Truth To Power]

Your lexicographers all live in and have bought into the capitalist society or at least their bosses certainly have, and so their world outlook is like yours, --thoroughly indoctrinated into capitalist ideology.

Wrong and wrong. They have no such agenda, and I'm almost as anti-capitalist as anti-socialist.

We all know that if a worker does not do what his boss wants, he will not be working for that boss very long.

Unless he has a union job.

And bosses who truly have no agenda and are objective are as rare as hen's teeth.

I've seen no evidence from you or anyone else that dictionaries are edited to agree with some sort of capitalist agenda. If anything, they bend over backwards to accommodate anti-capitalist sentiment.

All want to advance their business.

But how does inaccurate lexicography advance their business?

Remember: of the two of us, I am the one who understands that capitalism and socialism are both based on essentially the same false premise.

No, you don't "understand" that.

Yes, I do.

You believe it. And you are wrong.

No, I am objectively correct, and you will now prove it:

Capitalism is based on the premise of private ownership of business and profits.

So you agree that "state capitalism" is just an oxymoronic lie socialists use to blame capitalism for socialism's failures. Good.

Socialism is based on the premise of worker ownership and control of business and profits.

See? You proved I'm right: in both cases, no distinction is made between the privately created value of the goods and services businesses produce, which form the basis of the rightful portion of private profit, and the publicly created value of the natural resources and privileges that form the basis of the wrongful portion of private profits -- i.e., rents -- which are rightly recovered for public purposes and benefit. Because both capitalism and socialism seek to obscure the difference between privately and publicly created value, they are both making the same mistake. They are merely making that mistake for opposite reasons: the capitalists to justify private appropriation of publicly created value, the socialists to justify public (but in reality, political) appropriation of privately created value.

If you really are as smart as you claim, you know this.

I know you use it to avoid knowing the relevant facts, which I have explained for you above.

Hence, due to either world outlook or a combination of that outlook plus their realization of their obligation to please their bosses, their work will comply with the capitalist view and values.

Garbage. You haven't read a journal of social science recently, have you?

The old "bourgeois logic" nonsense.

And here you are denying that workers must do as their bosses require.

<yawn> Because unlike you, I have actually worked in business.

[Davea8]

Union or not, the worker must do the work of the company as directed by the business owner or CEO.

Capitalism is based on the premise of private ownership of business and profits.

So you agree that "state capitalism" is just an oxymoronic lie socialists use to blame capitalism for socialism's failures. Good.

You seem to have trouble reading accurately. I agreed to no such thing. State capitalism is still based on private ownership as opposed to public ownership. Profits are not shared with the public either.

What you refuse to recognize, because it would put a swift end to your games, is that capitalism and socialism represent fundamentlly different relationships between employers and the employed. State capitalism does not have a socialist relationship between employer and employed. It has one closest to that of capitalism: a manger is assigned by government and workers must do as the manager says while having no say in the running of the business. Profits are not shared either. Workers get a paycheck and profits go to the top.

Unless you can show and prove a socialist-type relationship between employer and employed under state capitalism, you are just repeating the same drivel you’ve already posted and I’m not interested. However I will comment briefly on this:

no distinction is made between the privately created value of the goods and services businesses produce, which form the basis of the rightful portion of private profit, and the publicly created value of the natural resources and privileges that form the basis of the wrongful portion of private profits -- i.e., rents -- which are rightly recovered for public purposes and benefit. Because both capitalism and socialism seek to obscure the difference between privately and publicly created value, they are both making the same mistake.

You are unclear. Do you mean no distinction is made between the privately created value of the goods and services businesses produce under capitalism?
What are “the rightful portion of private profits”? How are they “rightful”?
What is “the publicly created value of the natural resources and privileges that form the basis of the wrongful portion of private profits -- i.e., rents”? How are “values” of natural resources and privileges” created by the “public” and how are they “wrongful”?
How are rents “wrongful”?
And what does “rightly recovered for public purposes and benefit”mean?
Without full explanation of your terms and menings, this is all gibberish. I suspect that is what it is anyway.

Because unlike you, I have actually worked in business.

Your arrogant posturing here betrays a fear of being found out as wrong. You don’t know me or my history. But since you “know” that I never worked in business, please tell me where I have worked then, or do you think I’ve been collecting public support all my life?

And since it has come to this, I’m persuaded that your story here, which is Greek to me and seemingly unclear even to yourself, is without merit.

[Truth To Power]

Union or not, the worker must do the work of the company as directed by the business owner or CEO.

Nope.

Capitalism is based on the premise of private ownership of business and profits.

So you agree that "state capitalism" is just an oxymoronic lie socialists use to blame capitalism for socialism's failures. Good.

You seem to have trouble reading accurately.

Nope. I scored 170/170 on the GRE verbal. You did not.

I agreed to no such thing.

Yes, you did.

State capitalism is still based on private ownership as opposed to public ownership.

No, it self-evidently and indisputably is not.

Profits are not shared with the public either.

Sure they are. They are often used for public purposes and benefit through government spending on services and infrastructure.

What you refuse to recognize, because it would put a swift end to your games, is that capitalism and socialism represent fundamentlly different relationships between employers and the employed.

No, they only represent different OWNERS of the means of production -- land and capital -- as any good dictionary will confirm.

State capitalism does not have a socialist relationship between employer and employed.

There is no such thing as state capitalism. It's just an oxymoron concocted to blame capitalism for the failures and evils of socialism.

It has one closest to that of capitalism: a manger is assigned by government and workers must do as the manager says while having no say in the running of the business.

Nonsense. The workers can vote, which means they have indirect control of the government, the manager, and the business.

Profits are not shared either. Workers get a paycheck and profits go to the top.

That's clearly false, as proved above. Profits go into public revenue, to be used (in theory) for public purposes and benefit.

Unless you can show and prove a socialist-type relationship between employer and employed under state capitalism, you are just repeating the same drivel you’ve already posted and I’m not interested.

Again, the difference between capitalism and socialism is in ownership, not the workplace relation of employer to employed.

However I will comment briefly on this:

no distinction is made between the privately created value of the goods and services businesses produce, which form the basis of the rightful portion of private profit, and the publicly created value of the natural resources and privileges that form the basis of the wrongful portion of private profits -- i.e., rents -- which are rightly recovered for public purposes and benefit. Because both capitalism and socialism seek to obscure the difference between privately and publicly created value, they are both making the same mistake.

You are unclear.

I am very clear. I am just identifying facts that you have decided not to know, so your mind finds a way to avoid knowing them.

Do you mean no distinction is made between the privately created value of the goods and services businesses produce under capitalism?

No, between the privately and publicly created portions of the value of the goods and services produced under both capitalism and socialism.

What are “the rightful portion of private profits”?

The portion due to the private contributions of the providers of capital goods and services, chiefly equipment, structures, and training.

How are they “rightful”?

Rightful earning is by, and commensurate with, contribution. Rightful profits are caused by the private contribution of the providers of capital goods and services, who thereby earn them, just as the workers earn wages through their private contributions of labor.

What is “the publicly created value of the natural resources and privileges that form the basis of the wrongful portion of private profits -- i.e., rents”?

Natural resource rents are the market values of the legal privileges of exclusive use of natural resources. Privilege rents are the market values of the legal privileges of stopping others from engaging in economic activity, other than use of natural resources, which they would otherwise be at liberty to engage in (chiefly patents and copyrights, but also private banks' privilege of issuing money).

How are “values” of natural resources and privileges” created by the “public” and how are they “wrongful”?

The value of natural resources comes from three sources: the physical qualities nature provides, the services and infrastructure government provides, and the opportunities and amenities the community provides. The latter two sources are public.

The value of privileges comes from their issuance and enforcement by government, and the community-created value of the opportunities they foreclose to non-holders of those privileges.

How are rents “wrongful”?

The rents of privilege are inherently wrongful, because they are simply the value of people's liberty, which has been forcibly removed. The rents of natural resources are not wrongful in themselves, but their private appropriation and retention is wrongful because it gives publicly created value to private interests that did not create it.

And what does “rightly recovered for public purposes and benefit”mean?

It means it is part of government's job to secure and reconcile people's individual rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor, and it cannot do that if it enables private interests to appropriate publicly created value instead of recovering that value for public purposes and benefit (i.e., publicly provided services and infrastructure).

Without full explanation of your terms and menings, this is all gibberish. I suspect that is what it is anyway.

I am aware that technical definitions sometimes need to be specified, and I am happy to do that.

Because unlike you, I have actually worked in business.

Your arrogant posturing here betrays a fear of being found out as wrong.

That is one thing I needn't fear.

You don’t know me or my history.

No?

But since you “know” that I never worked in business, please tell me where I have worked then, or do you think I’ve been collecting public support all my life?

The latter is certainly possible. But in descending order of probability, I'd say your employment has been as a:
civil servant
public school or college teacher
worker or manager in a church, charity, or NGO, or
trade union staffer

And since it has come to this, I’m persuaded that your story here, which is Greek to me and seemingly unclear even to yourself, is without merit.

No, it is very clear, factual, and crucially important. Your mind just has to reject the relevant facts in order to preserve your false and evil beliefs.

[Davea8]

Something else that is also very clear, factual, and crucially important -though you don't know it, -is that you are full of yourself.

[Truth To Power]

Something else that is also very clear, factual, and crucially important -though you don't know it, -is that you are full of yourself.

<yawn> I have identified the relevant facts. These facts make you so uncomfortable that you choose not to know them, think about them, or even be exposed to them. Simple.

I have been doing this for a long time, Dave. I have seen and refuted all the objections, often dozens or even hundreds of times. Most capitalists and socialists are like you: when they are proved wrong, they do not permit that fact to stimulate any reconsideration of their proved-false beliefs.

So, did you have anything relevant to say about anything I wrote, or are you just going to pout because you don't know how to deal with an opponent who is right, knows it, and can prove it?

[The Immortal Goon]

These facts make you so uncomfortable that you choose not to know them, think about them, or even be exposed to them. Simple.

I'm still waiting for your response to me.

I have seen and refuted all the objections

False.

So, did you have anything relevant to say about anything I wrote, or are you just going to pout because you don't know how to deal with an opponent who is right, knows it, and can prove it?

That's interesting—I was going to ask you the exact same thing as you have not responded with anything relevant to say about what I wrote, and you instead have decided to pout because you don't know how to deal with an opponent who is right, knows it, and can prove it!

[Truth To Power]

These facts make you so uncomfortable that you choose not to know them, think about them, or even be exposed to them. Simple.

I'm still waiting for your response to me.

IME, demolishing and humiliating mods is a good way to get banned.

I have seen and refuted all the objections

False.

I have seen yours and refuted them, just not this time (yet).

So, did you have anything relevant to say about anything I wrote, or are you just going to pout because you don't know how to deal with an opponent who is right, knows it, and can prove it?

That's interesting—I was going to ask you the exact same thing as you have not responded with anything relevant to say about what I wrote, and you instead have decided to pout because you don't know how to deal with an opponent who is right, knows it, and can prove it!

Actually, I had forgotten about your post, and did not intend to respond to it. I have found that once people start with the cartoons, facepalm pictures, gifs, etc., in place of relevant facts and logic, the discussion is no longer about the issues but about who can devote the most time and energy to a propaganda campaign. I don't care to compete on that level.

But if I can find time in the next few days, I will demolish any actual arguments I can find in your post.

[The Immortal Goon]

IME, demolishing and humiliating mods is a good way to get banned.

Nothing to worry about then.

I have found that once people start with the cartoons, facepalm pictures, gifs, etc., in place of relevant facts and logic, the discussion is no longer about the issues but about who can devote the most time and energy to a propaganda campaign. I don't care to compete on that level.

Yeah, I just thought that since you were having trouble with defining words and reduced to ad hom logical fallacies, excessive smilies, and writing out that you're pretending to yawn, it might be easier to communicate with pictures.

[ingliz]

Socialism

"State Socialism is our salvation. If we possessed it in Russia the transition to complete Socialism would be easy, because State Socialism is centralisation, control, socialisation— in fact, everything that we lack. The greatest menace to us is the opportunism of the small bourgeoisie... "

V.I. Lenin, The Chief Task of our Times, Izvestia, May 30th, 1918

[Truth To Power]

Yes, well, if you look a little further in the same source, you will find this gem of clarity:

"state capitalism
noun 1. a form of capitalism in which the state owns or controls most of the means of production and other capital: often very similar to state socialism

If you look even closer, you can see this gem of clarity:

often very similar

Which, actually, disproves your point that socialism and state capitalism are the same thing as there is a distinct difference that the dictionary points out.

Nonsense. The dictionary does not point out any difference, distinct or otherwise, only similarity. As capitalism by definition is PRIVATE ownership of the means of production, how is the state owning or controlling most of the means of production a form of capitalism?

<crickets>

I've just checked half a dozen standard dictionaries, which I use professionally, and cannot find anything resembling that definition in any of them. Can you give an actual dictionary source, i.e., other than marxists.org?

How about the Oxford English Dictionary:

Freq. with capital initial. A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society;

So YOUR OWN SOURCE states explicitly that STATE OWNERSHIP of the means of production is SOCIALISM, proving me absolutely and indisputably right, and you absolutely and indisputably wrong.

advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement.

That's the normal abstract sense of advocacy typical with many ideological -isms.

Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy.

I hope we can agree that is not the relevant sense of socialism, as it is also pretty common in capitalist societies.

The range of application of the term is broad.

I.e., there are different senses.

It is typically understood to involve the elevation of the social position and interests of the working class, esp. through redistribution of land or wealth, nationalization of industry and services, and the creation of workers' cooperatives.

So YOUR OWN SOURCE says socialism involves NATIONALIZATION -- i.e., transfer from private to state ownership -- of industry, again proving me absolutely and indisputably right, and you absolutely and indisputably wrong.

It is sometimes used synonymously with (esp. Soviet) Communism,

Me right. You wrong. Again.

although in some Marxist contexts it is used specifically to denote a transitional stage between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

Whatever that might look like....

Your professional dictionaries don't include the definitive one, eh?

The definitive one just proved me right and you wrong again!

Well, maybe you'll get a better job some day.

Maybe socialists will learn how to read plain English. Or think clearly.

It's just arrant, bone-headed idiocy. So Connolly was simply a fool, a nitwit who must have struggled to tie his shoes in the morning, and nothing he said is credible.

<yawn> Wrong again. I didn't say Connolly's statement was wrong because he was an idiot; that would have been an ad hominem. I said we can tell he was an idiot because his statement was so idiotic.

Wrong again. Construction of large-scale hydrological projects, for one, has never been performed by private individuals for profit, and there has never been a generally accepted belief that only private individuals could perform it satisfactorily.

Not only is that not true in the United Kingdom (where Connolly was talking about), but it also isn't true in the United States.

Oh, really? If it wasn't true, then you must be able to provide an example of a large-scale hydrological project built by private individuals for profit.

I'm waiting.

Wrong again, as proved above...No it doesn't, as proved above...

Fail.

<yawn> You'll have to do better than that.

<yawn> This stupid, dishonest garbage again? Webster's also (surprise!) has an entry for "state capitalism." It says, "a loose term sometimes equivalent to state socialism."

Here are the OED uses of the word before Connolly wrote the piece:

1886 M. J. Salès Master-key Social Reform iv. 20 Their education and placement in life would be as good from the State as from their parents (on my system), except for businesses requiring capital (of which there would be few under State capitalism).

This does not indicate what he means, if anything, by "state capitalism."

Fail.

1903 D. Modell tr. P. Kropotkin Mod. Sci. & Anarchism x. 94 Anarchism cannot see in the next coming revolution a mere exchange of monetary symbols for labor-checks, or an exchange of present Capitalism for State-capitalism.

Seems legit.

No, it seems the anarchist was falsely claiming, for purposes of deceit, that the state is inherently capitalist.

So Connolly's spew is just garbage, just absurd blather.

Wrong again. Try reading an introductory logic text some time.

Reminding us that Marxism is, in fact, one big conspiracy theory.

False.

Ooooh, eloquent.

Anyone who reads Marx can see his notion of the capitalist class is essentially conspiratorial.

Connolly the Economic Know-Nothing strikes again. State railways may cheapen the carriage of goods, but this is not in the interest of the middle class trader, as he must pay a landowner full market value for access to the cheap railway. State provision of transportation infrastructure is exclusively in the interest of landowners, no one else.

I have absolutely no idea why you think a middle class merchant would not want access to cheap transportation of goods.

Of course he does. But it doesn't benefit him when he has to pay landowners full market value for it.

Even if you, with no real reason, think that transportation infrastructure only helps landowners

It's not with no reason; it's a plain fact of economics, explained by the Henry George Theorem.

(which, I'm assuming you've eaten or used something today that has used transportation infrastructure), that's certainly not why it was built.

It very often IS why it was built: landowners almost always lobby intensively for transportation infrastructure. But in any case, that is irrelevant to who benefits.

Nope. Wrong again. Landowners, for the same reason explained above.

There was no reason given above,

Of course there was: "...he must pay a landowner full market value for access to the cheap railway." Remember now?

just your bizarre assertion that eminent domain doesn't exist.

Will you be providing a direct, verbatim, in-context quote of that assertion...?

Of course not.

I made no such assertion, as readers can verify for themselves; and eminent domain is irrelevant in any case: it only applies to the land the infrastructure is built on, not the much more extensive land that is thereby made more advantageous to its users.

Garbage, garbage, garbage, garbage, garbage. It is exclusively the LANDOWNER who benefits from these schemes, no one else.

The Economist disagrees with you.

Nope. Most people are landowners, so most benefit from infrastructure (though producers and consumers who don't own much land lose out on the tax end). And the fact that only landowners benefit from infrastructure spending is proved by the fact that landowners all get richer for doing nothing when the infrastructure is built, while non-landowners are still locked in poverty.

There are entire economic models based upon it.

See above. The enrichment of landowners and impoverishment of non-landowners by infrastructure is O B V I O U S.

This fool hasn't worked in a Post Office in the last century, that's for sure.

10 June 1899

So his nonsense is irrelevant to modern conditions.

And, of course, I'm assuming you know nothing about the irony in you ranting and raving about James Connolly not having gone to a post office

I did not rant or rave, and I did not say he hadn't gone to a post office. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. You do that a lot.

Wrong again, like the fool he is. The Army, etc. are not engaged in PRODUCTION

Even if you were to deliberately ignore the entire point in that he is stating that the military is not a socialist organization,

His "point" is irrelevant and fallacious, because he elided "of the means of production" from "state ownership and control."

you're still incorrect.

Wrong again. The ACE owns some gear, and does produce some infrastructure, but that does not alter the fact that the Army is not, and is not designed to be, a production organization.

Co-operative control by workers is not necessary to socialism

As the Oxford English Dictionary, my definition, and Lightman's definition makes clear nobody pretends the term, "socialism," is totally based upon class control, though it is mostly understood to mean it. There are, as I mentioned, Harringtonites and others that don't accept the workers' control, necessarily, being needed.

Proving me right and you wrong.

Really, that covers everything in your attempt to dismantle Connolly on grounds that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

You have been destroyed.

I invite readers to go to the thread you just linked, read it all, and verify for themselves that you falsely claimed that a quote from Marx in a work by Isaak Rubin was Rubin's view, not Marx's.

Really, I can't imagine anybody wanting to read more of whatever ideology you keep screaming about, but I posted it for a reason.

Yes, and I know what that reason was: to prevent yourself and your readers from knowing the facts.

And you cited Rubin;s quote of Marx instead of Marx, which was rather confusing and overly complicated.

No, it was not, as Marx wrote in German -- and are you really still trying to justify having falsely claimed Marx's words were Rubin's and that I had falsely claimed to be citing Marx? Really?

Really, in academics, that wouldn't fly either.

Wrong.

And when I spelled everything out and put a summary from Purdue on it so you might be able to understand it,

You mean, when you threw up a smokescreen of irrelevancies to weasel out of the fact that you had been conclusively demolished and humiliated?

you came up with the conspiracy theory to explain why the dictionary was wrong, Purdue was wrong, and I was brainwashed to not understand your conspiracy theory.

No, Goon. That is just more $#!+ you are making up out of whole cloth. Every time you do not provide direct, verbatim, in-context quotes to support your claims about what I said, readers correctly assume that your claims about what I said are false.

Really, that's all that needs to be said about it.

As to your defense of the conspiracy theories:

Which you have never quoted me advancing, and never will....

So you are denying that there has ever been a conspiracy? Or are you merely denying that there has ever been a conspiracy we don't already know about? Well, I am pretty sure there have been conspiracies we don't know about -- after all, if conspiracy kooks did not exist, conspirators would have to invent them.

Oh. Right.

In most cases, though, no conspiracy need be invoked. Just self-interest responding to incentives -- and laziness, stupidity, greed, cowardice, ignorance, conceit and dishonesty, of course.

Just because there have been conspiracies in the past, does not mean academics, dictionary manufacturers, and brainwashed socialists are involved in an elaborate conspiracy to subvert the public's understanding of a text that you didn't interpret correctly.

This, from the guy who claimed Rubin's quote from Marx was not from Marx???

ROTFLMAO!!1!

[The Immortal Goon]

You seem to have trouble with words, so I'll spell it out.

Two errors here: "state capitalism" is an oxymoron, as capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production

I pointed out that the dictionary disagrees with you:

1. The definition that you imagined state capitalism had, that is to say, that it was, "an oxymoron," is incorrect
2. The other preconditions you set down did not have to match.

You retorted by ignoring this entirely and making up a new argument:

Yes, well, if you look a little further in the same source, you will find this gem of clarity:

"state capitalism
noun 1. a form of capitalism in which the state owns or controls most of the means of production and other capital: often very similar to state socialism

Here you fail to understand that "similar" is not synonymous with identical, so even in your attempt to ignore the original topic you're mistaken. You cover for this by the, bluntly, strange argument tactic of doubling down that "similarity," means, "identical":

Nonsense. The dictionary does not point out any difference, distinct or otherwise, only similarity.

Again, this is not "identical," as you seem to maintain, nor does it have anything to do with you not understanding the word in the first place. But I think now we can get to the bottom of it and you can start using the words correctly now

So YOUR OWN SOURCE states explicitly that STATE OWNERSHIP of the means of production is SOCIALISM, proving me absolutely and indisputably right, and you absolutely and indisputably wrong.

In response to:

Freq. with capital initial. A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society;

I think you're having trouble again. I'll help

I've just checked half a dozen standard dictionaries, which I use professionally, and cannot find anything resembling that definition [" Socialism is an ideology in which the working class, on the co-operative principle, control the means of production"] in any of them. Can you give an actual dictionary source, i.e., other than marxists.org?

I presented one from the premier dictionary in the English dictionary:

Freq. with capital initial. A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy.

The range of application of the term is broad. It is typically understood to involve the elevation of the social position and interests of the working class, esp. through redistribution of land or wealth, nationalization of industry and services, and the creation of workers' cooperatives. It is sometimes used synonymously with (esp. Soviet) Communism, although in some Marxist contexts it is used specifically to denote a transitional stage between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

Now you're confused about what you were speaking about in the first place.

You also seem to be having some trouble with language again too. The OED doesn't, "explicitly that STATE OWNERSHIP of the means of production is SOCIALISM." It quite clearly leaves, "collective ownership," as an alternative, especially the kind that I described.

And, just seeing how you're having trouble with simple language I'm reluctant to go into this, so you can skip it if it's too much—but just because some forms of socialism are defined by state ownership does not mean that all state ownership is socialism. In the same way, just because a flower is a plant, it does not stand to reason that all plants are flowers

I hope we can agree that is not the relevant sense of socialism, as it is also pretty common in capitalist societies.

That's true, TTP! Capitalist societies do have government ownership of some parts of society and are thoroughly capitalist too!

So YOUR OWN SOURCE says socialism involves NATIONALIZATION -- i.e., transfer from private to state ownership -- of industry, again proving me absolutely and indisputably right, and you absolutely and indisputably wrong.

I'm not sure what you think it's contradicting; and remember what I said about the flower example above. If it's too much to understand, then we can suss it out in the philosophy section if it helps you out!

Me right. You wrong. Again.

I know it can be hard when you're having trouble, but try using complete sentences. It can really help express what you're trying to say. Try again with a complete sentence, and then I'll try to understand what you mean. Pretty soon we can have real conversations!

The definitive one just proved me right and you wrong again!

This is in reference to me saying:

Your professional dictionaries don't include the definitive one, eh?

Your sentence doesn't make any sense nor address what I brought up. Don't get discouraged though, try again!

Maybe socialists will learn how to read plain English. Or think clearly.

You're not the socialist, remember? Don't worry though. After you try your post again, maybe you'll find that you can write in plain English and define all the words I used!

Oh, really? If it wasn't true, then you must be able to provide an example of a large-scale hydrological project built by private individuals for profit.

I'm waiting.

Oh, the red text is a link. If you click on it, it will take you to examples. The link is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... _companies

If you have trouble just clicking it, you can copy and paste it and put it into your address bar at the top of the browser you're reading this on. Let me know if you have any more trouble

This [the Oxford English Dictionary] does not indicate what he means, if anything, by "state capitalism."

Those examples were provided so that you can see that the term had a variety of meanings before Connolly used it. If you need me to walk you through the argument again, let me know!

No [it is not legit], it seems the anarchist was falsely claiming, for purposes of deceit, that the state is inherently capitalist.

Since we were speaking about Connolly's use of the term, I meant that it was a legit use for him to use the term, "state capitalism," in the way that he did as it had only been used in the way that he had explained it. If you disagree with that, then that's fine—but time moves forward. So you have to put things into context that way.

I'll bet it's a little hard for you to understand. But ask me in another thread, and I can go through chronology for you. You seem to have trouble with dictionaries, so maybe ask an adult to explain the concept to you if you don't feel comfortable asking me.

Anyone who reads Marx can see his notion of the capitalist class is essentially conspiratorial.

I don't suppose that you have an example?

It's not with no reason; it's a plain fact of economics, explained by the Henry George Theorem.

AHHHH...I see. If you use real words it's easier to see what you're saying.

George's ideas were mostly based on extrapolating British land usage to the United States, which is somewhat problematic in the 19th century, but he accidentally came to some good conclusions. Marx and Engels actually crib one or two of them in the Communist Manifesto.

But Georgism has to do with land theory, value, and taxes. I'm not sure that the argument you have been making really stands up so far as hating infrastructure. Though I'm not a Georgist.

Will you be providing a direct, verbatim, in-context quote of that assertion...?

Of course not.

I made no such assertion, as readers can verify for themselves; and eminent domain is irrelevant in any case: it only applies to the land the infrastructure is built on, not the much more extensive land that is thereby made more advantageous to its users.

Since you weren't using real words when espousing Georgism, I didn't know what you were talking about. You need to write things down so we understand

I did not rant or rave, and I did not say he hadn't gone to a post office. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. You do that a lot.

And you still don't understand the irony of charging James Connolly with his lack of action in a post office

His "point" is irrelevant and fallacious, because he elided "of the means of production" from "state ownership and control."

Even if this is true, it does not change the fact that his point was that the military was not socialist and your argument was undercut. Try reading it again now that I've explained why I said it

Yes, and I know what that reason was: to prevent yourself and your readers from knowing the facts.

No, I'm just trying to help you understand and write ideas effectively so that some day we might be able to have a debate.

Wrong [academics allows you to cite a source from a text and not acknowledge the text].

That's plagiarism.

Yes, and I know what that reason was: to prevent yourself and your readers from knowing the facts.

I posted our previous conversation so that I could prevent everybody from seeing it?

The red text is a link. It will go to citations and other things.

You mean, when you threw up a smokescreen of irrelevancies to weasel out of the fact that you had been conclusively demolished and humiliated?

You were having trouble understanding something so I pasted a summary so you would understand it better. I think you must have had trouble reading it though. You can ask if you need help!

So far as the conspiracy theories, it's plain for everyone to read. Unless you were having trouble writing!

Now, I've made corrections on your posts in what makes sense and what doesn't.

Why don't you reply with something more coherent and we can have a real discussion