Socialism is the ideal way to go. Change my Mind - Page 22 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15100959
Senter wrote:Then you've already lost.

No, he won. You lost.
That is not socialism.

Yes it is. That's the definition.
It's a capitalist's definition designed to perpetuate capitalist propaganda.

No, that claim is nothing absurd socialist propaganda. The definition he gave is how lexicographers have determined the word is actually used. Pretending it means something else is fallacious and disingenuous propaganda.
Lenin even talked about what you described/defined in negative terms.

Because Lenin was an evil, lying propagandist, not a lexicographer.
First of all, as it says, it's a theory (probably Marx's theories but misrepresented) and not a definition of an economic system.

The theory describes a system.
Without elaboration for now, socialism is worker ownership and control of the means of production.

Nope. That's syndicalism. "Social" comes from a Latin word meaning, "allies," and is commonly used to refer to friendship, groups, society, etc., NOT "WORKERS." You are just OBJECTIVELY WRONG.

CLEAR?
"Collective" ownership and control is what was developed in the USSR and China to name two places,

Right. And it was socialism.
and it was what Lenin referred to as "state capitalism".

Because Lenin was a liar. "State capitalism" is an absurd and dishonest oxymoron that socialists concocted to try to shift onto capitalism the blame for what socialism actually did when implemented in practice.
The issue is who controls it. And it's not the workers.

Because that would be syndicalism, not socialism.
And no, I haven't waded through all the posts on all these pages.

Or the entry for "socialism" in any good dictionary.
#15101113
Truth To Power wrote:No, he won. You lost.

Yes it is. That's the definition.

No, that claim is nothing absurd socialist propaganda. The definition he gave is how lexicographers have determined the word is actually used. Pretending it means something else is fallacious and disingenuous propaganda.

The fact is that capitalist ideology will never find anything positive about socialist ideology. And that is unreasonable. (If you want to talk about the positive things socialist ideology finds in capitalism, we can discuss that in a thread for the purpose.) And the truth which is dependent on facts and accuracy as opposed to spin and disinformation is that capitalist publishers deceitfully apply the known and observed strategies as employed by Marxists in their effort to establish a socialist society, to their definition of "socialism". Everything you call "socialism" and would point to as cases of "socialism" were in fact temporary strategies and tactics in place on the way to reaching the goal of socialism. They were not "socialism", themselves. It's like watching loggers felling trees and declaring they're building homes. Then a fire consumes all the felled trees and you say "those homes failed to stand against the fire". Your "socialism" is the felled trees. REAL socialism would be the homes the lumber from the trees would have been used to build if there hadn't been that fire. THOSE HOMES (socialism) WERE NEVER BUILT.

Because Lenin was an evil, lying propagandist, not a lexicographer.

That is not an argument. Any fool can throw stones.

The theory describes a system.

Yes. A system other than socialism.

Nope. That's syndicalism. "Social" comes from a Latin word meaning, "allies," and is commonly used to refer to friendship, groups, society, etc., NOT "WORKERS." You are just OBJECTIVELY WRONG.

Bullshit friend. If you want to argue the accuracy of a Marxian analysis, you need to argue what Marx wrote and not some other theory. Marx specified that socialism ("lower communism") would be a new economy in which the working class held the power and owned and directed "the means of production". So it is you who is "objectively wrong".

Because Lenin was a liar. "State capitalism" is an absurd and dishonest oxymoron that socialists concocted to try to shift onto capitalism the blame for what socialism actually did when implemented in practice.

LOL!! Lenin wrote about "state capitalism" (1918) and many others referred to "state capitalism" before the Russian revolution was won (1923) ! You'll say anything and all it amounts to is a crock of shit. Try factual truth. You wouldn't win any of your treasured claims but you would preserve your honesty and integrity.
#15105657
Senter wrote:The fact is that capitalist ideology will never find anything positive about socialist ideology.

No, that is not a fact. It is just some false and absurd garbage you have made up. Capitalist ideology finds at least one thing about socialist ideology so positive that it emulates it: the (objectively false) axiom that there is no essential difference between owning land and owning a factory, which underlies both socialist and capitalist ideology.
And that is unreasonable.

Because you made it up.
(If you want to talk about the positive things socialist ideology finds in capitalism, we can discuss that in a thread for the purpose.)

See above. Socialism agrees with the objectively false capitalist axiom that there is no essential difference between owning a factory and owning land.
And the truth which is dependent on facts and accuracy as opposed to spin and disinformation is that capitalist publishers deceitfully apply the known and observed strategies as employed by Marxists in their effort to establish a socialist society, to their definition of "socialism".

Nonsense. Lexicographers just record how words are used by competent users.
Everything you call "socialism" and would point to as cases of "socialism" were in fact temporary strategies and tactics in place on the way to reaching the goal of socialism. They were not "socialism", themselves.

How convenient. Can it have escaped your notice that apologists for capitalism say the exact same thing?? "Oh, that wasn't true free market capitalism, that was government interference."
It's like watching loggers felling trees and declaring they're building homes. Then a fire consumes all the felled trees and you say "those homes failed to stand against the fire". Your "socialism" is the felled trees. REAL socialism would be the homes the lumber from the trees would have been used to build if there hadn't been that fire. THOSE HOMES (socialism) WERE NEVER BUILT.

Your analogy is invalid because you can't build a home with a chainsaw and matches, you can only fell trees and burn them.
That is not an argument. Any fool can throw stones.

It is a fact.
Yes. A system other than socialism.

Nope.
Bullshit friend.

Fact, friend.
If you want to argue the accuracy of a Marxian analysis, you need to argue what Marx wrote and not some other theory. Marx specified that socialism ("lower communism") would be a new economy in which the working class held the power and owned and directed "the means of production".

Which is exactly what happened in Russia, China, Cuba, etc. for a few weeks or months after the socialist revolution, until its infeasibility became too obtrusive to deny and too dangerous to tolerate.
So it is you who is "objectively wrong".

Nope.
LOL!! Lenin wrote about "state capitalism" (1918) and many others referred to "state capitalism" before the Russian revolution was won (1923) !

But it was only applied to the USSR after it had failed.

You'll say anything and all it amounts to is a crock of shit. Try factual truth.

You wouldn't win any of your treasured claims but you would preserve your honesty and integrity.
#15105907
Agent Steel wrote:I see a lot of hate and/or fear against socialism. I'm in favor of it.

I want to have a discussion with someone about it. Who would like to debate?

Only one person please. Once I choose that person they will get all of my focus and attention, and the others will only be spectators.



I don't know what everyone is claiming but, the only problem I have with socialism is when it's too much.
What I mean is, socialism is indeed something that's good in general terms, but unfortunately socialist parties nowadays, focus only on this.
My only problem with socialism is that when it's used, it isn't used with balance.
Too much socialism ends up bad for a state and in extension to the people, but no socialism at all, is maltreatment towards the masses in my opinion .
Socialism is good as long as its controlled and "meisured ".
#15105917
Hellas me ponas wrote:
I don't know what everyone is claiming but, the only problem I have with socialism is when it's too much.
What I mean is, socialism is indeed something that's good in general terms, but unfortunately socialist parties nowadays, focus only on this.
My only problem with socialism is that when it's used, it isn't used with balance.
Too much socialism ends up bad for a state and in extension to the people, but no socialism at all, is maltreatment towards the masses in my opinion .
Socialism is good as long as its controlled and "meisured ".



You're being very *vague*, and why should the decision-making over the implementation of socialism / socialist policies, be in the hands of nationalist capitalist *politicians*?

You mean 'social democracy' here, and I'm in favor of *workers-of-the-world* socialism, and not nationally-*constrained* socialism -- Stalinism.
#15105923
Hellas me ponas wrote:
I'm against worldwide communism because ei don't agree with its standards and rules.



What, in your understanding, are worldwide communism's standards and rules?


Hellas me ponas wrote:
But I'm okay with some amount of socialism.
There is no need to pick a radical left or radical right.
I'm more of a centre man.


Hellas me ponas wrote:
Afterall, for the survival of a nation, sometimes socialism must be put aside temporarily , such as in situations of total war or revolution



So you'd rather have inter-imperialist warfare (WWI, WWII) than economic democracy?

Proletarian revolution is *required* to get to workers-of-the-world socialism / communism.
#15105927
Revolution =war
Thus we are saying mor eor less the same thing.
Also, no I don't want interimperialist wars and I'm not in favour of the current system either.
I agree a revolution is needed and that socialism would be a good ruler to lead the new states, but pragmatism is also required, unfortunately we can't be idealists in this world, total equality can't be ever truly achieved and isn't in human nature (or nature at all) thus we can't spend our time chasing the impossible. You can't make a circle into a cube can you? But, I would agree with a socialist but pragmatic goverment.
#15105933
Hellas me ponas wrote:
Revolution =war



These are two distinctly *different* kinds of war, though -- typically warfare is just one 'brand' of nationalist faction, versus another. This is the warfare that we're all all-too-familiar with.

But revolution by the world's working class woud be *class* warfare, meaning the overthrow of *all* bourgeois factions, and their institution of private property, in favor of collective workers control over all social production (factories, etc.).


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Hellas me ponas wrote:
Thus we are saying mor eor less the same thing.



I'd rather take the time to *explain* / describe things in a little more detail, as I just did.


Hellas me ponas wrote:
Also, no I don't want interimperialist wars and I'm not in favour of the current system either.
I agree a revolution is needed and that socialism would be a good ruler to lead the new states, but pragmatism is also required, unfortunately we can't be idealists in this world, total equality can't be ever truly achieved and isn't in human nature (or nature at all) thus we can't spend our time chasing the impossible. You can't make a circle into a cube can you? But, I would agree with a socialist but pragmatic goverment.



I guess I'd appreciate it if *you* could be a little more detailed, as well.

Socialism isn't about 'total equality' -- it's about egalitarian *access* to the world's productive *implements* (factories, equipment), particularly for fulfilling unmet *human need* for food, housing, etc., in our modern world.

Maybe if you could elaborate on your concept of 'pragmatic'....
#15105938
Yes that's exactly my point.
Egalitarianism neglects the most basic and known problem of economics.
The shortage of reosurces and the infinity of human needs.
Human needs aren't only food, house and clothes. We aren't animals.
Also if someone distributed today's wealth between 7 billion people, the only thing they would achieve is raising the poor fortune by 0.5 euro each and getting all the western citizens to poor instantly.
Too many people, too little reosurces.
That's why Mars is necessary and important , maybe our problem is solved if we colonise mars. In such a scenario egalitarianism would indeed be a good scenario.
But because we havent found a way to have "unlimited" resources yet, this whole concept is so idealist and utopic, that even a child could realise it.
To sum up,
Infinite reosurces =communism possible
Finite reosurces =NOT
When you find solution to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_problem
Call the un because you will have saved humanity
#15105950
Hellas me ponas wrote:
Yes that's exactly my point.
Egalitarianism neglects the most basic and known problem of economics.
The shortage of reosurces and the infinity of human needs.



Okay, no prob -- I acknowledge that resources are inherently finite while human needs (and wants and desires) are *infinite*.


Hellas me ponas wrote:
Human needs aren't only food, house and clothes. We aren't animals.
Also if someone distributed today's wealth between 7 billion people, the only thing they would achieve is raising the poor fortune by 0.5 euro each and getting all the western citizens to poor instantly.
Too many people, too little reosurces.



Well that's why we need workers control of production, so that things *don't* stay static, and so that there's *new production* for *new needs*.

Workers-of-the-world socialism is more than just *redistribution* of the existing material world.


Hellas me ponas wrote:
That's why Mars is necessary and important , maybe our problem is solved if we colonise mars. In such a scenario egalitarianism would indeed be a good scenario.



Sure, whatever -- I myself have no *objection* to space exploration and colonization of the Solar System.


Hellas me ponas wrote:
But because we havent found a way to have "unlimited" resources yet, this whole concept is so idealist and utopic, that even a child could realise it.
To sum up,
Infinite reosurces =communism possible
Finite reosurces =NOT
When you find solution to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_problem
Call the un because you will have saved humanity



Or I'll just post it here, like this:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


And:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



---


I'll summarize my approach by saying that people can make their own individual personal daily demands lists for material needs and socio-political preferences, given that all productive machinery has been collectivized to the society in general, and to liberated-laborers in particular.

These daily demands lists would be *self-prioritized*, with each demand given a *ranking* (#1, #2, #3, etc.), so that, when mass-aggregated with all other individual demands lists from everyone else in that locality / geographic area, and made public, everyone could see which items received the most *tallies* on the whole, per day, per rank position (#1, #2, #3, etc.).

The rest would be about the communistic gift economy -- all liberated-labor would be for the common good, and would be entirely *voluntary*, to meet individual personal needs only, and *not* for open-ended private accumulations as we have today. People wouldn't *have* to work, and they could take from the 'commons', from other people's liberated-labor, but people could freely *choose* what exactly it is that they're working *for*, and they would have that mass-aggregated 'demands' info to review, daily, to inform their decisions.
#15105960
Hellas me ponas wrote:
This sounds really nice.
Has it ever been put to practice though?



Are you *volunteering*?


= D


Hellas me ponas wrote:
I want you to try and put this concept under the harshest conditions possible. And tell me how it would react and work.
I'm really interested because I want a good working system as much as you do lad :D



Well, I'm not a lad -- I'm 47, but here's a sample scenario for ya:



Let's say that 'work-from-home mattress testing' is the *easiest* work role ever known, and so the multiplier for it is a '1' -- one hour of liberated-labor yields 1 labor credit.

'Spreading manure on a field' happens to be a '4' according to the mass work-role exit survey, but, as things turn out, people have *not* yet automated this kind of farmwork, yet *many* people are demanding beer, which requires this role, and other kinds of farmwork, for its production.

While engineering students and a worldwide legion of hobbyists unobtrusively work in the background on automating this task once-and-for-all, some others note the disparity between supply and demand and opportunistically announce that *they* will do this kind of work, to produce an abundance of beer for the greater region, but only at a multiplier rate of '6'.

Why would *anyone* give a shit about labor credits and agree to do shitwork, even for an increased rate of labor credits, you ask -- ?

Because anyone who can command a *premium* of labor credits, as from higher multiplier rates, are effectively gaining and consolidating their control of society's *reproduction of labor*. Most likely there would be social ('political') factionalism involved, where those who are most 'socially concerned' or 'philosophically driven' would be coordinating to cover as much *unwanted* work territory as possible, all for the sake of political consolidation. Increased numbers of labor credits in-hand would allow a group to *direct* what social work roles are 'activated' (funded), going-forward.

Perhaps it's about colonizing another planet, or about carving high-speed rail networks that criss-cross and connect all seven continents underground. Maybe it's a certain academic approach to history and the sciences, with a cache of pooled labor credits going towards that school of educational instruction. Perhaps it's an *art* faction ascending, funding all kinds of large-scale projects that decorate major urban centers in never-before-seen kinds of ways.

Whatever the program and motivation, society as a whole would be collectively *ceding ground* if it didn't keep the 'revolution' and collectivism going, with a steady pace of automation that precluded whole areas of production from social politics altogether. Technology / automation empowers the *individual* and takes power out of the hands of groups that enjoy cohesiveness based on sheer *numbers* and a concomitant control of social reproduction in their ideological direction. The circulation and usage of labor credits would be a live formal tracking of how *negligent* the social revolution happened to be at any given moment, just as the consolidation of private property is today against the forces of revolutionary politics and international labor solidarity.



https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338
#15106546
Truth To Power wrote:No, that is not a fact. It is just some false and absurd garbage you have made up. Capitalist ideology finds at least one thing about socialist ideology so positive that it emulates it: the (objectively false) axiom that there is no essential difference between owning land and owning a factory, which underlies both socialist and capitalist ideology.

Your opinion. There has been no socialist country that adopted such an idea as law.

Because you made it up.

That is not an argument since it can't be proven. A more mature argument is required.

Nonsense. Lexicographers just record how words are used by competent users.

And in a capitalist society, word usage is influenced by the nation's propaganda. People saw the government of the USSR dominating society and the economy, directing business production, inserting government managers into factories, and directing the workers, and consequently the word "socialism" was taken to mean government ownership and control.

So you're right, at least to an extent. AND propaganda is reflected in the nation's definitions and culture.

How convenient. Can it have escaped your notice that apologists for capitalism say the exact same thing?? "Oh, that wasn't true free market capitalism, that was government interference."

"Exact same thing"? The "same thing" as what I said? Check my words again. I didn't say it wasn't "true" socialism. I said socialism was the GOAL and the strategies to get there failed before the goal of worker ownership and control was reached. NO similarity. Your response is disregarded.

Your analogy is invalid because you can't build a home with a chainsaw and matches, you can only fell trees and burn them.

Analogies are always rejected by the opposition. And the way it is done is by ignoring the meaning and focusing on the precise wording. My meaning remains.

It is a fact.

That is not an argument and neither was "an evil, lying propagandist". Personal opinions don't count.

Nope.

That is not an argument.

Which is exactly what happened in Russia, China, Cuba, etc. for a few weeks or months after the socialist revolution, until its infeasibility became too obtrusive to deny and too dangerous to tolerate.

Then it wasn't a settled, functioning system **IF** that is true. So my point which you have not addressed is that problems they encountered caused them (USSR) to err and fall into state capitalism and fail to establish a finished, stable, functioning socialist system.

You'll say anything and all it amounts to is a crock of shit. Try factual truth.

Ad hominem in lieu of any actual argument.

Obviously you are throwing the reality of your own performance here at me. Why? Trying to preempt the truth through intimidation?
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
Election 2020

What do you care... you guys don't even think it […]

@wat0n 1. Explain what your argument is clearl[…]

Excellent article from The Bulletin of Atomic Scie[…]

https://twitter.com/JoseJuMarti/status/128811232[…]