Left-Wing Discussion Thread

[Pandeeria]

Marx didn't "invent" socialism, just made a new interpretation of it, the term predates him.

What counts as socialism and what doesn't should be divided into five categories
1. Potential forms of socialism
2. Possible forms of socialism (Debatable)
3. Movements related to but not actually socialism
4. Movements not related to socialism but get mistaken for socialism
5. Movements not related to socialism that are obviously not socialist.]

I'd like to see someone make a list of ideologies/systems/theories based on those five categories.

1: Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Anarcho-communism etc. (these could also be placed in 2., since the groups are quite similar).
3. Stalinism, Maoism (Don't have all components of socialism). Democratic socialism is this or 2.
4. National Socialism, Social Democracy
5. Not too sure here. Maybe when people compare communism to Fascism?

To the people not self-aware that they're a prime contributor to r/badpolitics, they may think Fascism is Socialist at it's base. We've had a few such mislead souls here.

I'd interject capitalism. Though people often see Social Democracy (read: band aided capitalism) as not capitalist, so eh.

[Mattopilos]

-snip-

That is why I put it in group 4. It isn't reaaaaaly what socialism stands for, but I can see why people would think it is at face value. Look any deeper and it is very much as you said: "Band-aided capitalism". Or as I call it, "Soft-capitalism".

[Pandeeria]

-snip-

That is why I put it in group 4. It isn't reaaaaaly what socialism stands for, but I can see why people would think it is at face value. Look any deeper and it is very much as you said: "Band-aided capitalism". Or as I call it, "Soft-capitalism".

Little do they know, Soft-capitalism is only Capitalism in decline!

[Mattopilos]

That is why I put it in group 4. It isn't reaaaaaly what socialism stands for, but I can see why people would think it is at face value. Look any deeper and it is very much as you said: "Band-aided capitalism". Or as I call it, "Soft-capitalism".

Little do they know, Soft-capitalism is only Capitalism in decline!

Hope to hell it is. If not, it will just become state socialism which I would prefer over capitalism, but not by much.

[Pandeeria]

Little do they know, Soft-capitalism is only Capitalism in decline!

Hope to hell it is. If not, it will just become state socialism which I would prefer over capitalism, but not by much.

State Socialism, as in the Soviet Union and PRC?

[Mattopilos]

Hope to hell it is. If not, it will just become state socialism which I would prefer over capitalism, but not by much.

State Socialism, as in the Soviet Union and PRC?

Well, in the worst cases, yes. Mostly I just mean that it is a state with protectionist economic views, but still overbearing in the likes of law enforcement.

[Grenartia]

-snip-

That is why I put it in group 4. It isn't reaaaaaly what socialism stands for, but I can see why people would think it is at face value. Look any deeper and it is very much as you said: "Band-aided capitalism". Or as I call it, "Soft-capitalism".

Sure, if you're only looking at post-war SD. Classical SD is very socialist, however.

[Pandeeria]

State Socialism, as in the Soviet Union and PRC?

Well, in the worst cases, yes. Mostly I just mean that it is a state with protectionist economic views, but still overbearing in the likes of law enforcement.

So basically inefficient capitalism where the State purges you because it's scared, or a slightly less inefficient capitalism where you don't get purged because of political fear.

What a tough decision.

Regardless, State Socialism is not better but on the contrary worse to Social Democracy! What we really need is actual Socialism, not State domination!

[Grenartia]

Hope to hell it is. If not, it will just become state socialism which I would prefer over capitalism, but not by much.

State Socialism, as in the Soviet Union and PRC?

The Soviet Union was more State Capitalist than anything. It only pretended to be socialist. PRC even more so.

How can any actual fucking socialist or communist claim the USSR and its puppets were/are anything related to socialism? Where's the worker ownership of the means of production? And don't say "the state", because the only way that could possibly fly is if the workers owned the state, which they clearly never have.

[Pandeeria]

State Socialism, as in the Soviet Union and PRC?

The Soviet Union was more State Capitalist than anything. It only pretended to be socialist. PRC even more so.

How can any actual fucking socialist or communist claim the USSR and its puppets were/are anything related to socialism? Where's the worker ownership of the means of production? And don't say "the state", because the only way that could possibly fly is if the workers owned the state, which they clearly never have.

State Socialism and State Capitalism are both empty terms. The described the exact same thing: an economic system dominated by the State. I reject the theoretical basis of State Socialism; I don't think the State can nor should ever manage the means of production on behalf of the working class. At most it should direct economic affairs during times of war.

[Mattopilos]

Well, in the worst cases, yes. Mostly I just mean that it is a state with protectionist economic views, but still overbearing in the likes of law enforcement.

So basically inefficient capitalism where the State purges you because it's scared, or a slightly less inefficient capitalism where you don't get purged because of political fear.

What a tough decision.

Regardless, State Socialism is not better but on the contrary worse to Social Democracy! What we really need is actual Socialism, not State domination!

Exactly. A utopian socialist system would be stateless... and in my views anarchic.

[Pandeeria]

So basically inefficient capitalism where the State purges you because it's scared, or a slightly less inefficient capitalism where you don't get purged because of political fear.

What a tough decision.

Regardless, State Socialism is not better but on the contrary worse to Social Democracy! What we really need is actual Socialism, not State domination!

Exactly. A utopian socialist system would be stateless... and in my views anarchic.

Not quite. Statelessness is not utopian. The ideals of Communism and Socialism shit on ideology and utopianism.

[Mattopilos]

Exactly. A utopian socialist system would be stateless... and in my views anarchic.

Not quite. Statelessness is not utopian. The ideals of Communism and Socialism shit on ideology and utopianism.

I use the term because Kropotkin often used it. That would be because that was what most people claimed anarchy was -utopian. He embraced it rather than rejected it, because he knew how silly people who didn't look into it saw it.
I wouldn't say they shit on ideology. I would see more post-leftist communists in that case and less tankies.

[Pandeeria]

Not quite. Statelessness is not utopian. The ideals of Communism and Socialism shit on ideology and utopianism.

I use the term because Kropotkin often used it. That would be because that was what most people claimed anarchy was -utopian. He embraced it rather than rejected it, because he knew how silly people who didn't look into it saw it.
I wouldn't say they shit on ideology. I would see more post-leftist communists in that case and less tankies.

Idealism has no place in the basis of Material Dialectics and Historicism.

[Bhikkustan]

Which leader do you think has the spiciest dialectics?

[Mattopilos]

I use the term because Kropotkin often used it. That would be because that was what most people claimed anarchy was -utopian. He embraced it rather than rejected it, because he knew how silly people who didn't look into it saw it.
I wouldn't say they shit on ideology. I would see more post-leftist communists in that case and less tankies.

Idealism has no place in the basis of Material Dialectics and Historicism.

utopian =/= idealism. They can mean quite different things. idealism for one is a philosophy, while something being utopian isn't.

[Pandeeria]

Which leader do you think has the spiciest dialectics?

Obviously Zizek. He even wrote a book about it.

[Pandeeria]

Idealism has no place in the basis of Material Dialectics and Historicism.

utopian =/= idealism. They can mean quite different things. idealism for one is a philosophy, while something being utopian isn't.

Idealism is contradictory to materialism, something you must grasp.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Which leader do you think has the spiciest dialectics?

Obviously Zizek. He even wrote a book about it.

[Mattopilos]

utopian =/= idealism. They can mean quite different things. idealism for one is a philosophy, while something being utopian isn't.

Idealism isn't contradictory to materialism, something you must grasp.

It can be... just depends what the idealism is referring to. But I know what you mean. It was definitely contradictory for Fascists, for one, though.

[Pandeeria]

Idealism isn't contradictory to materialism, something you must grasp.

It can be...

No, it can't. Or else you fail to grasp the basis of historical materialism, a grave error.

[Ither]

I am a Trotskyist-Socialist Democrat

[Pandeeria]

I am a Trotskyist-Socialist Democrat

You probably aren't.

[Mattopilos]

It can be...

No, it can't. Or else you fail to grasp the basis of historical materialism, a grave error.

Okay, if you could do so briefly, what would you say materialism explains and what idealism explains? Maybe then I can understand where my misunderstanding is.

I am a Trotskyist-Socialist Democrat

Wait, you can be both?

[Pandeeria]

It can be...

No, it can't. Or else you fail to grasp the basis of historical materialism, a grave error.

Oh fuck, I meant to say it is* contradictory to materialism. My bad!