Anti-Socialism Thread

[Atlantican People]

Welcome all!

(Image)

This thread is dedicated to advancing and providing a space for anti-socialist, anti-communist, and anti-Marxist discussion. Anti-socialism is opposition to socialism, but first it's important to understand what socialism is and isn't. In the broadest of terms, socialism (in theory) is an economic and social model that advocates for collective ownership of the "means of production" (basically things that make things). Most often, this "collective ownership" is really just state ownership with the veneer of popular ownership tacked on.

Socialism is opposed to capitalism, whose proponents believe that the means of production should be owned by individuals. Capitalists believe that, by voting with their money, individuals should decide what goods are produced in the free market. In this way firms that are the most efficient, cost-effective and practical for the consumer will rise to the top. Capitalism has coexisted with freedom and liberal democracy since its inception, and greater social/political freedom is exoribly tied to greater economic freedom. Socialists believe that production should be determined by the state, usually through economic planning. The core objective of socialism is the abolition of private property.

It's important to remember that socialism is not universal healthcare, public roads, free public education, taxes, unions, or "the government doing stuff." These are social policies, not socialist policies, and they are all perfectly compatible with capitalism.

Communism is the ultimate objective of socialism, which (again, in theory) is a movement whose ultimate objective is the creation of a classless, cashless worker-run society. It bears mentioning that, despite many regimes attempts to create such a society, a communist society has never truly existed and never will, as the ideas of communism are fundamentally impractical. Socialism is the vector through which communism is supposedly to be brought about.

There are different gradations of socialism. More standard fare revolutionary socialists believe that capitalism can only be overthrown by a popular revolution. Socialists of this stripe resort to authoritarian and illiberal actions to fulfill their goals. "Democratic" socialists believe that socialism may be brought about by democratic processes, particularly by electoral democracy. It's important to note that democratic socialists and revolutionary socialists do not differ in their ends. They both seek to establish a socialist society. They only differ in that they have different means to that end.

Of course, it's important to remember that there really is no such thing as "democratic" socialism, because the tenants of socialism are fundamentally anti-democratic. Democracy only exists as long as it respects individual liberty. You cannot strip people of their right to property and still call yourself a democracy. This is of course not to mention that all socialist regimes have been authoritarian hellholes whose economic plans have wreaked incalculable havoc upon the world and resulted in millions of people's needless deaths. Socialism is just an excuse for authoritarianism that has never nor will ever accomplish the goals it sets for itself.

---

So, anti-socialists of NationStates, here are a few questions:

1. Does socialism still present a threat to the world? To your country?
2. Should liberals and conservatives do more to square their differences and rally against socialist tides, wherever they may spring up?
3. At what point is armed resistance against socialism called for?

NO

[Eurasies]

What?

Do you know that Uruguay is really a fairly developed country?

Yes, ranked 57th in the world, what an achievment.

Ah yes, I had forgotten that Cuba and Venezuela were world powers

[Eurasies]

I'll just watch how they fight

[Cordel One]

Okay, Dennis, you really need to get better talking points.

Source:

In recent years, scholars have devoted less attention to the debates on colonialism within the Marxist tradition. This reflects the waning influence of Marxism in the academy and in political practice. Marxism, however, has influenced both post-colonial theory and anti-colonial independence movements around the world. Marxists have drawn attention to the material basis of European political expansion and developed concepts that help explain the persistence of economic exploitation after the end of direct political rule.

Although Marx never developed a theory of colonialism, his analysis of capitalism emphasized its inherent tendency to expand in search of new markets. In his classic works such as The Communist Manifesto, Grundrisse, and Capital, Marx predicted that the bourgeoisie would continue to create a global market and undermine both local and national barriers to its own expansion. Expansion is a necessary product of the core dynamic of capitalism: overproduction. Competition among producers drives them to cut wages, which in turn leads to a crisis of under-consumption. The only way to prevent economic collapse is to find new markets to absorb excess consumer goods. From a Marxist perspective, some form of imperialism is inevitable. By exporting population to resource rich foreign territories, a nation creates a market for industrial goods and a reliable source of natural resources. Alternately, weaker countries can face the choice of either voluntarily admitting foreign products that will undermine domestic industry or submitting to political domination, which will accomplish the same end.

In a series of newspaper articles published in the 1850s in the New York Daily Tribune, Marx specifically discussed the impact of British colonialism in India. His analysis was consistent with his general theory of political and economic change. He described India as an essentially feudal society experiencing the painful process of modernization. According to Marx, however, Indian “feudalism” was a distinctive form of economic organization. He reached this conclusion because he believed (incorrectly) that agricultural land in India was owned communally. Marx used the concept of “Oriental despotism” to describe a specific type of class domination that used the state’s power of taxation in order to extract resources from the peasantry. According to Marx, oriental despotism emerged in India because agricultural productivity depended on large-scale public works such as irrigation that could only be financed by the state. This meant that the state could not be easily replaced by a more decentralized system of authority. In Western Europe, feudal property could be transformed gradually into privately owned, alienable property in land. In India, communal land ownership made this impossible, thereby blocking the development of commercial agriculture and free markets. Since “Oriental despotism” inhibited the indigenous development of economic modernization, British domination became the agent of economic modernization.

Marx’s analysis of colonialism as a progressive force bringing modernization to a backward feudal society sounds like a transparent rationalization for foreign domination. His account of British domination, however, reflects the same ambivalence that he shows towards capitalism in Europe. In both cases, Marx recognizes the immense suffering brought about during the transition from feudal to bourgeois society while insisting that the transition is both necessary and ultimately progressive. He argues that the penetration of foreign commerce will cause a social revolution in India. For Marx, this upheaval has both positive and negative consequences. When peasants lose their traditional livelihoods, there is a great deal of human suffering, but he also points out that traditional village communities are hardly idyllic; they are sites of caste oppression, slavery, misery, and cruelty. The first stage of the modernization process is entirely negative, because poor people pay heavy taxation to support British rule and endure the economic upheaval that results from the glut of cheaply produced English cotton. Eventually, however, British merchants begin to realize that Indians cannot pay for imported cloth or British administration if they don’t efficiently produce goods to trade, which provides an incentive for British investment in production and infrastructure. Even though Marx believed that British rule was motivated by greed and exercised through cruelty, he felt it was still the agent of progress. Thus, Marx’s discussion of British rule in India has three dimensions: an account of the progressive character of foreign rule, a critique of the human suffering involved, and a concluding argument that British rule must be temporary if the progressive potential is to be realized.

TLDR: Marx supported colonialism and imperialism because he thought it would further his political objectives.

Not really. What you fail to understand is that Marx believed capitalism must come before the transition of power to a communist society. Marx does not view colonialism as beneficial, but it is progress. The oppressive system before colonization could never be restructured into one run by the people.

[Nevertopia]

Welcome all!

(Image)

This thread is dedicated to advancing and providing a space for anti-socialist, anti-communist, and anti-Marxist discussion. Anti-socialism is opposition to socialism, but first it's important to understand what socialism is and isn't. In the broadest of terms, socialism (in theory) is an economic and social model that advocates for collective ownership of the "means of production" (basically things that make things). Most often, this "collective ownership" is really just state ownership with the veneer of popular ownership tacked on.

Socialism is opposed to capitalism, whose proponents believe that the means of production should be owned by individuals. Capitalists believe that, by voting with their money, individuals should decide what goods are produced in the free market. In this way firms that are the most efficient, cost-effective and practical for the consumer will rise to the top. Capitalism has coexisted with freedom and liberal democracy since its inception, and greater social/political freedom is exoribly tied to greater economic freedom. Socialists believe that production should be determined by the state, usually through economic planning. The core objective of socialism is the abolition of private property.

It's important to remember that socialism is not universal healthcare, public roads, free public education, taxes, unions, or "the government doing stuff." These are social policies, not socialist policies, and they are all perfectly compatible with capitalism.

Communism is the ultimate objective of socialism, which (again, in theory) is a movement whose ultimate objective is the creation of a classless, cashless worker-run society. It bears mentioning that, despite many regimes attempts to create such a society, a communist society has never truly existed and never will, as the ideas of communism are fundamentally impractical. Socialism is the vector through which communism is supposedly to be brought about.

There are different gradations of socialism. More standard fare revolutionary socialists believe that capitalism can only be overthrown by a popular revolution. Socialists of this stripe resort to authoritarian and illiberal actions to fulfill their goals. "Democratic" socialists believe that socialism may be brought about by democratic processes, particularly by electoral democracy. It's important to note that democratic socialists and revolutionary socialists do not differ in their ends. They both seek to establish a socialist society. They only differ in that they have different means to that end.

Of course, it's important to remember that there really is no such thing as "democratic" socialism, because the tenants of socialism are fundamentally anti-democratic. Democracy only exists as long as it respects individual liberty. You cannot strip people of their right to property and still call yourself a democracy. This is of course not to mention that all socialist regimes have been authoritarian hellholes whose economic plans have wreaked incalculable havoc upon the world and resulted in millions of people's needless deaths. Socialism is just an excuse for authoritarianism that has never nor will ever accomplish the goals it sets for itself.

---

So, anti-socialists of NationStates, here are a few questions:

1. Does socialism still present a threat to the world? To your country?
2. Should liberals and conservatives do more to square their differences and rally against socialist tides, wherever they may spring up?
3. At what point is armed resistance against socialism called for?

Does socialism still present a threat to the world? To your country?
No, not really. Capitalism is ultimately the better system in spite of its flaws and communism possess no threat to my real life country. Communism is doomed to fail and collapse under its own weight.

Should liberals and conservatives do more to square their differences and rally against socialist tides, wherever they may spring up?
It's a waste of time hunting down "the red menace". The best way to combat socialism is through debate, not mccarthyism. And even then, being a commie isn't exactly a bad thing despite my criticisms of them.

At what point is armed resistance against socialism called for?
Almost never. Maybe if a communist militia group started shooting up the place and calling for the execution of the "bourgeois" then its time to put a stop to them, but besides that being a commie is a political freedom available in my real life country and is part of the democratic process.

---

I get the criticisms of capitalism and I agree that unregulated, and rampant capitalism is a bad thing. But the solution to that is regulated capitalism with checks and balances, not its abolishment for an inferior system.

In summary, communism has failed every time it has been tried and capitalism is better at getting the results of prosperity that communism is supposedly built upon.

[Albrenia]

This thread's title makes me think it's about anti-social people.

[-Ra-]

This thread's title makes me think it's about anti-social people.

Well, I see you've found your niche!

[Nevertopia]

Source:


TLDR: Marx supported colonialism and imperialism because he thought it would further his political objectives.

Not really. What you fail to understand is that Marx believed capitalism must come before the transition of power to a communist society. Marx does not view colonialism as beneficial, but it is progress. The oppressive system before colonization could never be restructured into one run by the people.

Ya, Marx had a lot of ideas but not a lot of solutions.

[Albrenia]

This thread's title makes me think it's about anti-social people.

Well, I see you've found your niche!

Big oof.

[Punished UMN]

Also, how do you explain the many countries that were better off under socialism than under capitalism they have now?

[-Ra-]

Source:


TLDR: Marx supported colonialism and imperialism because he thought it would further his political objectives.

Not really. What you fail to understand is that Marx believed capitalism must come before the transition of power to a communist society. Marx does not view colonialism as beneficial, but it is progress. The oppressive system before colonization could never be restructured into one run by the people.

Marx: Colonialism is good, actually, because it fulfills my political objections.

We can thank liberal thinkers like Denis Diderot for actually opposing colonialism, not justifying it.

[Kowani]

Ah yes, I had forgotten that Cuba and Venezuela were world powers

A country under decades of economic warfare by the US and a country that even the right-wing Heritage Foundation admits that government spending is only 1/3rd of GDP are supposed to be an argument against socialism?

[Disgraces]

Yes, ranked 57th in the world, what an achievment.

Ah yes, I had forgotten that Cuba and Venezuela were world powers

Venezuela ain't socialist.

[Ancapstands]

* sips Coffee *
Well this will be fun to read.

[Nevertopia]

Also, how do you explain the many countries that were better off under socialism than under capitalism they have now?

which countries?

[Disgraces]

This thread's title makes me think it's about anti-social people.

That's free marketeers really

[Punished UMN]

Also, how do you explain the many countries that were better off under socialism than under capitalism they have now?

which countries?

Like, the entire former Soviet Union.

[-Ra-]

which countries?

Like, the entire former Soviet Union.

[Nevertopia]

Ah yes, I had forgotten that Cuba and Venezuela were world powers

A country under decades of economic warfare by the US and a country that even the right-wing Heritage Foundation admits that government spending is only 1/3rd of GDP are supposed to be an argument against socialism?

the funny thing is even after America ended Cuba's international isolationism it still failed as a communist state and the Cuban people have been fighting for a capitalist system for the last decade.

[Nevertopia]

Like, the entire former Soviet Union.

[Cloud-Cuckoo-Land]

What if Ra is actually the biggest commie and socialist of us all and he purposefully makes the pro-capitalist narrative sound bad in order to smear it?

[Cordel One]

Not really. What you fail to understand is that Marx believed capitalism must come before the transition of power to a communist society. Marx does not view colonialism as beneficial, but it is progress. The oppressive system before colonization could never be restructured into one run by the people.

Marx: Colonialism is good, actually, because it fulfills my political objections.

We can thank liberal thinkers like Denis Diderot for actually opposing colonialism, not justifying it.

Marx: The capitalist version of colonialism is progress toward communism. Capitalism is bad, but we can make a post-capitalist society without exploitation.

You: Huh, he must be saying colonialism is good, actually, because it fulfills his political objections.

[Disgraces]

What if Ra is actually the biggest commie and socialist of us all and he purposefully makes the pro-capitalist narrative sound bad in order to smear it?

Would be based

[-Ra-]

What if Ra is actually the biggest commie and socialist of us all and he purposefully makes the pro-capitalist narrative sound bad in order to smear it?

hahaha but what if... ?

[Nevertopia]

Marx: Colonialism is good, actually, because it fulfills my political objections.

We can thank liberal thinkers like Denis Diderot for actually opposing colonialism, not justifying it.

Marx: The capitalist version of colonialism is progress toward communism. Capitalism is bad, but we can make a post-capitalist society without exploitation.

You: Huh, he must be saying colonialism is good, actually, because it fulfills his political objections.

Yes because he wants it to prove communism can work. Don't you realize thats what hes talking about when colonialism is progress toward communism?