Anti-Socialism Thread

[Wink Wonk Socialist Stonks]

That's what some people think then they use the term. AnCaps are usually especially like that.

I feel like this definition is applicable to both hard righters and leftists who don't actually understand the principles they are espousing though.

what is socialismhint: look at the post right before this

[-Ra-]

I feel like this definition is applicable to both hard righters and leftists who don't actually understand the principles they are espousing though.

what is socialism

I define it in the original post:

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.

[Kiu Ghesik]

socialism is when i reach apotheosis

then we're already socialist, aren't we?

[The Reformed American Republic]

what is socialism

I define it in the original post:

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.

Far better than most definitions. In my country, some people actually believe Biden is a socialist.

[Marsane]

Socialism is actually whenever the government does stuff. The more the government does stuff, the more socialismer it is. And when the government does a lot of stuff, it's communism.

- Marsane

if you have a point you can make it. never once did i say that.

[Wink Wonk Socialist Stonks]

socialism is when i reach apotheosis

then we're already socialist, aren't we?

Y̯̮ͯ̇͊ ̬ḛ̢̈ͅ ͑͜ͅ҉s.̞̪̍ͫ

[Wink Wonk Socialist Stonks]

I define it in the original post:

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.

Far better than most definitions. In my country, some people actually believe Biden is a socialist.

is it true that in capitalist america...

[-Ra-]

I define it in the original post:

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.

Far better than most definitions. In my country, some people actually believe Biden is a socialist.

As it turns out, I might know what I'm talking about.

if you have a point you can make it. never once did i say that.

My point is that you don't actually understand what socialism is.

[The New California Republic]

as the enlightened poster lusai said; socialism is a bogeyman. empty of all meaning, slung around as a pejorative by the right for anything they disagree with. despite not understanding its tenets or ideological framework.

Socialism is actually whenever the government does stuff. The more the government does stuff, the more socialismer it is. And when the government does a lot of stuff, it's communism.

- Marsane

People in glass houses.

[Marsane]

My point is that you don't actually understand what socialism is.

good post. feel free to substantiate

[-Ra-]

My point is that you don't actually understand what socialism is.

good post. feel free to substantiate

I mean, throughout this thread, you've shown a repeated tendency to shift the goalposts and redefine socialism in whatever light you think is favourable, only to be rebuked at every turn. Whether or not you agree with me, if you actually read my original post, I think I gave a fair assessment of what socialism is and what its proponents stand for. You have yet to do that.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Far better than most definitions. In my country, some people actually believe Biden is a socialist.

is it true that in capitalist america...

Anything that helps the people is considered socialism or communism.

[Wink Wonk Socialist Stonks]

is it true that in capitalist america...

Anything that helps the people is considered socialism or communism.

the social is social welfare is just short for socialism

[The Reformed American Republic]

Anything that helps the people is considered socialism or communism.

the social is social welfare is just short for socialism

According to some. That's why we should let the poor starve, etc, and let people die.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

[Marsane]

I mean, throughout this thread, you've shown a repeated tendency to shift the goalposts and redefine socialism in whatever light you think is favourable, only to be rebuked at every turn. Whether or not you agree with me, if you actually read my original post, I think I gave a fair assessment of what socialism is and what its proponents stand for. You have yet to do that.

goal post issue was addressed. you just failed to read, not my problem.

i never “redefined socialism” - in the example of the zapatistas i said they were a fair model for organization for which a libertarian socialist could point to. what you ascribe to that is again on you.

i’ve clarified time and time again that socialism is a wide ideology. you, in your working definition, reduce it to the tenet of democratic centralism and state ownership. which is generally a common misconception for people who are unfamiliar with socialist theory.

[-Ra-]

I mean, throughout this thread, you've shown a repeated tendency to shift the goalposts and redefine socialism in whatever light you think is favourable, only to be rebuked at every turn. Whether or not you agree with me, if you actually read my original post, I think I gave a fair assessment of what socialism is and what its proponents stand for. You have yet to do that.

goal post issue was addressed. you just failed to read, not my problem.

i never “redefined socialism” - in the example of the zapatistas i said they were a fair model for organization for which a libertarian socialist could point to. what you ascribe to that is again on you.

i’ve clarified time and time again that socialism is a wide ideology. you, in your working definition, reduce it to the tenet of democratic centralism and state ownership. which is generally a common misconception for people who are unfamiliar with socialist theory.

I never reduced it to anything, though. Socialism is just state or collective ownership of the means of production. That's literally what the word means. Words have meanings and you don't get to untether one from the other just to make your argument more palatable.

The Zapatistas run a poor state with poor living conditions in one of the poorest areas of Mexico, and to top it off they do not even adhere to the policy points they espouse (rent, private property, wage labour, international aid). They are hardly a fair or working example of anything.

[Untecna]

the social is social welfare is just short for socialism

According to some. That's why we should let the poor starve, etc, and let people die.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

Universal basic income! No more welfare, everyone has income as long as they have a job! WOO

being a bit sarcastic, honestly, I don't feel like either welfare of universal basic income are good ideas. Welfare can make sure that people don't get a job, and UBI makes getting jobs harder as more positions will be filled.

[Senkaku]

you, in your working definition, reduce it to the tenet of democratic centralism and state ownership. which is generally a common misconception for people who are unfamiliar with socialist theory.

you, in your working definition, reduce it to the tenet of democratic centralism and state ownership. which is generally a common misconception for people who are unfamiliar with socialist theory.

I never reduced it to anything, though. Socialism is just state or collective ownership of the means of production. That's literally what the word means. Words have meanings and you don't get to untether one from the other just to make your argument more palatable.

Maybe if someone else says it you'll listen:

you, in your working definition, reduce it to the tenet of democratic centralism and state ownership. which is generally a common misconception for people who are unfamiliar with socialist theory.

[-Ra-]

-

The whole point is that Marsane doesn't understand what socialism is.

[The New California Republic]

-

The whole point is that Marsane doesn't understand what socialism is.

Again, people in glass houses.

[Untecna]

-

The whole point is that Marsane doesn't understand what socialism is.

I find it funny that someone posting on an anti-socialism thread doesn't even know what socialism is.

[Senkaku]

-

The whole point is that Marsane doesn't understand what socialism is.

Well, I tried.

[Marsane]

I never reduced it to anything, though. Socialism is just state or collective ownership of the means of production. That's literally what the word means. Words have meanings and you don't get to untether one from the other just to make your argument more palatable.

The Zapatistas run a poor state with poor living conditions in one of the poorest areas of Mexico, and to top it off they do not even adhere to the policy points they espouse (rent, private property, wage labour, international aid). They are hardly a fair or working example of anything.

'

You very honestly have. More than that, you dismiss anything outside of the tradition of Marxism-Leninism as impossible without even having presented which parts of these tendencies is impossible.

I've literally clarified my position on the Zapatistas and provided a source for why I think they are a general improvement. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because you can't stop to read.

[Wink Wonk Socialist Stonks]

goal post issue was addressed. you just failed to read, not my problem.

i never “redefined socialism” - in the example of the zapatistas i said they were a fair model for organization for which a libertarian socialist could point to. what you ascribe to that is again on you.

i’ve clarified time and time again that socialism is a wide ideology. you, in your working definition, reduce it to the tenet of democratic centralism and state ownership. which is generally a common misconception for people who are unfamiliar with socialist theory.

I never reduced it to anything, though. Socialism is just state or collective ownership of the means of production. That's literally what the word means. Words have meanings and you don't get to untether one from the other just to make your argument more palatable.

The Zapatistas run a poor state with poor living conditions in one of the poorest areas of Mexico, and to top it off they do not even adhere to the policy points they espouse (rent, private property, wage labour, international aid). They are hardly a fair or working example of anything.

>"i never reduced it to anything"
>"socialism is just state or collective ownership of the means of production"
even the definition you get from just looking it up is less rigid than that

[Wink Wonk Socialist Stonks]

The whole point is that Marsane doesn't understand what socialism is.

I find it funny that someone posting on an anti-socialism thread doesn't even know what socialism is.

exactly, you'd think ra would be better informed.