Anti-Socialism Thread

[The New California Republic]

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

Well, I tried.

He's obstinately sticking to his guns, don't bother.

[Untecna]

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.

I was talking about Marsane.

And Ra is right, Marsane has zero clue what he/she is talking about.

[Wink Wonk Socialist Stonks]

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 or 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.

so the government should just ignore those in financial need?

[-Ra-]

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.

Me too.

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.

Not all socialist elements are Marxist-Leninist. But all socialist elements advocate for collective ownership of the means of production. If they didn't, they wouldn't be socialist.

[Untecna]

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 or 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.

so the government should just ignore those in financial need?

Oh, I'm not saying that, I'm saying neither are good or bad ideas.

[The Reformed American Republic]

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.

Unemployment isn't a statistic caused by laziness.

[Marsane]

And Ra is right, Marsane has zero clue what he/she is talking about.

Feel free to point it out.

My argument is that Socialism is bigger than Marxism-Leninism. If you think that is false, you are objectively wrong.

[The New California Republic]

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.

Not really. He refuses to read books on the subject of socialism, so the odd misconceptions are entirely understandable.

[Wink Wonk Socialist Stonks]

so the government should just ignore those in financial need?

Oh, I'm not saying that, I'm saying neither are good or bad ideas.

*enlightened centrism intensifies*

[Marsane]

Not all socialist elements are Marxist-Leninist. But all socialist elements advocate for collective ownership of the means of production. If they didn't, they wouldn't be socialist.

When did I say that wasn't the case?

[Untecna]

And Ra is right, Marsane has zero clue what he/she is talking about.

Feel free to point it out.

My argument is that Socialism is bigger than Marxism-Leninism. If you think that is false, you are objectively wrong.

Or, frankly, objectively right.

[Untecna]

Oh, I'm not saying that, I'm saying neither are good or bad ideas.

*enlightened centrism intensifies*

*More intensified centrism*

[Wink Wonk Socialist Stonks]

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.

Not all socialist elements are Marxist-Leninist. But all socialist elements advocate for collective ownership of the means of production. If they didn't, they wouldn't be socialist.

collective ownership is different than state ownership

[Marsane]

Or, frankly, objectively right.

No:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism

[Wink Wonk Socialist Stonks]

Feel free to point it out.

My argument is that Socialism is bigger than Marxism-Leninism. If you think that is false, you are objectively wrong.

Or, frankly, objectively right.

so you think socialism is just marxism-leninism

[Untecna]

Not all socialist elements are Marxist-Leninist. But all socialist elements advocate for collective ownership of the means of production. If they didn't, they wouldn't be socialist.

collective ownership is different than state ownership

And that, kids, is the difference between communism and socialism. Very small, yes, but big when in reality.

[Untecna]

Or, frankly, objectively right.

No:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism

I mean, you just happen to be the poster who knows almost nothing of socialism, so, I can be right, or I can be wrong. I'll admit defeat either way.

[-Ra-]

Not all socialist elements are Marxist-Leninist. But all socialist elements advocate for collective ownership of the means of production. If they didn't, they wouldn't be socialist.

When did I say that wasn't the case?

You didn't. You seem to have it in your head that I think all socialist movements are Marxist-Leninist. I have never said that, and if you look at my original post I think it's very clear that I didn't paint the argument that way. Everyone knows that there are gradations of socialist thought. What you do not seem to realise is that all socialist thought is shitty, though they exist on different tiers of shittiness.

The fact is you deliberately misconstrued my argument to make it seem like I was talking about something I wasn't, making a point about something I wasn't, and then built a strawman the size of the Burj Khalifa in a feeble attempt to tear it down, at which point you were rebuked at every turn. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you have no capacity or will to argue in anything but bad faith and you do not give your opponents the courtesy of reading the things they are writing.

[Marsane]

I mean, you just happen to be the poster who knows almost nothing of socialism, so, I can be right, or I can be wrong. I'll admit defeat either way.

Substantiate. Clearly I have a better understanding than you do.

[Wink Wonk Socialist Stonks]

collective ownership is different than state ownership

And that, kids, is the difference between communism and socialism. Very small, yes, but big when in reality.

so then ra is incorrect

[Untecna]

I mean, you just happen to be the poster who knows almost nothing of socialism, so, I can be right, or I can be wrong. I'll admit defeat either way.

Substantiate. Clearly I have a better understanding than you do.

Clearly you don't.

[Wink Wonk Socialist Stonks]

oxford defines socialism as

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

i find this definition satisfactory

[Wink Wonk Socialist Stonks]

Substantiate. Clearly I have a better understanding than you do.

Clearly you don't.

proof??? evidence???

[Marsane]

You didn't. You seem to have it in your head that I think all socialist movements are Marxist-Leninist. I have never said that, and if you look at my original post I think it's very clear that I didn't paint the argument that way. Everyone knows that there are gradations of socialist thought. What you do not seem to realise is that all socialist thought is shitty, though they exist on different tiers of shittiness.

The fact is you deliberately misconstrued my argument to make it seem like I was talking about something I wasn't, making a point about something I wasn't, and then built a strawman the size of the Burj Khalifa in a feeble attempt to tear it down, at which point you were rebuked at every turn. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you have no capacity or will to argue in anything but bad faith and you do not give your opponents the courtesy of reading the things they are writing.

Yes yes, we're back to this same argument. You say I'm dishonest, I say you're dishonest. I say you're not reading, you say I'm not reading. So on and so forth. Rebuked this and that.

My argument, once more for a final time:

Is that you said that all of Socialist thought outside of Marxist-Leninism (which I'm pretty sure you said at one point the USSR was a failure so I'd assume you also think Marxism-Leninism is a failure; which is a fair analysis, I won't harp on that) is impossible or does not work. Despite not providing any evidence of why that is. No analysis of the framework, no critique just simply it does not work.

[Gurkland]

Socialism, unlike social welfare is coercion based on limiting choices that an individual or a business has over its own existence. Because capitalism is based on business(not individual, but competitions of properties) competition and choices and socialists are so afraid of either, they want to impose a socialist ownership over things and centrally plan the peoples lives with involuntary policies. That's why a socialist type of economy may just have one type of candy produced by the collective on supermarkets, and they have so much low level of compliance that people in socialist systems still form huge informal markets.

Social welfare is just distribution and creation of resources at the bottom level of society. By educating them and creating strong social safety nets, income support both at work and for the unemployted increasing the money supply and directing them in the right direction(unlike QE that was poured to the real estate market), we can avoid poverty and increase social mobility in a capitalist society.

There's also the social aid system which is based on middlemen, charities, legal guardians, foster homes, retirement homes, foundations which are very exploitative, expensive and unsuccessful, and typically soak up public fundings that use for themselves, and workers cooperatives tend to work on that area, and that's still socialism, as most of them are also run by politicians.

Sometimes socialists claim we have consider personal property and private property the same, well, i'd say socialists consider business competition the same thing as personal competition which is not, as personal competition still exist in every society including socialist ones. The thing here is free business competition and choices vs collectivist society.