Poll: "US greatest threat to democracy"

[Duvniask]

Direct production for use, meaning it is no longer mediated by the commodity form (and therefore exchange value), with society in general disposing of products. This new society has no place for commodities, capital or wage labor. It is the supersession of capitalist society and its separation of the producers from the means of production. The whole society, rid of class antagonisms, regulates production according to a common plan that serves the needs of the people. At its lower phase, this new society remunerates according to the amount of labor performed - this being done with the so-called labor vouchers; to each according to his contribution. As this socialist society develops the productive forces and more and more goods can be provided on request, it will find itself under the maxim of remuneration that is "to each according to his needs", with no need for rationing of goods in abundance.

And before I'm hit with the retardation of "but that describes communism, not socialism", it should be said that they are the same, only Lenin popularized the usage of "socialism" to describe the lower phase and "communism" for the higher one. Pretending that "socialism" is something different will generally only serve to cloak capitalism in new, bright language (unwittingly or not).


"Expertise" is a low bar to pass on NSG.

You may be a chauvinist for your tendency, but this is excessive.

Don't care.

You don't have a monopoly on the terms.

Sigh, people really think it's all about interpretation. Let me give an analogy: abolitionism is the movement to dissolve slavery, to abolish it. What, then, do we call people who do not in fact wish to combat slavery? Certainly not abolitionists. And if an abolitionist criticizes you for being a fraud who does not in fact wish to abolish slavery, some introspection could be warranted.

The issue with all you so-called "socialists" is that you don't know what you're actually opposed to. It's not capital that you're opposed to, nor is it socialism that you want. You're opposed to certain business forms, that is all. Your wishes are to democratize capital (as if capital is not a force onto itself) and turn every worker into a petite-bourgeoisie with a stake in the firm. And this isn't just disinterested semantics at play on my part here: when you water down what socialism actually means you blur the opposition to capitalist society and conceal the possibilities of the future: you become an unwitting component in the bourgeois cooptation of its opposition.


And I apologize for the threadjack, but I felt the need to issue a defense here, since the thread was revived (for some reason).

[523]

I'm dead.


You're no different.

It depends on what you mean by free enterprise, but you don’t need state control over the means of production to achieve socialism. In fact, if the state is not democratically controlled by the workers, having state control over the means of production is not socilaism.

While you're correct in your statement about state control, the fact is that free enterprise is incompatible with socialism.

[523]

You may be a chauvinist for your tendency, but this is excessive.

Don't care.

You don't have a monopoly on the terms.

Sigh, people really think it's all about interpretation. Let me give an analogy: abolitionism is the movement to dissolve slavery, to abolish it. What, then, do we call people who do not in fact wish to combat slavery? Certainly not abolitionists. And if an abolitionist criticizes you for being a fraud who does not in fact wish to abolish slavery, some introspection could be warranted.

The issue with all you so-called "socialists" is that you don't know what you're actually opposed to. It's not capital that you're opposed to, nor is it socialism that you want. You're opposed to certain business forms, that is all. Your wishes are to democratize capital (as if capital is not a force onto itself) and turn every worker into a petite-bourgeoisie with a stake in the firm. And this isn't just disinterested semantics at play on my part here: when you water down what socialism actually means you blur the opposition to capitalist society and conceal the possibilities of the future: you become an unwitting component in the bourgeois cooptation of its opposition.


And I apologize for the threadjack, but I felt the need to issue a defense here, since the thread was revived (for some reason).

While in general I agree with your definition of the terms, I feel you're being too harsh here with comrades who may have a different interpretation.

[New haven america]

You may be a chauvinist for your tendency, but this is excessive.

Don't care.

You don't have a monopoly on the terms.

Sigh, people really think it's all about interpretation. Let me give an analogy: abolitionism is the movement to dissolve slavery, to abolish it. What, then, do we call people who do not in fact wish to combat slavery? Certainly not abolitionists. And if an abolitionist criticizes you for being a fraud who does not in fact wish to abolish slavery, some introspection could be warranted.

The issue with all you so-called "socialists" is that you don't know what you're actually opposed to. It's not capital that you're opposed to, nor is it socialism that you want. You're opposed to certain business forms, that is all. Your wishes are to democratize capital (as if capital is not a force onto itself) and turn every worker into a petite-bourgeoisie with a stake in the firm. And this isn't just disinterested semantics at play on my part here: when you water down what socialism actually means you blur the opposition to capitalist society and conceal the possibilities of the future: you become an unwitting component in the bourgeois cooptation of its opposition.


And I apologize for the threadjack, but I felt the need to issue a defense here, since the thread was revived (for some reason).

Why would an abolitionist call a non-abolitionist a fraud if they've A. Been open and honest about not being an abolitionist, and B. Aren't part of the abolition movement.

Methinks you might need a better example.

[Duvniask]

Don't care.


Sigh, people really think it's all about interpretation. Let me give an analogy: abolitionism is the movement to dissolve slavery, to abolish it. What, then, do we call people who do not in fact wish to combat slavery? Certainly not abolitionists. And if an abolitionist criticizes you for being a fraud who does not in fact wish to abolish slavery, some introspection could be warranted.

The issue with all you so-called "socialists" is that you don't know what you're actually opposed to. It's not capital that you're opposed to, nor is it socialism that you want. You're opposed to certain business forms, that is all. Your wishes are to democratize capital (as if capital is not a force onto itself) and turn every worker into a petite-bourgeoisie with a stake in the firm. And this isn't just disinterested semantics at play on my part here: when you water down what socialism actually means you blur the opposition to capitalist society and conceal the possibilities of the future: you become an unwitting component in the bourgeois cooptation of its opposition.


And I apologize for the threadjack, but I felt the need to issue a defense here, since the thread was revived (for some reason).

Why would an abolitionist call a non-abolitionist a fraud if they've A. Been open and honest about not being an abolitionist, and B. Aren't part of the abolition movement.

Methinks you might need a better example.

Let's replace the relevant words, see if it doesn't make sense to you that way.

Abolitionism is the movement to dissolve slavery, to abolish it. What, then, do we call people who do not in fact wish to combat slavery? Certainly not abolitionists. And if an abolitionist criticizes you for being a fraud who does not in fact wish to abolish slavery, some introspection could be warranted.

=

Socialism is the movement to dissolve capitalism, to abolish it. What, then do we call people who do not in fact wish to combat capitalism? Certainly not socialists. And if a socialist criticizes you for being a fraud who does not in fact wish to abolish capitalism, som introspection could be warranted.

And the underlined "you" is obviously referring to someone who also considers themselves part of the same movement, but is not (i.e. a fraud). People who call themselves socialists do in fact pretend they are opposed to capitalism, with the exception of the most braindead liberals who think socialism is just gubmint does things and therefore reduce socialism to the most meaningless phrase imaginable.

[New haven america]

Why would an abolitionist call a non-abolitionist a fraud if they've A. Been open and honest about not being an abolitionist, and B. Aren't part of the abolition movement.

Methinks you might need a better example.

Let's replace the relevant words, see if it doesn't make sense to you that way.

Abolitionism is the movement to dissolve slavery, to abolish it. What, then, do we call people who do not in fact wish to combat slavery? Certainly not abolitionists. And if an abolitionist criticizes you for being a fraud who does not in fact wish to abolish slavery, some introspection could be warranted.

=

Socialism is the movement to dissolve capitalism, to abolish it. What, then do we call people who do not in fact wish to combat capitalism? Certainly not socialists. And if a socialist criticizes you for being a fraud who does not in fact wish to abolish capitalism, som introspection could be warranted.

And the underlined "you" is obviously referring to someone who also considers themselves part of the same movement, but is not (i.e. a fraud). People who call themselves socialists do in fact pretend they are opposed to capitalism, with the exception of the most braindead liberals who think socialism is just gubmint does things and therefore reduce socialism to the most meaningless phrase imaginable.

No, still doesn't work because you're making it out as if abolitionist already knows whoever "You" is isn't an abolitionist. So again, better.

Plus, socialism is an economic system, which means that things like businesses, capital, free enterprise, etc... can exist within. What you keep trying to correct people over in a needlessly hostile manner is actually closer to communism, (Which is the furthest extreme to socialism, but is so far away that they can described separately) so there's no reason for you to continually attack people over what is and isn't socialism when you yourself are in the wrong.

Good job.

[Punished UMN]

Let's replace the relevant words, see if it doesn't make sense to you that way.

Abolitionism is the movement to dissolve slavery, to abolish it. What, then, do we call people who do not in fact wish to combat slavery? Certainly not abolitionists. And if an abolitionist criticizes you for being a fraud who does not in fact wish to abolish slavery, some introspection could be warranted.

=

Socialism is the movement to dissolve capitalism, to abolish it. What, then do we call people who do not in fact wish to combat capitalism? Certainly not socialists. And if a socialist criticizes you for being a fraud who does not in fact wish to abolish capitalism, som introspection could be warranted.

And the underlined "you" is obviously referring to someone who also considers themselves part of the same movement, but is not (i.e. a fraud). People who call themselves socialists do in fact pretend they are opposed to capitalism, with the exception of the most braindead liberals who think socialism is just gubmint does things and therefore reduce socialism to the most meaningless phrase imaginable.

No, still doesn't work because you're making it out as if abolitionist already knows whoever "You" is isn't an abolitionist. So again, better.

Plus, socialism is an economic system, which means that things like businesses, capital, free enterprise, etc... can exist within. What you keep trying to correct people over in a needlessly hostile manner is actually closer to communism, (Which is the furthest extreme to socialism, but is so far away that they can described separately) so there's no reason for you to continually attack people over what is and isn't socialism when you yourself are in the wrong.

Good job.

What do you think socialism is, lol? Have you ever actually read socialist thought? You cannot have the social ownership of the economy and maintain private ownership of the economy. It doesn't even make logical sense, let alone ideological sense.

[Principality of Russia]

The United States will fall as the USSR failed and all empires in the BAD sense of the word did so. Russia, since the fall of their communist regime, limits itself at defending their interests, attacking other countries when it feels threatened by them or their actions (such in the case of Ukraine and Georgia). While the USA keeps intervening just for their OWN interests everywhere. Also, it seems the democrats ( and I lean more to the democrats in the USA) can't get over the fact that the good'ol cold war finished in 1991, because they have been trying to resurrect it since 2014.

[Duvniask]

Let's replace the relevant words, see if it doesn't make sense to you that way.

Abolitionism is the movement to dissolve slavery, to abolish it. What, then, do we call people who do not in fact wish to combat slavery? Certainly not abolitionists. And if an abolitionist criticizes you for being a fraud who does not in fact wish to abolish slavery, some introspection could be warranted.

=

Socialism is the movement to dissolve capitalism, to abolish it. What, then do we call people who do not in fact wish to combat capitalism? Certainly not socialists. And if a socialist criticizes you for being a fraud who does not in fact wish to abolish capitalism, som introspection could be warranted.

And the underlined "you" is obviously referring to someone who also considers themselves part of the same movement, but is not (i.e. a fraud). People who call themselves socialists do in fact pretend they are opposed to capitalism, with the exception of the most braindead liberals who think socialism is just gubmint does things and therefore reduce socialism to the most meaningless phrase imaginable.

No, still doesn't work because you're making it out as if abolitionist already knows whoever "You" is isn't an abolitionist. So again, better.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Look, this analogy is supposed to be directly applicable to what has been going on in this thread. I know whoever I'm talking to is advocating for turning every worker into a petite bourgeoisie, and I am criticizing them thusly. The fact that they refuse to think about what their position actually entails (that it only obfuscates and protects capital), and instead choose to appeal to some abstract notion of diverse terminology, is the problem. Similarly, an abolitionist might look upon his "comrades" and take issue with them if they fail to actually take a stand against slavery. This is not hard to understand, so I'm starting to think you're just here acting obtuse and starting shit because you enjoy doing so.

Plus, socialism is an economic system, which means that things like businesses, capital, free enterprise, etc... can exist within.

Now you're just asserting the same thing that I originally criticized, again.

Also, what you're saying here has no logical connection. The conclusion does not derive from the premise. An economic system != businesses, capital, free enterprise, so it's a meaningless statement.

What you keep trying to correct people over in a needlessly hostile manner is actually closer to communism, (Which is the furthest extreme to socialism, but is so far away that they can described separately) so there's no reason for you to continually attack people over what is and isn't socialism when you yourself are in the wrong.

Good job.

So, your thing is to just assert the same position, again, without explaining yourself any further. Ok, buddy.

[Alcala-Cordel]

The U.S. would still be a threat to democracy even if it *was* a democracy rather than an oligarchy hiding behind an electoral nightmare if it still terrorized the world with its military

[Ayytaly]

Is the US a threat to itself?

[The Remote Islands]

Is the US a threat to itself?

If it is, and it probably is, that makes America #1 in yet another category. USA! USA! USA! USA!

[Cetacea]

Is the US a threat to itself?

Have you been watching the news at all?