I just call them all pretty gay personally.
The Nazi's socialist?
- Thread starter DirtbagLeft
- Start date
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
I mean-degenerate, subversive, insidious, evil, bacillus are also good adjectives.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
And idiotical dysfunction and incompetence of anarcho-syndicalists was the key element in Nationalist gaining the upper hand.
No, the problem is that you look at the history through your ideological lenses and are incapable of accepting arguments deviating from your ideological leanings as being made in good faith.
Since your requests can be mostly summed up as ''my superior transcendent mind gives me privileged access to universal truths, accept what I say'', it's kind of understendable people are not hurrying to carry out your demands.
You entered the forum and started the thread, puting up a big ''come fight me'' sign. What result did you expect?
Since there are many types of socialism for you to cherrypick, the broadest definition would be that the means of production are owned by society as whole, rather than individuals.
Since arrival of society change is usually heralded by chaos, destruction and mass death, it is only normal for people to react to these upheavals, be it priviliged classes protecting their privileges or common people defending themselves from depradations of champions of ''enlightment''. But since revolutionaries are commiting the mass murder for the greater good, opposing them is obviously very bad thing
Look up the history of Zionist movement, there is even a Wikipedia article
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
In an attempt to change the direction of this thread from repeated rehashings...
@DirtbagLeft
Socialism's validity or invalidity is dependent on a number of underlying philosophical presuppositions. I'm not terribly interested in trying to argue about the consequences of those assumed principles fruitlessly, it's far more productive to argue about them directly.
So, a few questions:
1: Do you subscribe to the labor theory of value?
2: What do you believe about the basic moral nature of man? Is he naturally good, naturally bad, somewhere in between? Why do you believe this?
3: What do you believe is 'the means of production?'
@DirtbagLeft
Socialism's validity or invalidity is dependent on a number of underlying philosophical presuppositions. I'm not terribly interested in trying to argue about the consequences of those assumed principles fruitlessly, it's far more productive to argue about them directly.
So, a few questions:
1: Do you subscribe to the labor theory of value?
2: What do you believe about the basic moral nature of man? Is he naturally good, naturally bad, somewhere in between? Why do you believe this?
3: What do you believe is 'the means of production?'
Yeah that ones a bit silly. I’m pretty sure basically zero of the Jews who founded Israel wanted Jesus to come back given that, ya know, he might be a little bit mad about the whole nailed on the cross thing. Also they don’t believe he was the messiah. What he is talking about is one specific strain of Christian Zionism.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
I mean there is a strand of Messianic Judaism-basically Jews who worship Jesus. But that wasn't a thing in 1948.
1. Given he isn't a Marxist, probably not. At least not in its full form with its implications.
2. Neutral or good, man is naturally compassionate and altruistic to most socialists.
3. Factories, farms, industry, that which from commodities are produced. The means of production in socialist thought are the foundation of society. The argument of Marxists is that the working class actually runs or operates the means-but the capitalists control them. Thus the workers are exploited and capitalists are ultimately unnecessary. Given he is a market socialist he will likely demure here.
I don't want to speak for him but I'll guess.
1. Given he isn't a Marxist, probably not. At least not in its full form with its implications.
2. Neutral or good, man is naturally compassionate and altruistic to most socialists.
3. Factories, farms, industry, that which from commodities are produced. The means of production in socialist thought are the foundation of society. The argument of Marxists is that the working class actually runs or operates the means-but the capitalists control them. Thus the workers are exploited and capitalists are ultimately unnecessary. Given he is a market socialist he will likely demure here.
Last edited by a moderator:
DirtbagLeft
Well-known member
@LordsFire
So, a few questions:
1: Do you subscribe to the labor theory of value? Sort of. It very much depends on what I am trying to understand but I reject a strictly labor theory understanding of value. Given my background in the Austrian School I default toward subjective theory over labor theory. For me the tool is dependent on the job.
2: What do you believe about the basic moral nature of man? I am an anti-realist if that helps. My view of the basic nature of man is egoism. I disbelieve in altruism. I hold to rational selfishness. I believe that generally speaking people try to move away from pain and towards pleasure. My views are far more complex than this so please take this as the overview it is intended as.
3: What do you believe is 'the means of production?' The material objects. I reject intellectual property.
I hope this is clear and helps.
So, a few questions:
1: Do you subscribe to the labor theory of value? Sort of. It very much depends on what I am trying to understand but I reject a strictly labor theory understanding of value. Given my background in the Austrian School I default toward subjective theory over labor theory. For me the tool is dependent on the job.
2: What do you believe about the basic moral nature of man? I am an anti-realist if that helps. My view of the basic nature of man is egoism. I disbelieve in altruism. I hold to rational selfishness. I believe that generally speaking people try to move away from pain and towards pleasure. My views are far more complex than this so please take this as the overview it is intended as.
3: What do you believe is 'the means of production?' The material objects. I reject intellectual property.
I hope this is clear and helps.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
1. So you don't believe profit is 90% extorted sweat and toil? Which as I understand it basically what the LTV argues.
2. Would you say, in relatively prosperous conditions people will treat each other with some standard of decency, or are people going to look out for their own interests even if harsh "natural" conditions such as a struggle for food and shelter are met and not in existence.
3. As I understand there is a difference between socialists and simply objects. Something like a hand me down T-shirt(I got a lot from my cousin growing up) is not a commodity(it may have been)-whereas a loaf of a bread or a car is. Is a factory the means, or just the producing machinery? Is the building included?
DirtbagLeft
Well-known member
@Lord Invictus
1. So you don't believe profit is 90% extorted sweat and toil? Which as I understand it basically what the LTV argues.
This is what I meant by the tool and the job. The problem I have here is that you are attempting to compare two disparate things. In terms of manufacturing I would apply labor theory. In terms of profit I would apply subjective theory. Slightly (and by slightly I mean a lot) more complicated than this. So yes I do believe that profit is 90% extorted sweat and toil.
2. Would you say, in relatively prosperous conditions people will treat each other with some standard of decency, or are people going to look out for their own interests even if harsh "natural" conditions such as a struggle for food and shelter are met and not in existence.
I believe that everyone is always going to look out for their own self interest and that most people lie to themselves about this fact. There ability to evaluate their self interest is determined relatively by Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.
3. As I understand there is a difference between socialists and simply objects. Something like a hand me down T-shirt(I got a lot from my cousin growing up) is not a commodity(it may have been)-whereas a loaf of a bread or a car is. Is a factory the means, or just the producing machinery? Is the building included? Okay so I am not going to lie this is a bit more complicated by this. I am not exactly comfortable with making claims about socialists in general on this topic as it is hotly contentious. From a Market Socialist perspective the shirt would initially be a commodity but as a hand me down it is not a commodity (not exactly true but true enough to convey the intent).
"Is a factory the means, or just the producing machinery? Is the building included?"
One at a time
1) Is a factory the means,
Yes/No
2) or just the producing machinery?
Yes/No
3) Is the building included?
Yes/No
This is a gotcha I used to use. I am not saying you are using it as such but that I used it that way in the past. The problem is that depending on exactly what you mean at any given time either answer is true. The means of production are any factor which contributes to the production of a final product. The problem I have with your question is that it is malformed and reductionist. As a general rule I have no problem with reductionism so long as it is followed by emergentism.
1. So you don't believe profit is 90% extorted sweat and toil? Which as I understand it basically what the LTV argues.
This is what I meant by the tool and the job. The problem I have here is that you are attempting to compare two disparate things. In terms of manufacturing I would apply labor theory. In terms of profit I would apply subjective theory. Slightly (and by slightly I mean a lot) more complicated than this. So yes I do believe that profit is 90% extorted sweat and toil.
2. Would you say, in relatively prosperous conditions people will treat each other with some standard of decency, or are people going to look out for their own interests even if harsh "natural" conditions such as a struggle for food and shelter are met and not in existence.
I believe that everyone is always going to look out for their own self interest and that most people lie to themselves about this fact. There ability to evaluate their self interest is determined relatively by Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.
3. As I understand there is a difference between socialists and simply objects. Something like a hand me down T-shirt(I got a lot from my cousin growing up) is not a commodity(it may have been)-whereas a loaf of a bread or a car is. Is a factory the means, or just the producing machinery? Is the building included? Okay so I am not going to lie this is a bit more complicated by this. I am not exactly comfortable with making claims about socialists in general on this topic as it is hotly contentious. From a Market Socialist perspective the shirt would initially be a commodity but as a hand me down it is not a commodity (not exactly true but true enough to convey the intent).
"Is a factory the means, or just the producing machinery? Is the building included?"
One at a time
1) Is a factory the means,
Yes/No
2) or just the producing machinery?
Yes/No
3) Is the building included?
Yes/No
This is a gotcha I used to use. I am not saying you are using it as such but that I used it that way in the past. The problem is that depending on exactly what you mean at any given time either answer is true. The means of production are any factor which contributes to the production of a final product. The problem I have with your question is that it is malformed and reductionist. As a general rule I have no problem with reductionism so long as it is followed by emergentism.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Fair enough. What about something self made-on a vacation to Atlanta, I recall some friendly African American folks were weaving baskets(maybe as a group, I don’t remember) and selling them to tourists. Now obviously a basket or an art piece or whatever is comprised of commodities. But if I make something, something as simple as a piece of pottery or some artistic construction and sell it-maybe I make a dozen is that a commodity? I’m making it and I’m selling it. Does the labor theory apply here? Or something like a kid selling their drawings or other self produced items.
2. In a socialist society, isn’t this a problem? Socialism to work requires people be at least in my understanding willing to sacrifice their own interests-either for their neighbors, strangers, the collective, the state or in theory all of humanity. Doesn’t this create issues of incentive? Which socialist societies have had problems with in the past?
3. Not intended as a gotcha. Simply trying to nail down what we mean. Means of production is a vague phrase. Factory buildings often have offices either nearby or in the same building. Of course this varies as you say.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
1. I'm glad you don't subscribe to LTV. It's easily demonstrably false, and any system founded on it is guaranteed to fail.
2. I went ahead and looked up the wikiped page on Anti-realism to try to make sure I understood what you meant by that. is this an accurate summation of what you mean?
3. I will contest that People are the means of production, beginning to end. Every tool, every machine, ever aide or the like beyond what simply naturally occurs laying around, is the result of human labor and artifice. An empty factory produces nothing.
DirtbagLeft
Well-known member
1. Fair enough. What about something self made-on a vacation to Atlanta, I recall some friendly African American folks were weaving baskets(maybe as a group, I don’t remember) and selling them to tourists. Now obviously a basket or an art piece or whatever is comprised of commodities. But if I make something, something as simple as a piece of pottery or some artistic construction and sell it-maybe I make a dozen is that a commodity? I’m making it and I’m selling it. Does the labor theory apply here? Or something like a kid selling their drawings or other self produced items.
What is an is not a commodity is arbitrary and can shift. Lets take a piece clay turned into a piece of art. Clay is a commodity by group A and placed on the market. It's a commodity. B purchases it in order to make pots. C purchases the pots and paints them before selling them as art. At every stage the item in question is both a commodity and an asset. LTV applies in the manufacturing process but not to the sales process. SVT applies to parts of the manufacturing process and to the sales and acquisition process. I view labor itself as a commodity which is sold at a standard market rate, the rate being determined by type and condition (this is where SVT comes in during manufacturing). If you want a more full view I recommend Praxeology by Mises which I am not going to lie will either make things extremely clear or confuse the hell out of you. But to sum it up for you LTV is assigned by the collective SVT of each commodities collective price. The profit is the margin between the cost to produce the item and price at which the item is sold. Note I have not touched how the labor commodity price is set as it's really complicated. I can discuss that but in all of economics there is no satisfactory answer. The labor commodity price is set by the market within a window of prices.
2. In a socialist society, isn’t this a problem? Socialism to work requires people be at least in my understanding willing to sacrifice their own interests-either for their neighbors, strangers, the collective, the state or in theory all of humanity. Doesn’t this create issues of incentive? Which socialist societies have had problems with in the past?
A lot of people think that. Which makes it more funny that mutualism is very strongly tied to individualist anarchism. Altruism is an area I strongly agree with Rand on. When someone starts talking about self sacrifice don't look for the sacrificial alter. Just run because it's you they want to sacrifice. Altruism is a myth manufactured by those who want to rule. Not only does it not exist if it did exist it would be evil incarnate. What most people think of altruism is not altruism it's the appearance of altruism. The very idea of altruism is morally repugnant and anti-rational. In case if you haven't figured it out I have VERY strong feelings about altruism. I have very violent feelings about psychopathic individuals who want me to sacrifice my own self-interest for others. If someone wants to convince me why something is in my self interest or why I should consider something in my self interest. Fine. There are things which are in my self interest which are not intuitive so i am up for that discussion. Helping the poor for example is in my self interest. Reduction of poverty reduces crime and thus makes me physically safer. Reduction of hunger among children leads to reduction in stress hormones and the ability to make better decisions in life which leads to a reduction in crime and an over all material benefit to myself as they are able to contribute to society in ways they would not have before. Public education is in my own self interest as education leads to a reduction in crime, a more acceptance, more productive individuals, and is an overall benefit to me. Dying to save my child is in my own rational self interest as they provide deep emotional satisfaction to me and my world would be infinitely less without them. Dying to save a random strangers child is in my own rational self interest as I would wish someone to do so for my child and I would have wanted them to do so for me when I was a child. The appearance of altruism is not altruism. It's a lot like the compatibility idea of freewill. People have a strange emotional attachment to the word and so they try to justify retention of the word by redefining it in such a way that it means the opposite of what it previously meant.
3. Not intended as a gotcha. Simply trying to nail down what we mean. Means of production is a vague phrase. Factory buildings often have offices either nearby or in the same building. Of course this varies as you say.
As I said I didn't assume it was. I was simply explaining how I used it in the past. Economics is a rather young field that appears to be much older than it actually is. It wasn't that long ago that it moved out of the astrology phase. I find that breaking it down past a certain point makes the concept incoherent. Which is silly because no one I don't think would deny that there is a means of production. Pinning down what that means... difficult. Part of the problem in defining what it means is the natural limits conceptualization has. We humans are very good and very bad at conceptualization. We are good in that we can do it at all. We are bad in that the larger the thing we try to conceptualize the more fuzzy the concept. This is one reason why I am a fan of reductionism so long as it is followed by emergentism. Reduce it until it breaks or until we have reached our epistemic limits and then build up from there.
What is an is not a commodity is arbitrary and can shift. Lets take a piece clay turned into a piece of art. Clay is a commodity by group A and placed on the market. It's a commodity. B purchases it in order to make pots. C purchases the pots and paints them before selling them as art. At every stage the item in question is both a commodity and an asset. LTV applies in the manufacturing process but not to the sales process. SVT applies to parts of the manufacturing process and to the sales and acquisition process. I view labor itself as a commodity which is sold at a standard market rate, the rate being determined by type and condition (this is where SVT comes in during manufacturing). If you want a more full view I recommend Praxeology by Mises which I am not going to lie will either make things extremely clear or confuse the hell out of you. But to sum it up for you LTV is assigned by the collective SVT of each commodities collective price. The profit is the margin between the cost to produce the item and price at which the item is sold. Note I have not touched how the labor commodity price is set as it's really complicated. I can discuss that but in all of economics there is no satisfactory answer. The labor commodity price is set by the market within a window of prices.
2. In a socialist society, isn’t this a problem? Socialism to work requires people be at least in my understanding willing to sacrifice their own interests-either for their neighbors, strangers, the collective, the state or in theory all of humanity. Doesn’t this create issues of incentive? Which socialist societies have had problems with in the past?
A lot of people think that. Which makes it more funny that mutualism is very strongly tied to individualist anarchism. Altruism is an area I strongly agree with Rand on. When someone starts talking about self sacrifice don't look for the sacrificial alter. Just run because it's you they want to sacrifice. Altruism is a myth manufactured by those who want to rule. Not only does it not exist if it did exist it would be evil incarnate. What most people think of altruism is not altruism it's the appearance of altruism. The very idea of altruism is morally repugnant and anti-rational. In case if you haven't figured it out I have VERY strong feelings about altruism. I have very violent feelings about psychopathic individuals who want me to sacrifice my own self-interest for others. If someone wants to convince me why something is in my self interest or why I should consider something in my self interest. Fine. There are things which are in my self interest which are not intuitive so i am up for that discussion. Helping the poor for example is in my self interest. Reduction of poverty reduces crime and thus makes me physically safer. Reduction of hunger among children leads to reduction in stress hormones and the ability to make better decisions in life which leads to a reduction in crime and an over all material benefit to myself as they are able to contribute to society in ways they would not have before. Public education is in my own self interest as education leads to a reduction in crime, a more acceptance, more productive individuals, and is an overall benefit to me. Dying to save my child is in my own rational self interest as they provide deep emotional satisfaction to me and my world would be infinitely less without them. Dying to save a random strangers child is in my own rational self interest as I would wish someone to do so for my child and I would have wanted them to do so for me when I was a child. The appearance of altruism is not altruism. It's a lot like the compatibility idea of freewill. People have a strange emotional attachment to the word and so they try to justify retention of the word by redefining it in such a way that it means the opposite of what it previously meant.
3. Not intended as a gotcha. Simply trying to nail down what we mean. Means of production is a vague phrase. Factory buildings often have offices either nearby or in the same building. Of course this varies as you say.
As I said I didn't assume it was. I was simply explaining how I used it in the past. Economics is a rather young field that appears to be much older than it actually is. It wasn't that long ago that it moved out of the astrology phase. I find that breaking it down past a certain point makes the concept incoherent. Which is silly because no one I don't think would deny that there is a means of production. Pinning down what that means... difficult. Part of the problem in defining what it means is the natural limits conceptualization has. We humans are very good and very bad at conceptualization. We are good in that we can do it at all. We are bad in that the larger the thing we try to conceptualize the more fuzzy the concept. This is one reason why I am a fan of reductionism so long as it is followed by emergentism. Reduce it until it breaks or until we have reached our epistemic limits and then build up from there.
almostinsane
Well-known member
You ignorant brat. Somehow, you miss the crux of my argument. Namely, that you cannot pick and choose who is part of your group and who is not. The regimes of the 20th century believed very similarly to you and you and your kind, instead of taking time to reflect what went wrong, go on to say, "But that's not real socialism/marxism/etc."
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
I mean-if one left wing ideology had won out in Spain, Trotskyite, Left Republican, Anarchist or whatever-the Republic probably would have gotten a better outcome. But its division was legendary, even at the time.
DirtbagLeft
Well-known member
You ignorant swine. Somehow, you miss the crux of my argument. Namely, that you provide a definition and then you see if the thing in question fits the definition. You define by definition not by example. If I ask you to define a fruit and you tell me "well an apple is a fruit" what you have done is to give a definition by example. A definition defines the boundaries of the thing. I understand that for a conservitard such as yourself this is an extremely difficult concept to grok.
Definition:
- a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.
- the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound, especially of an image in a photograph or on a screen.
- 1.
the sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food.
Now. Please provide a definition of socialism so that the conversation may progress. A definition not an example. If necessary I can provide you with the definition of what an example is so that you can understand what I am NOT looking for. Just ask and I will gladly do so you utter fucking imbecile.
Note, this is why I dropped out. I have other thoughts and rebuttals to your position, but I felt that you were already getting piled on by many others and didn't want to pile on any further. I am still following the discussion though.
almostinsane
Well-known member
The definition of socialism is ownership of the means of production by the workers. This, in almost every instance, is manifested in the direct control of the means of production by an administrative body that says it is temporary, but never dissolves. You can play mental gymnastics however you want, but these things remain.
Despite the US sliding this way and that on the political spectrum, it remains a fundamentally capitalist country. In the same way, despite however much you might dislike it, the likes of the Soviet Union, Venezuela, eastern Europe, etc. are socialist states trying to implement the ideals of common ownership, opposition to private property, and the equality of the masses. Whether a state actually achieves these aims is irrelevant. What matters is the pursuit of these aims and it cannot be denied that those aims were pursued.
Floridaman
Well-known member
You do realize Stalin was considered the moderate when compared to Trotsky.... right, trotskyists winning would guarantee they would try to spread communism.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
I'm referring specifically to the Spanish Civil War. Not Trotsky vs Stalin in the USSR.
Floridaman
Well-known member
Trotskyists follow his ideals, in other words they would do the same thing. My point is, they would be a terrible result, best case scenario their reign ends fairly quickly and in the aftermath of ww2 the marshall plan cleans up their mess, worst case having communists in Spain results in making containing the Soviets in East Germany become impossible.