The Nazi's socialist?

almostinsane

Well-known member
National Socialism, I would say, is a spinoff of socialism. It is influenced by socialism and forms its own ideas in agreement and in opposition to it. National Socialism advocates for the control of society to placed in the hands of the native people in the form of the State. The State is the avatar of the people. Thus, all industry must serve the State and obey its orders and directives while it is given autonomy in areas the state is not concerned with. The basic needs of the nation state's people/race must be met and there is a contempt for the free market and capitalists as a class.

In this way, Naziism and socialism are in a murderous dialogue. They believe in prioritizing what they see as "the people". Both want to benefit the people. The difference lies in the Nazis' obsession with race. A Jew can never be converted into a German. They must be destroyed or expelled. Meanwhile, under the socialist states, that is, states that wholly embrace socialism as their governing ideal, former enemies can be converted. But they must convert. If they do not convert, they must be destroyed. See the gulags of the Soviet Union or Maoist struggle sessions. Of course, conversion is not always offered. Sometimes, class enemies are simply destroyed such as the kulaks in Ukraine. The Soviet Union could have easily decided that they merited re-education, but there was nothing really stopping them from starving them to death because seizing their food and possessions was deemed to be in the interest of the Soviet people. This logic can be seen in the aforementioned gulag system. Extermination is not the prime goal. The prime goal is the creation of new socialists. However, no one sheds a tear over the deaths of counterrevolutionaries if any die in the process. It was necessary to create a just and equal society.

This is why the People's Republic of China can easily change from being a socialist state to a fascist one. The Chinese Communist Party under Mao held firm to the defintion of the people as the proletariat masses. The commoners exploited by the rich, bourgeoisie, and/or feudal structure. Yet, as they found that the socalized command economy didn't work, they needed to find a new system. They settled on the corporatist, fascist system they hold to now. Capitalists and bourgeoisie classes must serve the state who emodies the people and provides care and prosperity to the people.

Yet, the definition is changed. The people is the Chinese people, specifically, the Han Chinese, although they pay lip service to protecting minorities. The People's Republic of China is no longer socialist, but it serves as an example of the end result of socialism. To survive, the socialist system of the People's Republic of China needed to become fascist.

In summation: fascism/National Socialism and socialism/Communism are two ideas in a bloody dialogue and the one example of a surviving socialist state became fascist.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
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.
Eh, maybe. A communist spain likely has a cordon sanitaire around it and gives another front to the cold war. Not to mention a Trotskyite Spain and a Stalinist USSR and its vassals...won't really get along?

Come to think of it-the premise does make a good Alt History timeline idea. A communist but anti stalinist Spain. Thus changing the entire dynamic of the cold war from the start.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
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.

1. You have a tendency to use a butt-ton of words to say things that I suspect are only clear to people already entrenched in the ideology you subscribe to you. I'm not sure what you're even getting at here.

2. If you think so little of altruism, I'm not sure why you would think socialism is even remotely viable. As has been demonstrated throughout all of history, people will act in their own interests, and more often than not to the point where it is detrimental to others. For socialism to work, it requires people work to the benefit of others while they are actively taken advantage of. There will always be a few people with the moral courage and commitment to do this, but enough to make an entire nation functional with purely moral satisfaction as the motivation? That's a fantasy.

3. I have no idea what you are trying to get at here. I will lay my point out simply:

A: The means of production is ultimately the people who do the work.
B: The only way to control the means of production, is to control the people doing work.
C: Socialism ultimately mandates forced labor of specific individuals (most people) for the benefit of the abstract 'the workers' or 'the people.' This has always historically resulted in a powerful elite ruling through fear and making all others their serfs.

Which leads to the inevitable result, that Socialism Is Slavery.

Can you give me or anyone else any reason to think that any new attempts to implement socialism would turn out any differently than any other attempt to implement socialism has?

Yes, I understand that your objective is different than what ended up happening in the USSR, China, Cambodia, Venezuela, Cuba, etc, but the stated and claimed objectives in those nations certainly wasn't what came about either.

What makes your desired political movement any different?
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
1. You have a tendency to use a butt-ton of words to say things that I suspect are only clear to people already entrenched in the ideology you subscribe to you. I'm not sure what you're even getting at here.
Short answer is everything is a commodity and everything is not. It's contextually dependent.

2. If you think so little of altruism, I'm not sure why you would think socialism is even remotely viable. As has been demonstrated throughout all of history, people will act in their own interests, and more often than not to the point where it is detrimental to others. For socialism to work, it requires people work to the benefit of others while they are actively taken advantage of. There will always be a few people with the moral courage and commitment to do this, but enough to make an entire nation functional with purely moral satisfaction as the motivation? That's a fantasy.
For years I didn't think it was viable. In some small part because of a difference in vocabulary but in large part because most of my exposure to socialism was tankies who extolled the virtue of altruism something I didn't believe in even as a child. It was while reading up on anarchist theory that I happened across individualist anarchism. And no for socialism to work all that is required is that you act in your own self interest. This is the primary idea behind mutualism. Because we live socially, and because we all have different wants needs and desires it is absurd to think of "the greatest good for the greatest number" in any utilitarian sense. I have wants, and you have wants. Meeting those wants and desires is about trading. Even within ourselves some of our wants and desires are mutually exclusive so we have to prioritize and trade with ourselves. And yes I do agree that some will be dumb enough to work solely for "the good of others" abandoning their identity entirely in hopes of having their non-existent ego validated. An entire nation of those people could not only not exist it would be a nightmare if it did. Which is why I don't support or believe in that kind of socialism. The kind of socialism I support is Market Socialism. with a tit for tat ethics system which is more or less what most people use. More or less.

3. I have no idea what you are trying to get at here. I will lay my point out simply:

A: The means of production is ultimately the people who do the work.
B: The only way to control the means of production, is to control the people doing work.
C: Socialism ultimately mandates forced labor of specific individuals (most people) for the benefit of the abstract 'the workers' or 'the people.' This has always historically resulted in a powerful elite ruling through fear and making all others their serfs.

Which leads to the inevitable result, that Socialism Is Slavery.

Can you give me or anyone else any reason to think that any new attempts to implement socialism would turn out any differently than any other attempt to implement socialism has?
I agree with A completely. The workers are ultimately the means of production. B is where you go off the rails. In a socialist system as I am advocating for who controls the means of production? Or more directly who controls the workers? The answer is the workers control the means of productions. The workers are both the means of production and the ones who control the means of production. That little piece you are leaving it is crucial.
C is a disaster of a statement. Who mandates forced labor of specific individuals in Market Socialism as I have advocated for here? "The workers" are far from abstract as much as you are trying to abstract them. The workers are indeed forced by the owners to work for the benefit of the "workers". Who are the owners? The workers. The business is run democratically. This puts the economic power in the hands of the workers. In terms of the larger body politic society is run democratically as well through a series of interlocking governmental structures much like we have now. The difference is that practically speaking it would be impossible for a few select wealthy individuals to buy and control the government. This is because getting that wealthy is practically impossible. The primary distinction is that while you can earn wealth, and to some degree even hoard wealth. no single person or dozen or even hundreds or thousand of people could hoard enough wealth to control the system. Billionaires cannot exist. Millionaires can but there exists a practical cap past which you couldn't acquire wealth. Rephrase what I am saying back to me without adding in your own commentary and you will process it. As it is you are importing a bunch of assumptions.
Governmental structure wise we would have something very similar to what we already have though with more democracy.
Yes, I understand that your objective is different than what ended up happening in the USSR, China, Cambodia, Venezuela, Cuba, etc, but the stated and claimed objectives in those nations certainly wasn't what came about either.

What makes your desired political movement any different?
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Short answer is everything is a commodity and everything is not. It's contextually dependent.
This statement is like a strawman statement come to life and trying to be taken seriously. It's directly self-contradictory in an incredibly blatant way.

If I'm going to be generous, I'll take that statement to mean 'in some ways, everything has aspects of being a commodity, and in some ways, everything is not completely a commodity' or similar.

Do you understand that you are coming across as very bad at communication?
For years I didn't think it was viable. In some small part because of a difference in vocabulary but in large part because most of my exposure to socialism was tankies who extolled the virtue of altruism something I didn't believe in even as a child. It was while reading up on anarchist theory that I happened across individualist anarchism. And no for socialism to work all that is required is that you act in your own self interest. This is the primary idea behind mutualism. Because we live socially, and because we all have different wants needs and desires it is absurd to think of "the greatest good for the greatest number" in any utilitarian sense. I have wants, and you have wants. Meeting those wants and desires is about trading. Even within ourselves some of our wants and desires are mutually exclusive so we have to prioritize and trade with ourselves. And yes I do agree that some will be dumb enough to work solely for "the good of others" abandoning their identity entirely in hopes of having their non-existent ego validated. An entire nation of those people could not only not exist it would be a nightmare if it did. Which is why I don't support or believe in that kind of socialism. The kind of socialism I support is Market Socialism. with a tit for tat ethics system which is more or less what most people use. More or less.

I'm trying to actively correct for what I 'expect' to see from a socialist, but I'm still seeing a completely implausible expectation for people to act in specific ways that will make your system work.

You've redefined 'non-altruistic' in earlier posts to the point where 'dying to save a stranger' is somehow not altruistic, which is pretty absurd, but even if we accept that for the sake of an argument...

Humans demonstrably do not behave in the specific kind of 'self-interested' and 'mutualistic' way you are describing to make a socialistic system work. I'm starting to gather that what you mean by 'socialism' is a pretty narrow, rarely-held definition thereof that I'm not terribly familiar with, so maybe 'market socialism' would be less of a disaster than most forms have been.

But I don't really know how your system is supposed to work, so I can't really say for sure.

C is a disaster of a statement. Who mandates forced labor of specific individuals in Market Socialism as I have advocated for here? "The workers" are far from abstract as much as you are trying to abstract them. The workers are indeed forced by the owners to work for the benefit of the "workers". Who are the owners? The workers. The business is run democratically. This puts the economic power in the hands of the workers. In terms of the larger body politic society is run democratically as well through a series of interlocking governmental structures much like we have now. The difference is that practically speaking it would be impossible for a few select wealthy individuals to buy and control the government. This is because getting that wealthy is practically impossible. The primary distinction is that while you can earn wealth, and to some degree even hoard wealth. no single person or dozen or even hundreds or thousand of people could hoard enough wealth to control the system. Billionaires cannot exist. Millionaires can but there exists a practical cap past which you couldn't acquire wealth. Rephrase what I am saying back to me without adding in your own commentary and you will process it. As it is you are importing a bunch of assumptions.
Governmental structure wise we would have something very similar to what we already have though with more democracy.

I don't even know what you're getting at here. You're asserting that accumulation of wealth past a certain point will be impossible, but I honestly have no idea why that is supposed to be the case. All I see is 'democratically run system,' which is incredibly undefined.

Frankly, it looks more like you are importing a lot of assumptions, but I'm not even sure if that's going on, because the way you write this stuff is so thick it's incredibly difficult to understand what you're trying to say.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Mutualism by way of self-interest only follows if the bulk population operates in a specific kind of enlightened self interest, where they'll consider their personal descendants a higher value than their individual self, or other such matters of what literally every other strain of thought would call altruism. Because actually caring only for yourself will always prefer a system of concentrating wealth, so that you may have the best personal outcome. This is the underpinning of Capitalism, and it has indeed shown itself to work out as such.

Rather obviously, pure self-interest will prefer modern Capitalism, which has no fundamental bars to vast personal wealth, and it has been well established by history that highly disparate hierarchies are only rarely toppled, meaning that the risk in question is vastly more in not being on top than falling from it. Socialism is fundamentally saying that nobody is firmly on top, so for the selfish, for those who reject altruism, it's a logical non-starter without a great many assumptions about the outcome.

That one can make a system where the lowest common denominator is the vast majority, and holds a higher standard of living than the prior majority case, and such is an improvement to your personal prospects. The wealthier you know yourself to be, or the better you perceive your chances of getting rich, the less that any strain of socialism makes sense as benefiting you. And the paranoid avoidance of hard hierarchies involved in the thought that rejects the "state capitalism" end state that is the usual result means a system that cannot be enforced without a perfect monoculture, adding an assumption that the whole population agrees. So if you don't agree with it, you are a living proof that the system will not work.

To the billionaire, who has the wealth to simply buy an entire chain of production for all their personal needs, the only reasons to support socialism are the small outlier chance of them losing this wealth in their life leaving them destitute, a worry answered by the given purchase and avoiding debt, or that they have some form of preference for better outcomes for individuals not themselves, the altruism you dismiss as delusion. Because it is simply not possible for a communal outcome to be better for them than their current state. The resources do not exist for such an outcome, without spectacular technologies barely possible as pure theoreticals to simply transmute resources and perfect automation.
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
No system is going to work if everybody is selfish and materialistic. If a society that cares more about money than people, it’s going to have problems. Those problems are going to be reduced in a capitalistic free market system where there are more limits on the ways you get other people’s money - voluntarily - than in a socialist system where violence is the preferred method of getting the fruits of other people’s labor.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
No system is going to work if everybody is selfish and materialistic. If a society that cares more about money than people, it’s going to have problems. Those problems are going to be reduced in a capitalistic free market system where there are more limits on the ways you get other people’s money - voluntarily - than in a socialist system where violence is the preferred method of getting the fruits of other people’s labor.

wanting to take other peoples money with out compensation (generous)
Wanting to keep the money you earned (selfish)

You can see why I tend to view socialism as an anti morality.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
wanting to take other peoples money with out compensation (generous)
Wanting to keep the money you earned (selfish)

You can see why I tend to view socialism as an anti morality.

Well Socialism is essentially this.

the-communist-manifesto-karl-marx-and-friedrich-engels-33228560.png


A childish wail of "it's not fair!!!"
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
This statement is like a strawman statement come to life and trying to be taken seriously. It's directly self-contradictory in an incredibly blatant way.
Saying that something is a commodity depending on context is not a contradictory statement. In order for it to be contradictory I would need to say that a commodity can be a commodity and not a commodity at the same time in the same way would be a contradiction.


Do you understand that you are coming across as very bad at communication?
Am I a bad communicator or are you bad at understanding what is being said? Sounds snarky but its actually a question.


I'm trying to actively correct for what I 'expect' to see from a socialist, but I'm still seeing a completely implausible expectation for people to act in specific ways that will make your system work.
I suspect that you are trying to impose more than is necessary. Strict DemSoc's for example what to retain our current constitution more or less just moving to direct ownership by the workers and wider democracy. Abolition of the two party system. Elimination of the electoral college. Reformation of the current voting system to an elimination round style ballot system. All relatively minor changes that preserve the structure but prevent some of the abuses we currently have.

You've redefined 'non-altruistic' in earlier posts to the point where 'dying to save a stranger' is somehow not altruistic, which is pretty absurd, but even if we accept that for the sake of an argument...
I have not redefined it. I can provide the paper if you would like as it is an actual academic position that does not redefine altruism. You must admit that there is a difference between the appearance of a thing and the thing itself. We can demonstrate the appearance of altruism. We cannot demonstrate the actual existence of altruism. Not only that but even the most avid advocates of altruism admit that it is a suicidal philosophy. What most people think of when they think of altruism is called 'reciprocal altruism' which is an attempt to preserve the word but bares no relation to the original concept. Altruism requires that the actor be harmed by the action in order for the action to be considered moral. This is an insane position to hold.

Humans demonstrably do not behave in the specific kind of 'self-interested' and 'mutualistic' way you are describing to make a socialistic system work. I'm starting to gather that what you mean by 'socialism' is a pretty narrow, rarely-held definition thereof that I'm not terribly familiar with, so maybe 'market socialism' would be less of a disaster than most forms have been.
One of the major tenants of socialism is the belief that in order for socialism to be achieved class consciousness must be raised. It depends on if you are talking to a tankie or not (and we will just disregard tankies for the sake of progressing the conversation), but that has a very specific meaning. We are also going to set aside the revolutionary LARPers for the moment. To explain...

If I had a big red button that I could push and suddenly replace our current capitalist system with a socialist system I would not push that button. In fact I would probably destroy it to remove the temptation. While the Marxists get a lot wrong what they get most wrong is the belief that replacing the current system can be done simply or overnight. Replacing the system we have currently will require a lot of previously laid ground work and a lot of luck just like any revolution. Practical education is a must in laying the groundwork for a successful system replacement. It is comparable to the amount of work that was done during the enlightenment. It is not enough that a few elites understand the principles which we wish to apply, but rather the whole of the masses must be with us. In order for that to happen they must understand not only the end goal but how to achieve the goal. This means not only the systematic destruction of the degenerate prevailing Christian philosophy, but the deconstruction of Latent Christian Philosophy as well. This means that stochastically we must move from a rejection of personal responsibility and towards egoism.

But I don't really know how your system is supposed to work, so I can't really say for sure.

I am of the evolution over revolution school of thought. I believe that it will come down to revolution in the end but I will fight taking that step every step of the way. This being the case I can talk about policy in broad strokes except for in case of the next step. Don't know how much you know about military planning but it's a lot like that. There are defined objectives which are required to reach the desired end state. War is a lot of moving pieces though. I can speak pretty solidly on the first step, and even the second step, each step we move past the first one however becomes more hypothetical as conditions in the field will change which means the battle plan for achieving victory will change. The first step is the move from the minor social democracy we have now to a more strong commitment to a social democracy. This means policies like radical prison reform (moving drug addition from crime to mental health being a big one). Moving from a retributive to a restorative model of justice. A complete overhaul of the education system to with a focus on reading, writing, math, science, and critical thinking with logic and other courses being introduced in secondary schools. The focus here is to take the research collected over the past several decades and apply it to bring out the most in students and to make the most of their education.

Voter reform laws will have the purpose of allowing the most amount of people to vote. I would love to talk about this but as large of a topic as it is it's complicated. At least initially who can vote in which elections will be dictated by several factors including citizenship. Non-citizens for example would be allowed to vote in school-board and local elections up to the county level. State level elections and higher would be reserved to citizens.

A move to either incorporate or dismiss all territories would begin immediately.

A strong program to eliminate public health hazards like lead paint and other such causes of criminal activity would be given priority.

Elimination of laws protecting public officers from prosecution for breaking laws that would get anyone else sent to jail would be another priority.

A graduated inheritance tax would be placed into effect beginning at $250,000 and becoming graduated up to $10,000,000 at which point the tax is 100% for anything above that threshold.

A requirement to publish cognitive ability scores would be a requirement to run for public office.

Development of proven social programs which reduce or eliminate poverty would be put into effect along with a universal heath program.

Judicial reform with an emphasis on reduction of recidivism would be implemented (there is not single cure all but we do know what works generally speaking and in which cases it works).

The single largest reforms however would be democratic reforms with a move towards two round elections.

In terms of fixing Gerrymandering this is but one solution.

This is a broad and incomplete outline to moving towards socialism and does not touch on some of the more radical policies. These steps however would be required as a first step in the move toward socialism. Phase 2 is even more radical with the partial elimination of private property being a central platform. You will also note that I am an anarchist and these are all state solutions. This is because while I am an anarchist I understand that moving towards anarchism requires working effectively within the system. Though I think the system is deeply flawed people must be met where they are at not where I want them to be. To do otherwise would be to make me a LARPer.

I don't even know what you're getting at here. You're asserting that accumulation of wealth past a certain point will be impossible, but I honestly have no idea why that is supposed to be the case. All I see is 'democratically run system,' which is incredibly undefined.
Under our current system the majority of the money flows upwards towards the people at the top. Given a system where the workers own the company there is a pragmatic limit as to how much the people at the top can make. The last numbers I saw placed the CEO's of co-ops making on average only 5-7 times more than the lowest paid worker. Between 6-7 times what the lowest worker makes the CEO is voted out of that position and someone else is put into place. This is what I mean when I say there is a practical limit. This is opposed to the 278 times most CEO's make now. The workers would be disincentivized to allow CEO's to funnel excess profits into their pockets as it would mean less profits for them to collect. This flattens the pay gap without eliminating it. I'm opposed to it's elimination.

Frankly, it looks more like you are importing a lot of assumptions, but I'm not even sure if that's going on, because the way you write this stuff is so thick it's incredibly difficult to understand what you're trying to say.
I am importing a lot of stuff. I will outright admit that. Your also importing a lot of assumptions like the shift between the system we have now and the one I advocate for would happen overnight and be radically different. The thing I am importing is the current socio-political framework and then considering policies of how we get from here to there. We do not do so overnight but in gradual and incremental stages. Just like in any war you set the win conditions and then you look at the conditions that obtain in the field and develop a plan from there. Assuming some grand overnight victory is presumptuous and narcissistic. In war the enemy gets a vote. In this case the vote is quite literal.
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
wanting to take other peoples money with out compensation (generous)
Wanting to keep the money you earned (selfish)

You can see why I tend to view socialism as an anti morality.
If somebody did not earn that money then it's not theft to take it from them. And as to wanting to keep the money you earned yourself. Yes it is selfish. Have you not read my opinion on altruism? I unironically think selfishness is a good thing. Are you seriously going to defend the way corporations get (not earn) their money as moral? Bribing politicians for contracts. Writing laws to favor them and make entry into the field costly and difficult. and that is just two. You really want to defend that as moral?
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
But you see, it'll be fairly distributed, we promise (the vast majority to the distributors).
100% to the distributors. The distributors being the workers. I know its really hard for you all to grok because your reactionary brains reflexively ignore anything which goes against the narrative you are running. But do try to keep up. It's not rocket science. The workers are the owners. The owners are the distributors.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
100% to the distributors. The distributors being the workers. I know its really hard for you all to grok because your reactionary brains reflexively ignore anything which goes against the narrative you are running. But do try to keep up. It's not rocket science. The workers are the owners. The owners are the distributors.

The distributors, on the contrary, are the politburo and the Party apparatchiks under them, i.e. the nomenklatura. The "workers" meanwhile, won't get a say, never mind owning anything. That's how socialism always has and how it always will work in practice.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
If I had a big red button that I could push and suddenly replace our current capitalist system with a socialist system I would not push that button. In fact I would probably destroy it to remove the temptation. While the Marxists get a lot wrong what they get most wrong is the belief that replacing the current system can be done simply or overnight. Replacing the system we have currently will require a lot of previously laid ground work and a lot of luck just like any revolution. Practical education is a must in laying the groundwork for a successful system replacement. It is comparable to the amount of work that was done during the enlightenment. It is not enough that a few elites understand the principles which we wish to apply, but rather the whole of the masses must be with us. In order for that to happen they must understand not only the end goal but how to achieve the goal. This means not only the systematic destruction of the degenerate prevailing Christian philosophy, but the deconstruction of Latent Christian Philosophy as well. This means that stochastically we must move from a rejection of personal responsibility and towards egoism.
What an amazing combination of both nonsense and candor.

Thank you.

At least you admit you are interested in civilizational destruction.

As for the whole masses-you do know good and well you don't have them, and people like me will be opposing you with words and votes-and more. So good luck with your glorious revolution comrade.
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
The distributors, on the contrary, are the politburo and the Party apparatchiks under them, i.e. the nomenklatura. The "workers" meanwhile, won't get a say, never mind owning anything. That's how socialism always has and how it always will work in practice.
Oh so not socialism. Okay
 

Senor Hortler

Permanently Banned
Permanently Banned
Oh so not socialism. Okay
hey-lenin-whatcha-doin-yasy-communism-hey-stalin-whatcha-doin-9830732.png

Literally a meme mate.
"It's not socialism."
'They all said it was'
"Yeah, but they didn't do it the way I - some random on the internet with no power or influence - would do it, so it doesn't count."

If you're idea keeps getting implemented so poorly that it seems to generate mass graves, death squads, secret police ghosting people and dictators ruling with an iron fist nearly every time then maybe the issue isn't that 'it wasn't real socialism' but rather than the idea itself is just really, really shit.
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
hey-lenin-whatcha-doin-yasy-communism-hey-stalin-whatcha-doin-9830732.png

Literally a meme mate.
"It's not socialism."
'They all said it was'
"Yeah, but they didn't do it the way I - some random on the internet with no power or influence - would do it, so it doesn't count."

If you're idea keeps getting implemented so poorly that it seems to generate mass graves, death squads, secret police ghosting people and dictators ruling with an iron fist nearly every time then maybe the issue isn't that 'it wasn't real socialism' but rather than the idea itself is just really, really shit.
Actually... Would you like me to pull up the relevant quotes where they each admitted not socialism. The Lenin quote in particular is a beautiful explicit denial of the USSR being socialist.
 

Senor Hortler

Permanently Banned
Permanently Banned
Actually... Would you like me to pull up the relevant quotes where they each admitted not socialism. The Lenin quote in particular is a beautiful explicit denial of the USSR being socialist.
You can, it doesn't actually change anything. They were socialists, recognising that the societies they had made or were making were fundamentally dysfunctional and didn't work, so they like you are doing attempt to distance themselves from that society. You can 'reeee' that socialism has never been tried before, but the moment that your brand got tried, and failed, and killed millions you'd be the one fleeing to a capitalist country to sell your book on how your perfect society was sabotaged by dissidents and how 'real socialism' has never been tried.
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
What an amazing combination of both nonsense and candor.

Thank you.

At least you admit you are interested in civilizational destruction.

As for the whole masses-you do know good and well you don't have them, and people like me will be opposing you with words and votes-and more. So good luck with your glorious revolution comrade.
Destruction of civilization? no. The destruction of your repulsive culture? Absolutely. Don't conflate the two. You want to create a new darkage.

And yes I am aware that reactionaries will oppose us. I am also aware that as of yet the masses are not on our side. Just as I am aware that the future is either fascism or libertarian socialism. And I am also very much aware that in the end it will come to revolution. There will be nothing glorious about it and anyone who thinks there will is delusional. However as you have just made abundantly clear and as others have indicated you plan on murdering people to get your way when the tide turns against you politically. Revolutions are never certain so its the last thing I want. But I don't get a choice. All I can do is be ready wen you jackasses start the shooting.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top