4 ms·

There's nothing socialist about a kleptocratic dictatorship. There is no criticism of socialism going on in this thread. Pointing at Venezuela and smugly trump

There's nothing socialist about a kleptocratic dictatorship. There is no criticism of socialism going on in this thread. Pointing at Venezuela and smugly trumpeting about how awful socialism is does not an interesting conversation make. Hence the downvotes without the discussion. I think I'm pretty thick skulled about trying to have productive conversations about socialism on the Internet and even I've found it pointless these days. But let's give it a shot: if it weren't for socialism as an ideology, all of us proles (and we're proles: most of us work for a wage instead of having ownership over our productivity) would be working in far worse conditions for far worse standards of living. People have literally died fighting for the bargain we have under capitalism today, and the destruction of labor and the demonization of all collectivist economic organization is a poison that will make the coming decades extremely difficult to navigate.

duncan_bayne 10y ago
Ah, the no true Scotsman fallacy. Also: the living standards we enjoy today are a result of capitalism and industrialisation.
- danharaj 10y ago
  You can't just say it's No True Scotsman without even knowing what my definition of socialism is. This is the kind of lazy conversation that makes the Internet insufferable. Socialism is a range of ideologies and goals. That's part of why everyone in this thread wholesale rejecting "socialism" isn't getting many constructive replies. It's like saying democracy is flawed because the DPRK held elections. My definition of socialism is democratic control of the means of production by the people who use the means of production (i.e. the workers) for the benefit of all. There are plenty of socialists who even think that the existence of a State that manages the means of production directly contradicts socialism. Any serious examination of socialist ideas is diligent about relating the various ideas that fall under the term socialism. > Also: the living standards we enjoy today are a result of capitalism and industrialisation. The living standards we enjoy today are the result of labor doing labor and producing the fruits of labor. And, yes, industrialization. Marx developed historical materialism to analyze how industrialization allowed capitalism to develop. I'm sure the dogma is that capitalism enabled industrialization to occur.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    Industrialization occurred using capitalism; it's a symbiotic relationship. Factories/industry are privately owned and operated for profit.
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      Not the industrialization of China or Russia, two of the most rapid industrializations in human history. Private ownership isn't a requirement for factories nor industry, and the degree of subsidy in nominally capitalist systems can be startling.
      - selectodude 10y ago
        The industrialization of China and Russia killed like 100 million people. And China didn't really take off until the liberalization of the economy under Deng. I wouldn't call that a ringing endorsement of socialism.
        realusername 10y ago
        You seem to forget the second world war somewhere... That's not socialism which killed all those Russians, just the Stalingrad battle alone killed 1.2 million soviets.
        selectodude 10y ago
        The famines that resulted from the Soviet five-year plans killed many many millions of people. I wasn't thinking about either world war.
        realusername 10y ago
        The famines obviously did not kill 100 million people then, it's more than the total number of deaths of the second world war...
- realusername 10y ago
  Industrialisation and capitalism are not synonymous, industrialisation happened on both regimes and actually even started under monarchy.
golergka 10y ago
Socialism as an ideology is exactly what leads to kleptocratic dictatorships. It's about giving more power to the state and putting it in control of more money - a perfect setup for a central authority to get to much power to ever give it back peacefully.
- ionised 10y ago
  > Socialism as an ideology is exactly what leads to kleptocratic dictatorships. As opposed to the kleptocratic plutocracies we have in most of the West?
  - golergka 10y ago
    Yes. It doesn't even come close. Every time I see Western corruption scandals I can't gelp but envy how much attention gets grabbed by such little things. Flint water and Clinton foundation scandals are perfect examples: for a whole nation to give a crap about such things is an unprecedented achievement of western democracy.

duncan_bayne 10y ago

Ah, the no true Scotsman fallacy. Also: the living standards we enjoy today are a result of capitalism and industrialisation.

danharaj 10y ago
You can't just say it's No True Scotsman without even knowing what my definition of socialism is. This is the kind of lazy conversation that makes the Internet insufferable. Socialism is a range of ideologies and goals. That's part of why everyone in this thread wholesale rejecting "socialism" isn't getting many constructive replies. It's like saying democracy is flawed because the DPRK held elections. My definition of socialism is democratic control of the means of production by the people who use the means of production (i.e. the workers) for the benefit of all. There are plenty of socialists who even think that the existence of a State that manages the means of production directly contradicts socialism. Any serious examination of socialist ideas is diligent about relating the various ideas that fall under the term socialism. > Also: the living standards we enjoy today are a result of capitalism and industrialisation. The living standards we enjoy today are the result of labor doing labor and producing the fruits of labor. And, yes, industrialization. Marx developed historical materialism to analyze how industrialization allowed capitalism to develop. I'm sure the dogma is that capitalism enabled industrialization to occur.
- witty_username 10y ago
  Industrialization occurred using capitalism; it's a symbiotic relationship. Factories/industry are privately owned and operated for profit.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    Not the industrialization of China or Russia, two of the most rapid industrializations in human history. Private ownership isn't a requirement for factories nor industry, and the degree of subsidy in nominally capitalist systems can be startling.
    - selectodude 10y ago
      The industrialization of China and Russia killed like 100 million people. And China didn't really take off until the liberalization of the economy under Deng. I wouldn't call that a ringing endorsement of socialism.
      - realusername 10y ago
        You seem to forget the second world war somewhere... That's not socialism which killed all those Russians, just the Stalingrad battle alone killed 1.2 million soviets.
        selectodude 10y ago
        The famines that resulted from the Soviet five-year plans killed many many millions of people. I wasn't thinking about either world war.
        realusername 10y ago
        The famines obviously did not kill 100 million people then, it's more than the total number of deaths of the second world war...
realusername 10y ago
Industrialisation and capitalism are not synonymous, industrialisation happened on both regimes and actually even started under monarchy.

golergka 10y ago

Socialism as an ideology is exactly what leads to kleptocratic dictatorships. It's about giving more power to the state and putting it in control of more money - a perfect setup for a central authority to get to much power to ever give it back peacefully.

ionised 10y ago
> Socialism as an ideology is exactly what leads to kleptocratic dictatorships. As opposed to the kleptocratic plutocracies we have in most of the West?
- golergka 10y ago
  Yes. It doesn't even come close. Every time I see Western corruption scandals I can't gelp but envy how much attention gets grabbed by such little things. Flint water and Clinton foundation scandals are perfect examples: for a whole nation to give a crap about such things is an unprecedented achievement of western democracy.