6 ms·

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...
        selectodude 10y ago
        The great Chinese famine killed more people than the Nazis.
- duncan_bayne 10y ago
  Labor has been doing labor for hundreds of thousands of years. Clearly we can discount that as a driver of progress. Likewise, social ownership of the means of production has been the norm for many societies, even in Medieval Europe in some ways (e.g. community built and run flour mills, and laws that guaranteed access to mills for a nominal fee). It was capitalism - however imperfectly implemented, in the same sense that Venezuelan socialism is imperfect socialism - that provided the environment for industrial growth.
realusername 10y ago
Industrialisation and capitalism are not synonymous, industrialisation happened on both regimes and actually even started under monarchy.

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...
        selectodude 10y ago
        The great Chinese famine killed more people than the Nazis.
duncan_bayne 10y ago
Labor has been doing labor for hundreds of thousands of years. Clearly we can discount that as a driver of progress. Likewise, social ownership of the means of production has been the norm for many societies, even in Medieval Europe in some ways (e.g. community built and run flour mills, and laws that guaranteed access to mills for a nominal fee). It was capitalism - however imperfectly implemented, in the same sense that Venezuelan socialism is imperfect socialism - that provided the environment for industrial growth.

realusername 10y ago

Industrialisation and capitalism are not synonymous, industrialisation happened on both regimes and actually even started under monarchy.