3 ms·

"If you accept the premise that liberalism has failed and that re-establishing it is impossible ... Either you do accept the socialization of your property, and

"If you accept the premise that liberalism has failed and that re-establishing it is impossible ... Either you do accept the socialization of your property, and live the life of an ordinary person, which is morally by far the best thing to do" Life is seldom made of binary choices like you imply. And what you think is "morally by far the best thing to do" really does not have to match others morals. My morals are, I do not judge absolute morals, like you. I judge only concrete situations. And since so far a egalitarian society is only a theory that failed multiple times in reality, I do not believe in supporting such a theory with all my energy and posession. Which would be "accept the socialization of your property, and live the life of an ordinary person, which is morally by far the best thing to do". In other words, if I would have to take the choice between fascism and socialism I would rather try to gather what I have and go away.

sudosysgen 6y ago
>Life is seldom made of binary choices like you imply. And what you think is "morally by far the best thing to do" really does not have to match others morals. If there is another choice, then none of what I said applies. That being said, history has been such that there often has been no such other choice. >My morals are, I do not judge absolute morals, like you. I judge only concrete situations. If your morals are such that you would prefer fascism to any kind of socialism, then I do judge, and I think most do. If they aren't such, then the rest of my comment applies. >And since so far a egalitarian society is only a theory that failed multiple times in reality, I do not believe in supporting such a theory with all my energy and posession. Which would be "accept the socialization of your property, and live the life of an ordinary person, which is morally by far the best thing to do". No one, not even Karl Marx believed in an egalitarian society. What socialists do believe is that private property is an issue that will inevitably lead to the fall of liberalism, and that it must be heavily reformed, along with the removal of the class system. All socialist societies had some inequality in them, and no one complained about it, because everyone can agree that those more capable or who work harder should receive more. >In other words, if I would have to take the choice between fascism and socialism I would rather try to gather what I have and go away. That is an understandable choice, and I don't think anyone would object. Of course, getting your capital and other kinds of private property would be much harder as the fascists would certainly not let you do so.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "If your morals are such that you would prefer fascism to any kind of socialism" Ok, so if you would have the choice between Pol Pots socialism and Franco's Fascicm. You would choose Pol Pot? "No one, not even Karl Marx believed in an egalitarian society. " Then you have not met many socialists. I did and many of them do in fact believe in a literal egalitarian society. And it is news to me, that Marx did not.(but I read not much of Marx) Sources? "Of course, getting your capital and other kinds of private property would be much harder as the fascists would certainly not let you do so. " And about that: I am pretty much aware of what fascists do. Which is why I was involved in antifascist actions of different kind. I was just trying to get you socialists see a different point of view. That the view "for the people or against it" is not really a helpful one for most other people, who do not believe in fixed classes of people.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    >Ok, so if you would have the choice between Pol Pots socialism and Franco's Fascicm. You would choose Pol Pot? Pol Pot's regime wasn't socialist, which is why literally no socialist organizations supported its political mission. Only the CCP did, for the purpose of screwing over the USSR by waging war against Vietnam, and even they did not support their ideology. You will never have to choose between Pol Pot and fascism, because, just like what happened in reality, socialists will be willing to fight with you against Pol Pot. Pol Pot was as much a socialist as Hitler was, that is, in name only. This is of course evident because he claimed to want complete egalitarianism, which is completely absurd to any socialist, among many other reasons, such as eugenics, etc... Note the "any". To prefer fasicsm to any and all socialisms is not equivalent to the choice you laid out, anyways. >Then you have not met many socialists. I did and many of them do in fact believe in a literal egalitarian society I've met around a few hundred socialists, actually, and none of them believed in a literal egalitarian society. Everyone agrees that it is indeed a very bad idea. If one did, then they probably are not an educated socialist and have only gotten their political ideas from aesthetics. As for Marx repudiating the claim for equality: "But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal." - Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875, Section 1 Marx later makes a prediction that eventually, production will be so great that, after multiple generations of socialism, production will be so great that it will no longer be useful to have some idea of one receiving what they produce, because that is more than what any would want, leading to instead a speculative different mode of production, what he called the highest stage of communism, where it would instead be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", this is the stage where all material needs are met and that work becomes a want moreso than a need. Even then, however, there would not be equality, as some need and want less than others. Arguably advanced capitalist societies are not too far from this, as we do see more and more people choosing work for its fulfillment and usefulness instead of purely for their material gain, and as the general propensity to consume has to be artificially increased by various means since for a lot of people their general needs are met. Of course if this was to ever materialize, we are still very, very far from such a situation.

sudosysgen 6y ago

>Life is seldom made of binary choices like you imply. And what you think is "morally by far the best thing to do" really does not have to match others morals. If there is another choice, then none of what I said applies. That being said, history has been such that there often has been no such other choice. >My morals are, I do not judge absolute morals, like you. I judge only concrete situations. If your morals are such that you would prefer fascism to any kind of socialism, then I do judge, and I think most do. If they aren't such, then the rest of my comment applies. >And since so far a egalitarian society is only a theory that failed multiple times in reality, I do not believe in supporting such a theory with all my energy and posession. Which would be "accept the socialization of your property, and live the life of an ordinary person, which is morally by far the best thing to do". No one, not even Karl Marx believed in an egalitarian society. What socialists do believe is that private property is an issue that will inevitably lead to the fall of liberalism, and that it must be heavily reformed, along with the removal of the class system. All socialist societies had some inequality in them, and no one complained about it, because everyone can agree that those more capable or who work harder should receive more. >In other words, if I would have to take the choice between fascism and socialism I would rather try to gather what I have and go away. That is an understandable choice, and I don't think anyone would object. Of course, getting your capital and other kinds of private property would be much harder as the fascists would certainly not let you do so.

hutzlibu 6y ago
"If your morals are such that you would prefer fascism to any kind of socialism" Ok, so if you would have the choice between Pol Pots socialism and Franco's Fascicm. You would choose Pol Pot? "No one, not even Karl Marx believed in an egalitarian society. " Then you have not met many socialists. I did and many of them do in fact believe in a literal egalitarian society. And it is news to me, that Marx did not.(but I read not much of Marx) Sources? "Of course, getting your capital and other kinds of private property would be much harder as the fascists would certainly not let you do so. " And about that: I am pretty much aware of what fascists do. Which is why I was involved in antifascist actions of different kind. I was just trying to get you socialists see a different point of view. That the view "for the people or against it" is not really a helpful one for most other people, who do not believe in fixed classes of people.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  >Ok, so if you would have the choice between Pol Pots socialism and Franco's Fascicm. You would choose Pol Pot? Pol Pot's regime wasn't socialist, which is why literally no socialist organizations supported its political mission. Only the CCP did, for the purpose of screwing over the USSR by waging war against Vietnam, and even they did not support their ideology. You will never have to choose between Pol Pot and fascism, because, just like what happened in reality, socialists will be willing to fight with you against Pol Pot. Pol Pot was as much a socialist as Hitler was, that is, in name only. This is of course evident because he claimed to want complete egalitarianism, which is completely absurd to any socialist, among many other reasons, such as eugenics, etc... Note the "any". To prefer fasicsm to any and all socialisms is not equivalent to the choice you laid out, anyways. >Then you have not met many socialists. I did and many of them do in fact believe in a literal egalitarian society I've met around a few hundred socialists, actually, and none of them believed in a literal egalitarian society. Everyone agrees that it is indeed a very bad idea. If one did, then they probably are not an educated socialist and have only gotten their political ideas from aesthetics. As for Marx repudiating the claim for equality: "But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal." - Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875, Section 1 Marx later makes a prediction that eventually, production will be so great that, after multiple generations of socialism, production will be so great that it will no longer be useful to have some idea of one receiving what they produce, because that is more than what any would want, leading to instead a speculative different mode of production, what he called the highest stage of communism, where it would instead be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", this is the stage where all material needs are met and that work becomes a want moreso than a need. Even then, however, there would not be equality, as some need and want less than others. Arguably advanced capitalist societies are not too far from this, as we do see more and more people choosing work for its fulfillment and usefulness instead of purely for their material gain, and as the general propensity to consume has to be artificially increased by various means since for a lot of people their general needs are met. Of course if this was to ever materialize, we are still very, very far from such a situation.