2 ms·

"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 Fa

"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.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "I've met around a few hundred socialists, actually, and none of them believed in a literal egalitarian society. " Then you kind of should improve on your communication skills. I never heard of a big socialists group who do not want egalitarism to be true egalitarism in the end. And to quote Wikipedia about Pol Pot: "Pursuing complete egalitarianism, money was abolished and all citizens were made to wear the same black clothing." They were socialist who took the egalitarian aspect very literal and radical. EVERYONE should work the fields. ANYONE who opposed this, was a enemy of egalitarian and revolution. With the known outcome. Negating this by declaring them not socialist I call sophism again. But never mind: what about the cultural revolution in china? China had lots of support from western socialists. And to me it seems the great cultur revolution was just Pol Pot light. Just what happened anywhere, where socialist ideas of egalitarian were implemented by force: those who do not liked to be made equal, usual a lot of people, had to be put in gulags or shot directly. And it was a interesting quote from Marx. I was not aware of his position. "one will be richer than another" But anyway: he does not solve it. Because this is what we have today: people work harder than other people and become richer. And build something up. (not everyone stole or inherited stolen money). And do not want to give up on it all of a sudden for egalitarian - so they would oppose the socialist revolution - and would end up in a gulag.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    I've literally never heard of a socialist calling for total egalitarianism. It's really completely absurd. You should bring sources for socialist theorists who clamour for total egalitarianism. The Chinese cultural revolution was a lot of very bad things, but it wasn't in order to make everyone the same either, not at all. I know that Pol Pot wasn't a communist because he himself said that he wasn't one. I haven't heard of himself saying he was of some other socialist legacy either, so I don't think this is sophism. Marx does formulate a framework where everything mentioned is fully consistent, that being said I don't have the time to give you a full introduction on Marxian economics. You could look up Richard D. Wolff if you want to see where these ideas come from, though. But the objection you make is misguided, because for Marx wealth only comes from labour, the instant you make wealth from something that is not labour then that wealth is not rightfully yours. This makes the whole thing where workers are inherently unequal in ability, but at the same time someone making wealth purely from ownership is a totally different kind of inequality that is not a reflection of their superior abilities, as we all know that you do not need superior ability to make vastly outsized earnings through pure ownership. Basically, if you want to be making some kind of takedown of socialist ideology, and there is for sure lots to be critiqued, I'd suggest reading the works beforehand so you don't say enormities like "I've never heard of big socialists group who do not want total egalitarianism in the end".

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.

hutzlibu 6y ago
"I've met around a few hundred socialists, actually, and none of them believed in a literal egalitarian society. " Then you kind of should improve on your communication skills. I never heard of a big socialists group who do not want egalitarism to be true egalitarism in the end. And to quote Wikipedia about Pol Pot: "Pursuing complete egalitarianism, money was abolished and all citizens were made to wear the same black clothing." They were socialist who took the egalitarian aspect very literal and radical. EVERYONE should work the fields. ANYONE who opposed this, was a enemy of egalitarian and revolution. With the known outcome. Negating this by declaring them not socialist I call sophism again. But never mind: what about the cultural revolution in china? China had lots of support from western socialists. And to me it seems the great cultur revolution was just Pol Pot light. Just what happened anywhere, where socialist ideas of egalitarian were implemented by force: those who do not liked to be made equal, usual a lot of people, had to be put in gulags or shot directly. And it was a interesting quote from Marx. I was not aware of his position. "one will be richer than another" But anyway: he does not solve it. Because this is what we have today: people work harder than other people and become richer. And build something up. (not everyone stole or inherited stolen money). And do not want to give up on it all of a sudden for egalitarian - so they would oppose the socialist revolution - and would end up in a gulag.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  I've literally never heard of a socialist calling for total egalitarianism. It's really completely absurd. You should bring sources for socialist theorists who clamour for total egalitarianism. The Chinese cultural revolution was a lot of very bad things, but it wasn't in order to make everyone the same either, not at all. I know that Pol Pot wasn't a communist because he himself said that he wasn't one. I haven't heard of himself saying he was of some other socialist legacy either, so I don't think this is sophism. Marx does formulate a framework where everything mentioned is fully consistent, that being said I don't have the time to give you a full introduction on Marxian economics. You could look up Richard D. Wolff if you want to see where these ideas come from, though. But the objection you make is misguided, because for Marx wealth only comes from labour, the instant you make wealth from something that is not labour then that wealth is not rightfully yours. This makes the whole thing where workers are inherently unequal in ability, but at the same time someone making wealth purely from ownership is a totally different kind of inequality that is not a reflection of their superior abilities, as we all know that you do not need superior ability to make vastly outsized earnings through pure ownership. Basically, if you want to be making some kind of takedown of socialist ideology, and there is for sure lots to be critiqued, I'd suggest reading the works beforehand so you don't say enormities like "I've never heard of big socialists group who do not want total egalitarianism in the end".