4 ms·

"In the situation there were in, the solution was either a radical reconception of the economic system, or fascism. If you think that fascism is the best option

"In the situation there were in, the solution was either a radical reconception of the economic system, or fascism. If you think that fascism is the best option, that makes you a fascist. " So you like also tautologism. Because from the point of view of the burgeois, socialism means in the end total collapse, starvation, apocalypse. And fascism the known lesser evil. So rephrasing your sentence would be "If you think that socialism is the best option, that makes you a apocalypse fanatic" And to make a last disclaimer before I leave that conversation: I am neither a burgeois, nor a socialist, nor a fascist.

sudosysgen 6y ago
From their point of view, socialism could lead to anything they want it to lead, fascism is known to be much, much worse. Socialist societies even in their very crude stages in the 20th centuries led to outcomes that were average or slightly above average, while fascists openly admitted that they would cause cataclysmic war and attempt to kill hundreds of millions of people. One can delude themselves in order to justify pursuing their interests at the expense of the vast majority, that doesn't make it true. And this is known to be true. If you lie to yourself to convince yourself to support fascism, you are a fascist. Finally, I think you might like to investigate what tautologies and sophism are, because so far you've called for both when they obviously aren't true. Restating the situation to draw it into a before then non-accepted and crucial consequence is not redundant to the conversation.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "Socialist societies even in their very crude stages in the 20th centuries led to outcomes that were average or slightly above average, while fascists openly admitted that they would cause cataclysmic war and attempt to kill hundreds of millions of people" Yeah well, this is probably the main difference between fascism and socialism in general. Fascists are at least more honest (in this regard) and mostly call a empire a empire and conquest a conquest. And a war a war. Socialists never call their socialist state a empire with conquest desires. And they are against war, sure, they just want the worldwide proletary revolution by force. Which just means world war. And this I call sophism. Misleading, disguising real meaning of things. Welcome to 1984. Ministry of Peace, etc.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    You would be well served reading about the socialist states of the 20th century. There is literally none that conserved the doctrine of worldwide proletarian revolution. The closest was Trotsky in the USSR, but he never came close to power. It was all "socialism in one country". Therefore the accusation that they are openly imperialist states angling for world conquest is simply counterfactual, literally all socialist states decided that they were happy trying out socialism in their own territory and didn't pursue a worldwide socialist revolution. Much less one under their own control, as they were historically mostly fine with leaving other socialist state do their affairs alone. Not only that, but forceful revolution wasn't even something that was promoted unless absolutely necessary. For example, Marx, when corresponding with British communists, spoke about the possibility to install socialism through electoral means. This is obviously not possible everywhere, as in general if you called yourself a socialist in many "democratic" countries you'd be beat or killed, even if you wanted to do via democratic means. It's easy to accuse everyone else of arguing a good faith when you don't even know what you are arguing against. If you want to make a cogent argument against socialism, and that is certainly possible, I'd suggest actually knowing what you are arguing against, because so far you've mostly been arguing against a strawman.
    - hutzlibu 6y ago
      "You would be well served reading about the socialist states of the 20th century" Thanks, but I come from one.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Did the one you come from attempt to invade the entire world? What are your theories for the fact that the majority of people that lived the transition as adults think it was worse than what came before? What are your theories on why, despite being economic juggernauts, the application of neoliberal economic principles regressed them to barely above the global average? And what are you theories for the >10 million excess deaths in those countries in the decade or so after 1991?

sudosysgen 6y ago

From their point of view, socialism could lead to anything they want it to lead, fascism is known to be much, much worse. Socialist societies even in their very crude stages in the 20th centuries led to outcomes that were average or slightly above average, while fascists openly admitted that they would cause cataclysmic war and attempt to kill hundreds of millions of people. One can delude themselves in order to justify pursuing their interests at the expense of the vast majority, that doesn't make it true. And this is known to be true. If you lie to yourself to convince yourself to support fascism, you are a fascist. Finally, I think you might like to investigate what tautologies and sophism are, because so far you've called for both when they obviously aren't true. Restating the situation to draw it into a before then non-accepted and crucial consequence is not redundant to the conversation.

hutzlibu 6y ago
"Socialist societies even in their very crude stages in the 20th centuries led to outcomes that were average or slightly above average, while fascists openly admitted that they would cause cataclysmic war and attempt to kill hundreds of millions of people" Yeah well, this is probably the main difference between fascism and socialism in general. Fascists are at least more honest (in this regard) and mostly call a empire a empire and conquest a conquest. And a war a war. Socialists never call their socialist state a empire with conquest desires. And they are against war, sure, they just want the worldwide proletary revolution by force. Which just means world war. And this I call sophism. Misleading, disguising real meaning of things. Welcome to 1984. Ministry of Peace, etc.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  You would be well served reading about the socialist states of the 20th century. There is literally none that conserved the doctrine of worldwide proletarian revolution. The closest was Trotsky in the USSR, but he never came close to power. It was all "socialism in one country". Therefore the accusation that they are openly imperialist states angling for world conquest is simply counterfactual, literally all socialist states decided that they were happy trying out socialism in their own territory and didn't pursue a worldwide socialist revolution. Much less one under their own control, as they were historically mostly fine with leaving other socialist state do their affairs alone. Not only that, but forceful revolution wasn't even something that was promoted unless absolutely necessary. For example, Marx, when corresponding with British communists, spoke about the possibility to install socialism through electoral means. This is obviously not possible everywhere, as in general if you called yourself a socialist in many "democratic" countries you'd be beat or killed, even if you wanted to do via democratic means. It's easy to accuse everyone else of arguing a good faith when you don't even know what you are arguing against. If you want to make a cogent argument against socialism, and that is certainly possible, I'd suggest actually knowing what you are arguing against, because so far you've mostly been arguing against a strawman.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    "You would be well served reading about the socialist states of the 20th century" Thanks, but I come from one.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Did the one you come from attempt to invade the entire world? What are your theories for the fact that the majority of people that lived the transition as adults think it was worse than what came before? What are your theories on why, despite being economic juggernauts, the application of neoliberal economic principles regressed them to barely above the global average? And what are you theories for the >10 million excess deaths in those countries in the decade or so after 1991?