4 ms·

Socialism is collective ownership of capital. "Socialism but with private ownership of capital" is like "water but without wetness." So we call it something els

Socialism is collective ownership of capital. "Socialism but with private ownership of capital" is like "water but without wetness." So we call it something else. Gallons of ink have been spilled talking about how the two types of populism are similar -- horseshoe theory -- but the reason why it's a horseshoe and not a circle is exactly the issue of capital ownership.

ty6853 1y ago
If we're going to use a puritanical definition of socialism then we'll also use one for ownership. Under which the owners of capital under Naziism -- weren't. They were more akin to socialist party bosses -- do what the nazis say at the directed wages, prices, and quantities and then take your socialist party boss cut off the top.
- schmidtleonard 1y ago
  It's not puritanical to say water is wet. Words mean things. All economies shifted towards command economies during the war. Even the USA. But the USA didn't genocide Jews or starve Kulaks. So your idea that it's all socialism is both practically and theoretically bunk. (You said "communism" but if you can't tell fascism from socialism you definitely can't tell socialism from communism.) More to the point, it's the type of bunk that is being pushed by the people currently in power to argue that every vaguely left-leaning person in the USA is actually a secret communist revolutionary and should be crushed by any means necessary, law and constitution and common decency be damned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unhumans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unhumans JD Vance put a blurb on this book praising its core argument. This is how the fascists currently in power will expand their extrajudicial purges from hispanics to political opponents. It's dark shit, and you're helping them.
  - ty6853 1y ago
    I don't know anything about Vance's book. I don't understand why people keep pointing to Musk or Vance as if I must be some devout follower or corrupted by same. Even when I was an actual communist in philosophy, as a youngin way before I knew about Musk or Vance, I held the belief that the nazis had a lot of the qualities of the intermediary institutions Marx advocated for. Ludwig Von Mises wrote about it decades ago when he escaped their continental reach. I'm under no illusion Nazis meet the wet definition of communism, which IIRC when distilled down to just the 'water' without impurities doesn't even have a central government.
dismalaf 1y ago
> Socialism is collective ownership of capital Collective ownership in practice means state ownership. And state control. Fascism has state control as well.
- skyyler 1y ago
  You're pointing at a superficial similarity while ignoring the serious ideological differences. Fascism comes with a deeply stratified class hierarchy. Collective ownership in the socialist sense is incompatible with this.
  - dismalaf 1y ago
    > superficial similarity You mean the actual similarity. The ideological aspect IS the superficial part when you put it into practice.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - skyyler 1y ago
      No, I mean a superficial similarity. The ideological aspect drives all aspects of government. Did you come to the understanding you have through careful consideration and thought? Are you open to re-consideration of the ideas you have about this?
  - mike_ivanov 1y ago
    "deeply stratified class hierarchy" - you have no idea how it was in the Soviet Union, it was nothing short of a cast system. It was so normalized you can see it clearly in the movies of that period.
    - skyyler 1y ago
      I wasn't talking about the Soviet Union, I don't think. Soviet Union != Socialism The government in China isn't the same as the government in Vietnam isn't the same as the government in Cuba. I don't know how close any of them are to the socialist goal of collective ownership. China seems particularly far from that.

ty6853 1y ago

If we're going to use a puritanical definition of socialism then we'll also use one for ownership. Under which the owners of capital under Naziism -- weren't. They were more akin to socialist party bosses -- do what the nazis say at the directed wages, prices, and quantities and then take your socialist party boss cut off the top.

schmidtleonard 1y ago
It's not puritanical to say water is wet. Words mean things. All economies shifted towards command economies during the war. Even the USA. But the USA didn't genocide Jews or starve Kulaks. So your idea that it's all socialism is both practically and theoretically bunk. (You said "communism" but if you can't tell fascism from socialism you definitely can't tell socialism from communism.) More to the point, it's the type of bunk that is being pushed by the people currently in power to argue that every vaguely left-leaning person in the USA is actually a secret communist revolutionary and should be crushed by any means necessary, law and constitution and common decency be damned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unhumans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unhumans JD Vance put a blurb on this book praising its core argument. This is how the fascists currently in power will expand their extrajudicial purges from hispanics to political opponents. It's dark shit, and you're helping them.
- ty6853 1y ago
  I don't know anything about Vance's book. I don't understand why people keep pointing to Musk or Vance as if I must be some devout follower or corrupted by same. Even when I was an actual communist in philosophy, as a youngin way before I knew about Musk or Vance, I held the belief that the nazis had a lot of the qualities of the intermediary institutions Marx advocated for. Ludwig Von Mises wrote about it decades ago when he escaped their continental reach. I'm under no illusion Nazis meet the wet definition of communism, which IIRC when distilled down to just the 'water' without impurities doesn't even have a central government.

dismalaf 1y ago

> Socialism is collective ownership of capital Collective ownership in practice means state ownership. And state control. Fascism has state control as well.

skyyler 1y ago
You're pointing at a superficial similarity while ignoring the serious ideological differences. Fascism comes with a deeply stratified class hierarchy. Collective ownership in the socialist sense is incompatible with this.
- dismalaf 1y ago
  > superficial similarity You mean the actual similarity. The ideological aspect IS the superficial part when you put it into practice.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - skyyler 1y ago
    No, I mean a superficial similarity. The ideological aspect drives all aspects of government. Did you come to the understanding you have through careful consideration and thought? Are you open to re-consideration of the ideas you have about this?
- mike_ivanov 1y ago
  "deeply stratified class hierarchy" - you have no idea how it was in the Soviet Union, it was nothing short of a cast system. It was so normalized you can see it clearly in the movies of that period.
  - skyyler 1y ago
    I wasn't talking about the Soviet Union, I don't think. Soviet Union != Socialism The government in China isn't the same as the government in Vietnam isn't the same as the government in Cuba. I don't know how close any of them are to the socialist goal of collective ownership. China seems particularly far from that.