Basic Myths About Socialism

[Agnapostate]

While I've been trying to discuss socialist economic theory that many people haven't heard of with anti-socialists, I've realized that there are many extremely elementary and basic objections to socialism that most laymen repeat and that "higher" discussion is really kind of limited without addressing the most common misconceptions, even if they're extremely misinformed and usually repeated by those unfamiliar with the topic. Thus far, I've thought of these five:


1. Socialism is associated with political authoritarianism.

2. Socialism is incompatible with human nature as a result of its lack of incentive provision.

3. Socialism is economically inefficient.

4. Social democracy is a "combination" of socialism and capitalism and is an acceptable "happy medium."

5. Socialism is an elitist ideology not desired by "commoners."

I might write a laymen's text dealing with these elementary misconceptions; what others can you think of?

[Tatarin]

6. The world isn't working because there still are a lot of socialist elements in the system. Remove those elements and the world will be perfect. (Or, "deregulation".)

You'll probably hear that from many ultra-liberals.

[Agnapostate]

Thanks. Maybe I should combine that one and the other one about social democracy?

[Drace]

I don't see the point of this unless your going to refute them

[mikelepore]

2. Socialism is incompatible with human nature as a result of its lack of incentive provision.

Other human nature misconceptions that go alongside this are:

Socialism is incompatible with human nature because there will always be a few clever people who will figure out ways to become the bosses.

Socialism is incompatible with human nature because people are naturally competitive and warlike.

[Androvich]

There's also the myth that personal property is to be shared by everyone under socialism. This myth comes from a misunderstanding in words. As I'm sure you all know, in marxist terminology, private property refers to the means of production. Where as personal property refers to non-MoP possesions. In Capitalist terminology, there is no distinction. That is how this myth came about and it has no doubt been propagated by the Bourgeoisie on pupose along with the others.

[Luisrah]

Other human nature misconceptions that go alongside this are:

Socialism is incompatible with human nature because there will always be a few clever people who will figure out ways to become the bosses.

Socialism is incompatible with human nature because people are naturally competitive and warlike.

As it has been mentioned, there's no sense in making these if we're not going to refute 'em.

So I'll refute these two.

Socialism is closer to the human nature than capitalism, because humans are intelligent, and that's why they accomplish (and accomplished) their objectives together, instead of doing it through competition.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Myth 1003: We all live under beds...

[NecroCommie]

Is it not amazing how capitalists always seem to know what communism is all about? Most of the time they seem to do this even better than communists themselves! :rolleyes:

[sayersmb]

wasnt hitler a socialist?

[CELMX]

wasnt hitler a socialist?

what the fuck?!

[sayersmb]

yah i read it in a book, i forget what it was called tho.

[The Accomplice]

wasnt hitler a socialist?

hahaha You can add this one to your list OP.


One myth I keep hearing is that millions of people died under socialism.

[sayersmb]

hahaha You can add this one to your list OP.


One myth I keep hearing is that millions of people died under socialism.
yah hitler killed millions

[CELMX]

their "socialism" is "national socialism" NAZI
Right-wing
Fascist
a totalitarian/authoritarian/fascist/racist ideology that is really fucked up

they're about as against leftism as you can get

[The Accomplice]

@sayersmb

In Nazi Germany, capitalists owned the means of production. That's not socialism as socialism requires that workers own and control the means of production.

Hitlers belief were also pretty right wing. He supported racism, eugenics, capitalism, competition over cooperation, dictatorships etc.

He was far from a socialist.

[sayersmb]

nah well back in the day he was on a totally different wing, learn your history n00b before u try talkin shit

[CELMX]

nah well back in the day he was on a totally different wing, learn your history n00b before u try talkin shit

shouldn't ^^^^this guy be restricted

[NecroCommie]

I was 100% convinced that syersmb was being sarcastic, but now I am not sure whether he is sarcastic beyond humour, or just batshit crazy.

[sayersmb]

I was 100% convinced that syersmb was being sarcastic, but now I am not sure whether he is sarcastic beyond humour, or just batshit crazy.

wtf do u mean crazy, i read a fucking book on it, a book full of facts, and u try and take those facts and demolish them, wtf is this shit, is this somthing u do al the times

[CELMX]

i vote batshit crazy

[revolution inaction]

another is: socialism is state ownership of the economy/businesses

[revolution inaction]

wtf do u mean crazy, i read a fucking book on it, a book full of facts, and u try and take those facts and demolish them, wtf is this shit, is this somthing u do al the times

what are you talking about? your post makes no sense.
Are you seriously saying that you think the nazis where socialist? Thats probably the most mental thing i'v heard all week.

[sayersmb]

what are you talking about? your post makes no sense.
Are you seriously saying that you think the nazis where socialist? Thats probably the most mental thing i'v heard all week.
the most mental thing i heard all week is that someone is trying to denounce a fact, its a fucking fact are yous retardeds

[#FF0000]

the most mental thing i heard all week is that someone is trying to denounce a fact, its a fucking fact are yous retardeds

Hitler had tons of communists and socialists carted away and denounced socialism and communism in speeches all the time.

[NecroCommie]

the most mental thing i heard all week is that someone is trying to denounce a fact, its a fucking fact are yous retardeds

Please, please tell me that you are not really this stupid. Pleeease tell me you are joking or you will kill all my faith in humanity.

[sayersmb]

Hitler had tons of communists and socialists carted away and denounced socialism and communism in speeches all the time.

yah this was before all that, i have read books on hitler, and when he was an aspiring artist he was a socialist

[#FF0000]

yah this was before all that, i have read books on hitler, and when he was an aspiring artist he was a socialist

I am pretty sure that was never, ever true. He was never a Marxist socialist.

[mikelepore]

As it has been mentioned, there's no sense in making these if we're not going to refute 'em.

It seemed to me that original post asked for a list of topics that are to be answered eventually.


So I'll refute these two.

Socialism is closer to the human nature than capitalism, because humans are intelligent, and that's why they accomplish (and accomplished) their objectives together, instead of doing it through competition.

That's not the answer that I give. Here is the Lepore answer to the human nature question.

The purpose of adopting social institutions is so that human nature will NOT be used as the criterion that is to be encouraged.

For example, suppose I were to object, "There's no point in having a law against murder. It's inherent in the biological nature of our species that some people will occasionally get so angry at their neighbors that they will murder them. There's no sense in having a law that goes against human nature. Therefore, we should legalize murder." If I were to say that, others should identify my fallacy and reply to me, "On the contrary, if it's true that it's in some people's innate nature to commit murder, then we need a law against murder all the more, to reduce, with greatest effectiveness, the number of instances of it."

It's exactly the same with the greed and competitive urges that are sometimes believed to be part of human nature. If it's true that some people have an intrinsic tendency to cheat others, exploit others, hoard wealth, and grab social power, that makes it all the more necessary to build cooperative practices into the formal structure of the economic institutions, and eliminate the times and places where competitive methods are followed, thereby depriving those greedy and power-hungry individuals of the opportunities to act according to their antisocial impulses.

Therefore, in putting forth an argument that cites the imperfection of human nature, what the critics believe to be an argument AGAINST socialism is actually an argument FOR socialism.

[Luisrah]

For example, suppose I were to object, "There's no point in having a law against murder. It's inherent in the biological nature of our species that some people will occasionally get so angry at their neighbors that they will murder them. There's no sense in having a law that goes against human nature. Therefore, we should legalize murder." If I were to say that, others should identify my fallacy and reply to me, "On the contrary, if it's true that it's in some people's innate nature to commit murder, then we need a law against murder all the more, to reduce, with greatest effectiveness, the number of instances of it."

It's exactly the same with the greed and competitive urges that are sometimes believed to be part of human nature. If it's true that some people have an intrinsic tendency to cheat others, exploit others, hoard wealth, and grab social power, that makes it all the more necessary to build cooperative practices into the formal structure of the economic institutions, and eliminate the times and places where competitive methods are followed, thereby depriving those greedy and power-hungry individuals of the opportunities to act according to their antisocial impulses.

Therefore, in putting forth an argument that cites the imperfection of human nature, what the critics believe to be an argument AGAINST socialism is actually an argument FOR socialism.

Genius. Truly wonderful.

I thought my answer was good, but I am truly amazed by yours. :)

[Stranger Than Paradise]

High School Commie Guide would be helpful for a lot of these things.

[Agnapostate]

Good suggestions, thanks.


another is: socialism is state ownership of the economy/businesses

I'm trying not to have too much of an anarchist bias. While I'm sure there's almost no one who claims that all the excesses of Stalinism were "socialist," there are plenty who advocate the state transition model, obviously.

[RED DAVE]

I have posted this several times elsewhere, and I'm posting it here just in case anyone doubts about what socialism is really about.


On the day after the revolution, everyone: men, women and children, will voluntarity and unselfishly remove all their clothes in public. This done, all of us will be issued sandals made from recycled automobile tires and a potato sack with three holes in it.

This will suffice.

In the colder climates, a pair of socks made from used condoms will be issued to all, plus a recycled plastic garbage bag.

This will suffice.

Once clothing distribution is complete, the Internationale will be sung in Indoeuropean, Sumerian and Esperanto.

This will suffice.

Then everyone will go home to their packing crates. Sexual intercourse will be permitted.

This will suffice.

In the morning, unselfish labor will commence. Since electricity has been banned as harmful to the environment, and it is selfish to exploit our animal brethren, all persons will perform all work by hand.

This will suffice.

Since everyone has to vote together on everything, approximately 12 hours in every day will be devoted to voting. When coupled with ten hours of work (All hail the Revolution for decreasing our hours to only ten), this leaves 2 hours for sleep, eating (brown rice and raw vegetables) and recreation (meditating on anthills), all of which will be done unselfishly.

This will suffice.RED DAVE

[FSL]

Therefore, in putting forth an argument that cites the imperfection of human nature, what the critics believe to be an argument AGAINST socialism is actually an argument FOR socialism.


This is able to win the arguement but talking about an already defined human nature is not marxism. Just thought I 'd point that out.
Of course nothing wrong with being interested in results.:)

[mikelepore]

3. Socialism is economically inefficient.

That myth is based on a more basic myth that the competitive marketplace has some built-in mechanism to "give the people what they want." That idea arises from a stereotype image of a capitalist trying to visualize what people would be "willing" to buy and "ingeniously" providing them with it.

There are several errors with that rationale.

One is that consumers can only choose to buy products and services that already exist and have been made readily available, regardless of what they really want. For example, for decades capitalists said that there's no "demand" for an electric car, a conclusion drawn from the fact that people didn't buy it, but people couldn't buy what the capitalists had already refused to manufacture. There's no evidence that the capitalists are better at being mind-readers than the workers' own democratically elected managers could be at representating their constituency.

A second error in "the marketplace gives the people what they want" is that "demand" is based on the quantity of money in the hands of each buyer, which capitalism makes severely unequal. This may produce the economic signal that there is more "demand" for recreational facilities for the wealthy than there is for medicine for the poor, etc. So capitalism is efficient in the sense that it quickly arrives at some answer to a question, but it's often the wrong answer.

[Agnapostate]

That myth is based on a more basic myth that the competitive marketplace has some built-in mechanism to "give the people what they want."

I'm anti-market myself, but wouldn't necessarily attack the competitive marketplace in this particular text. As I see it, the major obvious problems with the capitalist market are the prevalence of negative externalities, market power, and asymmetric information. There's a capacity for the elimination of those three issues and reduction of unemployment, underemployment, and underpayment with market socialism.

[mikelepore]

2. Socialism is incompatible with human nature as a result of its lack of incentive provision.

I'm an unpopular guy on revleft because of my answer to that. I'm concerned that it's true that some conceptions of how socialism should be administered have precisely that defect. I believe it's our responsibility to sort out the workable theories of socialism from the unworkable ones, explicitly and publicly reject the unworkable ones, and recommend the workable ones for general adoption. I think socialism is like the test of the first airplane, which could only stay in the air for a few seconds -- the question isn't "is this a feasible idea generally?" but rather "what parts do we have to add to make it reliable? We will add those parts."

[Agnapostate]

Well, I'm also of the opinion that a lack of incentive provision renders any economic system unfeasible...but my answer to that particular claim is that that isn't what socialism entails. All these myths assorted together create the rightist mindset that socialism entails forcible government/statist expropriation of wealth from the productive and redistribution to the less productive regardless of labor effort in a utopian attempt to create equality, and that this entails authoritarian measures to uphold...but that this consequently undermines economic efficiency. So they believe that progressive taxation is a cousin of the USSR's economic system, as facepalm inducing as such a claim is.

[Nolan]

Here's one I've heard a lot and I still can't believe how ignorant and brainwashed you'd have to be to believe this: "Socialists want everyone to be slaves in state owned farms and factories." This myth seems to have spread like wildfire around my area.

[Agnapostate]

I think that would go into the association with authoritarianism category.

[Nolan]

Hmmm... Well, yes, but its somewhat more specific and all. I agree with you about market socialism.

[h9socialist]

The tragedy here, Comrades, is really not all the myths about socialism. That's pretty much to be expected in any political point of view. And they're bullshit 99.9% of the time. The tragedy is that socialists can't get a decent hearing in North America, particularly in the US, because the capitalists have so demonized the term. So many people in the US have been conditioned by bourgeois propaganda to see only negatives associated with socialism that it's hard to get to the point of having a chance to refute the myths.

[mikelepore]

The problem isn't "myths about socialism" but instead the fact that they have "demonized the term"? I don't see a difference between those two things.

[Old Man Diogenes]

nah well back in the day he was on a totally different wing, learn your history n00b before u try talkin shit

I smell a troll :thumbdown:

[mikelepore]

This is able to win the arguement but talking about an already defined human nature is not marxism. Just thought I 'd point that out.
Of course nothing wrong with being interested in results.:)

When opponents of Marxian goals claim that they have scientific evidence that a society based on such goals would have to be unstable and collapse, how can it not be a part of Marxism to respond with an analysis of the situation?

[FSL]

When opponents of Marxian goals claim that they have scientific evidence that a society based on such goals would have to be unstable and collapse, how can it not be a part of Marxism to respond with an analysis of the situation?


When the analysis itself is not a Marxist analysis?

[Agnapostate]

Any others? Most of these platitudinous talking points seem to bear a striking resemblance to creationist "arguments" against evolution, frequently regurgitated and always empty on substance.

[el_chavista]

The tragedy here, Comrades, is really not all the myths about socialism. That's pretty much to be expected in any political point of view. And they're bullshit 99.9% of the time. The tragedy is that socialists can't get a decent hearing in North America, particularly in the US, because the capitalists have so demonized the term. So many people in the US have been conditioned by bourgeois propaganda to see only negatives associated with socialism that it's hard to get to the point of having a chance to refute the myths.
There is a global propaganda dictatorship of the mass media business. So this is true for every other country besides the USA.