Socialism is purely government ownership of the economy

[Conquer or Die]

That's all it is, nothing more and nothing less.

Corporatism and Socialist-Communism are similar in this respect: The state should maintain the economy.

Corporatism and Capitalism are similar in this respect: Exploitation is the power nexus.

The ideology of National Socialism is both Socialist and Exploitative. The ideology of Communism via State Socialism is Socialist without exploitation.

Marx was naive when it came to politics and the philosophy of history. Heilbroner, Popper, illuminate this fact. He assumed that liberalism in politics would necessarily lead to liberalism in economics and thus total emancipation. He did not predict that unintended consequences, typical bureaucratic machinations, and worst of all-fascism, would create the downfall of labor's state socialist apparatus.

Marx is not an anti-capitalist in total. He is anti-capitalist in the sense that it portends emancipation against capitalism. Capitalism is wrong because it is economic exploitation. This distinction is important to understand for all revolutionaries.

Enough of this "socialism is the working class taking control of the means of production." The "means of production" can be procured by the state for exploitative purposes all the same as that of the institution of monarchism and private ownership over the means of production.

Are the libertarians right? Absolutely not. Both anarchists and libertarians will concede the lack of equalitarian power in order to guarantee future exploitative endeavors.

The point for state socialists and communitarians who are in the correct position on the labor position need to devise a way to remove the unique problems associated with state procurement and management. We can move forward only by acknowledging this risk.

[Jimmie Higgins]

A coffin and a basement are the same because they are both rectangular structures under ground with people inside. A hammer and an uzi are the same thing because they are both hard metal objects that can kill.

[Conquer or Die]

A coffin and a basement are the same because they are both rectangular structures under ground with people inside. A hammer and an uzi are the same thing because they are both hard metal objects that can kill.

No point was made.

[Imposter Marxist]

You did? :laugh:

[devoration1]

You are wrong on all points.

For the record, Marx and many other theorists used the terms socialism and communism interchangably.

Nationalization/collectivization by itself denotes nothing. State capitalism (all of the regimes that call themselves 'socialist') is proof- while the bourgeoisie proper doesn't own and control the means of production, alienation and extraction of surplus value still occurs through the state.

Socialism/communism is a world of abundance, based on the world market apparatus established by capitalism. Once capitalism completed the world market (around the turn of 19th-20th century) the material preconditions for socialism were met. This can only come about through the political, worldwide revolution of the working class, as it is the only revolutionary class. No one can take power or organize the class in its name.

You are using several terms to say the same thing. The tendency toward state capitalism was worldwide following the change in epoch of capitalism, from ascendent to decadent. Following the 1929 crash and following Great Depression, global capital established a trend toward state capitalist measures (this includes the total nationalization and planned economies of the pseudo-'socialist' countries, the corporatist-fascist regimes and Keynesianism in the West).

The state cannot be used to advance the interests of the working class and its revolution. This was made clear by the Paris Commune experience, and the history of the degeneration of the October Revolution within a few short years (mainly because of international isolation of the revolution, but also because of the statist policies) further proves this point. The state in the transition period is to be resisted and dominated by the authentic organs of working class power (worker's councils, factory committees, mass assemblies with worker-delegates, etc).

The idea that nationalization = closer to socialism is a holdover from the Second International, which was a correct formulation during the ascendent phase of capitalism (while it was still expanding and moving towards creating a world market)- but it is a completely bankrupt policy now.

Marx left us historical materialism- the materialist conception of history. It says that all modes of production (starting with primitive communism, Asiatic despotism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism) have an ascendent and a decadent period- societies were class societies. In the decadent phase (when the mode of production no longer advances the productive capacity of humanity and becomes a fetter on progress) another class asserts its own dictatorship, abolishing the previous mode of production and establishing the new.

Capitalism is just another one of these modes of production in human history, and they were all exploitative and barbaric. They are to be opposed and overthrown because they are a fetter on progress, and the working class is the revolutionary subject because of their place in relation to production. Their struggle against capitalism to assert their interests may have something to do with the exploitative and unfair aspects of capitalism, but their economic struggles are the real motor force behind them and their potential.

[RGacky3]

Then Monarchies are socialism.

[Obs]

I have no idea what class analysis is.
Maybe you should try reading Marx with an open mind instead of assuming from the get-go that he's wrong. Maybe you'll learn something.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I have no problem with people who are just curiouse about socialism ans gives a serious question about it even if they are hostile. But when someone who dont know a shit and havnt made the effort to make research on the basics, suddenly commes to a site like this and writes his prejudices as if they where the absolute true, and obviously just want to start trolling, i dont see why we sould try to give a serious answer. Instead i will confirme his prejudices by posting this picture.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pS7sKjlzwFg/SXBpGL-mU7I/AAAAAAAADNk/vxXwsH8judk/s400/commies+gone.jpg

[Tablo]

To some of us socialists the term socialism means democratic control of the economy and consider it incompatible with government.

[Conquer or Die]

I have been told now several times that I've made no attempt to understand "class analysis." Marx didn't understand labor aristocracy or fascism, so his "class analysis" is wrong. He was naive in politics.

Socialism is a neutral term - state ownership over the economy.

[Thug Lessons]

I have been told now several times that I've made no attempt to understand "class analysis." Marx didn't understand labor aristocracy or fascism, so his "class analysis" is wrong. He was naive in politics.

Socialism is a neutral term - state ownership over the economy.
The term 'labor aristocracy' was first used by Engels if I recall correctly. And Lenin, who used Marxian class analysis, is most likely the basis for all modern theories of labor aristocracy.

And as many people have pointed out, your definition of socialism would include monarchies. It's the same useless definition that the conservatives and teabaggers use when they try to claim Obama is a Marxist socialist Muslim.

[Zeus the Moose]

I have been told now several times that I've made no attempt to understand "class analysis." Marx didn't understand labor aristocracy or fascism, so his "class analysis" is wrong. He was naive in politics.

Socialism is a neutral term - state ownership over the economy.

It's a bit hard for Marx to have understood fascism, considering it didn't really exist as a movement until about thirty-five years after his death.

[Kayser_Soso]

I have been told now several times that I've made no attempt to understand "class analysis." Marx didn't understand labor aristocracy or fascism, so his "class analysis" is wrong. He was naive in politics.

Socialism is a neutral term - state ownership over the economy.

Oh isn't that cute, another internet jockey invents his own ideology.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have been told now several times that I've made no attempt to understand "class analysis."

A "government" is meaningless in the abstract and not connected to any sort of "class analysis": you need a governed and those who govern to put "government" into a meaningful context.

So when those who govern do so in order to conquer territory and make the defeated into slaves, then this kind of government is much different in interests and in character than on government made up of people who want to protect private property of the rich and maintain trade routes and secure resources. As the comrade said above, if government interference in the market is socialism, then feudal monarchies, and most modern capitalist governments are socialist and therefore the term has no meaning.

Socialism of the revolutionary Marxian type (as opposed to utopian socialists and more modern so-called socialists who are reformers or state-capitalists) has a meaning: "the self-emancipation of the working class". In terms of "government", the governed would govern.



Socialism is a neutral term - state ownership over the economy. Well then capitalism is socialism since it took the state to enclose common land and turn it into private property, it took states to divide up the new world and fund ships to build plantations and bring slaves there, it took states to destroy the feudal system in order for capitalism to exists. In the US, it took the state to buy or take over all the land that is the US, it took the state to enforce the private property of farmers and the rail-roads against the native Americans, it took the state to destroy the slave system and introduce a more developed form of capitalism based on investments and profit rather than land and slave-holdings.

Again, without a "class analysis" of "governmnet" your argument is a failure and you might as well argue that a sewer and a river are the same things because they both move water around.

[AK]

The "means of production" can be procured by the state for exploitative purposes all the same as that of the institution of monarchism and private ownership over the means of production..
Kind of why I'm an anarchist, yo.

[Q]

Thanks for pointing me to the light, I see my errors now.

Oh wait.

Why did you even bother to register? I want those minutes back I spent reading this thread.

[Dean]

This is preposterous - namely, it ignores the social character of socialist economic organization. Pitiful.

[Nolan]

That's all it is, nothing more and nothing less.

That might fly on Mises.org or Youtube, but people are actually informed about the subject here.


Corporatism and Socialist-Communism are similar in this respect: The state should maintain the economy.

But corporatism maintains private property rights over the means of production. It isn't even state capitalism.


Corporatism and Capitalism are similar in this respect: Exploitation is the power nexus.

Ok.


The ideology of National Socialism is both Socialist and Exploitative. The ideology of Communism via State Socialism is Socialist without exploitation.

National Socialism (was almost called something else) is a form of fascism. Socialism by definition is not exploitative, since there is no one to exploit.


Marx was naive when it came to politics and the philosophy of history. Heilbroner, Popper, illuminate this fact. He assumed that liberalism in politics would necessarily lead to liberalism in economics and thus total emancipation. He did not predict that unintended consequences, typical bureaucratic machinations, and worst of all-fascism, would create the downfall of labor's state socialist apparatus.

ONE TIME I WENT FISHING AN CAUGHT A CATFISH AND COOKED HIM UP AND ATE HIM AND HE WAS GOOD


Marx is not an anti-capitalist in total. He is anti-capitalist in the sense that it portends emancipation against capitalism. Capitalism is wrong because it is economic exploitation. This distinction is important to understand for all revolutionaries.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.


Enough of this "socialism is the working class taking control of the means of production."

Enough I say!


The "means of production" can be procured by the state for exploitative purposes all the same as that of the institution of monarchism and private ownership over the means of production.

No shit.


Are the libertarians right? Absolutely not. Both anarchists and libertarians will concede the lack of equalitarian power in order to guarantee future exploitative endeavors.

The point for state socialists and communitarians who are in the correct position on the labor position need to devise a way to remove the unique problems associated with state procurement and management. We can move forward only by acknowledging this risk.

Blah blah blah

You're either an idiot or a professional troll. :lol:

[RadioRaheem84]

Just what exactly is corporatism?

I've heard it uttered by many right libertarians.

Is it literally the Mussolini inspired phrase of corporate federal bodies acting as mediators between worker grievances and owners of industry; i.e. "nullifying" class struggle.

OR in the sense that Milton Friedman was talking about with the collusion between business and the state?

Isn't it just capitalism in the monopoly state?

[Nolan]

Just what exactly is corporatism?

I've heard it uttered by many right libertarians.

Is it literally the Mussolini inspired phrase of corporate federal bodies acting as mediators between worker grievances and owners of industry; i.e. "nullifying" class struggle.

OR in the sense that Milton Friedman was talking about with the collusion between business and the state?

Isn't it just capitalism in the monopoly state?

It's guild capitalism.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/the-corporate-state.htm

Interesting stuff.

[Blackscare]

And if the definitions you used were correct, it would be true. But they aren't. You just decided to redefine things the way you want them to be defined. That's all well and good when you're 8 and the universe revolves around you, but when you're an adult and you're interacting with other people, you can't just declare a definition out of the blue and expect people to just accept it. You have to approach people on their terms and understand what they are saying so that you can find common ground to have a legitimate debate. If your position was so rock-solid correct you could express it in terms that people are familiar with and are actually relevant to the long-established, huge body of theoretical work concerning socialism.

How can you lose an argument when you're the fucking master of reality and can decide the meaning of words on a whim?! Of course you can't. What are you thinking? "If I just insist forcefully enough it must be true! Fuck centuries of work, socialism is this because I say it is and everyone just has to deal with it!"


Jesus christ. Let me give you an example.

Lets say I say the following: "Dude, I think a samari could totally kick a Jedi's ass".

Preposterous. A Jedi has force powers and a much more powerful weapon. Me saying that it could be easily killed by a samuri makes no sense. But what if in support of my argument I start tweaking the very meaning of the variables involved?

What if I said "Now, obviously, this Jedi would have to be using a normal sword and not able to use it's force powers to have a fair fight. In such a circumstance I think the samuri may win."


What I'm basically doing here is radically redefining a Jedi in order to make a point. A Jedi without it's lightsaber and use of the force would just be a monk. My argument only makes sense if the Jedi is not a Jedi.

THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND THIS IS WHY YOU ARE WRONG. STOP.




Your argument only makes sense with the starting assumption that we accept your stripped down and almost meaningless definition of socialism that only (some) non-socialists use.



Yes, I know I used bold too much. I raged hard.

[Nolan]

And if the definitions you used were correct, it would be true. But they aren't. You just decided to redefine things the way you want them to be defined. That's all well and good when you're 8 and the universe revolves around you, but when you're an adult and you're interacting with other people, you can't just declare a definition out of the blue and expect people to just accept it. You have to approach people on their terms and understand what they are saying so that you can find common ground to have a legitimate debate. If your position was so rock-solid correct you could express it in terms that people are familiar with and are actually relevant to the long-established, huge body of theoretical work concerning socialism.

How can you lose an argument when you're the fucking master of reality and can decide the meaning of words on a whim?! Of course you can't. What are you thinking? "If I just insist forcefully enough it must be true! Fuck centuries of work, socialism is this because I say it is and everyone just has to deal with it!"


Jesus christ. Let me give you an example.

Lets say I say the following: "Dude, I think a samari could totally kick a Jedi's ass".

Preposterous. A Jedi has force powers and a much more powerful weapon. Me saying that it could be easily killed by a samuri makes no sense. But what if in support of my argument I start tweaking the very meaning of the variables involved?

What if I said "Now, obviously, this Jedi would have to be using a normal sword and not able to use it's force powers to have a fair fight. In such a circumstance I think the samuri may win."


What I'm basically doing here is radically redefining a Jedi in order to make a point. A Jedi without it's lightsaber and use of the force would just be a monk. My argument only makes sense if the Jedi is not a Jedi.

THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND THIS IS WHY YOU ARE WRONG. STOP.




Your argument only makes sense with the starting assumption that we accept your stripped down and almost meaningless definition of socialism that only (some) non-socialists use.



Yes, I know I used bold too much. I raged hard.

You need a hug.

[Bud Struggle]

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/the-corporate-state.htm

Interesting stuff.

Actually Mosley was a pretty interesting guy. His son wrote two great bios of him Rules of the Game and Beyond the Pale. Definitely worth reading.

[Kayser_Soso]

And if the definitions you used were correct, it would be true. But they aren't. You just decided to redefine things the way you want them to be defined. That's all well and good when you're 8 and the universe revolves around you, but when you're an adult and you're interacting with other people, you can't just declare a definition out of the blue and expect people to just accept it. You have to approach people on their terms and understand what they are saying so that you can find common ground to have a legitimate debate. If your position was so rock-solid correct you could express it in terms that people are familiar with and are actually relevant to the long-established, huge body of theoretical work concerning socialism.

How can you lose an argument when you're the fucking master of reality and can decide the meaning of words on a whim?! Of course you can't. What are you thinking? "If I just insist forcefully enough it must be true! Fuck centuries of work, socialism is this because I say it is and everyone just has to deal with it!"


Jesus christ. Let me give you an example.

Lets say I say the following: "Dude, I think a samari could totally kick a Jedi's ass".

Preposterous. A Jedi has force powers and a much more powerful weapon. Me saying that it could be easily killed by a samuri makes no sense. But what if in support of my argument I start tweaking the very meaning of the variables involved?

What if I said "Now, obviously, this Jedi would have to be using a normal sword and not able to use it's force powers to have a fair fight. In such a circumstance I think the samuri may win."


What I'm basically doing here is radically redefining a Jedi in order to make a point. A Jedi without it's lightsaber and use of the force would just be a monk. My argument only makes sense if the Jedi is not a Jedi.

THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND THIS IS WHY YOU ARE WRONG. STOP.




Your argument only makes sense with the starting assumption that we accept your stripped down and almost meaningless definition of socialism that only (some) non-socialists use.



Yes, I know I used bold too much. I raged hard.


I really like your sig, but.... I noticed you might be a Tarantino fan and thus under the mistaken belief that soliloquies based on pop culture references(i.e. Star Wars) are witty and funny. They aren't.

[Bud Struggle]

I really like your sig, but.... I noticed you might be a Tarantino fan and thus under the mistaken belief that soliloquies based on pop culture references(i.e. Star Wars) are witty and funny. They aren't.

I thought he was quoting YOU. :D

[Blackscare]

I really like your sig, but.... I noticed you might be a Tarantino fan and thus under the mistaken belief that soliloquies based on pop culture references(i.e. Star Wars) are witty and funny. They aren't.



K, argument demolished. Sorry.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Yo, you be mad stupid, no offense.

Basically, your getting all hung up on semantics - namely, "the state"

When classifying economic systems, we should concern ourselves with how one actually WORKS economically. What matters is wheter the means of production are collectively owned or privately owned (with additional classifiers being debatable), not whether a body with an monopoly on the legal use of force "Owns" everything or not.

Frankly this is a pathetic assertion, and i don't see how you could make such a major error.

[RedKnight]

The original poster must not be familiar with libertarian socialism. ihttp://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html Not all forms of socialism involve a worker state, in some there is simply community, and/or co-operative ownership of the means of production.

[Conquer or Die]

Oh shit, a worthy post!


And if the definitions you used were correct, it would be true. But they aren't. You just decided to redefine things the way you want them to be defined. That's all well and good when you're 8 and the universe revolves around you, but when you're an adult and you're interacting with other people, you can't just declare a definition out of the blue and expect people to just accept it. You have to approach people on their terms and understand what they are saying so that you can find common ground to have a legitimate debate. If your position was so rock-solid correct you could express it in terms that people are familiar with and are actually relevant to the long-established, huge body of theoretical work concerning socialism.

Yeah, perhaps it was a bit arrogant of myself. I'll concede that point.

Of course, I know what socialism understood by the left-wing of people against exploitation actually is. It's labor controlling the state apparatus. I happen to believe this is an effective and just method. But I believe it has run into problems (hence the current state of the world) and I think a realistic notion of the government and its power will serve the ultimate end purposes better by having this definition.

I do not deny what socialism was intended to be by many people. I also do not deny problems within that outlook that were practical. Even a Stalinist will admit mistakes. Those who don't are simply fantasists.

If we (the movement) can understand socialism as state ownership of the economy then we can approximate better methods of achieving power. If we can also understand the underlying root of what is a more just society then we can also approximate better than simply focusing on the methods.

I think this will free up the movement outside of dogmatism and replace stale dialogues and stereotypes. I think people opposed to that are doing so based on emotional and highly unethical grounds.

Dean, dear Dean, made the point that there is a "social" character of seizing state power. I view state power as a tool, a method, that can be used or abused and has been as such for a long time. Corporatism is the total state apparatus in use for exploitation. Private property existed in Nazi Germany in little better capacity than the worker movement.

[Conquer or Die]

Yo, you be mad stupid, no offense.

Basically, your getting all hung up on semantics - namely, "the state"

When classifying economic systems, we should concern ourselves with how one actually WORKS economically. What matters is wheter the means of production are collectively owned or privately owned (with additional classifiers being debatable), not whether a body with an monopoly on the legal use of force "Owns" everything or not.

Frankly this is a pathetic assertion, and i don't see how you could make such a major error.

Seizing state power is not in itself a sufficient condition for socialism. Plenty of "socialists" have seized state power, with mixed to pathetic results.

Socialism as a neutral term is understood as state ownership in the economy.