Fuck "Socialimec

[Rafiq]

Who's tired of having semantics arguments with people about "Socialism is good but not communism dats too extreme".

Is it time we (in the US and Canada, etc.) accept the modern American conception of socialism as "Social Democracy" in argument?

Is it strategically beneficial for those of us debating or no? I'm not talking about some sort of movement change or anything. Just on an indvidual argumentative scale. Getting off topic debating what "Socialism" is, really destroys the quality of already existing shit arguments.

[Ostrinski]

You are right in that explaining what socialism is every time you have an argument is a chore, but you have to do the same thing with communism anyway. I use them interchangeably without much thought input, but that confuses people, and they think I'm an idiot for conflating them.

All in all, there's really no way out of laborious semantics arguments, as far as I can see. Maybe we need a new term.

[Rafiq]

I don't bother with Communism. I mean, that's dead end, for them

[Ostrinski]

While the employment of a new term might seem futile in the macrocosmic sense, I always thought it would have been more "consistent" to call socialism something akin to "laborism," since capitalism is the rule of the capital accumulation process, and socialism is the rule of the cooperative labor process.

But ultimately what we choose to call it is of no consequence, because what we choose to call something doesn't change its social relationship. We could call the bourgeoisie grapefruits and they would still hold the same social function.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

You've described the exact reason why I rarely discuss my political views with people other than my friends.

Occasionally, yeah, but I avoid loaded words like communism. When I do discuss politics, I get them to agree with some concepts first, then drop the C-bomb, then explain that it's not what they think, then I say Stalin's a dick (sorry, M-Ls). They admit it's a good idea but "would never work", then the conversation ends and I go back to my beer (because this always seems to happen exclusively in bars).

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I usually lead in with "democratic socialism". I emphasize that European "social democracy" is not the same as socialism but was a compromise extracted from the ruling classes by the working classes.The working class is in a weak condition now and the crisis capitalism is in makes conditions worse for all of us.

If "communism", as in "socialism was okay I guess, I mean wasn't Eugene Debs a socialist or something, but communism was something very bad that they did in Russia" I explain that

1) The Russian Revolution was probably the greatest event in human history, it was the first time the working class took power but...

2.)Every time socialism has been tried its been viciously attacked, this created huge deformations in Russia.

3) As a Trotskyist I can mention how a bureaucratic caste took power in Russia, having to kill almost the entire leadership of the Bolshevik Party to do so

4) Having said this there were some very real gains by the Soviet Union-the country industrialized in about ten years, an amazing accomplishment, showing the advantages of a planned economy, although at huge cost

5) The Soviet Union, despite its faults, did provide a space for development of non-aligned countries and its likely the US Civil Rights movement and the European social democratic compromise would not have happened w/out the threat of an alternate system.

6) The Soviet Union ultimately collapsed becauuse, although it wa a planned economy, it wasn't democratically organized leading to monumental inefficiencies and waste.The ruling caste was able to convert itself into a new capitalist oligarchy which rules Russia today. The working class itself was atomized and was not able to put up a resistance when the system imploded from within.

That's what I say anyway.

[Caj]

If we adopted new terms, -- say laborism, workerism, economic democracy, etc. -- they would very quickly take on the same connotations that words like communism and socialism hold today.

I think the best we can do is continue to educate people on what the true meanings of socialism and communism are. Sure, it's often frustrating; there are even self-described "Marxists" on this forum who naively believe that socialism means free healthcare, housing, education, etc. In the end though, I think adding new terms would just make the issue even more complicated and confusing.

[Lobotomy]

When I do discuss politics, I get them to agree with some concepts first, then drop the C-bomb, then explain that it's not what they think, then I say Stalin's a dick (sorry, M-Ls). They admit it's a good idea but "would never work", then the conversation ends and I go back to my beer (because this always seems to happen exclusively in bars).

this is what really drives me crazy. I've gotten a handful of working class family members to agree with me about the fundamentals of why capitalism is a shit system, but if I were to actually say "capitalism is a shit system" they would come up with all kinds of excuses for it. also, the other day in class the professor asked how many of my fellow classmates have ever felt like they were severely underpaid at their jobs, and almost everyone raised their hands.

[Grenzer]

Who's tired of having semantics arguments with people about "Socialism is good but not communism dats too extreme".

Is it time we (in the US and Canada, etc.) accept the modern American conception of socialism as "Social Democracy" in argument?

Is it strategically beneficial for those of us debating or no? I'm not talking about some sort of movement change or anything. Just on an indvidual argumentative scale. Getting off topic debating what "Socialism" is, really destroys the quality of already existing shit arguments.

I usually content myself with shit talking capitalism. I have thought about this question, and I don't think it makes a difference what you're going to call it. This come from experience.

"Well Obama may not be your particular brand of Red, but he's still a socialist."

"Equally, I could just say that you are twisting the definition to suit your purposes as you accuse me of doing, shit head."

This has happened countless times. If someone is going to make it into a discussion on semantics, then it's pointless to debate, unless you're just doing it for entertainment purposes. It seems to me that debate on an individual level is not constructive. As it stands, the best argument for socialism at the moment is being bludgeoned in the face by the material conditions.

[Ostrinski]

This has happened countless times. If someone is going to make it into a discussion on semantics, then it's pointless to debate, unless you're just doing it for entertainment purposes. It seems to me that debate on an individual level is not constructive. As it stands, the best argument for socialism at the moment is being bludgeoned in the face by the material conditions.The ONLY use for one on one debate is entertainment. At lest imo.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

The ONLY use for one on one debate is entertainment. At lest imo.
I tend to agree with sentiments like this.

A few days ago I got a wild hair up my ass (I hate that phrase) and decided to debate this Misesian on another web site. Well, it kind of happened on accident, but I made the conscious decision to continue the conversation into a debate. Now, two days later, it's dragging on, long descended into semantics and rhetoric, with the Misesian completely ignoring what I'm saying and repeatedly positing statements I've proven false, and I'm wondering why the hell I'm doing this. Now he's trying to convince me that FDR was a Marxist who loved Mussolini, therefore Mussolini was a Marxist and fascism is socialism, but socialists are pacifists and could therefore never seize power yet they would form a small, militarized party and force people to collectivize and steal rich people's money, while at the same time completely denying (or just ignoring) that Mises himself admired fascism. Jeezus. My head is spinning. I think their entire argument is based on constantly redefining everything and putting forth absurd conjecture based on false premises while at the same time flat-out denying historical fact.

It seems when this happens, it's entertaining at first, then it turns into a migraine. Brb guys, I'm going to go jump off of a building.

[Rafiq]

I don't think new terms are necessary. Like I said, this is only for debate one on one, not for a movement.

[Zukunftsmusik]

A few days ago I got a wild hair up my ass (I hate that phrase) and decided to debate this Misesian on another web site. Well, it kind of happened on accident, but I made the conscious decision to continue the conversation into a debate. Now, two days later, it's dragging on, long descended into semantics and rhetoric, with the Misesian completely ignoring what I'm saying and repeatedly positing statements I've proven false, and I'm wondering why the hell I'm doing this. Now he's trying to convince me that FDR was a Marxist who loved Mussolini, therefore Mussolini was a Marxist and fascism is socialism, but socialists are pacifists and could therefore never seize power yet they would form a small, militarized party and force people to collectivize and steal rich people's money, while at the same time completely denying (or just ignoring) that Mises himself admired fascism. Jeezus. My head is spinning. I think their entire argument is based on constantly redefining everything and putting forth absurd conjecture based on false premises while at the same time flat-out denying historical fact.

This looks suspiciously similar to the debates I have with this Ron Paul-dude.

At Rafiq: From what I've experienced, it's a common thing to think that communism is just the soviet union version of socialism. Wouldn't the use of communism instead of socialism lead to similar debates on semantics?

[Thirsty Crow]

If we adopted new terms, -- say laborism, workerism, economic democracy, etc. -- they would very quickly take on the same connotations that words like communism and socialism hold today.

I suppose that all of those terms already exist.
Someone from Great Britain ould have to confirm my suspicion that "laborism" is actually connected to the Labour Party, thus to contemporary third way social democracy.
Workerism brings the Italian operaismo in mind, though I don't know much about it so can't really comment. It's also used to denote the internal policies of political organizations whereby admission is restricted to proletarians only (and, usually, this goes along a healthy suspicion, IMO, directed towards intellectuals).
Economic democracy is probably connected to market socialist theories and the idea of self-management (which doesn't go beyond capital as a social relation of production - self-managed capitalism, that is).

I can't see why we should drop the historical terms and not fight for the clarification of their real content. Though, in the end it doesn't matter if workers' fight for socialsim or prettyism when they conclude that the existing state apparatus must be torn down and that a new society should be made by them.

[NewLeft]

I never talk about politics, it will lead to nowhere..

[Rafiq]

I never talk about politics, it will lead to nowhere..

But to humiliate the enemy(opponent) is the greatest joy of all (sometimes the "enemy" is a good friend).