Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu
Latest users (1): lulzformalaysiaair, anonymous(14).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#14639 - sirthomasburr (11/19/2012) [-]
I think I'm becoming socialist guys, someone stage an intervention quick!
User avatar #14755 to #14639 - techketzer (11/21/2012) [-]
mises.org/daily/1937

That should get you out of your funk.
User avatar #14826 to #14755 - oxan (11/23/2012) [-]
First paragraph:

And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

Wrong right from the start: common ownership does not necessarily mean government ownership.

>The German government directed industry
So, the German government was a coordinator? A coordinator, like in the system of coordinatorism that is quoted when leftists state that the USSR and the PRC aren't communist or socialist? Nevertheless, as I've stated previously, common ownership is note the sole characteristic of socialism. You're forgetting egalitarianism and social equity.

>Individual allegiance to the state
Socialism is a cosmopolitan ideology. Socialisms believe that workers owe an allegiance to mankind, and to the commonwealth, not to the state.

>Another reference to government coordination
See my point on coordinatorism.

>Government intervention destroys the economy
It's necessary that I point out that USSR was NOT socialist, but they have huge amounts of government intevention, so they provide a valid point. State direction of the USSR's economy allowed it to rise from a poor country with a mostly peasant population to an industrial super power that, while still remaining lower than its Western counterparts, significantly increased the standard of living. The collapse of the Soviet economy was due directly to the introduction of economic liberal reforms, before given the final push by the Afghanistan War.

>Totalitarianism

The author goes on to describe totalitarianism, which is in no way directly related to socialism or communism. These arguments are strong.

I'm going to stop reading there, as it seems to go off in crazy rightist conspiracy theories. I'll conclude that the Nazi party was a right wing party. The promotion of a clear social hierarchy and the status of one race deemed superior to another signify this.
#14830 to #14826 - techketzer (11/23/2012) [-]
- It does. The rest of the article explains it very well.   
When you read it only with the purpose of defending your ideology by any means, logical or fallacious, then an article has no chance of educating you; all the world's knowledge would be lost on such a clogged mind.   
   
- Again, it explains very well and in great detail the role of the German Nationalsocialist government and why it can and actually must be classified as socialist.   
   
- Exactly. No difference. You have no argument.   
   
- The USSR was decidedly socialist. It boggles the mind how arbitrarily you pick and choose what fits into your worldview and drop and overlook what doesn't.   
   
- It is explained in logical steps and again, great detail, how the public ownership of means of productions can only be maintained through action and institutions that require nothing short of a totalitarian government.   
   
   
You might as well stop reading altogether. It clearly has no effect of insight or learning on you and your gridlocked way of not thinking.   
All you did here was post your personal opinions as unfounded statements and think they somehow serve to counteract the empirical structure of the article I provided.   
   
tl;dr: Epic fail.
- It does. The rest of the article explains it very well.
When you read it only with the purpose of defending your ideology by any means, logical or fallacious, then an article has no chance of educating you; all the world's knowledge would be lost on such a clogged mind.

- Again, it explains very well and in great detail the role of the German Nationalsocialist government and why it can and actually must be classified as socialist.

- Exactly. No difference. You have no argument.

- The USSR was decidedly socialist. It boggles the mind how arbitrarily you pick and choose what fits into your worldview and drop and overlook what doesn't.

- It is explained in logical steps and again, great detail, how the public ownership of means of productions can only be maintained through action and institutions that require nothing short of a totalitarian government.


You might as well stop reading altogether. It clearly has no effect of insight or learning on you and your gridlocked way of not thinking.
All you did here was post your personal opinions as unfounded statements and think they somehow serve to counteract the empirical structure of the article I provided.

tl;dr: Epic fail.
User avatar #14833 to #14830 - oxan (11/23/2012) [-]
>I was critiquing the essay just as you would critique any socialist article I handed to you.

>I'll agree that the article successfully classified the NSDAP as socialist, but here's the issue: it's definition of socialism is incorrect. It's a misinformed article of no merit.

>Remember when you said that if your sole purpose is defending your ideology by any means, logical or fallacious, then no article (or in this case, single argument) has any chance of educating you? I think that just happened. I presented a clear and logical argument as to how allegiance to the state isn't a socialist characteristic.

>The USSR wasn't socialist. Do you want an essay on why it wasn't? Here: http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/lookfor.htm

>I explain time and time again that common ownership doesn't necessarily mean state ownership. It boggles the mind how much your simply ignore to suit your misinformed idea of socialism.

All I do, and have done so, is repeat to you what I have said previously: you have no idea what socialism is, and continually ignore any of my explanations and make strawman arguments.
User avatar #14835 to #14833 - techketzer (11/23/2012) [-]
- Oh hell no. You're not just insulting my literary skills, are you?
I, for one, would have read the entire thing before doing anything else, especially taking the parts of the introduction out of context to line them up with personal opinions and think them refuted.
This is about central points ans positions, not finding supposed flaw in superficial opening sentences.

- I think you're the one going with the incorrect definition.

- Clear and logical argument? Where? All I saw were unfounded claims. Those are not arguments.

. The USSR employed a system of public ownership of the means of production and seeing as that is the criterion, therefore was socialist. I do not see the supposed flaw in that.
I'l take a closer look at that link once I have more time; it seems quite extensive.

- You seem unable to grasp that whatever entity ends up holding the means of production through that very act itself de facto becomes the state.


I may have no idea what you think socialism is, but that's of no concern to me.
User avatar #14837 to #14835 - oxan (11/23/2012) [-]
We have different methods of approach, sure, but no where did I take any part of the introduction out of context. It said clearly that state ownership is the only characteristic needed to classify socialism. And personal opinion? It's not a personal opinion. I didn't even say that socialism excludes state ownership, because it doesn't. What I'm saying is that socialism doesn't necessarily mean state ownership when it mentions common ownership. That is not a personal opinion, it is fact.

As a socialist, I feel as if I have some understanding of what socialism is, wouldn't you? It sounds appropriate. And as I previously stated, you continually argue that socialism requires state ownership, when it is FACT that it does not.

Socialism is cosmopolitan, that is also fact. It cannot be disputed. Socialists maintain that class distinctions are more significant than distinctions such as race or nationality.

The USSR employed a system of public ownership. But, again, a form of common ownership, while necessary, is not the sole characteristic of socialism, but you'll see that when you read the article.

By that logic, any corporation becomes the state in an anarchistic society, therefore negating anarchism. Try again.

Such ignorance is pitiful.
#14840 to #14837 - techketzer (11/23/2012) [-]
- Again, you fail to understand what the ownership of the MoP actually means; it means power. The ability to oppress and destroy, which of course results in authority.
The distinction between state ownership or any other form of public ownership is meaningless; whatever entity holds this power becomes the central authority; it becomes the state.

- As I said, the distinction is meaningless.

- Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. It says nothing about nationalism or internationalism at all, no matter how much you wish it did.

- By definition of the economic ideology that is Socialism, it is.
Again, no matter how much you wish it was different, it is not.

>implying there is public ownership of the MoP in an anarchist society.
See picture. Try again.
User avatar #14952 to #14840 - oxan (11/25/2012) [-]
We're not discussing what ownership of the MoP mean in this point, we're discussing the error of the article that assumes that the only form of common ownership is state ownership.

The distinction isn't meaningless, but it's easier for you to justify your misinformed view of socialism if you dismiss the distinction.

As I hold the Communist Manifesto in my hands right now, the very last line is: 'Working men of all countries, unite!'. Now, while socialism isn't communism (but communism is socialism), it still remains true in any form of socialism. Class distinction is more important that race or nationality.

By definition of the economic ideology that is socialism, the ideology that I identify with, and have great understanding of, the USSR was not socialist. And it's not about me wishing, or about it being a personal opinion, because it is fact. See:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm
http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/lookfor.htm

Your point was that ownership of the MoP by an entity makes that entity the state. Therefore, in an anarcho-capitalist society, the corporation that owns the largest share of the MoP therefore becomes the state. And since there's now a state, your cute little 'anarcho-' prefix is negated.

Not only do you not understand socialism, you're starting to hint that you don't understand your own ideology. It wouldn't be so bad if you weren't so pretentious in your ignorance.
User avatar #14962 to #14952 - techketzer (11/25/2012) [-]
- To separate those is a mistake in thought. As I said, a central entity controlling the MoP holds enough power to render the state dependent and irrelevant; it becomes the new state in effect.
Therefore, the distinction is not one of political power, but of the short time in which the state must try desperately to keep what power it has. Meaningless in the big picture.

Communism is another animal altogether. It has nothing in common whatsoever with Socialism.

Again, if you choose to define your ideology with diffuse terms of culture, fine, stay in your ignorance.
It changes nothing about the fact that in USSR, Maoist China and North Korea the MoP were in the hands of the state; therefore they were socialist economies.

You try so hard, I'm almost sorry to disappoint you again.
But no, a monopoly is not the same as a state. Not even close.
There is no collective ownership if the MoP in a voluntary society.

The problem here is that you fail to understand me; if by inability or unwillingness I cannot rightly tell.

"It wouldn't be so bad if you weren't so pretentious in your ignorance."
That is hypocrisy of the highest degree.
User avatar #14984 to #14962 - oxan (11/26/2012) [-]
Looks to me as we're just going in circles now. However, I'll reiterate that you're nothing but pretentious. Not only do you not provide any source to back up your statement that socialism requires state ownership (but it's not like that's really your fault, considering any source that argues that state ownership is the only characteristic of socialism is too biased, too inaccurate and immediately refutable), but the only response you have to my sources is immediate dismissal.

So, until you understand that socialism is not characteristic by common or social ownership alone, and that common/social ownership does not immediately equate to state ownership, you'll continue to be wrong.

And with all this talk of sources:

http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/lookfor.htm - Describes a participatory economic system as opposed to a centralised state system
http://books.zcommunications.org/books/polpar.htm - Ditto.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm - Distinguishes between a socialist country and the USSR.
User avatar #14994 to #14984 - techketzer (11/26/2012) [-]
We positively are going in circles, that's why I don't feel the need to copypaste my sources again and again every time we pass the specific points once more.
Is that lazy? If so, please forgive me.

I do not have the leisure to read actual books on the topic at this time, so I stuck with the third link for the moment.

What a reeking, ideologist shitpile. Not a single fact or piece of proof, not even internal definitions and deductions from those; nothing but a heap of meaningless and undefined phrases in an attempt to somehow establish "true socialism" as a great, glowing superstructure of an idea while failing to make it tangible in any way, shape or form.
What was it supposed to prove again?

"So, until you understand that socialism is not characteristic by common or social ownership alone, and that common/social ownership does not immediately equate to state ownership, you'll continue to be wrong. "

The thought that maybe you at some point fell for some asshole dressing up a failed economical ideology as the great revelation and liberation of all of mankind did never even occur to you, did it?
It's automatically the others that are wrong, no?
I'd much rather be pretentious than whatever you are, thank you.
User avatar #15004 to #14994 - oxan (11/27/2012) [-]
The essay represents the belief of a majority of socialists. That is, the Soviet Union wasn't socialist. You can keep claiming that it is, due to state ownership of the MoP, but at the end of the day, it is the socialists that determine what characterises their ideology. As such, socialists will refuse to acknowledge that the Soviet Union was a socialist country. The essay illustrates why the Soviet Union claimed they were socialist, and why the West declared it socialist. That is, it supposedly justifies the actions of each entity.

The mere fact that you claim socialism was a failure proves your ignorance. Again, I state that there has been no socialist country or economy implemented. However, if we temporarily assume (and incorrectly so) that the Soviet Union and their system of economic centralisation and state ownership was socialist, then it was hardly a failure. The Soviet Union turned a nation populated by a peasant majority into an industrial super power. The standard of living skyrocketed from the standard of the Russian Empire. When the Soviet Union did finally collapse, it was due to the introduction of more and more liberal economic policies. When the Soviet Union retained its economic planning, it was able to end war rationing years earlier than the United Kingdom. The bread lines that characterised the late Soviet Union were a direct result of the dismantling of the economic planning system.

I would hardly consider what you define as a socialist economy a complete and utter failure.
User avatar #15008 to #15004 - techketzer (11/27/2012) [-]
And that is so completely and utterly wrong I can't properly put it into words.
I see in what a convenient position of arbitrary choice it would put you, but no. No. This is just not reality.

An ideology defines the ideologists; ideologists are powerless to change or alter the ideology. Ideas are eternal and immovable, it is we who are not.
To think you define what is reality is hubris beyond any measure; it is insanity.

The Soviet Union was successful only due to MASSIVE monetary and material aid from primarily the USA. Even the incredible atrocities and the ruthlessness of their government literally exchanging human lives for resources and technological and military advancement would have done them no good.
Without that help, the Germans would have drunk a toast to victory with the Japanese in the Strait of Tartary sometime in '43 or '44.
You saw what came of them when foreign aid stopped after '45.

And no, standard of living for the Russians deteriorated fast from 1914 onward until some time after '90.
Seen as objectively as possible, I'd much rather would have been a bond serf in Romanov Russia than a citizen/victim of the Soviet Union.

It took me a great deal of self-restraint not to go ballistic because of the disgust I felt from you glorifying the second worst thing to happen to humanity in recorded history like that.
I don't think you will, but still hope you appreciate that somewhat.
User avatar #15021 to #15008 - oxan (11/28/2012) [-]
The war time support of the Soviet Union from the US was only a third of what the United Kingdom received. The Soviet Union was so successful in such a short period of time due to state direction. Despite receiving less aid than the UK, and suffering far more destruction, particularly of it's industry, the Soviet Union emerged as the second world super power. Again, as the planned economy was gradually replaced in favour of a freer market, the population began to endure shortages of goods.

Again, ad hominem. I wasn't glorifying the USSR in the slightest. What I was doing was showing you that a state-directed economy can result in a strong economy, in this case the second largest economy at the time. If I was glorifying the Soviet Union, do you really think that I would continually deny that it was a socialist country?
User avatar #15028 to #15021 - techketzer (11/28/2012) [-]
"The war time support of the Soviet Union from the US was only a third of what the United Kingdom received."
Numbers and sources on that, please.

"due to state direction."
*despite.
All it did was exchange the rights and well-being and often enough lives of its citizens for modernization and foreign technologies and resources.
You want to call that successful?

"If I was glorifying the Soviet Union, do you really think that I would continually deny that it was a socialist country?"

The sheer hypocrisy of this. I can't fucking believe you would think something like that, let alone say it.

Truth and reason means nothing to you, does it?
You pick and choose whatever suits you best, regardless of all logic if necessary.
User avatar #14674 to #14639 - oxan (11/20/2012) [-]
As a (revolutionary) democratic socialist, I think the most important question is why do you fear becoming a socialist? If you're leaning towards the ideology, then there's obviously something about it that appeals to you?

Egalitarianism and common ownership of the means of production are very appealing, indeed.
#14756 to #14674 - sirthomasburr (11/21/2012) [-]
I'm not scared about it, it's just that socialism is less socially acceptable then pretty much every other ideology
User avatar #14824 to #14756 - oxan (11/23/2012) [-]
So, you only believe in systems that are socially acceptable? Dat integrity.
User avatar #14790 to #14756 - threeeighteen (11/22/2012) [-]
Bullshit... Fascism.
#14797 to #14790 - sirthomasburr (11/22/2012) [-]
You make a damn good point
 Friends (0)