Will the real socialism please stand up?

[Advocate]

The majority of arguments against socialism immediately appeal to the 20th century's various experiments whereby socialist or communist principles were involved in atrocities, but utterly ignore the fact that those ideologies had almost nothing in common either in their specific precepts, their application, or the circumstances or personalities which brought them to their sorry conclusions, not to mention interference from other ideological powers.

[FlashDangerpants]

The majority of arguments against socialism immediately appeal to the 20th century's various experiments whereby socialist or communist principles were involved in atrocities, but utterly ignore the fact that those ideologies had almost nothing in common either in their specific precepts, their application, or the circumstances or personalities which brought them to their sorry conclusions, not to mention interference from other ideological powers.

The ones that were actually communist all began with land reforms, then farming reforms, then famine and slaughter, followed by internal party purges. So the nothing in common bit there probably isn't sustainable. Also the foreign interference bit is self sabotaging with your argument as-is because these interferences are as diverse as those revolutions are.

The arguments you are contesting typically have shared weaknesses in reasoning, most commonly a shaky inference from the death counts of certain commies to a therefore communism is murder sort of deal. Whichever causal chain they are implying requires commies > something-in-the-middle > opression and death. They need the thing in the middle, but it's unlikely that they have a necessary and sufficient explanation that ties this thing to communism itself, rather than a tragic inheritance from either violent revolution in any and all forms, or exposing the sort of outdated brittle social organisation that falls to such revolutions to sudden political change of any form.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=483326 time=1607175054 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=483286 time=1607146217 user_id=15238]
The majority of arguments against socialism immediately appeal to the 20th century's various experiments whereby socialist or communist principles were involved in atrocities, but utterly ignore the fact that those ideologies had almost nothing in common either in their specific precepts, their application, or the circumstances or personalities which brought them to their sorry conclusions, not to mention interference from other ideological powers.
[/quote]

The ones that were actually communist all began with land reforms, then farming reforms, then famine and slaughter, followed by internal party purges. So the nothing in common bit there probably isn't sustainable. Also the foreign interference bit is self sabotaging with your argument as-is because these interferences are as diverse as those revolutions are.

The arguments you are contesting typically have shared weaknesses in reasoning, most commonly a shaky inference from the death counts of certain commies to a therefore communism is murder sort of deal. Whichever causal chain they are implying requires commies > something-in-the-middle > opression and death. They need the thing in the middle, but it's unlikely that they have a necessary and sufficient explanation that ties this thing to communism itself, rather than a tragic inheritance from either violent revolution in any and all forms, or exposing the sort of outdated brittle social organisation that falls to such revolutions to sudden political change of any form.
[/quote]

Yeah, that something in the middle, i call hand-waving. Does the ideology intend or explicitly allow those results or are they accidental or incidental? makes all the difference in normative judgements.

[Skepdick]

The majority of arguments against socialism immediately appeal to the 20th century's various experiments whereby socialist or communist principles were involved in atrocities, but utterly ignore the fact that those ideologies had almost nothing in common either in their specific precepts, their application, or the circumstances or personalities which brought them to their sorry conclusions, not to mention interference from other ideological powers.

All discussions about real X vs real Y are idiotic. Political systems are too complex to be accurately analysed and categorised.

Nobody can determine whether the China is a socialist or a capitalist country because it has various elements of both (and then some) at various levels of government.

China is a mutt that's bringing more equality than any socialism, and more wealth than any capitalism.

[henry quirk]

one of the great victories of the enemy has been gettin' folks flummoxed over labels...

this is communism, that is socialism, and over here we have democratic socialism which, of course, is not to be confused with socialist democracy which itself is not to be confused with communitarianism which is distinct from democracy
and on and on

we muddy the waters with philosophies, ideologies, political skew, losin' sight of what's been at play since before man fell from the trees a quarter of a million years ago

as much as anyone, I've mired myself in such hairsplittin' from time to time, and probably will again when high passions take hold

however, my eleutheromania -- that out-dated, atavistic impulse -- always reasserts itself and I remember: the war is between the free man and the slaver

it's as stark & plain as that

the two flowcharts illustrate this...





the questions they pose are unambiguous...

*without government, who would provide X?

*do you own yourself?

...and are independent of philosophy, ideology, and political skew

by way of these two simple flowcharts you can determine if...

you're free or enslaved; if you're a free man or a slaver

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=483334 time=1607178427 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=483286 time=1607146217 user_id=15238]
The majority of arguments against socialism immediately appeal to the 20th century's various experiments whereby socialist or communist principles were involved in atrocities, but utterly ignore the fact that those ideologies had almost nothing in common either in their specific precepts, their application, or the circumstances or personalities which brought them to their sorry conclusions, not to mention interference from other ideological powers.
[/quote]
All discussions about real X vs real Y are idiotic. Political systems are too complex to be accurately analysed and categorised.

Nobody can determine whether the China is a socialist or a capitalist country because it has various elements of both (and then some) at various levels of government.

China is a mutt that's bringing more equality than any socialism, and more wealth than any capitalism.
[/quote]

The real problem is that you Could determine such things and hold powers accountable to their own priorities if they had the first sense of what their priorities actually were and were explicit about them to their citizens.

[Advocate]

[url=https://ibb.co/hHpmGqm][img]https://i.ibb.co/L64ZTGZ/BBCEE8-C1-9-AE ... 010697.jpg[/img][/url]

Being willing to pay is contingent upon being Able to pay, which is in turn contingent upon many other factors that have nothing to do with this chart. Like most wrong ideas it is wrong because of what it fails to account for.

Then there's the fact that "Is it important?" is far too basic a question to yield any meaningful answer. But if the thing actually IS important, literally everyone with a properly functioning mind would be willing to pay for it, within their ability. This chart is dangerously insufficient.

[url=https://imgbb.com/][img]https://i.ibb.co/G35MXPK/7-F2-E07-DC-D3 ... BFE887.jpg[/img][/url]

the questions they pose are unambiguous...

*[i]without government, who would provide X?[/i]

*[i]do you own yourself?[/i]

...and are independent of philosophy, ideology, and political skew

by way of these two simple flowcharts you can determine if...

you're free or enslaved; if you're a free man or a slaver[/quote]
[/quote]

Ownership is certainty of access and control. Perhaps the question you mean to ask is "Should you own yourself?", because obviously anyone with a little more physical power can make it irrelevant whether you think you own yourself or not. It's not about who has the better claim unless you're talking about normative statements, and those are all contingent upon salience, perspective, and priority.

Wanting to initiate violence can be a defensive position, not only a mental health problem. If you reasonably forsee them interfering with you, whether or not they do, you have the right to initiate whatever is necessary to prevent it - call it what you will. Despite that preventative offense is usually bullshit, it's not always bullshit, sometimes it's just necessary.

Both of these charts have existential problems. I fully support the idea that all problems and ideologies can be flow-charted, this just isn't how you do that. These prove/solve nothing.

[henry quirk]

Being willing to pay is contingent upon being Able to pay, which is in turn contingent upon many other factors that have nothing to do with this chart. Like most wrong ideas it is wrong because of what it fails to account for.

Then there's the fact that "Is it important?" is far too basic a question to yield any meaningful answer. But if the thing actually IS important, literally everyone with a properly functioning mind would be willing to pay for it, within their ability. This chart is dangerously insufficient.



the questions they pose are unambiguous...

*without government, who would provide X?

*do you own yourself?

...and are independent of philosophy, ideology, and political skew

by way of these two simple flowcharts you can determine if...

you're free or enslaved; if you're a free man or a slaver

Ownership is certainty of access and control. Perhaps the question you mean to ask is "Should you own yourself?", because obviously anyone with a little more physical power can make it irrelevant whether you think you own yourself or not. It's not about who has the better claim unless you're talking about normative statements, and those are all contingent upon salience, perspective, and priority.

Wanting to initiate violence can be a defensive position, not only a mental health problem. If you reasonably forsee them interfering with you, whether or not they do, you have the right to initiate whatever is necessary to prevent it - call it what you will. Despite that preventative offense is usually bullshit, it's not always bullshit, sometimes it's just necessary.

Both of these charts have existential problems. I fully support the idea that all problems and ideologies can be flow-charted, this just isn't how you do that. These prove/solve nothing.

sez you

and: yer totally missin' the point of the charts...apply them to yourself only: learn sumthin' about yourself, or don't...I don't care

[Skepdick]

All you have to explain now is why people SAY they are willing to pay for X voluntarily, but then they don't.

Are they lying? Is talk cheaper than actual money?

How much of your capital are you willing to gamble manufacturing a product that I promise to buy?

[Skepdick]

The real problem is that you Could determine such things and hold powers accountable to their own priorities if they had the first sense of what their priorities actually were and were explicit about them to their citizens.

The real problem is that priorities constantly change as new information arrives.

And the realer problem is that you wouldn't have to do any "prioritisation" if you had more resources - you can just run all projects concurrently.

The realest problem is that prioritisation is always best-effort and requires a priori understanding of the goal/vision/mission.

Without clear criteria for success and failure you can't make any judgments about acceptable and unacceptable risks.

[henry quirk]

All you have to explain now is why people SAY they are willing to pay for X voluntarily, but then they don't.

Are they lying? Is talk cheaper than actual money?

How much of your capital are you willing to gamble manufacturing a product that I promise to buy?

and another one misses the point of the charts...

[Skepdick]

and another one misses the point of the charts...

You must have missed me pointing that your charts are pointless.

Is called "hasty generalisation". It's an incorrect inference.

It happened right between you thinking that just because YOU (in particular) are willing to pay for X voluntarily (and that may not even be true), then people (in general) are as willing as you.

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_ge ... ralization

[henry quirk]

and another one misses the point of the charts...

You must have missed me pointing that your charts are pointless.

Is called "hasty generalisation". It's an incorrect inference.

It happened right between you thinking that just because YOU are willing to pay for X voluntarily (and that may not even be true), that doesn't mean everyone else is.

still missin' the point of the charts

might wanna go read my chart-introducin' post again...or not...whatever

[Skepdick]

still missin' the point of the charts

might wanna go read my chart-introducin' post again...or not...whatever

I read it and I maintain. Your charts are pointless.

Because free riders

[henry quirk]

still missin' the point of the charts

might wanna go read my chart-introducin' post again...or not...whatever

I read it and I maintain. Your charts are pointless.

Because free riders

like I say, you (like advocate) miss the point

if you actually got it, you'd understand how dumb bringin' up free riders is

read the charts...apply them to yourself alone...see where you actually stand...quit worryin' about the other guy for a sec