Explain how the "not REAL socialism" argument is any different from the ancap "not REAL capitalism" argument

Explain how the "not REAL socialism" argument is any different from the ancap "not REAL capitalism" argument.

reminder gorillaposting should be a bannable offense


The systems that people erroneously call socialism do not fit the definition of socislism, whereas the systems that ancaps erroneously refer to as "not real capitalism" actually do fit the criteria of capitalism, or some subdivision of capitalism (think socialism being the main category with libsoc being the subdivision, as compared to capitalism being the main category and corporatism being the subdivision)

"Socialism" denotes two things:
- a mode of production characterized by
- no money
- no state
- common ownership and control of the production process by the people
- the movement to end capitalism and instate that mode of production
When people say "not real socialism" they are generally referring to the former. The point of the argument is to explain that the mode of production will not come into existence overnight, so criticisms of say the USSR do not apply to socialism as a mode of production but do apply to socialism as a movement.

"Capitalism" denotes one thing:
- the current mode of production characterized primarily by
- production of almost everything for exchange on a market, such that the producer has little interest and often little knowledge of how the product is used (generalized commodity production)
- private ownership and control of the production process by different people than the ones who contribute labor to production (class)
When people say "not real capitalism" they are generally referring to an imaginary "ideal" capitalism that differs in vague and/or incoherent ways from the above definition. A common way that "real" capitalism differs is that there is no state, which is incoherent, because for one thing you need a state in order to enforce private property law. Another common way that "real" capitalism differs is that there is no "corruption" or "cronyism" or "corporatism" like in the current system, which is vague and incorrect because the means, motive and opportunity for those things will always exist especially in any vaguely defined version of capitalism.

I trust you are smart enough to take these two descriptions and compare/contrast them yourself, OP.

"It wasn't real communism" is a strawman made up by right wingers, not by left wingers

It's one thing to point out people's flawed approaches to socialism, and quite another to deny that transactions and other forms of economic behavior are not part of a mode of production because it doesn't conform to some rose-tinted conception of it.
There's also a difference between pointing out what does and doesn't aid in superseding a mode of production, versus merely masturbating over definitions. Though plenty in the "not REAL socialism" crowd are still perfectly capable of that. For which they should kill themselves immediately.

There are many 'socialist' approaches that end in dead ends. If tomorrow we burn all cash and wipe all bank accounts we might be acting in the framework of the socialist movement. But that alone won't abolish capitalism.
That said. The problem with Ancaps is, that they just can't get themselves to admit that their idealized version of capitalism doesn't work when a small group of people squats the commons, and then use their goons to enforce their claim.
Now instead of actually trying to figuring out how to resolve these - many - contradictions, a lot of them just retreat into idealism, humans vs orcs racial pseudoscience and outright fascism.

sometimes we feel like shitposting mate

Ultimately people can say it's not real capitalism and real socialism as much as they want. Words don't have objective meaning so the conflict is the most easily resolved if we actually look at what people are trying to convey when they say it. When someone says it's not real socialism that means worker ownership over the mop was not present in the society in question. When an ancap says its not real capitalism to someone they make factors like the absence of government cooperation the qualifying factors and that's fine. Let them. However, that doesn't change the fact that private property is still contained within their ideal capitalist society. The contradiction that lead us to the "cronyesque" society we live in today is still contained within their dystopia and it would be idealistic to assume that it doesn't lead us down a similar path.

if you ever read marx you'd understand simpleton

It's not different. Ancaps simply have a different definition of capitalism to us, one which specifically relates to the non-existence of the state. Our definition we get from Marx does not concern the state.

So the ancap is right if we talk on his own terms. Either we get ancaps to start calling their idea as "Schmapitalism" or something, or we concede that capitalism is where there is no state, and we argue against that state of affairs anyway. Either way it is a win-win. State or not, capitalism is bad. They cannot say the same about Socialism.

When someone on any side (inb4 centrist) pulls the "it wasn't REAL …" then end the discussion. Get the terms agreed upon beforehand.

On that note, I would like to know: which philosophers have tried to address the "b-but Communism will totally work this time!" shit that liberals spew? I'm thinking the likes of Zizek and Badiou, but anyone else is welcome. Which works argue in favour of Communism despite the disaster of the 20th century?

Because were the good guys, and they are the capitalist pigs.

Posted from an iPhone


I guess it isn't, but generally people use the "not real socialism" line to differentiate their ideal system from what many people call socialism. The word "socialism" has meant a lot of things through the years and this is the source of many misunderstandings. Trying to reestablish an older definition of socialism isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.

The difference is that ancaps actually say that.

Because the argument isn't "That wasn't real socialism". The argument is "Socialism entails the abolishment of commodity production in favour of production for use. The society you are refering to still relied on generalized commodity production which the foundation of capitalism as Marxists have used the term during the last 150 years".

which is the*

It isn't and I've never used the argument. "It's not actually Marxist" is a more accurate claim with regards to "Marxism"-Leninism.

Ancaps' "real capitalism" is an utopia that will never actually exist.
Marxists' depiction of socialism, on the other, is the only possible outcome of the current society and therefore will actually exist.

We have ample evidence of how fucked capitalism gets when executed under ideal circumstances, whereas we only have a handful of socialist historical example to point to, all of which were met with the utmost hostility capitalist interests.

good post, gorillas destroyed


That's Marx's communism

Marx makes no distinction between the two, that is Lenin's differentiation.

Because the people saying not real socialism are brainlets, and real socialism was tried and it succeeded pretty well

I never say "not real socialism". That's intellectually dishonest. Socialism can be subsumed as: No private property and production for social needs. To claim that this wasn't achieved in history, just because you don't like the result, is ludicrous and honestly I don't feel sorry at all when right-wingers laugh at "not real socialism" types, they deserve it for being intellectually dishonest.


The difference is cronyism can be pointed at. You are going to have a real hard time defending your claim that the USSR was capitalist when you are arguing with anybody who is slightly knowledgeable about history.

I mean, how stupid do you think people are? Dont you think they immediately realize what you are trying to sell them? Even if we were to assume the USSR was capitalist, it clearly was an attempt at socialism, and trying to dissociate yourself from every attempt at socialism on a large scale will result in nothing else but your public destruction in any debate. Because of you guys I'm already having a hard time telling people that Veneuzuela has a 70% private sector, because they immediately call me out with this shit.

Nobody really knows how capitalism and socialism works since we’ve never had a pure form of either.

Because whenever someone says "it's not REAL socialism" they're just trying to hoist all of the crimes of the Soviet Union (whatever they might be) onto Socialism and will loudly ignore any other example or definition besides whatever they think Socialism is.

And whenever someone says "it's not REAL capitalism" they're trying to absolve capitalism and capitalist states of all of their innumerable crimes by isolating the unpalatable but essential parts of capitalism and just call it something else, "corporatism" or "crony capitalism" or whatever other slimy weasel word they've worked up.

t. Microbrain

I think it's just that you're a brainlet and have a hard time arguing because of your low INT score, but then what else can you expect of a tankie.

they do get banned but the switch IPs. Really just one person tho I think

I think if you're trying to argue that a democratically state socialist gvmt isn't socialist then yea you are being like "not REAL capitalism"

but really instead of trying to argue that failed Soviet states or whatever were or were not socialism, just point to where co-ops are working and say that's socialism

because that's really the only form of pure socialism that isn't pure shit

Dunning-Kruger is out today in full force, I see.

Let's be honest, these days it's a strawman used by rightwingers, but it was a no-true-scotsman used by leftwingers.