The accusation from the right most of all that there are no true socialists is interesting. Especially since there is one definition, and theres only so many ways it could be implemented. Political terms are more distinct then ideologies and religions.
Also wanted to test and see if this works. Discuss.
most of the people who use that term barely even understand what it means. its just an excuse for being complete ignorant about the subject being discussed. the thing is, we dont use it on them as much as we should, for example:
"its not capitalism bruh, its cronyism"
"somalia isnt ancapism bruh, its just going through a civil war bruh"
There are many definitions. For the right, socialism is "big government."
It mostly comes from people who don't know what the definition of socialism actually is. It's really quite simple:
Do the workers own the means of production directly? (y/n)
Y: It's socialism
N: It's not socialism, and is probably capitalism of some sort in today's age
If you answered Y to the above…
Does the society lack a state and eliminated class distinctions? (y/n)
Y: It's communism
N: It's not communism, but still socialism of some description
But you're right, the implementation of socialism can vary quite a bit. State or no state? Markets or no markets? Currency or no currency? Etc.
Obviously people have their ideal for what to achieve, but everything from Mutualism to Marxism technically is "socialist."
I find it's mainly used as a criticism of socialists who 'disown' failed/corrupted/pretend examples of socialism in the past. the USSR for example would be a good one, and I think it's important to not just wave a hand and say that it wasn't true socialism and point out that the workers didn't own the means of production, but instead admit it was an attempt by socialists that failed because of such and such reasons.
Instead of just saying that Pol Pot wasn't a socialist, you have to explain why he and his ilk have little to do with the socialist movement. Most people have grown up learning that he was, so you have to counter that with information more in depth than simple denial.
Left-comms and anarkids do this all the time, and they are the reason the right uses the argument.
Remember the that the Right does this all the time as well. Whenever you criticize the adverse effects and defects of capitalism, they claim that it's not real capitalism. There difference is that we're actually right in saying that Pol Pot wasn't a socialist or that the USSR weren't socialist due to the workers having no control over the means of production. Those Rightists just don't understand the history and development of capitalism which always involved regulations or interference by the state. Anyways, we really should work together. All of us against the capitalists and their apologists. We can kill each other afterwards when we become more popular.
Right, every person/state/movement that claims to be socialist is socialist, even Hilter!
I agree that we shouldn't fight among each other in front of the enemy though. Also, just to let you know, I've heard the Finnish Bolshevik seriously call anarchism right-wing and bourgeois
I've never seen anyone outside places like 4chan and Reddit using No True Scotsman. In fact, all those "logical fallacies" are very particular to this niche.
...
They use it on Youtube and Twitter as well. That annoying shit is pretty widespread. People think they can use it to dismiss a whole argument.
Indeed, socialism couldn't have possibly developed in isolated, underdeveloped states. It's almost like the USSR wasn't actually socialist in practise!
This is why you're forever useless to the revolution. Thank Allah that the masses are nowhere as stupid as you idealists are.
The masses are kind of worse comrade.
Wow, nice straw man. Leftcoms don't deny that there will be a transition, we just rightly point out that the only thing that so called socialist states were transitioning towards was more capitalism.
...
Please explain, in your own words, why you think Venezuela is a socialist country.
Socialist countries are trying to, or so they claim, achieve communism.
Communism has never been achieved.
You can argue whatever you want from this, but this is a fact. Saying the USSR wasn't socialist is pants on head retarded, but saying they were communist is a bit naive.
But it wasn't: it was state capitalist by Lenin's own admission, first through the New Economic Policy, and later through the nationalization of remaining private business rather than turning it over to worker's control (the qualifier that would make it socialism). Even most Marxists except for what's left of the MLs and tankies have come to terms with this, regardless of the original intent of such policy (rapid industrialization of Russia in order to compete with rival capitalist powers and foster the growth of a traditional proletariat).
Putting the word "state" in front of capitalism is a vulgarization of both the results of the Russian revolution and its actual history up until its collapse. Scream all you like but it did meet some key criteria, such as the abolition of private property – a sin so great it could never have been accepted by the bourgeoisie in the West, forever blacklisting it on global markets. Neither does it make sense to say it implemented the rule of a new class when the "class" of Bolshevik revolutionaries and former Czarist intelligentsia which fought for its survival were utterly destroyed by the purges. If there was a new class it could have only formed after the dictatorship of Stalin – a point tankies are keen to emphasize (with the added irony of believing Stalin had it right). Chomsky's arguments, which, whether you realize or not, you are regurgitating, simply don't hold water under closer examination. Russia was the revolution no one wanted and no one wanted to accept – capitalist or socialist. But its genesis remains socialist, its drive was socialism, and while it was warped and degenerated it cannot be explained without socialism.
They didn't claim to be socialist. They said they were "building socialism" and that socialism was just over the horizon. This is one thing Yuri Bezmenov didn't actually lie about.
It didn't abolish private property, though. It just replaced the bourgeoisie, thus why the West was so much against it.
Yes, it did. The means of production could not be bought, sold, bequeathed or inherited. The common riposte to this is
Which is retarded because then it's not actually private, is it? It's public, administered by bureaucrats rather than capitalists.
Who couldn't actually exploit their position like a capitalist. There was inequality in the USSR, but not the kind that allowed people to enrich themselves through the labor of others. This is as anti-capitalist as it gets; in other words, socialist. The nomenklatura could go on more exclusive holidays and have nicer homes, and so on, but these are distributive actions in nature, not exploitative. They didn't appropriate all production for themselves, claiming it as their property, they just skimmed the cream off the top by pulling strings. I'm not endorsing this, by the way, but if this is the extent of "ruling class" power then it's not all that impressive.
Importantly, that counter-part to private property – the market – was absent as well, so the nomenklatura were restricted in what they could do with the property they administered; they had to follow plans, not direct production for themselves. The fact it had no market economy and no private property meant it had no capitalists – hence why the West considered it the primary threat to "democracy" for the better part of 70 years.
The USSR was an utter failure but to try and divorce it from socialism entirely on the basis of a lack of workers control, as critical as that may be, seems foolish, not to mention intellectually lazy.
Where did that wealth come from? If not taken from the labour of others, then from whence did it come? Is it thus socialism? Hell no?
Was the property public? Was is owned by all and available to all? Could any old working Joe walk into a factory and just work there? Could they decide what they wanted to make and how to make it?
No?
Then it was private property. Under this line of argument, the medieval church would have been socialism too.
No one's home is private property it's a possession – so-called personal property, not used for productive purposes. Is it unfair that not everyone got to holiday at certain resorts in Sochi? Yes, but it's hardly the same as someone constructing a palace there from exploiting the workers whose productive labor they appropriated.
Don't be ridiculous.
How is that ridiculous?
Name me, in materialist terms, the big difference between the clergy and the nomenklatura.
Could they sell their property? No.
Could you inherit it? No.
Was it legally yours as a bishop? No, you held it for the church.
Therefor too, the church was "distributive" and not exploitative in nature.
The King was the penultimate landowner and the one whom the serfs had to pledge fealty to and pay their taxes through giving up their productive surplus. The Church preyed off of people's righteous fear of God; in other words, they manipulated their ideological position as the interpreters of "God's will", and they extracted concessions, including land for their Churches, from the monarch as a result (not to mention conned their flock into donating ridiculous amounts of their own possessions). So yes, it was distributive in nature. The Church was not the Aristocracy; the Pope was not the King. Apples and oranges to boot, since you've segued into feudalism and a literally saying its the same relations as the industrialized USSR. Of course, it isn't, but there are superficial similarities in that it's still a class society – something that remains until communism is achieved.
No property/Owning tools of production. Cool!
What the fuck does this have to do with importing millions of 3rd world, sex hungry, uneducated, parasite shitskins into white nations?
Which is in itself a fallacy.
Believe me buddy, a lot more people have died from nationalism than immigration. Nobody here gives a shit about whatever dumb nation you're from.
You conveniently didnt answer the question.
Do you people ever answer questions?
When we do the answer doesn't tend to involve Jews or cuckolding.
explains why you hardly ever answer or when you do youre wrong.
For eg in this case importing millions of shitskin males only of fighting age is cuckoldry.
Because it doesn't: socialism has nothing inherently to do with immigration issues. The reason various individuals either support or reject immigration is largely an individual conclusion rather than an integral part for the ideology. I'll even run down some reasons why one might support (usually its more a matter of tolerating immigration than actually WANTING more) or reject immigration from both the capitalist perspective and socialist perspective. Mind you, it's obviously more complicated than this, and there are reasons on both sides that stretch far beyond what I can mention in a single post.
From the socialist perspective, one might tolerate immigration as a show of solidarity among members of the working class: a rejection of nationalism, which is almost always a tool utilized by the far-right to solidify the power of the existing ruling class. They might also tolerate it as an accelerationist tactic in order to (theoretically) lower the standards for labor (wages, benefits, expendibility, etc) of the sedentary members of the working class, thus (theoretically) bettering the odds that the populace will resort to violent action to overthrow the systems that created such conditions (obviously I'm not really behind this premise, as it has no safeguards against the violence being simply racially targeted rather than seeking to change the material conditions that drives individuals to act on both sides).
On the flip side, a socialist might reject immigration on the basis that often the immigrant populations are often ideologically inert, providing the capitalist class with a workforce that is unlikely to achieve class consciousness in the traditional sense. They might also be against it as a rejection of accelerationism, seeing a (theoretical) drop in the standards for labor as being counterproductive for both the immigrant population (who face rivaling or greater exploitation among their new work than their work in their home country) and the sedentary working class (who lose the few inches reform got them). They might also do it for accelerationist purposes as well, believing that immigrants staying where they were originally from will force change to happen their more easily, likely through violent action if conditions are sufficiently bad.
A capitalist might tolerate immigration because it supplies a steady stream of expendible workers who will work for wages that leave them on the brink of starvation, are largely not protected by things like workers' safety, and can, at any point, be terminated and/or deported if they become too "troublesome." Immigrants to the capitalist allow them to dive deep into exploitative tactics that hadn't been otherwise possible for the last ~100 or so years. It also creates, when coupled with well crafted media coverage (and omissions), the immigration can be used to flair racial tensions, which ultimately divide the working class and allow exploitation of both sedentary workers and migrant workers to go on unnoticed, without fear of the two groups collaborating for mutual benefit.
A capitalist would really only reject immigration on a nationalist premise, which is mostly a choice of greater gains between "more profits and less hassle from borderline slave labor" or "control over the existing population so as to demand greater loyalty and, by extension, receive significantly less response from already existing (or, in most historical cases, expanded) exploitative tactics."
Either way, the capitalist elite gets their cut, and everyone else is left out in the cold to fend for themselves. That's why most people here don't find much value in talking about immigration: neither side of the debate brings about the changes that would actually solve the underlying problems.
The working class is gonna die