Recent content by MikhailBakunin

That is not an answer to my question. On what basis do you disagree that the moral claim that I laid out fairly represents the crux of socialism? lol I'm absolutely not. I already explained before that this isn't something I'm going to bother arguing about. If you're going to equate at any...

On what basis? That it doesn't capture the people you've already decided belong to that group? Great. That's what I was accusing you of. I agree, which is why I said before that simply asserting that I've committed the fallacy is tantamount to flatly rejecting my claims about about the...

The case where the no true scotsman fallacy applies is where someone claims there's been a violation of necessary constraints but there hasn't been. Ok well it definitely in no way follows from what I said that "literally anything that proclaims to be a critique of capitalist relations can fall...

lol No you're arguing that there is no means to identify anyone as not-X. That's not accurate at all. I get the feeling you're not reading what I'm writing. It's extremely relevant. It's the entire crux of socialism. Let's not. Dictionaries are descriptive of common usage, not prescriptive...

wut

Okay well then you're arguing that there are no necessary conditions for classifying anything. Socialism is fundamentally a critique of the power structures intrinsic in capital relations (which are typically expressed in terms of profit, interest, and rent). The base moral claim of socialism...

They do if the contradiction is one of the necessary factors for being a member of the group. It would be easier if you put forward an alternative means for discerning "not-socialism" that wasn't based on first trying to include or not include certain people and was actually based on some...

No. This is totally fucking wrong. You don't have to agree with a particular ideology in order to be able to examine its claims and look for internal contradictions. That's just totally and completely wrong. Only if I'm wrong about the necessary conditions to qualify as "socialist" (and I'm...

Which point? That no necessary conditions can be claimed by anybody because people have different ideas? Great.

Again, you're conflating every contradiction with core beliefs. If your goal here is to covertly reject my claims about what does and doesn't constitute the core of socialism I'd rather you simply come out and say it. Those aren't points I'm really interested in debating (any more than the sky...

How about just learning something so that way you don't look retarded when you talk about it?

TL;DR Version: "communism" can mean anything including systems of massive inequalities of wealth and power because it has to be the case that the Soviet Union counts.

FTFY

Well if contradicting the entire premise of socialism isn't significant then I'm sorry but I don't think you have a rational view of what's significant. In fact, that sort of argument makes me suspect you're arguing in bad faith. No offense but I think that's based on a notion of communism...