Search results

I don't think that's true. There's always exploitation in the forms of trade that constitute capital relations (wage slavery, rent, and interest). But I don't think the trade between say, producers and consumers is necessarily exploitative. It certainly could be in certain circumstances, but...

I'm explicitly against the vanguard argument. A vanguard is how you end up retaining capital relations (and therefore not actually implementing socialism).

You didn't show any such thing. You still haven't dealt with the problem of the necessary conditions of socialism. You can't because you're wrong and you're not smart enough to trick me.

Protip: The "their" didn't refer to people.

Oh, you've gotta kill all the power brokers too. Hierarchy is a weed. It's not like there's some final state that's "done." That's not real. You have to create a culture supported by social institutions that do the upkeep of eliminating concentrations of power internally and externally...

Nationalization and socialization aren't the same thing. By that logic a king that owns everything in country is an example of socialism. After all, the government controls everything, amirite?

So this is an argument I encounter a lot. It's kind of a weird one because it basically resolves as a call for worldwide insurrectionist struggle. Now I happen to think that's in order (at least once there's sufficient momentum to ensure some kind of victory). But that's not your argument...

You can say "YEAH HUH" all you want. That does nothing to address the problem that if capital relations remain (and in all your examples, they absolutely did), the system you're talking about isn't socialist. Sorry, but that is absolutely a necessary condition.

And then you get together again and beat his head in with a rock.

I think you got lost as to what "their" refers to. Try again.

I've already given real examples under very imperfect conditions run by perfectly ordinary people. This bit of tired rhetorical hand-waving buys you nothing.

Socialist economies are morejustthan capitalist economies because they lack exploitation as a feature (which is present in virtually all really existing capital relations).

It's not a no true scotsman fallacy. Any system which doesn't give control over the means of work to workers maintains capital relations which ultimately leaves them vulnerable to the socialist critique. There is no way around this. You can't still have capital relations and be a socialist...

Ok. I don't really care about your theological convictions. They'll have to be able to survive being crushed for presenting the threat of a good example first.

Until they got together and beat his head in with a rock.

There has been, but not the ones you're thinking of.

So now we get to do the next part of the dance: any economic system where workers aren't in control over the means of their work isn't socialist in character. At all.

You could get rid of the laws.

You're not talking about a communist system.

The difference is that right now the wolves can call the police if the sheep get out of line.

Your examples of communism aren't communist. This is where you'll accuse me of succumbing to a no-true-Scotsman fallacy and I'll try to explain to you how necessary conditions work but I'll fail because you're too stupid. I've danced this dance a million times before.

"Instituting" socialism is merely a matter of not having and enforcing laws to protect people's greed. Capitalism is not some natural state of affairs. It's absolutely an inflicted system.

Yeah I'm sure it sounds that way to you after a sober and balancing reading of all the evidence and consideration of the wartime conditions around them. You're an idiot.

You lived in a state-capitalist state.

Are you under the impression that anarchy is mutually incompatible with communism? Also..."by every account?" Are you serious, bro?

And now we've reached the part of the game where you pretend that every argument I make can be turned back around on me no matter how much evidence I can provide. This goes back to what I said earlier. You're not intellectually honest. You're trying to score technical rather than substantive...

There's no such thing as a "societal experiment." That is not a thing. Even if it had lasted 30 years, you'd just be pointing to how they were agricultural societies and today we live in an information economy. The only burden I have to show is that it's feasible (these examples do show that)...

Then maybe you should refrain from inventing whatever narrative best suits your purposes.

Also:

No one with two brain cells to rub together gives a shit about your "gaurentees."

These weren't exactly good years. To survive three winters under what were essentially wartime AND depression level stresses while implementing a radically new economic system (and increasing output) that covered literally millions of people isn't the nothing that you're insinuating. It...

Then why not simply join the Bolsheviks?

What the hell are you talking about?

There's hardly a bigger threat to socialism in history than the Bolsheviks.

Because I've actually done my homework and I know that they were crushed militarily as a result? Right. But not for the reasons you're implying. That depends on what your metric of "better" is. If you're talking about justice, it's not even a discussion. If you're talking about raw output...

So long as capital relations aren't being enforced, it passes the standard of socialism. That standard allows for lots of possible configurations of workplaces, but they all have worker control as a necessary feature.

Because it was crushed from the outside militarily. Not because the economy was just doomed to fall apart. I know it's foreign to you, but you should try doing some reading.

Free Territory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a commonly held, but totally wrong notion of socialism. Ownership by "society" (whatever that is supposed to mean) has nothing to do with it.

I don't need fame. Smug self-righteousness is more than enough for me.

lol Yep. You've got it. Seriously though if you want to have a real conversation send me a PM.