News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

White left

Started by pr126, December 28, 2017, 09:23:45 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

#75
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 03, 2018, 02:06:32 PM
For Shiranu:

Socialism is when a communist party becomes in-control of a government - either by seizing it or by democratic means -  gets rid of capitalism and the free market, and uses the government to move towards communism, with the end-goal to abolish itself (the party - now government) because communism is inherently without government. It is considered a stepping stone towards communism.

(Also, for communism to exist, it doesn't necessarily need socialism to come beforehand. Like I said, socialism is considered but a helpful tool to bring about communism, but not absolutely necessary.)

Now, things never really work out as intended with marxist bullshit, but those are the theories, anyway. For example, every single time a communist party takes control of a governing body, it loses sight of itself with its new-found power and therefore never actually abolishes itself to bring about the communism it promised. Rather it becomes a totalitarianist shit-hole.

But yeah, literally none of the countries you mentioned in that post were socialist states...

The jargon gets in the way.  The Western Left formed in the gap between the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution (particularly the popular uprisings in 1848 as portrayed in Les Miserables).  The French Revolution was betrayed by the Right-totalitarianism of Napoleon.  The Russian Revolution was betrayed by the Left-totalitarianism of Lenin.  Karl Marx was an ineffectual intellectual, who tried to create a theory of inevitable French Revolution everywhere (but in the most advanced countries, not in shit-holes like Russia or China).  Marx thru in some still popular sci-fi progressivism, think of Jules Verne with a beard.  Thanks to the Industrial Revolution (the really serious revolution in the 19th century ... by Capitalism) people wouldn't have to work anymore, producing an H G Wells scenario, that could be a dystopia or a utopia.  Most opted for the utopia (duh).

Because of anti-revolutionary forces, and paranoia ... you get Robespierre killing even his friends and allies.  Because of anti-revolutionary forces, and paranoia ... you get Stalin killing even his friends and allies.  Militancy was a better way to get rid of thousands of people.  Napoleon realized this, as did Trotsky.  Napoleon got ahold of the French Army ... and eventually said "A man like me troubles himself little about a million men."  Here are his maxims:

http://www.napoleonguide.com/maxim_war.htm

In the Soviet Union, Trotsky was in a similar position, being the leader of the Red Army ... and Stalin knew he was in danger, so he expelled Trotsky, and eventually had him assassinated.  Trotsky was the smarter man .. he understood what Hitler was all about ... and Stalin didn't.  Hard to imagine that Stalin was a naive optimist .. but he was probably just playing for time in 1940.

http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19370125,00.html

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky

There were only two guys who understood Hitler ... Churchill and Trotsky.  Before Hitler, Churchill could even admire Mussolini ... but that was partly because Italy wasn't an existential threat to Britain, since Roman times ;-)  One could see Mussolini as a bulwark against the Stalin boogeyman ... and people saw Hitler that way initially too.  And Franco in Spain, and other Catholic fascist states.  Classic fascism goes with Catholicism ... in Austria, Portugal and Argentina as well.  It was Right Terror in reaction of Left Terror.  Socialist?  Maybe, but that missed the point of it.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#76
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 03, 2018, 04:30:27 PM
Yes - and none of those policies make the state that employs them any more a socialist state. Socialist policies =/= socialist state. You're getting confused with the semantics of it. Both terms evolved naturally from the term, 'social' - but they did so separately. A socialist state is a very specific thing.

People think that Sweden is socialist ... it is actually a monarchy ... and a pacifist one at that.  Not an example of socialism at all, just the failure of King Gustavus Adolphus to conquer Germany, and that of King Charles to conquer Russia.

Public sector vs private sector is a thing, in any country.  Having more than 0% public sector (say highways) doesn't make you socialist, in the way that people mean.  They are thinking of the French/Russian/Chinese/Cuban revolutions, and smaller revolutions elsewhere (say in Mexico).  Originally the US was formed from a moderate Left revolution ... but we didn't stay that way ... the revolution in the US, like a few years later in France, was betrayed by our greatest general, George Washington, at the coup de etat of 1787.  Napoleon actually followed the example of Washington (in 1799 in France).  Napoleon tried to de-trigger the rest of Europe by re-establishing the Church and monarchy ... Washington was offered monarchy in 1783, but declined it.  And as a Freemason, didn't need the Church to give him legitimacy.

Had the US been on the wrong side of the Atlantic, GB and the other monarchies (and the Vatican) would have done all they could to crush us.  The Terror (the original modern use of that term) was started in France ... and it scared Europe even more than the US was in 2001.  The French Terror was an existential threat ... like Hitler was in 1939 (and the Kaiser was not in 1914) and like Lenin was in 1918.  The 2001 attack wasn't an existential threat, not even Pearl Harbor was an existential threat ... to the US.  Hitler was, to everyone, and before him, Stalin was the boogeyman.  Thus the Allies concentrated on defeating Hitler first.  Sorry Japan, but you weren't that scary.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Shiranu

Quote
Yes - and none of those policies make the state that employs them any more a socialist state. Socialist policies =/= socialist state.

So having socialist policies doesn't make you socialist...

I think you should take a look at who is actually getting their semantics confused.

(P.S. - for the umphteen time now, I'm not saying they are socialist states. You could save yourself some effort and actually read what I have said multiple times now [Socialist leaning governments] and not have to write paragraphs about a position I don't even hold.)
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Baruch

Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 04:46:38 PM
So having socialist policies doesn't make you socialist...

I think you should take a look at who is actually getting their semantics confused.

(P.S. - for the umphteen time now, I'm not saying they are socialist states. You could save yourself some effort and actually read what I have said multiple times now [Socialist leaning governments] and not have to write paragraphs about a position I don't even hold.)

Read more history, and with skepticism.  Having free medical care, isn't socialism.  It actually could be a good thing, if we don't overdo it.  But it isn't guillotines or machine gun firing squads, in the streets.

You tend to not be geographically parochial (good for you).  It is a big world out there, and the US doesn't have all the answers (or maybe any right now).

But don't be historically parochial, or be politically naive about human motivation.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Gilgamesh

Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 04:46:38 PM
So having socialist policies doesn't make you socialist...
Yes.

QuoteI think you should take a look at who is actually getting their semantics confused.
You. You believe that because our sloppy language developed two terms with the same word that they necessarily have anything to do with one another.

Quote(P.S. - for the umphteen time now, I'm not saying they are socialist states. You could save yourself some effort and actually read what I have said multiple times now [Socialist leaning governments] and not have to write paragraphs about a position I don't even hold.)
lol okay. What actually happened - and anyone can go back in this thread to see it - was that you posited a bunch of countries as examples of marxism/socialism working well (in response to pr's question.) Socialism refers to one thing - especially if it's fucking /'d with 'marxism' - and that is a socialist state.

Not to mention you literally argued for the position - that you seemingly don't believe now - in the past two posts you made to me here.

So you're backpedaling. You don't have to. Just admit you were wrong, man. You'll appear more intelligent for it.

Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 04:23:00 PM

Says the guy who thinks you cant be capitalist and socialist at the same time. Yeah, don't think that's going to happen.

That you said that unironically is hilarious. Take anyone who is vehemently pro- either of those stances and they will tell you that, no - you, in fact, cannot be both. Read any literature about socialism and you will learn this. Ask socialists and they will tell you this. Ask free-market nuts and they will tell you this. You know, people who live and breathe all these topics that you continue to demonstrate to know nothing about.

It would be fucking hilarious to see you go into a group of socialist intellectuals, who actually read the literature, and proclaim all these capitalistic states to be socialist states.

"b-but muh 'socialist' policies."

Joke.

Baruch

"You believe that because our sloppy language developed two terms with the same word that they necessarily have anything to do with one another."

English is a terrible language to think with ... just ask any Frenchman ;-)

I am constantly drawn to trying to see things from the POV of other cultures and languages ... because of the inevitable confusion the echo chamber I live in creates.

On the one hand I admire pacifism, but find examples to contradict it.  On the other hand I admire militancy, but find examples to contradict it.  And using any language (in the context of propaganda) is there either to confuse, or persuade.  I don't want to be confused, and I am suspicious of persuasion.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

PickelledEggs

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 03, 2018, 02:22:39 PM
It doesn't = communism, and I never said it did. Socialism is inherently a means to an end, though, and that end is communism. You can disagree and be wrong; that's fine. Go to a socialism/communism board and ask them what these terms mean - they'll tell you exactly what I just said.

Then again, you could just be confusing socialist policies with what constitutes a socialist state. They don't have anything inherently to do with one another. Again, it's a folly of language that we call certain policies socialist, and we call a system of government socialist, while they don't necessarily have a logical connection.
I not once said that I want a socialist state or that it works. I said that a mix of capitalist and socialist policies or capitalism and socialism is the best way to go. Which ever one you want to call it... if you want to get hung up on the wording for the sake of just arguing, go for it. Your folly at that point. not mine.

Shiranu

#82
QuoteYes.

Then definitions are meaningless, since the very things that define them don't actually define them. Therefor, I think you are a Nazi Jew Communist. That makes sense, since the definitions of those words no longer are defined by policy and action but rather arbitrary approval.

Quotelol okay. What actually happened - and anyone can go back in this thread to see it - was that you posited a bunch of countries as examples of marxism/socialism working well (in response to pr's question.)

Yes, because by definition the policies that make those countries great are socialist leaning. Socialised medicine, socialised social programs, socialised infrastructure are all socialist since they are entirely state controlled means of production and distribution.

QuoteNot to mention you literally argued for the position - that you seemingly don't believe now - in the past two posts you made to me here.

What I don't believe is that you choosing one limited definition of socialism is representative of my views. So to try to clarify, since you insist on using a limited definition instead of using common sense and common vernacular, I changed my position to "socialist leaning".

I did that to try to establish my position within the framework of your definition since you refused to change your personal definition to the common sense, common vernacular definition of socialism.

You are using a wrong definition, but I changed the wording of mine so that it would fit with your definition of socialism. In doing so, you are now accusing me of changing my position and back peddling, when all I was doing was trying to find common ground when you refused to use common sense or common vernacular. You are refusing to compromise, then arguing that someone is back peddling for trying to compromise with your position.

Get the fuck out of here with that dishonest, underhanded bullshit. You wonder why "the left" don't compromise, don't try to work with you? Because of bullshit like that. The moment we start to work within your framework to try and find common ground, you use that as a tool to try to get a leg up instead of actually working with us. And then you'll fucking turn around and say, "See! They didn't work with us! Stupid leftists!" because even when they try to work with you, it's all a big competition for you to just be the best.

Pathetic.


I'll try one more time...


You're Australian, right? I get that your definition of socialism is different from what we use in the States. So I am happy to change my position to, "Socialist Leaning". But I do so with the caveat that in the States, that would just be defined as "socialism". We speak two different languages, even though much is the same words, so I can see where that confusion arises. So hopefully that clarifies it.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Baruch

Trying to define words ... for a young man ... is like teen rebellion.  Sorry.  History is real, you have to take it into account.  One can define pro-gay marriage as socialist or fascist or whatever ... but it doesn't make it so.  I see pr128 and Shiranu as two anti-peas in the same pod.  You gotta separate rhetorical use of language (to you and by you) from a consistent system of thought.  That is hard, and comes with maturity.

The Democrats for instance, aren't socialist.  And the Republicans for instance, aren't fascist.  Those are hate speech.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Shiranu

Quote
That you said that unironically is hilarious. Take anyone who is vehemently pro- either of those stances and they will tell you that, no - you, in fact, cannot be both.

So first you accuse the left of being uncompromising, ideologically set-in-stone socialists who hate capitalism and who want to destroy everything to their right...

And then when you meet an average "leftist" who isn't an uncompromising, ideologically set-in-stone socialist who doesn't hate capitalism and thinks the two can work together, nor who wants to destroy everything on his right, you jump on me for not being left enough...

Interesting...
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Gilgamesh

Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 05:10:41 PM
Then definitions are meaningless, since the very things that define them don't actually define them. Therefor, I think you are a Nazi Jew Communist. That makes sense, since the definitions of those words no longer are defined by policy and action but rather arbitrary approval.
Yes, the root, 'social' does not solely define the terms 'socialist policy' or 'socialism.'

QuoteYes, because by definition the policies that make those countries great are socialist leaning. Socialised medicine, socialised social programs, socialised infrastructure are all socialist since they are entirely state controlled means of production and distribution.
They are not 'socialist leaning.' One can't 'learn socialist' You either have a socialist state or you don't. Socialism only refers to the political system of a socialist state - nothing else. A socialist policy is a policy that exists to help people. The word, 'social' has nothing inherently to do with socialism or social policies. It originally just means 'friend' or 'friendly.' Both the term 'social policy' and 'socialism' developed separately. They share a root word - this doesn't mean the terms are related. This is the last fucking time I'll explain this to you.


QuoteWhat I don't believe is that you choosing one limited definition of socialism is representative of my views. So to try to clarify, since you insist on using a limited definition instead of using common sense and common vernacular, I changed my position to "socialist leaning".
Your argument that because a socialist state doesn't currently exist (And it does - NK) that therefore when you use the term incorrectly I should just mentally swap out meanings with the term 'social policy' is insane. That is insane.

QuoteI did that to try to establish my position within the framework of your definition since you refused to change your personal definition to the common sense, common vernacular definition of socialism.
'My' definitions are correct. You are using words incorrectly. Not my fault.

Shiranu

QuoteOne can define pro-gay marriage as socialist or fascist or whatever ... but it doesn't make it so.

Except that's not what we are talking about.

Socialized medicine is socialism and capitalism; it is the government saying it owns the means of "production" (in this case, the "production" is medical services). However it is also capitalistic in that private sources are the ones who produce the medicine.

Socialized infrastructure is socialism and capitalism; it is the government saying it owns the means of production (the creation of roads, bridges, dams, power plants, etc) and hires capitalists to make it happen.

Social welfare, like food stamps, social security, unemployment benefits... are almost entirely socialized.

And so it goes, etc. etc. etc. ... it is socialism and capitalism working together. It leans socialist in that it is the state saying it is the master of the product, but it is also capitalist in that it allows private individuals to be involved in the production. But at the end of the day, it is still the state running the system.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Gilgamesh

Quote from: Shiranu on January 03, 2018, 05:22:53 PM
So first you accuse the left of being uncompromising, ideologically set-in-stone socialists who hate capitalism and who want to destroy everything to their right...

Well, no, I did none of those things.

QuoteAnd then when you meet an average "leftist" who isn't an uncompromising, ideologically set-in-stone socialist who doesn't hate capitalism and thinks the two can work together, nor who wants to destroy everything on his right, you jump on me for not being left enough...

Interesting...

I'm not going to change my correct position to a wrong one on the basis of "it's good to compromise. That is a stupid thing to say. You're stupid.

Gilgamesh

Finally, we can get over this little hump, though;

If I really did just pretend that everytime you said socialism that you meant a capitalist state with social safety nets, then yeah - I agree, man; those are generally the best systems.

Baruch

See ... ad hominem meets hate speech ;-(

Guys, just talk particular policies, maybe in different strings, without the jargon/labeling.

And yes, capitalism with social safety nets, are capitalisms that don't end up like France, 1792.  It is self preservation, which won't happen, if the powers that be, are stupid.  I am empathetic to needy people, but I don't want Dr Zhivago either.  Unfortunately humanity in general, and upper class in particular ... seem to be self destructive.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.