Political Crossfire Forums

[Raskolnikov]

Quote: From studying socialism and communism and National Socialism. Its histories, its claims of its objectives, who and what they they opposed, who backed them ect.

historical evidence? well, that's shifty. no socialist will tell you that he supports history's 'examples' of communism and socialism. most socialists say that socialism, as well as communism, has never existed. have you taken their arguments into account, and, if so, how did you refute them?

i mean, you can't argue against a living ideology unless you actually argue against the ideology, know what i mean?

[Raskolnikov]

Quote: This is often the claim of the socialists.

this is a fallacy of equivocation. the socialists espousing their definition of socialism would say that those espousing yours are actually not really socialists. and this makes sense, because the views of today’s socialists are anti-authoritarian, like i said.

Quote: However, in over a century of governments being run by socialists, the net result has been that the state is far more highly centralised, and far more powerful, than in Marx's day.

now you're begging the question. your using your definition of socialism (that socialists centralize states) as a premise to conclude that socialists have been centralizing states. i highly doubt that socialists were behind your federal bank system, for instance. i mean, they were probably liberals (who i imagine are just another breed of socialist to you).

you have to actually acknowledge the socialist's argument to argue against it. you can't just say, 'that's not really your argument, but this is', because then you're changing their argument to suit your own. that's not their argument, that's your version of it. you're committing a straw man fallacy.

[Raskolnikov]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: No since the late 19th centuary.

no, sinse Mesopotamia. do your reading.

[Raskolnikov]

Quote: The only one using straw men is you, my friend.

i don't think you know what a straw man is. it's deliberately spoofing somebody's argument and then attacking the spoof.

Quote: Sounds kind of like what Pol Pot was trying to do in Cambodia. Establish a pastoral, agrarian society. No, thanks. Of course it sounds nicer when the socialist is describing it, than it is in reality.

i don't think socialists would refer to Pol Pot as a socialist.

Quote: Let's use the definition found in a dictionary, instead of a imaginary ideal.

well, if you're here to argue against the socialists' ideas, i think you should at least acknowledge them. i mean, there just doesn't seem to be any way around it.

[THEXRATED]

Quote: However, there is no disagreement as to what socialism means. Just a dissagreement on how to get there.

Untrue, as is demonstrated by this very forum, but also by political thinkers of different periods. Compare marxism to orthodox communism, to modern marxism and to social democracy. Social democracy, some would argue, is almost indistinguishable from modern liberalism. And then compare those traditions to today's social parties which can be said to be a part of so-called third way, which is imprecise and subject to variety of interpretations as well.

Quote: True. however, the socialists of other parties are forever debating the issue of how to get from here (capitalism) to there (socialism). The most logical and reasonable of them understand an all powerful state is neccessary, even though they employ verbal gymnastics to claim what they build is not a state. But they are wrong in that claim.

In Europe, this would be considered an outdated view at best. Social democracy stands, in most occasions, between market and the state. It went through lots of revisions after WW2 and the haydays of economic growth in the West, as the Keynesian social democratic model did not work as well it was supposed to. Today, I think it is more in terms of balance between public interests (including state) and private interests (market economy). I know few devoted socialists in my country and elsewhere in Europe and none of them really advocate for a strong state nor do they seek abolishment of market economy.

[BobbyO]

Quote: THEXRATED wrote: Quote: However, there is no disagreement as to what socialism means. Just a dissagreement on how to get there.

Untrue, as is demonstrated by this very forum, but also by political thinkers of different periods. Compare marxism to orthodox communism, to modern marxism and to social democracy. Social democracy, some would argue, is almost indistinguishable from modern liberalism. And then compare those traditions to today's social parties which can be said to be a part of so-called third way, which is imprecise and subject to variety of interpretations as well.

Quote: True. however, the socialists of other parties are forever debating the issue of how to get from here (capitalism) to there (socialism). The most logical and reasonable of them understand an all powerful state is neccessary, even though they employ verbal gymnastics to claim what they build is not a state. But they are wrong in that claim.

In Europe, this would be considered an outdated view at best. Social democracy stands, in most occasions, between market and the state. It went through lots of revisions after WW2 and the haydays of economic growth in the West, as the Keynesian social democratic model did not work as well it was supposed to. Today, I think it is more in terms of balance between public interests (including state) and private interests (market economy). I know few devoted socialists in my country and elsewhere in Europe and none of them really advocate for a strong state nor do they seek abolishment of market economy.

Yes. A Social Democrat of 1930 might not recognise a Social Democrat of 2006.
But does this mean that that Social Democrat of 1930 was never a socialist, or that the Social Democrat of 2006 is not a socialist? Not really, it means socialism has changed and evolved over the years (the reasons are due to the unworkability of socialism in general). This thread though, is trying to pigeonole National Socialism into the understanding of socialism of 1930c. If it does not fit that standard, then it was not socialism. I reject that claim. Perhaps the National Socialists were "advanced" socialsts. If socialists of 2006 can be considered socialists when they do not seek the abolishment of the market economy, for example, then the National Socialists can hardly be disqualified (as they usually are) because they too, did not seek the abolishment of the market system (though the nazis certainly curtailed it).

[BobbyO]

Quote: [quote="Raskolnikov"] Quote: This is often the claim of the socialists.

this is a fallacy of equivocation. the socialists espousing their definition of socialism would say that those espousing yours are actually not really socialists. and this makes sense, because the views of today’s socialists are anti-authoritarian, like i said.

Yes. i recognised the claim of the socialists that they desire to reduce centralisatiin. That they desire the "withering of the state." Fine. But I also said socialism cannot be judged simply upon their stated intentions, but upon the actual results of governments run by socialists. And the results have socialist victories have not led to "withering of the state", decentralisation, but the increase in the power of the state. Its been 130 years since the death of Marx. At some point an evaluation is warranted.

[BobbyO]

Quote: historical evidence? well, that's shifty. no socialist will tell you that he supports history's 'examples' of communism and socialism. most socialists say that socialism, as well as communism, has never existed. have you taken their arguments into account, and, if so, how did you refute them?

i mean, you can't argue against a living ideology unless you actually argue against the ideology, know what i mean? [/quote]

I am well aware that socialists of today would reject the claim of the Communists that they are socialists (Social Democrats from the Russian Revolution onward rejected the claim of the Communists to socialist status). Heck, Communists of today are tending to deny that the USSR, or at least Stalin, were communists. That's all fine.

But, a socialist still has to argue for the creation of a socialist community.
Can a market economy exist in a socialist community? Some would say yes. Others no. How does one relativise or eliminate the (supposed) awesome powers of the capitalist? Again, socialists will dispute this issue.

[Raskolnikov]

Quote: But, a socialist still has to argue for the creation of a socialist community.

right. socialists believe that the coming into being of the socialist community is gradual and grass-roots. they hold that it's a self-perpetuating process because as we get deeper into socialism, our social condictioning changes. eventually, our conditioning is such that we lack a concept of 'mine and thine', and take the greatest pleasure in community affairs. i, personally, think that this is a little utopian.

Quote: Can a market economy exist in a socialist community?

usually socialists endorse a gift economy, and, as far as i can tell, their theory seems to suggest that that's what socialism leads to.

[BobbyO]

Quote: right. socialists believe that the coming into being of the socialist community is gradual and grass-roots. they hold that it's a self-perpetuating process because as we get deeper into socialism, our social condictioning changes. eventually, our conditioning is such that we lack a concept of 'mine and thine', and take the greatest pleasure in community affairs. i, personally, think that this is a little utopian.

But not all socialists believe in the gradual process. And there are legitimate counter-arguments which other socialists (ie. Communists) have made.

[FinnMacCool]

BobbyO wrote: tman_ndsu08 wrote: So you're saying socialism advocates big government or that "socialist" states have often had big governments?

I am saying that the claim made that socialism wishes to gradually decentralise the state, to have it "wither away" has never been realised, and in fact that socialist governments have led efforts in the OPPOSITE direction.

The idea of a state withering away is a purely marxian doctrine. It is wrong to associate this idea with socialism, on a whole.

[MplsBison]

Raskolnikov wrote:

usually socialists endorse a gift economy, and, as far as i can tell, their theory seems to suggest that that's what socialism leads to.

Why wouldn't people want to continue to use money to buy things?

It's what they're comfortable with.

[Raskolnikov]

Quote: . . .socialists (ie. Communists). . .

the equivocation of words like 'communism' and 'socialism' seems to be an american rhetorical device. they're not exactly the same, though many communists will call themselves socialists because they think that socialism leads to communism. so, the terms are certainly connected, perhaps even a little ambiguous.

Quote: But not all socialists believe in the gradual process. And there are legitimate counter-arguments which other socialists (ie. Communists) have made.

well, i guess we're in a pickle then; it seems that the term is totally arbitrary (only kidding). if there are various takes on a term, you have to argue against them separately. blanket statements never make convincing arguments. and the worse the term's identity crisis, the more difficult it is to pin it down with one.

you know, i've heard socialists refer to your idea of communism as 'historical communism'. so, some of them seem to acknowledge your use of the word.

[Raskolnikov]

Quote: Why wouldn't people want to continue to use money to buy things?

It's what they're comfortable with.

well, their concept of ownership is supposed to disappear. so, why use money? we're not keeping tabs, we're just friends helpin' friends.

[MplsBison]

Raskolnikov wrote:

well, their concept of ownership is supposed to disappear. so, why use money? we're not keeping tabs, we're just friends helpin' friends.

How would anything be manufactured if there was no incentive to work?

[Narvik]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: Raskolnikov wrote:

well, their concept of ownership is supposed to disappear. so, why use money? we're not keeping tabs, we're just friends helpin' friends.

How would anything be manufactured if there was no incentive to work?
That's one of the problems with socialism and anarchism.

[melchizedek22]

Why would the industialist back Hitler if he was a socialist?,Why would the Nazis fight the Commies on the streets if they were socialist?

[Raskolnikov]

Quote: How would anything be manufactured if there was no incentive to work?

*shrugs* i guess you'd work at your leisure. or, there might be some form of incentive, such as being considered a part of the community, or just an ingrained sense of social obligation. remember, socialists believe in something called 'social conditioning', so that probably has some bearing on your question. also, socialist society is supposed to be pretty easy going.

[MplsBison]

IE, no one does anything all day and we go back to the days of hunting and gathering.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Raskolnikov wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: No since the late 19th centuary.

no, sinse Mesopotamia. do your reading.

Fascism and Communist were the first totalitarian ideologies, what your thinking of is autocracy and authoritarianism, there not the same thing as totalitarianism as the state appratus is nowhere near as all reaching. In a totalitarian state evey aspect of a person life is controled and they exist not as citizens nor subjects but as extensions of the state. That is the key diffrence.

IT was largely impossible untill communications advanced to near instant level towards the end of the 19th centuary.