INTERNET POLITICAL BULLSHIT THREAD

[Potjeh]

I think that democratic socialism is a bit more relevant today than those brands you mentioned, Jorb.

[Canaris]

maybe it would be bearable if a: all parts were not dumb as shit b: the participants had some humility, and did not have absolute faith in their own opinions c: knew how to chill the fuck out.

i agree. sometimes it can bear fruit but it's pretty rare on an MMO forum.

On the other hand, hypocrisy is really quite common. Everywhere.

[Sarge]

Holy shit, see what can heppen if you whine on the forums about rage-quitting... it can evolve into this chewing-on-a-bag-of-bricks-thread.

[Sotsa]

On the other hand, hypocrisy is really quite common. Everywhere.

I see what you did there

[Naeght]

I managed to rage quit for liek 10 seconds yesterday.

[Ferinex]

here is your argument, as it reads:

The soviets called themselves socialist
The soviets were actually an oligarchy/autocracy
∴ socialism = autocratic/oligarchic gov't

that is an invalid syllogism (aaa-3).

I understand the point you are trying to make. You believe socialism can not coexist with freedom. You believe this by looking to the past, at nations which have called themselves socialist and/or communist. However, simply because a nation calls itself socialist or communist does not mean it actually is, just as the DDR was called a democratic republic when it was neither democratic nor a republic. Nations mislabeling themselves is common throughout history; many socs despise the USSR for that very reason. no nation has ever been socialist.
tl;dr you are attempting to redefine socialism to fit the definition of autocracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrZHPOeOxQQ
replace 'love' with 'socialism', as would be appropriately sung on stalin's grave

i'll address nur jorb and ignore the dissenters

ps. Sweden is a good example of a functioning semi-dem-soc nation; you should know all about it ;) (I enjoy dem soc above most alternatives.)

[Zirikana]

Ferinex brings up a good point, but i might try to refine the discussion a bit.

Some nebulous ideas of communitarian controlled economies had been around in europe for a long while before the "Manifesto" came out. (cf. Fourier, Comte, etc., i don't know why i can only think of french socialists right now...). The question of if these types of socialist "governments" must necessarily be totalitarian is a sticky one, since A) there's so many of them, and B) most of them are very poorly defined anyway. Let's leave that one for the historians/poli.sci.s to figure out.

What the Soviets and Maoist Chinese attempted to do was capital-C Communism, as defined by Marx and Engels. Communism properly understood rests on an underpinning of Class Revolution and a complete subsumption of the individual into the state, not just "spreading the wealth", as some would call it. Whether Leninism or Maosim, like jorb said, it's all just about which cult of personality leads the armies and "police" at the time. So it is impossible for a state to be both legitimately Communist and non-totalitarian, whatever window dressing of words and gestures they implement.

The relatively liberal "socialist democracies" Ferinex refers to are an entirely different animal, something that I would personally not even call socialist (even though they would). Perhaps just distributionist, or mildly collectivist, but certainly not fully "socialist" in my opinion. It is THESE types of nations that can still be said to retain some degree of liberty. However, I think the way Jorb looks at is (as do I, and the entire austrian school) is that individual liberty and collectivism (socialism, redistributionism, whatever you want to call it) are diametrically opposed. At bottom, to the degree the state commands you by force how to dispose of resources you have created or earned by your own work and energies, in whatever way, then you are no longer free to that same degree. THAT is where the logical underpinning of jorb's argument lies. The point is not so much that 1) Soviets were bad, 2) Soviets were socialist => 3) Socialism is bad. More like:

* Socialism (in any form) requires governmental control of an individual's resources to be anything other than empty sloganeering.
* An individual loses liberty (by definition) in such a case.
=> Socialism, by definition, requires the loss of individual liberty.

We can leave the words "autarchy" and "despotism" out of it quite easily, although in the end that is where the slippery slope must inevitably lead. It is not a question of any past, present or future socialist regimes in actual existence, but the fundamental purpose of socialism. If you think the loss of individual liberty is bad, then you must inevitably be anti-socialist.

The socialist/collectivist reply to this is that no man in a post-industrial economy can produce much of anything without the help and assistance of his fellow laborers, and therefore owes all he has or produces to the "people" (which for Trotskyites and full-blown communsists resolves into the state itself), and individual liberty be damned.

[I won't touch upon the whole "real, pure socialism has never been tried" canard. No good can come of that.]

tl;dr version: Modern "socialism", in the form of Sweden or old-guard Canada, need not be totalitarian, of course. I would not call these countries properly socialist, however. In short, the degree to which a command economy exists precisely determines the degree to which those people have lost economic liberty, regardless of what labels you throw at it.

I recommend reading Isaiah Berlin on this topic. (note the sig )

*****
On a completely different track: What would you say the difference b/w autocracy and totalitarianism is?

[LimaZulu]

I think that democratic socialism is a bit more relevant today than those brands you mentioned, Jorb.

SOCIALDEMOKRATERNA FTW

[Potjeh]

Socialism covers a broad spectrum of systems. But, in the essence, all systems are socialist, it's just a matter of degree. If the state is taking any amount of resources from the population and using them to provide any kind of service to the population, it's socialism. To be completely free of socialism, a state must raise no taxes whatsoever, and provide no services, not even basics like national security or courts of law. Such a state, of course, would be no state at all, since it wouldn't do anything nor would it have any authority.

[Zirikana]

Socialism covers a broad spectrum of systems....

Very good point. I'd be careful with that kind of argument though. I can crudely paraphrase the implication of your statement to be "all governments must do something in order to do something, therefore collectivism is nothing to be afraid of". You can't say that negotiating treaties and providing a peaceful means for settling disputes between citizens (Jacksonian democracy) is morally equivalent to the state controlling your entire life for the good of "the people" (Nork style dictatorship). I'd imagine most people would like to live somewhere between those two extremes in any case.

Basically replace the word "socialism" with "governance" in your statement, and i agree 100%. Let us reserve the word "socialism" and all its implications for the collectivist end of the spectrum.

The purpose of a liberal is to keep the state from screwing us over. The purpose of a socialist is to keep the people from screwing each other over. You can't have one without the other, it seems