I've been seeing a worrying number of these people on Lemmy lately, sharing enlightened takes including but not limited to "voting for Biden is tantamount to fascism" and "the concept of an assigned gender, or even an assigned name, at birth is transphobic" and none of them seem to be interested in reading more than the first sentence of any of my comments before writing a reply.
More often than not they reply with a concern I addressed in the comment they're replying to, without any explanation of why my argument was invalid. Some of them cannot even state their own position, instead simply repeatedly calling mine oppressive in some way.
It occurred to me just now that these interactions reminded me of nothing so much as an evangelical Christian I got into an argument with on Matrix a while ago, in which I met him 95% of the way, conceded that God might well be real and that being trans was sinful and tried to convince him not to tell that to every trans person he passed, and failed. I am 100% convinced he was trolling -- in retrospect I'm pretty sure I could've built a municipal transport system by letting people ride on top of his goalposts (that's what I get for picking a fight with a Christian at 2AM) -- and the only reason I'm not convinced these leftists on Lemmy are trolls is the sheer fucking number of them.
I made this post and what felt like half the responses fell into this category. Am I going insane?
Socialism requires that the workers own the means of production. So no it's not on a sliding scale with capitalism. Those are called hybrid economies and are a concept in their own right. In fact basically all modern economies are hybrid economies.
Socialism does include many systems, but none of them are capitalist, they are mutually exclusive. They can have markets, currency, and other things, or they might not. Communism is just a subcategory of socialist society. The reason people think socialism leads to communism is because of the marxists who use one as a platform to achieve the other.
Socialism requires no such thing - most of the rhetoric which treats worker owned production as the only definition of Socialism stems from Marxist frameworks and leaves any writing done on the subject since which has fleshed out the philosophic roots untouched. There has been a lot of writing on the subject in the 200 years since . Ownership of the means of production is by no means the only form of public or social property.
Dismissing mixed and hybrid economic theory as "not Socialist enough" is more or less what I am talking about with the nature of false dichotomies. So often socialists are dismissed on this platform directly because they don't buy into every binary maxim of all Socialism through the lens of Communist philosophy. Socialism works in mixed systems because it is kind of the political overlap of a lot of things. Where it can and does integrate into "hybrid" economies because it is not fully "anti capitalist". It is it's own sphere of political thought and buying in to one specific "hybrid" branch still makes one socialist. While Socialism certainly isn't capitalist in itself and does curtail capitalism somewhat by existing in the same space it's no more "anti" than two roomates sharing an apartment and divvying up responsibilities and resources mutually would be considered "anti-roommate".
I am quite frankly tired of Marxists or even other Socialists trying to impose their own overly narrow definition to what amounts to a range of different socialism factions or treating hybrid socialist ideologies like liberal socialism or ethical socialism like they aren't socialism.
Communism is also not strictly socialism. The two ideologies may be related but the definition of Communism leaves no real space for hybrid systems hence the ideological distain for "hybrids" ane why calling Communism "just a subsection" of Socialism is misguided. Marx may have coined and popularized the term but early writers who adopted the label socialist very quickly became something unique and the term essentially became the safe space of at least partial criticism of Marxist/Leninist revolutionary anti-capitalist ideology. The difference between the two that eventually emerged as literally one having a tolerance for mixed systems and one not. Only one of them is strictly anti-capitalist.
Anarchists are anti-capitalist and have little to do with Marx.
Why would you want any form of a destructive and exploitative system like capitalism to remain? I think you just aren't happy people are calling out your pro-capitalist and reformist bullshit.
Capitalism isn't always a destructive system, we are just living the deep end of unfettered capitalism which is. At its absolute basic having a business owner who forks over the initial investment and pays for both materials and labourers while profiting a modest amount isn't automatically exploitation. Investment capital isn't just big hedgefunds and megacorps. It's literally just having any form of private ownership of a business regardless of size.
What makes capitalism exploitative and terrible is not combatting its worst aspects. Things like people being incentivized or at very least not being punished for allowing profit to be king instead of looking at business success as a many spoked wheel including a duty to worker welfare, a responsibility to the community, ethical sourcing and so on. When you have a culture of milking everything dry to appease shareholders being normalized and routine grabbing of public resources for pennies considered legitimate then yes Capitalism is exploitative but there's plenty that can be done to literally disincentivize that system. The way the stock market works is not on its own an integral part of capitalism. It's an option. Laws and oversight can do a lot to bring the system of exploitation into check. Inventivizing co-op and worker owned labor is great but so is expanding tax structures, government public services and safety nets and strengthening environment protections or increasing indigenous repatriation and sovereignty. A lot of that is making Government more airtight against private sector tampering.
End of the day if a business is playing by the rules and doing their bit to what they owe society then who owns it becomes much less relevant.
People love to talk about protections and safety nets enforced by governments and committees but you find in most countries with capitalism the government is corrupt including in the US and UK. They essentially do what businesses tell them to do because they spend money on lobbying and line politicians pockets. There isn't really a way to fix this under capitalism to my knowledge.
The media too is bought and paid for by the big business players. That's the nature of capitalism as a system. It corrupts everything.
There are ways to combat it we just aren't doing it. First past the post voting systems are in both currently used in the US and the UK and those are systems that both benefit high capitalist control over democratic governance.
Media protection and legislation has also been eroded so it is understandable that you cannot conceive of a non-corrupt media but again those are options. Anti-trust legislation, federal communication standards, standards regarding ethical reporting and consumer protections are all individual steps which have existed in the past and could be updated.
Also currently speaking there isn't really a lot of options for countries that have zero capitalism. By that metric we start talking about places where it's illegal to have a strictly private business. Iceland for instance still is a capitalist country even as it is a highly socialist country. Highly socialist countries aren't capital free. They still have private business.
If You are looking at this issue in black and white terms where only exploitative capitalism counts as capitalism then of course "capitalism bad" is your easy take away. Things exist by degrees and shades of grey and the system of token trading has both benefits and drawbacks. But again I don't need communists telling me that I am socialist-ing wrong. You can either appreciate the things we agree on or have this discussion in terms of individual policy changes and acts or we can disagree and move on.
Yes there are. Doing any of those requires a non-corrupt government, an informed public or both. All of the forces in modern society are against that. It's a chicken and egg problem. How can you overcome that problem without resorting to a revolution or other form of regime change?
So why don't we build some? There are many socialist (as in the original definition, the one I use) systems ready to be tried. Many have never been tried before.
Not everything that uses token trading is capitalism. You realize feudalism and slave societies also have currency, right? It's a much older concept than capitalism.
As I said you can have markets under socialism, and even businesses provided they are owned by the workers or by the state. You can also earn money and so on. Lookup things like socialist market economy or Anarcho-syndicalism. You don't have to be a communist to meet the criteria that the working class own the means of production. Worker co-ops are not a communist concept and even exist in modern society.
I am not sure you actually know what capitalism even is or why it leads to exploitation.
I acknowledge those shades of gray. They are called hybrid economies. What you are doing is pointing at gray and calling it black.
I am not even really a communist. I probably support socialist market economy as much as I do Anarcho-communism, and leninists can frankly suck my dick.
What would you even call someone who believes in "working class owns the means of production" if not a socialist? Not everyone who believes that is a communist as I have demonstrated. In fact that cannot be in a communist society as there are no classes (unless you say everyone is working class?). What would you even call someone like me?
I would call someone like you kind of a jackass. I am not a fan of this peicemeal quote back and rebuttal style of discourse. I think it's quite frankly disrespectful and lazy.
I am not really interested in dealing with you particularly because you seem rather hostile and more like the type of person I stated at the outset that I am tired of dealing with.
You wrote 4 whole paragraphs. How did you want me to discuss that without getting lost as to what I am referring to? It's not lazy at all, it's more work to copy stuff back and forth but it's the easiest way to make it clear what I am referring to. Virtually all essays use quotes as well.
Calling someone a jack ass is disrespectful. Calling someone hostile for not agreeing with you is disrespectful. I find it disrespectful that you think anyone who supports "the working class own the means of production" is a communist. It shows you lack understanding of political beliefs that aren't liberal hybrid economies despite claiming to be a socialist.
I am not calling you a jackass for disagreeing with me. I am calling you one because you have repeatedly come in hot trying to paint me as some kind of villian because I have said that my stance is that I find some capitalism okay. Go look at my original post. I specifically said that I find people who describe socialism by only one small facet of the total ideology or people who do not claim to be socialists attacking people for "not being socialist enough". Then you come at me and do EXACTLY THAT trying to force your narrow definition down my throat. I am tired of people's tiktok pop culture narrow short quippy and wrong statements. Yes "workers having control over the means of production" is one FACET of socialism. Happy? Fuck off! I said I am specifically tired of communists and OTHER SOCIALISTS trying to force some kind of fictional pure strain socialism down my throat then what I think constitutes a society we can actually get to because I said their fucking trigger word.
Get a fucking clue and go harrass some neo-liberals.
It's not a narrow definition - it's the definition. The original from the times of Marx and Bakunin. The version you are talking about was created by reformists after the fact. I don't believe in revisionism or reformism. Therefore I don't use that definition, and I don't support anyone who does.
People make fun of those in the USA for claiming that socialism is whenever the government does stuff and use that as a reason not to have things like universal healthcare or benefits. That's exactly what you are doing here, claiming that socialism is when the government does stuff to help the people. Yet you would probably call out these people and ridicule them.
Also you are a liberal lmao. Someone who believes in capitalism with government protections and safety nets is by definition a liberal. This isn't hard.
Originalist bullshit. Go suck Marx's dead withered cock and talk to me when you've decided to expand your reading list past the 19th century.
Now you're just being rude. You can just admit you are a liberal instead of acting like an arsehole.
Also would you tell a mathematician or a physicist to stop sucking Newton's or Einstein's dick?
Depends do you ignore every physicist who expanded on their work? Fuck off troll.
That's not what's going on here. If anything you are being a troll. Pretending to be a socialist when you are really a liberal.
Libralism's main tenants are generally speaking tied up in the idea of freedom of style of life (ie profession, religion, choosing where you live free of persecution and so forth) but it's particular idea of private property only recognizing private ownership as legitimate and it's resistance to personal accrewed wealth being beyond government reach isn't what I believe.
Taken on economic grounds I am not a liberal though I do believe in a great deal of individual freedoms in other sectors. In the case of governance I am generally upset at the lack of representative voting systems and ideally believe we should adopt at least a partial democratic lottery system as I find elections in a general sense tend to select for the ability to play to a crowd rather than aptitude and is very weak towards issues of populism and conflicts of interest. I believe in very robust social safety nets that increase equality including basic income, housing as a basic human right (not simply a perscriptive shelter system) a sharp increase in public transit as an issue of equity for non-drivers (as a discriminated category) , third spaces and think suburbs an ecological hell. I disagree strongly with the ideas of "parental rights" which treat children as owned property. I believe in a right to participate in society which is not adequately offered to all people at present. I believe that anyone who treats anybody as worthy of consideration and comfort based on their abilities, earning potential or mental health is despicable. I am a Non-binary trans person from an area with high levels of acceptance who knows that a low forced gender compliance society is possible and nessisary. I am anti colonization on board to recognize that generational wealth is not legitimate if it was stolen and that repatriation is desperately nessisary and participate in the culture of land acknowledgement, restorative justice and fight inside my Union to implement the 94 articles of reconciliation where we can apply them.
Saying I don't mind some capitalism doesn't mean I approve of a lot of it. Stocks and public trading is out of control, speculation markets that infringe on human rights need to be throughly dismantled. Environmental damages need to be punished through personal criminal liability and the personhood of corporations needs to be repealed. Do I think everything needs to be a co-op? No. Do I think unions and collective action are vitality important to us having a future that does not devolve into dystopia? Yes. Do I mind a system where individuals can own a business and hire labour hence "owning the means of production"? No. Do I think unchecked acrual of wealth is a massive problem and individuals should not be able to pocket massive profits as an exploitative incentive to cut corners and undercut labour and consumers? Yes.
I think your catchphrase socialism is reductionist. Your desire to reduce my beliefs to a single word you can point and hiss at a precursor to mob mentality. If you want to think I am a liberal then I am going to think of you as an empty headed communist because you are being trained to not think for yourself.
First I would like to address the term reductionist. Science and medicine and considered reductionist by many. The people who use terms like reductionist as a criticism have in my experience been people who believe in conspiracy theories and "alternative medicine". It seems to me that being reductionist is a good thing and suggests you actually have reasoning, facts, and evidence on your side. To be called reductionist is therefore an honor I am glad to accept even if I am not sure I am worthy of such a title.
There is actually a lot here I agree with. For example I think the idea of a less gendered society is something we need, although I don't know if my reasoning there is similar to yours and I am sure it could be an interesting conversation in it's own right. I also agree with you that children need more rights, especially when it comes to caregivers. I am not sure I even believe in the concept of having only one set of parents, and that maybe communal systems of raising children is a superior approach as seen in places like the Kibbutzim in Isreal. As someone who doesn't drive I also agree in increasing public transport.
You say you don't agree with the liberal principle of private property. I would ask in which circumstances you disagree with this? Things like capitalism are based on private property, and you have said you support some level of capitalism. I would say as well that things such as strong regulation and taxes for the rich don't necessarily disagree with the concepts of liberalism. You also say you don't believe the liberal principle that personal wealth should be beyond the reach of government. I would question if liberals believe that to the extent you say they do, as they do believe in things such as fines and taxes. Likewise I don't think you have suggested a mechanism that would limit this outside of fines, taxes, and punitive justice even if you have taken them to an extreme further than more popular interpretations of liberalism.
You're actually not the first person to suggest the idea of having a lottery system for leaders, though you would be only the second I have met. You are the only one to take it seriously I don't think you could select randomly as not everyone has the will or the ability to lead a society (I suspect most don't). If you have a solution to this problem I would like to here it. I myself could probably come up with something, such as choosing a random volunteer, or selecting a random group sample and choosing from them. How practical these concepts would be I am not sure. The issue of leadership is a tough one though and I don't necessarily have easy answers here. I don't think most political groups have a good answer to this. Probably the best answer is to limit the power that an individual can have, such as the systems anarchists propose and to a lesser extent the separation of powers that exist in most modern societies.
I only really threw around that word because it seemed to fit at the time, and you were being both rude and obstinate. Though I think it does fit your beliefs to a fairly large extent even if you don't want to admit it. I don't see anything here that disagrees with the basic principles of liberalism as by nature liberalism is a somewhat broad category of political beliefs. I would also consider that things such as libertarian socialism including most or all true forms of anarchism exist and also meet many requirements of liberalism particularly regarding democracy and personal freedoms. Many right wing ideas are compatible with liberalism and libertarian-ism too. It covers a broad swath of ideas just like socialism or capitalism covers a range of different ideas and implementations. I am not saying that all of what you believe could be covered by a single word, anymore than I am saying socialist sums up everything any given anarchist or marxist or accelerationist might believe.
Even if the terms are broad they still have certain criteria that must be met, and I think "workers owning the means of production" is a fairly basic standard to meet to be considered a socialist. There are many definitions that are more restrictive than this in fact. If we look at the merrium webster definition for example that can be found here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
The definition 1 specifically uses the word egalitarian. The concept of "workers owning the means of production" is actually less restrictive than this, as one worker if allowed to earn more than the other provided they have earned it through work. It further goes on to talk about collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution; this is a concept prevelant in even more restrictive communist systems. Definition 2a is about disallowing private property. 2b is about state ownership of the means of production. 3 refers to marxism specifically and their belief in socialism as a transition stage between capitalism and communism. As you can see these are all more restrictive than the criteria I gave. The beliefs you talk about here wouldn't meet any of these definitions either. You could even say that that catchphrase about the means of production is very charitable and has more leeway than most fleshed out definitions
You seem to be mistaken. I don't want to have a discussion with you.
I put up with a lot of pedantry and perscriptivist bullshit and you ignoring my boundries as you came at me like you were on some kind of witchhunt before I snapped. You want to prove I am some sort of pure strain socialist on the word of a guy who idolized Henri de Saint-Simon and Robert Owens then expanded his take into more extreme violent simplistic work that got popular with angry disenfranchised people. Now we have idiots listening to nothing but readers digest condensed YouTube summaries and screaming at each other like fucking howler monkeys fighting for territory and masterbating over over split hairs rather than discussing actual politics and action while the world burns and I'm fucking done.
You treat libralism as a dirty word with hard boundries... and it's not relevant. I am not interested because it doesn't DO anything. You just want to feel righteous by holding my feet to the fire and really - fucking shame on you. I don't care if you agree. We don't have to. I do not need your validation O mighty gatekeeper of all things political philosophy! I don't care about your take. If you are incapable of giving benefit of the doubt and being civil to people who ARE liberals then you are not fit to have these discussions. Civility in debate and consideration of the other are paramount to actually having peaceful changes to the world instead of stoking the fires of one more violent revolution that puts some new authoritarian in charge. You burnt this bridge and I am walking away.
You haven't actually read anything I just said.
I don't think liberalism is a word with hard boundaries. In fact I spent some time covering the fact that you are more-or-less a radical liberal and not a socialist.
You can't accept that a word has a real definition that doesn't suit your agenda. You want to say incorrect, misleading things without getting called out and can't handle a discussion. You talk about civility in debate while doing the exact opposite. Shame on you.