Debunked, "Socialism has never worked"

That is a definition of capitalism that socialists agree upon. You can look back in the thread for the definition of capitalism that capitalists agree upon.

Capitalists do not subscribe to the idea of "surplus value." so of course it wouldn't be in the definition of their system.

 

You're not making sense. First, there isn't homogeneity in socialism. A Marxist, for example, will define capitalism differently to a Christian Socialist. Second, while socialism is a political economy, capitalism is an economic paradigm. For comparison, there's no recognisable group called capitalists. I own my own firm. To you I'm therefore a capitalist. However, I am a socialist. A little bit of socialist knowledge ensures that I don't follow nonsense definitions of capitalism such as confusing it with exchange theory.

So you're peddling a capitalist myth aren't you?

 

I agree - which is why it is silly to claim that only "Pure Socialism" 100% ownership constitutes Socialism.

Or as another poster tried to claim - that "wealth Redistribution" is not socialist policy.

 

Exactly my point. The entire point of this thread is to tell us what socialism is and isn't, yet the socialists can't agree on that, can they?

Which is exactly why I frame the question in terms of what capitalists would agree upon.

No, I'm pointing out that socialism as an economic system is an ideal that is crippled by the inability to form a consensus regarding what it actually is.

 

I stated previously that "pure socialism is generally accompanied by totalitarianism" Other forms of Socialism do not require totalitarianism.

 

Agree that pure socialism is only a dream - not sure this is sad though.

 

Of course it has parts - Wealth redistribution being on of the main parts.

Your claim that Socialism does not include wealth redistribution is False.

 

Socialism: a political and economic system that's whatever socialists want it to be.

Socialist: a person who calls themself a socialist.

Any questions?

 

One can only try. Best of luck to you.

 

Homogeneity is typically a bad thing. Indeed, the beauty of socialism is its various forms. A green socialist, a feminist and a classical Marxist will always spit and spat. However, that merely informs of the vibrancy of the political economics.

Right wingers prefer of course a world of simple polemics. Indeed, that's a major reason why they look for desperate oversimplification (ignoring the political economy and simply chanting vacuous soundbite)

I've already highlighted thats not possible. There is no homogeneity in capitalist understanding. I used little ole me to highlight the point.

You can repeat it, but its still nonsense. The vibrancy in political econony thought reflects its continued relevance. Compare that to the lack of thought within US conservative politics. Without any means to derive such vibrancy, its incapable of maintaining relevance (as shown how easily it crumbled under Trump's authoritarianism)

 

That wasn't the point. The point is a definition of Socialism that conservatives, republicans, and Trump supporters, can agree on.

 

Can't be that sad, if you refuse to do it. See my post above re: democracy and the freedom to collectivise.

 

I find the vast majority of those obsessively opposed to socialism, are Progressive Leftists - most of whom are capitalist libertarians (though they like to imagine they're not). I've yet to meet an ideological group LESS able to tolerate the conformities and restrictions essential to functional socialism.

 

Here's the one that ACTUAL collectivists (aka, socialists and communists) agree on: If you don't work, you don't eat. No exceptions, no preferences, no choices, no luxuries. You live where and how you're told, and you eat what's available. You do the work that needs doing, whether you like it or not. PS: Yes, it's "brutal", but it's very good for the elevation of the many, and for preventing people from falling through the cracks. I'm a big fan.

If someone is trying to sell you a model even one jot less "brutal" than the above, it's not socialism. It's capitalists using words to pretend something they're not prepared to do.

 

It doesn't. But only because there is no 'wealth' to redistribute. Socialism is non-surplus, and generates only what it requires for basic survival. No one earns a wage, and labour is exchanged for secure housing, food, and other basic essentials.

 

You are 1) talking about something that doesn't exist

2) Of course there is wealth in the various systems that have been labeled "Socialist" - people have things - even in the fictitious society you envision. Even in tribal systems based on generalized reciprocity - the closest we have come - there was wealth.

How the collective wealth of the community is distributed aka "Wealth Redistribution" is a primary tenet /function of Socialism - "FULL STOP"

get it ... got it ... good.

 

As we have seen here, socialism can be whatever anyone calling themselves a socialist calls socialism, even if they don't define it. However, as is well known, in practice, socialism has gone through an evolution from marxist thought, to leninism, to maoism, to gonzaloism. Marxism is just a theory, also well known, but Marx was not an organizer. Lenin simply added a way to force this change through a violent revolution led by the "proletariat". Since Mao's China didn't have much of a proletariet, Mao developed the idea of giving the dirty work to peasants. When the peasants took over and started acting like the old boss, Mao launched the Cultural Revolution to keep the revolution alive. The idea of permanent revolution was born. Gonzaloism is simply a recognition that permanent revolution is the only way to go. It's a free-for-all of all competing marxist-leninist-maoist factions fighting and overthrowing one another continually so nobody ever gets much of a chance to act like the old boss.

 

Wrong on all counts. Collectivism is a subsistence model. Non-profit. Animals don't work for profit, tribal groups don't work for profit, and human communities don't work for profit. Their function is secure food and housing, no more. There is no surplus to redistribute.

Any model generating profit and engaged in buying and selling labour, is capitalism. It doesn't matter what you call it, if it's run on capitalist profit, you can 'redistribute' it all you like but it will still be capitalism.

 

You are making things up - and pretending they are true. Even in Subsistence cultures there was wealth. It is you - who does not have a clue.

And Marx was not a Subsistence Model anyway - so you are way off base on that count as well

And lastly - you are talking about something that does not exist - so has no bearing on anything related to reality.

If you wish to define Socialism as you have - you may do so - but here on planet earth - there are no such societies - so the conversation is pointless from here on in.

 

1) No, I am talking about real collectivism, as lived by different groups, all over the world. And they are NOT surplus generating enterprises .. they are simply a consolidation of our social mammal hard-wiring. Strength in numbers, survival of the pack. If a group generates surplus, they are forced to engage in the buying and selling of labour, which in turn compels out-sourcing. IE, capitalism. If you don't understand this, you don't understand collectivism ... at all.

2) I don't give a flying **** what Marx said or thought. Just another rich guy, playing at caring.

3) Collectivism exists in a multitude of forms, all over the world. Cohabiting extended families, communes, religious groups, farming cooperatives, etc etc. The human species would be long extinct without collectivism. How do you think we survived until welfare was invented?

 

You are on a different page - We are talking Socialism - but in either case - your claim that no wealth exists is false

Full STOP. And while we are talking Socialism - how this wealth is redistributed is what Socialism is about.

 

This amused me on two levels. First, its silly to call Marxism 'just a theory'. Supply and demand is 'just a theory. Marxism derives a polical economic school of thought. Its certainly needed to understand capitalism, from the threat of mass unemployment to the green socialist analysis into sustainability. Second, there is no understanding that socialism is dependent on feasibility. That leaves two broad camps: market socialism and anarchism. The remaining approaches focus on Marxist analysis into crisis (e.g. the greens internationalism post-climate emergency)

 

For you it's a religion

 

Silly comment, given I'm not a Marxist. We merely have two facts. First, "Marxist is a theory" is a nonsense. Second, Marxism is indeed needed to understand capitalism. Even orthodox economics accepted that with its use of Marxist analysis into the reserve army.

 

Notwithstanding the grammatical failure, you're right. The entire body of Marxism is just a series of specious conjectures that result in totalitarianism and mass murder.