US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Yep and that's why some people see socialism as a bad word. Doesn't matter if it's true, it's politics.

Sure.  It's also politics to point out that's a false equivalency, demonstrably wrong, and stupid for anyone to believe.

[DunderMifflin]

14 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Sure.  It's also politics to point out that's a false equivalency, demonstrably wrong, and stupid for anyone to believe.

Yep and even more politics is to point out that it's not false equivalency. Also demonstrably wrong and very stupid for anyone to believe Trump voters are nazis

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Yep and even more politics is to point out that it's not false equivalency, it's equivalency. Also demonstrably wrong and very stupid for anyone to believe Trump voters are nazis

Equating the actual neo-nazis that support Trump to coupling "socialists" like Mao, Stalin, etc. with socialism in general - which btw has been an aspect of all liberalized democracies since the great depression - is by definition a false equivalency.  Please cite where anyone said all, or even most or many, Trump voters are nazis.

[DunderMifflin]

9 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Equating the actual neo-nazis that support Trump to coupling "socialists" like Mao, Stalin, etc. with socialism in general - which btw has been an aspect of all liberalized democracies since the great depression - is by definition a false equivalency.  Please cite where anyone said all, or even most or many, Trump voters are nazis.

Who's equating? I just said that people are possibly wary of socialism because of the times its gone horribly wrong.

Also why are Mao and Stalin "socialists" and not socialists.

I realize socialism is a broad term without clear definition but when some people, particularly

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Who's equating? I just said that people are possibly wary of socialism because of the times its gone horribly wrong.

Also why are Mao and Stalin "socialists" and not socialists.

Same answer to both questions:  Because neither Mao nor Stalin practiced socialism in any discernible fashion.  They were totalitarian dictators that used the term to their political advantage.  Nothing more.

[Yukle]

13 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

..."socialists" like Mao, Stalin...

I can see why you'd argue Mao wasn't really a socialist, I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

Stalin is interesting, though, I don't think there's any question that he was a socialist. He ran a centralised, mostly nationalised, economic model. It was even... somewhat? ...  equal, if you take his demented form of treating all human life as equally worthless as a type of equality.

Socialism is an economic model, and it's possible with very little or a great deal of democratic input. In Stalin's case, I think it's fair to say there was no democratic input, but it was absolutely socialist. Albeit in no way egalitarian.

Moscow was the undisputed beating heart of the USSR. The soviets themselves were a series of small councils who were all subservient to the centralised government and very little private investment was tolerated. Come to think of it, under Stalin very little of anything was tolerated.

I heard a fascinating question in history at uni: Given the USSR's essential role in the defeat of the Third Reich, was Josef Stalin's overall contribution to global development positive?

Not an easy one to answer, I think. Not impossible, but not easy. Anyway, tangent over.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Yukle said:

Stalin is interesting, though, I don't think there's any question that he was a socialist. He ran a centralised, mostly nationalised, economic model. It was even... somewhat? ...  equal, if you take his demented form of treating all human life as equally worthless as a type of equality.

A centralized and nationalized economic model can be as much "fascism" as "communism" as "socialism."  Any objective conceptual definition of socialism, however, begins with equality of opportunity.  That was not practiced by Stalin nor Mao in the slightist.  Which is why, at the beginning of this back-and-forth, I described their uses of the term as a bastardization.

[felice]

22 minutes ago, Yukle said:

I think it's fair to say there was no democratic input, but it was absolutely socialist. Albeit in no way egalitarian.

Unegalitarian socialism is a contradiction in terms. An economy with Stalin in total control of everything isn't socialist any more than a capitalist state suddenly becomes socialist when a single huge corporation buys up its last competitor and takes ownership of the entire economy.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

32 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

A centralized and nationalized economic model can be as much "fascism" as "communism" as "socialism."  Any objective conceptual definition of socialism, however, begins with equality of opportunity.  That was not practiced by Stalin nor Mao in the slightist.  Which is why, at the beginning of this back-and-forth, I described their uses of the term as a bastardization.

Yes it was. Both Stalin and Mao tried to break down existing class barriers in tonnes of different ways. Like killing everyone of the upper classes, confiscating property through land reforms, making education more accessible to the lower classes, and so on. That it didn't work out very well, and that they thus weren't socialists, is like saying that Hitler wasn't an actual nazi because he didn't succeed in building the thousand year race-empire he was talking about.  

[DunderMifflin]

Fascism and communism will conjur up just as much or probably more negative reaction as socialism. I'm just backing up the point that it's politics and truth matters little in the realm of politics. No one in this discussion as far as I know openly proclaimed they want to convert the US government to full on socialism. But there were definitely a tiny minority of Clinton and Sanders supporters advocating that very thing. 

IMO the logic should be consistent, we shouldn't judge either candidate or any voter based on their most radical and extreme supporters. Anybody looks like shit when you do that.

[Yukle]

Trump wants to eliminate the one and only reason he paid almost any taxes at all.

And his supporters still cheer. That annoys me.

Also, kudos to whoever leaked a partial return. They're facing five years in gaol once caught. Good on them, though. Pity we don't have the full details, such as his Russian business ties. All we have is Eric Trump's praise of Russian investment in that speech from, like, a decade ago in terms of specifics of who has invested in Trump.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Yes it was. Both Stalin and Mao tried to break down existing class barriers in tonnes of different ways. Like killing everyone of the upper classes, confiscating property through land reforms, making education more accessible to the lower classes, and so on. That it didn't work out very well, and that they thus weren't socialists, is like saying that Hitler wasn't an actual nazi because he didn't succeed in building the thousand year race-empire he was talking about.  

If you think that's socialism, I can't help you.  I'm rather surprised by the lack of understanding of what socialism actually is.  Democratic socialism has run the western world since World War II.  Well aware most Americans have conflated the term with with communism, but I did not expect that here.

12 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Fascism and communism will conjur up just as much or probably more negative reaction as socialism. I'm just backing up the point that it's politics and truth matters little in the realm of politics. No one in this discussion as far as I know openly proclaimed they want to convert the US government to full on socialism. But there were definitely a tiny minority of Clinton and Sanders supporters advocating that very thing. 

IMO the logic should be consistent, we shouldn't judge either candidate or any voter based on their most radical and extreme supporters. Anybody looks like shit when you do that.

Not gonna get any argument from me on the bolded.  On the underlined, the point is the extremes on the right are more influential and numerous than the extremes on the left.  That can be empirically demonstrated as both the mass and elite levels.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

20 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

If you think that's socialism, I can't help you.  I'm rather surprised by the lack of understanding of what socialism actually is.  Democratic socialism has run the western world since World War II.  Well aware most Americans have conflated the term with with communism, but I did not expect that here.

 

That sure is a convincing counter argument.

Person 1: "I don't like nazism because they killed millions of people and destroyed much of the continent I live on."

Person 2: "If you think that's nazism, I can't help you. I'm rather surprised by the lack of understanding of what nazism actually is."

It is also pretty funny that Stalin and Mao weren't socialists according to you, but the Western world after WWII has been. Even though we basically have had a standard capitalist system just as before, only with somewhat higher tax rates and more expansive welfare programs. But that is still enough to make politicians like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton more socialist than Stalin and Mao, apparently.  

10/10 for the mental gymnastics. 

[Toth]

7 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

That sure is a convincing counter argument.

Person 1: "I don't like nazism because they killed millions of people and destroyed much of the continent I lived on."

Person 2: "If you think that's nazism, I can't help you. I'm rather surprised by the lack of understanding of what nazism actually is."

It is also pretty funny that Stalin and Mao weren't socialists according to you, but the Western world after WWII has been. Even though we basically have had a standard capitalist system just as before, only with somewhat higher tax rates and more expansive welfare programs. But that is still enough to make politicians like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton more socialist than Stalin and Mao, apparently.  

10/10 for the mental gymnastics. 

What Stalin, Mao and Hitler had in common was that they were leaders of autocratic dictatorships and it was their inherent goal to suppress any kind of opposition, expansionist policy and other, more complicated factors which made them horrible regimes to live (or die) under. It certainly wasn't their economy. What you may fear is the Soviet model of planned economy like it was used in the GDR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy

Look at the part that says that it isn't equivalent to socialism. It was one attempt to brute-force a socialist solution, one that had quite a large part in the collapse of the eastern block. Pretty much nobody on the left wants such a system, because it's far too rigid to work under real life condtions. I believe what most people who argue for more socialism in the US want is this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

Look, this is the system used in Germany. A free marked with checks and balances to put dow the major flaws of rampant capitalism. If you still insist that such a system is inherently evil, I just point at our GDP and laugh my ass off.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

It is also pretty funny that Stalin and Mao weren't socialists according to you, but the Western world after WWII has been. Even though we basically have had a standard capitalist system just as before, only with somewhat higher tax rates and more expansive welfare programs. But that is still enough to make politicians like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton more socialist than Stalin and Mao, apparently.  

Yeah, those "somewhat higher tax rates and more expansive welfare programs" you're talking about is instituting a social safety net.  Otherwise known as instituting socialist policies as a safeguard against the volatility of pure capitalism.  Otherwise known as the institution of democratic socialism after the great depression.  Otherwise known as over half of the GDP of most countries when you aggregate social security, health care, and welfare programs.  Otherwise known as exactly what I was referring to.

And, again, no, Stalin and Mao weren't socialists.  Mao didn't even refer to himself as a socialist.  And even if Stalin actually observed fidelity to Leninism, that's still derived from Marx's retarded manifesto that has nothing to do with the modern idea of socialism.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

8 minutes ago, Toth said:

What Stalin, Mao and Hitler had in common was that they were leaders of autocratic dictatorships and it was their inherent goal to suppress any kind of opposition, expansionist policy and other, more complicated factors which made them horrible regimes to live (or die) under. It certainly wasn't their economy. What you may fear is the Soviet model of planned economy like it was used in the GDR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy

Look at the part that says that it isn't equivalent to socialism. It was one attempt to brute-force a socialist solution, one that had quite a large part in the collapse of the eastern block. Pretty much nobody on the left wants such a system, because it's far too rigid to work under real life condtions. I believe what most people who argue for more socialism in the US want is this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

Look, this is the system used in Germany. A free marked with checks and balances to put dow the major flaws of rampant capitalism. If you still insist that such a system is inherently evil, I just point at our GDP and laugh my ass off.

Well with Mao in particular a couple of tens of million people died starved to death because of his economic policies. I think starving to death seems pretty horrible, so in that sense I would argue that you are wrong in that economic policy wasn't one of (or the major) reason for why living in his China doesn't seem to have been very nice. 

But okay. So a planned economy a la Stalin or Mao isn't "real socialism", but a free market capitalist program with some government intervention and welfare polices, developed by a German liberal-conservative party, that is real socialism?

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

19 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yeah, those "somewhat higher tax rates and more expansive welfare programs" you're talking about is instituting a social safety net.  Otherwise known as instituting socialist policies as a safeguard against the volatility of pure capitalism.  Otherwise known as the institution of democratic socialism after the great depression.  Otherwise known as over half of the GDP of most countries when you aggregate social security, health care, and welfare programs.  Otherwise known as exactly what I was referring to.

And, again, no, Stalin and Mao weren't socialists.  Mao didn't even refer to himself as a socialist.  And even if Stalin actually observed fidelity to Leninism, that's still derived from Marx's retarded manifesto that has nothing to do with the modern idea of socialism.

Still don't see how such a flagrant disregard for a number of core tenets of socialism (like, not being based around having a free market capitalist system) can make them more pure socialists than Stalin or Mao. 

If we go into what people self define as, though, how many of these Trump supporting "Neo-nazis" or "fascists" actually see or call themselves that? Very few, I would guess. Even Richard Spencer is an "identitarian". Then you have the "Alt-Right", "Ethno-Pluralists", "Paleconservatives", "Counter Jihadists", and a plethora of other kinds of nationalists and far right groups. I think actual self defining nazis and fascists are very rare these days. 

Most of said right wing ideologies do have certain ideological differences compared to one another, and definitely towards actual nazism and fascism as well. Is it thus wrong to lump them together like what I'm doing with various socialist movements and historical socialist/communist dictators? 

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Well with Mao in particular a couple of tens of million people died starved to death because of his economic policies. I think starving to death seems pretty horrible, so in that sense I would argue that you are wrong in that economic policy wasn't one of (or the major) reason for why living in his China doesn't seem to have been very nice. 

When the fuck did you get the idea I was arguing for Mao's cultural revolution?  Yikes.

Edit:  I apologize.  I thought you were responding to me when you obviously weren't.  I should go to bed.

16 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

But okay. So a planned economy a la Stalin or Mao isn't "real socialism", but a free market capitalist program with some government intervention and welfare polices, developed by a German liberal-conservative party, that is real socialism?

Now you're getting it.   Especially considering the party that has either been in the governing coalition or the leading opposition in Germany's party system since World War II is called the Social Democratic Party of Germany.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Still don't see how such a flagrant disregard for a number of core tenets of socialism (1.  like, not being based around having a free market capitalist system) can make them more pure socialists than Stalin or Mao. 

If we go into what people self define as, though, how many of these Trump supporting "Neo-nazis" or "fascists" actually see or call themselves that? Very few, I would guess. Even Richard Spencer is an "identitarian". Then you have the "Alt-Right", "Ethno-Pluralists", "Paleconservatives", "Counter Jihadists", and a plethora of other kinds of nationalists and right wing groups. I think actual self defining nazis and fascists are very rare these days. 

2.  Most of said right wing ideologies do have certain differences compared to one another, and definitely towards actual nazism and fascism as well. Is it thus wrong to lump them together like what I'm doing with various socialist movements and historical socialist/communist dictators? 

1.  That's because you've been conditioned to think free market capitalism and socialism are antithetical.  They're not.  Marx and Engels wrote two influential books on the subject 150 years ago.  There have been plenty others.

2.  Sure.  If you want to differentiate between neo-nazis, the KKK, white supremacists, and "economic nationalists" or what have you by all means do so.  Doesn't change the fact if they're ideology is racist, I'm still going to call it racist.  Just like I would call Mao and Stalin's ideology abject genocide, no matter what they called it.

[Jo498]

It is obviously futile to claim that among the wide spectrum of meanings that could be associated with "socialism" one is "right" and others are "wrong". The discussion about the words is completely moot. The goal is usually to condemn by association, e.g. that western European style social democratic policies (that were and to a large extent still are enacted by European mainstream conservatives as well) are historically or conceptually connected with the atrocities by Mao, Stalin etc. It should also be noted that it seems at least an open question whether social democratic systems tend to (d)evolve into more socialist or more capitalist ones. (While some may claim otherwise, for me the last 25 years show that the second possibility seems closer to the truth.)

One could use the same association for free market capitalism and genocide during the 19th century (or earlier) in the Americas, Africa or India or the starving workers in 19th century Europe.