Socialism

Answering questions and responding to (legitimate) comments on the topic of Socialism.


FAQ below

Background on Socialism:
>"Socialism" as a word and an idea emerged from Industrial revolution era Britain as a community-oriented counter proposal/antithesis to the inherently destructive and profligate nature of Capitalism. Most people when hearing the word "Socialism" immediately think of Marxism and/or self-described socialist states like the Soviet Union. However, the word socialism predates Marx and Engels writings on the matter by several decades, so they don't have the monopoly on defining the word.

Frequent responses:

>My specific infallible brand of socialism has never been tried!

Actually the meme is "brand of COMMUNISM".

>Communists and socialists are the same thing!

Communists and Marxist-Socialists are the same thing. But not all socialists are Marxists

>Anything on Venezuela, starvation, failed marxist states

Yes, Venezuela is a good example of why the core pillar of Marxism (egalitarianism) fails. In no sane world is a low IQ bus driver as capable of running a country as a high IQ intellectual, but idiots in large numbers are a powerful political force irregardless.

I have a question. Why do people think socialism will always lead to communist? And is that true?

this stealth sliding is gay, at least use the correct image

That certainly is the Marxist view of the matter. Marx stated that his interpretation of socialism was that it was a intermediate "stage" between Capitalism and Communism.

But Socialism isn't always Marxist in nature and as such, doesn't always lead to communism. National Socialism for instance was socialist, but anti-communist. So it isn't true.

What do you think about the fact that Socialism (except National Socialism of course) is Jewish?

Marxism is not egalitarian, the maxim for marxian socialism is ''from each according to their ability. To each according to their contribution". Also venezuela is a socialdemocracy not marxian socialist

Why is it so shitty?

Marx was a Jew, you're okay with that, aren't you?

Jews as a basic rule seek control over their surroundings, so it's no surprise to me at all that they are behind ideologies that seek to subvert, pacify and inevitably control populations. Modern capitalism also does this.

>Jews as a basic rule seek control over their surroundings, so it's no surprise to me at all that they are behind ideologies that seek to subvert, pacify and inevitably control populations. Modern capitalism also does this.
Absolutely correct.

Which is why National Socialism/Fascism is the only answer for the White race.

>Marxism is not egalitarian

The consideration of a "Stateless, classless, moneyless society where the means of production are collectively owned" being a core of Marxist goals is the most egalitarian statement I've heard in my life. If you truly believe that Marxism isn't egalitarianism, then there's nothing I can say to you beyond "You're delusional".

What do you call a country based socialism, you FUCKING NAZI?

Would you consider Mussolini as a Marxist-Socialist?

Depends on which Mussolini, I guess. Pre-WW1 Mussolini was a socialist and a proletarian-internationalist, but his Fascist state definitely wasn't.

Fascist Italy took elements of socialist thought in it's application, but can probably be deemed Ultranationalist that merged corporate and state power into one entity.

So post WW1: No.

Is labour itself not hierarchical?

The very foundation of communist theology is inherently contradictory and flawed.

It tries to build solidarity across all workers, across all labour.

But labour from the beginning is inherently antagonistic and hierarchical.

Fruitful labour against useless labour.

Inefficient labour is subordinate to efficient labour.

The hierarchy is and will always be there.

Work a salted field ten hours a day for however long you want, the labour will not yield a single grain. The gap between labour that produces something out of its effort and labour that doesn't performatively demonstrates that Labour, to be a value producing category must be subordinate to a higher category.

Marxist theology never even gets close to pointing in the direction of what that is.

Do you deny that Karl Marx heavily influenced Benito Mussolini's political philosophy?

Do you deny that Fascist Italy many socialist policies?

Can you describe the difference between Mussolini's "state capitalism" and Lenin's "state capitalism" ?

Not sure if "Hierarchy" is the right word, as that implies that someone above has some form of control over those below. But I see the point you're making.

If I'm correct: you're referring to the labour theory of value.
The truth of that is that Labour does have a value that is a part of determining the value of something in a purely materialistic sense, but needs and desires for consumption are subjective to each different person and most definitely not materialistic.

As a basic rule when trying to understand Marxist thought, you need to realize that it is practically speaking incomplete.

>Do you deny that Karl Marx heavily influenced Benito Mussolini's political philosophy?

Considering Mussolini was a Marxist prior to his service in WW1, yes, Marxism influenced Mussolini. But having influences from something and actually being that something aren't necessarily the same thing.

>Do you deny that Fascist Italy many socialist policies?

No, I stated in the post you're responding to that Fascist Italy took elements of socialist thought in it's application?

>Can you describe the difference between Mussolini's "state capitalism" and Lenin's "state capitalism" ?

By "state capitalism" in regards to Lenin I am assuming you're talking about the NEP? If so: the practical differences as a whole between the two were not that great, assuming my understanding of Fascist economics is correct (which admittedly it might not be). Both of them were a mixed bag of Market and non-market economic principles and other factors.

Didn't put a reply to you in the post, but state with the first greentext here as a response to your questions.

what do they eat

>The truth of that is that Labour does have a value that is a part of determining the value of something in a purely materialistic sense, but needs and desires for consumption are subjective to each different person and most definitely not materialistic.

No, this is before subjective wants and needs are put into the equation.

Imagine you are tilling a field. No matter how much labour you input into the system, there will be no output produced if the ground is barren. This has nothing to do with the subjective desires of men.

This demonstrates that labour in-itself is not productive. That for labour to be productive it must be exposed to a higher category that infers unto it its value production ( i.e. it must be arranged in the correct way in time and space for it to be endowed with the magic of value production). Hegel would call this special category somthing like rationality...

Marx was wrong and too much of a brat to admit it.

I think it was Lenin who said "Fascism is Capitalism in decline" but the more I read about the supposed opposing political philosophies the more I realized that Fascism is Communism in decline.

Mussolini just did not go full retard like the USSR, he realized that centralized government was not competent to run industry so he only exerted as much control over them as possible so as to not interfere with production. Lenin came to the same conclusion later.

The only reason why Communists or Socialists see Fascism and National Socialism as right wing is because fascism encouraged a traditional conservative lifestyle over an atheistic progressive lifestyle.

Its not like their was no discrimination against minorities in Communist states so the "EVIL RACIST NAZI" argument is stupid to.

The Jews were eventually purged out of government in the USSR
They sent gays and gypsies to the gulags among other minorities.

The difference between Communism, Fascism is just a small difference of opinion on what motivates people.

Communism/socialism is a system that exists under capitalism.

The most ruthless of capitalists from Rockefeller to Soros praise despotic bureaucracies that are able to subjugate their people and extract cheap labor from them (see china)

The goal of your ideology is to shackle the masses. There will always be capitalism, there will always be classes. There will always be lies fed to the people promising a "workers" paradise only for them to exploited and eventually purged.

>Why do people think socialism will always lead to communist?
No, this is only what Marxists think. There are many forms of socialism

why are there rich people in communist countries
why do some people starve while others seem to have lots of food

but the fact that everyone has different ability,needs and contributions is a part of marxism core too

How do you deal with the fact that socialism is inherently authoritarian and hilariously ineffective to boot?

Daily reminder that if you're a naziboo like 99% of this board, it's national SOCIALISM.

>why are there rich people in communist countries
communist countries don't exist
>inb4 'not real communism'
Its true though. You are talking about self described socialist states, in reality more state capitalism

Communism < Socialism > Fascism

Communism = Socialist Internationalism
Fascism = National Socialism

I'm generally not in the habit of defending Marx, but you may be looking into what he wrote too specifically. I am not in the head of Marx, so I don't know, but perhaps his view of "labour" was the actions used to produce goods or services, not just he action/s themselves. Could be something as simple as a misunderstanding between languages, I'm not entirely sure.

>The difference between Communism, Fascism is just a small difference of opinion on what motivates people.

You're generalizing far too much. One could say "The difference between Communism and Capitalism is just a small difference of opinion on what motives people" and you wouldn't be wrong. All three branches of ideological thought stem from the same human tree.

>The only reason why Communists or Socialists see Fascism and National Socialism as right wing is because fascism encouraged a traditional conservative lifestyle over an atheistic progressive lifestyle.

So all the difference in the (human) world then in regards to social structure?

>The difference between Communism, Fascism is just a small difference of opinion on what motivates people.

When I say that I am saying that the fascists and communists were both birthed from Marxist revolutionaries. They are but buddies.

Capitalist states loathed both fascist and communist centralized authority and its economic structure even though Churchill had a fondness for Hitler and Mussolini before the aggression started.

The funny thing is the USA today when compared to Fascist Italy is almost exactly the same, the only thing missing is for someone to declare themselves dictator with military backing.


>So all the difference in the (human) world then in regards to social structure?

I dont understand, rephrase your question please

>why are there rich people in communist countries

The question should be "Why are there rich people in Marxist-socialist countries ruled by Communist parties", and the answer is pretty straightforward. Marxist-socialism is about centralizing control over economic and social activity, meaning those with the control generally congregate in one area, meaning one particular city is generally the single area inhabited by the party elite. They don't want to live around poverty and ugliness, so they use their power to make the areas they're residing in better to live in. The utter control over all economic activity results in an abuse of power, as human nature is inherently greedy. So those that have the power abuse it and make themselves rich.

But fundamental to Marxist ideology is that all (working class) humans have the same inherent worth as human beings.

>How do you deal with the fact that socialism is inherently authoritarian and hilariously ineffective to boot?

It's largely impossible to have "inefficiencies" in regards to social policy. And National Socialist Germany had a market economy with a top personal tax rate of 13.7%. So in that sense it's more "efficient" in terms of economic freedoms and decentralization than any "capitalist" economy in the world right now, but okay.

Also I don't "deal with" the fact that it is inherently "authoritarian". That's not inherently a bad thing.

>fascists and communists were both birthed from Marxist revolutionaries.

Fascists? Yes. Fascism being an Italian variation of Ultranationalism had several leaders and thinkers who were Marxists at one point. But that isn't necessarily relevant. Having control over economic activity in some form isn't inherently Marxist nor Ultranationalist nor Capitalist nor any other thing.

>I dont understand, rephrase your question please

It was rhetorical with me stating that the differences were as vast as they could be at the time.

Dont you think its weird that FASCISM is such a dirty word in the west when the USA and Englands own brand of guild socialism is as close to fascist political philosophy as it gets?

I find it very weird.

I am not a fascist or a socialist but I just think its weird. You should read more about fascism and not Hitlers National Socialism.

How do you plan to solve the problem of economic calculation?

What is socialist's attitude to fascism. Is in better or worse than liberalism?

>Dont you think its weird that FASCISM is such a dirty word in the west when the USA and Englands own brand of guild socialism is as close to fascist political philosophy as it gets?

Similarities between ideologies that can be opposed to one another is the result of humans. And Guild Socialism as a basic rule only refers to the economic system, whereas Fascism refers to all of society. Haviing a similar economic system, but radically opposing social systems and worldviews is the reason why fascism is a dirt word. Not because of it's economics, but because of everything else.

Considering I am a National Socialist, probably by using markets for most sectors of the economy?

Depends upon what kind of socialist they are, I guess? Being a National Socialist myself, I wouldn't know. Most Marxists that I've talked to in real life and online view Fascism and Liberalism as just as bad as each other, calling them both "exploitative and anti-egalitarian".

what the fuck is a decent thread and OP doing on Sup Forums
good aussie

Then if there are free markets, there is no longer socialism. National or otherwise.
Besides, all socialism is nationalistic.

how do you keep workers motivated in full socialism?
remember that a committee of "wise" men can't possibly know what each worker truly wants

Just why?
Is it just resentment?

>Most Marxists [..] view Fascism and Liberalism as just as bad as each other
They share the notion of fascism proposed by communist propaganda.

The Marxist interpretation of socialism "The state owning the means of production" is only the Marxist interpretation. As I stated in the FAQ, Socialism as a word and idea predates Marx by several decades, so his particular view on the matter cannot be the only definition of "socialism".

>Besides, all socialism is nationalistic.

No, all Marxist-socialism is Statist. Nationalist/Nationalistic/Nationalism refers to a specific set of historical, linguistic and sometimes ethnic identities. The Soviet Union for instance had many different nationalities, languages, religions, etc. It wasn't a legitimate "National" entity, until it tried to create one in the form of "Soviet" Nationalism, but that was neither necessary nor inevitable.

>how do you keep workers motivated in full socialism?
>remember that a committee of "wise" men can't possibly know what each worker truly wants

In a Marxist-Socialist state, if you want people to be motivated, they need both the stick and the carrot. Joseph Stalin kept everyone afraid for their lives so they worked hard and the resulting effect was an economic explosion. But not all socialism is Marxist in nature. National Socialism had a market economy for almost everything (with the exception of the armaments industry and other special public works programs).

Thanks mate.

>Besides, all socialism is nationalistic.
I double this. Once the workers or "the people" take control of the means of production, they find it profitable for them to protect the local market from foreign goods. It was explained by Frederic Bastiat in 18 century in his "Protectionism and Communism". While the Soviet Union pretended to be international, it still was an autarchy prohibiting foreign trade.

Is that why they always fail. In the end people has a free will and does not want to live in constant danger just to get some better production numbers.

>Is that why they always fail.

They generally fail because they DON'T have a Stalin. Stalin was not only a ruthless psychopath, but he was also extremely intelligent and very pragmatic. For instance, Stalin had no problems whatsoever signing a deal with Henry ford to open up a car production plant to make cars very cheap for western markets (something considered almost sacrilege by Marxists at the time), but he realized that the valuable expertise garnered from having a then-state of the art vehicle production facility. No either Communist Party leader in the world had both the Intelligence, ruthlessness and pragmatism of Stalin.

In the case of the soviet union, their country began their technical decline almost as soon as Stalin died, because once the workers in those countries stop fearing those at the top, they have no real incentive to work hard, and everything becomes a joke. Only way to succeed with a Marxist-socialist state is to not have humans and the next closest thing to that is to stop treating the humans you have like humans.