Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Magistrum]

When people say socialist in a negative connotation they mean me.
I'm a communist. I'm all in for the extinction of capital as manner for distribution of goods.
All those liberals are reactionary scum.
Get it right mate. Just because we both aren't homophobic doesn't mean we are the same thing.

[Reelya]

I'm not sure that they mean you. Most of the negative things they associate with socialism don't have much if any connection with any type of communism. Generally, Americans talking about the negatives of socialism actually mean progressive liberalism.

[Culise]

"torturing people to death is the pinnacle of Christianity"

I mean, that would make sense, seeing as the cross is their symbol and all.

Though considering who was more famous for being put on crosses, it would probably be more self-mortification.  Though, even then I suppose...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I think the bigger problem is that you're creating what is really a "straw man" version of socialism, attributing a lot of negative stuff to it, then assuming that's what anyone who mentions socialism is talking about. First up, I'd argue that there are a bunch of opinions on the Left, and some of them are related to socialism, but not all of them. For example, identity politics, feminism etc, have nothing to do with socialism. The term Socialism represents a number of different (some of which are mutually exclusive) economic theories. This has nothing to do with whether you support identity politics, political correctness or any of the "isms" that are popular on the left.

The entire lesson of the global left collapsing in the 70s onwards was that a failure to recognize intersectionality is the death knell of the left. You can't keep reactionary views of society and demand liberation without entering into the weakness of hypocrisy. Only once those strains of thought were intertwined with older conceptions of socialism have we started to see recovery. There is no liberation from capitalism without liberation from patriarchy, and racism, and organized religion, and all other structures that the capitalist class most certainly have no problem accepting the patronage of. On this, socialists who do not accept "identity politics" have a lesson to learn from one of capitalism's greatest sources of durability.

[Trolldefender99]

Well still reading the wiki links, and already seems was quite wrong in my views in that front. I suppose associating it with Stalin when it was Stalin himself the problem is an issue with that argument.

In any case, don't want to leave with a negative argument. Despite many of our differences, I'd hope all of us are united no matter who is up for election to get trump out of the white house and even if we dislike the nominee still better than trump.

[WealthyRadish]

I think the bigger problem is that you're creating what is really a "straw man" version of socialism, attributing a lot of negative stuff to it, then assuming that's what anyone who mentions socialism is talking about. First up, I'd argue that there are a bunch of opinions on the Left, and some of them are related to socialism, but not all of them. For example, identity politics, feminism etc, have nothing to do with socialism. The term Socialism represents a number of different (some of which are mutually exclusive) economic theories. This has nothing to do with whether you support identity politics, political correctness or any of the "isms" that are popular on the left.

The entire lesson of the global left collapsing in the 70s onwards was that a failure to recognize intersectionality is the death knell of the left. You can't keep reactionary views of society and demand liberation without entering into the weakness of hypocrisy. Only once those strains of thought were intertwined with older conceptions of socialism have we started to see recovery. There is no liberation from capitalism without liberation from patriarchy, and racism, and organized religion, and all other structures that the capitalist class most certainly have no problem accepting the patronage of. On this, socialists who do not accept "identity politics" have a lesson to learn from one of capitalism's greatest sources of durability.

I agree with the sentiment personally, but I'm not sure that this was the primary problem with movements on the left in the past. I definitely wouldn't rank it above the ruinous internal rifts that partial association with the Soviet Union created within leftist movements; between the resulting schisms and the crippling of credibility with the public that still smothers the movement, that alone is almost an adequate explanation.

I also think there are examples where radical left parties with a relatively "extreme" level of social permissiveness ended up pushing otherwise potentially sympathetic working class people with developing anti-capitalist sentiments toward fascism instead.

And as a final "also also" note, I think it's fair to say that on some level there's a finite amount of political energy that can be put out there toward a set of objectives, so introducing genuinely left-wing economic politics to the US would probably also require a diminishing of emphasis on social politics, since that seems to be the only thing that the relative left has been running on for the last 60 years or so.

[wierd]

The "Associated with the soviet union" stigma is more to do with "Conservative aligned governments discovered an easy button to drive policy, and have been abusing the shit out of it" than anything else.

True communism is probably not achievable with existing humans without devolving into a USSR style dystopia.  That said, Euro-Socialism as it is currently practiced is NOT true communism, and is likely perfectly feasible to implement without that danger.

Baby steps humanity.  Baby steps.

[Reelya]

IDK. I personally know some older leftists who tell me that back in the day, anti-Soviet sentiment such as talk about gulags and the like was seen as being capitalist propaganda. So while the concepts were indeed not necessarily related, there were people on the left still holding that the USSR was in fact paradise.

So it may also sort of be revisionist to hold that the general left always knew that Stalin was a baddie. A lot of people seem to have dismissed the anti-Stalin stuff as being nonsense designed to scare people about the evils of socialism.

[wierd]

Oh sure, I agree.  Potemkin villages and the like were/are real things designed to cause that exact situation. "Look how awesome it is there!" et al.   The USSR is famous for this.


On the flipside, calling every kind of social welfare program 'COMMUNISM!!' (red menace kind) is the kind of "easy button" I was referring to.

[scriver]

I think the bigger problem is that you're creating what is really a "straw man" version of socialism, attributing a lot of negative stuff to it, then assuming that's what anyone who mentions socialism is talking about. First up, I'd argue that there are a bunch of opinions on the Left, and some of them are related to socialism, but not all of them. For example, identity politics, feminism etc, have nothing to do with socialism. The term Socialism represents a number of different (some of which are mutually exclusive) economic theories. This has nothing to do with whether you support identity politics, political correctness or any of the "isms" that are popular on the left.

The entire lesson of the global left collapsing in the 70s onwards was that a failure to recognize intersectionality is the death knell of the left. You can't keep reactionary views of society and demand liberation without entering into the weakness of hypocrisy. Only once those strains of thought were intertwined with older conceptions of socialism have we started to see recovery. There is no liberation from capitalism without liberation from patriarchy, and racism, and organized religion, and all other structures that the capitalist class most certainly have no problem accepting the patronage of. On this, socialists who do not accept "identity politics" have a lesson to learn from one of capitalism's greatest sources of durability.

The drift to "identity politics" of the kind we see today are a symptom of the abandonment of socialism and actual left-wing ideas in favour of right-wing, liberal, ideology. It is part of what is poisoning the left, not the cure for it. It divides when the entire point of solidarity is to be a whole.

The idea that it somehow automatically works in favour of progressive ideas is also ridiculous -- see for example the rushing of people to prevent criticism and debate extremist, far-right ideas simply because the holders of these ideas are Muslim or immigrants, or the reignition of the widespread antisemitism of the "left".

[Reelya]

The biggest problem is logical. If it's logical to support black power, muslim power etc, then the right are going to turn around and have white power, christian power etc, and it's not really sensible to then turn around, and tell them that those identities aren't allowed in the identity club. Whatever tools and language you come up with for identity politics for black groups will be co-opted by white groups, and similar with how MRAs mirror the language of feminists.

[McTraveller]

In the US, people fear "socialism" because it is viewed as "other people telling me what I can and can't buy or do."  Note this is not really different from the capitalist situation.  The capitalist situation feels different though, because the phrasing is "you can buy/do whatever you want so long as you can pay for it."  While the capitalist system may de facto reduce to other people controlling what can be purchased due to prices or regulatory capture or whatever, it's the veneer of choice that perpetuates it as appealing.

So summarize: One issue with "socialism" as viewed in the US is that it takes away choice.  The actual effect on choice is irrelevant: it's all about the perception.

When you factor in that in the US that personal choice is often lifted up as the highest ideal - even at the expense of helping your fellow human.  Even all the identity politics we are experiencing, and many of the other controversial topics - they all center around personal choice.  Contrast with US boogeyman China, whose population has comparatively little interest in personal choice/image but is all about national image - and it shows.

So it's actually interesting in my view that the US Left has the image of championing personal choice in social areas but has the image of eliminating (or merely limiting) personal choice when it comes to finances.  The left has that terrible dichotomy to resolve, I think, before it can really succeed.  It feels like "You can be your own person with your own views and make your own choices!  But you had better support giving your money and resources to these causes!"

To be fair, the US Right is not much better - it is more consistent, but it's not what I'd call better: "You should have these views! Therefore give your money and resources to these views!"

To be honest, I think both sides have missed the point. That's not really the spectrum on which we should be operating. We should be operating on a scale of how we treat our neighbors.  The scale I'd use is "Do I treat my neighbors as I want to be treated, or do I treat my neighbors according to how much they impact my personal profit?"  "Neighbor" here could be people or even just the environment or people on the other side of the planet.

There is a group in the US which has adopted "It's about personal profit" and they are at least honest about it.  The smallest group is the group that honestly operates on "Do unto others."  The most hypocritical is the group that says to do unto others but doesn't themselves do that.

[Rolan7]

The biggest problem is logical. If it's logical to support black power, muslim power etc, then the right are going to turn around and have white power, christian power etc, and it's not really sensible to then turn around, and tell them that those identities aren't allowed in the identity club. Whatever tools and language you come up with for identity politics for black groups will be co-opted by white groups, and similar with how MRAs mirror the language of feminists.

If it's logical to protect religious freedom (AKA the right to be Muslim, or atheist, or a sect of Christianity outside the "norm") then yes, the Right are going to push their personal religious dogmas as "religious freedom".  Trying to force creationism in schools, enshrine the 10 commandments, ban homosexuality, etc.  That's a painfully obvious false equivalency, though.  The Left isn't arguing for Shariah law, in fact we're arguing against it very strongly.  We're also arguing against the Christian equivalents of Shariah which have no name because they dominated our culture and legal system for so long.

Arguing for freedom != arguing for one ideology to "win".  Supporting minorities != making an ethnic state.
They *say* these are equivalent, but they're obviously lying, and resisting them does not somehow make their job easier.  They don't need "fuel" for their propaganda, they make up what they need with no qualms.

[Dunamisdeos]

Religion does not belong in politics. All there is to it. Nothing good ever comes of it.

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and all that. It's pretty clear that Jesus wanted his religion to be separate from politics. Bible is rife with other examples.

[PTTG??]

So it's actually interesting in my view that the US Left has the image of championing personal choice in social areas but has the image of eliminating (or merely limiting) personal choice when it comes to finances.  The left has that terrible dichotomy to resolve, I think, before it can really succeed.  It feels like "You can be your own person with your own views and make your own choices!  But you had better support giving your money and resources to these causes!"

"Financial liberty" is meaningless if it is so "free" that billionaires are free to decide for you what you have to spend your money on to survive.