Socialism Discussion Thread

[Mekanos]

I mean liberals want to take their liberty to such extrems so that nobody can enforce anything on them and their wealth, which would also mean their power.
That's why they are against any laws that protects the weak, the unfortunate and are against any taxes that would regulate them and help others that are poorer. While constantly upholding the lie, that everyone can get rich like them, even tho they got wealthy because they either participated on a scam or inherited it.

I would say that specifically a critical component of liberalism is the appearance of fairness. You will have liberal politicians give lip service to taxing the wealth, combating climate change, and alleviating poverty, but their primary goal first and foremost is to foster growth for capital. Bourgeois liberal democracies function primarily for, well, the bourgeoisie. The state apparatus, the police, the military, all exist first and foremost to protect private property and enrich corporations. Everything else is secondary. During the era of Keynesian economics there was an attempt at a balancing act, but even now the beloved social democracies like Sweden have become neoliberalized over the last few decades as a result of unchecked global expansion in the imperial core (much of this I would posit as a reaction to the fall of the Soviet Union as governments no longer felt they had to offer an "alternative" to communism). The appearance of being progressive and fair is critical to the core contradictions of liberalism, which upholds capitalism, an economic system that necessitates exploitation.

The original pitch of liberalism is that the state exists to mediate conflict and protect basic rights, while not interfering with liberty and prosperity. As corporations expanded significantly though around the globe it's become impossible to uphold that because capital must continue to grow at the expense of others. It just finds a way to push the ugliness away from the public eye, like using prisoners as slave labor (the perception being that the prisoners violated the social contract so what happens to them after imprisonment is irrelevant) or blurring the line between colonization and occupation of foreign countries.

Liberalism's key role is making capitalism palpable to the average person - freedom, liberty, democracy. Without it you would just get naked fascism.

 

[Jarmusch]

The funny stuff with neo liberals is that even adam smith and ricardo would be comfortably to their left. They were very aware of the inherent conflicts and problems of the capitalist system. Its just funny to me that even supposedly center left parties take more or as much from hayek and friedman than from the fathers of their own ideology.

And thats why their time is over, no matter the perception and why political polarization will only grow wider. Even the most vile chuds are a victim of the system, without knowing or understanding its material and social causes/implications.

Its a system designed to have winners and losers and the majority lost

 

[Fodder Aplenty]

Hey I’m anti capitalist, does that make me a socialist?

 

[Jarmusch]

Hey I’m anti capitalist, does that make me a socialist?

not necessarily, no.

 

[Fireblend]

I joke about it all the time but I feel like the pandemic has truly radicalized me lol, in my youth as a CS student I looked up to Silicon Valley, technology as progress, "everyone should learn how to code" line of thinking as the solution, and generally my views have fallen on the "socially progressive" side of things, but staying at home, looking at how the world handled the pandemic, what those companies focused on, and then reading up and listening about not only ideological theory but also the way technology intersects with politics (I'm involved in data analytics, a truly cursed area in that respect), how those companies emerged, how they veil their aspirations, etc. has turned me into much more of a leftist.

 

[Oheao]

Hey I’m anti capitalist, does that make me a socialist?

Well you could be a feudalist.

 

[dpt120]

Hey I’m anti capitalist, does that make me a socialist?

No, you could be an anarchist

 

[Randinva]

right = bad, left = good

you're welcome

Seriously, i really cant help you cause i got my political education by praxis (personal experience), curiosity and whatnot. It can take a lifetime to really understand different political theories in detail, but hopefully someone else here can help

I have also learned mostly through praxis, which is why I started to read about the ideologies themselves (history, general explanation), since I read the wikipedia definition of left, which made sense, but the right definition was something like "authority and order" and then I was like then why is neoliberalism right? reading the book that was recommended to me explained what neoliberalism is (yikes), but then the definition of right as "authority and order" doesn´t really make sense, at least to me.

I have read some explain left as "progressive" and right as "conservative", but I find those definitions to be too general, so I prefer read about the ideologies themselves.

I am getting a clearer picture now, but since the book I am reading is from Spain, I want an english view too.

(The more I read though, I tend to think that the right and left way of defining politics to be bad for discussion, I would prefer just saying the ideology honestly.)

 

[Fodder Aplenty]

No, you could be an anarchist

not necessarily, no.

Well you could be a feudalist.

Hah, well I don’t think I’m a feudalist that’s for sure

 

[dpt120]

I have also learned mostly through praxis, which is why I started to read about the ideologies themselves (history, general explanation), since I read the wikipedia definition of left, which made sense, but the right definition was something like "authority and order" and then I was like then why is neoliberalism right? reading the book that was recommended to me explained what neoliberalism is (yikes), but then the definition of right as "authority and order" doesn´t really make sense, at least to me.

I have read some explain left as "progressive" and right as "conservative", but I find those definitions to be too general, so I prefer read about the ideologies themselves.

I am getting a clearer picture now, but since the book I am reading is from Spain, I want an english view too.

(The more I read though, I tend to think that the right and left way of defining politics to be bad for discussion, I would prefer just saying the ideology honestly.)

Neoliberalism promotes capitalism and is often championed by the right, hence why it's right. If you look at right wing policies and talking points, many are about authority and order (and controlling people)

 

[Jarmusch]

Neoliberalism promotes capitalism and is often championed by the right, hence why it's right. If you look at right wing policies and talking points, many are about authority and order (and controlling people)

Neoliberalism did start as a right wing ideology with pinochet, tatcher and reagan, etc.

What happened was that center left parties in the 90s decided to mix that right wing economic philosophy with mild leftist reforms that characterised those parties already. Things went wrong though and big capital began to be the real boss and influencer of state affairs, therefore the famed overton window was pushed towards the right.

Also, theres niche right wing positions like right wing libertarianism and anarcho capitalism, that are incoherent and crazy ideologies but well, they exist and dont promote social order and authority

 

[Randinva]

Neoliberalism promotes capitalism and is often championed by the right, hence why it's right. If you look at right wing policies and talking points, many are about authority and order (and controlling people)

I feel saying something is right because people on the right use it feels to me like saying nothing (sorry if this comes off as rude, I respect your opinion), why not criticize or define the ideology itself?

For example, economic liberalism (which is a less extreme version of neoliberalism I think?) supports the idea of goverment being a problem to its ideal (even though it helps to mantain it), that the market will regulate itself because of some "natural" laws (even though in practice monopolies will inevitably happen and recessions are inevitable too without goverment intervention.)

 

[Mekanos]

The funny stuff with neo liberals is that even adam smith and ricardo would be comfortably to their left. They were very aware of the inherent conflicts and problems of the capitalist system. Its just funny to me that even supposedly center left parties take more or as much from hayek and friedman than from the fathers of their own ideology.

And thats why their time is over, no matter the perception and why political polarization will only grow wider. Even the most vile chuds are a victim of the system, without knowing or understanding its material and social causes/implications.

Its a system designed to have winners and losers and the majority lost

 

[Azuran]

No, you could be an anarchist

While a lot of anarchists avoid calling themselves "socialists" for various reasons, mostly because the term has been historically tied up to Marxism and everything that came out of it, they're still socialists at its core. At the end of the day the foundation of the ideology is workers controlling the means of production. The methods differ but the goals are the same.

 

[Jarmusch]

loool love the " Photo of Mao Tse Tsung is unrelated"

While a lot of anarchists avoid calling themselves "socialists" for various reasons, mostly because the term has been historically tied up to Marxism and everything that came out of it, they're still socialists at its core. At the end of the day the foundation of the ideology is workers controlling the means of production. The methods differ but the goals are the same.

yes, most anarchists are nothing but libertarian socialists/communists that are against/dont believe in centralized power, as it perpetuates hierarchical structures, including the patriarchy, colonialism, etc.

Hi, im a socialist, a libertarian socialist, an anarchist

It sounds more confusing than it is eheh

 

[Ostia]

Hey I’m anti capitalist, does that make me a socialist?

No but it could if you explore that more. Simply the rejection of or opposition to capitalism isn’t enough to be considered socialist, because socialism is not simply the rejection of the capitalist system; it’s the adoption of a new system in which the means of production are owned by the workers, in which needs are provided for by society rather than exploited for profit, etc.

Does that describe your political ideology?

Edit: My understanding is that anarchists are generally considered socialists.

 

[Fodder Aplenty]

No but it could if you explore that more. Simply the rejection of or opposition to capitalism isn’t enough to be considered socialist, because socialism is not simply the rejection of the capitalist system; it’s the adoption of a new system in which the means of production are owned by the workers, in which needs are provided for by society rather than exploited for profit, etc.

Does that describe your political ideology?

Edit: My understanding is that anarchists are generally considered socialists.

Sounds like me!

 

[Costa]

Hey all! Glad to see several familiar faces here.

Don't think I ever really introduced myself much before but I've always been a lurker.

I've always considered myself "socialist," as an alternative to capitalism, but it wasn't until recent years when I've learned what it really means to be socialist. And of course there's plenty of theory to go around but I think I'm firmly in the ML camp and wanting to see the "dictatorship of the proletariat" happen in Western countries in my lifetime.

Looking forward to seeing this community evolve here and being a positive radicalizing force!

 

[Oheao]

Also, if anyone has any recommendations on how I can improve the OT, that would be greatly appreciated. I may try to work something up but I just kind of made it in a quick rush.