1. Post #41
    Awesome Member
    Dennab
    January 2006
    40,350 Posts
    Social ownership can also include state ownership
    if you want to call it socialist based on that notion, you'd have to call feudalism socialist as well. NK is far from democratic so it can't be argued that there is any social ownership.

    There isn't private ownership of the means of production. No one said anything about personal property (i.e. your clothes, other items)
    socialism is different from communism in that a socialist economy can still have a private sector. means of production doesn't always extend to every possible sector of the economy.

    Edited:

    There isn't private property in a socialist system. There can be personal property, but there is no private property. That's why countries like Sweden can't be classified as socialist, because they still have private companies and private property.
    confusing communism and socialism. communism is the one that attempts to establish a class-less and state-less society without a capitalist bourgeois.


    No it isn't. The State is, in theory, the collective of workers in Socialism. Socialism is not an inherently stateless society like Communism.
    NK isn't a theoretical state. functionally it doesn't represent the collective of workers in any way. lack of capitalism does not equal socialism.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  2. Post #42
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    if you want to call it socialist based on that notion, you'd have to call feudalism socialist as well. NK is far from democratic so it can't be argued that there is any social ownership.
    Feudalism is actually fairly close to socialism. They are both collectivist societies. The main difference lies in how centralized the system is.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 5 (list)

  3. Post #43
    Awesome Member
    Dennab
    January 2006
    40,350 Posts
    Feudalism is actually fairly close to socialism. They are both collectivist societies. The main difference lies in how centralized the system is.
    feudalism is not and never was collectivist. feudalism was profit-motivated and completely based on classes and hierarchies.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 6 (list)

  4. Post #44
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    feudalism is not and never was collectivist. feudalism was profit-motivated and completely based on classes and hierarchies.
    It wasn't profit motivated at all. I don't know what history books you've read, but Feudalism was incredibly collectivized. Money was hardly ever even used in a Feudal system.

    Edited:

    Farms were a collective of "free men" who swore an oath to the land. The food was given to the lord and rationed out to collective society. How is this not collectivist?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  5. Post #45
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,779 Posts
    It wasn't profit motivated at all. I don't know what history books you've read, but Feudalism was incredibly collectivized. Money was hardly ever even used in a Feudal system.

    Edited:

    Farms were a collective of "free men" who swore an oath to the land. The food was given to the lord and rationed out to collective society. How is this not collectivist?
    I don't see how serfdom equates to free-men swearing an oath to the land
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Australia Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  6. Post #46
    I make sexist and racist jokes all the time yet,i still support the feminist movement and the rights of blacks.
    znk666's Avatar
    July 2010
    5,535 Posts
    When did I ever say anything like that? Extremists are never good, doesn't matter what it's about.
    They're not Communists are they?
    Though i disagree with you,left extremists are sometimes a good option.

  7. Post #47
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    I don't see how serfdom equates to free-men swearing an oath to the land
    That's how serfdom worked. It was a continuation of a Roman system. I say Free Men because that was their official name under Roman Law. They swore an oath to work the land, and for each of their descendents to work the land in perpetuity.

  8. Post #48
    Gold Member
    Janus Vesta's Avatar
    May 2007
    12,575 Posts
    It wasn't profit motivated at all. I don't know what history books you've read, but Feudalism was incredibly collectivized. Money was hardly ever even used in a Feudal system.

    Edited:

    Farms were a collective of "free men" who swore an oath to the land. The food was given to the lord and rationed out to collective society. How is this not collectivist?
    It's not collectivist because people declared fealty to the king/lord, not the land. You paid taxes and had to join his army if he went to war and then you had to provide for yourself. They didn't ration food out "to collective society", you got rations based on your station. "Not a knight? Well fuck you I need them to fight my enemies."

    Life as a serf was like being a slave who wasn't beaten all the time.

  9. Post #49
    Awesome Member
    Dennab
    January 2006
    40,350 Posts
    It wasn't profit motivated at all. I don't know what history books you've read, but Feudalism was incredibly collectivized. Money was hardly ever even used in a Feudal system.

    Farms were a collective of "free men" who swore an oath to the land. The food was given to the lord and rationed out to collective society. How is this not collectivist?
    nope, collectivism refers to the dependence of all man within the system and creating social and government structures based on that notion.

    if we take the idea that you needed serfs ran by lords who take food as payment and call that collectivist, then we'd also have to take the idea that you need employees ran by a boss who take money as payment (IE capitalist) and call that collectivist.

    you're confusing a whole bunch of different ideologies with the inherent concept that exists in socialism. socialism stresses common ownership of the means of production, feudalism has ownership by lords who amass capital.


    I don't know what history books you've read
    if Noble is free to take whatever insane thing the Austrian school came up with as fact, i should be free to use Marx's historical theory.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  10. Post #50
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,779 Posts
    That's how serfdom worked. It was a continuation of a Roman system. I say Free Men because that was their official name under Roman Law. They swore an oath to work the land, and for each of their descendents to work the land in perpetuity.
    Ah, my misunderstanding

  11. Post #51
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    It's not collectivist because people declared fealty to the king/lord, not the land. You paid taxes and had to join his army if he went to war and then you had to provide for yourself. They didn't ration food out "to collective society", you got rations based on your station. "Not a knight? Well fuck you I need them to fight my enemies."

    Life as a serf was like being a slave who wasn't beaten all the time.
    Life in Socialist North Korea is akin to being a slave as well. Slavery and Collectivism are not mutually exclusive.

    Also, you DID swear fealty to the land. It didn't matter who owned the estate, you were sworn by honor to work it. It was Barons, Counts, and Dukes who swore fealty to individuals.

  12. Post #52
    Awesome Member
    Dennab
    January 2006
    40,350 Posts
    Life in Socialist North Korea is akin to being a slave as well. Slavery and Collectivism are not mutually exclusive.
    what?? slavery is a proto-capitalist concept. human capital amassed and sold.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 7Disagree Disagree x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  13. Post #53
    Dennab
    June 2011
    2,108 Posts
    semantics: the thread
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 4Funny Funny x 2 (list)

  14. Post #54
    I make sexist and racist jokes all the time yet,i still support the feminist movement and the rights of blacks.
    znk666's Avatar
    July 2010
    5,535 Posts
    Life in Socialist North Korea is akin to being a slave as well. Slavery and Collectivism are not mutually exclusive.
    You're talking about capitalism here.

  15. Post #55
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    You're talking about capitalism here.
    I don't get it. What's capitalist?

  16. Post #56
    Gold Member
    [Seed Eater]'s Avatar
    July 2011
    5,811 Posts
    You're all incorrect.

    Canada is partially social democratic. The Nordic countries and much of Europe are social democratic. The difference between a social democracy and socialism is that socialists want one of two things:

    To see industry and wealth nationalized and planned under a government representative of the proletariat (i.e. Hugo Chavez)

    or

    To see industry in the control of workers. (i.e. the I.W.W.)(This is the preferred version for communism after the abolition of the state).

    (Socialism as a term is interchangeable with communism. Today we see these as separate political trends, but the meaning of the term is the same, originally: that of the second meaning. for the most part I'll say which meaning I'm using).

    A social democracy, on the other hand, wishes to see progressive values and greater state control in a capitalist system, a welfare state. This is not socialism nor has it ever been, but it is derived from Marxism.

    The French Socialists are reformist socialists acting as social democrats, while the Left Front are socialists of the first variety.

    That being said, feudalism is nothing like socialism or communism- feudalism was a system of hierarchical social structure and classism, characterized by lack of industry and primitive economies based on servitude and property ownerships. Socialism is characteristic of common ownership of property, abolition of a vertical hierarchical social structure, and worker means of production. The only thing at all in common would be the autonomy aspect- but in feudalism that autonomy was based on the lack of a real state and only for those who controlled, while in socialism and communism that's based on democratic rule of the masses. It's like comparing socialism and capitalism and attempting to say that they're similar because they both make use of democracy, when in reality the users of democracy and its uses are totally different.

    That being said, collectivism has about as much to do with communism as a republic does with capitalism- that is, nothing, they only go hand in hand because of their history and earlier theory. You can have socialism without collectivism and collectivism without socialism. In fact, we saw this during the reign of Mr. Stalin and today in upper Korea.

    Edited:

    I don't get it. What's capitalist?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformed_workers_state

    All forms of the former socialist definition are, by proponents of the latter, state capitalism.

  17. Post #57
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    The PRC is state capitalist. North Korea is NOT state capitalist.

  18. Post #58
    Gold Member
    [Seed Eater]'s Avatar
    July 2011
    5,811 Posts
    The PRC is state capitalist. North Korea is NOT state capitalist.
    By the definition of state capitalism as per Trotskyism and Left Communism, yes, they are. State capitalism is any form of state whereby the state, and not the workers, hold the means of production. That is, nationalizing of industry is state capitalism, no matter the economic form. In its earliest usage, this specifically targeted the USSR, and extended to China, Vietnam, North Korea, and even Venezuela and Cuba today.

  19. Post #59
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    By the definition of state capitalism as per Trotskyism and Left Communism, yes, they are. State capitalism is any form of state whereby the state, and not the workers, hold the means of production. That is, nationalizing of industry is state capitalism, no matter the economic form. In its earliest usage, this specifically targeted the USSR, and extended to China, Vietnam, North Korea, and even Venezuela and Cuba today.
    State capitalism refers to a state that operates in a capitalist way.

  20. Post #60
    I make sexist and racist jokes all the time yet,i still support the feminist movement and the rights of blacks.
    znk666's Avatar
    July 2010
    5,535 Posts
    I don't get it. What's capitalist?
    It's ''voluntary'' enslavement,workers are owned and their lives depend on their wages.
    Allowing anyone to live in poverty or die of hunger is disgusting.

    Edited:

    The PRC is state capitalist. North Korea is NOT state capitalist.
    http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=205

    Edited:

    State capitalism refers to a state that operates in a capitalist way.
    No,it means that the state directly owns profit based enterprises.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Slovakia Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  21. Post #61
    Gold Member
    [Seed Eater]'s Avatar
    July 2011
    5,811 Posts
    State capitalism refers to a state that operates in a capitalist way.
    The very original usage itself says it right out:

    The term itself was in use within the socialist movement from the late 19th century onwards. Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1896 said: "Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism!"
    State socialism according left communism and most social revolutionary movements is state control of the means of production so as to generate profit. It is control of the means of production by the state rather than the bourgeois.

    The only difference between the Chinese and Societ/Korean economic model is that China is open to trade and makes less use of collectivism- all else is the same in the methodology. It's comparing America to France- while there are notable differences, the actual functioning is the same. State capitalism, by proponents of the latter-variety of socialism, is equivalent to nationalization, and the former-variety socialism.

  22. Post #62
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    Also, are we going to use Trotsky's definitions of socialism or are we just going to cite any intellectual on the matter because different people have different definitions.

    Edited:

    The very original usage itself says it right out:



    State socialism according left communism and most social revolutionary movements is state control of the means of production so as to generate profit. It is control of the means of production by the state rather than the bourgeois.

    The only difference between the Chinese and Societ/Korean economic model is that China is open to trade and makes less use of collectivism- all else is the same in the methodology. It's comparing America to France- while there are notable differences, the actual functioning is the same. State capitalism, by proponents of the latter-variety of socialism, is equivalent to nationalization, and the former-variety socialism.
    That's one person's definition damnit.

    Are we going to do this like scrabble where we all have to use the same dictionary or what?

  23. Post #63
    Gold Member
    [Seed Eater]'s Avatar
    July 2011
    5,811 Posts
    Also, are we going to use Trotsky's definitions of socialism or are we just going to cite any intellectual on the matter because different people have different definitions.
    Considering that Trotsky and left communists have similar definitions in this case, I used both, as I made clear with "according left communism and most social revolutionary movements". My entire point is that "State capitalism, by proponents of the latter-variety of socialism, is equivalent to nationalization, and the former-variety socialism." And guess what? That's what matters when we're talking about social revolutionary thought. We aren't going to use the Adams definition of whatever when he's talking in relation to capitalism, we're going to use the social revolutionary terms in relation to topics of social revolution.

  24. Post #64
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    It's ''voluntary'' enslavement,workers are owned and their lives depend on their wages.
    Allowing anyone to live in poverty or die of hunger is disgusting.
    Millions of people died from starvation as a result of communist nations' failures at creating a planned economy. Capitalism allocates resources better, and through voluntary means that maximize individual liberties.

    In free market capitalism companies would compete for labor, driving wages and working conditions up. The workers would also have the freedom to start businesses based on unique and innovative ideas.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 2 (list)

  25. Post #65
    Gold Member
    [Seed Eater]'s Avatar
    July 2011
    5,811 Posts
    Also, are we going to use Trotsky's definitions of socialism or are we just going to cite any intellectual on the matter because different people have different definitions.

    Edited:



    That's one person's definition damnit.

    Are we going to do this like scrabble where we all have to use the same dictionary or what?
    Alright, let me be clear because my first post wasn't, apparently.

    When you're talking leftism, EVERYTHING has multiple definitions because EVERYTHING has thirty goddam ideas and trends and theories and they all mean different things. Socialism means A, but it means B, and yet is is actually state capitalism, and it's nationalism, yet B is also communism, yet it's not socialism in the form of A, and so on.

    I chose to adhere to both the definition that I believe in per my ideology, as well as the one that is shared by the largest chunk of revolutionary thought.

  26. Post #66
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    Alright, let me be clear because my first post wasn't, apparently.

    When you're talking leftism, EVERYTHING has multiple definitions because EVERYTHING has thirty goddam ideas and trends and theories and they all mean different things. Socialism means A, but it means B, and yet is is actually state capitalism, and it's nationalism, yet B is also communism, yet it's not socialism in the form of A, and so on.

    I chose to adhere to both the definition that I believe in per my ideology, as well as the one that is shared by the largest chunk of revolutionary thought.
    As long as you acknowledge that the definition is maleable and arguable then that's fair.

  27. Post #67
    Gold Member
    [Seed Eater]'s Avatar
    July 2011
    5,811 Posts
    Millions of people died from starvation as a result of communist nations' failures at creating a planned economy. Capitalism allocates resources better, and through voluntary means that maximize individual liberties.

    In free market capitalism companies would compete for labor, driving wages and working conditions up. The workers would also have the freedom to start businesses based on unique and innovative ideas.
    Yes, but in free market communism, they have the same.

    This is what this entire state capitalism issue is over. A planned economy is socialism of the first variety- nationalised industry and arguably state capitalism. The second variety is free market socialism, and arguably the original and intended meaning, but definitely the economic ideal for communism.

  28. Post #68
    Governor Goblin's Avatar
    December 2011
    2,782 Posts
    Socialism stands for reduced freedoms, reduced productivity, reduced choices, reduced progress, and the state controlling your life.
    Noble makes a stupid post about something he doesn't know - In other news, the sky is blue.

    Edited:

    Actually, North Korea is as close to a socialist dystopia as possible.
    There is literally barely anything socialist about North Korea.

    Edited:

    I'm not a republican
    Nobel, you always say this but every post you make proves otherwise.

    You may not be a Republican, but you're sure as shit an apologist for them.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista Canada Show Events Zing Zing x 1 (list)

  29. Post #69
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    I'm all ears Governor Goblin, please tell me exactly what socialism is, and what countries fall into the criteria of socialist.

    I'm tired of everyone saying "well this isn't socialist!" because I have no idea what your definition is.

  30. Post #70
    I make sexist and racist jokes all the time yet,i still support the feminist movement and the rights of blacks.
    znk666's Avatar
    July 2010
    5,535 Posts
    I'm all ears Governor Goblin, please tell me exactly what socialism is, and what countries fall into the criteria of socialist.

    I'm tired of everyone saying "well this isn't socialist!" because I have no idea what your definition is.
    That the means of production,distribution and exchange has to be owned and governed by a community as a whole - not individuals.

    Technically there has never been such a system in practice,at least not the way i described it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Slovakia Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  31. Post #71
    Governor Goblin's Avatar
    December 2011
    2,782 Posts
    You're the one claiming it's socialist, boyo.

    YOU made the argument.

    It's a bit difficult to disprove a notion locked away inside your skull.

  32. Post #72
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    That the means of production,distribution and exchange has to be owned and governed by a community as a whole - not individuals.
    So a commune or prehistoric caveman society would be socialist.

    Not any modern nation.

    Edited:

    You're the one claiming it's socialist, boyo.

    YOU made the argument.

    It's a bit difficult to disprove a notion locked away inside your skull.
    You can't just say "it's not socialist" when I have no idea what the fuck you think socialist means.

    Edited:

    But I give you a B+ for deftly dodging my post.

  33. Post #73
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    Noble makes a stupid post about something he doesn't know - In other news, the sky is blue.
    haters gonna hate

    Nobel, you always say this but every post you make proves otherwise.

    You may not be a Republican, but you're sure as shit an apologist for them.
    My views are more in line with anarcho-capitalist philosophy, I don't associate myself with the GOP

  34. Post #74
    I make sexist and racist jokes all the time yet,i still support the feminist movement and the rights of blacks.
    znk666's Avatar
    July 2010
    5,535 Posts
    So a commune or prehistoric caveman society would be socialist.

    Not any modern nation.
    Not true,it can work and can be achieved if people weren't greedy capitalist bastards.




    You can't just say "it's not socialist" when I have no idea what the fuck you think socialist means.
    Well,no one knows your definition of socialism either...

  35. Post #75
    Governor Goblin's Avatar
    December 2011
    2,782 Posts
    You can't just say "it's not socialist" when I have no idea what the fuck you think socialist means.

    Edited:

    But I give you a B+ for deftly dodging my post.
    Clearly you've never heard the phrase "Burden of proof".

    You'd be a lot of fun in a court room.

    But you're right, I'm dodging the point, I'm purposely not using my mind reading device to see what you think a "socialist dystopia" is.

  36. Post #76
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    Not true,it can work and can be achieved if people weren't greedy capitalist bastards.
    It can work on small scales, but it's never been achieved on a large scale for an entire nation.

    Clearly you've never heard the phrase "Burden of proof".

    You'd be a lot of fun in a court room.

    But you're right, I'm dodging the point, I'm purposely not using my mind reading device to see what you think a "socialist dystopia" is.
    I've already said why it's a socialist dystopia.

    It's a socialist system that utterly failed. They try and provide for the general welfare of the population, but can't. The state is supposed to provide everything for the citizens but cannot.

    Burden of proof isn't on me. It's on you. So tell me, what definition of socialist are you using so we can argue that. Or are you just going to be a complete dunce, like always?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  37. Post #77
    I make sexist and racist jokes all the time yet,i still support the feminist movement and the rights of blacks.
    znk666's Avatar
    July 2010
    5,535 Posts
    It can work on small scales, but it's never been achieved on a large scale for an entire nation.


    Keep in mind that this system was never in practice so there's no way of telling whether or not it would work.

  38. Post #78
    Governor Goblin's Avatar
    December 2011
    2,782 Posts
    It can work on small scales, but it's never been achieved on a large scale for an entire nation.
    And your justification for that is?


    I've already said why it's a socialist dystopia.
    Ignoring the fact you basically just invented that label up, you're not really making a point.

    It's a socialist system that utterly failed. They try and provide for the general welfare of the population, but can't. The state is supposed to provide everything for the citizens but cannot.
    This may come as a shock to you, but when a country can't facilitate a system, it does not have that system in use.

    That's like me labelling myself rich, but I don't have the capability of being rich - Therefore I am not rich.

    I said it's not socialist now, and you just basically said mostly why.

    Burden of proof isn't on me. It's on you. So tell me, what definition of socialist are you using so we can argue that. Or are you just going to be a complete dunce, like always?
    I like how in the same sentence you call me a "dunce" (Who the fuck uses that?), you demonstrate you have absolutely no fucking clue what burden of proof means. YOU made the fucking claim, YOU prove it.

    stay classy. Your posts are a constant stream of arguing the most asinine and completely retarded points humanly possible.

  39. Post #79
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    Keep in mind that this system was never in practice so there's no way of telling whether or not it would work.
    It's been attempted in the USSR, Venezuela, and China, but failed miserably.

  40. Post #80
    Governor Goblin's Avatar
    December 2011
    2,782 Posts
    It's been attempted in the USSR, Venezuela, and China, but failed miserably.
    No it wasn't. The system he just described was not tried in any of those countries.

    A Stalinist style system that's basically a mutated version of communism but isn't actually communism, or could be considered as, was tried.

    Edited:

    Even then, even if you want to bullshit and say that the idea or concept was to be employed, the fact it failed has nothing to do with anything.