They’re just different names for the rich and powerful walking on the backs of the poor.
No that’s literally the name of capitalism, as capitalism refers to a system where socioeconomic power is primarily concentrated in the hands of a capitalist class, what you call “the rich and powerful.” Their power stems from their richness, and their richness stems from their private control over the means of production, and thus the ability to extract surplus value from the labor of others. As Smith put it, wealth is ultimately the ability to “command” the labor of others.
Even if you voted in Socialism here, it’d just be a new set of faces keeping you down while they drink champagne and fly around in private jets.
I mean, if they did, that’s not the fault of “socialism” but of a charlatan opportunist pretending to be one to trick the workers to enriching themselves.
This would be an equivalent fallacy to claiming that republicanism is equivalent to monarchism because some republican did not actually overthrow the monarchy but kept it in power while benefiting from it. That doesn’t prove that republicanism is a lost cause or equivalent to monarchism, only that the specific republican was a traitor to the cause.
Scarcity exists for a reason under every “ism”.
The existence of scarcity doesn’t imply that your society must be ruled by unelected oligarchs who rule at the expense of everyday working people. Genuinely I have no idea how you make that logical leap.
Please point out the example of a truly socialist or even communist society that wasn’t just cover for another oligarchy.
While you are technically correct about the definition there is no basis in reality for anything other than wealthy rule. The only revolution that even approached ending this was the Haitian. The rest are just the wealthy using people as pawns.
There is no such thing as “true socialism.” There is just “socialism.” “True” things, in their ideal form, don’t exist in the real world.
If you think a socialist society was just “another oligarchy,” then by definition it is not a socialist society, so your wording disallows me from citing anything at all, because you’ll just claim it wasn’t “true socialism.”
capitalism refers to a system where socioeconomic power is primarily concentrated in the hands of a capitalist class
No. Capitalism is a system where socioeconomic power can be sold and bought in the form of “capital”. It’s true that this inevitably leads to a concentration of power, as those with lots of capital can easily get the means to buy more capital while those with less capital need to slowly sell the little they have just to scrape by, but skipping that part and just saying “capitalism is about being evil” is unhelpful because then people will say “we’ll, I’m not advocating for just being evil for evil’s sake, I’m advocating for allowing free trade of capital”
I didn’t say capitalism is about being evil. You just blatantly lied about something I wrote, invented a false quote out of whole cloth, and are confusing a system with an individual action.
When you state, “Capitalism is a system where socioeconomic power can be sold and bought in the form of ‘capital’,” you are basically defining it as “a system where an individual can do X.” No, that phrase is itself incoherent, because systems are not defined by what individuals can do, they are defined by what the system actually does. That is to say, to be capitalist, then the defining characteristics of capital accumulation, i.e. commodity production and the extraction of surplus value by the capitalist class, has to be the dominant mode of production in that system, in the real, physical world.
You are using idealist definitions whereby a “system” is defined by what is written down on paper, and not what exists in real, physical reality. This is a flaw many liberals like yourself have: seeing things in terms of legislative ideas and not what physically exists. It is nonsensical to define a socioeconomic system in terms of potential individual actions allowed for on paper, but they instead have to be defined in terms of the real-world dominant structure of the system as it exists in reality.
Blatantly lying and claiming this topic somehow had anything to do with moralism" and calling someone “evil” doesn’t make your “definition” any more reasonable.
Your idealism stems from liberal philosophy in general. Liberals are historical idealists, they believe in human “free will” and if individual humans have free will, then surely, a collection of humans, i.e., society, has “free will,” and thus society has the “freedom” to choose whatever it wants to be, regardless of material circumstances. You thus have a hyperfocus on understanding systems based upon the ideas and ideals written down on paper by the people who run it, because that is ultimately seen as the determining factor for the whole system.
But that is not how Marxists see the world. Human societies are physical machines built in the real, physical world, built upon real material circumstances. These unconsciously dictate the structure of the basic structure of that socioeconomic system, and the legislation that is later enacted is only there as post-hoc rationalization for something that already, for the most part, pre-existed.
The aim of political economy, then, is to objectively study these physical structures as they arise, and to document them as they really exist in the real world. The ideals and morals of the leadership of a society in what they write down on paper or legislation or say in their speeches is not of primary concern. The primary concern is actual material system that exists in the real, material world.
I didn’t say capitalism is about being evil. You just blatantly lied about something I wrote, invented a false quote out of whole cloth, and are confusing a system with an individual action.
Quotation marks are not exclusively for repeating what the person you reply to wrote verbatim.
systems are not defined by what individuals can do, they are defined by what the system actually does.
You mean, systems except socialism. In socialism’s case, if the result turn out bad “that’s not the fault of “socialism” but of a charlatan opportunist pretending to be one to trick the workers to enriching themselves”[1]
That is to say, to be capitalist, then the defining characteristics of capital accumulation, i.e. commodity production and the extraction of surplus value by the capitalist class, has to be the dominant mode of production in that system, in the real, physical world.
A system is capitalistic the moment the accumulation is enabled - not just when the accumulation reaches some threshold.
You are using idealist definitions whereby a “system” is defined by what is written down on paper, and not what exists in real, physical reality. This is a flaw many liberals like yourself have: seeing things in terms of legislative ideas and not what physically exists. It is nonsensical to define a socioeconomic system in terms of potential individual actions allowed for on paper, but they instead have to be defined in terms of the real-world dominant structure of the system as it exists in reality.
This is not “what is written down on paper”[2] vs “what exists in real, physical reality”. This is about mechanics vs dynamics. POSIWID does not mean the mechanics are completely meaningless - it just means that the mechanics were designed to achieve the dynamics they achieve in practice.
Blatantly lying and claiming this topic somehow had anything to do with moralism" and calling someone “evil” doesn’t make your “definition” any more reasonable.
I did not call you “evil”. I said that defining an ideology by a bad outcome is akin to making “being evil” its definition.
Your idealism stems from liberal philosophy in general. Liberals are historical idealists, they believe in human “free will” and if individual humans have free will, then surely, a collection of humans, i.e., society, has “free will,” and thus society has the “freedom” to choose whatever it wants to be, regardless of material circumstances. You thus have a hyperfocus on understanding systems based upon the ideas and ideals written down on paper by the people who run it, because that is ultimately seen as the determining factor for the whole system.
Did you even read what I wrote? Specifically the part about how concentration of power is an inevitable outcome of all this freedom?
Quotation marks are not exclusively for repeating what the person you reply to wrote verbatim.
So quotation marks are used to blatantly lie and claim someone said what they did not?
You mean, systems except socialism. In socialism’s case, if the result turn out bad “that’s not the fault of “socialism” but of a charlatan opportunist pretending to be one to trick the workers to enriching themselves”
Funny how you again, say, “when the results turn out bad,” which is objectively something I never said, implied, of gave the air of an impression of. I gave a definition of a physical system in the real world, not a moral analysis, but you are so obsessed with moralism that you keep trying to inject moralism into everything.
You are professionally dishonest, obsessed with lying and misrepresenting everything stated, because you know a single ounce of honesty would reveal how laughable your position is. It is equivalent to arguing that if a republican movement fails to get rid of its monarch, then is proof republicanism is just a form of monarchy, and anyone who disagrees is a moralist saying “when bad things happen” or whatever.
I am sorry, but you are just obviously a troll baiting at this point.
I did not call you “evil”. I said that defining an ideology by a bad outcome is akin to making “being evil” its definition.
No one said anything about “good” or “bad” but you. You are just professionally dishonest.
Did you even read what I wrote? Specifically the part about how concentration of power is an inevitable outcome of all this freedom?
Concentration of power is indeed inevitable from limitless individual freedom. I did not refute that because I don’t disagree with it, and it is why capitalist societies always collapse into oligarchies, but socialist societies do not.
The rich don’t give up power easily, but they do steal words and concepts in order to undermine them and keep doing what they’ve always done. Your society never got rid of the rich and powerful, and you called it socialism anyway. That’s your problem.
Have you lived in a socialist or communist country? I have
Which country and what year?
Betting you’re about to make it obvious to everyone that your “experience with socialism” is gonna be experience with post-socialist Neoliberal shock therapy.
No that’s literally the name of capitalism, as capitalism refers to a system where socioeconomic power is primarily concentrated in the hands of a capitalist class, what you call “the rich and powerful.” Their power stems from their richness, and their richness stems from their private control over the means of production, and thus the ability to extract surplus value from the labor of others. As Smith put it, wealth is ultimately the ability to “command” the labor of others.
I mean, if they did, that’s not the fault of “socialism” but of a charlatan opportunist pretending to be one to trick the workers to enriching themselves.
This would be an equivalent fallacy to claiming that republicanism is equivalent to monarchism because some republican did not actually overthrow the monarchy but kept it in power while benefiting from it. That doesn’t prove that republicanism is a lost cause or equivalent to monarchism, only that the specific republican was a traitor to the cause.
The existence of scarcity doesn’t imply that your society must be ruled by unelected oligarchs who rule at the expense of everyday working people. Genuinely I have no idea how you make that logical leap.
Please point out the example of a truly socialist or even communist society that wasn’t just cover for another oligarchy.
While you are technically correct about the definition there is no basis in reality for anything other than wealthy rule. The only revolution that even approached ending this was the Haitian. The rest are just the wealthy using people as pawns.
There is no such thing as “true socialism.” There is just “socialism.” “True” things, in their ideal form, don’t exist in the real world.
If you think a socialist society was just “another oligarchy,” then by definition it is not a socialist society, so your wording disallows me from citing anything at all, because you’ll just claim it wasn’t “true socialism.”
China lifted 800 million people out of poverty in 40 years. 90% of Chinese adults own their own home.
China is not socialist or communist.
China is absolutely socialist, lol.
China is a Neofascist Oligarchy that formerly claimed communism and now claims some socialist policy.
Get lost with your bullshit.
You can believe whatever you want about it but it’s not gonna change reality, lmao.
It is not about belief, it is about definition.
Exactly, lmao.
No. Capitalism is a system where socioeconomic power can be sold and bought in the form of “capital”. It’s true that this inevitably leads to a concentration of power, as those with lots of capital can easily get the means to buy more capital while those with less capital need to slowly sell the little they have just to scrape by, but skipping that part and just saying “capitalism is about being evil” is unhelpful because then people will say “we’ll, I’m not advocating for just being evil for evil’s sake, I’m advocating for allowing free trade of capital”
I didn’t say capitalism is about being evil. You just blatantly lied about something I wrote, invented a false quote out of whole cloth, and are confusing a system with an individual action.
When you state, “Capitalism is a system where socioeconomic power can be sold and bought in the form of ‘capital’,” you are basically defining it as “a system where an individual can do X.” No, that phrase is itself incoherent, because systems are not defined by what individuals can do, they are defined by what the system actually does. That is to say, to be capitalist, then the defining characteristics of capital accumulation, i.e. commodity production and the extraction of surplus value by the capitalist class, has to be the dominant mode of production in that system, in the real, physical world.
You are using idealist definitions whereby a “system” is defined by what is written down on paper, and not what exists in real, physical reality. This is a flaw many liberals like yourself have: seeing things in terms of legislative ideas and not what physically exists. It is nonsensical to define a socioeconomic system in terms of potential individual actions allowed for on paper, but they instead have to be defined in terms of the real-world dominant structure of the system as it exists in reality.
Blatantly lying and claiming this topic somehow had anything to do with moralism" and calling someone “evil” doesn’t make your “definition” any more reasonable.
Your idealism stems from liberal philosophy in general. Liberals are historical idealists, they believe in human “free will” and if individual humans have free will, then surely, a collection of humans, i.e., society, has “free will,” and thus society has the “freedom” to choose whatever it wants to be, regardless of material circumstances. You thus have a hyperfocus on understanding systems based upon the ideas and ideals written down on paper by the people who run it, because that is ultimately seen as the determining factor for the whole system.
But that is not how Marxists see the world. Human societies are physical machines built in the real, physical world, built upon real material circumstances. These unconsciously dictate the structure of the basic structure of that socioeconomic system, and the legislation that is later enacted is only there as post-hoc rationalization for something that already, for the most part, pre-existed.
The aim of political economy, then, is to objectively study these physical structures as they arise, and to document them as they really exist in the real world. The ideals and morals of the leadership of a society in what they write down on paper or legislation or say in their speeches is not of primary concern. The primary concern is actual material system that exists in the real, material world.
Quotation marks are not exclusively for repeating what the person you reply to wrote verbatim.
You mean, systems except socialism. In socialism’s case, if the result turn out bad “that’s not the fault of “socialism” but of a charlatan opportunist pretending to be one to trick the workers to enriching themselves”[1]
A system is capitalistic the moment the accumulation is enabled - not just when the accumulation reaches some threshold.
This is not “what is written down on paper”[2] vs “what exists in real, physical reality”. This is about mechanics vs dynamics. POSIWID does not mean the mechanics are completely meaningless - it just means that the mechanics were designed to achieve the dynamics they achieve in practice.
I did not call you “evil”. I said that defining an ideology by a bad outcome is akin to making “being evil” its definition.
Did you even read what I wrote? Specifically the part about how concentration of power is an inevitable outcome of all this freedom?
And this time I do quote you verbatim. ↩︎
Here I am quoting you verbatim again. One indicator is that there is no other reason to put the quotation marks. ↩︎
So quotation marks are used to blatantly lie and claim someone said what they did not?
Funny how you again, say, “when the results turn out bad,” which is objectively something I never said, implied, of gave the air of an impression of. I gave a definition of a physical system in the real world, not a moral analysis, but you are so obsessed with moralism that you keep trying to inject moralism into everything.
You are professionally dishonest, obsessed with lying and misrepresenting everything stated, because you know a single ounce of honesty would reveal how laughable your position is. It is equivalent to arguing that if a republican movement fails to get rid of its monarch, then is proof republicanism is just a form of monarchy, and anyone who disagrees is a moralist saying “when bad things happen” or whatever.
I am sorry, but you are just obviously a troll baiting at this point.
No one said anything about “good” or “bad” but you. You are just professionally dishonest.
Concentration of power is indeed inevitable from limitless individual freedom. I did not refute that because I don’t disagree with it, and it is why capitalist societies always collapse into oligarchies, but socialist societies do not.
deleted by creator
The rich don’t give up power easily, but they do steal words and concepts in order to undermine them and keep doing what they’ve always done. Your society never got rid of the rich and powerful, and you called it socialism anyway. That’s your problem.
Yeah just like capitalism/merchant guilds didn’t actually boot out the aristocracy. It shook things up a bit, but they hung on by doing a rebrand.
deleted by creator
“Everyone who disagrees with me is not human”
I diagnose you with idealism, the (stupid) belief that reality is shaped by human consensus.
deleted by creator
Let me guess, you’re from Mexico and 15 years old, and want to tell me about the horrors of living under socialism.
deleted by creator
How many people did you murder?
deleted by creator
Oh you’re a veteran? Name every child you’ve raped.
deleted by creator
Which country and what year?
Betting you’re about to make it obvious to everyone that your “experience with socialism” is gonna be experience with post-socialist Neoliberal shock therapy.
deleted by creator
Sure you weren’t.
Ok, go ahead and tell us all about how the government controls everything in those socialist countries so we can have a good laugh.
deleted by creator
So the communist government had communist labor policy?
That’s the big boogey man?
deleted by creator