-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Is there honestly a meaningful difference between AnCaps and American libertarians anyway (as opposed to the classical meaning of libertarian, as people might understand it in Europe)?
I'm admittedly fairly new to politics, but the way I see it, it seems that AnCaps are just American libertarians rebranding themselves as revolutionary heroes (hence the "anarchism" part). And I'm given to understand that pretty much every other strand of anarchism sees them as, to use ThoughtSlime's phrase, complete 'ding dongs'.
I'm admittedly fairly new to politics, but the way I see it, it seems that AnCaps are just American libertarians rebranding themselves as revolutionary heroes (hence the "anarchism" part). And I'm given to understand that pretty much every other strand of anarchism sees them as, to use ThoughtSlime's phrase, complete 'ding dongs'.
this is not my field at all but I once spoke to an academic who said he was AnCap - his reasoning was that AnCaps are completely focused on institutional arrangements whereas libertarians are focused on output of those arrangements.
That guy with his will to understand socialism is never coming back to this thread....
It's all fine and dandy that you come here and fish for a "socialist quote" that will support your Randian reading of HK, but the fact is that you specifically asked about socialist readings of the relation between HK protests and China. You did not get a single reading that supported your view on what constitutes socialism in China - in fact people in this thread also made it abundantly clear that there is a difference between the power-elites in HK and the protesters. But otoh framing the discussion the way you did seems like a coherently Randian thing to do..
edit: Your response to every post that tried to contribute to your understanding of socialism was that these were not in fact socialist or Marxist readings of China but, rather, 'politically correct' (I assume liberally inspired) readings of "China as an actual socialist state" - alternatively these reading were framed as "sophisms". You failed to give any coherent reproductions of how you come to the conclusion that the 'correct' reading of socialism is 'state capitalism' or socialism with state. ..
Last edited:
I'll first start by quoting the historian Niall Ferguson which sums up how I feel.
"The Upend of History: If you had told me 30 years ago America would be in another Cold War with another communist superpower by 2019 and socialism would be the height of fashion with young Americans, I would have directed you to a psychiatrist"
He then poses the question whose side are the US socialists on? This question is worth asking. He references Francis Fukuyama's essay "The end of History?" that posits the triumph of liberal democracy. Yet, here we are. Socialism is stronger than ever among the youth within the US. And China has overtaken Tibet, and is now eyeing Hong Kong.
It is succinct and ever pressing to debate these ideals. Why? Because China has grown into a dominating superpower whose gdp is projected to eclipse the US as early as 2030. https://fortune.com/2017/02/09/stud...he-u-s-as-worlds-largest-economy-before-2030/
This is frightening. Given the current news of what is occurring in Hong Kong. They are clinched, embattled with their superpower neighbor. And here we are not in dialogue on the USA's responses to China, by means of tariffs or a myriad of other topics, but arguing over whether China is even socialist to begin with. This is baffling to me.
Now at the beginning of this OT definitions are put forth. That's understandable. It is to help prevent this very back and forth.
Socialism is defined as "For the sake of common understanding, we will define socialism here as a system in which the workers collectively own the means of production. That's it. That means there could be markets or not."
Here is an opening paragraph on China's government. https://www.britannica.com/place/China/The-role-of-the-government
"China has been a socialist country since 1949, and, for nearly all of that time, the government has played a predominant role in the economy. In the industrial sector, for example, the state long owned outright nearly all of the firms producing China's manufacturing output. The proportion of overall industrial capacity controlled by the government has gradually declined, although heavy industries have remained largely state owned"
Well, the government of China owns most of the industries, including energy. And the private companies that operate within the country hold a strong allegiance to China. China even owns all land. China as previously noted, is also authoritarian. The significance being the very reason people like Ayn Rand argued against socialism. Control of the markets.
China is in an experiment. It is attempting to maintain an aspect of economic freedom within a capitalistic framework while also having rigid control over the market. It remains to be seen how this will develop.
Last edited:
Clearly he thought himself some manner of contrarian genius, but this screed is no less shot through with the hatred and misanthropy in common with the factions he hated.
You disagree with the evident fact that nazism isn't socialism?
And you once more dance around discussing the relation of Chinese workers to the means of production, except this time even more brazenly by refreshing your memory with the quoted definition.
I stand corrected on national socialism. I will edit that part.
I'm going to assume that your genuine interest in this thread's thoughts on the ongoing political revolution between protesters in Hong Kong and the government of China was not very genuine to begin with. This is not to say you area troll of some form, it simply indicates that the difference of what "genuine interest" means for me/you might be insurmountable and that your rejection of the Marxists' (in this thread) reading of socialism against your own (rather non-marxist) reading is such that valuable discussion might objectively be impossible.
We have the numbers, the wild and unhinged masses if you will ;)
My interests are genuine. I'm curious about Scandanavian socialism and if it would work in America. Our country is on a precipice.
While in college it was drilled into my head that socialism is the answer. Especially while studying Henry Giroux. But, of course like many here I continued my education as an autodidact and studied many conservatives.
I do plan, as of now, to vote for Bernie Sanders, but I still have many questions. But, it appears many people on this forum (not all) are not receptive towards any challenges to their beliefs.
Karl Marx began by studying economics and history. He began to see history as a struggle between classes. This has occurred since ancient Roman times. And, here we are. The US gap between the rich and poor is larger than ever. The Top 1 percent are sitting on ridiculous piles of cash. Most off shore. But, is this due to crony capitalism, governmental regulation, or the working classes inability to protest, and fight back.
"Scandinavian Socialism" is very much a misnomer that annoys me to no end. They're still very much based in a Capitalist political economy, and thus are by definition not Socialist countries. They just seem to be able to keep things a bit more under control than other countries. One might argue that they've not yet succumbed to Neo-Liberalism, and it's possible that they're actually on their way to implementing true Socialism through the slow process of legislative means.
Crony Capitalism is also a bit of a misnomer. That's just regular old Capitalism. It will always struggle against the chains that we place around it. There will always be lobbyists and other special interests seeking to remove regulations that might prevent their employers from maximising profit. They struggle and struggle and struggle, and spin the narrative until they find the right politician to mould. They use these same methods to weaken unions.
I personally believe we are going to approach a tipping point in my lifetime where Capitalism becomes completely unsustainable and collapses. Neo-Liberal governments are running out of methods to prop up the system while also keeping the working class just happy enough that they're complacent.
Crony Capitalism is also a bit of a misnomer. That's just regular old Capitalism. It will always struggle against the chains that we place around it. There will always be lobbyists and other special interests seeking to remove regulations that might prevent their employers from maximising profit. They struggle and struggle and struggle, and spin the narrative until they find the right politician to mould. They use these same methods to weaken unions.
I personally believe we are going to approach a tipping point in my lifetime where Capitalism becomes completely unsustainable and collapses. Neo-Liberal governments are running out of methods to prop up the system while also keeping the working class just happy enough that they're complacent.
The fact that regulatory capture is a well-established phenomenon within capitalism is the fundamental counter to the idea that capitalism as it exists today is "crony" in any way that it won't, over time, naturally become anyways.
It's just part and parcel of what the rich DO with their money. Lobby.
It's just part and parcel of what the rich DO with their money. Lobby.
I see and that is fine. Note, however, that Niall Ferguson - if he is to be taken as some authority on socialism as a concept (which I have my doubts) does not consider the Nordic countries (Scandinavia + Iceland + Finland) to be socialist countries - so he shares that with the socialists in this thread:
Also yes, crony capitalism is a misnomer - or when put forward as a way to defend 'true' capitalism as a system - sophism.
OP
OP
You're conflating workers owning the means of production with the Chinese government. Unless you think the Chinese government is actually democratically elected and workers actually control the means of production, it simply isn't the case that China is socialist. It's quite literally state capitalist.
Though I do love when a young socialist and Bernie supporters are touting Scandinavia social democracy
and right wingers and moderates respond "those are capitalist countries)
the obvious response back is
"ok can we change to be like them still capitalist but less shitty?"
and right wingers and moderates respond "those are capitalist countries)
the obvious response back is
"ok can we change to be like them still capitalist but less shitty?"
I'm going to read some journal articles. Been awhile since I've brushed up on Marxism anyway. Have to bust out the textbooks. But from what I've been reading so far, this whole argument is moot.
There is no agreed upon term for socialism. And your definition is far from finalized. There is a definition that states public ownership of the means of production. If you wanted to create an OT for socialism perhaps you shouldn't have defined it so narrowly, and left it more open. But I understand the need to have agreed upon definitions.
Never would have thought so many on this thread would define terms that I've used on college papers many a times with so many different interpretations. Guess britannica wasn't good enough for my defining of socialism. Fine, I'll dig deeper.
And crony capitalism. Someone said it's a misnomer. No, no it's not. It's clearly defined.
I'll post later. Maybe we can agree to disagree on the defining of China as socialist and move on.
Last edited:
I think you're missing something about "public". Public means, well, people. States are sometimes representative of the people and sometimes not, an authoritarian state is not "public" like a democratic state is. And even within democracies you have states where every vote counts and so-called zombie democracies where votes don't count at all and it's all for show.
I have no idea what you have read and consider Marxist - but it is more than enough to read Capital (1), Grundrisse and Critique of the Gotha program to get an understanding why these points are in fact not "moot"... It might be more in an objectivist tradition to read Marx directly and not bother with the simplification / mediations of textbooks...
Last edited:
OP
OP
No thanks. Socialism as a concept may predate Marx, but even then the basis of the idea was communal ownership. The state is not necessarily representative of the people. Marx has left such a gigantic impact on socialism that the vast majority of socialists agree that the basis of socialism is worker control of the means of production.
Now sometimes a socdem may argue differently, and we'll respect that if they can put forth a good argument about it. So far you haven't done that.
Perhaps you should read more socialist works.
Crony capitalism is a political term devised by capitalists to deflect blame from the fact that capitalism and the state are intertwined. And no, we are not going to agree to disagree on whether China is socialist or not. If you can make an actual argument about why China is socialist, do it. Dengists do it all the time, and other socialists argue with them in turn. But the basis of their argument is that the Chinese government is representative of the proletariat, hence even they are arguing that the workers own the means of production.
You can't make that argument, or refuse to do so, so you're tossing your hands up and blaming us for not accepting your incorrect ideas.
Here is one good journal article I just read through. Glanced over the parts with economic figures. Touches on both my points as well as yours for defining China as socialist vs state capitalism. It's still far from a prescribed definition. Anyone have any journal articles please do post. I like the authors aprroach of listing four precepts for understanding and describing socialism and not a strict definition as it is clearly debatable.
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.31.1.3
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.31.1.3
Last edited:
Only if you don't care what the shape of the state is. I get the impression your economic education was in the mainstream neoclassical mode. As far as they're concerned, there is no meaningful distinction between a state that is democratic and a state that is autocratic. All states are, by neoclassical definition, public.
We do differentiate between those two here for the very simple reason that we did not want to be a community of tankies.There are some vanguardists here (a few branches of socialism that says the proletariat will seize control of the state and through the state seize control of the MoP, then this vanguard party would transfer control of the MoP to the proletariat, historically, vanguard parties didn't get to this last step) but by and large we all reject authoritarian states that label themselves as socialists, going so far to call them not socialists.
Most of us here hail from democratic states or states that were once democratic and we more or less believe in democracy. I don't think there's a lot of us who want to sit around discussing the merits of authoritarianism.
Last edited:
Can I suggest that you first focus on the question what defines socialism in a socialist reading and then once done with that you can return to the question of China? If you are genuinely interested in undestanding socialist thought you should read thoughts by socialists - it can become very messy if you are not clear from which position the authors come in from. Marx is not a particularly hard read and I am sure you have the capacity to read Something like the Critique of the Gotha Programme.
Last edited:
Guess I wasn't as well prepared as I thought when I decided to venture forth into the red storm. Usually, I'm the one who finds myself bored to death while the other person prattles on endlessly.
I'll see what I can do. Understanding of course it is for my own self edification. I'm currently reading Nietzsches beyond good and evil. Perhaps I can Segue.
The main drive behind socialist ideas on Era comes from Americans—which desire reevaluating the conditions created by corporatism and the unmitigated lobbying by the wealthy, that seeks to disadvantage the individual.
Those same powers have continually demonstrated that profit > people, and there doesn't seem to be any indication that they will regulate.
It is within that context that this Socialism OT thread exists.
EDIT: And Let's just get this out of the way, perhaps some of you need academia to understand injustice. But a desire for better material conditions, compassion, and justice doesn't come from an essay and it is not found in the halls of your university.
It's in the Heart. And maybe that Heart will take you into fancy rooms and meeting fancy people. It might make you write fantastic essays. But ultimately, it is in our sense of community where the Heart is felt the most.
PERIODT. Now we hug~
Those same powers have continually demonstrated that profit > people, and there doesn't seem to be any indication that they will regulate.
It is within that context that this Socialism OT thread exists.
EDIT: And Let's just get this out of the way, perhaps some of you need academia to understand injustice. But a desire for better material conditions, compassion, and justice doesn't come from an essay and it is not found in the halls of your university.
It's in the Heart. And maybe that Heart will take you into fancy rooms and meeting fancy people. It might make you write fantastic essays. But ultimately, it is in our sense of community where the Heart is felt the most.
PERIODT. Now we hug~
Last edited:
And if you do not have that capacity, or only read socialist thought as mediated by non-socialists, you could read something like this - as it is also Oxford defined: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/vie...90695545.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190695545-e-50
Have friends asking for socialist youtube recommendations but beyond Richard Wolff I don't have any serious suggestions. Not counting Hbomberguy and contrapoints. Anyone got any suggestions?
I have the capacity, and then some if ya know what I mean....
For what purpose? David Harvey has some excellent videos on translating Marx into modern conditions: https://www.youtube.com/user/readingcapital or are you looking for entry-level stuff?
Yeah. Personally I mainly stick to audio books but I've got a Norwegian friend that mostly only shares communist twitter memes and proclaims "seize the means of production!" while drunk (which happens often as she's a bartender). She asked for some more in depth youtube channels and I came up short.
OP
OP
Brendanmcooney's Law of Value series
I see. Verso also has some interesting socialist inserts on a variety of topics; https://www.youtube.com/user/VersoBooks although Harvey's stuff should serve the needs described.
Lol browsing the channel, why had no one posted this vid on Era before (also relates to the question of what an AnCap dream society is):
Certainly applicable for me and the socialist friends I've made. Our turn from capitalism hasn't been marked by this or that book, or this or that public speaker, but by our shared experiences in the world. The literature, theory, and discussion in places like this one has presented a real articulation of what we know intimately from our lives, that of dispossessed and alienated workers, poisoned land and water, blind corporate masters stumbling blindly while the unappreciated labor holds the world together against capitalism's contradictions, and the failure of the technocratic geniuses to see off disaster after disaster.
Same here. The turn from capitalism is more of a natural consequence of your train of thought if you value empathy and compassion while having no qualms criticizing the status quo.
I may be in transition... maybe not. I might need to cozy up to actual literature, but I'm allergic to reading. I'm allergic to most things I used to enjoy when I was younger, once I became more embittered and depressed in life. My brain doesn't secrete the same chemical reward that used to drive my curiosity and artistic drive.
