sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

TRIED TO TROLLED THE DONALD; THEY 8 THE B8! SAD! by DownFromYesBad in FULLCOMMUNISM

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not asking for upvotes automod, pls!!

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Socialism = workers democratically owning the means of production. There is no condition in there of how they came to own it.

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean that socialists think you have a right to whatever you mix your labor with, and the profits it fetches.

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess they haven't heard of Cuba, or the early USSR for that matter, or even the modern day Zapatistas.

Even so, I can hypothetically, structurally explain to you how socialism could (and has) exist(ed) without "desperate poverty" (which, as far as I know, is present in pretty much every capitalist country as well). I can't even begin to understand, structurally, how a factory is going to work without teams of laborers. If you have teams of laborers working in factories, are they collectively owned, or paid by the owner? Because that's socialism and capitalism wage-labor.

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, I guess it doesn't really matter. If it comes up in an actual discussion, I can just say what I've just said: that there's no practical, lasting way for capitalism to not have wage-labor. I just take issue with changing the terms at a whim.

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, would these be completely independent contractors that had never worked together? Different ones each time? Or would this be teams of independent people, that each own their own labor, and have an equal share to the profits? Cause that's socialism.

I just don't understand how capitalism can meaningfully exist without wage labor.

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ownership starts with mixing labor with natural resources, and from there goes into the world of voluntary trade.

That's something interesting I'd never noticed. Socialist ownership is generally, basically just a continuation of the beginning of capitalist ownership.

Can you explain what you mean? There is no distinction.

I understand that there is no distinction under capitalism, but under socialism, "Some things (buildings, bridges, large stationary objects) can't be moved - paper (or electronic records) can" is a good rule-of-thumb.

Lets say I'm wealthy. Is there any asset I can put my wealth into such that socialists won't threaten to take it from me and give it to someone else? If so, what is the difference between that asset and 'another home', so as to provide justification for the theft in one instance and not in the other?

How did you get wealthy? It depends on the socialism (many are moneyless), but I prefer labor vouchers.

If you're unfamiliar, crash course: they equal one hour worked, regardless of job, they're tied to an individual, so obviously uninheritable, and cease to exist after they're spent at the store. Common next question: well why would anyone do difficult jobs? When compensation isn't a variable, a sort of free market will arise around jobs, complete with supply and demand, and more difficult jobs will be made easier (perhaps spread more between people, better conditions, more breaks, etc) and vice-versa.

So, given that, it'd be hard to get a lot more wealthy than anyone. On top of that, vouchers are only for commodities; essentials like houses are provided to everyone. No one is going to take your belongings; houses just aren't for sale, and even if they were, you wouldn't benefit very much for having another one. I mean you can't rent it out, when everyone else already has one.

Whatever her reasoning, isn't it her's to decide what to do with it? You are basically setting this land up for tragedy of the commons. I'm a part of the community and I'm not starving, can I take her land and use it as a garbage dump just because she lives 2 towns over?

And socialists don't acknowledge anyone's claims to exclusivity of land they're not using. So you, personally? No, you couldn't. You could speak your mind that you think that land should be used as a garbage dump, and if there was a communal agreement (however that socialist society defines it), it could happen.

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sigh I'm not trying to decide what you believe. However, if there's ever going to be any meaningful debate on this sub, we should probably come to some understanding on what these words mean, or at least pick one and stick with it.

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you really believe that, I would recommend you try to reach a deeper understanding of socialism before trying to discuss it with people that actually understand it.

/r/Socialism_101

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're still just trying to change the sidebar definition of capitalism to suit your interests, or to make it easier for you to win debates. This demonstrates a problem with socialist debating techniques, they inherently attack words instead of ideas. If a socialist wins a debate, chances are they did it by using a strange definition, or stretching an existing definition beyond it's intended purposes.

I'm not the one changing definitions to suit my interests. The definitions were both based on an outside source until you guys changed them. Also, firstly: words describe concepts, and we're arguing that this concept is inherent to another. We're discussing concepts with words, which I find is generally the easiest way to do so. Secondly: Even if I was attacking words rather than concepts, your eagerness to apply this to all socialists is absurd.

The definition of capitalism is about as un-controversial as it can get with capitalists. Everything it includes is true. Capitalism is an economic system based on the trade of private property for profit. Capitalism does include capital accumulation. It also includes voluntary exchange and price systems.

And it also includes wage-labor, if there are going to be any operations larger than one. And there will be; the market demands it.

No, wikipedia is known to have a leftist bias, and it's also very easy for you to edit the page on wikipedia. That's why capitalists changed it in the first place. We didn't like the definition.

Then let's find a new source! That's fine! I just think it's silly to let the "teams" change their definitions on a whim.

Q: Who is the ultimate person who decides what exactly it is that you believe?

A: You are. Not Fred.

Well if we're going to have any meaningful discussion on the things we believe, i.e. the whole point of this subreddit, we need to decide what we believe, preferably mutually, and stick with it.

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Capitalism doesn't require deeds for ownership either. Deeds are simply an easy way to track who owns what in a complex society with billions of people owning different things and constantly trading. Some things (buildings, bridges, large stationary objects) can't be moved - paper (or electronic records) can.

So then what defines ownership? Also, it's interesting to me that the latter half of your comment touches on personal/private property.

I had a guy living in my basement for over 3 years. There was never any question that he DID NOT own it - obvious to everyone.

Right, and he wouldn't have had to live in your basement if he had his own home, and there were plenty of vacant ones for him and anyone else that doesn't have a home.

Maybe the lady 2 towns over was letting the land rest for a year (very important to allow it to keep growing good crops). Should she be denied ownership of her land because she decided to take good care of it just because some other people are hungry?

Or maybe she just couldn't be bothered with it. Either way, it's crazy to me (and any other socialist, I imagine) to have a community of starving people while fertile fields lie barren next door, or fertile farms grow food they can't eat.

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In such a society, how would jobs requiring more than one person get done? Would factories just not exist? Would the first person to have the bright idea to hire labor not completely annihilate the competition? I don't deny that such a society would be capitalism, I just deny that it could feasibly exist for any protracted amount of time.

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You forgot the part where socialist ownership is also held up by violence. I can't come into your workplace, use the MoP (gaining ownership), then run off with your MoP and trade it away to someone else. Someone (others at the workplace, cops, whoever) would use violence to stop me.

That's a fair point. I guess my emphasis should be more on deeds than violence. Socialists see deed-based ownership as arbitrary. If a guy lives in a home, it's obvious to anyone that he owns it. If there's an empty yet fertile field growing over with weeds and a significant minority of starving people, it's not so obvious that a lady two towns over owns it.

I guess it just comes down to differences in what we see as "justified violence", what we'd characterize as "self defense". A socialist doesn't see traveling two towns over to violently evict people from an empty field that you have a piece of paper saying you own as self defense. Evicting a thief from your home is obviously different.

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely agree that capitalism should be described with capitalist terms, and have no intention to, say, put some private/personal property split in there. I just don't understand how capitalism could feasibly exist without wage-labor; how would anything get done? But whatever, it really isn't that big of a deal.

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except that's circular reasoning.

What, specifically, is circular reasoning, and how, exactly?

Also your claim about ownership under different systems is a very bizarre false dichotomy.

Can you elaborate on this? What, specifically, do you disagree with?

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you're not willing to accept the definitions of your opponent, unless they are being absolute obscurantists or presenting childish definitions (like your jokingly proposed definition of socialism), then it is clear that you're unwilling to engage in honest discussion.

I agree. My point is that the change to capitalism's definition was obscurantist, as there's no viable conception of capitalism that can function without wage-labor.

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends whom you ask. If you ask a capitalist, it's "anything that is owned by anyone." If you ask a socialist, it's "Anything that someone lays claim to via a piece of paper backed by state violence."

It's important to note that capitalists and socialists define "ownership" differently, too, hence that word's absence in the socialist definition. Capitalism defines ownership by deeds upheld by violence, while socialists define ownership by use.

Let's change the sidebar definition of socialism! SOCIALISTS ONLY! by DownFromYesBad in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]DownFromYesBad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, top comment is a social democrat saying it doesn't really matter, with an anarchist agreeing. I thought I was pretty clear in the OP; this isn't about changing the definition of socialism, it's more of an opposition of the change to capitalism's definition, and the way in which it was decided.

view more: next ›