Is It Ethical To Use Amazon?

[Left Coast]

It may. But that does not mean that social control means the same thing as state control. It doesn't just mean that ANY state put in control of the means of production can necessarily be called socialist.

When over and over again socialists enact policies in which government takes control of the means of production, I don't think it's unreasonable to pair the two.

And yet you would agree that not all of these governments genuinely DID represent the people, and if we accept the definition of socialism as "social control" it cannot reasonably be said that a government that acts in spite of - or in direct contradiction to - the will of the people is "socialist". At the very least, adherence to basic democratic principles is necessary in socialism.

But this is entirely the problem and the point I've been making. Socialism is an ideal that says one thing on paper, but then those ideals don't translate to reality when socialists actually gain power and implement policy. What actually happens in reality is authoritarian government. You can claim that all those attempts are "not real socialism," but then you have to admit that it seems your ideals, while they seem nice, are not workable.

You already agreed that the "democratic elections" weren't democratic in your examples:

"Socialist countries also have a long history of "democratic" elections that are not so."

Now you're saying they WERE democratic? Um, okay...

We're talking about two situations. In one, socialists are legitimately democratically elected but then enact undemocratic policies. In another, socialists who have taken control of government hold elections that are not legitimately democratic.

Yes, I can accept that a government can be democratically elected and then do a bunch of things against the interest of the people who voted for them. That can happen. But what does that have to do with socialism?

When the people elected are socialists and enact socialist policies...

You'll reply, "but if the policies aren't in the interest of the people they're not socialist." But that is a begged question.

I struggle to think of a single state that actually enacted pure socialism,

I struggle to think of a state that has enacted "pure" capitalism, yet we call various countries capitalist. I think we can do the same vis a vis socialism.

but there are countless states that have utilized socialist policies. This is why I advocate for socialism as an ideal and as a basis for policy, not for a country to just drop what it's currently doing and adopt socialism. The fact that people seem to not realize that this is a possibility indicates to me that people don't really know what socialism is.

You're right of course that countries have adopted socialistic policies while maintaining a fundamentally capitalist economy. I'm fully aware of that. What I objected to initially was the wholesale rejection of all capitalism as unethical (not by you).

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

So you're blaming capitalism for the failures of socialism?

Not quite, I'm blaming capitalism for never letting socialism actually be implemented. We discussed this a little elsewhere, but I'm going to copy what I wrote here for transparency and posterity.

I blame Capitalism (and specifically the CIA) not for the "failure" of Socialism, but for not allowing Socialism to be implemented. I know it sounds a cop-out on the surface level, but the moment any socialist economy - specifically in South American countries - threatens Capitalist imports (such as the case with Chiquita and their Banana Republic), the government is overthrown and an authoritarian dictatorship is installed. After which Capitalist propaganda pushes that forward as an example of Socialism and why it's bad.

The examples of Dole and Chiquita are key of this; I don't think any countries have had a chance to implement Socialism. Venezuela tried, but as soon as they started redistributing land to the farmers and it affected exports to America, in swooped the private army of the United Fruit Company. What Venezuela started was socialism, and it was working. Until America couldn't profit for it, and that wasn't working for Capitalism. So it was overthrown and a dictator was put in it's place. That was no longer Socialism, but our Capitalist propaganda still points to that dictator (formerly hiding CIA involvement) and says "See? Socialism bad."

A nation that is mostly socialist that isn't talked about a lot is Portugal. Their two parties are even the Socialist Party and the Social Democratic Party. Another is Spain; while they have a mixed economy, they have very large socialist programs to where the nation is regarded as a Social Democratic nation.

Now, this isn't to say that there aren't problems. I will firmly defend that Socialism is better than Capitalism, but it's not perfect. But as well, the common examples that are always touted out are either, as above, a Dictatorship that was installed by an outside government (ours) and no longer a socialist economy, or Communism, which is one step beyond Socialism. They're not so much excuses, it's just that... well they are not Socialism.

So when unionization occurs among a group of laborers whose work you don't like, they're not "real" unions.

No, of course not. But this isn't just me here that's recognizing the faulty word use; a "police union" is not a worker's union in that they're not set up to defend police rights and ensure a safe work environment, they're set up to coverup their shortcomings and legal violations. They don't need a true worker's union as they don't have to contend with Corporate overreach or policies being put into place to roll back their basic rights. It is literally like North Korea calling itself a "Democratic People's Republic". Just because they're using the name doesn't make it so; their use of the word "union" is more akin to the Union of the United States. It is a union, but not the type of union I'm referring to.

As far as political lobbying by other unions, here are a couple of examples:

I'm going to be honest, I don't know what most of that indicates. From disclaimers, it seems to be individuals of those unions donating money toward parties. The issue that I have with what corporations do is the nature of the favors expected. They - the individual Capitalist - fund a candidate in return for policies being written that make them more profit, often at the expense of their employees.

Of course the company includes the workers. If the company goes out of business, guess who loses their jobs?

Yes, the workers lose their jobs. That's the reality, but I'm also talking about the ideology. Often we're told how replaceable we are, how they can always just hire someone who is willing to do the job - this isn't something I can show with statistics, it's a lived-experience thing. And the sad thing is, it's true. For example my spouse recently quit her job because her boss told her "prove to me I shouldn't fire all of you" despite my spouse notably holding up her job (without a raise or promotion despite being promised such. But I digress). Fast forward a week and my wife has a new job with a $2 increase from what she was making, and her old job has a new employee.

We have the slight benefit of being able to find something else. It doesn't always put us in a better situation, but we're not exactly devastated if the company tanks. But, because we are so replicable, "The Company" doesn't necessarily include us. We're just a cog, and broken cogs get replaced. And, of course, there is always the risk and threat of not being able to find a replacement job.

Canada has a single payer system already. So even that, it seems, would not be ethical to you.

Does Canada's healthcare obscenely profit off basic human needs? I mean really; there is no need for a $45 charge for a mother to hold her newborn. The broken system is indicative in that you can save thousands simply by asking for an itemized bill and disputing all the fees and charges that have no reason. Healthcare should not be for profit. No one should earn a profit off the suffering of others.

Starbucks is a publically traded company, but that doesn't make it part of public sector employment. Those are still private sector jobs. Same with Walmart, as far as I know.

I would need a source that you've got saying they're a part of the Private Sector, as everything that I can find placed Starbucks as public sector, and Walmart as a blend of the two.

It's entirely relevant. Your statement that started this was that CEOs don't labor. But they do, though.

No, they really don't. A CEO can and does make the exact same whether they're sitting in on a board meeting (not always a necessity; Jimmy rarely was present for board meetings) or sailing around the Mediterranean on their yacht; their monetary gain comes from the company profits as a whole. A laborer must show up for work and actually work their shift to receive their wages.

Most people don't stay in the same job at the same wage for their entire careers. As people gain experience and perform well, they get promotions, move to other companies/jobs, and their income increases.

I'm not talking about raises, I'm talking about overall profits. Say someone works for a company for 30 years, and over that 30 years they get a total of $5 in raises. They started at $10, and now they're at $15. No matter how well the company does, they're still going to make $15/hr. If the Company sees $2 billion in profits compared to the last fiscal year, the employee isn't going to see any more than $15/hr. But the CEO sure sees that $2 billion in profits. Profits that their employees got them, and profits that are not equitably shared.

Ethics is the entire point of the thread. If that's not your focus, we should refocus instead of you trying to argue that small business owners aren't "real" capitalists because...they have the wrong kind of machine?

Yes, we do need to cut to it because ethics isn't a part of this particular thread in the discussion. Your original example was that you sell me something, and that's Capitalism. Well, that depends.

I have a woodburner, and I have a stock of wood. If I use my tools to create various artworks and then sell them, I am profiting off of my labor. I own the means for my product, I set the prices, and I make all the profit. That's not Capitalism, that's Socialism.

Contrary to this, if I own 15 woodburners and I have 15 employees to use them, and I take the excess profits off their work while paying them a set percentage of those profits, that is Capitalism. They are not profiting off their work, they don't own those woodburners, and they only make what I deem as suitable for their labor. Currently I have to pay them at least $7.25 because the Government requires it, but I've also got an in with Congressman Whosahubbit, so we'll see there...

EDIT: And too this, I follow a few business owners who have implemented a Socialist method to their jobs. Everyone - even the boss - makes the exact same in wages, and overall profits of the job is split evenly among the workers. It is possible to do.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not quite, I'm blaming capitalism for never letting socialism actually be implemented.

Poor socialism....never a success because
capitalism scupperred its ambitions. One
shouldn't blame one's recurring failures on
others. It's weak, & ignores the fundamental
problem that individual initiative is prevented
by "the people" applying ill-considered
one-size-fits all solutions to every problem.

Know what the 4 problems of Soviet agriculture are?

Spoiler: The answer

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Poor socialism....never a success because capitalism scupperred its ambitions. One shouldn't blame one's recurring failures on others.

I'm not going to embark on another not-so-merry-go-round, Revoltingest, but I would highly advise you to read up on the term "Banana Republic".

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, we do need to cut to it because ethics isn't a part of this particular thread in the discussion. Your original example was that you sell me something, and that's Capitalism. Well, that depends.

I have a woodburner, and I have a stock of wood. If I use my tools to create various artworks and then sell them, I am profiting off of my labor. I own the means for my product, I set the prices, and I make all the profit. That's not Capitalism, that's Socialism.

This is a really fundamental thing to clarify. I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong here. If I privately own capital that I use to make profit for myself alone by selling goods or services...that is literally textbook capitalism. In a pure socialist scenario, that capital is not owned by you as an individual, it's owned by a group. You don't make profit for yourself, your profit is shared by the group and redistributed.

If you don't understand that...I genuinely don't know what else to tell you.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not going to embark on another not-so-merry-go-round, Revoltingest, but I would highly advise you to read up on the term "Banana Republic".

I'd advise you to get a dictionary, & use it.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

This is a really fundamental thing to clarify. I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong here. If I privately own capital that I use to make profit for myself alone by selling goods or services...that is literally textbook capitalism.

Capital assets are things like factories, mines, railroads, etc. These differ from regular assets in that capital assets establish long-term profit (e.g. a railroad) while regular assets generate profit in a short term (the train cars). Labor is then purchased for money wages, and capital gains (profit) accrue to the private owners. That's textbook Capitalism. This is why I asked who's running your machines, because the capitalist cannot do it alone; a capitalist cannot run the factory or run the railroad or the mine without the labor of others. Without the labor of others, there is no capital gain.

And this is where Capitalism (at least here in the US) is unethical; the labor of others is the purchase of the capitalist. And for the now, our labor is being purchased with inadequate compensation, thus we are being exploited.

In a pure socialist scenario, that capital is not owned by you as an individual, it's owned by a group. You don't make profit for yourself, your profit is shared by the group and redistributed.

Correct, when working in terms of capital. The public would own the railroad, or the mine, and would profit equally off the work that's done there. If I own something small and I'm making crafts to sell, that's not capital nor am I thus a capitalist.

I'd advise you to get a dictionary, & use it.

Is that comment really necessary?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is that comment really necessary?

Oh, yes...absolutely.
I responded to your post to me (without the
courtesy of alerting me, BTW) in the same spirit.
You really would benefit from speaking the same
language, ie, using shared definitions of words.

 

[Left Coast]

Capital assets are things like factories, mines, railroads, etc. These differ from regular assets in that capital assets establish long-term profit (e.g. a railroad) while regular assets generate profit in a short term (the train cars).

Any private property that is used to generate profit is capital. There are many types of capital, but they are all capital.

Labor is then purchased for money wages, and capital gains (profit) accrue to the private owners. That's textbook Capitalism.

Employees are a common, but not essential, feature of private enterprise.

This is why I asked who's running your machines, because the capitalist cannot do it alone; a capitalist cannot run the factory or run the railroad or the mine without the labor of others. Without the labor of others, there is no capital gain.

If you generate personal profit through the use of privately owned capital, you're engaging in capitalism. Again, this is really, really basic.

And this is where Capitalism (at least here in the US) is unethical; the labor of others is the purchase of the capitalist. And for the now, our labor is being purchased with inadequate compensation, thus we are being exploited.

So any scenario where a private individual employs another is unethical to you?

Correct, when working in terms of capital. The public would own the railroad, or the mine, and would profit equally off the work that's done there. If I own something small and I'm making crafts to sell, that's not capital nor am I thus a capitalist.

Yes, I'm sorry, but it is. And yes, I'm sorry, but you are.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You really would benefit from speaking the same language, ie, using shared definitions of words.

Да, конечно.

 

[Revoltingest]

Да, конечно.

Ochen horror show!

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Any private property that is used to generate profit is capital. There are many types of capital, but they are all capital.

Not quite; anything that produces goods is capital. If I buy canvas and paints to make a product to sell, those are not capital as they are the product and do not produce the product. This doesn't make any and every instance of turning a profit on something made capitalism, as capitalism is defined as the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

Now, I will concede that capitalism can be small level. If someone owns an oven and they start a bakery from their kitchen, yes I suppose they're a capitalist. But here's the problem inherent with Capitalism; the better that business does, the more it's going to grow. That hobby baker is going to need something more than their kitchen, so they have to get a building. Can they afford to own the building? If not, and they rent, then they're no longer the capitalist; the landlord is. The baker no longer owns the means of production, they're renting it.

If they are able to buy the building, then they're still a capitalist. (But even then, do they really own the building, or do the banks?) Are they able to run the business on their own? If not, they're going to need employees. Enter the branch-issue of fair wages. Eventually that business might get so successful that it catches the eye of bigger sharks and gets bought out. Now Darcy's Kitchen is a corporate chain with 32 locations nationwide; maybe the original baker is the CEO and Founder, maybe not. And on and on it churns.

So any scenario where a private individual employs another is unethical to you?

No, of course not. It's a matter of being fairly compensated for the time that we're selling. Can I, on a 40 hour work week, afford to live comfortably from the wages that I am selling my life for? Does my employer ensure that our workspace is safe for us to work in, and that we are treated well not only internally but by the public we serve? Or does my employer do the bare minimum, provide us a sliver cut of their profits only so much as the government requires them to share, and neglect the workspace because it's more profitable for us to just deal with things?

I'm at a job because my basic needs require money, and thus I am required to sell my time. I expect to be compensated for that time to the point where I can meet my needs. Our Capitalist society has declined such in that it is not a fair exchange anymore; we are not adequately compensated for giving up our time, and we are expected to give up more than our time to retain these meager jobs: we're expected to be Totally Loyal to The Company to the detriment of ourselves, bend over backwards and accept abuse - both internally and externally - with a smile, and even retain a Workplace Mentality outside our scheduled work week. The issues with our form of Capitalism go far beyond wages, and it has literally become a poison that has infected our very mentality surrounding commerce and economic livelihood.

 

[Left Coast]

Not quite; anything that produces goods is capital. If I buy canvas and paints to make a product to sell, those are not capital as they are the product and do not produce the product. This doesn't make any and every instance of turning a profit on something made capitalism, as capitalism is defined as the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

If I turn a profit for myself personally on some good or service sold using property I privately own to produce that good or service...that's capitalism. I own the means of production and I sell the thing I produce for my personal profit. There's no way to wiggle out of the basic idea here.

Now, I will concede that capitalism can be small level. If someone owns an oven and they start a bakery from their kitchen, yes I suppose they're a capitalist.

Thank you. So is that unethical of them?

But here's the problem inherent with Capitalism; the better that business does, the more it's going to grow. That hobby baker is going to need something more than their kitchen, so they have to get a building. Can they afford to own the building? If not, and they rent, then they're no longer the capitalist; the landlord is. The baker no longer owns the means of production, they're renting it.

All economic systems get complicated when scaled up, that's true. That's why I balk at dogmatic, black-and-white thinking about them.

If they are able to buy the building, then they're still a capitalist. (But even then, do they really own the building, or do the banks?) Are they able to run the business on their own? If not, they're going to need employees. Enter the branch-issue of fair wages. Eventually that business might get so successful that it catches the eye of bigger sharks and gets bought out. Now Darcy's Kitchen is a corporate chain with 32 locations nationwide; maybe the original baker is the CEO and Founder, maybe not. And on and on it churns.

I don't see anything fundamentally unethical about that chain of events.

No, of course not. It's a matter of being fairly compensated for the time that we're selling.

Alright then. So can we agree then that all capitalism is not by definition unethical?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Thank you. So is that unethical of them?

It's not the act of selling that is unethical. The baker making their money that way isn't itself unethical.

I still do maintain that Capitalism is unethical in our current system - a system with Capitalism as the basis - because there exists the drive for profit; that is ultimately the ideology of Capitalism. Due to that drive, there exists the constant temptation to cut corners and shed costs by any means necessary in order to maximize profits. I do not believe that would be so much a concern or temptation if basic needs were being met.

Alright then. So can we agree then that all capitalism is not by definition unethical?

I would be willing to agree that capitalism can exist in an ethical state, but I believe that requires a paradigm shift away from a profit-driven work ethic, as well as social awareness to the impact on one's community and beyond. Often easier said than done, but possible.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When over and over again socialists enact policies in which government takes control of the means of production, I don't think it's unreasonable to pair the two.

Then "socialism" is meaningless. This is like saying "over and over again, Nazis adopt puppies, so I don't think it's unreasonable to pair the two". Except it's kind of worse, because you're not calling them "socialist" for any good reason other than they SAY they're socialists.

Socialism is a political philosophy. If a bunch of people say that they belong to a particular philosophy but constantly do things that go AGAINST that philosophy (or fail to use any of that philosophy's principles), I don't think it's reasonable to say that they are an example of that philosophy.

But this is entirely the problem and the point I've been making. Socialism is an ideal that says one thing on paper, but then those ideals don't translate to reality when socialists actually gain power and implement policy.

Then they are not socialists.

Do you see what you're doing? If they say one thing but then do enact something else entirely, you cannot reasonably say that they are an example of the thing.

This isn't really that difficult to understand. If your problem is with the people who call themselves socialist not going on to do anything socialist then you do not have an issue with socialism as a political philosophy. You have a problem with revolutionary groups who fail to do it.

What actually happens in reality is authoritarian government. You can claim that all those attempts are "not real socialism," but then you have to admit that it seems your ideals, while they seem nice, are not workable.

But they didn't enact or practice the ideals of socialism. This is like someone calling themselves an anarchist enacting a takeover and, instead of abolishing government, they created an autocratic dictatorship. You would point to that and say "You may claim they're "not a real anarchist", but you have to admit that it seems your anarchist ideals are not workable".

No, it doesn't. Because they didn't do them.

We're talking about two situations. In one, socialists are legitimately democratically elected but then enact undemocratic policies.

Which one is that?

In another, socialists who have taken control of government hold elections that are not legitimately democratic.

And which one is that?

When the people elected are socialists and enact socialist policies...

Give me an example.

You'll reply, "but if the policies aren't in the interest of the people they're not socialist." But that is a begged question.

Do not put words in my mouth.

I struggle to think of a state that has enacted "pure" capitalism, yet we call various countries capitalist. I think we can do the same vis a vis socialism.

I agree. Which is why when I think of socialism I can name countless countries that are not "pure socialist" but still are considered to have enacted socialist policies, and I find those policies to be better examples of socialism than the handful of autocratic regimes that simply pretended to be socialism.

You're right of course that countries have adopted socialistic policies while maintaining a fundamentally capitalist economy. I'm fully aware of that. What I objected to initially was the wholesale rejection of all capitalism as unethical (not by you).

That's fine, although I would generally agree with that assertion in a broad sense. Private ownership of the means of production is fundamentally inequitable and necessarily anti-freedom; that being said, this is a question more of ethics than economics or political reality. It's not as if simply tearing down capitalism will automatically lead to utopia, much in the same way that abolishing gun ownership will automatically lead to the end of murder.

There can be nuance to these positions. Just because the find the fundamental principles of capitalism unethical (which I think is hard to argue against) doesn't mean you think it's a simple case of "getting rid" of it and replacing it with something else overnight.

 

[Left Coast]

Then "socialism" is meaningless. This is like saying "over and over again, Nazis adopt puppies, so I don't think it's unreasonable to pair the two". Except it's kind of worse, because you're not calling them "socialist" for any good reason other than they SAY they're socialists.

Silly apples and oranges comparison. Is the DSA "not really socialist?" You don't think "real" socialists call for nationalization of private industry? You don't think they do so as a function of their socialist political ideology? C'mon now. If that's what you think, you are not paying attention.

Socialism is a political philosophy. If a bunch of people say that they belong to a particular philosophy but constantly do things that go AGAINST that philosophy (or fail to use any of that philosophy's principles), I don't think it's reasonable to say that they are an example of that philosophy.

Then they are not socialists.

Do you see what you're doing? If they say one thing but then do enact something else entirely, you cannot reasonably say that they are an example of the thing.

This isn't really that difficult to understand. If your problem is with the people who call themselves socialist not going on to do anything socialist then you do not have an issue with socialism as a political philosophy. You have a problem with revolutionary groups who fail to do it.

But they didn't enact or practice the ideals of socialism. This is like someone calling themselves an anarchist enacting a takeover and, instead of abolishing government, they created an autocratic dictatorship. You would point to that and say "You may claim they're "not a real anarchist", but you have to admit that it seems your anarchist ideals are not workable".

No, it doesn't. Because they didn't do them.

My point is that socialism says one thing on paper but then turns out to be another in reality. You're right, it really isn't that hard to figure out. If any time actual card carrying socialists take power and do what they will and their society ends up not living up to what they promised, it's a cop out to claim none of them were "real socialists." You're essentially defining your ideology as something that cannot be criticized, because by definition any negative consequences of it are "not socialism" since they don't fit the utopian vision promised.

That's fine, although I would generally agree with that assertion in a broad sense. Private ownership of the means of production is fundamentally inequitable and necessarily anti-freedom; that being said, this is a question more of ethics than economics or political reality. It's not as if simply tearing down capitalism will automatically lead to utopia, much in the same way that abolishing gun ownership will automatically lead to the end of murder.

There can be nuance to these positions. Just because the find the fundamental principles of capitalism unethical (which I think is hard to argue against) doesn't mean you think it's a simple case of "getting rid" of it and replacing it with something else overnight.

I just hashed out the nitty gritty of that with Kilted Heathen, so I'm not going to do it again with you today.

 

[Revoltingest]

....there exists the drive for profit; that is ultimately the ideology of Capitalism. Due to that drive, there exists the constant temptation to cut corners and shed costs by any means necessary in order to maximize profits.

This isn't universal in business though. I've worked
in many, & run some. Most of the time, when profit
is adequate, the primary foci are other things, eg,
keeping customers happy, product development
& quality.
Those are things that result in profit. In business,
one must wear many hats. Profit is merely one
of the essentials for survival.

Your claim...
"...to cut corners and shed costs by any means necessary..."
...is a recipe for failure because the market tends to
punish poor products. Harley Davidson tried that.
It nearly went under because of customer dis-satisfaction
until bike enthusiasts bought the company.

Socialism (ie, eliminating capitalism) has a history.
Every country that tried it became authoritarian &
economically feckless.
But capitalism has exemplar countries where
both economic success & liberty flourish.

 

[Left Coast]

This isn't universal in business though. I've worked
in many, & run some. Most of the time, when profit
is adequate, the primary foci are other things, eg,
keeping customers happy, product development
& quality.
Those are things that result in profit. In business,
one must wear many hats. Profit is merely one
of the essentials for survival.

Your claim...
"...to cut corners and shed costs by any means necessary..."
...is a recipe for failure because the market tends to
punish poor products. Harley Davidson tried that.
It nearly went under because of customer dis-satisfaction
until bike enthusiasts bought the company.

Socialism (ie, eliminating capitalism) has a history.
Every country that tried it became authoritarian &
economically feckless.
But capitalism has exemplar countries where
both economic success & liberty flourish.

Sometimes it seems like socialists view business owners like cartoon super villains, stroking their cat in their swivel chair while plotting how best to torture their victims. (Cue maniacal laugh) Instead of seeing them as real people with a conscience. Are some of them dicks? Of course. Are some of them wonderful people who want to make the world a better place? Also yes. Just like everyone else.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Silly apples and oranges comparison. Is the DSA "not really socialist?"

I have no idea. What policies do they advocate for?

You don't think "real" socialists call for nationalization of private industry?

Nope. Never said that. Nationalization CAN happen under socialism (and is favoured), but that does not mean that the means of production being seized by the state is ALWAYS socialism.

You don't think they do so as a function of their socialist political ideology? C'mon now. If that's what you think, you are not paying attention.

I don't think you're paying attention to what I am writing. I have never said that these things can't be part of socialism. I feel I have been fairly clear about this.

My point is that socialism says one thing on paper but then turns out to be another in reality.

If someone says they are a pacifist, then achieves power, and then uses that power to wage war, would you say that "pacifism turns out to be very different in reality"?

No, you wouldn't. You would say that what that person did was not pacifism, and when a group of people call themselves socialist, but then seize the means of production and hand it to a non-democratically elected political class, then what they have actually done is not socialist.

You're right, it really isn't that hard to figure out. If any time actual card carrying socialists take power and do what they will and their society ends up not living up to what they promised, it's a cop out to claim none of them were "real socialists."

See, this is part of your problem. You think socialism and capitalism are like football teams, where the socialists are wearing red and the capitalists are in blue. And every time a red team member kicks the ball it's a "socialist kick", and every time a blue team member scores a goal it's a "capitalist goal".

There are no "card carrying" socialists. Socialism is a political ideology, not an infantile children's treehouse club (although, admittedly, it can often be difficult to distinguish between the two). We determine socialism from ideology and praxis. You can't dig a hole with a red shirt and beret and call it a "socialist project".

A socialist is someone who adheres the political philosophy of socialism. Actual socialism is a political movement or policy with the aim of putting the means of production into public control. Believe it or not, people can CLAIM to be "doing a socialism" while practising something else entirely. This happens.

You're essentially defining your ideology as something that cannot be criticized, because by definition any negative consequences of it are "not socialism" since they don't fit the utopian vision promised.

This is just simply not true. Every time I have asked you to provide an example of these "socialist" states enacting socialist policies, you have failed to answer. You just seem to genuinely believe that socialism is when you call yourselves socialists, and often you Nationalize things. That's literally all you understand about socialism.

And no, I am not saying that there can be no negative consequences to ACTUAL socialism. I have always been very clear about this. My definition of socialism is neutral. If you do not understand how an undemocratic, authoritarian society cannot reasonably be considered "socialist" then I'm not sure how much you can meaningfully contribute to a discussion on the topic.

 

[Left Coast]

I have no idea. What policies do they advocate for?

You have no idea whether the Democratic Socialists of America is a socialist organization. Really? Are you American?

DSA Political Platform - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Nope. Never said that. Nationalization CAN happen under socialism (and is favoured), but that does not mean that the means of production being seized by the state is ALWAYS socialism.

So socialists favor nationalization of industry, but nationalization of industry isn't socialist? Okay? Again, when you advocate something as a function of your ideology, it's reasonable for people to pair that policy with your ideology. That's not Nazis adopting puppies or drinking orange juice. It's a direct policy outcome of the ideology.

I don't think you're paying attention to what I am writing. I have never said that these things can't be part of socialism. I feel I have been fairly clear about this.

Then please dispense with this whole line of reasoning that I'm just arbitrarily calling things socialist that aren't. That is very obviously not what's happening here.

If someone says they are a pacifist, then achieves power, and then uses that power to wage war, would you say that "pacifism turns out to be very different in reality"?

Yes, I would. Much like libertarianism and socialism, pacifism is an ideal with utopian intent that does not actually work out in practice.

No, you wouldn't. You would say that what that person did was not pacifism, and when a group of people call themselves socialist, but then seize the means of production and hand it to a non-democratically elected political class, then what they have actually done is not socialist.

But if they hand it to a democratically elected political class, it is socialism, right?

There are no "card carrying" socialists.

If you're a member of a socialist party that advocates for socialist ideology and policy....yeah, you're a card carrying socialist, by any reasonable account.

Socialism is a political ideology, not an infantile children's treehouse club (although, admittedly, it can often be difficult to distinguish between the two). We determine socialism from ideology and praxis. You can't dig a hole with a red shirt and beret and call it a "socialist project".

A socialist is someone who adheres the political philosophy of socialism. Actual socialism is a political movement or policy with the aim of putting the means of production into public control. Believe it or not, people can CLAIM to be "doing a socialism" while practising something else entirely. This happens.

And as we've now covered, government control of industry is not some arbitrary indicator of socialism. It is a directly promoted policy choice that derives from socialist ideology.

This is just simply not true. Every time I have asked you to provide an example of these "socialist" states enacting socialist policies, you have failed to answer. You just seem to genuinely believe that socialism is when you call yourselves socialists, and often you Nationalize things. That's literally all you understand about socialism.

You literally just got done saying that socialism is the ideology of public control of the means of production. How that actually plays out, outside of socialist heads, is that government institutions run by socialists take control of those means. Show me a national example of socialism where that hasn't been the case.

And no, I am not saying that there can be no negative consequences to ACTUAL socialism. I have always been very clear about this. My definition of socialism is neutral. If you do not understand how an undemocratic, authoritarian society cannot reasonably be considered "socialist" then I'm not sure how much you can meaningfully contribute to a discussion on the topic.

Okay. I'm an idiot who knows nothing about this topic. If that's the case...no need to reply further to me then. Have a nice day.