#

[Lark]

The Opposite of Socialism is...

Often ideas are definable both positively by what they are and negatively by what they are not and in the process a dichotomy exists or is presupposed.

So what do you think the dichotomy in this case is? Why?

 

[Falcarius]

Falcarius considers socialism an economic system that seeks to bring everyone together in order to provide equal opportunity to all. In his opinion, the opposite is fascism as that is a belief that is obsessed with hierarchy and purity to benefit the chosen few.

Fascism is essentially the exploitation by the exploited of the exploited. By seeking to play groups people off against each other who actually have more in common than not; such as German Jews in Nazi Germany by the working class.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The opposite and alternative is fascism.

 

[Norexan]

Elementary ignorance. Let me educate you....



Socialism (Left) - what is good for the collective should be put over the good of individual.
Capitalism (Right) - what is good for the individual should be out over the good of collective


Right-economy or Capitalism: everything what we do is for profit, included bombing, destroying other houses and countries, create worthless things who need repairing because it gain us CAPITAL.
Left-economy or Socialism: everything what we do is for people, money is not important. Science and art is impotent. We do things what is good for the SOCIETY over individual needs.


By the way fascism is totalitarian-capitalism.

such as German Jews in Nazi Germany by the working class.

Fascism has never be in Germany but in Italy and Roman Republic. It originates from the Latin word fascio which represent unity of state and people.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

To explain what I meant above:

Maintaining neoliberalism means preparing the conditions for fascism. Therefore, some form or element of socialism is needed, unless one is under the impression that fascism is desirable.

This is why I consider a return to the status quo or "norms" as undesirable. Those norms, at best, mean not doing anything about the kinds of conditions that create fascist movements. The problem with returning to the trajectory of four years ago (if such a thing was actually possible), is that it means that a fuckload of problems remain unaddressed. I don't consider the consequences of that desirable.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

The opposite of socialism is farts.

I didn't vote because farts isn't on the poll.

 

[Lark]

Elementary ignorance. Let me educate you....

I look forward to hearing your credentials as an educator, if you mean that you plan to share your personal, unsupported opinion then mission accomplished, it would not be the same thing as educating anyone though.

Edit: Fascism in Italy, Nazism in Germany and Imperialism in Japan all had common features, hence their alliance being the Axis.

What you describe as socialism seems to have more in common with virtue ethics than anything I actually understand from politics or modern political ideologies.

You think that capitalism is synonymous with individualism and individual welfare?

 

[Falcarius]

Fascism has never be in Germany but in Italy and Roman Republic. It originates from the Latin word fascio which represent unity of state and people.

Music is noise but noise is not necessarily music; Nazism is Fascism but Fascism is not necessarily Nazism.


The latin word 'fascio' means "a bundle" or "a sheaf" originally then group of people but was symbolism used by Mussolini to mean " power over life or death". It essentaly represented the hierarchical system.

 

[Lark]

Music is noise but noise is not necessarily music; Nazism is Fascism but Fascism is not necessarily Nazism.


The latin word 'fascio' means "a bundle" or "a sheaf" originally then group of people but was symbolism used by Mussolini to mean " power over life or death". It essentaly represented the hierarchical system.

I think it makes little odds what you call it when you're game is duping the population with conspiracy theories.

Anyway, its kind of off topic, I was hesitant to put fascism in the options for the poll anyway.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Other: Anarcho-capitalism.

 

[Norexan]

Other: Anarcho-capitalism.

No. That is communism (totalitarian-socialism). Still can't believe level of ignorance.

Nazism is a German form of national-socialism. Economically it is center-left system.

 

[Maou]

Ancap, because fascism still has unity by the state. Ancap/An-individualism is do whatever the fuck you want, with capitalism. It is why people who are socialist think Libertarians are insane.

 

[Norexan]

I am true Socialist (Far-Left, Slightly Authoritarian)

Authoritarian, Far-Left - Communism
Slightly Authoritarian, Far-Left - Socialism
Slightly Libertarian, Far-Left - Democratic Socialism
Libertarian, Far-Left - Anarchism

I am against political parties because they are useless for the society. They are tool for manipulations.
I am pro-state oriented because none is the stronger then the state. People forget meaning of the state and what state can do.
I am for exponential taxation and limit of the wealth of individual for $1.000.000. Everything you earn above will go to the state.
I am for investment (give a freedom) to science and art rather then give the freedom of corporations and see another Bill Gates.

 

[Lark]

No. That is communism (totalitarian-socialism). Still can't believe level of ignorance.

Nazism is a German form of national-socialism. Economically it is center-left system.

Its interesting that you believe the economic ideas of the far right in Germany could be considered center-left, I'm more interested in where you read this or how you draw these conclusions though.

Also, am I right in saying that you consider people with an opinion different to yours to be ignorant? So that agreement implies being informed and disagreement implies ignorance/lack of knowledge?

 

[Virtual ghost]

No. That is communism (totalitarian-socialism). Still can't believe level of ignorance.

That depends on definition, which is evidently the biggest problem of this thread.
For me socialism is repressive and genuine socio-democracy is "sane leftism".

 

[Lark]

Ancap, because fascism still has unity by the state. Ancap/An-individualism is do whatever the fuck you want, with capitalism. It is why people who are socialist think Libertarians are insane.

Who told you that people who are socialist think libertarians are insane? Dont you think that is a little bit of a generalization?

I am socialist and I do not think all libertarians are insane, some of them sure, some of the policies or lack of policies I think are mistaken but some libertarians are able to talk about them and try and find supporting evidence or reasons for them instead of strong feelings, sentiments or anger, so I would not say those libertarians are insane.

What you seem to be describing, if I understand it right and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is a sort of out law or unlawful free market?

I dont see any way that some variety of slavery wouldnt quickly re-emerge if this where the case, indentured labour, people trafficking, rape for money, child rape for money, I dont see how the market alone would prohibit any of those things.

In which case it would appear that tyranny has not gone away, its just been privatized. Anyone with enough money can act worse than any politician, police man or tax collector ever did and who is to stop them or say any different?

Anyway, you think individualism and capitalism, which am I right you believe are the same thing? Are the alternative/opposite of socialism.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Its interesting that you believe the economic ideas of the far right in Germany could be considered center-left, I'm more interested in where you read this or how you draw these conclusions though.

Also, am I right in saying that you consider people with an opinion different to yours to be ignorant? So that agreement implies being informed and disagreement implies ignorance/lack of knowledge?

I actually agree with him for the most part, Hitler is basically very authoritarian centrist in my book. But he is evidently closer to Stalin in practice than to the icons of Capitalism.


But this is all a matter of definition that aren't in sync around the world. (see my "debate" with Red Herring)

 

[Lark]

That depends on definition, which is evidently the biggest problem of this thread.
For me socialism is repressive and genuine socio-democracy is "sane leftism".

Really? I thought the thread was about definitions, did you miss the poll?

I suspect "socio-democracy" could be a translation error, the only approximation of it I'm familiar with is social democracy, like the German Social Democrats.

There are plenty of sources which describe non-repressive varieties of socialism. Some see socialism as a means or methodology to achieve individualism for all, as opposed to individualism as the preserve of a few.

 

[Norexan]

Also, am I right in saying that you consider people with an opinion different to yours to be ignorant? So that agreement implies being informed and disagreement implies ignorance/lack of knowledge?

It's not opinion. "Opinions" can exist with the questions: "Do you like more dark or white chocolate?" not with knowledge questions like "What kind of things are made that chocolate?"

 

[Lark]

I actually agree with him for the most part, Hitler is basically very authoritarian centrist in my book. But he is evidently closer to Stalin in practice than to the icons of Capitalism.


But this is all a matter of definition that aren't in sync around the world. (see my "debate" with Red Herring)

Are you aware of the twelve point program that the Nazi Party adopted before they took over the government via emergency powers measures and never abandoned?

It outlines their economic policies and none of them would be considered centre left. I know that the centre ground of politics has been moved very far into the right wing of the political spectrum. Since politicians, in the english speaking world at least, are able to boldly talk about how little they care about the lives of their constituents and that they would not spend public money to save them or extend their years of life. However, even when the centre ground of politics permitted the discussion of a mixed economy, nationalization/state ownership, those policies would have been further left.

The bankers who sponsored Hitler probably didnt think he was serious about his rhetoric but provided they resembled Nazi ideas about identity enough they could trust their legacies wouldnt be interfered with.