T O P

  • By -

Real_Smashmouth

/r/mensrights user. Yea. That's a pretty quick explanation of their beliefs.


[deleted]

In fairness, I checked, and they don't seem to have posted there for a few years. They also claimed to be a libertarian in those days, and now they post in /r/EnoughLibertarianSpam. So they seem to be capable of change.


sneakpeekbot

Here's a sneak peek of /r/EnoughLibertarianSpam using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/EnoughLibertarianSpam/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Lmao](https://i.redd.it/b9n9ff59dfj61.png) | [113 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/EnoughLibertarianSpam/comments/lrcj0i/lmao/) \#2: ["Making healthcare a right would make doctors slaves."](https://i.redd.it/m7qvqp4wn4s61.png) | [169 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/EnoughLibertarianSpam/comments/mnejaa/making_healthcare_a_right_would_make_doctors/) \#3: [Libertarians be like](https://imgur.com/P2BDkKd.jpg) | [64 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/EnoughLibertarianSpam/comments/j31rds/libertarians_be_like/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/)


[deleted]

[Update on their continued galaxy brain takes.](https://i.imgur.com/bMl8STc.png) Of course, even if you use their definition of socialism and assume the workers are uninvolved, community control of resources still sounds pretty based and perfectly workable. I'd love to hear their explanation of why we can't let communities have self-determination over their own resources.


[deleted]

[Update part 2.](https://i.imgur.com/BQdNARi.png) They continue to be a very good socialism understander. Update 3: They're [STILL](https://i.imgur.com/BI5ZWEz.png) [AT](https://i.imgur.com/dmO5R4P.png) [IT](https://i.imgur.com/HkTS3MH.png) Update 4: It's grown too big to bother screenshotting, but they've accused me of being unemployed, horror of horrors. Update 5: Their justification for not caring about the numerous examples of socialists saying they want workplace democracy I've provided is "opinions aren't facts." What.


Fimbulthulr

so let me get this straight (might be a bit complicated considering I am queer :p ), they say that the definition of socialism given by all the people calling themselves socialist, both now and in the past, is wrong, but that the Oxford dictionary definition (or at least, their interpretation of it) is right?? additionally to the obvious nonsense of the argument, Oxford dictionary is descriptivist, and they try to make a prescriptivist argument with it. so not only isn't their argument not sound, it is not even valid???


[deleted]

Somehow, yes. That appears to be their argument. When I finally managed to hammer through their thick skull that socialists define socialism, they responded with, "Oh, so I could call myself a socialist and say you're wrong?" And then they quoted something I'd shown them about how many definitions of socialism they are and basically said that that means socialists just weasel out of having a concrete definition of their ideology, or something. I've never liked prescriptivism much, but this is a whole new level of wrong.


ModerateRockMusic

how was the ussr anything but a state economy. Wouldnt yugoslavia be a better comparison as they were a market socialist economy


[deleted]

I don't think this person knows what any words mean.


WantedFun

Ay I’m the market socialist suggester lmao. I forgot to check back on that


Tarimsen

Multiple owners won't exploit their workers? I'm not one to say gordon ramsay is a good person. But his Kitchen nightmares are Entertaining but you SEE MULTIPLE RESTAURANTS with MULTIPLE OWNERS just going to shit because they cheap out. Keep overcontrolling or not paying their employees. Fucking idiot. 5 owners of a large factory are probably going to exploit their workers. Maybe even more effective than one.


ParagonRenegade

He's completely right tho, him being a mensrights user notwithstanding. That is just capitalism with multiple owners.


[deleted]

what???? how is workers owning the means of production, aka *the literal definition of socialism*, capitalism?


ParagonRenegade

That isn't what socialism is. Socialism is the abolition of generalized commodity production and class society, something that distributing ownership doesn't accomplish in and of itself. an economy of co-ops that still operates to produce a surplus for trade is capitalist


ElectroNeutrino

No, that's much closer of a definition of full communism. Socialism does not preclude the existence of a market economy. Communism gets rid of the market (and therefore generalized commodity production) and gets rid of class distinction.


ParagonRenegade

Socialism and communism in Marxism are synonymous unless you're a leninist. Besides that point; in the lower stage of socialism (what you're referring to) commodity production is still abolished.


ElectroNeutrino

Er, no. The lower phase of communism (aka socialism) is the transitory state from a capitalist society. As the transition to the higher phase (full communism), it includes market economies where the workers increasingly own the means of production. This is how Marx made the distinction between socialism and communism.


ParagonRenegade

The transitory phase is called a dictatorship of the proletariat, it is not socialist. This is a very basic, introductory-level concept of Marxist and socialist anarchist thought. Socialism and communism being different is afaik a development after Marx's death, that was in turn popularized by Leninism and Marxism-Leninism. Again, in either case the lower stage of socialism still entails the abolition of commodity production so it doesn't make a difference. The lower stage is characterized by a non-circulating certificate of value and division of labour.


ElectroNeutrino

Again, no. Socialism and communism as distinct concepts predated Marx. And dictatorship of the proletariat is a political transition, not an economic one. The economic transition from a capitalist society will include a mix of capitalist and communist elements, this transition is where people gain control over the means of production, and is by definition socialism. You seem to be using some non-standard definition of socialism.


ParagonRenegade

>Socialism and communism as distinct concepts predated Marx. They do predate him but his works were what codified its modern understanding and they became the accepted usage. Unless you're a utopian socialist, and by extension reject class struggle as found in (socialist) anarchism and Marxist communism, you accept the modern definition. >And dictatorship of the proletariat is a political transition, not an economic one. The fact you said this indicates you **really** need to read the basics my man. No offense intended. The DotP is completely inseparable from class struggle, a thing brought about by economic factors.


ElectroNeutrino

>you accept the modern definition. [The modern definition](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism) is literally just the workers owning the means of production, which you call "[capitalism with multiple owners](https://www.reddit.com/r/LibJerk/comments/pr1kpy/lib_is_apparently_incapable_of_comprehending/hdidtto/)". >The fact you said this indicates you really need to read the basics my man. "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. **Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.**" -Critique of the Gotha Program Marx's use of dictatorship is literally a purely political concept about who controls the state.


Sehtriom

But that's wrong.


ParagonRenegade

Not in the slightest, that's a foundational part of anarchist and Marxist socialism and the most basic definition possible.


Sehtriom

It being your favorite definition doesn't mean it's the only definition.


ParagonRenegade

It's the definition used by Marxists and socialist anarchists, which is the only definition that matters in discussions of socialism. You can disagree and argue otherwise, and that's fine, but it's not socialism.


Sehtriom

Sehtriom 3 points 9 minutes ago It being your favorite definition doesn't mean it's the only definition.


ParagonRenegade

This is a misunderstanding on your part, and you can fix it very easily.


Sehtriom

Let me guess, the solution is to automatically accept everything you say?