RE: Everytime i listen to two individuals debate, from the right and the left. I am under the

avatar

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

Well said. Back when I was a communist, I routinely got annoyed with people not being able to properly define communism or socialism, and it was part of the reason I left the left. Personally, I define capitalism as "the voluntary exchange of labour and property," though I am leaning more toward abandoning the word entirely in favour of another term for the free market, such as agorism or voluntaryism.

That being said, I disagree that the GOP is socialist; it is corporatist, which is closely-related, but not quite the same thing. Corporatism and socialism are two sides of the same big-government/big-business grift that undermines personal liberty and private property rights.

The last time I wrote on this subject was almost three months ago, but I will eventually resume.

0
0
0.000
6 comments
avatar

Hi @steampunkkaha.

Yes, i can see why you think the GOP isn't Socialist, essentially because they are pro Corporations. There is a big misunderstanding amongst those who proclaim to be on the right about what Corporations really are.

The word Corporation is the Italian form of Saying Syndicates, and Syndicates are Trade Unions. The Term Fascism is basically Syndicalism, and it stands for Trade Unionism. The Soviets called their Corporations Syndicates, and The Italian Fascist called Theirs Corporations.

That being said, Corporations are Public and Collectively owned. The Collective Control and Ownership of the means of production is the dictionary definiton for Socialism. Problems is, most Socialist do not understand what Socialism actually is.

Socialism is not worker ownership of the means of production. Worker ownership of the means of Production is Marxism, and Socialism Predates Marxism. Socialist Nations prior to Marx never included the Worker Element. Marx did that, and Socialism does not originate with Marx.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I am aware; I was in fact a Marxist, not a pre-Marxist socialist or anarcho-communist, much less a third positionist. The problem is the meaning of the word "corporation" in different languages, a "syndicate" in the [European] continental tradition, as you mentioned. I am referring to the English meaning of the word as the legal status of a business granted by the state, which is basically a distinction without a difference, I know. But yes, I am aware that corporations are, by definition, collectively owned, hence my own constant arguments with people who demand collective ownership always being "we already have that!" I think we can both agree that the GOP is a statist party regardless; they both are.

Marx's own definition of socialism was "state capitalism," in other words, a state monopoly on the means of production, and the state was to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, hence the worker ownership. His issue was with "private" monopolies, because he didn't really know how things worked (he also contradicted himself a lot, another reason I abandoned the ideology). Likewise, his own definition of "capitalism" was more in line with the English definition of "corporatism," and not a free market. The Marxist definitions appear to be what people are working with in the modern day, hence all the misunderstandings.

0
0
0.000
Reply