Nostr Web Client

Those are incomplete definitions. Mine is more complete.

I recommend reading the following as it can help you understand why I say so:

https://mises.org/mises-wire/socialism-brief-taxonomy

First off, your own source barely expands the definitions I provided, mainly adding consciousness and redistribution of wealth, which still looks nothing like your definition, so your own source still agrees that you don't understand socialism.

Second off, why should we trust the definition of some random guy who professes in his own bio that political philosophy is just a hobby over the definitions supplied by a dictionary, an encyclopedia, and a Wikipedia quote with no less than *eleven* relevant citations? We can also note that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy *also* agrees with me and not him of you. Everyone who's an actual expert disagrees with you, it seems. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/

Third, any definition of socialism that attempts to include fascism and the god damn Nazis is just wrong. There's no informed approach that leads to the conclusion that those are socialist.

This is a classic case of conservatives bastardizing language and twisting it to mislead people for political gains. Socialism is tangential to communism, and they already made you terrified of communism, so if they can just twist the definition of socialism so that it applies to something they don't like if you squint real hard at it, they can convince you to vote against your interests and in the interests of the owner class, a class that 99% of us will never belong to.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

sachin 1y ago

My definition describes how Socialism happens in practice. It is based on my lived experience of a partially Socialist society which is more liberalised now (not nearly enough). It is also informed by accounts of the generations before me who lived in a far more socialistic pattern of society and actually suffered through the atrocities.

The expansion in the material I shared is quite important. It includes collectivisation of consciousness, property ownership and redistribution of wealth which requires my definition of Socialism to happen in practice, which involves aggression, coercion and a rejection of an individual's aims in life, to live within his or her truth and the violation and rejection of his or her natural rights.

It is a social order and ideology that is ineffective, goes against basic incentives, causes suffering, stagnation, resentment, envy, corruption and conflict.

Why do I say this?

Because I see it happening right now.

Socialism requires me to reject the notion of non-agression and voluntaryism, to give up my property rights and the economic calculations I make to take care of myself and those i care about.

The source material you just shared itself accepts that there are different definitions of Socialism. I can guess that there are possibly hundreds more.

My definition is simply another one of them, based on my experience of it. I do not claim it to be canonical. You are free to reject my definition.

Your source material also claims that Socialism is not the same as statism.

My claim is that Socialism inevitably leads to statism. It always has, and always will.

Lastly, my rights and aims of life do not care about credentials or expertise. If there is something that violates them, I will reject it. Ergo, I reject Socialism.