Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by javert 3953 days ago
> A true socialist favors workers owning enterprises.

> To repeat and sum-up the core point: socialism does not really care about taxation or regulation except as tools, it cares about workers owning their own tools, work-sites, materials, and enterprises, and thus controlling their own lives rather than being controlled by an owner.

Clearly you are talking about collectivism (as opposed to individualism), and the Democrats are collectivist. You just have this technical implementation difference.

Which is to have workers control enterprises by some sort of voting scheme. As opposed to the natural course of evolution from freedom to collectivism, where you would have "private" ownership of enterprises, but with the state controlling the owner through regulation and taxation.

That really is an implementation detail. There is a whole lot more that goes into a political system than just deciding how enterprises are managed. (And, by the way, it's not any different to have your 99 fellow workers decide by voting how things are run, vs. a bureaucrat from a central government. So it's also an unimportant implementation detail.)

I think that makes it pretty disingenious for Democrats to scream "we are not socialists" and socialists to say "Democrats are not socialists." Because the people complaining about socialism don't care about that technical implementation difference; that's not actually the issue being raised. Rather, they are arguing against collectivism.

People in general use "socialism" to mean "collectivism," and I think that's perfectly fine, because people in general don't (and shouldn't) care about some obscure implementation detail that is being argued over by true believers.

If you have an argument against what I've said here, I'd be interested to see it, but I'd rather get something really specific and targeted vs. more of a soapbox.

1 comments

>If you have an argument against what I've said here, I'd be interested to see it, but I'd rather get something really specific and targeted vs. more of a soapbox.

I don't really have to argue against anything here, because you haven't taken a coherent position. "Freedom" and "collectivism" are not supernatural forces. Reversed right-proprietarianism is not leftism.

When you are willing to acknowledge the differences between and specific points among left-wing ideologies, leftists will be willing to talk to you. When you try to boil everything down to categories like "individualism" or "collectivism" that only make sense within your own ideology - as if your ideology was built into reality rather than something you impose upon your perceptions - rather than attempting to honestly engage others on matters of fact, you are wasting everyone's time.

All you've managed to say is, "Look at all those Democrats and socialists: they're not right-proprietarians! How horrid!"

> boil everything down to categories like "individualism" or "collectivism" that only make sense within your own ideology - as if your ideology was built into reality rather than something you impose upon your perceptions

My classifications (e.g. individualism and collectivism) are derived from reality, not imposed on top of them, and are quite reasonable.

edit: I've removed the rest of my original comment that was here, because I can't say anything nice, and so I don't want to say anything at all. In short, I think your last comment is totally unreasonable and off base.