It’s just that that’s not socialism either. You’re no true scotsmaning existing socialism, and idealizing not-socialism. You’re a social democrat, a cooperativist, maybe a mutualist, which is the right thing to be. You seek to manage contradictions, you don’t idealize their synthesis.
That’s true, but i don’t know if it’s fair to say that mandating employee ownership is anything other than socialist. Not Marxist, sure. Certainly leftist. But isn’t employee ownership and governance of the means of production, by definition, socialism?
It is not, by definition, socialism. Socialism has other elements. Marx did not think it was socialism. He thought political economy also likely made it impossible, because it didn’t abolish capitalism. Socialism is the global abolition of capitalism in all its forms, capitalism being the private ownership of the means of production (a group of workers still privately owns a factory, its private unless its public), via all means it might re-emerge, it’s not a spectrum of redistribution of wealth or government intervention.
I did in other comments. Usually because he utterly destroyed those other socialists in arguments. Proudhon is basically the main pre marx socialist, invented mutualism, I like him, but it’s just easier to say you’re a mutualist, because Marx wrote against him and most socialists see his ideas as primitive or wrong or “utopian”.
Then there were the Christian socialists. They are somewhat accepted. But you know, in Christian circles.
Ah I see. I definitely have more learning to do than. In that case how is libertarian socialism socialism? Doesn’t that definition invalidate basically everything but vanguardism?
Libertarian socialism is either what people call market socialism, which simply isn’t socialism, or anarchism, which is actually communism. But anarchists, which market socialists see themselves as being on the spectrum of, are actually a different intellectual tradition than Marxism.
Some groups have historical reasons to use the term socialism that are not Marxists, but if you go to a socialist group around the world and claim you are one of those (like I did) you basically will be stonewalled. These days socialist traditions are the Marxist traditions, and the rest are usually anarchist traditions.
Oh I definitely think my position is more informed by anarchist traditions (eg, see my username lol) than socialist traditions, but it’s not exactly anarchism either. I’m never really sure what label to use tbh.
Personally after examining and leaving on the table both Anarchism and Marxism, I went on to study Nietzsche, the Frankfurt school, reformists like Bernstein, and old school socialists like Proudhon. I’ve just landed far-left-of-liberal. There’s plenty of precedent for that too, for example in Rousseau and Rawls.
And going to europe, I basically just want what they have. So that’s socdem.
It’s just that that’s not socialism either. You’re no true scotsmaning existing socialism, and idealizing not-socialism. You’re a social democrat, a cooperativist, maybe a mutualist, which is the right thing to be. You seek to manage contradictions, you don’t idealize their synthesis.
That’s true, but i don’t know if it’s fair to say that mandating employee ownership is anything other than socialist. Not Marxist, sure. Certainly leftist. But isn’t employee ownership and governance of the means of production, by definition, socialism?
It is not, by definition, socialism. Socialism has other elements. Marx did not think it was socialism. He thought political economy also likely made it impossible, because it didn’t abolish capitalism. Socialism is the global abolition of capitalism in all its forms, capitalism being the private ownership of the means of production (a group of workers still privately owns a factory, its private unless its public), via all means it might re-emerge, it’s not a spectrum of redistribution of wealth or government intervention.
I think your argument might be more convincing if you actually mentioned these elements.
Other people had other definitions even before Marx, so I’m not sure why his should be the only valid definition.
Just my two cents.
I did in other comments. Usually because he utterly destroyed those other socialists in arguments. Proudhon is basically the main pre marx socialist, invented mutualism, I like him, but it’s just easier to say you’re a mutualist, because Marx wrote against him and most socialists see his ideas as primitive or wrong or “utopian”.
Then there were the Christian socialists. They are somewhat accepted. But you know, in Christian circles.
Ah I see. I definitely have more learning to do than. In that case how is libertarian socialism socialism? Doesn’t that definition invalidate basically everything but vanguardism?
Libertarian socialism is either what people call market socialism, which simply isn’t socialism, or anarchism, which is actually communism. But anarchists, which market socialists see themselves as being on the spectrum of, are actually a different intellectual tradition than Marxism.
Some groups have historical reasons to use the term socialism that are not Marxists, but if you go to a socialist group around the world and claim you are one of those (like I did) you basically will be stonewalled. These days socialist traditions are the Marxist traditions, and the rest are usually anarchist traditions.
Oh I definitely think my position is more informed by anarchist traditions (eg, see my username lol) than socialist traditions, but it’s not exactly anarchism either. I’m never really sure what label to use tbh.
Personally after examining and leaving on the table both Anarchism and Marxism, I went on to study Nietzsche, the Frankfurt school, reformists like Bernstein, and old school socialists like Proudhon. I’ve just landed far-left-of-liberal. There’s plenty of precedent for that too, for example in Rousseau and Rawls.
And going to europe, I basically just want what they have. So that’s socdem.