Why aren't you a socialist?

“When asked whether or not we are Marxists, our position is the same as that of a physicist, when asked if he is a “Newtonian” or of a biologist when asked if he is a “Pasteurian.”
There are truths so evident, so much a part of the peoples’ knowledge, that it is now useless to debate them. One should be a “Marxist” with the same naturalness with which one is a “Newtonian” in physics or a “Pasteurian.” If new facts bring about new concepts, the latter will never take away that portion of truth possessed by those that have come before.

CHE

“When asked whether or not we are Marxists, our position is the same as that of a physicist, when asked if he is a “Newtonian” or of a biologist when asked if he is a “Pasteurian.”
There are truths so evident, so much a part of the peoples’ knowledge, that it is now useless to debate them. One should be a “Marxist” with the same naturalness with which one is a “Newtonian” in physics or a “Pasteurian.” If new facts bring about new concepts, the latter will never take away that portion of truth possessed by those that have come before.

CHE

A scientific theory has to be tested and proven true. Political theories cannot be tested, and politics isn't a science.

Socialism is dead. It longer exists in its traditional form. Modern (state) socialists have given up on what the idea that problems like unemployment and poverty were social problems not caused by nature or human greed.

Rather than reorganising society so there is plenty for everyone, modern socialists want the state to punish the rich (usually those pesky bankers). They view problems as caused by human greed not by the societal structure. Often now they modern socialists are environmentalists calling for humans to reduce consumption contrary to what traditional socialists wanted, a great production for all. Lots of stuff for everyone.

Modern socialists are often misanthropes who want state socialism to reign in what they believe is mankind's natural penance for greed.

Freedom and human progress are the most important ideals to me and modern socialism is in opposition to both.

The currently existing capitalism we have is not good either. These big evil corporations everyone seems to get so worked over about only exist because they benefit from privileges they get from the state.

This assertion brings us to question what is 'scientific'. There are plenty of people who study, for example, chimp behaviour, who would regard themselves as 'scientists' and who, no doubt, develop what they regard as scientific 'theories' about how chimp societies are organised. Where then do we draw the line between observation and theory related to chimp life and observation and theory related to human life? Are we not a social animal too?

yes, hence why sociology and psychology exist. and much of their theories make sense and are testable. but politics doesn't say what is but what should be, and no political philosopher/theorist can test his beliefs like a scientist can or does. I just don't think politics is or can be a science.

...

It should also be noted that fascism is not far-right, rather far-left - such misconceptions are responsible for people being scared of the right.

a) hierarchical political ideology and practice on the right and

b) egalitarian political ideology and practice on the left.

There is more than one way to conceptualise what is 'right' and what is 'left' but convention tends to have the distinction as being between:



On this basis fascism, like capitalism, is on the right, both being very hierarchical forms of society. Confusing as it might be for some, it follows that Soviet 'communism', is (or was) also, ultimately, very hierarchical and thus on the right.

Socialism is a joke and the people clinging onto it are living examples of how human beings never learn from history. Seriously, every attempt and establishing socialism has been a complete failure. After a failure of each socialist experiment, the socialists offer a thousand reasons why that particular ''model'' was a ''distortion'' of their otherwise excellent doctrine. Nobody takes it seriously anymore.

Give me one place where Socialism has been tried before? It hasn't.

Soviet Union, China, Europe today and any welfare state in general that follows the welfare model coupled with wealth distribution and increased regulation of the market to influence how the means of production need to operate.

If you mean socialism in it's 100% purity, then sure, it hasn't been tried anywhere.

But in that case, neither has there ever been tried a free market capitalist system in its 100% purity.

Capitalism vs Socialism = Freedom vs Equality

I choose freedom.

I believe in inequality, not everyone is equal do not be ridiculous. People being rich is, as far as I'm concerned, excellent. They've had the initiative to go out there and do stuff and become rich, so well done to them. Economic equality is a silly concept, life isn't fair and people need to get used to that idea. Nobody owes you anything, go out there and make it if you want it.

Obviously I am opposed to socialism, and pro-capitalism.

Don't forget that socialism is opposed to income equality, we do embrace other benefits to people who excel in things. For example, if you are lucky, as a science researcher trying to cure cancer, you will make 60-70k a year. A banker gets paid millions for literally doing nothing (or gambling). Besides any idiot know that rich people are rich because the poor are poor. A factory owner won't be able to make tat much if he wasn't exploiting the workers. In this system there will always be millions who suffer and even die because of there being a monetary 'initiative'. Money doesn't make people be more creative or ambitious. Look at the guy who owns Skype or that other guy who invented a vaccine that saved millions of children against paralysis. Money makes people evil.

The moment you said "Modern socialists believe x" your argument was dead in the water. You're clearly unaware of what libertarian socialism is and the breadth and variety of thought within the socialist movement. You should read up on it because it stands in opposition to many of the things you said.

We strongly agree with you in the importance of liberty, but that is precisely why we are so critical of capitalism because it is the opposite of freedom. We do not believe in the natural greed of humans: we would strongly agree with you that greed is caused and encouraged by existing social structures, particularly capitalism. We would very much like to reorganise society so that there is plenty for everyone: by crushing capitalism and reconstructing society on the basis of voluntary associations of people according to socialistic principles. The details of how that would work are contested but mutualism (as put forward by Kropotkin) is a popular theory.

Your belief that capitalism can be restructured such that there can be wealth for everyone is flawed and undermined both by analysis of capitalism and by simply observing actually existing capitalism in the world today. It's based in a notion of 'a rising tide lifts all boats' which at this point is a false notion that is demonstratably false.

And yes, we are also almost unanimously environmentalists. I really don't see how you can criticise the idea of reducing consumption? The idea of infinite growth is a particularly parasitical aspect of capitalism. We're content to grow at a slower but sustainable rate.

And in response to your final point, there's an excellent video criticising this distinction between so-called 'crony capitalism' and 'true capitalism.' Genuinely, please read a bit about libertarian socialism because I think it would challenge your pre-conceptions about socialism as a movement.

However who can deny property rights? If there is no such thing as justly aquired property (obtained by contracting freely without coercion) then how you justify me not barging into your house?