Current Affairs - "3 Arguments Against Socialism and Why They Fail"
62 replies, posted
With Garry's recent upheaval of a lot of rules, i am going by the assumption that the old "center-left to center-right" rule of sourcing is no longer in effect, and thus I am celebrating by posting a blantantly far-left political pieces that challenges typical liberal arguments against socialism. Depending on how this is recieved, I might follow up with more of such articles in the future. Hopefully this will inspire some critical thinking for you all, and I hope you will debate in good faith.
Without further ado:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/07/3-arguments-against-socialism-and-why-they-fail
I think you'll find you're going to get shit on just as much as someone posting Fox News as a source. Sorry to say.
I expect that, but you can't change hearts and minds if people aren't even exposed to alternative ideas. I'll keep the worst of my agitprop to my other communities, but if I can get a bunch of liberals talking and sicussing, it's a win
But there's a difference between posting your own opinions and using biased opinion sources. If your going to persuade people to your side, it helps to have non biased factual sources to use as evidence for your opinion.
Once you do that opinions become factual arguments. Even in thr post-truth society that we live in, if we fight opinions with opinions we'll only further entrench ourselves in a post-truth environment.
On a side note, Snopes, and media bias chart are a good way to ensure that your in the middle:
http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Media-Bias-Chart_Version-3.1_Watermark-min.jpg
Communism and Socialism are both failed ideologies which always end in a totalitarian state.
Like Fascism, their end goal is always empowering a group of idiots during hard times, and expecting them to bring back a gilded/golden age, even though 9 times outta 10, they make it hilariously worse.
Several states in the union have had numerous runins with said ideologies, the current state I reside in, North Dakota, has had it's fairshare with the Non-Partisan League. All though this gave us the state grainmill, and state bank, it also has created family dynasties in several industries, thanks in part to the inability to do business in this state without going through government industries. Because of this, our economic output becomes heavily reliant on very specific resources, as little wiggle room for other industries can be afforded. Not to even start mentioning how socialism tends to create more brickwalls for new industries, in similar fashion too a plutocracy.
I guess what I'm getting at is this: If you suck the dick of the local party leader: You'll do great! Otherwise, get ready to be on the "wrong side of history" and suffer because of it.
Fuck gummybearism, and all of those which use it too suit their own ends.
I want to challenge the notion that centrist and liberal sources are "non-biased". There is no such thing as a non-biased source, and there is no objectivity in politics. Sources that are biased toward centrism, liberalism or generally anything that fits within the overton window are still biased. Considering that this is a political debate sub, it makes no sense to exclude radical opinion pieces. If Polidicks is going to have even a chance of being a lively debate arena, it shouldn't just be "SH but with news about Trump". I want it to become more like Mass Debate but still an arena for news from the political sphere.
Centerists aren't any more logical or automatically correct than any other political view. It's a compromise fallacy that people need to get over
Buddy you need to get off the Pigeon-shit moonshine...
this is a confusing and terrible graph for many reasons but also I think it looks like Goatse
There's a line between alternative ideas and outright hairy bollocks.
Actually taking a look at the article it does make some actual fair points. Socialism is just as diverse an ideology as any other idealism, and those who are to radical are usually pulled back by the moderates. This is why throughout history socialists leaders have actually enacted extremely effective ideas into local governments, without complete and total radicalization of the economy and such. It's only gone wrong when socialist policies were implemented by violent revolution or a coup, just as it would have gone wrong if it had been any other extreme ideology. Socialism as I see it is not a replacement of the capitalist system, but rather an improvement that allows more people to actually get better results out of it. All concerns of factual reporting aside, the article does bring up some good points.
Taking a balanced or non-partisan approach to reporting is completely different from actively promoting centrist views.
The thing is, sometimes the facts support a given side
When that's the case, a balanced, non-partisan news source will report as such. Sources like AP and Reuters don't give equal airtime to pro-evolution and anti-evolution viewpoints when reporting on biology, and they don't write stories suggesting the truth is somewhere in the middle. The facts are clear and they report those facts, not the facts filtered through a lens of political bias as sources more aligned to the left or right (or, sometimes, the middle) will do.
It's a complete false equivalence to paint balanced reporting as the same as pro-centrism. The Media Bias Chart is not an endorsement of centrism; it's an endorsement of objective reporting.
You're misreading the chart. It's not claiming that centrist sources are non-biased. It's pointing to the sources with the most fact checking, and showing the lean of the bias of the non-factual sources.
Ok, Good point that it become its own stereotype.
So what type of Anarchist ideology you believe in? (Excluding Anarcho-communism obviously)
I don't consider myself to be an anarchio-communist, but I consider an-coms to be my comrades. I consider myself a synthesis anarchist, taking a mutualist approach to economics with an egoist sense of phenomenology, and supporting a wide range of praxis ranging from syndicalism to autonomist squatting to outright insurrection depending on the circumstances.
"I'm an anarchist, mate"
lmao I remember middle school
nice attitude!
I too deride legitimate political views with silly zingers and zeros points. Oh wait
"people who adhere to things i consider extreme are all middle schoolers"
anarchism seems like the most ridiculously impractical way of structuring society ever conceived of
Current affairs : Why we can argue all day about how in theory "socialism is shitty" whilst being entirely ignorant of the fact that the form of capitalism in place right now is currently really fucking shit up badly
So does this mean I can post the dumbest article I can find from WND or something?
politically non centred =/ dumbest article
WND is comedically right-wing, I mean look at this shit.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/worlds-events-prompt-christians-to-watch-for-antichrist/
http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/pastor-transgenders-are-reallyrebelling-against-god/
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/213991/7a201aa9-3181-42b7-b1f2-b3cce57e4611/image.png
I wasn't so much commenting on WND as I was on the comparison
How do you reconcile mutualism with syndicalism - other than the latter being worthy of support as long as you can use those people as allies?
Do you really believe insurrectionary anarchism is either useful or a viable way of bringing about any of your goals - and if so, in what circumstances?
Have you actually done anything in terms of political activity outside of posting agitprop on obscure internet forums in order to bring your ideas forward?
How do you personally reconcile egoism with things like syndicalism, infested as they usually are with spooks?
Diet Kane's anarchism is such a niche sort of ideology I'd be surprised to find a middle schooler that knows about it
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
