This is the problem. You, an anarchistic socialist if I understand you correctly (also known by the terminology of the Marxist philosophy all this came from as being Communist), are attempting to impose your specific, ideologically purposed definitions, while the rest of the thread is trying to bash your face into the normal dictionary terms the general fucking public knows and how actual reality has implemented such concepts.
This is actually... ridiculous. The definition I use is the definition which makes sense within the literature of those who hold the belief. This goes beyond the term socialism or politics in general. To do otherwise is nonsense. Trying to impose outside definitions to a topic any topic which contradict the definitions as used by those who actually hold and put forward a given view reduce ones ability to meaningfully talk about said topic.
You are fundamentally refusing every form of socialism that holds a "statist" form where the state represents the people, which is born out by almost every revolutionary attempt ever made under the banner of "socialism" or "communism", including the Paris Commune in 1871, recognized by Karl Marx as a real example of implementing his philosophies, which itself forcefully took over Churches (officially limited to mandating they be open to the public during every cerimony, "un"officially they arrested most of the clergy) and operated as a representative democracy, rather than the anarchistic outcome you consider "true socialism", which is what Marx described as Communism.
Sort of. There is a reason why I didn't and won't at least in this thread push back too hard on North Korea being socialist (showing that I am willing to compromise). There is a conversation among socialists as to if statism is compatible with socialism at all. This conversation extends beyond a fringe group(tankies). Because of this I can and will put forward the argument as to why statism is not compatible with socialism.
However if the individual I am talking to is not a socialist I will usually accept for the sake of the conversation that socialism is compatible with the existence of a state unless they are seriously interested in having that conversation. This is because it is contested within socialist circles and so there is a legitimate argument to be made either way until the case is resolved.
As to Marx. Most socialists are not Marxists. Socialism did not start with Marx. Socialism did not end with Marx. I am interested in the development of idea's in general so I start back as far as I can go and read forward. If you believe that Marx himself thought the Paris Commune was a real example of his philosophy being carried out then you have not read any of his own critiques.
And again I repeat I do not push back to hard against the idea that socialism can exist within a state for the reason that it is hotly debated among socialists (with Anarchists taking both sides). There is also a nuanced difference between Anarchism and Communism. see communism vs anarcho-syndicalism.
Allow me to make a parallel to demonstrate the problem as I see it. I could make the argument that Christians are cannibals. Historically speaking the Eucharist was seen as being the actual body and blood of Jesus. The two largest Christian organizations which make up 3/4 of all Christians hold to this view presently. 1/4 of the remaining 3/4ths also hold to this same view. Now when I am discussing with a protestant why their religion is wrong I could insist that they believe they are eating human flesh and drinking human blood. But this is to get lost in the weeds in a secondary conversation. Further and rightfully if I did so the protestant would think that I had no idea what I was talking about as I would be telling them that they hold to a doctrine which they know for a fact they do not hold to. Christianity is not a monolith and holds within it distinct competing contradictory views. The unifying principle of Christianity from atheo-Christianity, to Catholicism, to Baptist, to Mormon is 1) Yeshua was a good moral teacher, 2) The crucifixion was an act of virtue. After that you start getting into theist vs atheist, within theist tritheism, trinitarianism, modalism, etc. And that doesn't even touch on soteriology and it's numerous competing theories. But everyone Christian, non-christian, theist, atheist. Everyone can agree that if someone thinks that Yeshua was a bad moral teacher, and that the crucifixion was an act of moral degeneracy that person is not a Christian.
When I have people telling me "I don't care if the founders of the USSR admitted that the USSR was not socialist" why should I give any credence to anything they say. They are ideologically driven to stamp a label on the organization which the founders of that organization admitted the organization itself did not warrant because the workers did not own the means of production.
In other words, you'll only change your mind if
your own ideological literature disagrees with you, not if it can be substantiated that any socialist regime was actually carrying out an attempt at it properly following a strain of socialist philosophy, nor will you accept any argumentation from a different basis. You are saying that
reality is not of importance to your ideology, and that the only way to argue with you is with
the same ideology you hold.
It is not a slippery slope fallacy to say that the strongman "state socialism" will come to pass, because it has
factually happened. It took less than three years from the October Revolution overthrowing the representative provisional government, which itself took
less than a year after overthrowing a
feudal monarchy rather than a capitalist system, to the abolition of the electoral processes that held the upper-level management of Soviet Russia to a representative standard.
This is ideologically grounded in the previous extension of Vanguardism, where those farther along to Communism work to aid other uprisings, as doing so requires resources and manpower, and thus there must be a
mandate to acquire those resources and manpower to enable effective assistance, to enable other uprisings, to enable global socialism, to then allow global communism. And at this point you're two small steps from Stalin by working upwards to try to figure out the means actually needed for the ends. When you don't do any of this work, you end up with the Paris Commune of 1871. Brutally destroyed by the non-overthrown regions and bogged down in trying to uphold the utopian ideology in the middle of armed warfare.
At a certain point, it is very firmly that you demand "true" socialism, as defined
by you and perhaps some fifty-year-dead philosophers, and no amount of pointing out the logistical issues attempting to be answered that results in all the "fake" socialism convinces you otherwise.
Probably because you're a theoretician, a philosopher, not somebody dealing with implementation in reality on a regular basis that gives obstacles that need solutions within limited and somewhat certain means, like Lenin did. The man who oversaw the creation of the Soviet Union. The man who a major strain of socialism, specifically defined by rejecting Stalin's totalitarian strongman shit, is named after.
[/QUOTE]