there is no socialism in history which has ever successfully been implemented
Yet while so many socialist ideologues seem willing to make this “no true scotsman” argument on behalf of socialism
I take issue with this. Socialism has been incredibly successful everywhere its been implemented. There are some people calling themselves socialists, who accept all the capitalist propaganda about actually existing socialism at face value, and unfortunately they often do dominate socialist discourse in the imperial core. But anyone who has studied and learn about the USSR, Cuba, China, Mongolia in earnest, and learned from these movements, cannot but be awed at their achievements. The bottom article lists many of them for the USSR, and China in the modern day has some even more impressive achievements in lifting more people out of poverty than any other country in history.
This is a long topic that I can suggest more reading, but I recommend these introductory articles / videos:
The guy who coined the term “anarchism” (without adjectives), Proudhon, was a socialist. He used it to describe a socialist ideology, and it has been a socialist tradition ever since. There has of course been plenty of attempts to hijack the term, but even the “anarchism without adjectives” folks don’t include “anarchism with hierarchy”.
Proudhon also popularised the slogan “Property is theft”. And capitalism is of course fundamentally based on private property. So you have “property is theft” on one hand, and “property as a fundamental right” on the other. Are you able to perceive some kind of contradiction here?
Why are you so obsessed with identity? It’s OK not to be anarchist. I’m not. And I’m not gatekeeping. But I am pointing out that you are contradicting yourself. Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron. A non-sequitur. It’s not anarchist just because you feel like it should be. Anarchism and Capitalism are not compatible by definition.
Removed by mod
I take issue with this. Socialism has been incredibly successful everywhere its been implemented. There are some people calling themselves socialists, who accept all the capitalist propaganda about actually existing socialism at face value, and unfortunately they often do dominate socialist discourse in the imperial core. But anyone who has studied and learn about the USSR, Cuba, China, Mongolia in earnest, and learned from these movements, cannot but be awed at their achievements. The bottom article lists many of them for the USSR, and China in the modern day has some even more impressive achievements in lifting more people out of poverty than any other country in history.
This is a long topic that I can suggest more reading, but I recommend these introductory articles / videos:
Removed by mod
I think you mean Anarcho-Capitalist. Anarchism is a socialist ideology and Anarcho-Capitalism, despite its silly name, is not anarchist.
Removed by mod
Yeah… no.
The guy who coined the term “anarchism” (without adjectives), Proudhon, was a socialist. He used it to describe a socialist ideology, and it has been a socialist tradition ever since. There has of course been plenty of attempts to hijack the term, but even the “anarchism without adjectives” folks don’t include “anarchism with hierarchy”.
Proudhon also popularised the slogan “Property is theft”. And capitalism is of course fundamentally based on private property. So you have “property is theft” on one hand, and “property as a fundamental right” on the other. Are you able to perceive some kind of contradiction here?
Removed by mod
Why are you so obsessed with identity? It’s OK not to be anarchist. I’m not. And I’m not gatekeeping. But I am pointing out that you are contradicting yourself. Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron. A non-sequitur. It’s not anarchist just because you feel like it should be. Anarchism and Capitalism are not compatible by definition.
If you actually want to learn something, have a look at what The Anarchist FAQ has to say about it: Section F: Is “anarcho”-capitalism a type of anarchism?.
Removed by mod