Third Socialism debate with Erik Engheim

Disclaimer Debates

Original

source
This is the problem talking to anti-socialist Americans like David. They don’t actually know anything about what socialists stand for. And certainly nothing about how Norwegian politics work today or historically.

What he doesn’t know is that the Norwegian labour party until the early 1981s was an explicitly radical socialist party. Social democrats and democratic socialists were exactly the same thing until the early 1980s.

This is info anyone who cares can lookup. I elaborate on this on my own substack erikexamines, where I link to various historical Norwegian labour party programs, which states very clearly that the Norwegian labour party is a democratic socialist party seeking a socialist society and ending capitalism.

This David here thinks if us socialists won it would be the end of democracy in Norway. Newsflash David, we already won straight majority 7 f*cking times in Norway, while the Norwegian Labour party was still a radical socialist party.

This is what grates me. People really think parties don’t change? That they are ideologically the same their whole existence? By this logic the Democratic party should still be pro slavery or something today.

It never ceases to amaze me how all these socialism hating Americans will without exception being to lecture me about Norwegian politics, despite just having googled it and having zero knowledge of historical development or current contemporary situation.

At this point I am starting to think every anti-socialist that exists simply has no clue what socialism is, or knows anything about the history of socialist parties in the West and their part governments. Norway has literally been run by socialists for near 40 years, but I have never encountered an American anti-socialist that knows this. But they all think they know everything.

Reply

What bewilders me is that despite Erik Engheim claiming to be so annoyed and frustrated by these conversations, he would still rather endlessly fight with Americans about definitions of socialism and Norwegian history than engage with the question our last debate left off with that gets to the crux of the disagreement. You see, unlike the annoying anti-socialists, Erik doesn't believe that someone who:

is worthy of serious pushback, which he said in our last discussion. He's of course welcome to correct me if I'm misreading him.

But he doesn't want to engage in a conversation about why that is the case, which I find very interesting.

O1

I don’t. I would rather debate reasonable anti-socialists that actually accept facts about the world. It is just that those don’t seem to exist. Is it a tall order to ask for an American to just accept they don’t know Norwegian political history and that a Norwegian who is active in politics and history would kind of know it better than them?

If it wasn’t for people being so fucking arrogant I would not be having these discussions at all. I don’t want them. I would greatly prefer a discussion rooted in actual facts. Put yourself in my shoes. It is the equivalent of pro-capitalism guy having to argue with foreigners about whether the US ever had pro-capitalism parties in power.

It is like you want to make the case that capitalism worked pretty well by pointing to American economic prosperity and scientific achievements, but the guy opposite you in the debate argue that America never had a pro capitalism government. And in fact you cannot find anyone who will even accept this simple historical fact.

Then some guy comes around like you and start going “Oh David why do you argue American history with people all the time?”

It wouldn’t be because you wanted to now would it? It would be because it is hard to have a conversation about anything when people deny objective reality.

As to what you want to debate. Let us pick one thing at a time then. You say I should oppose and criticize people because they oppose capitalism. LOL like why? I am literally a socialist. My goal is literally to end capitalism, so why would I get onboard with attacking them for that.

And now that I have said, that the debate will end up in the usual trajectory over a debate about what us socialists mean by capitalism. And you will as an anti-socialist insist you can read our minds and say that what we say ourselves about capitalism isn’t what we actually believe.

I will point to concrete examples of how socialists deal with capitalism, such as in Norway and you will just start insisting that somehow isn’t real. And the whole dumb circle repeats again and again.

An actual fucking discussion about genuine socialism. Like what we actually believe in at the core. Nah, that is just impossible to have.

R1

I don't want to get hung up on the other discussion you had, so just a few remarks about that. Number 1, I'm not American, just a European like you who's interested in American politics. Number 2, my remarks had very little to do with the contents of the discussion and more to do with what critiques you choose to engage. It seemed very weird to me that you supposedly hate these discussions and then rather have those than a discussion which touches the topic from a fresh angle.

Now, as to what I was saying, I wasn't talking about one of the aspects in particular, but the constellation of beliefs. In fact, that is what I was trying to tell you a few weeks ago:

"It doesn't quite work to pick out one of these at a time because it is about the larger worldview. While I'll try, do keep in mind that I find the combination to be the worst, not the individual things."

My issue isn't that you're a socialist per se. It is that you create a permission structure for people who hold beliefs I find deeply reprehensible to gain in influence and defend them because they associate themselves with the word socialism. If you want, we can do examples, and go through the bullet points but I just want to make sure if you take issue with anything I've said so far.

O2

Sorry if I jumbled you together with Americans. Just so I remember better tell me what you are. I was mostly talking about my general experience though. My experience is mostly with right-wing Americans. You are are one of the more reasonable ones, which I guess is telling as Europeans are generally not as confident about things they don’t know as Americans 😂

As to why I get into these discussion? Ideally I want to better discussion, but it is ultimately about trying to inform and change minds. If that many people are clueless about what socialism is then as a socialist that is kind of part of your political mission in a way isn’t it? Trying to more broadly inform people.

But I should be forgiven for feeling kind of frustrated by that job at times, given that one cannot even get people to accept pretty basic facts.

I think it would have been a more interesting debate to talk to people who are principled opposed to democratic socialism but actually understands what it is about. Or they don’t even have to know what it even is as long as they have some kind of humility about it. Like if they are willing to ask questions and learn rather than have the starting point that they somehow are experts on a political ideology they are not part of. Have never studied or really been interested in.

The debate with you is some levels better, because you are more willing to accept what you know and don’t know. Or accept at least that some things have different viewpoints.

But I still get into a what feels a little frustrating in many debates which is that Democratic Socialism is reduced to a “gotcha” game. I experience the same debating feminism. Some guy will say feminism is horrible and they hate men and then their case for it is digging up some random militant feminist from the 70s who said something like “kill all men” or something.

And I feel the debate with you can have some of the same flavor. Rather than focus what democratic socialists are primarily about, you want to dig up random deplorables within the movement and imply they somehow represent it.

Look as socialist we have always had deplorables within our ranks who have done things like support Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot or other horrible people. But here is what you don’t get. They have always been a radical minority and always gotten purged out of any serious socialist party that has grown above the 3% or so. There is no large democratic socialist movement with numbers like 15-20% above that I know of that has Maoists, Stalinists and shit like that among them, because the majority of us don’t like those people. We’ll kick them out of the party.

But I think while parties stay small, you tolerate those more as you are simply trying to gain a larger gathering. And this isn’t unique to socialists either. You can find this on the far-right as well. As those parties have grown they have purged extremists. Because at the end of the day you have to appeal to regular voters and you are not going to do that with Maoists or Stalinists on your front rows.

R2

I get where you're coming from but it seems as if you're trying to defend the broad notion of democratic socialism while I'm trying to point out flaws in how lots of socialists do politics and where they draw exclusionary lines. That doesn't mean I don't have issues with socialism, I just think the most practical and pressing problems are in this specific category.

If I understand your point correctly, you're basically saying that it's ok to have these radical elements in the movement because they expand it and can be expelled later? Which is why you don't think that someone whose worldview has the four pillars I describe is worthy of public pushback if he's part of a socialist org/party.

I'd say that's a bad approach. If you just allow radicalism to foster in a movement unopposed, the most extreme elements will prevail. Very intuitively, if you allow the radicals to constantly criticize the more moderate fractions, but the moderates can't push back, the radicals will eventually win a political narrative struggle.

The DSA is a good example of that. They started out as a very pragmatic movement but eventually were corrupted by more radical forces, to the point where their co-chair is part of a Marxist-Leninist Caucus. There's a great article on it by a former member of the DSA:
https://www.persuasion.community/p/why-i-just-quit-democratic-socialists

My solution to this is to just have some red lines which shouldn't be crossed. For any leftist movement I want to be part of, if someone fills all 4 of my criteria, I regard them as an enemy that is to be booted outside. I base them on observations in online political spaces and my general preferences.

O3

It is not that I am for these people, but I pick my fights. Let us get real your agenda pointing out these people is not to improve the election success for socialists. You are not committed to creating a more positive and reasonable socialist movement in America. Rather your goal is to use these outliers as a way of smearing socialism as a whole.

And all I am saying is I am not going to play that game with you. If you were a genuine socialist I’d work with you on that. But your motives isn’t to advance socialism.

I don’t see why I should be aiding people who just dig around for dumbasses in my movement as a tactic to undermine it.

I want socialism in America to grow but also to kick out extremists. You can want both. But let us get real you would probably prefer if those extremists stayed as it helps with your broader goal of undermining socialism as a whole.

R3

It's funny how you're trying to paint me as this malicious manipulator with the sinister goal of undermining socialism. I just speak out against people and orgs that I find to have harmful beliefs/policies and I try to persuade people to also be against them. If a fictional "Democratic Liberals of America" had equally bad or worse positions, I'd be giving them the exact same smoke. I don't evaluate my position on an org by looking at their label. Conversely, if DSA didn't have positions I find to be disqualifying, I wouldn't be alarmist about them, contrary to your characterization.

#Debate