The EVILution of Communism by James Lindsay

[Puffy]

If we treat Marx's vision like Marx treated capitalism, we've got to admit to the corrupting influence of perverse incentives in revolution. There is more to power dynamics than capital. The chances that a socialist revolution results in a functional socialist society are low.

But isn't that what most Western countries have had? A socialist revolution that has affected everything, from women's rights to LGBT rights, to anti-racism laws, to green taxes that help us 'save the planet'?

A socialist revolution? What no. Socialism != government doing stuff.

If your claim is true, then:
A) How do you define socialism?
B) What objective traits do people who define themselves as socialists have in common?

Bare minimum for socialism is collective ownership of means of production. The existence of government does not imply socialism. Women having rights is not socialism. Races being equal under the law is not socialism. Blue hair is not socialism.

Sorry for tone, I'm a little exasperated at people broadening the term to encompass anything and everything beyond the conservative spectrum.

Yes exactly thank you. True socialism in this sense is a radical minority and not mainstream or a threat to the mainstream anytime soon.

 

[Cognisant]

Communism is a classless stateless society. That is, everyone's relationship to the means of production is equal, and the coercive state structure is abolished.

Suppose we return to monkey, a 100% primordial hunter/gatherer lifestyle, in which case the "means of production" is just living off the land. Even in that scenario apes have a social structure, a hierarchy based on dominance and whatever form the social structure takes there will be someone in charge calling the shots.

Spoiler

The more we strip away social structures the more things return to the rule of the strong, the more we try to remove the "tyranny" of civilization the more we return to the tyranny of might makes right.

 

[Haim]

Bare minimum for socialism is collective ownership of means of production.

..........

Collective (read: collective) ownership of the means of production is socialism. Communism is a classless stateless society. That is, everyone's relationship to the means of production is equal, and the coercive state structure is abolished.

Yes, communism is pie in the sky 'everyone will just get along' kumbaya bullshit. Yes attempts to bring about communism result in some of the most vicious atrocities known to man. But this is the idea of communism.

No this was never the idea of communism, this is their coca kola advertisement.

Using the commie definition of socialism has little utility, its full of double speak and make no sense to describe our reality, by that definition it would we hard to say what is and is not a country with socialism making it worthless as a word. The left love killing words. I think it is important we insist words have meaningful and consistent meaning.

 

[ZenRaiden]

That definition of communism exists solely to obfuscate criticism of communism

I had seen this argument, and its virtually a mainstay of arguments, in order to dunk on Soviets.

The problem is if we implement communism without calling it communism you would not even recognize it.

I bet your the kind of guy who would vote for the first communist reform without knowing what it is.

Kind of like liberals did not recognize that Democrats became fascist neocons and literally anti freedom.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

So, maybe you can go to your conservative circle jerks and talk about that and people already agree with you. But I'd like an actually quality discussion.

Then you'd like a quality discussion, where we put in a lot of effort to come up with quality points? Sounds good to me.

Well, the issue for me is that I don't understand what people expect to accomplish. Ranting or venting?

That's ok, it's anyone's right I guess. But if one thinks they are contributing to some political activism or a Neapolitan humanitarian cause by just going in circles and changing the goal posts it's not going anywhere.

They just end up confusing the idiots and withdrawing the people that disagree with them.

Like many of those that disagree and withdraw, many of them have their minds made up, it won't matter what you tell them. That is the precursor to a mob.

Yet, it would seem that that same precursor, the propensity to be a mob, that is present in these anti-socialist sentiments.

I'm just trying to steer this back to talking about reality of what people are trying to communicate.

If there is breakdown in communication, the mob mentality takes control.

What type of quality discussion did you have in mind?

 

[sushi]

I don't think it would be honest for him to disavow any association with the atrocities committed in the name of communism. They were attempted in the name of communism, and even if they diverged substantially from his vision, they were still facilitated by his ideas. If he were alive to see Mao or Lenin or Stalin or Hitler, he would have to acknowledge that the transitional phase is vulnerable to exploitation by totalitarians. This is a fundamental flaw in his intended vision. Violent revolution does not make for social stability, it creates an environment for the most ruthless to succeed. This is a valid criticism of Marx and of the socialist transition to communism.

He would have to reflect on why every time communism is forcefully implemented as he expected, the end result is totalitarianism. He would have to take an L.

the problem is that countries that have became communist are much more capitalist or state capitalist than western countries.

in western countries there are labor unions and right to strike, along with minimum wages and other worker benefits, while in communist countries these things are outlawed because the revolution has succeeded.

 

[Haim]

I don't think it would be honest for him to disavow any association with the atrocities committed in the name of communism. They were attempted in the name of communism, and even if they diverged substantially from his vision, they were still facilitated by his ideas. If he were alive to see Mao or Lenin or Stalin or Hitler, he would have to acknowledge that the transitional phase is vulnerable to exploitation by totalitarians. This is a fundamental flaw in his intended vision. Violent revolution does not make for social stability, it creates an environment for the most ruthless to succeed. This is a valid criticism of Marx and of the socialist transition to communism.

He would have to reflect on why every time communism is forcefully implemented as he expected, the end result is totalitarianism. He would have to take an L.

the problem is that countries that have became communist are much more capitalist or state capitalist than western countries.

in western countries there are labor unions and right to strike, along with minimum wages and other worker benefits, while in communist countries these things are outlawed because the revolution has succeeded.

Labor unions function in a manner similar to the mandatory communist party members in chinse companies and DEI departments. They are basically a secondary management, one that is about politics and morality.
So a communist party is a government representative, the DEI department is the shareholders representative and the labor unions is the mob representative.
The result of those systems is that the CEO and workers have less ownership of the company, less ownership of the means of production if you will.

To be fair there are countries which probably have decent unions, due you need a culture where unions actually care about the company and the worker and not only their own power, one this is not afraid to let employs get fired.

 

[Hadoblado]

Communism is a classless stateless society. That is, everyone's relationship to the means of production is equal, and the coercive state structure is abolished.

Suppose we return to monkey, a 100% primordial hunter/gatherer lifestyle, in which case the "means of production" is just living off the land. Even in that scenario apes have a social structure, a hierarchy based on dominance and whatever form the social structure takes there will be someone in charge calling the shots.

Spoiler

The more we strip away social structures the more things return to the rule of the strong, the more we try to remove the "tyranny" of civilization the more we return to the tyranny of might makes right.
View attachment 8503
View attachment 8504

Yep sure. And that is just what it is. I am not a communist. I don't think Marx was right.

 

[Hadoblado]

Bare minimum for socialism is collective ownership of means of production.

..........

Collective (read: collective) ownership of the means of production is socialism. Communism is a classless stateless society. That is, everyone's relationship to the means of production is equal, and the coercive state structure is abolished.

Yes, communism is pie in the sky 'everyone will just get along' kumbaya bullshit. Yes attempts to bring about communism result in some of the most vicious atrocities known to man. But this is the idea of communism.

No this was never the idea of communism, this is their coca kola advertisement.

Using the commie definition of socialism has little utility, its full of double speak and make no sense to describe our reality, by that definition it would we hard to say what is and is not a country with socialism making it worthless as a word. The left love killing words. I think it is important we insist words have meaningful and consistent meaning.

You're probably just a Nazi.

 

[Cognisant]

I'm joking

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm also joking

But the point stands. If it's not okay for the left to broaden the definition of Nazi/fascism to everything they don't like, why is it okay for the right to broaden the definition of socialism/communism to everything they don't like?

It's the exact same thing but while we all roll our eyes when some blue-haired turbo lesbian screeches fascist at anything a conservative believes, we're okay with conservatives calling anything and everything on the left socialism/communism? While the meaning of words does shift over time, there is a difference between when this is a natural result of lingual drift and when it's semantically engineered for political purposes.

 

[fluffy]

I was told by a guy in his 50s that you brand yourself as a communist, socialist, Marxist or progressive because you can get a T-shirt with the guy smoking a bong on it or anything you like.

By in-operating these left ideas as a status symbol you don't move forward in a revolution. You were indoctrinated to think you are because of the toys and bells and whistles.

Communism then is commercialized. Like apples think different commercial. Thus the masses have been diverted from a classless society into a society with thousands of classes depending on your mood.

Give the people everything and they will seek nothing. Go buy a T-shirt that says I love Marx well he is wearing a make America greater again hat.

 

[Cognisant]

As I see it the key factor is authoritarianism.

Both communism and fascism are essentially conservative authoritarianism, take away the authoritarianism and you just have very conservative societies which I imagine would function something like the Amish. Of course without the authoritarianism forcing people to be very conservative they're likely to diverge in a thousand more liberal directions, which is a problem for the Amish and the Amish now are not quite as anti-technology as they used to be.

Anyway my point is, stop equating progress with authoritarianism and I'll stop equating progressivism with communism.

If I as a Trump supporter (for now) supported him implementing policies that restrict free speech on the basis of censoring "misinformation" then you should call me a fascist.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Except we've pointed out several times that the big bad things that you're supposed to worry about in a communist are already present in this capitalist.

If you don't even want to look at the last hundred years and see how many figures were silenced by the government, such as Malcolm x and Martin Luther King and hell even John f Kennedy, who for some reason or another did not get to exercise they're rights because they were met with opposition and censored.

College campuses all over the US erupted in protests because people are trying to advocate their political positions.

I believe people in this forum shamed that superintendent for some ivy League school, and she lost her job because she didn't outright bend over to right-wing politicians who wanted to lambast her for not silencing "anti-Semitic" protest.

This is the system we live under currently. So explain to me how things would be different if we were adhering to whatever arbitrary labels you are reifying.

Excuse my grammar I am without hands at the moment

 

[Haim]

What? you think government funded education institute should allow a
situation in which students from certain race are expected to be assaulted just by going to class?
Do I need to explain to you why dead Jews can not exercise their freedom of speech?
"Free Palestine" is not some free my people thing, it mean "free Palestine from the river to the sea", meaning kill all he Jews in Israel. Even the more light interpretation is go back to Germany, do I need explain why that problematic? not to mention many Jews came to Israel from Arab countries.
In a country which respect human rights you can not allow to people to say "ban human rights" and act so it happen.
Silencing? there are talking about minimal enforcement, like expelling students that frighteningly harass Jewish students(which are not Israeli) or call for killing of Jews in more straightforward manner or do riot things.
You can not allow education people that say students can support KKK depending on the context, we are talking about supporting a terrorist group far worse than KKK ever was.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Lol.

See your minimizing and determining what someone else's expression is.

It must be what you make it out to be because any criticism of things you hold sacred are *not assailable, meanwhile everything else is free game.

Free speech is free until you don't like it, and any double standard YOU want is valid.

As if these college kids were ever going to do anything, this was the most radical they would've done their entire life and the right wing delivered punishments and ultimatums regardless of your precious free speech.

In the most brutal way, bureaucracy , attacking individual students and faculty members.

I don't give a flying fuck about the melodrama you choose to think is real, and neither did these kids.

You think it's ok to burn cities down and lay waste to a population because of.. well I don't know why, but historically, you are not in the minority of people.

You don't have some fringe tendency to just ethnically cleanse, it's actually rather common.

Survival isn't the problem like you make it out to be for the people of Israel. Israel will survive so long as it's backed by America.

Americas worst nightmares became a reality despite the nationalists oppression to banish socialist thinking for half a century.

Silencing? there are talking about minimal enforcement, like expelling students that frighteningly harass Jewish students(which are not Israeli) or call for killing of Jews in more straightforward manner or do riot things.
You can not allow education people that say students can support KKK depending on the context, we are talking about supporting a terrorist group far worse than KKK ever was.

Much worse than your precious social media censorship. Real lives were ruined and or delayed.

I don't understand the kkk comparison. These days your life can be ruined in America for being openly racist.

You can have militias, it's just clear that they respect the authority of the law lest they get locked up.

Your mixing up opportunity to be savage with capacity to commit savagery. Blame that on Israel's shit government that relys on creating enemies to stay in power.

It's honestly no surprise, seeing as most of that anti palestinian sentiment* is probably racial in origin, so there has to be something inherently wrong with the opposition.

Still, not even comparable

 

[Haim]

Really you think I care about some criticizing about Israel, this is not the issue.
Those protests started right after the 7 October pogrom, even before we
started our counter offense, you are insane for thinking that in civilized society an
education institute should tolerate it.
There was a Jewish professor not allowed to enter in fear the protests will assault him, not Israeli professor. It is illegal for education institute to allow such situation because it is discrimination. Preventing people of certain race to go to some area is an illegal protest. Trapping Jewish students in classrooms in fear of being assaulted by a mob that try to force his way in is not some anti government protest.
"I don't understand the kkk comparison. These days your life can be ruined in America for being openly racist." Really? so people that discriminate against white people were swiftly dealt with? what about against Asians? there is also a pass against Jews.
Also Kyle Rittenhouse was dealt with fairly?
There is a difference between calling to kill people of certain race than to protest against government actions. when they say "globalize and intifada" how is that related to Israel? it is clearly a call to kill Jewish civilians.
If you want freedom of speech you can not allow a culture which has no
care for it.

 

[scorpiomover]

If we treat Marx's vision like Marx treated capitalism, we've got to admit to the corrupting influence of perverse incentives in revolution. There is more to power dynamics than capital. The chances that a socialist revolution results in a functional socialist society are low.

But isn't that what most Western countries have had? A socialist revolution that has affected everything, from women's rights to LGBT rights, to anti-racism laws, to green taxes that help us 'save the planet'?

A socialist revolution? What no. Socialism != government doing stuff.

If your claim is true, then:
A) How do you define socialism?
B) What objective traits do people who define themselves as socialists have in common?

Bare minimum for socialism is collective ownership of means of production. The existence of government does not imply socialism. Women having rights is not socialism. Races being equal under the law is not socialism. Blue hair is not socialism.

Sorry for tone, I'm a little exasperated at people broadening the term to encompass anything and everything beyond the conservative spectrum.

Sorry for taking so long. Your response floored me, so much that I wondered how I could have ever thought of even writing a reply to you in the first place.

It has eventually dawned on me, that almost all people who describe themselves as socialists, seem to support left-wing governments and left-wing parties, that they seem to describe as "socialist", when those same left-wing governments and left-wing parties, have been legislating in favour of feminism and anti-racism for decades.

Yet AFAIK, they have almost never been legislating or doing anything to drive down private ownership of the means of production, and drive up collective ownership of the means of production, such as co-operatives where the employees are the shareholders in the company, e.g. John Lewis in the UK.

It's a mite difficult to say that almost all people who call themselves 'socialists', are all voting for parties that support NONE of their values, and prioritise only values that are nothing to do with the values of socialism.

It's far more likely, that the common usage of the words 'socialism' and 'socialist' is generally in favour of things like feminism and anti-racism, and not that bothered about fostering the development of successful co-operatives companies like John Lewis.

But how might that be possible?

Well, why would socialists care about 'collective ownership of the means of production'? Because they're worried about capitalism, i.e. when only some of the people involved in the production, the manufacture of their money and their livelihoods, control the power and money involved in their livelihoods, and some get a lot more than they should, while others get a lot less than they should, yes?

Isn't the whole reason that people are so outraged by racism and especially slavery of BIPOC, was that some (the whites) got & get a lot more than they should, while others (the BIPOCs) got & get a lot less than they should, because the whites had the power and control over the ways they made money, yes?

Isn't the whole reason that people are so passionate about feminism, was that some (the men) got & get a lot more than they should, while others (the BIPOCs) got & get a lot less than they should, because the men had the power and control over the ways they made money, yes?

So really, aren't they all issues that have the same root cause, that some get most of the power over the things that make them money and get them the things they want, by taking more than their fair share and depriving others of the things they are entitled to?

So then, it's a matter of prioritising which policies are more important, i.e. affect society negatively more, and which policies are less important, i.e. have less of a negative effect on society.

Thus, IMHO, modern-day socialists believe that things like racism, sexism and homophobia are much more detrimental to humanity as a whole, than private ownership of small businesses, and thus prioritise those issues in their policies, and thus have zero conflicts with supporting parties that prioritise dealing with racism, sexism and homophobia, and ignoring collective ownership.

Or, socialism is as you described, and everyone who calls themselves a 'socialist' and votes left-wing, have been hoodwinked en masse by some rich, evil people to support the parties that support lots of values they don't have, but none of the values they do have.

Which one do you think is more likely to be true?

 

[scorpiomover]

So, maybe you can go to your conservative circle jerks and talk about that and people already agree with you. But I'd like an actually quality discussion.

Then you'd like a quality discussion, where we put in a lot of effort to come up with quality points? Sounds good to me.

Well, the issue for me is that I don't understand what people expect to accomplish. Ranting or venting?

They are raising the average emotional feelings about the issues that they are ranting/venting about.

That's ok, it's anyone's right I guess. But if one thinks they are contributing to some political activism or a Neapolitan humanitarian cause by just going in circles and changing the goal posts it's not going anywhere.

It's online bullying, trying to knock people down, by accusing them of doing bad things. Then the bully has proved that he can make people do things (like feeling guilty), even if they don't want to do them (like feeling guilty), any time the bully wants.

This encourages the bully to feel that the bully can also persuade other people in his life to do what the bully wants. This gives the bully confidence in personal interactions, such as seeking a job, going for a promotion, approaching people for a relationship, and asking and getting what you want in your relationship, your job, your career, and your life. This gives the bully a lot of motivation and perseverance, which in turn makes the bully eventually succeed at nearly all of the things he wants and tries to get.

They just end up confusing the idiots and withdrawing the people that disagree with them.

Bullying is frowned upon, because long-term, it doesn't work for anyone.

Long-term, the people who can go and work for and date people who don't bully them, and would make the effort to do so, so leave the bully alone, leaving the bully with only the either the undesirables, or the people who have zero motivation and basically have to have almost everything done for them. So long term, the bully loses out big-time.

Long-term, the bullied run away from life, and so also miss out on much of the good in life.

This affects everyone else as well, because the bullied don't participate and thus don't contribute much, and the bullies cause everyone who you want to stay, to leave.

So long-term, bullying ends up making everyone displeased, just for different reasons.

Like many of those that disagree and withdraw, many of them have their minds made up, it won't matter what you tell them. That is the precursor to a mob.

Mob mentality is really just bullying by a group of people. Same problem. Short-term things get better, but long-term, everyone that you want to be with, wants nothing to do with you.

Yet, it would seem that that same precursor, the propensity to be a mob, that is present in these anti-socialist sentiments.

They are also in socialist sentiments.

Socialist sentiments favour the ultimate collective, i.e. the state running everything, and perceive small groups acting in defiance of the state collective's wishes, as being traitors to their country.

Anti-socialist sentiments favour individuals in small groups being able to choose their group's values over whatever the state collective would prefer. An increase in the state's power over the individiual's actions, is usually perceived as a threat to the rights of the individual, and a reach towards totalitarian dictatorship.

Both groups tend to act as unified bodies that treat the other group's members as traitors and people trying to tear down society.

I'm just trying to steer this back to talking about reality of what people are trying to communicate.

If there is breakdown in communication, the mob mentality takes control.

What type of quality discussion did you have in mind?

One where both our views matter, but where the aim is to reach a synthesis of both our views, one that includes all the things that we each believe are important, and according to how important we think each value matters. So if we want a solution, it's a solution that works for both of us.

OTOH, that makes it harder to find a solution. But, that just means the set of possible solutions is smaller. We don't know if there are any solutions that satisfy both of our sets of values, until we try to find out.

However, the payoff is that we get a solution that works for both of us. So both of us are happy with implementing the solution. So then the solution can work in real-life, because neither of us will be trying to tear it down.

 

[Hadoblado]

If we treat Marx's vision like Marx treated capitalism, we've got to admit to the corrupting influence of perverse incentives in revolution. There is more to power dynamics than capital. The chances that a socialist revolution results in a functional socialist society are low.

But isn't that what most Western countries have had? A socialist revolution that has affected everything, from women's rights to LGBT rights, to anti-racism laws, to green taxes that help us 'save the planet'?

A socialist revolution? What no. Socialism != government doing stuff.

If your claim is true, then:
A) How do you define socialism?
B) What objective traits do people who define themselves as socialists have in common?

Bare minimum for socialism is collective ownership of means of production. The existence of government does not imply socialism. Women having rights is not socialism. Races being equal under the law is not socialism. Blue hair is not socialism.

Sorry for tone, I'm a little exasperated at people broadening the term to encompass anything and everything beyond the conservative spectrum.

Sorry for taking so long. Your response floored me, so much that I wondered how I could have ever thought of even writing a reply to you in the first place.

It has eventually dawned on me, that almost all people who describe themselves as socialists, seem to support left-wing governments and left-wing parties, that they seem to describe as "socialist", when those same left-wing governments and left-wing parties, have been legislating in favour of feminism and anti-racism for decades.

Yet AFAIK, they have almost never been legislating or doing anything to drive down private ownership of the means of production, and drive up collective ownership of the means of production, such as co-operatives where the employees are the shareholders in the company, e.g. John Lewis in the UK.

It's a mite difficult to say that almost all people who call themselves 'socialists', are all voting for parties that support NONE of their values, and prioritise only values that are nothing to do with the values of socialism.

It's far more likely, that the common usage of the words 'socialism' and 'socialist' is generally in favour of things like feminism and anti-racism, and not that bothered about fostering the development of successful co-operatives companies like John Lewis.

But how might that be possible?

Well, why would socialists care about 'collective ownership of the means of production'? Because they're worried about capitalism, i.e. when only some of the people involved in the production, the manufacture of their money and their livelihoods, control the power and money involved in their livelihoods, and some get a lot more than they should, while others get a lot less than they should, yes?

Isn't the whole reason that people are so outraged by racism and especially slavery of BIPOC, was that some (the whites) got & get a lot more than they should, while others (the BIPOCs) got & get a lot less than they should, because the whites had the power and control over the ways they made money, yes?

Isn't the whole reason that people are so passionate about feminism, was that some (the men) got & get a lot more than they should, while others (the BIPOCs) got & get a lot less than they should, because the men had the power and control over the ways they made money, yes?

So really, aren't they all issues that have the same root cause, that some get most of the power over the things that make them money and get them the things they want, by taking more than their fair share and depriving others of the things they are entitled to?

So then, it's a matter of prioritising which policies are more important, i.e. affect society negatively more, and which policies are less important, i.e. have less of a negative effect on society.

Thus, IMHO, modern-day socialists believe that things like racism, sexism and homophobia are much more detrimental to humanity as a whole, than private ownership of small businesses, and thus prioritise those issues in their policies, and thus have zero conflicts with supporting parties that prioritise dealing with racism, sexism and homophobia, and ignoring collective ownership.

Or, socialism is as you described, and everyone who calls themselves a 'socialist' and votes left-wing, have been hoodwinked en masse by some rich, evil people to support the parties that support lots of values they don't have, but none of the values they do have.

Which one do you think is more likely to be true?

Just because people are in the same party doesn't mean they are the same. Libertarians, Catholics, and Neo-Nazis all tend to vote Republican (or have historically). That doesn't mean that any of these are interchangeable with the word Republican, or with each other. Being in the same political coalition is different from being the same.

Socialists don't enjoy enough support to enact socialism, but there are steps in their preferred direction. There are also "hybrid" ideologies, like social democracy, which could be categorised as socialist while not advocating for the abolition of capitalism.

 

[ZenRaiden]

....never works.

 

[Haim]

Just because people are in the same party doesn't mean they are the same. Libertarians, Catholics, and Neo-Nazis all tend to vote Republican (or have historically). That doesn't mean that any of these are interchangeable with the word Republican, or with each other. Being in the same political coalition is different from being the same.

Socialists don't enjoy enough support to enact socialism, but there are steps in their preferred direction. There are also "hybrid" ideologies, like social democracy, which could be categorised as socialist while not advocating for the abolition of capitalism.

A Neo-Nazis that vote Republican is not a neo Nazi.
He might be racist, he might be nationalist, but that not make you a Nazi
, you also have to believe the values of the Nazi Party which are collective and socialist. If you are for small decentralized government you are not a Neo Nazi.
What is your source for Neo Nazi voting habits? I made it the fuck up ?

 

[Hadoblado]

What sort of evidence would satisfy you?

 

[Haim]

What sort of evidence would satisfy you?

Some kind of survey.
Also hopefully some statement showing what their ideology is, beyond being racist and nationalist.

 

[fractalwalrus]

If we treat Marx's vision like Marx treated capitalism, we've got to admit to the corrupting influence of perverse incentives in revolution. There is more to power dynamics than capital. The chances that a socialist revolution results in a functional socialist society are low.

But isn't that what most Western countries have had? A socialist revolution that has affected everything, from women's rights to LGBT rights, to anti-racism laws, to green taxes that help us 'save the planet'?

A socialist revolution? What no. Socialism != government doing stuff.

If your claim is true, then:
A) How do you define socialism?
B) What objective traits do people who define themselves as socialists have in common?

Bare minimum for socialism is collective ownership of means of production. The existence of government does not imply socialism. Women having rights is not socialism. Races being equal under the law is not socialism. Blue hair is not socialism.

Sorry for tone, I'm a little exasperated at people broadening the term to encompass anything and everything beyond the conservative spectrum.

Sorry for taking so long. Your response floored me, so much that I wondered how I could have ever thought of even writing a reply to you in the first place.

It has eventually dawned on me, that almost all people who describe themselves as socialists, seem to support left-wing governments and left-wing parties, that they seem to describe as "socialist", when those same left-wing governments and left-wing parties, have been legislating in favour of feminism and anti-racism for decades.

Yet AFAIK, they have almost never been legislating or doing anything to drive down private ownership of the means of production, and drive up collective ownership of the means of production, such as co-operatives where the employees are the shareholders in the company, e.g. John Lewis in the UK.

It's a mite difficult to say that almost all people who call themselves 'socialists', are all voting for parties that support NONE of their values, and prioritise only values that are nothing to do with the values of socialism.

It's far more likely, that the common usage of the words 'socialism' and 'socialist' is generally in favour of things like feminism and anti-racism, and not that bothered about fostering the development of successful co-operatives companies like John Lewis.

But how might that be possible?

Well, why would socialists care about 'collective ownership of the means of production'? Because they're worried about capitalism, i.e. when only some of the people involved in the production, the manufacture of their money and their livelihoods, control the power and money involved in their livelihoods, and some get a lot more than they should, while others get a lot less than they should, yes?

Isn't the whole reason that people are so outraged by racism and especially slavery of BIPOC, was that some (the whites) got & get a lot more than they should, while others (the BIPOCs) got & get a lot less than they should, because the whites had the power and control over the ways they made money, yes?

Isn't the whole reason that people are so passionate about feminism, was that some (the men) got & get a lot more than they should, while others (the BIPOCs) got & get a lot less than they should, because the men had the power and control over the ways they made money, yes?

So really, aren't they all issues that have the same root cause, that some get most of the power over the things that make them money and get them the things they want, by taking more than their fair share and depriving others of the things they are entitled to?

So then, it's a matter of prioritising which policies are more important, i.e. affect society negatively more, and which policies are less important, i.e. have less of a negative effect on society.

Thus, IMHO, modern-day socialists believe that things like racism, sexism and homophobia are much more detrimental to humanity as a whole, than private ownership of small businesses, and thus prioritise those issues in their policies, and thus have zero conflicts with supporting parties that prioritise dealing with racism, sexism and homophobia, and ignoring collective ownership.

Or, socialism is as you described, and everyone who calls themselves a 'socialist' and votes left-wing, have been hoodwinked en masse by some rich, evil people to support the parties that support lots of values they don't have, but none of the values they do have.

Which one do you think is more likely to be true?

Just because people are in the same party doesn't mean they are the same. Libertarians, Catholics, and Neo-Nazis all tend to vote Republican (or have historically). That doesn't mean that any of these are interchangeable with the word Republican, or with each other. Being in the same political coalition is different from being the same.

Socialists don't enjoy enough support to enact socialism, but there are steps in their preferred direction. There are also "hybrid" ideologies, like social democracy, which could be categorised as socialist while not advocating for the abolition of capitalism.

What I want to see is the Libertarian, Neo-Nazi, Catholic, Republican. And yes, you are correct about Socialists. That's the 'S' word in the West. Who would have guessed that the governments would engage in repression of the ideology that is the greatest threat to the oligarchic status quo. Go figure.