Sorry, I know debatebro-ism is the 12th type of liberalism :denguin:
Disappointed by Wolff tbh. He's too moralizing, comes off as a Christian Socialist. He's also long winded, yeah I know it was a live debate but he should've been able to make his points more focused. He also hangs on to dead ends (Socialism's definition isn't amorphous, Mondragon is good, etc.) which he doesn't need to. He basically rolls over to Destiny's weird hostility to using history and class relations to explain modes of production, doesn't put enough emphasis in them as processes instead of things that people just enact one day.
Ah, but it is (if you contextualize the different viewpoints). Lasalle thought himself a socialist. The important part here was to say: Vietnamese and Chinese have more right than you online-dude Steve to say what is socialism. The definition also isn't helpful. If you define a chair as sitting utensil any beer case is a chair. Its relations to the material world are what is important.
Communism from my Marxist perspective is clear, (a) it is the real existing movement which overthrows the current state of things (b) worker owned means of production which abolish class conflicts found in capitalism.
However Socialism’s definition isn’t amorphous, is right. Nothing Wolff said was amorphous. A lot was too lib, surely, but that doesn't matter too much.