Or perhaps now the young leftists who don't have any clue about the reality of the socialist experiment, — ssu
???I've been down this road before. Conversations with people who considered themselves authorities on politics because they lived in a Right-Wing-Fascist-Dictatorship. I do not defend or advocate the Right-Wing fascist system of the Soviet Union. — JerseyFlight
Contrasting how political ideologies have worked historically in the real world isn't driven by emotion.You seem to think you have settled the matter, but all you have really done is manifest that your theoretical position is driven by emotion. — JerseyFlight
A good start would not to put one historical political theorist on a pedestal for worship. It would be good to look at what has worked and why...and what has failed. Only then one is ready to think how to improve things in the present.All the problems of class and society remain, how do you propose we approach these problems? — JerseyFlight
How does the society improve and how has it improved? By many ways, but let's try to stick to the topic of this thread here.How do you propose we go about making a better society, where human quality doesn't hinge on exploitation? — JerseyFlight
If you start arguing that the Soviet Union was a Right-Wing-Fascist-Dictatorship, terms and definitions have no meaning for you. — ssu
the real world isn't driven by emotion. — ssu
A good start would not to put one historical political theorist on a pedestal for worship. — ssu
It would be good to look at what has worked and why...and what has failed. — ssu
Well, that's what the labour movement and trade unions generally did in the West: the implementation of labour laws, increase in pay and the improvement working conditions. The lower classes didn't fall into despair, on the contrary, absolute poverty was decreased. Liberal democracies could do something to correct the problems that the industrial revolution had created. — ssu
And these corrections were generally universally accepted by both the left and right, usually through the political system in nation states. — ssu
Hence the transfer of jobs from the rich countries to places were labour was more cheap. — ssu
I think perhaps from the viewpoint of Marxism, the lack of response to globalization from the international labour movement is the problem. And just why this difficult is obvious: if globalization has erased jobs in Western industrial countries, it has created them in the Third World. I'm not a leftie, but in this question I think we could find some common ground. — ssu
The World Bank didn't have any ability to gather statistics inside the country. And did the Soviet Union lie in it's statistics? — ssu
In a country of 5.4 million people, food banks, the Lutheran Church, the Salvation Army and other charities serve more than 22,000 people every week, a number that is growing steadily as a result of the continuing economic crisis.
"The situation has gotten much worse in the last ten years. When I started giving out free food in 2005, between 200 and 300 people came every week; today there are about 2,600,
Indeed you don't.I care little about your formalism or anyone elses. The Soviet Union was a Right-Wing-Dictatorship presided over by Joseph Stalin. — JerseyFlight
I guess we aren't. With utterly crazy statements from you like the one above it isn't surprising.Hard to see how we are even on the same page here? — JerseyFlight
Indeed you don't. — ssu
I'm saying that there weren't those checks, not even after Stalin, even if the totalitarian system became more "humane" by changing the labour camps to mental institutions.. It doesn't matter what you or I say about the Soviet Union, what matters is what the Soviet Union actually was. Did democracy exist in the Soviet Union? Did Stalin have power? Were there any democratic checks on his power? — JerseyFlight
But in the People's State of Marx, there will be, we are told, no privileged class at all. All will be equal, not only from the juridical and political point of view, but from the economic point of view. At least that is what is promised, though I doubt very much, considering the manner in which it is being tackled and the course it is desired to follow, whether that promise could ever be kept. There will therefore be no longer any privileged class, but there will be a government, and, note this well, an extremely complex government, which will not content itself with governing and administering the masses politically, as all governments do to-day, but which will also administer them economically, concentrating in its own hands the production and the just division of wealth, the cultivation of land, the establishment and development of factories, the organisation and direction of commerce,, finally the application of capital to production by the only banker, the State. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many "heads overflowing with brains" in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant and contemptuous of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and pretended scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a, minority ruling in the name of knowledge and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe betide the mass of ignorant ones!
Such a regime will not fail to arouse very considerable discontent in this mass and in order to keep it in check the enlightenment and liberating government of Marx will have need of a not less considerable armed force. For the government must be strong, says Engels, to maintain order among these millions of illiterates whose brutal uprising would be capable of destroying and overthrowing everything, even a government directed by heads overflowing with brains.
Yet it is simply pure dishonesty and flagrant denial from you to try think that the teachings of Karl Marx had nothing to do with a society that had as it's state ideology Marxism-Leninism and that you try to call the Soviet Union a "right-wing dictatorship". — ssu
I guess "right-wing" is just a swearword for you, so perhaps you could call Stalin a nazi too. — ssu
Yet it is simply ignorance to try uphold the fallacy of Soviet Union being a possible success "if not for Stalin". — ssu
How many times have I heard "if not Stalin" ...how benign the system would have been under Lenin. This thinking totally disregards the intrinsic problems of Marx's ideology, which do inherently lead to a totalitarian system. — ssu
Sometimes the dictatorship of Stalin is said to be where the Soviet Union lost it's cause. Yet it is simply ignorance to try uphold the fallacy of Soviet Union being a possible success "if not for Stalin". Stalin, the great scapegoat. How many times have I heard "if not Stalin" ...how benign the system would have been under Lenin. This thinking totally disregards the intrinsic problems of Marx's ideology, which do inherently lead to a totalitarian system. — ssu
Mikhail Bakunin saw this flaw well in the ideas of Karl Marx and writes in Marxism, Freedom and the State: — ssu
“To assure the success of the revolution one must have ‘unity of thought and action’. [Marx is quoting Bakunin.] The members of the International are trying to create this unity by propaganda, by discussion and the public organization of the proletariat. But all Bakunin needs is a secret organization of one hundred people, the privileged representatives of the revolutionary idea, the general staff in the background, self-appointed and commanded by the permanent ‘Citizen B’ [i.e., Bakunin].”51
But in order for education to take place, the working class must be organized, and one such venue is the trade union movement: “It is in trade unions that workers educate themselves and become socialists, because under their very eyes and every day the struggle with capital is taking place.”
Here, in order to be able to offer energetic opposition to the democratic petty bourgeois, it is above all necessary for the workers to be independently organised and centralised in clubs... The speedy organisation of at least a provincial association of the workers’ clubs is one of the most important points for the strengthening and developing of the workers’ party; the immediate consequence of the overthrow of the existing governments will be the election of a national representative assembly. Here the proletariat must see to it:
I. that no groups of workers are barred on any pretext or by any kind of trickery on the part of local authorities or government commissioners.
II. that everywhere workers’ candidates are put up alongside the bourgeois-democratic candidates, that they are as far as possible members of the League, and that their election is promoted by all possible means. Even where there is no prospect whatever of their being elected, the workers must put up their own candidates in order to preserve their independence, to count their forces and to lay before the public their revolutionary attitude and party standpoint. In this connection they must not allow themselves to be bribed by such arguments of the democrats as, for example, that by so doing they are splitting the democratic party and giving the reactionaries the possibility of victory. — Marx - quotes lifted from this essay by Ann Robertson, The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict
The economists have a singular way of proceeding. For them there are only two kinds of institutions, artificial and natural. Feudal institutions are artificial, while those of the bourgeoisie are natural. They resemble in this respect the theologians, who likewise distinguish two kinds of religion. Every religion other than their own is a human invention, while their own emanates from God. In saying that the existing relations - the relations of bourgeois production - are natural, the economists assert that these are the relations in which wealth is created and the productive forces are developed in accordance with the laws of Nature. Consequently, these relations themselves are natural laws, independent of the influence of time. They are eternal laws which must always govern society. Thus there has been history, because there were feudal institutions, and because in these feudal institutions are to be found relations of production entirely different from those in bourgeois society, which latter none the less the economists wish to present as natural and therefore eternal. — Marx
The issues are still pertinent today, of course, we can agree, actually it's worse than ever. Amazon as an example, is such an efficient producer and that has destroyed so many livelihoods and we know it's only going to get worse. The control over the means of mass efficiency are going to end up in the hands of fewer and fewer people because of ever-increasing efficiency.
I don't see a way to address the disease but it is possible to mitigate the damage by wealth redistribution and I think that has become what we're resigned to. Either wealth redistribution will occur in equal measure to the destruction caused or we will end up in a dystopia. That and limiting the profiteering by creating appropriate rights and protections for workers. — Judaka
In this case, you are simply creating your own fantasy. In the Real World Soviet Union is considered socialist and leftist. Sorry.I did not merely try to call the Soviet Union a Right-Wing-Dictatorship, in actual practice that's what it was. You don't like this fact because it refutes your strawman argument. — JerseyFlight
Right, Marx is on the pedestal. I thought it would be so with you.I am not sure I have ever encountered a more species-intelligent-thinker. One cannot think about material life and ignore Marx, even those who try end up in the same place. He simply thought about society in concrete terms, unshackled from the errors of idealism. — JerseyFlight
So you do agree with the criticism that Bakunin makes of Marx? Interesting.What a great Bakunin quote. I wish I knew the full context but I agree with what he said here. — JerseyFlight
In the Real World Soviet Union is considered socialist and leftist. — ssu
Well, I too find it as a ridiculous argument. If not Stalin, then some other. In the end all Proletarian dictatorships have become true dictatorships, if they have lasted long enough.If the answer is obviously no, as that's a ridiculous argument, — boethius
As this accusation will be hurled at anyone criticizing Marx, I have referred to what Marx has written.so too is the idea the actions of Stalin somehow condemn the ideas of Marx to such a degree that it can be just assumed without even needing to know anything about Marx and what he wrote (which you obviously don't). — boethius
What a strawman. Of course notDo you only bring this kind of argument against Marxism, but wouldn't against market theorists or Christianity — boethius
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Another strawman.You shouldn't quote Mikhail Bakunin if you have no idea what he was about and what was his basis of disagreement with Marx. - Go research the Bakunin-Marx disagreement and come back and defend Bakunin. — boethius
Liberal capitalist theory? What is liberal capitalist theory? Having studied economics, I don't recall this kind of theory. Perhaps be more specific just who you are talking about.Liberal capitalist theory is adamant, indeed ferociously convinced, that a similar structure does not happen in liberal capitalist economies, that everyone gets their fair shake — boethius
Seems you don't even read what I wrote, because I did refer to this above in the discussion.If you were interested in history, you'd know, or could quickly find out, that nearly all achievements made by labour — boethius
Not all trade unions are Marxists. There obviously are Marxist unions, but a lot aren't. Just like Marx isn't the only socialist around.More specifically, actually achieving those things through unions and so on while calling themselves Marxists — boethius
Any credit? Trade unions were legalized in the UK when Karl Marx was six years old. And the reason why a brilliant philosopher like Marx got things so wrong, that the revolution didn't happen in the UK or Germany, is exactly because the state and the capitalists did do concessions and the Western States could do something about the inequalities brought on with the industrial revolution (and with earlier ones too).though we can't assign all the credit to Marx, we can't assign any credit to large owners of capital who were the opposition at every step, nor any of the credit to liberal economists decrying political action as "inefficient" because any state interference in the market will be bad for everyone. — boethius
What I'm arguing is that the modern welfare state was an answer to many issues that Marx pointed out and it didn't eradicate capitalism and private property. It has worked somewhat well.Are you arguing the welfare state is incompatible with Marx's ideas? Or just coming from totally different conception of society? — boethius
I have no idea what you are implying with "people feeling alienation as producers of commodities". Finnish economy is a small export oriented economy with an ageing population, which is hard hit during global recessions (like this one), which naturally present a problem for the welfare state as taxes ought to pay for the system.Would you argue that the problem of depression in Finland has nothing to do with alienation people feel as producers of commodities (or managers of producers somewhere down the line of commodities)? — boethius
Ideas of Marx aren't irrelevant, especially how much influence he has had on the World stage, but the main point was the reality of how the system works, how the government would work and how all the various experiments with Marxism have been a bit of a disappointment.you'll need to actually read Marx and demonstrate how his ideas are simply irrelevant — boethius
If you would refer to "socialist roots" of the welfare state I could agree with that, but you insist using "Marxist roots". As a person who has gotten a masters in economic history from the university, I do beg to differ here, because this simply isn't true in the historical perspective. You simply have to make a difference between social democracy and the Marxist-Leninist communists of the 20th Century as this divide was huge during the Cold War. Simply put it, not all "socialism" is Marxism and especially with the history of the Nordic countries, Marxists and Marxism hasn't been the driving force behind the welfare state but social democrats and usually the social democratic parties and ideological figure behind were people like Gunnar Myrdal. And of course, the programs were accepted and furthered by right wing parties too.Welfare states are obviously a mix of liberal capitalism and socialist (including Marxist socialism) ideas; refusing to engage with the Marxist roots of the welfare state (that you enjoy the benefits of!), which, again, aren't the only roots, simply because "Soviets bad" is to simply choose to live in ignorance of history. — boethius
Great answer, which tells just how open you are to open discussion.This needs to be stated and clarified: ssu has been thoroughly refuted at this point. — JerseyFlight
Well, I too find it as a ridiculous argument. If not Stalin, then some other. In the end all Proletarian dictatorships have become true dictatorships, if they have lasted long enough. — ssu
Somehow Christians in liberal democracies and even in monarchies have gotten past this. — ssu
Just as Jesus Christ obviously doesn't talk anything that would justify a crusade, I don't.So, to be clear, you attach the genocides and slavery of "Christendom" to the teachings of Christ? — boethius
Nope, that refers to my quote from the Bible. The quote was basically used as an argument why monarchies exist and why people going against a monarchy are "un-Christian". People used those lines here even in 1918. — ssu
Sometimes the dictatorship of Stalin is said to be where the Soviet Union lost it's cause. Yet it is simply ignorance to try uphold the fallacy of Soviet Union being a possible success "if not for Stalin". Stalin, the great scapegoat. How many times have I heard "if not Stalin" ...how benign the system would have been under Lenin. This thinking totally disregards the intrinsic problems of Marx's ideology, which do inherently lead to a totalitarian system. — ssu
Just as Jesus Christ obviously doesn't talk anything that would justify a crusade, I don't. — ssu
Let me put it this way.Your argument is that we can judge what Marx wrote based on what Stalin did. That's what you literally say: — boethius
the tyranny you are referencing is Right Wing tyranny, fascism. It's what you get when individuals are put into power without a check on that power, it's what you get when individuals in power are allowed to execute any order they want and the people obey out of fear (see Arendt); it's what you get when you subvert democracy. — JerseyFlight
The Soviet Union was a Right-Wing-Dictatorship presided over by Joseph Stalin. Just like all good Right-Wing ideology the Leader was allowed to unilaterally make the rules and issue executive orders without a democratic check on his power. — JerseyFlight
When you say the class system is not sustainable - do you mean morally, politically, economically? — Judaka
When we look at Amazon, we see a company utterly destroying local businesses that cannot compete and this has been happening since the industrial revolution. If mass production could be competed with by "local living" then why has this happened and what's going to happen differently? — Judaka
Therefore, we come to the question of efficiency for what? Efficient at living? or efficient at producing as many commodities as possible? — boethius
We have seen since the industrial revolution how overproduction is absorbed: war, planned obsolescence, growing the population (at first a happy side-affect of medicine, and later by a policy of immigration), manipulative marketing and debt. — boethius
So, the question arises that if the wealthy are constantly playing at being peasants for fun, shouldn't we just organize society so that everyone can do these things both to have fun and save money: that we make our rural landscapes like the idyllic beautiful places where the rich go for vacation, just that people happen to also live there? — boethius
The politically right is conservative or reactionary: it seeks to preserve existing social hierarchies, or reintroduce past hierarchies. It argues that such a preservation or return is necessary, because those hierarchies are based on what is in some sense natural, and that attempts to improve on them or get rid of them are doomed to failure and chaos. "Right wing" is thus importantly ideological, i.e., it's not just about methods of governance. — jamalrob
I do not agree with this. Hard to see how political ideology does not contain premises regarding governance? This seems like drawing an artificial line. The methods of Right wing governance are literally in the direction of monarchy. — JerseyFlight
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htmWhy do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough? — Engels, On Authority
If totalitarianism has taught us anything, it is that we must always pay attention to the sabotage of democracy. It would not have been possible for Hitler or Stalin to do what they did if there were democratic checks on their power. — JerseyFlight
If totalitarianism has taught us anything, it is that we must always pay attention to the sabotage of democracy. It would not have been possible for Hitler or Stalin to do what they did if there were democratic checks on their power. — JerseyFlight
Absolutely, I agree. — jamalrob
And the lack of democratic checks is the basic problem. Why I argue it's an inherent problem is because Marx has an agenda, communism, and an singular agent, the proletariat, which makes democracy just a tool to get to communism and to eradicate capitalism. — ssu
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.