Socialism/Communism - why is everyone else always doing it wrong?

Kermit.de.frog

Ask any "socialist" in Ireland or elsewhere about any other examples of communism/socialism ever carried out in the world, ever, they say "it's not real socialism".


USSR - wrong
North Korea - wrong
National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany - wrong
Vietnam - wrong
Venuzuala (happening now by the way and once again the people suffer - another collapse) - wrong
etc etc

Isn't it true that the natural human condition is not built for socialism and this is why ultimately the leaders end up as despot dictators and some end up more equal than others?

Can someone give me an example of a regime that did socialism "right"? Just one?

Also if you could tell us why your regime would not descend in to the same despot state and everyone would live equally rich and joyous lives peacefully that would be great!

Wanderer78

Maybe socialism and neoliberalism, and their prospective systems and models are utopian ideas in themselves, and both ultimately fail?

Nody

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Can someone give me an example of a regime that did socialism "right"? Just one?

The Nordic countries (all have their own version and differences in implementation) I guess would be about as close as you'd get to a working system. None of them would be fully aligned to the idea but more on the pragmatic side of things.

Kermit.de.frog

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Maybe socialism and neoliberalism, and their prospective systems and models are utopian ideas in themselves, and both ultimately fail?

I would argue, successfully, that Capitalism has lifted all from a low plain and created the conditions for the best advances in technology.

Socialism/Communism is everyone being equal but in poverty and always ends in disaster for the populace.

Kermit.de.frog

Nody wrote: »

The Nordic countries (all have their own version and differences in implementation) I guess would be about as close as you'd get to a working system. None of them would be fully aligned to the idea but more on the pragmatic side of things.

The Nordic countries and socialism is a myth. These are Capitalist countries that happen to have generous welfare systems.

Finland in recent years is an example of what even getting remotely toward socialism leads to - bankruptcy.

Norway has oil so can afford it for time being and they are also Capitalist country.

Let's not talk about Sweden - so many rushing to their socialist utopia. I don't think it's what the incomers expected given the violence and protests in immigrant areas. They are Capitalist too.

Wanderer78

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

I would argue, successfully, that Capitalism has lifted all from a low plain and created the conditions for the best advances in technology.

I'd disagree there to a point, Id have to agree with somebody like Michael Hudson that we are confusing wealth with debt. We have to start asking ourselves why are debt levels at an all-time high, particularly private debt, and has this actually benefited the majority, particularly financially and economically? I will agree though that capitalism has major advantages over other systems, many being extremely positive for the majority.

Kermit.de.frog

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I'd disagree there to a point, Id have to agree with somebody like Michael Hudson that we are confusing wealth with debt. We have to start asking ourselves why are debt levels at an all-time high, particularly private debt, and has this actually benefited the majority, particularly financially and economically? I will agree though that capitalism has major advantages over other systems, many being extremely positive for the majority.

These are problems that can be fixed within the Capitalist system. Free democracy gives people the chance for change within that system. Socialism/Communism dispenses with democracy as proven time and time again. No change is increasingly probable, the comrades in the leadership become a bit too comfortable to be interfered with and naturally crack down on dissent.

It's not their fault. This is human condition.

Wanderer78

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

These are problems that can be fixed within the Capitalist system. Free democracy gives people the chance for change within that system. Socialism/Communism dispenses with democracy as proven time and time again. No change is increasingly probable, the comrades in the leadership become a bit too comfortable to be interfered with and naturally crack down on dissent.

Why not something new and different, a system or set of systems that incorporate the advantages of both. I class the thinking of our options being either capitalism or socialism as being 'two dimensional' but we actually live in a multi-dimensional world. Maybe both of these systems are fundamentally flawed, and in their purest form, ultimately fail?

All humans and our behaviour is complex, we must create systems making it difficult for the dangerous elements of our behaviour to become the norm.

Kermit.de.frog

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Why not something new and different, a system or set of systems that incorporate the advantages of both. I class the thinking of our options being either capitalism or socialism as being 'two dimensional' but we actually live in a multi-dimensional world. Maybe both of these systems are fundamentally flawed, and in their purest form, ultimately fail?

All humans and our behaviour is complex, we must create systems making it difficult for the dangerous elements of our behaviour to become the norm.

It's a little idealistic. However when has Capitalism been implemented in it's most extreme form? We have only known and had pragmatic Capitalism. It seems to work. It encourages innovation, gives people freedom of choice and incentivises creativity and innovation. Has it faults, yes. As much as socialism, no.

Extremes of socialism which is communism has been implemented and has demonstrably failed on every occasion.

Wanderer78

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

It's a little idealistic. However when has Capitalism been implemented in it's most extreme form? We have only known and had pragmatic Capitalism. It seems to work. It encourages innovation, gives people freedom of choice and incentivises creativity and innovation. Has it faults, yes. As much as socialism, no.

Are both neoliberalism and socialism idealistic? Possibly! Neither have probably been implemented in their purest form, but of course that's debatable. I'd argue neoliberalism isn't working for the majority as wealth is accumulating at the highest tiers of our social, economic and financial structures. Is this good for the majority, I don't think so? I'd agree with your points about capitalism, they certainly would be some of the advantages of the system, amongst others of course, but are the disadvantages of neoliberalism starting to outway the advantages, possibly?

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

Extremes of socialism which is communism has been implemented and has demonstrably failed on every occasion.

Yup agree there, but again, there are advantages to a socialist system over a capitalist system for the majority, leading me back to, maybe both systems ultimately fail?

Wheeliebin30

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Nordic countries and socialism is a myth. These are Capitalist countries that happen to have generous welfare systems.

Finland in recent years is an example of what even getting remotely toward socialism leads to - bankruptcy.

Norway has oil so can afford it for time being and they are also Capitalist country.

Let's not talk about Sweden - so many rushing to their socialist utopia. I don't think it's what the incomers expected given the violence and protests in immigrant areas. They are Capitalist too.

And Swedens 34,000 homeless might disagree that their socialist utopia isn't so, you know great.

professore

Anyone who thinks socialism could ever work in the idealised way they think it could doesn't understand human nature. It's the old "tax the rich" mantra. When asked who is rich, the answer is inevitably anyone richer than me.

If i lived in a socialist country ( and Ireland is pretty socialist - with generous open ended unemployment benefits unlike most other places in the developed world ) why would i bother to work when I'd get the same money as someone working 80+ hours a week saving lives?

Socialism / communism are just cults to exploit the naïve and a way to gain absolute power while having the people back you all the way.

Our current system favours socialism for the banks when they fail and capitalism when they succeed though.

Chips Lovell

I was just reading this morning about how Portugal's socialist government is doing fairly well:

In 2016, according to figures released on March 24th, his government cut the budget deficit by more than half to just under 2.1% of GDP (see chart), the lowest since Portugal’s transition to democracy in 1974. His administration restored state pensions, wages and working hours to pre-bail-out levels, and also brought the deficit well under the 2.5% target set for it by the European Union. It is the first time that Portugal has complied with the euro zone’s fiscal rules.

However....

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany - wrong

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Nordic countries and socialism is a myth. These are Capitalist countries that happen to have generous welfare systems.

... if you're going to get to define what is or isn't socialist, then you're definitely going to win the argument.

Yourself isit

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Nordic countries and socialism is a myth. These are Capitalist countries that happen to have generous welfare systems.

Finland in recent years is an example of what even getting remotely toward socialism leads to - bankruptcy.

Norway has oil so can afford it for time being and they are also Capitalist country.

Let's not talk about Sweden - so many rushing to their socialist utopia. I don't think it's what the incomers expected given the violence and protests in immigrant areas. They are Capitalist too.

They are socialist or social Democratic countries. Unlike Liberia they have a very large state.

I presume if you are happy with the nordic model you would like to see it applied everywhere.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wanderer78

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

We 've had this debate before! The free-for-all market is also a utopian idea, and there is mounting evidence that it to is failing the majority

KyussBeeshop

'Socialism' is usually a label applied to others, who themselves actually don't agree with or outright reject the term.
Can the OP actually define what they would describe as socialism? (and define clearly, not just in vague terms that can be subjectively redefined on a whim)

My experience, is that posters usually define socialism on a sliding scale, to suit the argument at hand - just so they can use it as a rhetorical tool to label the opposition with, and rally people into Us vs Them trenches - a bit like how a bee sting is meant to attract the rest of the swarm/hive into a mindless attack.
Rarely ever do I see it applied to someone, who self-identifies with the label.

Similarly, you will see posters describe certain prevalent policies in western societies, as socialist - yet ascribe all of the benefits of western societies, to capitalism - without acknowledgement that our societies would be a product of both sets of policies.
In the end, debate just reduces into a simplistic 'capitalism good, socialism bad' narrative - which seems to be the intention behind the vague use of the word.

Yourself isit

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Of course this tells you nothing unless you know what countries passed them out per capita. Waa it other socialist states? Was it oil rich states? Was it libertarian paradise Liberia? (No)

During these years of "socialist utopia," real incomes stagnated, private-sector job creation ground to a halt, and national debt spiraled out of control. So Sweden is no exception to the rule -- it merely proved to be yet another illustration of how socialist policies can run a once-thriving economy into the ground.

Of course this logic could only be true if Sweden were free market driven in 1970 and only then applied socialism. It didn't. Lots of countries have had wage stagnation under neo liberalism. Like most of the west.

By the early 1990s, with the country embroiled in economic crisis, the Swedish government had to institute free-market reforms to cut public spending, slash taxes, and open up markets in order to revive the economy and give the country a future. In short, they had to reintroduce capitalism to give their "socialist utopia" any hope.

They were always of course, a mixed economy. They remain one.

realitykeeper

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Ask any "socialist" in Ireland or elsewhere about any other examples of communism/socialism ever carried out in the world, ever, they say "it's not real socialism".


USSR - wrong
North Korea - wrong
National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany - wrong
Vietnam - wrong
Venuzuala (happening now by the way and once again the people suffer - another collapse) - wrong
etc etc

Isn't it true that the natural human condition is not built for socialism and this is why ultimately the leaders end up as despot dictators and some end up more equal than others?

Can someone give me an example of a regime that did socialism "right"? Just one?

Also if you could tell us why your regime would not descend in to the same despot state and everyone would live equally rich and joyous lives peacefully that would be great!

I am not a socialist (as my many posts do attest) but I think those people dream about what it would be like if they were in charge and not about what it would be like living as one of the masses.

Suryavarman

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Maybe socialism and neoliberalism, and their prospective systems and models are utopian ideas in themselves, and both ultimately fail?

Neoliberalism has been the dominant ideology over the last 40 years and it's lead to a massive reduction in poverty in the third world and has lead to levels of economic stability never seen before in the first world. Hardly a failure.

Nody wrote: »

The Nordic countries (all have their own version and differences in implementation) I guess would be about as close as you'd get to a working system. None of them would be fully aligned to the idea but more on the pragmatic side of things.

Definition of socialism:

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

All four Scandinavian countries rank higher in the Doing Business Report than Ireland. All 4 rank in the top 25 of the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. I don't see how socialist countries could achieve such results.

I cant understand why Kibbutz are never referenced in these discussion, they were a true experiment in socialism. They failed/privatised because it turns out you can't eliminate hierarchies( lots of other reasons as well ) but basically human nature can't be changed.

I always associate daft socialism with groups siting around theorising that an ambulance driver should be paid the same as a doctor that sort of thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

Game Face MCGee

I've always felt the fundamental flaw in Socialism its core principle of doing what's best for the masses is in contrast with human nature of doing what best for yourself (family) in essence socialism strips you of this freedom by saying everyone is the same which isn't the case.

Individuals have different needs  and wants from life, one man want to be a millionaire the other want to chill and tip along, socialism doesn't account for this difference

Suryavarman

Game Face MCGee wrote: »

I've always felt the fundamental flaw in Socialism its core principle of doing what's best for the masses is in contrast with human nature of doing what best for yourself (family) in essence socialism strips you of this freedom by saying everyone is the same which isn't the case.

Individuals have different needs  and wants from life, one man want to be a millionaire the other want to chill and tip along, socialism doesn't account for this difference

Stripping people of their freedom and making the vast majority of the populace poorer is hardly "doing what's best for the masses".

Game Face MCGee

Suryavarman wrote: »

Game Face MCGee wrote: »

I've always felt the fundamental flaw in Socialism its core principle of doing what's best for the masses is in contrast with human nature of doing what best for yourself (family) in essence socialism strips you of this freedom by saying everyone is the same which isn't the case.

Individuals have different needs  and wants from life, one man want to be a millionaire the other want to chill and tip along, socialism doesn't account for this difference

Stripping people of their freedom and making the vast majority of the populace poorer is hardly "doing what's best for the masses".

I agree whole heartedly, as I said, its core principle is flawed, the concept of striving for "the greater good" ie doing what's best for the masses, historically has only resulted in making the mass poorer.

Jolly Red Giant

Game Face MCGee wrote: »

I've always felt the fundamental flaw in Socialism its core principle of doing what's best for the masses is in contrast with human nature of doing what best for yourself (family) in essence socialism strips you of this freedom by saying everyone is the same which isn't the case.

You argument would be valid if it wasn't starting from an incorrect premise - human nature is not 'selfish' (which is what you are effectively arguing) - human nature gravitates towards cooperation, solidarity and interest in helping fellow human beings.

Furthermore, socialism does not argue that 'everyone is the same' - in fact it recognises that everyone is a different individual with different individual talents and supports all freedoms except the 'freedom' to exploit a fellow human being.

Individuals have different needs  and wants from life, one man want to be a millionaire the other want to chill and tip along, socialism doesn't account for this difference

While everyone might 'like' to be a millionaire - the vast majority of people recognise that millionaire almost exclusively inherit their millions (there is only a very tiny percentage of 'self-made' millionaires. Socialism argues that people should have an opportunity to be inventive, to contribute, to engage with society through the development of their individual talents and abilities - in contrast capitalism limits the development of talent and ability to nothing more than a mechanism for creating profit.

Valord

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You argument would be valid if it wasn't starting from an incorrect premise - human nature is not 'selfish' (which is what you are effectively arguing) - human nature gravitates towards cooperation, solidarity and interest in helping fellow human beings.

That sounds like an entire subject of debate all by itself. I don't think it's just a simple fact that human nature tends toward cooperation. I'd argue that this varies a lot from person to person, and that cooperation tends to be stronger with smaller groups.

Valord

Have socialism or communism ever really been done at all? That is according to their textbook, theoretical descriptions. It seems to be like countries that called themselves communist or socialist were a bit like countries that felt the need to put "democratic" in their name. Were the USSR under Stalin or any of the subsequent leaders really communist? Modern day China and North Korea certainly don't seem to be.

Yourself isit

Valord wrote: »

Have socialism or communism ever really been done at all? That is according to their textbook, theoretical descriptions. It seems to be like countries that called themselves communist or socialist were a bit like countries that felt the need to put "democratic" in their name. Were the USSR under Stalin or any of the subsequent leaders really communist? Modern day China and North Korea certainly don't seem to be.

I think you are in fact making the argument that the OP is opposing.

BabyCheeses

Whatever with the problems with socialism, I don't think the problems with North Korea and Nazi Germany were due to the socialist part. I get the whole no true socialism meme but it's like trying to debate the problems of democracies while citing the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Socialism, like libertarianism, is probably impossible to implement properly. Some of their ideas may be adopted with success though.

A Little Pony

Communism doesn't work, creates nothing but human suffering. You can have socialist ideals but I would never prefer running a country on socialism.

johnnyskeleton

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Whatever with the problems with socialism, I don't think the problems with North Korea and Nazi Germany were due to the socialist part. I get the whole no true socialism meme but it's like trying to debate the problems of democracies while citing the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Socialism, like libertarianism, is probably impossible to implement properly. Some of their ideas may be adopted with success though.

Well Marx called for a dictatorship of the proletariat. Basically, anyone who believes in capitalism is an enemy of the people, like a terrorist, and so under socialist theory can be excluded from political power, often times by force.

You say North Korea and Nazi Germany are bad examples of socialism and youre right. But Lenin and Stalin were doing exactly what Marx said they should do - set up a socialist dicatorship and exclude anyone who doesnt agree with it.

The idea being that once the dictatorship "educates" people into believing in common ownership, then there will be no one left who believes in capitalism or private ownership and so communism will emerge whereby people will instinctively believe in common ownership and eschew private property.

This is an essential part of Marxism. People have tried to sanitise it by calling it Marxist-Leninism (i.e. only imprisoning the middle class landowners and political dissenters) or Trotskyism (i.e. if a socialist revolution happened everywhere in the world then there would be nowhere good to compare it to and so the capitalists would just be quiet and not rebel) because these seem a lot prettier.

And to be fair to Stalin (if such a thing were possible), the majority of people killed under his rule were done to prepare the USSR to fight in WWII rather than because they were political dissenters.

But however you spin it, Marxist Socialism requires anyone who belives in capitalism or a free vote should be treated as an extremist and enemy of the people, much like we currently treat members of Al Quaeda or the IRA.

We also have a softer more modern meaning where socialism means social democracy or a somewhat utopian view of it where it happens without the dictatorship of the proletariat or reeducation of the masses.

So you are right in that some things that some people who call themselves socialists are good ideas, but I dont agree that we can seriously discuss socialism while ignoring the totalitarian dictatorships that are mandated by Marxist theory.

BalcombeSt4

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Ask any "socialist" in Ireland or elsewhere about any other examples of communism/socialism ever carried out in the world, ever, they say "it's not real socialism".


USSR - wrong
North Korea - wrong
National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany - wrong
Vietnam - wrong
Venuzuala (happening now by the way and once again the people suffer - another collapse) - wrong
etc etc

Isn't it true that the natural human condition is not built for socialism and this is why ultimately the leaders end up as despot dictators and some end up more equal than others?

Can someone give me an example of a regime that did socialism "right"? Just one?

Also if you could tell us why your regime would not descend in to the same despot state and everyone would live equally rich and joyous lives peacefully that would be great!

Because Socialism/Communism has become pretty much irreversibly linked with Marxism-Leninism & Marxism-Leninism-Maoism which neither have nothing to do with real Socialism.

The core principal of Socialism is that workers controlled the means of production. Well workers had no control over anything in Leninist, Stalinist & Maoist states they were virtual slaves. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a victory for Socialism as it was one of the main barriers to true Socialism. Anton Pannekoek & Rosa Luxemburg were people who were closer anyway to real Socialism but they lost & you only remeber the people who won.

I don't know why the Nazis are on your hit list they hated Communism & murdered countless numbers of trade unionists, socialists, communists & social democrats.

And it would have been pretty hard for Vietnam to succed after the country was bombed back to the stone age & then hit with crippling sanctions for removing the Khemer Rouge from Cambodia.

Anongeneric

Every single empire
Most recently the brits, slavery, explotation of others resources, famines, disease, conflict
etc.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's a little idealistic. However when has Capitalism been implemented in it's most extreme form? We have only known and had pragmatic Capitalism. It seems to work. It encourages innovation, gives people freedom of choice and incentivises creativity and innovation. Has it faults, yes. As much as socialism, no.

Extremes of socialism which is communism has been implemented and has demonstrably failed on every occasion.

Junkyard Tom

Suryavarman wrote: »

All four Scandinavian countries rank higher in the Doing Business Report than Ireland. All 4 rank in the top 25 of the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. I don't see how socialist countries could achieve such results.

Yes, businesses that are relatively free to operate where education, health, law-and-order, welfare, transport infrastructure, sanitation, communications infrastructure, national security, and so on, are taken care of by the state tend to do well.

the_syco

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Isn't it true that the natural human condition is not built for socialism and this is why ultimately the leaders end up as despot dictators and some end up more equal than others?

If all are equal, there is no need for a leader.

But communism is often brought in control the people.

Suryavarman

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yes, businesses that are relatively free to operate where education, health, law-and-order, welfare, transport infrastructure, sanitation, communications infrastructure, national security, and so on, are taken care of by the state tend to do well.

And none of that makes a country socialist.

Junkyard Tom

Suryavarman wrote: »

And none of that makes a country socialist.

Do you believe there should be multiple privately built motorways running alongside each other to provide a driver with a price-sensitive choice on how he gets from Cork to Dublin?

Do you think there should be numerous power-grids running alongside one another to every business and home?

Do you believe you there should be multiple sewerage and waters systems running alongside each other to provide competition for the end-user?

Nah, you don't because you know that that makes absolutely no economic sense.

You're a socialist.

BalcombeSt4

I think Chomsky had it right about Marx. He was a 19th century critic of capitalism who had some good ideas & some bad ideas, you should try to learn from the good ideas & disregard the bad ones & not everything he wrote should be taken as some sort of gospel truth.

Jolly Red Giant

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

I think Chomsky had it right about Marx. He was a 19th century critic of capitalism who had some good ideas & some bad ideas, you should try to learn from the good ideas & disregard the bad ones & not everything he wrote should be taken as some sort of gospel truth.

Go and try and find a Marxist who believes that everything Marx wrote should be taken as 'some sort of gospel truth'.

Marx himself formulated many theses only later to revise them or toss them aside as new evidence and/or new developments in society required them to be reassessed.

Opponents of Marxism consistently point to Stalinism and claim that this is the logical outcome of Marxism - it isn't - no more than a fascist dictatorship is the logical outcome of the ideas of the French Revolution or Adam Smith. Furthermore, Stalinism isn't even the logical outcome of 'Leninism' (which is not actually and 'ism').

Marx analysed society and drew certain conclusions from the evidence that existed - the two most important conclusions were that we live in a class based society with a dominant class (the bourgeoisie) exploiting a much larger social class (the proletariat) and that, as with all previous class based societies, and the seeds of it's own destruction are created through the emergence of new social classes - the military and aristocracy that overthrew slave society to create feudalism - the merchants, crafts and industrialists that became the bourgeoisie that overthrew feudalism and created capitalism - and the working class that has the potential to overthrow capitalism and establish a democratically planned socialised economy based on providing for need and not profit. Engels took this further and pointed out that society is travelling full circle - from a society without any class structures (Mesolithic society) through classed based societies, following the emergence of the private ownership of property, of slavery through feudalism, through capitalism, and around to another societal form based on the absence of social classes - communism.

Marxism is not a 'gospel' - unlike organised religions - no more than 'wealth of nations' is a gospel - it is a different way of analysing society and it is a process that constantly changes and evolves.

As for Chomsky - decent bloke and all as he is and he has some good ideas and some bad ones - but he is no Marx.

johnnyskeleton

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Go and try and find a Marxist who believes that everything Marx wrote should be taken as 'some sort of gospel truth'.

If you wander around a university Im sure you'll find many of that stripe. Much like Christianity, where you have fundamentalists, who follow the holy book and ignore everything else, and orthodox followers, who accept the contemporary teachings without question, and the eccentrics, who form their own views are and usually derided, so too with Marxism.

Granted, strict adherence to a centuries old book is a young mans game, most being tempered by pragmatism as they get older, but there are loads of people who still believe that we live in an imperialist capitalist dictatorship and that, by means of violent revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat, we will achieve a utopian society free from inequality.

Marx himself formulated many theses only later to revise them or toss them aside as new evidence and/or new developments in society required them to be reassessed.

Perhaps, but the core elements of his doctrine stayed the same. Capitalism bad, revolution necessary, socialist dictatorship needed, communist utopia logical end result.

Opponents of Marxism consistently point to Stalinism and claim that this is the logical outcome of Marxism - it isn't - no more than a fascist dictatorship is the logical outcome of the ideas of the French Revolution or Adam Smith. Furthermore, Stalinism isn't even the logical outcome of 'Leninism' (which is not actually and 'ism').

Hold on theres a big difference here. Can I ask you two questions:

1) do you accept that Marx and Engels advocated violently overthrowing the capitalist system and imposing a socialist dictatorship to transition mankind into communism?

2) can you point out anywhere in Adam Smiths works where he advocated dictatorship, facism, or indeed any deviation from parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and conscience etc?

Maybe Stalin wasnt exactly what Marx had in mind. Certainly the socialism in one country was less in keeping with TCM than Trotskys vision. And I accept that much of the atrocities committed by Stalin were done out of what he perceived to be the necessity to win WWII rather than in furtherance of socialism. But a lot of what he did - imprisoning dissenters and counter revolutionaries, forcibly redistributing property and income, imposing state control over the means of production, restricting elections and the press to people who believed in socialism, etc - were all exactly what Marx said he should do to bring about communism.

So lets be real here. You can say that Marxism is a discredited verison of socialism and should be ignored. I'd accept that as a valid position to take, although its not a popular position. But dictatorship is an essential part of Marxism and we cant just rewrite history!

Marx analysed society and drew certain conclusions from the evidence that existed - the two most important conclusions were that we live in a class based society with a dominant class (the bourgeoisie) exploiting a much larger social class (the proletariat) and that, as with all previous class based societies, and the seeds of it's own destruction are created through the emergence of new social classes

Indeed, and modern socialists try to shoehorn this dynamic onto the modern world. But its difficult to encapsulate all those people who have risen to the top of society (sometimes from an already socially dominant family, sometimes not) into a class. Usually its called the "elite" which is a nebulous collection of politicians, bankers, lawyers, journalists (but not the finan o toole types, they somehow escape the lable of elite despite being on sic figure salaries for the most conservative broadsheet in town) and other dubiously labelled "connected" people.

If you can find enough people who are unhappy with their lives, and they are ready to blame anyone you tell them to blame (so long as they can see them as the "other" and not part of "us") then you will have a ready made market for the modern "whatever youre having yourself" brand of socialism.

The problem is made worse because the genuine have nots and working class people despite socialism and the left. Hence the socially mariginalised vote for Trump and Brexit.

Which in turn is why we now have socialists against wealth taxes!

suicide_circus

The nordic countries are more prudent and charitable due to their protestantism, very little to do with socialism.

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you wander around a university Im sure you'll find many of that stripe. Much like Christianity, where you have fundamentalists, who follow the holy book and ignore everything else, and orthodox followers, who accept the contemporary teachings without question, and the eccentrics, who form their own views are and usually derided, so too with Marxism.

Granted, strict adherence to a centuries old book is a young mans game, most being tempered by pragmatism as they get older, but there are loads of people who still believe that we live in an imperialist capitalist dictatorship and that, by means of violent revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat, we will achieve a utopian society free from inequality.



Perhaps, but the core elements of his doctrine stayed the same. Capitalism bad, revolution necessary, socialist dictatorship needed, communist utopia logical end result.



Hold on theres a big difference here. Can I ask you two questions:

1) do you accept that Marx and Engels advocated violently overthrowing the capitalist system and imposing a socialist dictatorship to transition mankind into communism?

2) can you point out anywhere in Adam Smiths works where he advocated dictatorship, facism, or indeed any deviation from parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and conscience etc?

Maybe Stalin wasnt exactly what Marx had in mind. Certainly the socialism in one country was less in keeping with TCM than Trotskys vision. And I accept that much of the atrocities committed by Stalin were done out of what he perceived to be the necessity to win WWII rather than in furtherance of socialism. But a lot of what he did - imprisoning dissenters and counter revolutionaries, forcibly redistributing property and income, imposing state control over the means of production, restricting elections and the press to people who believed in socialism, etc - were all exactly what Marx said he should do to bring about communism.

So lets be real here. You can say that Marxism is a discredited verison of socialism and should be ignored. I'd accept that as a valid position to take, although its not a popular position. But dictatorship is an essential part of Marxism and we cant just rewrite history!



Indeed, and modern socialists try to shoehorn this dynamic onto the modern world. But its difficult to encapsulate all those people who have risen to the top of society (sometimes from an already socially dominant family, sometimes not) into a class. Usually its called the "elite" which is a nebulous collection of politicians, bankers, lawyers, journalists (but not the finan o toole types, they somehow escape the lable of elite despite being on sic figure salaries for the most conservative broadsheet in town) and other dubiously labelled "connected" people.

If you can find enough people who are unhappy with their lives, and they are ready to blame anyone you tell them to blame (so long as they can see them as the "other" and not part of "us") then you will have a ready made market for the modern "whatever youre having yourself" brand of socialism.

The problem is made worse because the genuine have nots and working class people despite socialism and the left. Hence the socially mariginalised vote for Trump and Brexit.

Which in turn is why we now have socialists against wealth taxes!

The proletariat the Marxists talk about are not actual 'working class' people but an idealised working class that have not been corrupted by consumerism among other things.

johnnyskeleton

mariaalice wrote: »

The proletariat the Marxists talk about are not actual 'working class' people but an idealised working class that have not been corrupted by consumerism among other things.

They were probably very real in the 1840s and 50s, but I agree with you that they probably dont exist in the modern western world.

I'm not sure if youre being sarcastic or not about corruption by consumerism or not but, if not, surely they no longer exist in the West because they fought for and won much needed freedoms and economic protections, and also that we have shipped much of our manual labour over to Asia?

Consumerism, and indeed the luxury of critising consumerism, are symptoms of just how well off everyone in 21st century Western countries are. Even someone on the dole is immeasurably better off than the person at the lowest rung in the 1840s Europe or indeed in modern day China.

Yourself isit

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Go and try and find a Marxist who believes that everything Marx wrote should be taken as 'some sort of gospel truth'.

Marx himself formulated many theses only later to revise them or toss them aside as new evidence and/or new developments in society required them to be reassessed.

Opponents of Marxism consistently point to Stalinism and claim that this is the logical outcome of Marxism - it isn't - no more than a fascist dictatorship is the logical outcome of the ideas of the French Revolution or Adam Smith. Furthermore, Stalinism isn't even the logical outcome of 'Leninism' (which is not actually and 'ism').

Marx analysed society and drew certain conclusions from the evidence that existed - the two most important conclusions were that we live in a class based society with a dominant class (the bourgeoisie) exploiting a much larger social class (the proletariat) and that, as with all previous class based societies, and the seeds of it's own destruction are created through the emergence of new social classes - the military and aristocracy that overthrew slave society to create feudalism - the merchants, crafts and industrialists that became the bourgeoisie that overthrew feudalism and created capitalism - and the working class that has the potential to overthrow capitalism and establish a democratically planned socialised economy based on providing for need and not profit. Engels took this further and pointed out that society is travelling full circle - from a society without any class structures (Mesolithic society) through classed based societies, following the emergence of the private ownership of property, of slavery through feudalism, through capitalism, and around to another societal form based on the absence of social classes - communism.

Marxism is not a 'gospel' - unlike organised religions - no more than 'wealth of nations' is a gospel - it is a different way of analysing society and it is a process that constantly changes and evolves.

As for Chomsky - decent bloke and all as he is and he has some good ideas and some bad ones - but he is no Marx.

While that's probably a good summary of Marxist histograpy, it isn't actual history. Slave societies weren't overthrown by aristocracies or the military - they work well together. The bourgeoisie didn't overthrow the aristocracies anywhere except France and certainly not in Britain, the proletariat isn't a revolutionary class, and capitalism didn't immiserate the petit bourgeoisie, a large middle class developed. Oh and Mesolithic society had no classes because it had no wealth.

Yourself isit

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They were probably very real in the 1840s and 50s, but I agree with you that they probably dont exist in the modern western world.

I'm not sure if youre being sarcastic or not about corruption by consumerism or not but, if not, surely they no longer exist in the West because they fought for and won much needed freedoms and economic protections, and also that we have shipped much of our manual labour over to Asia?

Consumerism, and indeed the luxury of critising consumerism, are symptoms of just how well off everyone in 21st century Western countries are. Even someone on the dole is immeasurably better off than the person at the lowest rung in the 1840s Europe or indeed in modern day China.

I don't agree with this either. People who work and have to work for someone else to earn a reasonable income are working class.

I don't see why people are happy with being called workers but not working class.

johnnyskeleton

Yourself isit wrote: »

I don't agree with this either. People who work and have to work for someone else to earn a reasonable income are working class.

I was responding to a poster suggesting that the proletariat that Marx described was an idealised proletariat. I would accept Marx' bona fides that he described the situation as he saw it, but just that his description of the proletariat probably doesnt describe many people in the West today.

As regards redefining "working class" as being anyone who works for someone else, I dont think thats helpful. I agree that the phrase "working class" is of limited use in our modern service economy, but there is no practical benefit to redefining working class to mean someone who works for someone else. Does that mean that the Taoiseach, consultant surgeons and the head of Microsoft Ireland are all working class, but a self employed electrician or someone who owns a shop but takes home less than the average industrial wage are in a different, presumably socially superior, class?

I don't see why people are happy with being called workers but not working class.

On the contrary, everyone wants to be working class because they are the good hard working oppressed majority. By contrast, no one wants to be prt of the burgeoises. It doesnt pay nearly as well as it used to, you get none of the welfare benefits of being an employee and everyone still hates you for being a greedy capitalist pig, even if you give lots of money to charity and vote for centre left parties.

To paraphrase a quote, social excusion comes in the name of social inclusion.

Yourself isit

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I was responding to a poster suggesting that the proletariat that Marx described was an idealised proletariat. I would accept Marx' bona fides that he described the situation as he saw it, but just that his description of the proletariat probably doesnt describe many people in the West today.

As regards redefining "working class" as being anyone who works for someone else, I dont think thats helpful. I agree that the phrase "working class" is of limited use in our modern service economy, but there is no practical benefit to redefining working class to mean someone who works for someone else. Does that mean that the Taoiseach, consultant surgeons and the head of Microsoft Ireland are all working class, but a self employed electrician or someone who owns a shop but takes home less than the average industrial wage are in a different, presumably socially superior, class?

I should probably have specified "works for someone in the private sector". And no a CEO is not working class because he will have enough money to live well after about a year on the job.

And yes the self employed are a different class to the employed.

On the contrary, everyone wants to be working class because they are the good hard working oppressed majority. By contrast, no one wants to be prt of the burgeoises. It doesnt pay nearly as well as it used to, you get none of the welfare benefits of being an employee and everyone still hates you for being a greedy capitalist pig, even if you give lots of money to charity and vote for centre left parties.

I dont think you understand the terms you are using ( to be fair many Marxists use the term bourgeois incorrectly as well - to mean their political enemies). The bourgeoisie own capital and more specifically the means of production. It's not just a worker on good income.

To paraphrase a quote, social excusion comes in the name of social inclusion.

Not sure what that means.

johnnyskeleton

Yourself isit wrote: »

I should probably have specified "works for someone in the private sector". And no a CEO is not working class because he will have enough money to live well after about a year on the job.

Ok. I hope you realise that that flatly contradicts your previous definition, but under this new definition working class is someone who cannot live well after a year on the job? Not sure if you mean that a CEO can live comfortably for their entire lives from one year's salary but that would be extremely few CEOs. However, if that is the dividing line then the definition is pretty illusory. If they have enough to live off but gamble it away to they become working class again?

I think perhaps rich and poor would be a better way of categorising what you describe here.

And yes the self employed are a different class to the employed.

A different social class? Why?

I dont think you understand the terms you are using ( to be fair many Marxists use the term bourgeois incorrectly as well - to mean their political enemies). The bourgeoisie own capital and more specifically the means of production. It's not just a worker on good income.

I think this proves my point really that your definition of what is now working class doesnt hold water. More generally, I was deriding the way in which modern socialists are trying to find a class of bad guys that they can rebel against in the way that they could rebel against the land owning class in the industrial revolution.

Not sure what that means.

That socialists are trying to oppress people that they have arbitrarily deemed to be the other, and they justify it by making specious arguments as to how they are in fact the ones who are oppressed. Hence the whole we can send them to a gulag because they are enemies of the people and would send us to the gulag given half a chance logic.

Yourself isit

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ok. I hope you realise that that flatly contradicts your previous definition, but under this new definition working class is someone who cannot live well after a year on the job? Not sure if you mean that a CEO can live comfortably for their entire lives from one year's salary but that would be extremely few CEOs. However, if that is the dividing line then the definition is pretty illusory. If they have enough to live off but gamble it away to they become working class again?

I clearly said has to work to earn a reasonable income in my original post. You probably don't realise what CEOs earn if you think most would be poor after a year. As for somebody who then spends money and becomes poor, who has ever denied that involves a change in class? An aristocrat can become a pauper.

I think perhaps rich and poor would be a better way of categorising what you describe here.

Im specifically distinguishing between the poor who have to work and the rich who don't but might well work precisely because you asked about rich workers. Or rather rich people who worked.

A different social class? Why?

Because they are not employees or employers but self employed.

I think this proves my point really that your definition of what is now working class doesnt hold water.

You haven't proved anything. I personally think private sector employees who don't see themselves as working class are fooling themselves.

That socialists are trying to oppress people that they have arbitrarily deemed to be the other, and they justify it by making specious arguments as to how they are in fact the ones who are oppressed. Hence the whole we can send them to a gulag because they are enemies of the people and would send us to the gulag given half a chance logic.

.


Well that escalated quickly. One minute a polite discussion on classes, next minute your are off to the gulags.

I'm not a Marxist by the way, in fact I think it's always going to be authoritarian in practice - but very few philosophies are totally bunk and his class analysis is good.

johnnyskeleton

Yourself isit wrote: »

I clearly said has to work to earn a reasonable income in my original post. You probably don't realise what CEOs earn if you think most would be poor after a year. As for somebody who then spends money and becomes poor, who has ever denied that involves a change in class? An aristocrat can become a pauper.

I disagree. A social class is a distinction based on perceptions of social background and status rather than current financial status. An aristocrat may become a pauper but is still an aristocract. Someone from a humble background can become a multi billionare but they dont become an aristocrat.

Im specifically distinguishing between the poor who have to work and the rich who don't but might well work precisely because you asked about rich workers. Or rather rich people who worked.

Is the definition of working class then someone who has to work? Most people have to work, it being a very small number who are so wealthy that they can choose not to for their entire lives and a lager but still relatively small number who will be on welfare benefits their entire lives.

This seems to be too broad a definition. Besides, most people earning over 100k still have to work to oay for mortgages etc, yet socialists believe that this geoup of people, who pay marginal rates of tax in excess of 50% already, should pay even more tax. Under your definition socialists would favour taxing part of the working class which would be contradictory of the class struggle that is essential to Marxist theory

Because they are not employees or employers but self employed.

This makes no sense to me. Hard working self employed people who earn a modest wage are not working class but if they took a better paying job working for someone else they would? What's so special about working for someone else?

You haven't proved anything. I personally think private sector employees who don't see themselves as working class are fooling themselves.

I think the old concepts of class are outdated myself, but the less people who are duped into believing that they are part of an opposed class in the class struggle the better.

Well that escalated quickly. One minute a polite discussion on classes, next minute your are off to the gulags.

Not really, its been my point all along that certain actions of Stalin and others cant be dismissed as not being part of socialist theory, such as biolent revolution and the need to silence political dissenters.

I'm not a Marxist by the way, in fact I think it's always going to be authoritarian in practice - but very few philosophies are totally bunk and his class analysis is good.

I feel like we have come full circle to the post you originally took issue with. His analysis of class and class struggle were probably accurate for the 1840s and 50s, but I dont think it can be applied to the modern world.

stefanovich

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Can someone give me an example of a regime that did socialism "right"? Just one?

On a very small scale it can be successful I believe. I'm thinking Kibbutzim in Israel for example.