Comrades of Mine in the News
Huh. One of my comrades got into Truthout.
Is Bernie Sanders Dangerous to Socialism?
"...Sanders did cite some helpful examples of what he considers socialist institutions: Social Security, Medicare and the police. Interestingly, the last time I heard these institutions in the United States referred to as socialist was when they were being attacked by libertarians like Ron Paul and Ross Perot. Apparently the populist independent-turned-Democrat from Vermont and the unrepentant capitalists share the viewpoint that government institutions are inherently socialist."
Although, I don't remember Ross Perot being a Libertarian.
Its a different strategy. Instead of trying to convince people "no, he's not a socialist" you try to make socialism a good thing. Probably won't work with people still acting under red scare politics but... society advances one funeral at a time.
It's lying to people and making it seem like crappy European-style welfare states (which, by the way, are for the most part being destroyed) are socialism.
It's lying to people and making it seem like crappy European-style welfare states (which, by the way, are for the most part being destroyed) are socialism.
I'm curious, why go for control over the means of production rather than just skimming off the top?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are an American, YOU ARE NOT LIVING IN A SOCIALIST COUNTRY.
Government programs do not equal socialism.
There are now (at least) three definitions of 'socialism';
1: Full government control of all means of production and the economy in general
2: Any government action which does not consist of abject pandering to the very rich at the expense of everyone else
3: Anything Republicans do not like
Definition 2 is the most common usage in US politics. By far. Then definition 3. Definition 1 is now obsolete and anachronistic.
It's lying to people and making it seem like crappy European-style welfare states (which, by the way, are for the most part being destroyed) are socialism.I'm curious, why go for control over the means of production rather than just skimming off the top?
I distinctly remember you asking me this question before.
IIRC, I petulantly refused to answer because you had just dismissed me as a crackpot crazy person and then Comrade Jeff came along and answered something like:
"Because we tried it before and the rich took it all back."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Definition 1 is now obsolete and anachronistic.
Not here in Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread.
I was crafting some quip about how, if government programs equal socialism, then Alexander Hamilton and Ben Franklin must've been socialists, but, apparently, the right beat me to it.
The first American socialist thug, Alexander Hamilton, is Obama's role model
I distinctly remember you asking me this question before.
You would be correct.
IIRC, I petulantly refused to answer because you had just dismissed me as a crackpot crazy person
To be fair I dismiss a LOT of people like that. But you're a well intentioned crackpot, which makes you more consistent than most.
and then Comrade Jeff came along and answered something like:
"Because we tried it before and the rich took it all back."
Do you think it would be any different today? I mean, most of the us's means of production is numbers on a computer . Its much harder to take collective control of than a physical location like a factory.
It's lying to people and making it seem like crappy European-style welfare states (which, by the way, are for the most part being destroyed) are socialism.
No, they're not, but I'd very much like to keep what little remains of my crappy sort of European sort of welfare state, ta :)
This comes up a lot in discussions I have with comrades - politics these days is skewed so far to the right that mere social democracy (a la Corbyn, or Sanders, to a lesser extent) seems like revolutionary madness.
However, that's re-treading old ground. Next up: more placenta recipes.
It's lying to people and making it seem like crappy European-style welfare states (which, by the way, are for the most part being destroyed) are socialism.No, they're not, but I'd very much like to keep what little remains of my crappy sort of European sort of welfare state, ta :)
[Dials back the hyperbole and tries again]
It's lying to people and making it seem like crappy European-style welfare state (which, by the way, are nowhere near as extensive as they used to be) are socialism.
I am confused... European style welfare states ARE socialism in practice. The only other alternative toward the left was communism which is a different more extreme thing where the state takes over the economy directly.
|
|
I am confused... European style welfare states ARE socialism in practice. The only other alternative toward the left was communism which is a different more extreme thing where the state takes over the economy directly.
Eh... not exactly.
Under true socialism (definition 1 from my prior post) "the state takes over the economy directly". Thus, European welfare states are not 'socialism' per the original definition... though definitions 2 & 3 fit.
Socialism is an economic system. Communism is that economic system PLUS similar political and societal reforms. In a 'true communist' state the people running the government and controlling the economy would have no more social, political, or economic power than anyone else. Which, of course, never happens. It inevitably devolves into dictatorship or oligarchy... just as true socialism inevitably devolves into feudalism or anarchy.
I don't see how you can put the government in charge of the businesses without the businesses being in charge of the government by virtue of them being the same person.
You overthrow the government and expropriate the businesses.
Vive le Galt!
You overthrow the government and expropriate the businesses.
Vive le Galt!
.... and then what?
You elect workers' committees to run production. These committees elect bigger committees who plan the economy and run production for human need rather than individual profit.
I'm pretty sure we've gone over all this before.
You elect workers' committees to run production. These committees elect bigger committees who plan the economy and run production for human need rather than individual profit.
I'm pretty sure we've gone over all this before.
I'm just at a loss as to how you keep that person from becomming someone that runs things for their own profit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just at a loss as to how you keep that person from becomming someone that runs things for their own profit.
You don't.
Look at the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, et cetera. Inevitably the people responsible for divvying up the benefits wind up 'sharing' more with themselves than with everyone else. Pretty soon they're living in mansions and the whole thing has devolved into feudalism.
Of course, the modern redefinition of 'capitalism' to mean 'eliminate anything which protects the majority' eventually winds up in exactly the same place as the 'value of work' is reduced towards zero while the 'value of ownership' increases towards 100% of benefits.
True historical capitalism always included strong elements of worker protection (e.g. unions, child labor laws, overtime pay, et cetera)... which would now be called 'socialism'.
If you are an American, YOU ARE NOT LIVING IN A SOCIALIST COUNTRY.
But if you're a corporation living in a post office box in delaware you are?
I'm just at a loss as to how you keep that person from becomming someone that runs things for their own profit.You elect workers' committees to run production. These committees elect bigger committees who plan the economy and run production for human need rather than individual profit.
I'm pretty sure we've gone over all this before.
Well, for starters, you make sure it's not one person running things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's not. It's called an "oligarchy."
I was composing a post about the degeneration of the Russian Revolution, but I have a headache, so I'll just drop a link to Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed.
You guys and gals can read it or not, up to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True historical capitalism always included strong elements of worker protection (e.g. unions, child labor laws, overtime pay, et cetera)... which would now be called 'socialism'.
I don't even know what that means. In the USA, there was a good eighty or so years where there weren't strong elements of worker protection. Maybe that was false, ahistorical capitalism?
It's lying to people and making it seem like crappy European-style welfare states (which, by the way, are for the most part being destroyed) are socialism.Is there such a thing as a real world government that does cut the mustard for you, present or past?
There were a few that I kinda liked but I don't really see what that has to do with anything.
European-style welfare states aren't socialism. They don't even pretend to be socialism.
PM Says Denmark Isn’t Socialist
"'I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism,' the Prime Minister said, 'therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.'"
Oh, I'm sorry. I figured the way you quoted me and then asked your question that they were somehow connected. I didn't realize it was a complete non sequitur.
Anyway, again, similar to Comrade BeeNee up above at the beginning of this exchange, I am amused that you've spent years denying that I exist and then ask me questions as if, you know, I exist.
I like France's shorter work week. I like Cuba's health care system. I like China's gigantic housing project that they just wound down.
I still think the proletariat should overthrow all those governments.
Since no one wants to talk about my comrade getting re-elected to the Seattle City Council...and now for something completely different:
Sex workers of Rhode Island, unite!
Someone let Dicey know.
|
|
I don't even know what that means. In the USA, there was a good eighty or so years where there weren't strong elements of worker protection. Maybe that was false, ahistorical capitalism?
I was drawing a distinction between the period where capitalism was very successful (~1860 - 1970) and the modern dysfunctional form. Yes, the early US was even more dysfunctional, but it also wasn't widely known as 'capitalism' back then.
In any case, a successful economic system (by whatever name) requires both incentives for individuals to strive for (GOP 'capitalism') and protections to prevent individuals from getting ahead at the expense of others (GOP 'socialism'). Promoting either of those far above the other results in a devolution towards feudalism (cf. early US factory towns or Castro regime vs Cuban population).
Those protections are, technically, interfering with the free market, which is why thorough-going economic liberals (which includes most conservatives, these days) tend to oppose them. You can argue that they do actually help capitalism succeed, up to a point (certainly Keynesians, like Ha Joon Chang, would), but they tend to be jettisoned as soon as they're generally percieved as a limit on expansion, as we can see.
Also, could you define exactly what you mean by 'feudalism', please? My definition is obviously very different from yours (monarch ceding territory over to vassals in exchange for military service), which is leading to some confusion on my part.
|
|
Those protections are, technically, interfering with the free market, which is why thorough-going economic liberals (which includes most conservatives, these days) tend to oppose them. You can argue that they do actually help capitalism succeed, up to a point (certainly Keynesians, like Ha Joon Chang, would), but they tend to be jettisoned as soon as they're generally percieved as a limit on expansion, as we can see.
I can and do argue that many forms of 'interfering with the free market' are essential in order for capitalism to succeed. Pollution controls greatly interfere with the free market... but eliminate them entirely and you will quickly kill off your work force.
Also, could you define exactly what you mean by 'feudalism', please? My definition is obviously very different from yours (monarch ceding territory over to vassals in exchange for military service), which is leading to some confusion on my part.
You're missing the lower tiers of feudalism where the vassals have full ownership of the means of production and workers essentially receive only enough to be able to continue working.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, again, similar to Comrade BeeNee up above at the beginning of this exchange, I am amused that you've spent years denying that I exist and then ask me questions as if, you know, I exist.
To be fair when i tell people i get history tips from a poly-amorous pansexual pyromaniac goblin socialist I tend to wind up with a tranq dart sticking out of my but in short order.
I simply said, and still suspect that you're not a socialist but a person choosing to play a caricature of one for our benefit.
I've met the Doodlebug in real life. I suppose one could call him a lot of things, but "caricature" wouldn't be one of them!
Activist Friends of Mine in the News
Alstead woman with cancer files lawsuit to get medical marijuana card sooner
I like Cuba's health care system.I like the health care system that Cuba has for party officials and tourists. I'm not so fond of the health care system they have for everyone else. See also here and here, for example.
It's true. The collapse of the Soviet Union and its economic lifeline has led to many reversals. Still, last I checked they still have a lower infant mortality rate than the United States and, depending on who's stats you use, they have pretty close to our life expectancy if not better.
I believe they still have the program where doctors go around to every house and do preventative care which is how they get those stats even though antibiotics and other medicines are pricey and largely unavailable.
I wonder if that would change if the American embargo was scrapped? Beats me.
Also hope we get the lung cancer vaccine soon.
[Coughs up sputum]
Anyway, again, similar to Comrade BeeNee up above at the beginning of this exchange, I am amused that you've spent years denying that I exist and then ask me questions as if, you know, I exist.
To be fair when i tell people i get history tips from a poly-amorous pansexual pyromaniac goblin socialist I tend to wind up with a tranq dart sticking out of my but in short order.
Alas, La Principessa would do very nasty (nasty as in bad, not nasty as in good) things to me if I were polyamorous.