What's so terrible about Communism ?
I think capitalism as a primary mode of societal organization has served humanity well historically. The positive reinforcement associated with personal enrichment has supported a great deal of benefit to humanity.
But survival does not accrete to the strongest, survival is a virtue of being adaptable to changing circumstances.
We live in a world in which their is no regulatory jurisdiction related to the toxic outputs of industrial society. Carbon dioxide, microplastics, PFAS, etc .... are all polluting the globally shared environment and capitalism is anti-regulatory. We are destined to suffocate in our own toxic outputs if we can't regulate the shared environment. It seems communism (at least pertaining to the environment) is the only form of government which can provide the necessary regulation.
It is a more than fair point that communism is a broad political concept. We have Marxism with, as you point out, Bolsheviks to Mensheviks and everything in between. Mensheviks struggled with their ideology themselves, being split to such a degree that one could reasonably argue that the wings were political enemies during the Russian civil war.
Outside Marxism, we have many other ideologies, perhaps most famously Bakunin's collectivism, which stands in direct opposition to Marxism.
Most people o
I’m not really sure I understand Marxists when they say they want a democracy without capitalism. If I have a democracy, it seems that in any foundational document there would always be the possibility of bringing back private ownership.
gotta love trying to link Lenin with American slavery. liberals truly have no shame.
I’m not really sure I understand Marxists when they say they want a democracy without capitalism. If I have a democracy, it seems that in any foundational document there would always be the possibility of bringing back private ownership.
Marxists aren't necessarily into the whole democracy thing, they tend to favor the the route of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" where things get a lot more muddled. Some variants might talk about elections, but under Leninism and its variants, this "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not democratic, but steered by selected revolutionaries.
This dictatorship period is meant to be temporary under Marx' vision and Lenin's argumentation, but evidence suggests it has a tendency towards becoming permanent. Power is not an easy thing to give up, evidently.
As for the more democratically aligned socialists, I would agree that they tend to be fuzzy about the details when it comes to exactly what their dream government looks like. Then again, these groups aren't really pushing for revolution either. In practice, in the countries where they have some political oomph, they tend to be a political force that rejects privatization, is somewhat union-friendly, reject military spending, favor high corporate taxes, property taxes, progressive tax rates and high levels of government intervention. The counterpart to the socialist democrats on the left side of the politics is the social democrats, which have similar ambitions but tend to be far more business friendly and pragmatic.
Marxists aren't necessarily into the whole democracy thing
you support a regime that is kidnapping people off the streets to use as meat shields against Russia. you support a regime that banned all opposition parties, controls all media, and canceled elections.
China and North Korea are more "democratic" than Ukraine. (and they have less Nazis)
Yeah I would assume anybody who calls themselves a marxist isn't particularly concerned or wedded to democracy. I think stuff like democratic socialism is largely made up branding in that's it's more capitalist than socialist, but designed to be anti-Marxist.
Marxists aren't necessarily into the whole democracy thing, they tend to favor the the route of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" where things get a lot more muddled. Some variants might talk about elections, but under Leninism and its variants, this "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not democratic, but steered by selected revolutionaries.
This dictatorship period is meant to be temporary under Marx' vision and Lenin's argumentation, but evidence suggests it has a tendency towards becoming
That seems to be my understanding of it too. And since I consider myself a social democrat I always find it perplexing when people like Bernie and AOC push the “democratic socialist” label when they seem way closer to me and FDR politically than Marx and Lenin.
you support a regime that is kidnapping people off the streets to use as meat shields against Russia. you support a regime that banned all opposition parties, controls all media, and canceled elections.
China and North Korea are more "democratic" than Ukraine. (and they have less Nazis)
That’s a category error. A country being invaded isn’t expected to have national elections. Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn’t, but in Ukraine’s case the reason for Martial Law is obvious.
That’s a category error. A country being invaded isn’t expected to have national elections. Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn’t, but in Ukraine’s case the reason for Martial Law is obvious.
I could not wait to see China and North Korea in time of war ( being invaded by the U.S. for example!) and see victor reaction then on how china/North Korea treat their citizen to fight the Americans lol ….
I’ll bet Ukraine would seem a fully democratic state …
But Vic will always vic .
For what it's worth, I do believe there are non-monetary forms of positive reinforcement for jobs that where supply is relatively low or take years of training like a doctor or an engineer.
A person could be given more attractive housing or extra vacation time.
The intangible thing they would receive is the appreciation and respect of their community that comes with the knowledge that their vocation is needed. That comes with a sense of satisfaction that one's work is important.
Imagine a human
Nah, professional sports is what’s contributing the most !!
That seems to be my understanding of it too. And since I consider myself a social democrat I always find it perplexing when people like Bernie and AOC push the “democratic socialist” label when they seem way closer to me and FDR politically than Marx and Lenin.
These terms aren't written in stone. In part because they sound similar, in part because they aren't agreed upon by the ones using them. It also gets a little weird when the US gets thrown into the mix, as the history of socialism in the US is very different than in Europe. One can in fact reasonably argue that socialists have a stronger tradition in the US than social democrats, if you look to the decades prior to the red scare.
My guess is that isn't really about precise terminology and history however, but more of a way to get ahead of the "socialist!" label. By adopting it up front you take away some ammunition from your critics. You also send a strong signal about an anti-capitalist stance.
They *never gave a **** about the environment to begin with on the left* , it was and is just a way to control society
Conspiracy theories about climate change are interesting to me because they are widely believed but they make no sense. Even most dumb conspiracy theories, like the moon landing was faked, at least has a respectable motive like we were trying to intimidate the Russians.
Here you are saying climate/environment decline science and regulatory regime is just a way to "control society". To what end? Do you think Leftists or environmentalists don't like modern conveniences? What does some leftist get out of telling some energy company to stop drilling oil if oil was safe for the environment?
Leftists are indulgent people. They go hard on sex and drugs and pleasure. It's basically the opposite of the conservative vibe of abstinence and austerity where deprivation is necessary for purity and spiritual elevation. If any ideology was going to start a conspiracy where a component was to abstain from something as useful as fossil fuel consumption it would be conservatives.
Can you elaborate on the conspiracy goal to "control society"?
These terms aren't written in stone. In part because they sound similar, in part because they aren't agreed upon by the ones using them. It also gets a little weird when the US gets thrown into the mix, as the history of socialism in the US is very different than in Europe. One can in fact reasonably argue that socialists have a stronger tradition in the US than social democrats, if you look to the decades prior to the red scare.
My guess is that isn't really about precise terminology and histo
Idk, I think Bernie succeeded in raising the popularity of socialism vs actually improving his own candidacy. Bernie’s first run he was all about telling people that it’s not radical to demand xyz economic policy, and I think that message really resonated with people. By the time 2020 rolled around, his name was so synonymous with socialism that he really had no chance in a Democratic primary, and he probably would have been destroyed by Trump in the general election.
Meanwhile many of the people that supported him both times ended up hating him for staying with the Democratic party, and most of his support remains concentrated in normie left-liberal circles rather than in socialist circles. Some people might have fond memories of him, but now they call him a warmongerer for not having the most extreme left position on Gaza, though he is quite critical of Israel.
The truth is that Bernie refused to drop it I think precisely because he really is a socialist, just an extremely pragmatic one. That’s why he defended the Castro regime and is highly critical of the historical US disposition against socialist movements like Lula from Brazil, for better or for worse. However because of the limited capacity to actually change US society unilaterally, he has to color within the lines of US politics. I’m sure if he had a choice he would want to implement some kind of fully socialist economy, or maybe a hybrid system with extreme amounts of state control. I can’t be 100% sure but that seems to be a consistent theme throughout his career of taking what’s given instead of being full mask off.
Idk, I think Bernie succeeded in raising the popularity of socialism vs actually improving his own candidacy. Bernie’s first run he was all about telling people that it’s not radical to demand xyz economic policy, and I think that message really resonated with people. By the time 2020 rolled around, his name was so synonymous with socialism that he really had no chance in a Democratic primary, and he probably would have been destroyed by Trump in the general election.
Meanwhile many o
Your guess on this is probably far better than mine, I don't really know that much about Sanders, so I will defer to your judgment.
And yes, support from the far left is always fickle. There is always a new purity test devised, or someone figures out a new technicality that somehow forces some of them to branch into a completely different group or movement (which the rest of us can't really tell apart). Their loudness can have some political value, but generally it is an ineffective group politically that is easy to splinter.
I think the left is at its best when pointing to injustices and inequalities in society with solutions in mind, I think it is at its worst when they grandstand with their most recent purity test.
The only working form of communism I've seen endure and do well is on a Kibbutz in Israel. I assume communes most work like that scattered all over the world. But the Kibbutz system works probably because it is very small and tailored to the strengths of the area.
The second you try to do that at scale, it's lord of the flies and millions die.
The only working form of communism I've seen endure and do well is on a Kibbutz in Israel. I assume communes most work like that scattered all over the world. But the Kibbutz system works probably because it is very small and tailored to the strengths of the area.
The second you try to do that at scale, it's lord of the flies and millions die.
Communes can be functional because they are self-selecting. They also have quasi borders and immigration, it’s just that the decisions on who to kick out are made collectively. Once you start to try to expand that system out to encompass a country, political representation takes hold and your democracy becomes a republic or a one party state.
Another problem is that even if you can have a functional commune, they tend to be vulnerable to outside invasion. It’s the same reason you don’t see many matriarchal societies, they probably did exist but they are vulnerable to the strength of male dominated societies. That’s not to say the male dominated societies are better, just that they have a natural inclination towards overtaking the matriarchy. Same as a peaceful society versus a warlike society or a city state versus an empire.
Lenin didn't have any connection with American slavery. It ended a few years before he was born. In a 1913 pamphlet he compared American slavery, and its after-effects, to Russian serfdom.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w...
Mind you, while the USSR officially embraced and uplifted its non-Russian nationalities, it actually subjected them to an imperial, nation-suppressing project, and it distinctly viewed some 'nationalities' as less 'advanced' than others.
https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/collex/exhi...
And the Ukrainians got starved in the Holodomor, of course.
I’m not really sure I understand Marxists when they say they want a democracy without capitalism. If I have a democracy, it seems that in any foundational document there would always be the possibility of bringing back private ownership.
If you have democracy, then you have capitalism (however mitigated and regulated, because capitalism is just the Marxist term for 'the way things are'). If you have Communist one-party rule, then you have state capitalism for the masses and nest-feathering gangster capitalism for the elite ruling class which Communism necessarily embodies.
you support a regime that is kidnapping people off the streets to use as meat shields against Russia. you support a regime that banned all opposition parties, controls all media, and canceled elections.
China and North Korea are more "democratic" than Ukraine.
(and they have less Nazis)
Speaking of which...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/m...
The officer who cut off Rachabalizoda’s ear had military patches including a far-right Totenkopf (dead person’s head) previously worn by Nazi SS units.
The knife he used has been auctioned off online as the “ear-cutter”, according to Evgeny Rasskazov, a member of the far-right paramilitary battalion Rusich, who facilitated the sale.
The Sabotage Assault Reconnaissance Group (DShRG) "Rusich" (Russian: Диверсионно-штурмовая разведывательная группа «Русич», romanized: Diversionno-shturmovaya razvedyvatel'naya gruppa «Rusich») is a Russian far-right[2][3] and neo-Nazi paramilitary unit[4][5] that has been fighting against Ukrainian forces in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Its co-founder and leader is Alexey Milchakov and operates within the Wagner Group.[2][6] "Rusich" fought on the side of pro-Russian military in the Donbas war from June 2014 to July 2015, and in the Russian invasion of Ukraine alongside Russian troops.[7]
😀
I may have forgotten to mention that Lenin was, among other things, a keen Rolls-Royce owner. One of his big priorities, once he was established in power, was to acquire Rolls-Royces. It's not true, as is sometimes claimed, that Lenin's RRs were taken over from the Tsar -- the Tsar didn't own any. All four of Lenin's Rolls-Royces, 7.5-litre Silver Ghosts, were ordered from England by the Soviet government in 1919-22. They were allotted to the government's Special Purpose Garage, which served Lenin and his family exclusively.
That famous military-looking one you often see pictures of, converted to an 'autosledge' with half-tracks at the rear and skis at the front, using Kegresse mechanicals taken off the Tsar's old Packards... that's not Lenin's exactly, that's Stalin's. Two of Lenin's four RRs were converted to that format in 1929, after his death, and were used by Stalin.
lol now corpus is upset about Nazi iconography
Just pointing out your glaring double standards vic. You've constantly regurgitated Russian propaganda that Ukraine is choc full o' nazis, yet ignore that eight years previously, Russia went into Ukraine with a neo nazi battalion, which belies Papa Putin's denazification of Ukraine bullshit.
But you know this already, so carry on being you. 😀
I may have forgotten to mention that Lenin was, among other things, a keen Rolls-Royce owner. One of his big priorities, once he was established in power, was to acquire Rolls-Royces. It's not true, as is sometimes claimed, that Lenin's RRs were taken over from the Tsar -- the Tsar didn't own any. All four of Lenin's Rolls-Royces, 7.5-litre Silver Ghosts, were ordered from England by the Soviet government in 1919-22. They were allotted to the government's Special Purpose Garage, which served Len
Each according to his needs eh? 😃
Just pointing out your glaring double standards vic. You've constantly regurgitated Russian propaganda that Ukraine is choc full o' nazis, yet ignore that eight years previously, Russia went into Ukraine with a neo nazi battalion, which belies Papa Putin's denazification of Ukraine bullshit.
But you know this already, so carry on being you. 😀
I dont ignore that. but its not really important since the West isnt shipping billions of dollars to those guys. and the Russians have far fewer of that type than the Ukrainians.
I dont ignore that. but its not really important since the West isnt shipping billions of dollars to those guys. and the Russians have far fewer of that type than the Ukrainians.
Sure ya don't vic. Go on- gimme some lukewarm disclaimer like "ofc I don't support Russia BUT" *promptly proceeds to support Russia*
Oh wait, you just did do that in your post, my bad. 😀
unlike yourself, I can oppose Nazis in all countries. its called being consistent. liberals dont need to worry about such trivial things as coherency and consistency so they are able to effortlessly support standing ovations for SS officers in Canada, billions of weapons to neo-Nazis in Ukraine, and concentration camps in Palestine while still thinking they are the good guys.
