51–60 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The rise of communism in China, although violent and of the state-socialist kind, also brought hundreds of millions out of poverty. " - Modern China's rise has come Capitalism, and liberalisation of the markets. Before the market reforms china, wasn't... great.
Nope it really wasn't. There was massive chaos during the economic upheavals of Mao. But the reduction in poverty is still an impressive achievement subsequently to that. Compared to countries like Brazil, South Africa etc which also had the oppurtunities to reduce poverty but it has increased and the economic disparity is worse than ever. Even the USA has increasing poverty.
From what I know it was the collectivisations of farmlands that caused great famines.
When land rights were re-established, poverty was reduced. People had an incentive improve the land.
After reading the page it looks like a lot of communism and very little libertarianism.. Why is libertarianism mentioned? To me libertarianism requires at least giving people the freedom to buy and sell while this libcom site argues "the problem is that everything has a price". Are we going to have to start using the words "classical libertarianism" soon? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Meaning..…
Classical libertarianism is libertarian communism. The term libertarianism originates with the French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacques back in the 19th century, and was championed by groups like the Socialist League in the UK (which was supported by Friedrich Engels and Eleanor Marx amongst others). Modern-day right-wing libertarianism is the new kid on the block. Basically in the late 1800's the main split between…
So who runs the justice system, commands the military, and protects the rights of the citizens?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Communism is system that via implementation details tends to result in totalitarianism. If you have a central place to plan the economy to distribute via need, that place is going to be heavily concentrated in power. And due to human nature that tends to be abused. Capitalism, and markets don't have a central place to plan to economy. Power is decentralised via companies, and production controlled via market incentiv…
Your theory is absolutely correct but in practice the corporations and government represent a very substantial concentration of power and resources in the control of very few, plus they are allied with each other. Government often helps large corporation via bailouts, tax breaks, subsidies etc. and large corporations inform government and even fill it's ranks. Essentially we have a system of state capitalism not lais…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I guess because communism, unlike nazism, doesn't have hatred hardcoded in ideology. On the other hand there is difference between theory and practice, you can have any ideological system, but if you depend on totalitarian dictator everything can fall apart - You depend on mood of that person/party. Just guessing ;-)
Well I guess because communism, unlike nazism, doesn't have hatred hardcoded in ideology. Bullshit. That the hatred is on the much more versatile axis of class instead of race doesn't make it any less vile. You don't rack up a 20th century record of a bare minimum of 100 million slaughtered without exercising a lot of hatred.
You also need to consider what class means. It's basically behaviour: you are upper class if you exploit others. In that lens, it becomes ok to hate the upper class, but the upper class can change, it's not hated based on something inherent to the people that make it up, like "race".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your theory is absolutely correct but in practice the corporations and government represent a very substantial concentration of power and resources in the control of very few, plus they are allied with each other. Government often helps large corporation via bailouts, tax breaks, subsidies etc. and large corporations inform government and even fill it's ranks. Essentially we have a system of state capitalism not lais…
But you can't blame this on capitalism, on stuff that isn't capitalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I guess because communism, unlike nazism, doesn't have hatred hardcoded in ideology. On the other hand there is difference between theory and practice, you can have any ideological system, but if you depend on totalitarian dictator everything can fall apart - You depend on mood of that person/party. Just guessing ;-)
Fascism: kill millions of poor people for their race. Communism: kill millions of poor people for their politics. Fascism and communism are the same thing, if you define them by how many poor people they torture and murder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope it really wasn't. There was massive chaos during the economic upheavals of Mao. But the reduction in poverty is still an impressive achievement subsequently to that. Compared to countries like Brazil, South Africa etc which also had the oppurtunities to reduce poverty but it has increased and the economic disparity is worse than ever. Even the USA has increasing poverty.
Can I have some data on this? From what I know it was the collectivisations of farmlands that caused great famines. When land rights were re-established, poverty was reduced. People had an incentive improve the land.
For a great and concise introduction to Libertarian Socialism here is a classic Noam Chomsky lecture from 1979 called The Government of the Future, in which he gives a justification for Libertarian Socialism, or Anarchism, as the natural and correct form of government for advanced industrial society from the classical liberal ideals of the enlightenment. He also compares the competing economic and social ideologies,…
Thanks for the link! Do you have a similar great and concise introduction to Nazism or other related extremist totalitarian ideologies?
I have been reading in the press about how the NSA, the CIA, the FBI etc. want an encryption backdoor in everything Americans use, so we can be spied on at will. I don't see why this isn't totalitarian and somehow anarchism is. Anarchism means no state, whereas totalitarianism means total state control, yet you're saying no state control means more state control. It makes no sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Classical libertarianism is libertarian communism. The term libertarianism originates with the French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacques back in the 19th century, and was championed by groups like the Socialist League in the UK (which was supported by Friedrich Engels and Eleanor Marx amongst others). Modern-day right-wing libertarianism is the new kid on the block. Basically in the late 1800's the main split between…
> according to Marxism the state is predominantly a tool of class rule, and that communism by their definition is the stage of society where there no longer are any classes, the state will cease to have a political purpose and will "whither away" So who runs the justice system, commands the military, and protects the rights of the citizens?