11–20 of 51 posts
I think this has to be the 10th time this article was posted on HN. Seems as if every college student discovers this paper and thinks they are the first one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues I'll bite. > socialism is defined From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Socialism is the way. Communism is the unreachable goal. > If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources. You can discuss things ad nauseum and it will…
Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state. Marxist-Leninism is what you're referring to, and yes, that has led to totalitarianism. However, socialism predated Marx, and there are non-Marxist (and anti-Marxist) socialist philosophies. "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists.
One of the promises of increased automation was supposed to be more leisure time for the individual. If Einstein is correct, and he may well be, then future economic restructurings may be far worse than than the one we are experiencing now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues I'll bite. > socialism is defined From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Socialism is the way. Communism is the unreachable goal. > If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources. You can discuss things ad nauseum and it will…
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Has it's origins in the Christian Bible - Acts 4:34-35.
In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt says, "I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
Edit: Why the downvotes? The parent post quoted the Bible, so why is it invalid for me to quote the second most popular book next to it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues I'll bite. > socialism is defined From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Socialism is the way. Communism is the unreachable goal. > If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources. You can discuss things ad nauseum and it will…
Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state. Marxist-Leninism is what you're referring to, and yes, that has led to totalitarianism. However, socialism predated Marx, and there are non-Marxist (and anti-Marxist) socialist philosophies. "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues I'll bite. > socialism is defined From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Socialism is the way. Communism is the unreachable goal. > If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources. You can discuss things ad nauseum and it will…
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Has it's origins in the Christian Bible - Acts 4:34-35.
Albert Einstein was certainly smart, but he did not live to see how socialism worked out. http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/
Living is essentially a contradiction - each human being is an individual and as a creature of nature, possesses instincts which guards against others who seek to deprive him/her of his individuality and his chance to live. Yet he/she benefits from cooperating with others to achieve a greater goal larger than the sum of his/her parts.
This is a never ending struggle and it has dominated political discussion for twentieth century. It disappoints me that most people would take an extreme position - i.e. capitalism is good/evil or socialism is good/evil - leaves us no room to negotiate solutions which will work out for the individual and society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Has it's origins in the Christian Bible - Acts 4:34-35.
In this context it is worth noting the history of socialism among the Mormons based on that scripture. These days it's hard to find a group as opposed to what we consider socialism now but that wasn't always the case. Starting in the 1830s (well before Marx became influential) the Mormons began various socialist operations among its members. There are notable differences to modern socialism that I don't have time to…
Like most successful industrial countries, they have a strong government that works closely with private industry and "the people", as opposed to the naive laissez faire beloved by neoliberals. Think Japan/ Germany -- STILL the industrial leaders of the world.
A friend of mine also said the LDS shifted to republicanism in the seventies because of sexual politics, not economic policy. The genius of Reagan and friends was to use conflicts inspired by seismic cultural shifts of the seventies to push through economic policies that benefit a fairly small minority of the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues I'll bite. > socialism is defined From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Socialism is the way. Communism is the unreachable goal. > If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources. You can discuss things ad nauseum and it will…
Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state. Marxist-Leninism is what you're referring to, and yes, that has led to totalitarianism. However, socialism predated Marx, and there are non-Marxist (and anti-Marxist) socialist philosophies. "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists.
Also ... its not like there was some blueprint that the Soviet Union applied as if they were building a machine tool on a large scale. The Soviet State has, in its large scale state organized brutality and corruption, is completely in line with Russian history (no offense to my Russian friends.... Russia is also soulful and brilliant).