It is a shame Marxsim/communism/socialism is so much associated with tyranny and dictatorships.
It's a shame Marxism/communism/socialism ends up a tyrannical dictatorship every time :D
Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)
11–20 of 124 posts
Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)
#12It is a shame Marxsim/communism/socialism is so much associated with tyranny and dictatorships.
It's a shame Marxism/communism/socialism ends up a tyrannical dictatorship every time :D
This is unfortunately not a joke. It blows my mind that many people today don't understand that communism can only work in a primitive society (the "pure" form that many dream about) or it inevitably leads to an authoritarian dictatorship (in more advanced societies).
(I wouldn't lump "socialism" in there because it's more vague; social-democracy can and does work).
Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have a social safety net so that the unemployed can live somewhere and eat, under this definition do they count as unemployed? And a second point, in my home country the government introduced rules where to have government benefits you have to work a little, painting your community, cutting grass in public places etc. People on the left were outraged. How dare you give work to people on a government mandate, a…
... and it was illegal to not work in USSR.... The modern socialists who expect to have plenty of time for themselves in their dream regime would be so disappointed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense)
In the Soviet Union, which declared itself a workers' state, every adult able-bodied person was expected to work until official retirement. Thus unemployment was officially and theoretically eliminated. Those who refused to work, study or serve in another way risked being criminally charged with social parasitism
Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)
#14>No capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labour market, to ensure a supply of cheap labour. Marx and Adam Smith both highlighted this fundamental characteristic of capitalism, but it still rarely fails to blow Americans’ minds when I explain it to them.
If you have a social safety net so that the unemployed can live somewhere and eat, under this definition do they count as unemployed? And a second point, in my home country the government introduced rules where to have government benefits you have to work a little, painting your community, cutting grass in public places etc. People on the left were outraged. How dare you give work to people on a government mandate, a…
First off, Stalin is not the be all end all of socialist thought. In fact a lot (most?) people who call themselves socialist these days don't even like Stalin. Even if he was well liked, one can support someone's broader ideas without supporting every single individual position. It's not a contradiction to say "I like [person]'s ideas, except [specific idea], which is dumb."
Secondly, tying unemployment benefits to community service is a blunt tool, that can directly hurt those trying to get unemployment. Some people need more time to find a job or improve their own skills, and spending time mowing the lawn may be counterproductive to that. Some people can work, but they may have disabilities that prevent them from doing whatever community service jobs are available. And finally, some people just can't work at all, and they shouldn't have to go through hoops to prove that to receive the benefits they need to live.
Finally, many on the left (including myself) reject the notion that living necessities should be tied to employment at all. Everyone should have access to food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare, regardless of their employment status. This includes people who can work, but choose not to. Work should not be a requirement to live a comfortable life.
Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)
#15It is a shame Marxsim/communism/socialism is so much associated with tyranny and dictatorships.
The only implementations are basically run by dominant elites, who emerge as the ruling class, resulting in exclusive political economic systems. Daron Acemoglu's "Why nations fail" offers a great framework to discuss this, I think.
Appropriation of capital basically means that the government decides to eradicate right to private ownership, thus reducing the will for economic creative destruction.
The lack of this creative destruction leads to stagnation.
To my view, one should not harken to a communist system. Marx was a great observer and analyst, but the medicine offered under the brands of socialism and communism generally create only worse situations.
19th century workers movement was needed to create pressure to give every citizen more or less equal right regardless of the property they possessed. After this was achieved, the result was a much fairer capitalist system which was far less harsh than the soul and body destroying early factory/labour conditions Marx described.
Marx's analysis was critical in specifically pointing out what was wrong. The western societies fixed themselves without violent revolution.
The places which were touched by revolution into socialist/communist systems basically became de-facto oligarchy led autocracit governments who need to cling to power using authoritarian bullying.
I think anything that needs to be written as a summary of socialist reality was written by Orwell in Animal Farm. He was a fervent socialist - but became a quite strong critic of it's implementations as they stand.
Orwells fondness for socialism was driven by his experiences as part of the civil service of the british empire - a machine of opression to him, which he came to abhor.
He thought socialism would offer a better, fairer world - only to find out it only enabled a new band of crooks to take over.
The foundations of humane societies are not in communism or socialism.
Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)
#16>No capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labour market, to ensure a supply of cheap labour. Marx and Adam Smith both highlighted this fundamental characteristic of capitalism, but it still rarely fails to blow Americans’ minds when I explain it to them.
I mean, the US and other countries have reached “full employment” on several occasions - a level of unemployment where effectively everyone who wants a job had one (the unemployed who do exist are the small fraction you cant eliminate as people are in between jobs or seek other opportunities - employment “friction”).
The main issue with that notion is that the statistics simply favor excluding a lot of people from being counted as employed or unemployed. There's a rather large third group of simply not working that is problematic in the sense that these people still need taking care off financially (healthcare, housing, education, etc.).
A lot of people that are not technically unemployed are also not working fall into a few groups: those that are dependent on others to work; those that are too young or too old to work; and those that have simply given up on the whole notion of working because they are no longer able to physically or mentally (or both).
And there is of course a big problem with poverty even among those that work. So unemployment figures look great. Poverty figures, not so much. IMHO basic income would be a fair and simple way to ensure we get rid of poverty that should not break capitalism.
Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)
#17It is a shame Marxsim/communism/socialism is so much associated with tyranny and dictatorships.
It's a shame Marxism/communism/socialism ends up a tyrannical dictatorship every time :D
If you really think that’s a useful description of Gorbeschev, where are you getting your history from?
Is Cuba a “tyrannical dictatorship”?
How did Pinochet fall?
Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)
#18>No capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labour market, to ensure a supply of cheap labour. Marx and Adam Smith both highlighted this fundamental characteristic of capitalism, but it still rarely fails to blow Americans’ minds when I explain it to them.
In every system you need some slack otherwise the slightest hiccup brings everything to a halt.
Here the point is not to have an underclass of long-term, exploitable unemployed but to have some slack, ie. a minimum number of people available to ensure the system runs smoothly without shortages and hindrance to business growth and change.
Low unemployment is good and desirable but shortages are not.
Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)
#19It is a shame Marxsim/communism/socialism is so much associated with tyranny and dictatorships.
It's a shame Marxism/communism/socialism ends up a tyrannical dictatorship every time :D
Democracies never end up in dictatorships? How much historical data do we have on that? I'm pretty sure at least brazil was democratic and then was ruled by military dictatorship (juntas) for a long time. 1940s Germany as well right? I just realized I've never seen the breakdown on that for any length of time, lets say going back to the first republics?
I don't know, it seems like a lot of European countries with a pluralistic party system are heavily "Christian Socialist" (pro free market, pro property ownership, pro capitalist, pro safety net) and they don't seem to be any more prone to slide into dictatorship?
I've actually have never read a compiled lists of stats of what types of government make a country impervious to dictatorial rule.
Re: Marxism vs. Liberalism: An Interview Between J.V. Stalin and H.G. Wells (1934)
#20>No capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labour market, to ensure a supply of cheap labour. Marx and Adam Smith both highlighted this fundamental characteristic of capitalism, but it still rarely fails to blow Americans’ minds when I explain it to them.
I mean, the US and other countries have reached “full employment” on several occasions - a level of unemployment where effectively everyone who wants a job had one (the unemployed who do exist are the small fraction you cant eliminate as people are in between jobs or seek other opportunities - employment “friction”).
"full employment" is a misleading term. Unemployment only counts people who have been actively looking for a job in the last 4 weeks, and so excludes many chronically unemployed. In addition underemployment is not counted at all: in today's "gig economy" many people can't find full time employment and have to work multiple part time jobs.
"Full employment" absolutely builds in the reserve army of labor power into the definition.