81–90 of 124 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
People aren't dying on makeshift rafts trying to get there, they're dying on makeshift rafts trying to escape.
"Stalin : There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the collective, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the collective. There should be no such contrast, because collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective." Horrifying.
There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the family, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the family. There should be no such contrast, because family, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the family." Horrifying. Not really. In a well-functioning family individual and family interests are in tune (of course t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t the issue less to do with “communism” than with concentrating too much power in too few hands? It seems to me all political systems tend toward autocracy and the only thing preventing that eventuality are robust systems in place that disperse power.
Yeah but communism as a doctrine will inevitably lead to exactly that, concentrating too much power into too few hands. Because if you want to look for the "collective interest" of the people, then people will disagree. Musk can do rockets not because he convinced everyone that it's in our collective interest (though he may believe so) - he can do them because he doesn't have to justify the collective interest. As so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could Cubans vote away communism if they wanted? If not then it isn't free. People could vote away capitalism in USA and become communist if they wanted. Every democracy could.
Absolutely, but Cuba’s democracy is very localized and bottom up in order to prevent a wealthy ruling class from controlling dominant narratives, i.e. oligarchy like in the US. And they don’t hold ridiculous election performances every 4 years to wrangle consent from the public. Democracy is very sensitive and the liberal democracies in Western capitalist countries are brutally anti-democratic. Most Americans realize…
"Cuba is a one-party state, with the Communist Party of Cuba being described as the "superior driving force of the society and the state" in the Constitution of Cuba, and all other political parties are illegal. Elections in Cuba are not democratic because the government does not allow free and fair voting." ~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba
So how would that work?
>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…
The heirs who expropriate surplus labor time from those of us who work and create wealth are the ones who not work. Their wealth is from government mandate - the government was created by them to do this and enforce it. When are they to work?
This bit makes me think of HN people and UBI: > Wells : I remember the situation with regard to the technical intelligentsia several decades ago. At that time the technical intelligentsia was numerically small, but there was much to do and every engineer, technician and intellectual found his opportunity. That is why the technical intelligentsia was the least revolutionary class. Now, however, there is a superabundan…
UBI is interesting, because it isn't really socialist. It can easily be a tool of capital to retain power. If lots of things are automated, to the point where many don't need to work, who will own the robots (the means of production)? The socialist solution would be to find a way to collectively control/own these. Maybe vote on a board to decide what is best or something like that. They would find a way to distribute…
This is why in the 21st century the most prominent promoters of UBI (sometimes called negative income tax) were libertarians.
It is a shame Marxsim/communism/socialism is so much associated with tyranny and dictatorships.
I think communism requires society to operate in an unstable state away from its Nash equilibrium, so it needs a strong dictatorship to keep people coerced into working against their personal interests (even if that's ultimately better for them when everyone complies). If it was democratic, most individuals would see opportunities to do better for themselves one way or another if they had the opportunity, so they'd v…
People like to say that America is the home of the free, but we have the world’s largest prison population. This happened under a democratic capitalist system.
> With capitalism, the coercion to work is decentralized in the form of people promising to give you somebody else's work (money)
You say the system is decentralized but 3 individuals in the US hold more wealth than 50% of the population. If money is the method of decentralized enticement, yet a handful of people control most of the money and assets, is that really decentralized control? “A handful of elites owning the nation’s wealth” sounds like most people’s perception of communism, and yet it describes reality in capitalist America.
> Being decentralized makes a dictatorship unnecessary to sustain it.
Last January a defeated President and his followers attempted to overthrow democracy and install himself as the first American dictator. This happened under a capitalist republic. If capitalism makes dictatorships unnecessary, why is an authoritarian movement growing in capitalist America?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
In other words, rent-seekers in the USSR were called what they are (parasites) and they received the same treatment that the US gives to it’s unemployed and homeless, except the US maintains an economic system that guarantees an unemployed and homeless population. If you think you’re making the USSR appear less reasonable than the US, maybe think again.
House ownership was limited per-square-meter (varies on exact period and location). Most rooms/apartments were technically state property and you just rented them. Building „cooperative“ apartments where one would own it was a rather late development. And even then I believe limits of apartments-to-own were in place.
On the other hand, room-renting was tolerated in two cases. Resorts (no enough spots in hotels) and university towns (no enough places in dormitories). In resorts locals would move to, for example, garages to make money from renting their own apartments to holiday goers. Students renting was usually old lady business where after your kids are gone and husband dies you rent spare rooms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very easy to love your leader when the only alternative is the labor camp.
??? Do you even have the first idea what you’re talking about? The other “option” was Batista. And Cuba is more democratic than the US, but it doesn’t allow oligarchs to astroturf consent like in liberal democracies.
Cuba was just a Soviet Union's project to burn enough money to show that socialism works. But it didn't. And I very unhappy that we were living so poor in soviet era while paying those "democracies" which were modeled just like our country - with literally no choice on any elections.
And being rich is not a sin, btw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but communism as a doctrine will inevitably lead to exactly that, concentrating too much power into too few hands. Because if you want to look for the "collective interest" of the people, then people will disagree. Musk can do rockets not because he convinced everyone that it's in our collective interest (though he may believe so) - he can do them because he doesn't have to justify the collective interest. As so…
In 1919 no one in the world would have thought the backward, fledgling Soviet Union would be the first in space. Your example is not apt.
"Unanimous" agreement on the collective good/collective interests only works, at all, in small groups (primitive societies) and dictatorships. That was really my point.