Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Socialism/Communism Discussion Thread

socialism communism Marxism MLM anarchism leftism class war dialectical materialism USSR Stalin

  • Please log in to reply
528 replies to this topic

#61
Lunix688

Lunix688

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,289 posts
  • LocationUnited States

That's exactly it though, we might as well be living in different universes...

I'm guessing you have no reliable sources or graphs to back up your claims that 'billions' have been plunged into poverty - and that the world is such a miserable place (or is not improving at all)? 


"Liberterianism is a mental disease. A national health crisis and a threat to the future of this country...Worse than the threat from terrorism, asteroids, disease and yes global warming.
It is mindless anti-government idiocy. If it isn't turned back I predict the end of this country as a world power. Simply put the need to educate our entire population like any sane country is sen as wrong by the cult that practice this foolish idiocy. So is simple workers rights, child labor and every other sane policy of the modern world."
-Matthew
 
"The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.”
-Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
"The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a, from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way."
-Milton Friedman
 
 

 


#62
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,053 posts
  • LocationUK

 

That's exactly it though, we might as well be living in different universes...

I'm guessing you have no reliable sources or graphs to back up your claims that 'billions' have been plunged into poverty - and that the world is such a miserable place (or is not improving at all)? 

I thought caltrek answered pretty well but okay: Credit Suisse annual report shows disparity growing astronomically. It also demonstrates that for 99% of the world's population, their wealth has been shrinking while the 1% is growing rapidly and http://www.theguardi...equality-report



#63
Lunix688

Lunix688

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,289 posts
  • LocationUnited States

I thought caltrek answered pretty well but okay: Credit Suisse annual report shows disparity growing astronomically. It also demonstrates that for 99% of the world's population, their wealth has been shrinking while the 1% is growing rapidly and http://www.theguardi...equality-report

 

 

Does income inequality matter though? 

I do no think that 99% of the worlds population wealth is shrinking. After all, consumer spending is rising, INCOMES are rising, GDP per capita is rising. Possibly, their share of wealth as a % is shrinking, but for the vast majority of people - life is improving. I really could care less about income inequality, it's a non issue. 

We don't tell doctors they save too many lives, so why do we tell businessman and others that they make too much money? 


"Liberterianism is a mental disease. A national health crisis and a threat to the future of this country...Worse than the threat from terrorism, asteroids, disease and yes global warming.
It is mindless anti-government idiocy. If it isn't turned back I predict the end of this country as a world power. Simply put the need to educate our entire population like any sane country is sen as wrong by the cult that practice this foolish idiocy. So is simple workers rights, child labor and every other sane policy of the modern world."
-Matthew
 
"The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.”
-Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
"The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a, from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way."
-Milton Friedman
 
 

 


#64
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,053 posts
  • LocationUK

 

I thought caltrek answered pretty well but okay: Credit Suisse annual report shows disparity growing astronomically. It also demonstrates that for 99% of the world's population, their wealth has been shrinking while the 1% is growing rapidly and http://www.theguardi...equality-report

 

 

Does income inequality matter though? 

I do no think that 99% of the worlds population wealth is shrinking. After all, consumer spending is rising, INCOMES are rising, GDP per capita is rising. Possibly, their share of wealth as a % is shrinking, but for the vast majority of people - life is improving. I really couldn't care less about income inequality, it's a non issue

We don't tell doctors they save too many lives, so why do we tell businessman and others that they make too much money? 

Wat.



#65
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,043 posts

 

I thought caltrek answered pretty well but okay: Credit Suisse annual report shows disparity growing astronomically. It also demonstrates that for 99% of the world's population, their wealth has been shrinking while the 1% is growing rapidly and http://www.theguardi...equality-report

 

 

Does income inequality matter though? 

I do no think that 99% of the worlds population wealth is shrinking. After all, consumer spending is rising, INCOMES are rising, GDP per capita is rising. Possibly, their share of wealth as a % is shrinking, but for the vast majority of people - life is improving. I really could care less about income inequality, it's a non issue. 

 

 

From the Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz:

 

 

An increasingly large number of Americans can barely meet the neccessities of life.  These individuals are said to be in poverty.  The fraction of those in poverty was 15 % in 2011, up from 12.5 percent in 2007...At the very botom, by 2011 the number of American families in extreme poverty (emphasis Stiglitz) - living at least one month of the year on two dollars a day per person or less, the measure of poverty used by the World Bank for developing countires - had doubled since 1996, to 1.5 million....

 

 

Life Expectancy in the United States is 78 years, lower than Japan's 83 years, or Australia's or Israel's 82 years.  According to the World Bank, in 2009 the United States ranked fortieth overall, just below Cuba.

 

 

From the pope:

 

 

....many professionals, opinion makers, communications media and centres of power, being located in affluent urban areas, are far removed from the poor, with little direct contact with their problems.  They live and reason from the comfortable position of a high level of development and a quality of life well beyond the reach of the world's population.  This lack of physical contact and encounter, encouraged at times by the disintegration of our cities, can lead to a numbing of conscience and to tendentious analyses which neglects parts of reality...

 

Many people will deny doing anything wrong because distractions constantly dull our consciousness of just how limited and finite our world really is.  As a result, "whatever is fragile, like the enviornment, is defenceless before the interests of a deified market, which becomes the only rule."

 

Source for the citations from the pope:  http://w2.vatican.va...laudato-si.html


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#66
Unity

Unity

    Information Organism

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,477 posts


I thought caltrek answered pretty well but okay: Credit Suisse annual report shows disparity growing astronomically. It also demonstrates that for 99% of the world's population, their wealth has been shrinking while the 1% is growing rapidly and http://www.theguardi...equality-report


Does income inequality matter though?

I do no think that 99% of the worlds population wealth is shrinking. After all, consumer spending is rising, INCOMES are rising, GDP per capita is rising. Possibly, their share of wealth as a % is shrinking, but for the vast majority of people - life is improving. I really could care less about income inequality, it's a non issue.
We don't tell doctors they save too many lives, so why do we tell businessman and others that they make too much money?
People can't afford to go to college, can't afford healthcare, can't afford houses. Incomes are lower in inflation adjusted dollars compared to 40 years ago. Income inequality is not a non-issue because it changes the way people behave including increased drug use, mental illness, teenage pregnancy, etc. It is correlated to these social ills. Moreover these effects are prevalent across the socio-economic spectrum so mitigating them is in -everyone's- interest while feeding the networks that increase inequality is against the -common- interest. And here is my question to you, do you have DATA to back your position that inequality is a non-issue?

#67
Cody930

Cody930

    An Apple Pie from Scratch

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,520 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey, US

 

I thought caltrek answered pretty well but okay: Credit Suisse annual report shows disparity growing astronomically. It also demonstrates that for 99% of the world's population, their wealth has been shrinking while the 1% is growing rapidly and http://www.theguardi...equality-report

 

 

Does income inequality matter though? 

I do no think that 99% of the worlds population wealth is shrinking. After all, consumer spending is rising, INCOMES are rising, GDP per capita is rising. Possibly, their share of wealth as a % is shrinking, but for the vast majority of people - life is improving. I really could care less about income inequality, it's a non issue. 

We don't tell doctors they save too many lives, so why do we tell businessman and others that they make too much money? 

 

 

I'm generally a capitalist too but income inequality is definitely an issue. Even the IMF had a study discussing just that last summer. http://www.imf.org/e...015/sdn1513.pdf


"Since we first emerged, a few million years ago in East Africa, we have meandered our way around the planet. There are now people on every continent and the remotest islands, from pole to pole, from Mount Everest to the Dead Sea, on the ocean bottoms and even, occasionally, in residence 200 miles up - humans, like the gods of old, living in the sky."


#68
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,043 posts

caltrek wrote: "A bourgeois democracy has certain checks and balances built into it to avoid a dictatorship outcome."

 

joe00UK replied: "It's already a dictatorship - the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. All political systems are a "dictatorship" of some kind. If you reply to this, perhaps do it in the Socialism/Communism debate thread as not to derail this one."

 

 

*Sighs*

 

No , it is not a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. 

 

1)  When Marx wrote that phrase, elections in England were restricted to participation by the propertied class. 

 

2)  However disattisfied you are with the outcome, U.S. elections take on a democratic form.

 

3)  It is true that capitalists have an inordinate influence over the outcome, but that is in no small part due to the failure of the left to out-organize them.  There is nothing save a lack of financial resources to stop the left from overcoming its natural diasadvantages in order to carry out a revolution of the ballot box.  Now, if such an outcome were to result in say a military or constitutional coup, then you might have a point.  For that matter, if you were describing the situation in the U.S after the 2000 election, your point might have some weight to it.  Still, Obama is the legitimately elected president of this country. To argue otherwise is to agree with the right-wing nuts in this country who argue that there is something somehow illegitimate about his presidency.

 

 

P.S.  Good idea to post my response in this thread. ;)

 

 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#69
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,053 posts
  • LocationUK
There is a choice of really only two parties in the US which are both heavily in favour of bourgeois interests.
A lack of financial resources means the left has a huge disadvantage at getting its voice heard, with the bourgeoisie owning the means of production, including the means of production of media, the voice of the left is very much drowned out in the sea of bourgeois ideas. This is a crucial factor of why the number of genuine leftists (democratic socialist and further left) is so small in the Western world. Let's take a look at when leftists have tried to have revolution by the ballot box: Well, we have Allende's Chile which was overthrown by a US-backed fascist coup in 1973 and we also have the current crisis in Venezuela where the bourgeoisie, via corporations, is waging economic warfare against the government. That is unfortunately what happens when legitimate leftists win power by electoral, rather than revolutionary, methods. Now, I'm not saying that Obama wasn't legitimately elected, he definitely was, but whoever you vote for under the current system, you vote for bourgeois politics, so it doesn't actually make a difference. Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and Dictatorship of the proletariat are about class rule as opposed to individual rule (which is impossible). Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie are the ruling class which makes it inherently a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, as to dictate simply means to rule. :)

#70
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,043 posts

^^ Re: Chile.  Yes, that was a case of the bourgeoisie abandoning democracy when they lost an election.  Yes, that was indeed a "U.S. backed fascist coup."  Something that, as a citizen of the U.S., has irked me from the time of its occurance.

 

Re: Venezuela.  That is not an example of bourgeois dictatorship.  It is an example of the difficulties of "socialism in one country".  Hence the economic warfare that you rightfully point out.  It is also an example of where the left continues to win depsite the most concerted efforts of the right to win back control of the government.  Such a contest is desirable in that it forces the left to be honest.  A corrupted left has long been a problem in many Latin American countries, particularly Mexico.  There is also the danger of such a corrupted left in Venezuela.

 

Re: Obama and the lack of choices.  If the left can't even win the nomination of the Democratic party, then what makes you think that it is strong enough to carry out a revolution?

 

Oh wait, you have already admitted tht the U.S. is not "ripe" for a revolution.

 

You are partially right concerning "bourgeois" politics in that both parties are dominated by capitalist interests.  Still, there is a bit of a cliche that goes around in the U.S. that organized labor is the junior partner in the Democratic party.  It is better to be a junior partner than no partner at all.  I am not saying that is  the preferred situation.  I would much rather see a party dominated by a coalition of organized labor and environmentalists than one dominated by capitalists. Again, that is a possibility for the future that can be achieved through democratic means.  Embracing a Marxist-Leninist approach kisses off all possibility of such an electoral coalition.  It replaces that with a highly romanticized and infantile notion of the potential for violence as a constructive force in politics.  Violence is at best a strictly defensive measure, as in the legitimacy of self-defense.  It is highly problematic, to say the least, to argue from the legitimacy of self-defense the right to make a violent revolution.

 

If I were living in a third-world country, I would much rather prefer the outcome offerred by a Gandhi than I would one offered by Mao or Stalin.  


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#71
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,053 posts
  • LocationUK
Yes, I agree - I said it was the bourgeoisie waging economic warfare *against* the government.
Is organised labour even that much, a "junior partner", in the Democratic Party? But yes, the electoral struggle shouldn't be totally neglected, just placed aside as a secondary tool. Well, yes, ML does generally reject such "electoral coalitions" because they have a tendency not to work :p
Violence is an ugly but necessary part of revolution, of really bringing the workers to power and then securing that power.
On Gandhi - without a Britain too weak to maintain a large Empire and the growing threat of revolutionary national liberation movements (see Bhagat Singh), he would never achieved what petty gains he did and I say petty because even though India gained independence on paper, it continued to be mercilessly exploited by Western corporations, a form of neo-imperialism which is just as bad as classical forms of imperialism, it's just that the paperwork looks different.

#72
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,043 posts

Is organised labour even that much, a "junior partner", in the Democratic Party?

 

 

Well, truthfully today it is probably more like in third place behind the environmentalists. Still, I would argue that there have been solid gains by the left.  Social Security, Medicaid, Obamacare, unemployment insurance, various programs under the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Labor, and even the Department of Commerce, particularly within the Economic Development Administration.  (Full disclosure: my past includes portions of my salary being paid for by HUD and DHS anti-poverty grant programs).

 

 Well, yes, ML does generally reject such "electoral coalitions" because they have a tendency not to work :p
 

 

 

Right, whereas Communist revolutions have brought nothing but  joyous and gleeful results for all of mankind (/ sarcasm).

 

 

On Gandhi - without a Britain too weak to maintain a large Empire and the growing threat of revolutionary national liberation movements (see Bhagat Singh), he would never achieved what petty gains he did

 

 

1) John F. Kennedy used to like to talk about the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. 

2) That Britain was "too weak to maintain a large empire" merely helps to explain how Gandhi succeeded.  That he won the competion against "revolutionary national liberation movements" sounds like sour grapes to me.

3) At least they were gains.  Not like the famines that followed Stalin's mis-management of the economy, or Mao's "Great Leep Forward" which by almost all accounts was a disastrous step backward.  I know, certain Maoist-Stalinist sources have so brainwashed a distinct minority that such a tiny minority now refuses to believe what the rest of us have come to accept as historical fact. 

 

 

it continued to be mercilessly exploited by Western corporations, a form of neo-imperialism which is just as bad as classical forms of imperialism, it's just that the paperwork looks different.

 

See point number 3) above.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#73
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,053 posts
  • LocationUK
Communist revolutions have brought massive gains unparalleled in world history, yes, obviously not perfectly... but of course, communists must be 100% perfect at everything they do otherwise they are "complete failures"... interesting how this logic is only applied to communists...
Yes, a journey of a thousand miles does begin with the first step but in terms of freeing India from exploitation, there hasn't been even a second or a third step taken yet... out of "a thousand miles"...
It's not sour grapes, those are just key factors that led to Gandhi being the one to make any gains whatsoever.
Wait, so, any sources I give to you refuting liberal "facts" about Stalin/Mao/etc you will just dismiss because in your opinion they are "brainwashed"?

#74
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,043 posts
  Communist revolutions have brought massive gains unparalleled in world history, yes, obviously not perfectly... but of course, communists must be 100% perfect at everything they do otherwise they are "complete failures"... interesting how this logic is only applied to communists...
   

 

Well, yes.  If you are going to claim the right to take a human life you better damn well be right about the necessity to do so.

 

Further, are you serious in dismissing a mass famine and the great leap backwards as merely being less than 100% perfect?

 

Such whining and complaining.

 

 

It's not sour grapes, those are just key factors that led to Gandhi being the one to make any gains whatsoever.
 

 

Whatever.  I do think you may have overstated the fear of violent revolution as a motivating force as to British and other ruling class intentions. Gandhi won on the battlefield of legitimacy, a battlefield that Marxist-Leninists have miserably failed at (with the possible exceptions of Castro and Ho Chi Minh. Even those possible exceptions had successors who adopted what I trust you believe are "revisionist" practices).

 

 

Wait, so, any sources I give to you refuting liberal "facts" about Stalin/Mao/etc you will just dismiss because in your opinion they are "brainwashed"?
 

 

Well of course.

 

No, just kidding.

 

You are more than welcome to bring sources to butress your opinion from any part of the political spectrum that you desire.  So far, all I have seen from you are sources that tend to confirm my opinion and almost directly contradict your own.  Do I have to send you back to that part of this thread where in I made a similar point?


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#75
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,053 posts
  • LocationUK

Yes, I'm dismissing a mass famine that wasn't even caused by Stalin, as if he were some omnipotent God who could control the weather (The early 1930s were years of severe drought in the Western USSR)... one of my sources (the Douglas Tottle book) debunks this "Holodomor" conspiracy theory. The USSR never experienced another famine again after that. As for the GLF, this wasn't some sort of intentional extermination campaign, this was an ambitious programme led by Mao to achieve rapid industrialisation and collectivisation and yes, there were serious mistakes made in the process but some people seem to think that the GLF killed "60 million people" or some other absolutely ridiculous and, to be honest, laughable figure. It is claimed by many who have studied figures released by Deng Xiaoping after Mao’s death that per capita grain production did not increase at all during the Mao period. But how is it possible to reconcile such statistics with the figures on life expectancy that the same authors quote? Besides which these figures are contradicted by other figures. Guo Shutian, a Former Director of Policy and Law in the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture, in the post-Mao era, gives a very different view of China’s overall agricultural performance during the period before Deng’s “reforms.” It is true that he writes that agricultural production decreased in five years between 1949-1978 due to “natural calamities and mistakes in the work.” However he states that during 1949-1978 the per hectare yield of land sown with food crops increased by 145.9% and total food production rose 169.6%. During this period China’s population grew by 77.7%. On these figures, China’s per capita food production grew from 204 kilograms to 328 kilograms in the period in question. See Guo Shutian ‘China’s Food Supply and Demand Situation and International Trade’ in 'Can China Feed Itself? Chinese Scholars on China’s Food Issue'.
Even according to figures released by the Deng Xiaoping regime, industrial production increased by 11.2% per year from 1952-1976 (by 10% a year during the alleged catastrophe of the Cultural Revolution). In 1952 industry was 36% of gross value of national output in China. By 1975 industry was 72% and agriculture was 28%. It is quite obvious that Mao’s supposedly disastrous socialist economic policies paved the way for the rapid (but inegalitarian and unbalanced) economic development of the post-Mao era. See M. Meissner, 'The Deng Xiaoping Era. An Enquiry into the Fate of Chinese Socialism, 1978-1994', Hill and Wray 1996.
I, too, could pick out whatever you say and call it "whining and complaining", caltrek, but I don't, so why do you?
Perhaps the role of the threat of violent revolution was overestimated but perhaps it wasn't. We may never know for sure...
What does "legitimacy" mean to you?
My sources haven't contradicted me on their purpose which was refuting certain statistics and events. They weren't necessarily intended to be singing the praises of Stalin, as I have said before, this sort of thing would only ever come from specifically ML sources which I don't cite here because obviously, as you are not a Marxist-Leninist yourself, you would never really accept these sources - entirely understandable, of course, because it would fundamentally disagree with your current position, just as I may accept certain statistics about, say, G.W. Bush, but I would never accept anything painting him in a generally positive light or portraying him as a good person partly because of the political position I already have. Also because of the atrocities he committed but these aren't disputed as the "atrocities" that allegedly took place under any communist leader.



#76
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,053 posts
  • LocationUK

 

 

Marxism Leninism is a sure path...

 

Towards eternal stagnation.

 

Are you saying Marxism-Leninism is the solution to the "Ghetto Culture," then? Because I can assure you, there were plenty instances of the same culture in the USSR and the Easter block. There were plenty people in the USSR who refused to take the opportunities offered to them, millions, I estimate.

 

This makes me consider: "Poor" is less a state of being than a mindset. Being "Poor" is a particular mindset one inherits from his parents, and, given all the opportunity in the world, he won't take them. Even if someone is born in a family that is poor by situation, I think that person will find themselves in a much better mindset provided this person was not raised in a "Poor" mindset-household.

1."Towards eternal stagnation" [citation needed, preferably one that can refute the economic growth of the USSR from a backwards, semi-feudal nation into a modernised superpower, etc] 

2."'Ghetto Culture' in the USSR and the Eastern Bloc" - [citation needed]

3."Plenty of people in the USSR who refused to take opportunities...millions..." - [citation needed]

4."Poor" is an objective condition with material causes and consequences, it isn't a "mindset", this is idealist and anti-materialist rubbish.

 

1. Indeed, the USSR was a success, but at what cost? I like my freedom. Many of the same policies could have been implemented by a long-term capitalist government that sets sensible policies. The problem is that governments are only elected for 4-5 years, and don't have time to implement their policies. The problem that Russia had before WWI was that the Czar's weren't entirely dedicated to the right policies for Russia. The tsars treated Russia, as did all European modern families, their state as their personal fief, to be used as they see fit. With a long term, democratic government (i.e. elected every 20 years), with the right policies, the same, and much greater could have been achieved in Russia.

 

2. This fact you will find no citations for. You can ask PhoenixRu, or other members who have either lived in the former Eastern block, or have grown up, and have friends and relatives in the new countries that emerged following the fall of the USSR. Some places definitely had a "ghetto," in fact, there is a certain term for people who were parts of this culture, "gopnik." Yes, it was distinctly different from that in USA, but it was still, at its core, a Ghetto culture.

 

3. There were families who went from being the son's and daughter's of poor peasants to being doctors and engineers. Equally, there were people who simply said no to the opportunities offered to them. You will find no citations for this, but perhaps some members from the former Eastern block here would be willing to confirm.

 

4. There are two styles of parenting, largely. A "non-involved," where the parent takes no action at all in regards to organizing the spare time of the child, and there is a "involved" one where the parent actively plans most of the child's spare time. A person raised in a non-involved manner is likely to be afraid of authority, and suspicious of it, and think that he is discriminated against, whilst a person who is raised in a involved environment is much more likely to take use of the opportunities presented to him, and be cooperative with authority. This is wonderfully written in Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers," where he cites all the research.

 

1. "Freedom" is a very vague term with lots of different meanings and it's very inconsistent and it really just causes confusion, so, which particular "freedoms" do you enjoy right now?

 

2 and 3. No, I didn't expect there would be. ;)

 

4. Parenting alone doesn't cut it. It doesn't change the fact that poverty is a material condition and not a mental one.



#77
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,053 posts
  • LocationUK

1. Absolute freedom of speech isn't always a good thing (e.g. "free speech" for fascists) and it also doesn't exist. Your freedom of speech ends when your message is both a threat to the ruling class and it becomes popular and widespread, e.g. look what happened to the Black Panthers in the USA.

 

2. Freedom of movement is something you can only really have if you have a lot of money. Travel is restricted by capital.

 

3. You can only choose your own future as much as society and capital will allow you to. If you have great plans for the future but you don't have the money for it and there's no way of you ever getting it then there's no chance of it happening. That's just one rudimentary example off the top of my head.

 

4. Attending private meetings is much like freedom of speech - fine insofar as it doesn't pose a popular threat to the ruling class.

 

5. There could be articles about it and statistics involving land use, housing, etc, of course there could be sources. 

 

6. This "poverty of the mind" you speak of doesn't mean much. There are plenty of people who try their best to work hard to emancipate themselves but the fruits of their labour are tragically never born. Likewise, there are the drains on society like Paris Hilton who is rich and famous for being rich and famous. She has contributed nothing to society and yet still manages to benefit from vast quantities of wealth that she didn't earn.



#78
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,043 posts

joe00UK: Yes, I'm dismissing a mass famine that wasn't even caused by Stalin, as if he were some omnipotent God who could control the weather (The early 1930s were years of severe drought in the Western USSR)...

 

 

This line of analysis completely ignores the impact of the massive collectivization program undertaken in the agricultural sector and the related liquidation of the Kulaks that took place. 

 

http://russiapedia.r...llectivization/

 

 

...forced collectivization nearly destroyed Soviet agriculture, and it took years to restore it.

 

This conclusion concurs with an analysis prepared by M. Lewin that I found in the book Foundations of Soviet Totalitarianism.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#79
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,053 posts
  • LocationUK

 

joe00UK: Yes, I'm dismissing a mass famine that wasn't even caused by Stalin, as if he were some omnipotent God who could control the weather (The early 1930s were years of severe drought in the Western USSR)...

This line of analysis completely ignores the impact of the massive collectivization program undertaken in the agricultural sector and the related liquidation of the Kulaks that took place. 

 

http://russiapedia.r...llectivization/

 

...forced collectivization nearly destroyed Soviet agriculture, and it took years to restore it.

This conclusion concurs with an analysis prepared by M. Lewin that I found in the book Foundations of Soviet Totalitarianism.

The Kulaks presented an obstacle to collectivisation. Remember, the USSR started out as an extremely backward, semi-feudal nation and popular rumour spread by counter-revolutionaries had many peasants and kulaks convinced that Stalin was the antichrist. At best, 20% of the peasantry was indifferent to the Bolsheviks to start with. So when Stalin introduced collectivisation in 1929, many kulaks burned their crops and slaughtered their livestock in protest. This cannot be blamed on Stalin.

As part of the collectivization program, the land of the kulaks was to be confiscated and transferred to the collective farms, as was their cattle, machinery and other farm property. A sizable number of wealthier kulak families were to be evicted from collectivized areas and sent elsewhere. The kulaks responded - fighting against collectivization with an organized campaign of large-scale destruction. The struggle swept through the countryside, approaching civil war scale in many areas, with devastating results particularly in Ukraine. Frederick Schuman, Woodrow Wilson Professor of Government at Williams College at the time of writing, states that he and thousands of other tourists travelled in Ukraine during the famine period. He writes: "Their [kulak] opposition took the initial form of slaughtering their cattle and horses in preference to having them collectivized. The result was a grievous blow to Soviet agriculture, for most of the cattle and horses were owned by the kulaks. Between 1928 and 1933 the number of horses in the USSR declined from almost 30,000,000 to less than 15,000,000; of horned cattle from 70,000,000 (including 31,000,000 cows) to 38,000,000 (including 20,000,000 cows); of sheep and goats from 147,000,000 to 50,000,000; and of hogs from 20,000,000 to 12,000,000. Soviet rural economy had not recovered from this staggering loss by 1941... Some [kulaks] murdered officials, set the torch to the property of the collectives, and even burned their own crops and seed grain. More refused to sow or reap, perhaps on the assumption that the authorities would make concessions and would in any case feed them. The aftermath was the Ukrainian "famine" of 1932-33... Lurid accounts, mostly fictional, appeared in the Nazi press in Germany and in the Hearst press in the United States, often illustrated with photographs that turned out to have been taken along the Volga in 1921... The "famine" was not, in its later stages, a result of a food shortage, despite the sharp reduction of seed grain and harvests flowing from special requisitions in the spring of 1932 which were apparently occasioned by fear of war with Japan. Most of the victims were kulaks who had refused to sow their fields or had destroyed their crops... At first there were disturbances in the kolkhosi [collective farms] or else the communist officials and their agents were killed, but later a system of passive resistance was favored which aimed at the systematic frustration of the Bolsheviks' plans for the sowing and gathering of the harvest... The catastrophe of 1932 was the hardest blow that Soviet Ukraine had to face since the famine of 1921-22. The autumn and spring sowing campaigns both failed. Whole tracts were left unsown, in addition when the crop was being gathered... in many areas, especially in the south, 20, 40 and even 50 per cent was left in the fields, and was either not collected at all or was ruined in the threshing..."

http://www.garethjon...tottlefraud.pdf



#80
Rusakov

Rusakov

    Member

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 339 posts
  • LocationIllinois

Considering that the ruling wealthy would rather forcibly upgrade everyone to compete with robots for crap wages than actually help labor, I doubt socialism will ever take root. As for revolution? Good luck. We've got guns, they've got guns, tanks, cruise missiles, battleships, etc.

 

So the window of opportunity for socialism is gone barring something so far out of field it's practically impossible.

 

PS: what the heck happened to you Lunix? Your signature is quoting two different people, one of which helped get Augusto Pinochet into power and the other who was a spoiled brat who thought altruism was a weakness.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: socialism, communism, Marxism, MLM, anarchism, leftism, class war, dialectical materialism, USSR, Stalin

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users