Suspending the Election

[Kwak]

Hobby, though given the Russian Revolution is one of the most significant events in recent history it’s kinda odd to criticize knowing more about it than “Lenin was there.”

Not actually a wholly sarcastic observation or a negative criticism; I am always bemused by how any discussion here that touches on pre-world war 2 european politics is always full of esoteric knowledge on social and political context of the times, such that I can only assume posters do know what they are talking about.
Can be a little dense for one not so enamoured of the topic though.

 

[SupahEwok]

Not sure which is worse, them having never read up on history being the reason they think socialism is a good idea or that they have read up on history and yet still think the ideology can work.

Edit: Also, aren't you a socialist, Ewok? Or have I misinterpreted our arguments in other threads?

You have. I'm not an avowed socialist, communist, capitalist, or libertarian. I am just me, and I try to take each theory as it is. Taking socialism as it is means acknowledging that the umbrella of socialist theories are all attempts at evolving capitalism to the next step of economic theory development. I don't throw all of that away just because the language of the various ideologies in question were co-opted by a set of murderous dictators. Neither do I just blindly accept that we are in "the best of all possible worlds" with our current capitalistic economy. And I also recognize that even modern America fits the definition of a country following a socialist model. It is a weaker model than that in most contemporary Europe, but we today are all living as socialists of one stripe or another, despite the lingering cultural damage of McCarthyism.

If you like history, here's a lesson for you: when Marx spoke of a violent revolution to overthrow capitalism, the context is that he believed such a revolution to be inevitable, not necessarily desirable. In the world of his time, Britain's transition to the Industrial Age had transformed the old peasant class who could at least eke out a living working their lord's land into a wandering pauper class with no means of providing for themselves unless they could get a job in the various workhouses and factories where Britain turned its imported materials (the products of colonialism, but that's a different facet of the horrors wrought in the age) into finished goods. Those workhouses had horrendous working conditions, hours, and pay. If you google up some videos of modern sweatshops in Asia, they probably still aren't as bad as what those factories were like. In the face of this suffering, Marx simply said that eventually the people would have enough and would bloodily overthrow those who gate-kept economic mobility.

Marx ended up being wrong, about that at least. The ruling powers that be ended up having enough self-awareness to compromise with socialist labor movements before the breaking point was hit (in some countries, on some levels), and we are the beneficiaries of those 19th and early 20th century struggles in our modern workday and the middle class. That is a very simplified and abbreviated history of the modern labor struggle. But it does illustrate that if you are working today, you are a beneficiary of Marx's and the other keystone socialist figures' legacy.

If I had to sum up my thoughts on economics into a label, the best I can do is that I am anti-capitalist. Capitalism demands restraint. To borrow terminology from a popular kind of strategy game, it's focus on exploration, expansion, and exploitation leads unswervingly to extermination of anything that gets in the way of its mechanical processes. I am sure that your response will be something along the lines of "that's every civilization ever". You would be wrong. There's been conquest and exploitation a-plenty across the history of agricultural society, but capitalism strips out any of the humanitarian sentiments ever blended into the social fabric in favor of cold, hard, inhuman efficiency, to a unique level.

I could go on a long screed, but I don't need to. All that is needed to see all of the humanist problems in capitalism without evolution is a couple of videos of factory farms.

This one gets the point across without being too gruesome for the PG-13 guidelines.


See the baby cows dragged and put into boxes where they cannot turn around. See the chickens mill around in cages where they cannot spread their wings or collapse under their own genetically modified weight. See the pigs who don't see sunlight until they're led to slaughter.

Then look at human sweatshops, and realize that the only reason the capitalists haven't put us all in cages in the name of efficiency is because of the socialist-inspired labor movement.

I don't know what's the best way to get society out of the hole it's continually digging. But I do know that blind adherence or even just acceptance of capitalism is killing the planet, is killing our bodies, and is even killing our spirits.

 

[Worgen]

I find socialists are frequently better informed than capitalists because capitalists, by merely living in capitalism, therefore assume that they know it. Socialists, however, need to actively go and find out. Doesn't necessarily mean they're right, but at least they bothered to read some stuff up.

But on the other hand they also tend to view socialism based on some kind of ideal utopia and capitalism by its failures.

 

[Revnak]

But on the other hand they also tend to view socialism based on some kind of ideal utopia and capitalism by its failures.

No.

 

[Silvanus]

So is everyone's extensive knowledge of russian political history just a hobby, or did you get degrees in it?

A degree in modern political history (1850 onwards), which involved a fair bit of first-hand research into Russia under the late Tsarists and early Soviets. And from what I gather from Agema, he/she works in higher education.

 

[Buyetyen]

But on the other hand they also tend to view socialism based on some kind of ideal utopia and capitalism by its failures.

What you are referring to is the socialist equivalent of the capitalists who don't know how things like insurance work. And socialists tend to talk more about the failings of capitalism, because the capitalists sure as shit aren't going to.

 

[Revnak]

What you are referring to is the socialist equivalent of the capitalists who don't know how things like insurance work. And socialists tend to talk more about the failings of capitalism, because the capitalists sure as shit aren't going to.

Anyone who genuinely thinks Socialists are not critical of socialist ideas and practices has never seen two socialists interact in their lives.

 

[Tireseas]

So is everyone's extensive knowledge of russian political history just a hobby, or did you get degrees in it?

I have a US law degree, which I will be the first to tell you means jack shit as to how smart someone with a JD is.

Beyond that, I have BA with a double major of philosophy and government (AKA political science), getting inducted in the honor's society of both and my senior thesis on Xenophobia and US Electoral Politics (Federal and State). A substantial chunk of my Russian history knowledge from my studies is more focused on the post-soviet era, particularly as it focused on the dismantling of communist Russia and the rise of the county as a petro-state.

For what it's worth, I consider myself a capitalist with a heavy preference for a strong regulatory state and welfare support network. I don't see socialism (which I view more as a theory of government that focuses on economic stabilization for individuals) and capitalism (which I view simply as the more efficient method of understanding economics) as inherently contradicting one another, as both work best in a mixed system where baseline needs are met through social welfare programs (healthcare, infrastructure, education, base-level housing, etc.) and allowing market forces to otherwise compensate in most other circumstances within certain limitations (pollution and CO2 controls, wage and hour laws, preventing or dismantling defacto monopolies, conflicts of interest and other capitalistic excesses).

 

[Worgen]

What you are referring to is the socialist equivalent of the capitalists who don't know how things like insurance work. And socialists tend to talk more about the failings of capitalism, because the capitalists sure as shit aren't going to.

Ehh, I mainly hear everyone bitching about capitalism and socialists saying socialism is perfect, if only it had a chance.

 

[dreng3]

Slightly off topic, but since a lot of people are really into the entire soviet collapse and russian political history I'd love a recommendation or two on a good introduction to the topics.

 

[Trunkage]

socialists saying socialism is perfect, if only it had a chance.

I would say the latter is stated way more often than the former. Usually its more like 'socialism is better than Capitalism.'

But I just usually rebutt these comments with Capitalism hasn't been tried anywhere. No country has really tried it. Maybe it could be perfect too if given the chance.

 

[Revnak]

I would say the latter is stated way more often than the former. Usually its more like 'socialism is better than Capitalism.'

But I just usually rebutt these comments with Capitalism hasn't been tried anywhere. No country has really tried it. Maybe it could be perfect too if given the chance.

I love that there’s actual socialists here you could ask if they think that way, but you don’t. I wonder who this hypothetical socialist is and if I would even vaguely agree with their definition of socialism. I wonder what that says about yours and Worgen’s arguments.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I would say the latter is stated way more often than the former. Usually its more like 'socialism is better than Capitalism.'

But I just usually rebutt these comments with Capitalism hasn't been tried anywhere. No country has really tried it. Maybe it could be perfect too if given the chance.

If your definition of capitalism is such that it hasn't ever even existed, it's a very silly one. The word itself was coined to describe existing and ubiquitous phenomena.

Are you seriously going to argue that systematic use of famine hasn't been a tool of repression historically? Shit, even Marx and Engels noted that this was a way for the aristocracy and the capitalists to put down the working class.

I don't think such a motivation makes sense in the Ukraine of the 1930s, because it wasn't primarily the lower class there which was viewed as a problem. It was the wealthier farm-owners. And a famine will typically hurt the lowest. When you've already dispossessed, displaced, and/or slaughtered the kulaks-- the actual target of your hostility-- an intentional famine seems gratuitous.

We can continue this discussion when you've read up on the Holodomor.

I can scarce think of worse uses of time than trying to figure out what is propaganda and what is scholarship on that topic.

If I go around wearing a helmet because a comet might hit me in the head and I get hit by a car, I can claim that the helmet saved me but it was hardly the intended use. Stalin was paranoid, that he was right once doesn't change that and still calls into question the validity of his industrialization, especially since the USA could have supplied the USSR with way more supplies had they needed to.

Wearing a helmet doesn't affect the likelihood that you'll be hit by a comet, but emphasizing military preparedness in your economic policy does affect the likelihood that another country or coalition might attack in the future. E.g. North Korea has nuclear weapons and so is still around, Saddam Hussein's Iraq didn't and so isn't.

Soviet leadership had plenty of reason to be paranoid of attack in the near future and given the pattern of capitalist nations or their intelligence agencies by whatever means attempting and often succeeding at overthrowing socialist governments (Allende) or even just social democratic politicians (Lula, Morales), their paranoia was amply vindicated. And it's likely that yet more would have been done against various other socialist projects and experiments if the Soviet Union hadn't been an imposing global presence. The United States is going kind of nuts with it just right now.

Yeah, the same state that helped the USSR build up its industry and sold it military equipment in the 30's. I brought this up in my last post, did you even read it?

Not without controversy, and they literally turned right around and had a cold war directly after. And Churchill wanted a hot one! Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater thought that using nuclear weapons in Vietnam was a good idea.

 

[Revnak]

To demonstrate a socialist criticizing socialism...

I don't think such a motivation makes sense in the Ukraine of the 1930s, because it wasn't primarily the lower class there which was viewed as a problem. It was the wealthier farm-owners. And a famine will typically hurt the lowest. When you've already dispossessed, displaced, and/or slaughtered the kulaks-- the actual target of your hostility-- an intentional famine seems gratuitous.

I can scarce think of worse uses of time than trying to figure out what is propaganda and what is scholarship on that topic.

Ok, I think there’s some broad strokes that any sane individual can agree to. That partially the famine came about due to Lysenkoist agricultural techniques, and partially it came about because Stalin was a racist and a Nationalist, demonstrated by his brutal mistreatment of various other ethnic and religious minorities, while maintaining a comparative soft spot for the Orthodox Church. That it can also be attributed to the same cold calculus as Churchill starving the Bengalese, that the periphery of empire is of questionable importance, while the interior must be fed. Finally, the very fact that Ukraine was not allowed independent sovereignty can be laid at a final sin of Stalin and arguably Lenin (the only one of these I believe the two to share), they were ultimately revaunchists and believed the rightful borders of Soviet Russia were essentially those of Imperial Russia. All of this can be corroborated by events that weren’t Holodomor and don’t require some propaganda rooted death count.

 

[Agema]

A degree in modern political history (1850 onwards), which involved a fair bit of first-hand research into Russia under the late Tsarists and early Soviets. And from what I gather from Agema, he/she works in higher education.

Yes, but I teach pharmacology and neuroscience, neither of which are famed for usefulness in knowing history.

I know stuff (at an amateur level, more at the level of general kowledge) because I've spent the best part of 30 years reading and talking to people on a wide range of topics. Looking at a newspaper article, talking to a friend, having an online debate are all opportunities to learn about the world: when you find something interesting, read up more on it.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

You have. I'm not an avowed socialist, communist, capitalist, or libertarian. I am just me, and I try to take each theory as it is. Taking socialism as it is means acknowledging that the umbrella of socialist theories are all attempts at evolving capitalism to the next step of economic theory development. I don't throw all of that away just because the language of the various ideologies in question were co-opted by a set of murderous dictators.

There is no greater problem with socialism than the continued denial that dictators taking control of their movement is a feature rather than an aberration when it keeps happening over and over and over again and lead to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Maoist China. Maybe if they stopped sticking their fingers in their ears over this they could maybe think of ways to prevent it from happening.

 

[Silvanus]

There is no greater problem with socialism than the continued denial that dictators taking control of their movement is a feature rather than an aberration when it keeps happening over and over and over again and lead to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Maoist China. Maybe if they stopped sticking their fingers in their ears over this they could maybe think of ways to prevent it from happening.

Firstly, to get the obvious out of the way, Nazi Germany was not socialist, and did not grow out of a socialist movement. It's pretty much universally identified by political theorists and historians as a movement on the extreme right (along with the other European Fascist movements in Italy and Spain).

Secondly, you've also flagged two state communist nations (the USSR & China). State communism does indeed have a very poor track record in terms of resorting to authoritarian dictatorship. But frankly, that's also true of capitalist movements during the period of the 20s-60s, when most communist countries came into being. The vast majority of authoritarian dictatorships around then and today are capitalist in some form.

Thirdly, communism is one extreme form of socialism. Socialism can also refer to democratic socialism or market socialism, like that in Scandinavia, which is decidedly not under dictatorial rule.

 

[tstorm823]

Firstly, to get the obvious out of the way, Nazi Germany was not socialist, and did not grow out of a socialist movement. It's pretty much universally identified by political theorists and historians as a movement on the extreme right (along with the other European Fascist movements in Italy and Spain).

Socialist and right-wing aren't mutually exclusive. I know you can cite a whole bunch of definitions that will claim they are, but people don't understand what right and left wing mean. Nazi Germany wasn't right-wing because of its economic structure, it was right-wing because of its social hierarchy, nobody but the Nazi government had any real property rights.

 

[Silvanus]

Socialist and right-wing aren't mutually exclusive. I know you can cite a whole bunch of definitions that will claim they are, but people don't understand what right and left wing mean. Nazi Germany wasn't right-wing because of its economic structure, it was right-wing because of its social hierarchy, nobody but the Nazi government had any real property rights.

As I've said before when this came up, you're using a tremendously peculiar definition that isn't widely accepted or acknowledged. I don't see any reason for me to pay it any credence. I'll go with the accepted definitions.

 

[SupahEwok]

There is no greater problem with socialism than the continued denial that dictators taking control of their movement is a feature rather than an aberration when it keeps happening over and over and over again and lead to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Maoist China. Maybe if they stopped sticking their fingers in their ears over this they could maybe think of ways to prevent it from happening.

Please point out the exact tenets of socialist thought that make "dictators taking control of their movement a feature rather than an aberration". Your argument as stated relies on a causality that it does not prove.

Please do not simply reply, "Well, there must be something in there for the same result to keep happening". I only just woke up and cannot remember the name of that fallacy, but it will be a discussion stopper as it would show that you're not actually interested in knowing anything about what socialism and capitalism are, relying on pre-conceived, uneducated notions instead.