Incentives under communism?

[Akka]

What smug counter? I am pointing out an inconsistency in the anticommunist arguments here, that's all.

I also just think that what Sarin means by Marxism is actually the Leninist conception of a vanguard party revolution that then establishes a single-party state. In my view, this is something that the young Marx may well have agreed with, but which the older Marx who saw the failure of the 1848 revolutions would have seen as folly. Like I noted before, Marx said in his own lifetime that he was not a Marxist. Indeed I would say that Marx' support for reformist movements in Britain and his show of support for the Union cause in the US Civil War would get him declared an imperialist stooge and bourgeoise lackey by many of today's Marxists.

As for the situation in Russia today, I really cannot emphasize enough that it has nothing whatever to do with Marxism and is in fact the result of the US (and to a lesser extent the rest of the west) getting what it wanted. The US' chosen candidate won election in the 1990s with open US assistance, and his chosen successor is currently in charge of Russia. He was even considered a partner in the Global War on Terror when his repression of the Chechens was something Americans could sympathize with back in the 2000s.

Sarin was arguing that communism can only survive through being authoritarian because it lacks checks and balance. You made a mocking comment about how a communist regime (under Gorbatchev) was actually making reforms toward less "bastardly". The point is that those reforms, lowering the authoritarianism, led to the collapse of the whole communist block. This kinda actually reinforces Sarin's point.

I do appreciate the irony of Marx being so, well, moderate after getting a bit older and wiser.

 

[Gorbles]

Is democracy perfect at protecting minorities? Definitely not. Would abandoning democracy and removing all influence of minorities on the political process make things better? I very much doubt that.

Did anybody suggest doing this?

You are starting to understand.

I already understood perfectly.

But like I said in another post, nobody said nothing wouldn't stop such behaviour. I just disagree that a) it's inherent / widespread and b) that we should reward such behaviour, which capitalism absolutely does.

 

[amadeus]

Everyone always seems mad they don't pick the president, but it's not like they've selected a level thier hands make more than a ~1/150millionth.

I hear sometimes that the House should be expanded because the members are too disconnected from their constituents; constituents per seat has increased twentyfold since the nation’s founding, one House member representing nearly 700,000 Americans.

The ironic, if you want to call it that, flipside to that is by increasing the number of seats in the House, the public will be closer to their representative but their vote in the House will be effectively diluted.

I’m not sure if that has any implications for the Marxians that want to implement workplace democracy, the preservation of the weight of one’s vote might could exclude the addition of new members?

No, you should. I am not taking any blanket positions about what Marxists believe or don't believe.

Fair enough, and neither am I.

Sarin was arguing that communism can only survive through being authoritarian because it lacks checks and balance.

If we’re getting back to the original post and the technical definitions, communism cannot be authoritarian because it would have “withered away” the state.

If we are talking the real-world application of Leninism, which I think is distinct from the theory Marx posited, then this has credibility.

 

[Zardnaar]

Democracy in the US is mostly a sham. Democracy in China is a complete sham. That's the main difference.



What smug counter? I am pointing out an inconsistency in the anticommunist arguments here, that's all.

I also just think that what Sarin means by Marxism is actually the Leninist conception of a vanguard party revolution that then establishes a single-party state. In my view, this is something that the young Marx may well have agreed with, but which the older Marx who saw the failure of the 1848 revolutions would have seen as folly. Like I noted before, Marx said in his own lifetime that he was not a Marxist. Indeed I would say that Marx' support for reformist movements in Britain and his show of support for the Union cause in the US Civil War would get him declared an imperialist stooge and bourgeoise lackey by many of today's Marxists.

As for the situation in Russia today, I really cannot emphasize enough that it has nothing whatever to do with Marxism and is in fact the result of the US (and to a lesser extent the rest of the west) getting what it wanted. The US' chosen candidate won election in the 1990s with open US assistance, and his chosen successor is currently in charge of Russia. He was even considered a partner in the Global War on Terror when his repression of the Chechens was something Americans could sympathize with back in the 2000s.



No, you should. I am not taking any blanket positions about what Marxists believe or don't believe.

USA is regarded as a flawed democracy vs authoritarian regime.

It has very high score in freedom f speech though and it's near the top of the flawed democracy list.

It's harder to reform but not impossible. If enough liberals moved to Texas en masse for example.

 

[Farm Boy]

I live in one of the least democratic states in the union. Liberals are mostly fine with it. Don't assume Texas is being improved.

 

[uppi]

Did anybody suggest doing this?

I am not sure what people are suggesting. There is a lot of moaning about democracy, but not really a suggestion of what to replace it with. And when you point out that abandoning democracy usually means (further) disenfranchisement of minorities, not many want to come out and admit that they want to do that.

 

[Gorbles]

I am not sure what people are suggesting. There is a lot of moaning about democracy, but not really a suggestion of what to replace it with. And when you point out that abandoning democracy usually means (further) disenfranchisement of minorities, not many want to come out and admit that they want to do that.

There's a lot of moaning about socialism too, but for some reason that sticks, while moaning about democracy is seen as tantamount to wanting to abolish it, and other weird assertions.

No. But it actually working as designed in places where it isn't would be nice

Turns out, where it isn't, monied interests are a factor. Which takes us back to capitalism.

 

[REDY]

I am sympathetic to the idea of socialism but I am puzzled why is there needed some country´s iniciative. I think that people can setup own co-ops and work together. If its viable, it will grow.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I live in one of the least democratic states in the union. Liberals are mostly fine with it. Don't assume Texas is being improved.

But wait! Doesn't that mean democracy is working in both places? IIRC government should work to benefit its citizens, but democracy is a process and can be used to benefit the few or the "special".

 

[Farm Boy]

Some are more equal than others!

 

[Zardnaar]

There's a lot of moaning about socialism too, but for some reason that sticks, while moaning about democracy is seen as tantamount to wanting to abolish it, and other weird assertions.

No. But it actually working as designed in places where it isn't would be nice

Turns out, where it isn't, monied interests are a factor. Which takes us back to capitalism.

There were people specifically saying they want to overthrow the system and say the kulaks need to give up their food.

Socialism not so much eg a social democratic welfare state which we have several examples of or what NZ and probably Australia used to be in living memory.

Who xares about UBI if your rents $50 usd a week (3 bedroom house) welfare pays double that minimum everything's free (doctor, dentist, university) and the state government you the deposit on a house and pays you a spend if you have kids.

And you can do it without murder, theft and a civil war.

 

[Gorbles]

we have several examples of or what NZ and probably Australia used to be in living memory.

How's that working out nowadays?

 

[Zardnaar]

How's that working out nowadays?

Voters decided otherwise.

But that gets back to having to use force. Essentially your ideal communism doesn't exist in tgat scenario.

What we've all been saying ideal communusm cant work it's always gonna go authoritarian violence, force, and starvation go hand in hand with that force.

I think you would have to gave a social democracy with a US style constitution blocking things like tax cuts without a supermajority.

If you xant reluablyvwin an election 100% of tge time it only leaves one option if you want your way 100% of the time.

The violence and failure is inherent in communust dogma, political thought etc.

No one answered me when I asked how does seizing the means of production work in practice. Young Zard working the farm gets equal share as the other workers? What about service workers who don't produce anything as such eg garbage man?

Ideal communism would require a voluntary supermajority that never changes their mind.

 

[Gorbles]

Voters decided otherwise.

But that gets back to having to use force. Essentially your ideal communism doesn't exist in tgat scenario.

The same applies to democracy. You're the one who said (social) democracy could work, but your only examples are historical.

 

[Snowygerry]

Social democracy does work, it works all over Europe. Admittedly combined with a healthy dose of capitalism

 

[PhroX]

Social democracy does work, it works all over Europe. Admittedly combined with a healthy dose of capitalism

Or in other words, capitalism does work....in Europe....when combined with a healthy dose of socialism....

 

[Snowygerry]

Yes, capitalism and socialism are both required for a good functioning nation state, as is democracy, rule of law etc.

And as stated, an educated population, democracy coupled with ignorance leads to mob rule.

 

[Gorbles]

Yes, capitalism and socialism are both required for a good functioning nation state

Borrowing the lightest touches of socialist principles doesn't make for a "requirement". Socialism and capitalism are at odds insofar as concentrating profits for the sake of profits runs against providing for everyone in a fair manner (to each person's needs).

Now, if capitalism could work without infinite growth, that'd be a different story. But it doesn't ever seem to. It very much seems to be a feature, not a bug.

And as I understand from this thread, systems that (however allegedly) automatically trend to unhealthy behaviours are systems that cannot ever work and therefore shouldn't even be attempted

All I want is a consistent rationale. So far the only consistent position is from the ones who say "socialism sucks and that's that". I disagree! Obviously haha. But at the very least it's not trying to hold socialism to a standard it's simultaneously excusing capitalism for.

 

[Zardnaar]

The same applies to democracy. You're the one who said (social) democracy could work, but your only examples are historical.

Well there's countries such as the European welfare states which are about as best it gets on the planet. I'm sure those places have their downsides as well Eg Nordic countries, Germany, Netherlands etc.

NZ and Australia still fairly desirable places to live but cost of living has exploded due to housing.

The big problem us not enough progressives anywhere in the world. Can't blame gerrymandering here for example and it's proportional representation. Communists don't add up to 1%.

My views add up to maybe 20% of the population. Some progressives would agree with me some left wingers some centrists would most right ringers would not.

 

[Gorbles]

Well there's countries such as the European welfare states which are about as best it gets on the planet. I'm sure those places have their downsides as well Eg Nordic countries, Germany, Netherlands etc.

shrugs

You're the one who said it would work. Now you're saying it works in certain places, but they have downsides, and they're constantly fighting for the right voter share to do the "right" thing. If and when they even do that (broken promises, etc).

Seems to me like it's far from an ideal system. It may be the best we have right now, but that doesn't mean it's the best forever. Therefore we kinda need to think about what could be better, instead of dismissing alternatives out of hand as unworkable.

This applies as much to capitalism as it does our current democracies.