The Offtopicgrad Soviet: A Place to Discuss All Things Red

[Lexicus]

Nah, "The USSR isn't really socialist" is pretty much a Trotskyist argument. Anarchists generally don't feel the need to deny the USSR was socialist because they aren't necessarily wedded to 'socialism' as a concept.

Trots are at least preferable to tankies.

 

[W|M]

Anarchism is pretty connected to socialism, and the USSR was non-socialist in a lot of ways

Trotskyists in Brazil are generally electioneers who's idea of a protest is to dance in the street, sell newspapers on the street or give lists of names of anarchists to the police, while trotskyists in the UK are split into tiny useless cells which constantly divide. They like Marxism-Leninism, and only seem preferable to tankies because Trotsky lost the power struggle with Stalin

 

[Lexicus]

That last is probably true. My main experience with Trotksyists in the US is the Socialist Alternative folks, who aren't particularly authoritarian.

 

[Namor]

Aren't Trotskyists the only major Leninist tendency left in the West, complimented by Maoists in Asia. Stalinists certainly don't seem to be counted.

The anarchist folks I have run into seem to be into fashion accessories, trashing things up and making vegan baked goods, but I wouldn't dare define their entire ideology by the funny people I have met who subscribe to it.

 

[Lexicus]

My interpretation of anarchism is basically taking the Declaration of Independence at its word. If states aren't making things better they should be torn down and replaced.

"Stateless society" is a fantasy.

 

[Daw]

Putin defends the USSR because he links it to Russian nationalism

Huh??

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The Soviet Union isn't thought of as socialist by many socialists, Putin defends the USSR because he links it to Russian nationalism, and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a group of reformist electioneers

Putin is an opportunistic leader. The Soviet Union is popular in Russia because socialism was the best time anyone in that region ever had. It makes sense for his populism to capitalize on that popularity by saying vaguely positive things about the USSR, even if he has no qualms about dissing the Bolsheviks or even socialism.

Everyone else mentioned in that post are just bad communists. Zyuganov is a nightmare and I hope a better communist party rises and absorbs the dying CPRF. Anarchists and everyone else under the "no dads no masters" ideology of ultraleftism are a bunch of idealists who hold up a perfect idea and expect reality to conform to it. They have a strange luxury of being able to wait for perfection and sneer at people form whom imperfection is good enough to start with.

 

[Namor]

I don't really see why the whole concept of winning elections and enacting reforms is such a dirty, impure concept to begin with.

Unless the preferred strategy is to sit back while things get so bad that people will clamor for revolution (a dangerous and unlikely to work the way you want it to strategy) then winning elections, becoming popular enough that your ideas enter the mainstream consciousness is the most realistic route to take.

 

[Cutlass]

I have a question in mind. Does Vladmir Putin's regime count as left-wing or right-wing? I personally branded it as right-wing authoritarian regime, then I am puzzled as it sometimes defended left-wing legacy (Soviet Union) and suppresses left-wing movement (Russian Communist Party) at the same time. In international politics, both marginalized left-wing socialists and right-wing nationalists like Putin, while mainstream Western politicians dislike him.

I'd put it closer to fascist than to anything else. But a unique Russian post communist-soviet kind of fascist.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I don't really see why the whole concept of winning elections and enacting reforms is such a dirty, impure concept to begin with.

Unless the preferred strategy is to sit back while things get so bad that people will clamor for revolution (a dangerous and unlikely to work the way you want it to strategy) then winning elections, becoming popular enough that your ideas enter the mainstream consciousness is the most realistic route to take.

Elections don't decide who controls the state, they decide who controls the government.

If communists by some miracle do manage to win elections and try to reform their way to socialism, well, we know exactly what happens once they upset the capitalist state enough:

 

[red_elk]

Putin is an opportunistic leader. The Soviet Union is popular in Russia because socialism was the best time anyone in that region ever had. It makes sense for his populism to capitalize on that popularity by saying vaguely positive things about the USSR, even if he has no qualms about dissing the Bolsheviks or even socialism.

From my perspective, Putin neither praise not condemn USSR except for some rare occasions. When he called collapse of the USSR a geopolitical catastrophe, he described what vast majority of Russians feel, and I'm sure he said it not just to gain some popularity, but actually meant it. As for dissing the Bolsheviks, all what I can remember, was condemning Stalin's repressions and criticizing some of Soviet economic policies.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

From my perspective, Putin neither praise not condemn USSR except for some rare occasions. When he called collapse of the USSR a geopolitical catastrophe, he described what vast majority of Russians feel, and I'm sure he said it not just to gain some popularity, but actually meant it. As for dissing the Bolsheviks, all what I can remember, was condemning Stalin's repressions and criticizing some of Soviet economic policies.

Unfortunately it goes much further than the obligatory smears of Stalin: https://www.rt.com/politics/putin-accuses-bolsheviks-treason-877/

 

[Tani Coyote]

Democracy is founded on the principle that we as human beings, despite our many nuances, are ultimately equal in our dignity and faculties for all intents and purposes. We desire a say in our political future and are adamantly opposed to the idea of anyone taking our ability to participate in our government from us.

And yet, despite this belief in human equality, many support capitalism. We do not tolerate the idea of an unelected ruler, but we are content with the idea of an unelected CEO.

Many crave control of their political destiny, but as economic resources generally translate into political resources, it would seem contradictory to be both a democrat and a supporter of capitalism. The political theorist Robert Dahl noted that capitalism has a "symbiotic antagonism" with democracy, having helped it in creating a middle class that can be more politically active, while at the same time harming it by creating an upper class with significantly more wealth than the common person. Dahl, however, did mention the potential for market socialism to enhance democracy without the drawbacks that capitalism brings, citing the effectiveness of cooperatives, though thus far (that I know of) no society has emerged that is predominantly based on this model.

Anyway, I guess I just find it odd that a person can support both capitalism and democracy when one starts to really think about it. One is inherently about inequality and hierarchy while the other is about bringing power closer to the public.

Perhaps my favorite criticism of market cooperatives is the idea that "workers are too stupid to run a company," when used by a democrat. So the average joe is smart enough to have a say in his or her country, but not his or her place of employment? That makes no sense. Never mind the data's quite clear that yes, market cooperatives work just as well as capitalist firms, and the workers are a heck of a lot happier and better treated too.

I think the sooner we discard this idea that CEOs are so much smarter and harder working than their underlings that they deserve so much more pay, the better. Never mind, the idea that they are so brilliant that they can't be elected by those who work for them.

 

[Lexicus]

Unfortunately it goes much further than the obligatory smears of Stalin: https://www.rt.com/politics/putin-accuses-bolsheviks-treason-877/

LMAO

Democracy is founded on the principle that we as human beings, despite our many nuances, are ultimately equal in our dignity and faculties for all intents and purposes. We desire a say in our political future and are adamantly opposed to the idea of anyone taking our ability to participate in our government from us.

And yet, despite this belief in human equality, many support capitalism. We do not tolerate the idea of an unelected ruler, but we are content with the idea of an unelected CEO.

Many crave control of their political destiny, but as economic resources generally translate into political resources, it would seem contradictory to be both a democrat and a supporter of capitalism. The political theorist Robert Dahl noted that capitalism has a "symbiotic antagonism" with democracy, having helped it in creating a middle class that can be more politically active, while at the same time harming it by creating an upper class with significantly more wealth than the common person. Dahl, however, did mention the potential for market socialism to enhance democracy without the drawbacks that capitalism brings, citing the effectiveness of cooperatives, though thus far (that I know of) no society has emerged that is predominantly based on this model.

Anyway, I guess I just find it odd that a person can support both capitalism and democracy when one starts to really think about it. One is inherently about inequality and hierarchy while the other is about bringing power closer to the public.

Perhaps my favorite criticism of market cooperatives is the idea that "workers are too stupid to run a company," when used by a democrat. So the average joe is smart enough to have a say in his or her country, but not his or her place of employment? That makes no sense. Never mind the data's quite clear that yes, market cooperatives work just as well as capitalist firms, and the workers are a heck of a lot happier and better treated too.

I think the sooner we discard this idea that CEOs are so much smarter and harder working than their underlings that they deserve so much more pay, the better. Never mind, the idea that they are so brilliant that they can't be elected by those who work for them.

All this, and multiply it by a thousand!
You should also read Gar Alperovitz, What Then Must We Do. Awesome book that discusses exactly this subject and talks about how it's already happening to some extent.

 

[Tani Coyote]

You should also read Gar Alperovitz, What Then Must We Do. Awesome book that discusses exactly this subject and talks about how it's already happening to some extent.

Looking over a synopsis, I may just do that. Thank you.

I suppose I should add on a little more to what I say originally. Something comes to mind: if a CEO is indeed as brilliant, hardworking and talented as he claims to be, then surely he or she could convince their workers to vote them back into office with the same level of pay.

I get this strangest feeling that they might be able to succeed in keeping their position (barring someone awful being in charge, many people do prefer incumbents), but they certainly aren't going to have such a massive amount of pay by comparison.

What I find particularly strange is this idea that socialism will lead to completely equal incomes. I could see this being the case in a system where there are no wages at all, but under market conditions, I think that is nonsensical. We can see this already: very few workers believe that every worker pitches in the same amount of worker. Slackers are routinely identified by their colleagues, as are those who put in 110%. Those who have worked at a company longer dislike the idea of being paid the same as someone who just joined. And certainly, while workers have their issues with those above them, I imagine most can still appreciate the different kettle of fish managing a whole enterprise is to working just one part of it (the same way that, in spite of how we may feel about a particular politician, we might not deny that his job is probably fairly difficult given he deals with community-wide issues we might not ever consider).

But I'm sure those same workers will, all this in mind, sincerely doubt someone is working hundreds of times as hard as them. A worker-elected CEO may just be able to pull in something as nice as (for example) 10x what the rank-and-file do, but I highly doubt we'll be seeing anymore of the current gap in pay. No worker is going to vote for millions of dollars in compensation for a handful when they themselves are unsure of paying their bills.

I see the routine argument against socialism is that "not everyone wants to be equal." Even assuming this is true, however, I can't help but feel that many forms of socialism argue for equity moreso than complete equality. I can see why the desire to support social democracy would be strong, because it too is more interested in equity than equality, though it does not go far enough in ensuring that equity will be preserved.

 

[Lexicus]

Anarchists and everyone else under the "no dads no masters" ideology of ultraleftism are a bunch of idealists who hold up a perfect idea and expect reality to conform to it.

Oh yeah and Leninists don't?

I suppose I should add on a little more to what I say originally. Something comes to mind: if a CEO is indeed as brilliant, hardworking and talented as he claims to be, then surely he or she could convince their workers to vote them back into office with the same level of pay.

This is what I'm all about: management by consent of the managed!

What I find particularly strange is this idea that socialism will lead to completely equal incomes.

Yep, market socialism is not on most people's radar.

I could see this being the case in a system where there are no wages at all, but under market conditions, I think that is nonsensical. We can see this already: very few workers believe that every worker pitches in the same amount of worker. Slackers are routinely identified by their colleagues, as are those who put in 110%. Those who have worked at a company longer dislike the idea of being paid the same as someone who just joined. And certainly, while workers have their issues with those above them, I imagine most can still appreciate the different kettle of fish managing a whole enterprise is to working just one part of it (the same way that, in spite of how we may feel about a particular politician, we might not deny that his job is probably fairly difficult given he deals with community-wide issues we might not ever consider).

Indeed - there is plenty of research indicating that the "peer effect" is more powerful than managerial surveillance in rooting out slackers. This is one reason properly run employee-owned companies perform better than conventional firms.

But I'm sure those same workers will, all this in mind, sincerely doubt someone is working hundreds of times as hard as them. A worker-elected CEO may just be able to pull in something as nice as (for example) 10x what the rank-and-file do, but I highly doubt we'll be seeing anymore of the current gap in pay. No worker is going to vote for millions of dollars in compensation for a handful when they themselves are unsure of paying their bills.

I see the routine argument against socialism is that "not everyone wants to be equal." Even assuming this is true, however, I can't help but feel that many forms of socialism argue for equity moreso than complete equality. I can see why the desire to support social democracy would be strong, because it too is more interested in equity than equality, though it does not go far enough in ensuring that equity will be preserved.

Socialism is just the expansion of democracy to encompass more of how society actually works.
Political democracy doesn't mean that we don't have people with positions of power. The President is not my 'equal' in terms of power or prestige (though nominally he is my equal before the law). Similarly the CEO need not be my equal when I'm a mere worker, but the CEO should be accountable to me just like the president should. Government by consent of the governed; management by consent of the managed.

Really, the US as a country repudiated the idea that 'who owns, governs' when we switched to universal white male suffrage. That represented a radical check on the scope of property rights, as this was the justification for allowing landed men to control politics (they owned the land - and so they should govern it).

 

[SLAAKMAN]

Moderator Action: Infracted for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Rashiminos]

Democracy is founded on the principle that we as human beings, despite our many nuances, are ultimately equal in our dignity and faculties for all intents and purposes. We desire a say in our political future and are adamantly opposed to the idea of anyone taking our ability to participate in our government from us.

And yet, despite this belief in human equality, many support capitalism. We do not tolerate the idea of an unelected ruler, but we are content with the idea of an unelected CEO.

CEOs are not voted in politically, but they are elected by whoever is paying them money (and those who paid them, and those...) and whoever is willing to work for them.

Many crave control of their political destiny, but as economic resources generally translate into political resources, it would seem contradictory to be both a democrat and a supporter of capitalism. The political theorist Robert Dahl noted that capitalism has a "symbiotic antagonism" with democracy, having helped it in creating a middle class that can be more politically active, while at the same time harming it by creating an upper class with significantly more wealth than the common person. Dahl, however, did mention the potential for market socialism to enhance democracy without the drawbacks that capitalism brings, citing the effectiveness of cooperatives, though thus far (that I know of) no society has emerged that is predominantly based on this model.

"Market socialism" is an evasion. You're thinking of a capitalist enterprise, but with different groups in charge (eg. less absolutists and patriarchs, more democrats and egalitarians). The socialism aspect masks that the government's goal is to influence spending (ie voting) and labor contracts.

Anyway, I guess I just find it odd that a person can support both capitalism and democracy when one starts to really think about it. One is inherently about inequality and hierarchy while the other is about bringing power closer to the public.

The assumption that capitalism will necessarily lead to an unequal end-state is based on placing too much weight on pre-democratic governments that capitalism was historically paired with (eg Monarchy). Capitalism remains unequal when there are sufficiently large discrepancies between how well peoples serve each other. We don't treat all behaviors equally, do we? (eg sexism, racism, crime, slavery, ethics, etc)

Perhaps my favorite criticism of market cooperatives is the idea that "workers are too stupid to run a company," when used by a democrat. So the average joe is smart enough to have a say in his or her country, but not his or her place of employment? That makes no sense. Never mind the data's quite clear that yes, market cooperatives work just as well as capitalist firms, and the workers are a heck of a lot happier and better treated too.

I think the sooner we discard this idea that CEOs are so much smarter and harder working than their underlings that they deserve so much more pay, the better. Never mind, the idea that they are so brilliant that they can't be elected by those who work for them.

The problem with this line of thinking is that in reality the CEO making the decisions may be wiser and more benevolent than the workers in question. If we make a habit of rewarding poor decisions out of misguided desire to (prematurely) reduce the economic inequality experienced by workers, we all suffer for it.

 

[red_elk]

Bolsheviks in 1918 didn't pursue interests of the USSR. Simply because USSR didn't exist back then and Bolsheviks didn't even anticipate that creation of socialist state, which would have to stand against capitalist world, will be required.

 

[Lexicus]

"Market socialism" is an evasion. You're thinking of a capitalist enterprise, but with different groups in charge (eg. less absolutists and patriarchs, more democrats and egalitarians). The socialism aspect masks that the government's goal is to influence spending (ie voting) and labor contracts.

A 'capitalist enterprise' not run for the benefit of capitalists ceases being a 'capitalist enterprise' in any meaningful sense of the term.

The assumption that capitalism will necessarily lead to an unequal end-state is based on placing too much weight on pre-democratic governments that capitalism was historically paired with (eg Monarchy). Capitalism remains unequal when there are sufficiently large discrepancies between how well peoples serve each other. We don't treat all behaviors equally, do we? (eg sexism, racism, crime, slavery, ethics, etc)

This is just another way of putting the standard Marginal Theory of Labor Value, a "theory" which is simply an assumption (there is, naturally, ample evidence it is a completely incorrect assumption) but which forms a cornerstone of both modern economic theory and the cornerstone in the corresponding body of normative thought which upholds capitalism.
Capitalism is properly "paired with" forms of pre-democratic government like monarchy because it is a form of pre-democratic government like monarchy.

The problem with this line of thinking is that in reality the CEO making the decisions may be wiser and more benevolent than the workers in question. If we make a habit of rewarding poor decisions out of misguided desire to (prematurely) reduce the economic inequality experienced by workers, we all suffer for it.

But actually there is no reason to believe that bodies of workers in democratic associations will not make sensible decisions, and as I've already pointed out, research and experience indicate that, given the right conditions, workers will make sensible decisions in running their companies.
Of course, your argument almost exactly parallels the arguments of anti-democratic conservatives who said that allowing the people to make poor decisions out of a misplaced sense of sympathy would cause everyone to suffer.