|
Whiskey Richard, just because people see capitalism for what it is, that is, an unjust and unsustainable system that should be overthrown, doesn't mean they inherently support 20th Century Communism. This is a strawman and it would behoove you to, first of all, address the actual topic of the thread (the sustainability of Capitalism) and failing that, address the actual arguments people are making against you. I don't think you'll find many people here supporting Stalinism as the One True Solution to neo-liberal capitalism. As Marx correctly asserted, people's ideological/psychological/etc. outlook is defined by their material conditions. Leninism and Stalinism were, from my understanding, a direct response to the material conditions of the Russian people in the early 20th century. Now I don't know if you know this but 1917 Russia is a very different place from the west in 2012 and as such if leftists are to propose a system other than Capitalism they will not propose Stalinism because it does not address their material conditions. rt4 posted:As if a socialist state can really exist on its own in a world system dominated by capital. At best, it ends up like the USSR as basically a giant state-sized enterprise competing in the global economy. It's not socialism at all, and it's outside the ability of the leadership to decide that. Also this. Who's to say that Communism has to be authoritarian? Maybe 20th century Communism necessarily had to be authoritarian because it was immediately and consistently attacked by the most powerful nations on the planet for the entirety of its existence.
|
| # ¿ Mar 23, 2012 15:08 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2013 20:06 |
|
|
I agree with the two posts above. Social democracy fails because changing the system from within the system itself is impossible. True revolutionary change occurs by destroying the system or acting outside of it (or both). Also I would use the United States since the very beginning as an example. There are dozens of examples throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries where a one-issue third party was co-opted by the Democrats/Republicans in order to win votes, then when everyone forgets the issue the third party was based on, the policy changes are forgotten.
|
| # ¿ Mar 23, 2012 15:49 |
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:No revolutionary movement without a revolutionary theory. I may get flak for this, but I think we should be looking for a new narrative to deal with new conditions. I don't think you should get any flak for this at all since you are, in my opinion, completely correct. This is essentially what I was trying to say in my previous post but in a much more coherent and eloquent way. Leninism was the 20th century Russian answer to 20th century Russian questions. I would argue that, while there is much to learn from Lenin and the experiences of the Soviet Union, not only will Lenin's answers be different from ours, but we will also probably be asking different questions, so to speak. And yes, you may also count me in the minority who believes that Social Democracy is too little, too late. I also just thought of this: I have to also disagree with V. Ilych L. (though your name is p sweet) that our role as 21st century revolutionaries is just to maintain socialist thought and hope the next generation can pick up the burden if the material conditions are right. Not only for the point that Goku pointed out, that at that point Marxist thought is useless, but that material conditions are already right. Oil and utility prices are rising rapidly, the entire planet is probably within 100 years of environmental collapse, and these changes will (and already are, as we saw during the Arab Spring, as we will be seeing in Bangladesh and on many Pacific islands) effect the developing world much earlier than us. It is wrong for us to look at the conflict against Capitalism only through the lens of the developed world. There are revolutionary movements happening right now in India, Mexico, Nepal, etc. and it is our duty as first-world anti-capitalists to support those movements through whatever means necessary.
|
| # ¿ Mar 24, 2012 14:38 |
|
|
Deleuzionist posted:This is not quite as simple as that. For example the naxalite struggle in India has at least in some areas devolved into a slugfest between guerillas and state police or paramilitaries, where the ideology has devolved into "enemy must die" and the people at the very heart of the struggle, the poorest farmers in the region, are left wondering what the naxalites even are about and whether either side of the conflict truly gives a poo poo about the farmers. Armed struggle is a difficult beast because left to run for too long, the conflict itself worms into the combatants' hearts and changes the whole situation. Well that will teach me to update my knowledge on the Naxalite movement then. Based on the information you've given me I think it could be questioned whether the Naxalites represent the interests of the people though I would certainly side with them over the Indian government which has a long history of brutally repressing ethnic minorities and lower castes. A tactic which, of course, was borrowed from the British occupation. Beria posted:It's not as if we need to bide our time. Acting locally in a spirit of voluntarism is both useful and good for you. When I was still in America I worked to organize food drives for the local Salvation Army and volunteered at the soup kitchen as often as possible. There are people in need all around us.
|
| # ¿ Mar 24, 2012 16:06 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I don't think it's unfair to point out in a thread about revolutionary change to the capitalist system that previous revolutionary changes tended to result in Stalinist human rights catastrophes. If every attempt at forming a communist state results in a horror show you eventually have to stop and consider that the ideology may be seriously flawed. Except that this is not the case whatsoever. From the kibbutzim of Israel to Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, there have been many flavors of communism (or communalism) that have been practiced. It is unsurprising that states like the Soviet Union and Cuba turn to authoritarianism because they were, and in the case of Cuba today, still are constantly attacked on all sides and in many different flavors by a consortium of the most powerful nations and corporations on the face of the planet. I don't need to specifically cite the 50 or so democratically-elected leftist governments that were crushed by the CIA in the name of national security interests since the end of WWII alone to show you that leftism, and particularly socialism, has always been attacked by capitalist interests. Ideology is based on material conditions and if you are, rightfully or wrongly, paranoid about external threats (in the case of Catalonia specifically, the external threat was the Soviet Union itself) that could pound your country into dust in a matter of weeks, it should be no surprise that a dictatorship arises. quote:When looking at groups that have been fighting for a long time or have no definite victory in their sight it's always good to try to find as much pro and con info on them as possible. It does not help determine levels of ideological purity (lol) but usually operational history and methods will reveal whether a group is still revolutionary or whether they've just sort of slipped into martial life where the war itself is the cause instead of being a tool in service of it. VVVVV yeah like usual someone said it better than me
|
| # ¿ Mar 24, 2012 17:25 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Capitalists have a constant threat of capitalist intervention too. In fact, capitalist states routinely start ridiculous wars with each other and blow up entire continents in the process. Yet somehow, the success rate for capitalist-democratic governments is higher than zero. Also this "hey guys communist governments are inherently destined to fail" argument is bullshit. One example I can think of immediately is Burkina Faso. When Thomas Sankara took control of the government, Burkina Faso was the 3rd poorest country on the planet. In just four years, Sankara's administration transformed Burkina Faso by vaccinating ~2 million children against various diseases, outlawed female genital mutilation which was extremely common before 1983, promoted birth control, was the first African government to officially recognize the threat of AIDS, nationalized natural resources resulting in an era of prosperity for the common man in Burkina Faso that was never even dreamed of before or since, planted something like 10 million trees, and threw off the shackles of the IMF and World Bank. But since he was openly anti-imperialist and refused to re-pay Burkina Faso's debts which he argued were illegitimate and unjust, he was assassinated in a French-backed coup. Was his government authoritarian? Probably. Did the people who needed help the most get that help and see prosperity they will likely never see again? Absolutely. Sankara's Burkina Faso was 100% a success story, and that's all just off the top of my head, and the very first example I can think of. Every single argument you've made in this thread has been entirely disingenuous and fallacious and I'd appreciate it if you knocked it the gently caress off.
|
| # ¿ Mar 24, 2012 18:20 |
|
|
Excuse me we already have a utopian society to look at it's called Gor.
|
| # ¿ Mar 24, 2012 22:18 |
|
|
breaklaw posted:There would still be luxuries, but the average person still wouldn't have them. No matter what system there is, stateless or not, there will always be some people with more power than others. Some of those people will use that power to take what they want for themselves and deny it to others. Everything you said here is entirely false, both in Marxist theory and with regard to history. Let us recall Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme where he stated that goods and commodities would be distributed "from each according to their contribution" (I personally reject the adage of "from each according to their ability" as I feel it is redundant based on the first adage I have already provided). What does this mean? First, it is important to recognize that our current society can provide more than enough for every single member of this planet to live a comfortable, happy life. Comrade Zizek is correct in his assertion that 21st century communism needs not to be a Luddite movement but instead embrace modern technology so as to truly ensure that the people are taken care of. Secondly, the adage means that those who are unable to work (either through physical malady or age or what have you) will be provided for pro bono. These people will be provided basic necessities as determined by the people, for example: grain, meat or a meat alternative depending on the gustatory requirements of the individual, basic entertainment, for example a radio, and so on. You understand what I am saying. Thirdly, as Comrade Lenin outlines in State and Revolution, those who are able to work will be provided for in strictly an equal measure as to the amount of labor they have provided for society. Let me give an example. Imagine for me now that communist society values the labor of a doctor more than the labor of a farmer. Let us also imagine that a given doctor and a given farmer work the exact same amount of hours in a given month. Regardless of their contributions, both the farmer and the doctor will be guaranteed the right to housing, food, water, entertainment, and so on. But this farmer and this doctor have worked and they have worked the same amount of hours this past February, say, 150. For his labor, the doctor receives a certain quantity (based on availability and his individual preferences of course) of fine steak, grain, an HD television, and so on. For his 150 hours, the farmer receives some medium-quality lamb, some rice, what have you. You see my point, which is that those who receive more will deserve it because of the proportion of labor they have provided society. This is my evaluation of Marxist thought on the subject and I would welcome being corrected by those who know better. My knowledge is admittedly limited. This thread is common throughout leftist thought. In fact this is one of the few areas where Stalin and Trotsky agreed (see: Constitution of the Soviet Union, Revolution Betrayed respectively)! This thread is also common well before leftist thought, Thessalonians 3:10 in the Bible says "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." The last point I would like to make, and I really hope this is the last time it comes up in this thread: NOT ALL SOCIETIES IN HUMAN HISTORY HAVE HAD A HIERARCHY OR WERE BASED ON CLASS. CHATALHOYUK IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE THAT DISPROVES THIS ASSERTION. STOP BRINGING IT UP BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG. Now that we've gotten out of the way, can we actually talk about the subject of the thread and not the validity of Marxist thought (hint: it's valid shut the gently caress up already)?
|
| # ¿ Mar 25, 2012 01:47 |
|
|
Hey guys didn't you know this is the best of all possible worlds, well over half the world living on less than $1.25 per day is inevitable, human nature says that capital is dead labor, that vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labo-- *gets head chopped off*
|
| # ¿ Mar 25, 2012 02:29 |
|
|
Farecoal posted:
Ah yes, reading comprehension, something you clearly lack. Do you understand what the word "basic" means? Do you understand that by saying that a radio is "basic entertainment" it is exactly NOT the "shining achievement of entertainment in the 21st century"? What the gently caress was your point anyway? Is that supposed to be a rebuttal to anything of actual importance in my post?
|
| # ¿ Mar 25, 2012 02:39 |
|
|
lollynoob posted:Why is this shocking? Either way it's people in charge telling people not-in-charge what to do, while the people in charge have a much higher standard of living than the people not-in-charge. You do realize that industrial capitalism is like, the most powerful man-made thing in the history of our species, right?
|
| # ¿ Mar 25, 2012 02:54 |
|
|
lollynoob posted:Do I need some kind of degree to post here or something? It all seems the same to me. Things are lovely now, things were lovely then, things will probably never stop being lovely because it's advantageous for the people in charge to keep them lovely. My point is it is incredibly simplistic, naive and childish to say "yeah some stuff happened in like the 1700s or some poo poo and poo poo sucked back then and then after the stuff happened capitalism happened and poo poo still sucks." Things are lovely now, yes. Things were lovely then, yes. But they are lovely in such a radically, utterly different way that what you are saying is just mind-boggling. What is your point?
|
| # ¿ Mar 25, 2012 03:04 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2013 20:06 |
|
|
Don't you understand that the incredibly pointless and stupid semantic distinction he's making is key to proving that Hayek was a worthless rear end in a top hat? VVVVVV lol
|
| # ¿ Mar 25, 2012 03:19 |
|
