|
What the gently caress is this.
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Goon Danton posted:The problem is that non-authoritarian socialist governments have a tendency to get violently overthrown, usually with the backing of powerful enemies. Look at Allende's Chile for an example. I think that on careful review you will find that this is just an example of businesses acting as a check on the power of the state.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Hal_2005 posted:Would you rather have a landslide in a people's election where 140% of the nation votes for the "supreme leader" like North Korean Communism or some Favellas in Brazil ? This is a rhetorical question, don't answer. Settin' a mighty low bar there, hoss.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
Hal_1863 posted:Oh, and the reason I dropped by: How do liberals explain the need for every republic to eventually break out into civil war, counter-revolt, and despotism before rejoining the ranks of sensible stable monarchies?
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Ormi posted:Quite a few people would contend that Allende was authoritarian (passed by the Chilean Congress 81 to 47). Most of these constitutionalist sticks-in-the-mud ended up enemies of the Pinochet junta, too. Allende's response was that what he was doing was, in essence, too much democracy for the constitution to handle, but that if they really wanted him gone, they should get the constitutionally required senate supermajority to convict him and he would step aside. The truth is more nuanced than the story of a democratic-socialist poster boy overthrown by a minority of ruthless capitalists. However, "quite a few would contend" similar things about Obama's use of executive orders. The question for me is whether what Allende did was "full jackboot to the face" or the more nebulous and subjective "shifty poo poo." Leaders of democratic countries do shifty poo poo all the time. We can review the last 16 years of U.S. Presidents for examples of shifty poo poo the executive branch gets up to that has been decried by both opposition politicians and even allies. Right now the Republican Party has taken to trying to overturn laws through suits in the court system when it can't do so by actually passing bills in Congress. This is shifty poo poo as well. Do these kinds of actions make the U.S. the equivalent of whatever communist boogeyman someone wants to point to? Let's assume against all likelihood that Sanders wins the election, gets into the dirty business of being a U.S. President, and inevitably starts doing shifty poo poo. Republicans and business-friendly Democrats issue a joint statement decrying his shifty poo poo as grave tyrannical abuses of power in service to a socialist agenda. If a military coup installs Trump as President-for-Life some time thereafter, should future commentators say that "the truth is more nuanced than the story of a democratic-socialist poster boy overthrown by a minority of ruthless capitalists"? Edit: Whether Sanders won the popular vote or was carried by electoral college votes, whether a majority of people would support impeaching him by this point, and whether he refused to resign from office in the face of protests, can be added to the above scenario if you like. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 04:31 on May 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:In fact, let's actually poll people here: is a one party authoritarian state preferable to the status quo? This would probably depend on whether one's experience of the status quo were indistinguishable from living in a one party authoritarian state and the proposed authoritarian state is run by a party of people who share that experience and seek to destroy the basis of it.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Ormi posted:There's no equivalence between creative interpretations of executive prerogatives in the face of legislative deadlock and outright ignoring the demands of the other two branches of government as well as the basis on which your administration's legitimacy rests. Thanks for this non-response!
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Ormi posted:You too. Did it take a lot of effort to think up that failure of a tu quoque or something? 
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah, which is why I'm asking the specific people here. That's not an interesting question because the answers won't really be very informative, which is why I'm not answering it directly.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
If you want to discuss why people might support it, it seems like relying the possibility of someone saying that they think it is worth supporting right now isn't as useful as just trying to figure out under what conditions people think it might make sense. eta: I'll just list two examples from my own perspective. If the political and economic system in which you live deprives you, due to race, class, gender, or some other factor, of the benefits of its nominally pluralistic and democratic institutions and you have no ability to effect your liberation either within those institutions or by non-revolutionary challenges, a one-party authoritarian state will make sense so long as the party is dedicated to your liberation from whatever conditions oppress you. If there is some threat so dire and so pressing that the negative effects of a one-party authoritarian state are less dangerous than failing to avert the threat, then an authoritarian state run by a single party organized explicitly to meet that threat makes sense. The closest I get to supporting a one-party authoritarian state concerns the second scenario, where the threat is climate change. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 14:59 on May 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Haha yeah these internet communists are pretty stupid because it's really obvious to anyone who studies history instead of swallowing up national propaganda that the US is way more authoritarian and repressive than the USSR has ever been. This does not actually seem particularly obvious.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
You could make another parallel in the two different trajectories of industrialization in the North and South of the US. Economic history in this period not really my strongest area of knowledge so this could be talking out of my rear end, but a lot of the reason why the South lagged so far behind can be traced to Jeffersonian Republicanism and its agrarian, anti-urban ideal, whereas the North and especially Northeast was the last bastion of Federalism, the party of Hamilton with his experiments into government-subsidized industrial development. Now, you could say, "What about slavery?" and that's a fair point, but since Marxism is a bit of a hot topic in this discussion, this isn't necessarily a flaw in the argument. Ideology flows from relations of production in Marxist analysis, and it does so everywhere, in the Early Republic/Antebellum US and in Meiji-era Japan and the early USSR. If reliance on slavery for production of cash crops impeded industrialization in the South, we still have to ask why Southerners did not, in larger numbers or with more institutional support, decide it might be a good idea to move their economy towards industrialization and at that point you'll run into ideas about the moral superiority of slavery compared to industrial wage labor.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It's not really any mystery why the South stuck with slavery. Slavery-fuelled cash-crop agriculture and raw material production was simply more profitable than manufacturing. According to standard neoclassical Econ 101 theory this is perfectly natural. Such production was very labor intensive and slavery was a way of driving labor costs down to 0. It's also what led to ISI becoming popular in Latin America, artificially making manufacturing more profitable was a way to reduce reliance on raw material exports and primary industry. Wasn't really treating it as a mystery, just spitballing. And yeah, slavery was a lot more profitable than is often acknowledged, so I guess ideology wasn't really playing much of a causative role.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Thread title should possibly be changed to "Give Me Your Hot Takes About Marxism, Socialism, and Communism"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:There's so many valid criticisms about all three topics and yet it's always people who have no idea about the topics but read the latest op-ed about some rear end in a top hat who historically waved a red-tinted flag. I've been reading up on this stuff and it turns out, sometimes people with the highest ideals and best intentions end up doing really horrible poo poo??!? Anyway, here's a proverb about eggs that Robespierre or Cromwell said I'm pretty sure. Peace out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 01:46
|
|