|
thekeeshman posted:Where do you think China would be now if they had followed Taiwan's path instead of shooting themselves in the foot with the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward? This isn't really a fair thing to say. When the Nationalists evacuated to Taiwan they also were able to shed themselves of the responsibility of dealing with a few hundred million people in rural areas - and they still took a pretty long time to get a good industrial base going.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:19 |
|
|
thekeeshman posted:I agree that the right wing is benefiting from the left's betrayals of the working class such as advocating unrestricted immigration. thekeeshman posted:And I've said repeatedly that Governments should play a strong role in the economy and seek to reduce inequality through social spending, but having the government exert total control of the economy has been proven disastrous everywhere it's been tried. e: Really, why should we expect Western European Socialism to bear much resemblance to Russian Socialism? The underlying society which the new economic system would be built on is vastly different. Not only is Western Europe one of the most economically advanced regions of the world, it's also far more advanced in terms of human/political rights than Tsarist Russia. Hell, that was pretty much true a century ago too. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:What is your explanation for the strong correlation we observe between a country being a social democracy and it being a mostly Western(ized) industrial power? a) Western enlightenment culture might have something to do with it, since social democracy originated from that context. I don't know about "superior" though. I'm guessing that it's intended to make anyone who argues along those lines look like a racist who believes in European superiority. b) While it's certainly an overstatement (and incorrect) to say that social democracy is "only possible" homogenous countries, there are obvious arguments for why it might be easier to implement social democracy in them. As above, it's possible to present these arguments without insinuating racism. Social democracy is easier to implement in homogenous countries because cooperation is simpler when there're fewer things (language, religion, ethnicity etc.) that separate people from each other. It isn't that one particular group will "take unfair advantage" but that all groups might suspect the others of doing so. It's easier for social democratic policies to gain widespread acceptance in a country where it's difficult to divide people into mutually hostile or distrustful groups and pit them against each other. c) This begs the question why social democracy was strongest in countries that had a very limited ability to directly enforce their interests in the global south and the system you speak of. On the other hand, some countries that actually held that power never even had a social democratic party of any significance, and saw only relatively limited egalitarian reform. Lastly, one might ask why social democracy grew stronger at the same time as the European powers were losing nearly all their colonies. quote:The Roman Empire paid a generous "citizen's salary" to all citizens of Rome. What made this possible? Did non-citizens without the vote in the Empire also benefit overall from the civilizing influence of Rome in your opinion? Slaves? The non-citizens might have benefited from the Pax Romana and all manner of neat infrastructure and look at that, it's Niall Ferguson o'clock! quote:Do you believe that countries such as Russia or China would be as developed today had they never revolted against international capitalism in their past? Did their rejecting of foreign capital investment accelerate or slow down their industrialization? In your analysis do Cuban citizens have worse standards of living today than other Caribbean nations such as Jamaica? Impossible to say, they could even be more developed, of course. And my understanding isn't that they rejected foreign investment outright but that they couldn't get as much of it as they would've needed. It seems reasonable to assume that the addition of significant foreign capital would have accelerated their industrialization. It's worth noting that Cuba was better of than other Caribbean nations even before the victory of the communists. On the one hand they would've missed out on Soviet largesse during the cold war, on the other hand they wouldn't be in such a lovely position as they're in now that their benefactor is gone. quote:Finally, do you agree with the point made by other posters in this thread that part of the reason why we are seeing a rise of the extreme-right in Europe today is that what passes for the left (social democratic parties) have betrayed the interests of the working class so many times that people do not trust them any more and decide to "protest-vote"? Do you agree with Cat Mattress' analysis above that this is because: If that's the case, then why aren't people voting for radical Left parties instead of fascists? Is the answer simply that capitalist-owned media and its control over information and discourse (which should be weaker now than ever before) prevents people from seeing the obvious truth and acting accordingly? Bob le Moche posted:There certainly is value in looking at fascism at something that goes beyond mere forms of extreme right-wing conservatism. I'd be careful about some of the points you're making, though. First of all I'm not sure what "communism unity culture" is and what strands of leftism reject multiculturalism. Do you have any examples? I'm also unsure about where you'd get the idea that radical leftism has a disdain for democracy. Much as i dislike bringing up Zizek he could be used as an example of a Leftist rejecting multiculturalism. A Marxist might reject it as a bourgeois concept without any relevance to a socialist system. Since abolishing private property will result in the eradication of every form of social conflict, there's no use for "multiculturalism"; it's nonsensical. Radical Leftism obviously has disdain for liberal democracy. Beyond that, one might get the idea that radical Leftism has disdain for democracy from the historical record of actually existing socialism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:Where do you think China would be now if they had followed Taiwan's path instead of shooting themselves in the foot with the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward? The obvious counterpoint to this is India. e: China in general was never appreciative of foreign powers and even Chiang Kai-shek was more using the foreign powers to get rid of the CCP before he could take over and shove everyone else out. vvv That's the point, China was "disapproving of foreigners" whereas India more or less followed the capitalist model. computer parts fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
China is doing thousands of times better than India.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The government and capitalists aren't the only options for who controls parts of the economy, direct worker control is another option. Basically, mixed-market Socialism as opposed to mixed-market Capitalism. I'm not sure there's that much support for good old Gosplan-style economies among the modern left, at least I know that I'm not a huge fan. Perhaps this really will be a derail, but I've never been totally clear on how worker-owned businesses are supposed to work. Does that just mean that all the workers own stock, and if so do they get to keep it when the leave/retire/are fired? If they do keep it would you have to buy stock to become an employee, or would they have to dilute the stock whenever they hire someone new? And if the workers must own any businesses, how would you drum up investments for new companies?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I always thought that there was quite some truth to the claim. Certain strands of communism reject the notion of different cultures (as in multiculturalism) as incompatible with communist unity culture, while the fascists reject multiculturalism in favor of their preferred "superior" culture. The Nazis had no problems nationalizing large swathes of the economy, not really concerned with the free hand of the market. And radical communists/fascists often share their disdain for democracy. I think those groups can sometimes be quite close in parts of their ideologies, indeed transcending the traditional left/right dichotomy. As far as what fascism is, I like Roger Griffin's definition of it being a palingenetic form of ultranationalism. By palingenetic, that means the process by which the race-community overthrows the decadent and decaying social order, replacing it with a utopian and mythic reincarnation of the nation's eternal "essence" in the here-and-now. Fascists also see the state as an organic entity -- you and the nation are part of the same body (which involves total coordination of everyone) -- that is to be systematically cleansed of unhygenic and foreign elements. But I would argue that both fascism and totalitarian forms of communism attempted to resolve a similar crisis around the same time. Both attempted to create new, utopian, radical and programmatic societies in response to the crisis of modernity and the collapse of traditional moral, religious and psychological securities. And they both attempted to engineer new kinds of human beings, conscripting them into orgiastic mass rallies, paramilitarizing ordinary life, and established cults of work and sacrifice. Totalitarian Marxism-Leninism attempted to exterminate all non-proletarians (class war) while Nazism attempted to exterminate all non-Aryans (race war). And they created political religions that have more in common with each other than either do with the civic religions of liberal societies. Bob le Moche posted:Most of the examples you use to associate fascism to radical leftism appear to be rooted in cold-war-era propaganda high-school textbook notions of "two totalitarianisms". BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:And if the workers must own any businesses, how would you drum up investments for new companies? Presumably this system also has a functioning welfare system. There would be much reduced downsides to taking a risk by becoming the prospective employee of a new business in such a situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The obvious counterpoint to this is India. India ended up following a mixed capitalist model with pretty much the worst features of both instead of the best, with incredibly restrictive regulations that ensured that what few businesses were able to grow would be insulated from competition, and wasteful subsidy schemes that precluded proper social spending while encouraging inefficiency. I really can't stress enough how things like the License Raj have stunted India's development, and that was largely a result of the socialist leanings of people like Nehru. My point wasn't that China should be appreciative of foreigners, but that they should learn from them, which the Chinese have been doing very successfully since Deng opened the economy. At this point it's the Indians who have been slow to reform their economy to implement models that have been successful elsewhere, though Modi might change that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Presumably this system also has a functioning welfare system. There would be much reduced downsides to taking a risk by becoming the prospective employee of a new business in such a situation. Sure, but I was wondering where you'd get the money to build a new factory or some other piece of large capital infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:Sure, but I was wondering where you'd get the money to build a new factory or some other piece of large capital infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Direct government investment, with the government owning a share of the business until it is bought out by workers perhaps? (New hires buying in, or old ones buying out.) Obviously there are real challenges to deal with, especially in terms of how profits are distributed. If the government paid 90% of the cost, should it then get 90% of the profits? Nope, but it shouldn't be free money either. At the very least it should match inflation. There's also the question of how much say the government would have in a business that it partially owns, as well as the question of who approves investments. I'm sure an actual economists/political theorist could come up with some more concrete than this, but that's not really my strength. I have pretty big issues with this though, because most new businesses fail, and even smart experienced people investing their own money often pick duds. There are times and places for the government to support industries, but having all investment controlled by one central body is a recipe for groupthink and inefficiency. Even if the workers end up controlling businesses eventually, having the government act as gatekeeper for who can get venture funding means you're essentially back to a centrally planned economy. Also, having workers buy-in and out would be a tremendous driver of inequality, as some businesses will inevitably be far more profitable than others on a per-worker basis, and stakes in those would be correspondingly more valuable, which means that only those already rich will be able to buy into the most profitable companies, not to mention the disconnect between hiring people who have the skills the company needs vs. those able to afford to buy in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:37
|
|
Gantolandon posted:The problem with solutions usually lauded as realpolitik ones is that they frequently are anything but and sacrifice long-term goals for short-term ones. They are like making GBS threads into the pool because getting out and finding a toilet is too much hassle. Except that makes no sense. For an example of what I'm talking about when I say take advantage of nationalism, that WWE video of the Mexican wrestler bitching the teabaggers out for not being real Americans is pretty much perfect. You take legitimately leftist concepts and couch them in imagery of patriotism and nationalism to make them more palatable, then drop the imagery once the ideas take root. How does this drive the discourse rightward even a little bit? 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:Except that makes no sense. It's just as likely that the leftism will be gradually dropped as the right-wing rhetoric
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:Much as i dislike bringing up Zizek he could be used as an example of a Leftist rejecting multiculturalism. A Marxist might reject it as a bourgeois concept without any relevance to a socialist system. Since abolishing private property will result in the eradication of every form of social conflict, there's no use for "multiculturalism"; it's nonsensical. Radical Leftism obviously has disdain for liberal democracy. Beyond that, one might get the idea that radical Leftism has disdain for democracy from the historical record of actually existing socialism. I don't agree that Zizek rejects multiculturalism. He argues that liberal multiculturalism is a facade that doesn't permit cultural reconciliation and engagement. Tolerance only works until crises create social pressures. It's a a critique shared by non-Marxists like Sallie McFague. http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/multiculturalism-the-reality-of-an-illusion/ edit: SALT CURES HAM posted:For an example of what I'm talking about when I say take advantage of nationalism, that WWE video of the Mexican wrestler bitching the teabaggers out for not being real Americans is pretty much perfect. You take legitimately leftist concepts and couch them in imagery of patriotism and nationalism to make them more palatable, then drop the imagery once the ideas take root. How does this drive the discourse rightward even a little bit? Believe it or not, but this tactic was tried once or twice in the 20th century, and it didn't work out as well as we'd hoped. The latter part of your suggestion seems to be that the left should perpetuate a "noble lie." Again, the 20th century was a great laboratory for Plato's idea, and it turns out the results are unattractive. Maybe that's just my bourgeois morals talking though. Dilkington fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:I have pretty big issues with this though, because most new businesses fail, and even smart experienced people investing their own money often pick duds. There are times and places for the government to support industries, but having all investment controlled by one central body is a recipe for groupthink and inefficiency. Even if the workers end up controlling businesses eventually, having the government act as gatekeeper for who can get venture funding means you're essentially back to a centrally planned economy. *Which are really a subject of their own, as the things we know about representative liberal democracy can't necessarily be applied to the kind of democracy you would have in a socialist system. It certainly wouldn't just be some Ministry of Investments under an appointed minister of investments if such a system was to be implemented by the Left-Green Alliance here in Denmark. thekeeshman posted:Also, having workers buy-in and out would be a tremendous driver of inequality, as some businesses will inevitably be far more profitable than others on a per-worker basis, and stakes in those would be correspondingly more valuable, which means that only those already rich will be able to buy into the most profitable companies, not to mention the disconnect between hiring people who have the skills the company needs vs. those able to afford to buy in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Direct government investment, with the government owning a share of the business until it is bought out by workers perhaps? (New hires buying in, or old ones buying out.) Obviously there are real challenges to deal with, especially in terms of how profits are distributed. If the government paid 90% of the cost, should it then get 90% of the profits? Nope, but it shouldn't be free money either. At the very least it should match inflation. There's also the question of how much say the government would have in a business that it partially owns, as well as the question of who approves investments. I'm sure an actual economists/political theorist could come up with some more concrete than this, but that's not really my strength. Much better idea: The government is not a separate entity, the government is the people. (You know, that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" thing. I think it's a good idea.) So the say the government would have in a business? None. The people would have a say. Which people, and how would they do it exactly? The workers, and through co-determination. How does the government replenish its investment funds? From the business and the workers, in the form of taxes. Advantages of doing it this way: - No sclerotic bureaucracy with government managers trying to handle businesses that they may know nothing about - Compatible with capitalist-style investment by third-parties Co-determination is heavily used in Germany, which is pretty much the only EU country where the industry isn't being dismantled faster than a sandcastle on a beach during the rising tide. So it's not a socialist's wet-dream that would never work in reality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The government is not a separate entity, the government is the people. (You know, that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" thing. I think it's a good idea.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Or you could just have regular old credit unions. Maybe not so flashy, but they'd probably get the job done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Or you could just have regular old credit unions. Maybe not so flashy, but they'd probably get the job done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:Except that makes no sense. The left in recent years did something similar - used capitalist rhetorics to make themselves more palatable. How well have this worked out for them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:The left in recent years did something similar - used capitalist rhetorics to make themselves more palatable. How well have this worked out for them? According to people here those people weren't really the left so they don't count.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
The whole point is that they got coopted.Cerebral Bore posted:Or you could just have regular old credit unions. Maybe not so flashy, but they'd probably get the job done. HighClassSwankyTime posted:1) "some muslims" is a ridiculous understatement that is a major dishonesty on your part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 02:42
|
|
Gantolandon posted:The left in recent years did something similar - used capitalist rhetorics to make themselves more palatable. How well have this worked out for them? "Capitalism is good" and "America is good" are not the same thing holy gently caress how are you this dense e: to expand so this isn't just a shitpost/ad hominem, there's a lot of rhetoric relating to America that has literally nothing to do with economics. "Government regulation ensures people's freedom by giving everybody a fair chance to succeed!" There, you have a (bare-bones, but still) argument for regulating industries that uses patriotic rhetoric. You could use a similar argument for nationalizing said industries. "Corporatists aren't real Americans because they want control over the country to be in the hands of a select few rather than a real democracy!" Bam, "neoliberalism sucks" rephrased in a nationalistic and easy to digest way. SALT CURES HAM fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:Also, having workers buy-in and out would be a tremendous driver of inequality, as some businesses will inevitably be far more profitable than others on a per-worker basis, and stakes in those would be correspondingly more valuable, which means that only those already rich will be able to buy into the most profitable companies, not to mention the disconnect between hiring people who have the skills the company needs vs. those able to afford to buy in. Financial partnerships have sort of solved this problem by offering personal loans to buy into the partnership, and partly by requiring a new partner to build the business enough to justify partnership. A big problem that I would foresee though is that many people can't begin to value a partnership, and I would imagine that many unscrupulous people will prey upon the financially illiterate with "job offers" that allow the scammer to cash out on a paper company worth nothing in reality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
rudatron posted:
Eventually the sun will die and swallow the Earth. By continuing to live on Earth, you are continuing the pro-Sun bias. Therefore, living is not moral.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:"Capitalism is good" and "America is good" are not the same thing holy gently caress how are you this dense Or even better, rephrasing right-wing nationalist arguments so they become firmly left-wing/anti-capitalist. "America has the best health care system in the world, government interference would only ruin that!" ---> "Let's pass a universal healthcare system so every citizen can access the world's finest health care system!" "Liberal peaceniks just hate ARE TROOPS!" ---> "Let's never blunder into pointless, irresponsible wars so ARE TROOPS can come home to their families, safe and sound!" "The welfare-queen takers are robbing from the job-creating makers!" ---> "The rich capitalist takers are robbing from the American workingmen and women, the makers of this country!" Etc. But yeah, obviously I'm the real fascists because Nazis who as we all know were obviously socialists. Gen. Ripper fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:Or even better, rephrasing right-wing nationalist arguments so they become firmly left-wing/anti-capitalist. Actually about the second one, Wouldn't it be better to talk about "patriotically" reinstating the draft. Just think then how much people would be ready to go to war. Number 3, change it from rich capitalist takers to, wall street parasites who crashed the economy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
I think a citizen army would be really great actually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I think a citizen army would be really great actually. Oh I do to, hell I'd be fine with having it so after boot camp people can choose if thy want to instead go build roads for two years, or some CCC like activities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:According to people here those people weren't really the left so they don't count. Like seriously, imagine the Republicans had their entire top replaced with people advocating for Socialism and full racial and sexual equality, deep enough that the rest wouldn't just kick them out. Would you call the party right wing still?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
I'm wary of conscription for political or social reasons and divorced from your country's national security interests. There are times when conscription can be a hindrance, especially for big countries like the United States. I'm also thinking of Russia, which is trying to move away from it for a more professionalized force that can conduct limited, rapid operations like Crimea. But it's great for smaller countries next to big ones. Israel during the first 30 years of its existence, Switzerland, Finland, etc. The Baltic states that don't do it need to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Can you explain to us why a party which sees its leadership replaced with people of an entirely different ideology, should be considered representative of its former ideology? Why pay so much attention to the label, when what is underneath has fundamentally changed? Political parties shouldn't be the lens through which we judge ideologies, ideologies should be the lens through which we judge political parties. At what point would you consider the Democratic Party as the "left"? Even during the Great Depression the policies they used were made explicitly to favor white people over others and even that aside they were made to stave people off from going full communist - by definition, that does not make them Left at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:At what point would you consider the Democratic Party as the "left"? Even during the Great Depression the policies they used were made explicitly to favor white people over others and even that aside they were made to stave people off from going full communist - by definition, that does not make them Left at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You're right, there has been no point so far where I would consider the Democratic Party as part of the "left". Perhaps a few individuals within it, but not the party as a whole. Good thing this is a thread about Europe, where such parties do exist. Well you brought up the Republicans so I assumed it was related to that. Which European parties could accurately have been called leftist in the past but are not now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
Most social-democratic parties I'd wager.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Well you brought up the Republicans so I assumed it was related to that. British Labour, French Socialists, Greek PASOK... like, there's a party which fits this bill in every second country in the EU?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Well you brought up the Republicans so I assumed it was related to that. YF-23 posted:Most social-democratic parties I'd wager. Tony Jowns posted:British Labour, French Socialists, Greek PASOK... like, there's a party which fits this bill in every second country in the EU?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Well you brought up the Republicans so I assumed it was related to that. This is the perfect post because the last few pages have shown who is an American who doesn't have a clue about European politics (like thinking that the Democratic party is considered as anything but firmly right wing). It's particularly notorious when people keep on spouting about how the left is losing because they reject patriotism while the right isn't, because they think Europe's left are just OWS loonies like in their country and that voter turnout is as big as it is in the U.S. The fall of the left is more attributed to increasing voter apathy, media grip on who is allowed to have a fair shot in a democracy and a complete treason by the center-left than any strawmen you have about nation hating leftists who only care about the third world. thekeeshman posted:Simply attempting to redistribute existing wealth without building up a strong economy leads to Zimbabwe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:19 |
|
|
Mans posted:This is the perfect post because the last few pages have shown who is an American who doesn't have a clue about European politics (like thinking that the Democratic party is considered as anything but firmly right wing). I already knew this, good reading comprehension.  Like literally my entire post was "of course the Democratic party is considered firmly right wing". computer parts fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 15:30
|
|