Dreddout posted:

I am aware of this, but you need to realize that much of the modern First world Marxist movement is confined in Universities, something that won't endear you to much of the working class.

rudatron posted:

Well I care about this topic too, so that's something we have in common. My issues with market socialism is that it retains production-for-exchange (which is necessary for a market), which means its going to be perpetuating many of the same problems, like the disregard of the commons. Any production-for-exchange involves compensation for that exchange (directly tied to that exchange), the externalization of as much cost as possible, and discrete 'firms'incentivized to maximize their exchange-potential, however that is accounted. That is to say, market socialism retains private ownership of the means of production, and cannot be regarded as socialism. Since I'm skeptical of anarchism and anarchist arguments in general, this means I regard a planned economy as a necessity for socialism.

quote:

I disagree with others that Marxism doesn't have a moral component - Marx may have said it does not, but he lied. Even if you agree with his theory, there's no reason to not then argue that humans should go back to feudalism, or whatever, unless you see it as part of a project of human history, with specific goals. Certainly, there's a lot of intersection with 'self-interest' - were the whites fighting for slavery not acting in their 'self-interest'? Isn't false consciousness a kind of self-interested stance? It is, the trick is that the issue of 'morality' is hidden in what is considered part of the 'proper' or 'true' community. So if we're being honest about this, internationalism is a moral stance. It's the right moral stance, and one that I'll fight for, but it is what it is.

quote:

Which is were we come to your the question of where your loyalty lies. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here, in fairly strong terms. You're in the majority, I know, both historically and currently, but my loyalty does not lie with my tribe, whatever that is, but with humanity. What you feel is 'natural' and expected, but not something I think is good. I'm not trying to moralize to you here, it's just something I find depressing. From your standpoint, your fear of revolution is somewhat justified, but fears and hopes do not a future make, unfortunately. I think something is inevitable, I just want it to look like something good & hopeful, not ugly and full of hate. At some point, you might have to make a choice. If not you, then your descendants.

quote:

You obviously also have a point about tribalism/confirmation bias, and that's especially true for anyone who is ideological. Most people aren't ideological, like yourself, but when you have an ideology, any, it kind of reorders the world into how you want it to look. The past becomes this museum-esque set of exhibits, leading to the current day, and then a mysterious jump into ~the wonderful world of the future~. So when people talk about horseshoe theory, this is what they're referring to, but the implication that that necessitates some kind of ideological similarity isn't true. It's just that the personality that leads someone to becoming strongly ideological exists across the spectrum

quote:

But I would absolutely dispute the idea that you, unless you are a very lucky person, actually have a standard of living that is both high and stable. I don't know anything about you! But I suspect that your personal economic situation is actually quite precarious - dominated by debt, fear of unemployment, healthcare/housing costs, etc. You'd have to be quite a rare individual to not have to worry about such things a little more every day.

quote:

yeah no kidding. correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems like the theme of your questions is "what can leftism offer, when looking out at the world today, it's brought so little?"

quote:

Ah, the "I want to keep my loved ones safe, but I am curious about revolution". You're right Dreddout, we have nothing to offer you. Please stand against the wall.

HorseLord posted:

"hey guys we've done the nationalist part, but when are we going to do the socialist part? wait why are you aiming your gun at me? wait plea-" - strasser

HorseLord posted:

Non minority in first world country spotted

Mayor Dave posted:

Mayor Dave posted:

Dreddout posted:

I meant in comparison to the Third and Second World. I have actually lived below the poverty line for much of my life, and had to enter the workforce earlier then most people, to secure my family. This is probably why I have such a great deal of familial loyalty, we have always looked out for each other.

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

Sleep tight comrade pupper!


Oh, in that case, yes! You've made it to the metropole, congratulations (really!). Here, poor people actually do possess refrigerators etc. Here, workers, taken as a mass are generally (though by no means exclusively) better off than their counterparts in much of the rest of the world. Of course, I think you can acknowledge that not everyone can enjoy an American standard of living (both because it's impossible with the resources available on this planet, and because the American "way of life" is subsidized by loving over the rest of the world through geopolitics).

But I don't think that will be the case for very long -- see the "race to the bottom" phenomenon that's going on; it has no reason to stop, and is in fact accelerating. There is also the question of how long exactly America can sustain the geopolitical system that allows it to enjoy the fruits of imperialism. Some people, like Trump, think they can brute-force their way into relevance, but that will work as well for Trump as it does for Putin (not very). Sooner or later all empires fall (because they do not consciously try to mold history in a scientific fashion).

Thanks for coming into the thread with real questions about your own life instead of tilting at Cold War windmills or trolling!

quote:

As a Utilitarian I couldn't care less if my boss is a Technocratic Corporate Overlord, or a Democratic Syndicate Foreman. If the Overlord provides me with a stable, secure high standard of living than gently caress it! If my loved ones are secure healthy and happy then I am content with my lot in life. I'm not going to risk house and home for a revolution that, historicaly, hasn't worked out well for people like me!

rudatron posted:

Dreddout never claimed to be a socialist, just someone who wanted to talk. There's no point in going aggro on him. Further more, the idea that marxism has sway internationally is just not true. There are militant groups, but the two main powers ahve basically abandoned it, and 3rd world parliaments don't exactly have an overflow of marxist-leninist parties. It tends to be liberal vs conservative, worldwide. That's the spectrum.

He also doesn't have a gently caress-you-got-mine attitude, he just (like most people) has a community her cares more about than people outside. Basic in-group out-group. That's far and away the norm, by which I mean like 99% of people, with me being in that 1%. that doesn't mean he's heartless.

If you're mad because he said that Marxism is confined to Universities in the first world, don't be, it's true. It is a statement of fact. I don't think that's the way it should be, but it is what it is.

Dreddout posted:

I identify as a Leftist.

Dreddout posted:

I can't pretend I personally care about someone I have never met. I wish the hypothetical people well, but realistically bad poo poo happens every second of everyday, and humans simply don't have the capacity for in-depth empathy on that scale.

rudatron posted:

Further more, the idea that marxism has sway internationally is just not true. There are militant groups, but the two main powers ahve basically abandoned it, and 3rd world parliaments don't exactly have an overflow of marxist-leninist parties. It tends to be liberal vs conservative, worldwide. That's the spectrum.

Homework Explainer posted:

china would like a word with you

HorseLord posted:

If Dreddout somehow found himself impoverished in a revolutionary situation he'd grab on to whatever looked to benefit him at any given time. Red Army have bread? He'd join them. Reactionary forces wave a suitcase full of money? He'd defect. Because his motivation is a purely selfish one.

Homework Explainer posted:

china would like a word with you

rudatron posted:

Second, that expression of his is perfectly normal for a human being. Very few people act in the same way to a tragedy on the other side of the world as they do when a family member dies. That's just obvious. The balancing act is always between your emotional attachment to the people closest to you, and your your sense of self that's tied up with your idea of what is right and wrong. Humans have struggled with this through-out history, and will continue to do so into the future. That's not 'unleftist' to express that, that's just reality.

But it's also obvious that Dreddout doesn't want to be a bad person, he seems to want to do right, and that's important to feel, because that's what leftism is. To then accuse him of being purely opportunist isn't just wrong, it's alienating, both to him, and to the vast, vast majority of people who think like him, ie- normal people.

rudatron posted:

At no point has anyone itt expressed anything that goes against your standard of decency that you lay out. He said the people closest to him are his 'primary concern' - that is they're of greater value. That does not necessarily imply he views everyone else as valueless, this is just what most human beings do

dreaddout posted:

As a Utilitarian I couldn't care less if my boss is a Technocratic Corporate Overlord, or a Democratic Syndicate Foreman. If the Overlord provides me with a stable, secure high standard of living than gently caress it! If my loved ones are secure healthy and happy then I am content with my lot in life. I'm not going to risk house and home for a revolution that, historicaly, hasn't worked out well for people like me!

sarmhan posted:

It's also hard to take anyone seriously who thinks modern China is doing anything more than paying lip service to socialism. Or that Stalin's U.S.S.R should be emulated in any way.

quote:

If you put it all together the following picture emerges:

1. About one third of GDP is produced by the SOEs. They are highly concentrated and completely dominate investment. They run the decisive sectors of the economy.

2. About one third of the economy is private. However, the state has a considerable influence on this sector. Firstly a large part is agriculture, which is heavily dependent on the state, and is run by peasant households that do not want to break their dependence on the state.

Secondly, the state, although a minority shareholder, exercises a disproportionate influence over many private companies. Thirdly, the state through joint-ventures and other means has a high degree of control over foreign multinationals, and dispenses with them as soon as they can build up a domestic alternative. The residual private sector is very small.

3. About one third of GDP is produced by the TVEs. The majority of this is produced by larger TVEs controlled by local governments. The smaller ones are mainly private and are in the poorest and most backward parts of the country.

If the US government nationalised the 1000 largest manufacturing companies, they would have approximately the same control over the American economy as the Chinese state has over the Chinese economy. If in addition, the US state owned all the biggest banks and financial institutions (and almost only lent money to state companies), and a large slice of the service and building industries, not to mention all the land which farmers till, and introduced a five-year plan, almost nobody would deny that a planned economy had been introduced in the USA. The Economist, despite its panegyrics to private companies, concurs that the commanding heights of the economy are in the hands of the state.

shovelbum posted:

How do you guys think large, capital-intensive enterprises should be handled? I saw a lot of stuff earlier in the thread about making things smaller and more individualized when giving ownership back to the workers (farmers in Burkina Faso etc.) but how does that extend to shipbuilding or aerospace or whatever else? There seem to be some industries that cannot even in the wildest dreams be broken up and given back to the workers on a small local scale.

quote:

Rich in history and culture, Emilia Romagna continues to cultivate a tradition of fine arts and crafts
production which accounts for a major portion of the region’s economy. (Bologna has the highest
per capita expenditure on culture of any city in Italy). The artigianati, or self employed artisans,
account for 41.5% of the companies in the region. Over 90% of these enterprises employ fewer
than 50 people. This is typical of the small firms in the area. Indeed, there are only five firms that
employ over 500. Two of these, SACMI and CMR, are co-operatives.
With barely 4 million people, Emilia Romagna has 90,000 manufacturing enterprises making it one
of the most intensively entrepreneurial regions in the world. It is estimated that one person in
twelve is self-employed or owns a small business. (By contrast, New York State, with over 18
million people has 26,000 manufacturing enterprises.) Nearly half of the region’s industrial
products are exported

Homework Explainer posted:

or so.

shovelbum posted:

How do you guys think large, capital-intensive enterprises should be handled? I saw a lot of stuff earlier in the thread about making things smaller and more individualized when giving ownership back to the workers (farmers in Burkina Faso etc.) but how does that extend to shipbuilding or aerospace or whatever else? There seem to be some industries that cannot even in the wildest dreams be broken up and given back to the workers on a small local scale.

Ormi posted:

What an incredible article. Forbes par excellence. Let me summarize:

1) Wealthy Chinese people getting out of China has always happened, therefore an upswing in this trend means nothing about how wealthy Chinese people perceive China.

2) Increased repression isn't a sign of an embattled official ideology, it's just an expression of Confucian values and strength.

3) Stephen Harner has personally talked with Communist Party members who think things are just dandy. A very strong point.

4) Corruption has no negative effects on internal stability. Indeed, it's an integral part of Chinese culture.

5) An obnoxious handwave of even the mere possibility of China facing structural economic problems.

I'm just brimming with confidence in my investments the ceaseless advancement of socialism.

Homework Explainer posted:

all you've done this whole thread is trundle in with meaningless, contrarian bullshit that adds nothing to whatever discussion is happening at the time. if you have nothing to contribute, get out and get bent

Ormi posted:

Your "hard research" includes the massive revelation that China has a large number of state-owned enterprises and linking a completely insubstantial Forbes article as a defense of socialism. You've made it plain to see that your search for truth means finding sources that readily agree with your preconceived ideas and taking their ideologically convenient bits completely straight. Providing links to this material doesn't strengthen your argument or make you come across as intellectually honest, it outs you as a charlatan to anybody paying attention.

Homework Explainer posted:

it's not my job to educate you, shitlord!