|
computer parts posted:If the only form of socialism that will (likely) exist in a real life environment is a one party authoritarian type, then it's fair to assume that's what people are talking about when they say "socialism is preferable to the status quo". That's not necessarily true. I would say that the day of the Marxist-Leninist one-party state is over and it's much easier to imagine new forms of socialism succeeding in the medium to long term.
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
Cicero posted:His point was that people said, "well of course they were backwards they couldn't trade because kkkapitalism", then he goes "well what about China then?" and then everyone said "well they couldn't trade with China either for [reasons]" so it wasn't just capitalist countries not wanting to trade. The majority of the western world would not trade with the USSR because they are ideologically opposed to socialism, or allied with America which is extremely ideologically opposed to socialism to the point that it routinely destablises countries solely on the basis that they are socialist/they don't want them to be able to utilize their own resources. China would not trade with the USSR because the two nation had political differences within the spectrum of socialism and both nations had a decidedly belligerent streak towards each other, as well as a desire to promote their own view of socialism across the world, somewhat mirroring the imperialist competitiveness of the colonial era. So, the USSR had limited trade significantly because kkkapitalism, and its other sole major potential trading partner had a rather unrelated-to-socialism diplomatic tiff with them which neither side had much success in resolving diplomatically. computer parts posted:In fact, let's actually poll people here: is a one party authoritarian state preferable to the status quo? I mean maybe we could try a democratic revolution starting with social democracy and progressing from there, that'd be nice. Also possibly more practical given the issues with authoritarian socialism in an international setting. As to which is "better" I suppose that would depend on how benevolent the authoritarian state would be. We already have a rather authoritarian form of government in many respects with plutocracy, wealth has inerita and serves to heavily weight the power of the state in favor of the interests of a hereditary wealthy elite. It's not a traditional monarchy but you're still ruled by those who are born to it and who take power by using the power they already have which is way more than you ever will, and then use that power to entrench themselves further. So, I suppose I am forced to interpret your question as "what flavor of economic authoritarianism would you prefer? One which should in theory be more egalitarian, or one which exists with the intent of increasing inequality." OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:49 on May 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean maybe we could try a democratic revolution starting with social democracy and progressing from there, that'd be nice. Also possibly more practical given the issues with authoritarian socialism in an international setting.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So, the USSR had limited trade significantly because kkkapitalism, and its other sole major potential trading partner had a rather unrelated-to-socialism diplomatic tiff with them which neither side had much success in resolving diplomatically. Does anyone else see how this makes no sense?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:He WAS overthrown by a vicious minority though? Pinochet was arguably enacting the will of the majority by deposing Allende (who was elected with 36% of the vote), but we'll never know for sure because Allende's constitutional plebiscite was never held. He lost that imagined mandate by refusing to return power to Congress and the judiciary, of course.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Does anyone else see how this makes no sense? Perhaps all trade doesn't happen under a single set of conditions; instead, the trade partners you're discussing have widely differing levels of capitalization and organization. Say something like sanctions against Iran for oil refining equipment are devastating because without the outside financial and productive capital, that state cannot take advantage of its resources. Meanwhile, with free trade between capitalists from rich countries and third world countries, one possible motive for the capitalist to go overseas instead of staying at home is that there is less labor organization, regulation and a lesser level of capitalization, so they can exploit that other population more easily enough to make up for transportation costs. This is a bad thing differing from the first example because more likely than not, the capitalist's motive isn't actually improving the productive capabilities or standard of living of that foreign country; they probably won't care about putting their profits back into the community. In fact, it could be counterproductive to do so, as building a middle class in that country could result in competitors or a more organized workforce; it's better to instead be the only game in town. The capital moved there will still not allow the people who live there to control and take advantage of those resources In short: sanctions to isolate a country seek to prevent movements of capital into a country that have a developmentalist intention of strengthening that country's economy/production capabilities - something that's politically unfavorable to the countries leveling sanctions. Movement of capital into poorer countries who don't have an developmentalist/nationalizing force in opposition to capitalists don't have the intention of developing those areas - they have an extractivist one. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 04:30 on May 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted: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? 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.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
You too. Did it take a lot of effort to think up that failure of a tu quoque or something?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted: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. Yeah, which is why I'm asking the specific people here. Do you personally believe an authoritarian state in the tradition of the USSR, Cuba, etc would be better than the existing status quo in [your home country, the US if nothing else]?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Well, this was a great, inspiring thread for a while. Not that I'm really helping by saying this, but, thanks to all the people who contributed till the last page, really.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:That's not an interesting question because the answers won't really be very informative, which is why I'm not answering it directly. It's as informative as the various "My family is right wing so I can extrapolate them onto conservative culture in general" threads. Really moreso since it's a fairly unorthodox topic to discuss. There's a cultural discomfort in the West for discussing non-democratic solutions, so the most people will say is "in some circumstances a hypothetical person might support a one party state". Note that I don't personally support a one party solution, but it's nice to hear from people who do, and to explain their reasoning.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
It's never been explained why a one-party authoritarian state is supposed to be worse than the alternative practised by anticommunist countries, which is to have a two-identical-parties authoritarian state. In both setups there is a ruling class which practices democracy in itself but viscously suppresses those who it considers a threat. In both setups, you're allowed to complain, and encouraged to collaborate with the powers that be to improve things. In both setups, there is no tolerance for those who organize to destroy the system. They shot Fred Hampton in his sleep, they drop bombs on housing estates, it'd be massively dishonest to say the USA hasn't a history of stereotypical KGB behaviour. I'm not feeling particularly free when I know that I most definitely am not part of the class the state serves, and the state does poo poo like secret trials and extraordinary rendition to secret desert torture pits. Meanwhile I fit into the category of people socialist states exist to serve, and all of the people it would aim to suppress and disappear are people I don't like. 386-SX 25Mhz VGA posted:gently caress when did this thread go from thoughtful discussion about Marxism to arguing with people totally ignorant about what Marxism is Page 1? HorseLord fucked around with this message at 17:54 on May 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
I used to be a Leninist in my teenage years. The Internet makes it very easy to be a Marxist. Hell, the world makes it easy. I'll never forget seeing Alan Woods on the History Channel. It's like the world forgot that we hated communism for half-a-century. Oh well. The reason I'm here is that, as I noted, I was a Leninist and I guess also a Trotskyist by extension? As such, most of the circles I traveled in on RevLeft and other sites were anti-Stalin for obvious reasons beyond just the fact Stalin was a sorry excuse for a human being. But I remember distinctly a core tenet of Trotskyism was that Stalin undermined all the genuine Marxist ideals of the Bolshevik Revolution and utterly sabotaged the glorious future utopia so he could make his own dictatorial empire. Would the Marxists in here say this is true? Also, wasn't Marx's teaching that it would be the workers who overthrow the government and society? That a country had to attain a certain level of industrialization and advancement before it was even ready for communism? So why is it that the two biggest Communist countries, Russia and China, wee highly un-industrialized and backwards? I promise, even though I'm far more on the Right now than I used to be, I'm asking these questions out of genuine curiosity. They were things I always wondered about in my younger days but never got good answers for. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 19:12 on May 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Nah Trotsky had the benefit of losing the power struggle with Stalin so he could wash his hands of the USSR comparatively early (Kronstadt yeah yeah) and so all the sins he would have committed if he was in ultimate authority are imaginary, and also was murdered by Stalin which allows his supporters to claim he was right all along and stopped his increasingly wrong writings and predictions from coming even more of an embarrassment. It's true to say he had a different leadership style from Stalin, whether it was better probably depends entirely on whether he could actually successfully export revolution like he wanted rather than looking inward like Stalin.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Also, wasn't Marx's teaching that it would be the workers who overthrow the government and society? That a country had to attain a certain level of industrialization and advancement before it was even ready for communism? So why is it that the two biggest Communist countries, Russia and China, wee highly un-industrialized and backwards? Marx did write with the assumption that the revolution would start in an already industrialized nation as a result of the proletariat (who make up the overwhelming majority of the populace) being unable to sit by and accept the conditions imposed upon them by the bourgeois (poo poo wages, lovely rights, poo poo everything basically). One of the big divergences from the theory in practice is that China and Russia were not industrialized nations which is why the notion of the vanguard party was developed. Lacking a large proletarian population, the idea was supposedly to create a party of socialists who would lead the rest of the country into socialism and, I suppose, eventually, communism. The problem, of course, is that it becomes a, er, dictatorship of the proletariat, but not in the good way. As in the party is basically telling the peasantry what they should think and how they should live, it's pretty hard to make that work because that's not really a very equitable relationship, whereas theoretical marxist socialism would occur as the result of a vast and equal working class rising up in unison. You sort of necessarily have an oligarchy of sorts, perhaps one that thinks it's doing the right thing but, well, it's still a bit of an oligarchy. That's the first major divergence from the theory, and you can sort of trace the rest of the things that people who agree with what Marx wrote may well disagree with about soviet policy from there.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
It partly stems from a problem with the concept of exploitation: Marx thought that since exploitation increases over time in capitalist societies (to put it simply, the profit the capitalist makes on the sale of a good vs. what the worker who made it is being paid for it) that this would lead to outcry, despite the fact that this doesn't lead to a worsening of living conditions.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
I would say Russia is an issue, since while it was largely un-industrialized, at the same time Russia had growing industrial centers and that was where the Bolsheviks also had their greatest support. It wasn't like there were no workers being exploited in Russia, there were and they suffered some of the worst conditions in Europe, but the surprising thing was the Tsar hosed up so bad that Russia couldn't even get past that phase of development before everything fell part. As for why Marx's prediction was largely wrong, well industrialized countries for the most part reacted to the threat of Marx and radical leftism. They implemented moderate labor and social reforms because it was clear evidence it was preferable to any alternative. The Tsar [as well as the KMT] largely just didn't give and poo poo and paid the price. Disinterested posted:It partly stems from a problem with the concept of exploitation: Marx thought that since exploitation increases over time in capitalist societies (to put it simply, the profit the capitalist makes on the sale of a good vs. what the worker who made it is being paid for it) that this would lead to outcry, despite the fact that this doesn't lead to a worsening of living conditions. You could say the lack of instability in industrialized world because of the threat socialism of various forms in the first place forced reforms forward. Exploitation as Marx saw it was real and was having a measurable effect, but industrialized states were able to meet the challenge eventually by offering reforms that cut off any revolutionary movement at the knees. Look at the politics of Western Europe for more examples of this. Of course, the issue was that it was also a threat because the left of that period was aggressive and radicalized and there was a penitent example of when a government truly hosed up [Russia]. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:23 on May 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 21:02
|
|
Ardennes posted:I would say Russia is an issue here, since while it was largely unindustrialized, at the same time there were growing industrial centers and that was where the Bolsheviks also had their greatest support. It wasn't like there were no workers being exploited in Russia, there were and theysuffered some of the worst conditions in Europe, but it is just surprising thing was the Tsar hosed up so bad that Russia couldn't even get past that phase of development before everything fell part. I mean, that's a simplification, reform wasn't only brought on by socialists. But the point remains, reforms or no, that you can have an increase in standard of living while exploitation rises.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I mean, that's a simplification, reform wasn't only brought on by socialists. But the point remains, reforms or no, that you can have an increase in standard of living while exploitation rises. Well it wasn't necessarily "brought by socialists", there were many liberal reform movements out there, but that the threat of radicalization was a very strong force that pushed them forward. As for increase of standards of living as exploitation rises, it didn't work out so well in Russia. As exploitation increased, so did radicalism and while Russia was at a relatively early stage of industrial development, exploited workers were a powerful political force pre-1917. While you could say that industrialization usually leads to higher life expectancy in general, at the same time there are plenty of instances of rising instability when inequality spikes and as well "relative impoverishment" between classes. It isn't a question of if living standards improve to some degree, but to they rise fast enough. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:19 on May 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I mean, that's a simplification, reform wasn't only brought on by socialists. But the point remains, reforms or no, that you can have an increase in standard of living while exploitation rises. The real question, though, is the extent to which exploitation is comorbid with alienation- eg does the rise in standard of living get offset at all by worsening conditions of living? Of course, this may not be fruitful praxis-wise.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:But I remember distinctly a core tenet of Trotskyism was that Stalin undermined all the genuine Marxist ideals of the Bolshevik Revolution and utterly sabotaged the glorious future utopia so he could make his own dictatorial empire. You can get some of Trotsky's own thinking on this topic in this little book, which is a quick read: http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Betrayed-Leon-Trotsky/dp/0486433986 A broader list of sources, which may have additional pieces of interest to you, was put together a few years ago by an SA poster. The current version can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1UxS71xWaHTWDg5bld2ekFKcjQ/view?pref=2&pli=1
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I used to be a Leninist in my teenage years. The Internet makes it very easy to be a Marxist. Hell, the world makes it easy. I'll never forget seeing Alan Woods on the History Channel. It's like the world forgot that we hated communism for half-a-century. Oh well. I'd say that it's true this is a core part of Trotskyism. A key thing about Trotskyism is that it enthusiastically agrees with anything capitalist powers have to say about socialism that exists, because it originates from a guy who fell out of power in the USSR and was mad about it. A unique situation was created - Anticommunist forces could point to Trotsky and say "Successful socialism is bad! Even this communist says so!", and those who were attracted to communism but also internalized capitalist propaganda now had a "Good" acceptable communist ideology to follow. That the anti-Leninist communist ideology was trotskyism was fortunate for capitalists, because Trotsky's ideas are bad and unworkable, and so not a threat. We know this because Trotskyists have never managed to form a revolutionary organization. The old joke is they support every revolution except the ones that happen. Another one is that they pretend Lenin was a good Trotskyist. Trotskyism, put simply, is a route designed to look easy, because you don't have to question what you learned in school, but because of this it sends you in the wrong direction. NikkolasKing posted:Also, wasn't Marx's teaching that it would be the workers who overthrow the government and society? That a country had to attain a certain level of industrialization and advancement before it was even ready for communism? So why is it that the two biggest Communist countries, Russia and China, wee highly un-industrialized and backwards? Well, it was the workers who overthrew the government and society. As even Marx knew, what sparks a revolution is not industry, or advancement. What sparks a revolution is oppression of peoples who are politically organized. He supposed this would occur in the most advanced countries because political education and organization is easier in higher-density, literate populations. As has already been mentioned by other people, in the time between Marx and Lenin there had been an international socialist movement growing and becoming powerful for many decades, and this causes the ruling classes to alter their behaviour to counter them. This did not happen in Russia, a country backwards enough that absolutely nothing was done to prevent Marx's statement coming completely true. While most of Russia was a medival shithole, they did have a few industrial cities, and that's where the revolution spread from. It went to the shithole medieval countryside only afterwards.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:That the anti-Leninist communist ideology was trotskyism was fortunate for capitalists, because Trotsky's ideas are bad and unworkable, and so not a threat. We know this because Trotskyists have never managed to form a revolutionary organization. There was POUM, I guess. Technically.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
So I guess there you go, the highest achievement of Trotskyism is spending more time fighting mainstream communists than the fascists they were supposedly created to oppose, causing the whole combined effort to collapse. Fitting, really. But to be really trotskyist they'd have to just show up at random battles and hand out signs with their logos on to random fighters so they look like they organized it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:It's never been explained why a one-party authoritarian state is supposed to be worse than the alternative practised by anticommunist countries, which is to have a two-identical-parties authoritarian state. I see the same thing with hardcore libertarians/voluntarists. "Well they all believe in illegitimate taxation/use of force SO THEY'RE ALL THE SAME!" quote:In both setups there is a ruling class which practices democracy in itself but viscously suppresses those who it considers a threat. In both setups, you're allowed to complain, and encouraged to collaborate with the powers that be to improve things. In both setups, there is no tolerance for those who organize to destroy the system. They shot Fred Hampton in his sleep, they drop bombs on housing estates, it'd be massively dishonest to say the USA hasn't a history of stereotypical KGB behaviour. Cicero fucked around with this message at 19:47 on May 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
It depends what sort of repressive and authoritarian you mean. There is absolutely zero tolerance whatsoever for any material threat to the plutocratic establishment of the US, from either within or overseas. It makes exactly as few concessions to liberty on the part of the working class as it feels it needs to in order to stave off unrest, and not one fraction further. In the meantime wealth inequality grows and grows, the US exists to perpetuate that inequality. You can't say that the US has a legitimate interest in the welfare of the majority of its citizens while wealth inequality increases, what that tells you is that the US has a legitimate interest in exploiting its citizens and will make concessions that better enable it to do that. So yes, you are free to vote, but Capital will ensure that you cannot vote for true change. You are free to pursue social liberty, within the free time that your employer and the state he is part of feels willing to allow you in between exploiting you. You are free to talk about any ideas you like, because the entrenched wealth owns the means of information control and can ensure that your voice will be drowned out by the message they want. Democracy as practiced by the US and other, similar nations, is a gilded cage. The primary difference between them and the USSR is that the US and others have figured out that overt repression is not necessary. When instead it is possible to make people believe that fighting each other within the rules set by the wealthy is the best way to live. Why bother with the Stazi when people can be taught to find any mode of living other than competing to be less exploited than their neighbor, laughable?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Cicero posted:They look identical to you because you're so far to the left that your ability to notice their differences has been compromised. To anyone with less extreme views, just watching the recent GOP and Democratic primary debates would make it pretty obvious how much they differ. Not to say that there's some things that the presumptive nominees would both suck at, of course, but to say that there's no differences is insane. One capitalist party is controlled by the bourgeois and appeals to a given demographic using progressive sounding platitudes it won't really fulfil. The other capitalist party is controlled by the bourgeois and appeals to a given demographic using fascistic sounding platitudes it won't really fulfil. There is only room for two parties, if you try and make a third one it won't work. Because this is how america is set up. Cicero posted:"The US and USSR are equivalently authoritarian and repressive" - what (some) internet communists actually believe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton#1969_Raid_and_Assassination )
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Cicero posted:"The US and USSR are equivalently authoritarian and repressive" - what (some) internet communists actually believe 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.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Question, how do you get raw milk in one of these states?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
From your own cow, one would presume.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:From your own cow, one would presume. But for city folk
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It depends what sort of repressive and authoritarian you mean. There is absolutely zero tolerance whatsoever for any material threat to the plutocratic establishment of the US, from either within or overseas. It makes exactly as few concessions to liberty on the part of the working class as it feels it needs to in order to stave off unrest, and not one fraction further. In the meantime wealth inequality grows and grows, the US exists to perpetuate that inequality. The GOP elite isn't even in control of it's own party right now. This is what human democracy looks like. The fact that you don't like it isn't proof it's all run from the backroom.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:The GOP elite isn't even in control of it's own party right now. This is what human democracy looks like. The fact that you don't like it isn't proof it's all run from the backroom. Is your conception of the marxist idea of bourgeois power seriously "There is a grand council of capitalists who meet up secretly"
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 01:35
|
|