|
Darkman Fanpage posted:rich people bad! destroy rich! help poor! help working people! pssh the real world is too complicated for your simplistic ideology, to the degree i've allowed myself to understand it
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:rich people bad! destroy rich! help poor! help working people! checks out
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Since the thread is talking about the failure of socialism in the USSR. I'd like to know how and why socialism has failed in Venezuela.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Maybe we can meme Marxism-Trumpism into existence after all
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:for real. here's a piece i enjoyed on the meaning of the soviet space program the article you linked is really terribly written and has some cool revisionism about wwii. i really liked the part about how lend-lease era us was pro-axis, that's some real quality insanity right there. The arms race and the space race were integrally linked. A spacecraft like Vostock-1 is little more than an ICBM with a person instead of a bomb, so the space programs of both countries were build off, and worked in tandem with, military rocket development. Manned space exploration such as Gagarin's first flight and the Apollo landings were primarily funded for propaganda, as was Sputnik. The Soviets took the lead in this in large part out of ideology; Soviet Communism going back to Lenin had a deep affection for technology and industrialization that has its roots in Marx's quintessentially 19th-century view of technology and was magnified by frustration at Russia's perceived backwardness, a sensitivity that was expressed in geopolitical terms under Stalin. At times when domestic living standards were still below those of even much of the Eastern Block, winning the space race was an achievement that Soviet leaders could point too as a sign of strength. But the Soviet Union was always poorer than the US, even during its economic heyday during the oil crisis, so once ICBM technology was fully developed space technology took a back seat to the military-industrial complex, as did virtually every other economic concern. The US had cash to spare and its government was eager to make up for its failure to keep up with space technology, so it kept up development on the moonshot while the Soviets abandoned it after an admittedly disastrous accident that killed several of their best engineers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:Since the thread is talking about the failure of socialism in the USSR. I'd like to know how and why socialism has failed in Venezuela. It was never really socialism so much as piecemeal nationalization and some extraordinarily bad attempts and minimizing the damage of the collapse of oil prices. Chavez was very much a caudillo in the traditional Latin American mould, he had little serious devotion to socialist principles. Maduro is an utterly incompetent toady who's primary virtue was not posing a threat to Chavez, so he got to be second in command.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:Since the thread is talking about the failure of socialism in the USSR. I'd like to know how and why socialism has failed in Venezuela. maduro is a very bad leader
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:maduro is a very bad leader Venezuela would be in pretty much the exact same position were he in charge, he ignored warnings from within PSUV about the country's dependence on oil exports. His reputation will survive solely because he died before things really hit the fan but Venezuela's economy had been in significant decline for years before Maduro took over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Maduro's tenure has been awful and he makes a handy scapegoat for socialists who awkwardly doubled down on Chavez, but he also inherited an impossible situation. There was no way an economy like Venezuela's was going to survive the oil price collapse without hideous convulsions, and the PSUV before Maduro bears responsibility for that economy. But as Hamprince says, the PSUV isn't especially socialist, despite some radical rhetoric and garnish. It's not comparable to the USSR. I expect what's to be learned from Venezuela, besides avoiding degeneration at the top of the party, lies in whatever was going on at ground level before the macro factors swamped the whole project. I haven't read it yet but this was passed around before: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Building-Commune-Radical-Democracy-Venezuela/dp/1784782238 There's also the inevitable CIA coup narrative, but I don't really credit it here since the opposition is impotent and the military is loyal so it's not clear what the plan for the 'coup' is supposed to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Just because your mode of production is not capitalist, doesn't mean that it's socialist, that's not the 'default'. You have to do the work that there is a meaningful relationship of control between the workers (population) and capital/economic life, which simply wasn't the case under the USSR. The party leadership had control over every state function, and capital was state property and treated as such - the surplus value generated by its use was directed by towards goals that were set by the Gosplan. The distinction between capitalist and politician in a capitalist economy exists, because there is a codified relationship of exclusive control & use of property, that is granted to the capitalist, to do what they see fit with it (within reason), enforced by a legal system under the threat of violence. The workers had no such control over state property, collectively, nor did they have any direct control over the Party, which claimed to manage that property in their interests. That claimed intent, while itself dubious, is nonetheless totally irrelevant as to whether or not there is a relationship of ownership between the workers and capital. Under any meaningful definition of ownership, the means of production remained under state control, and that state remained under party control, and the party answered only to itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Poor Laika. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
You're also overplaying the effectiveness of the late Soviet economy. Soviet goods were generally regarded as inferior in quality to Western goods to a somewhat substantial degree, and the failure to either innovate or adapt to new technology, means that they were comparatively primitive. Soviet goods weren't good enough to compete internationally. The soviet space program is also interesting, but your characterization is incomplete - soviet rocket technology was generally much much better than western technology (to the point that every single modern rocket today uses an engine design derived from a soviet rocket - including that private company, spaceX), but the western space program was better in almost every other respect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Just because your mode of production is not capitalist, doesn't mean that it's socialist, that's not the 'default'. You have to do the work that there is a meaningful relationship of control between the workers (population) and capital/economic life, which simply wasn't the case under the USSR. The party leadership had control over every state function, and capital was state property and treated as such - the surplus value generated by its use was directed by towards goals that were set by the Gosplan. The distinction between capitalist and politician in a capitalist economy exists, because there is a codified relationship of exclusive control & use of property, that is granted to the capitalist, to do what they see fit with it (within reason), enforced by a legal system under the threat of violence. The workers had no such control over state property, collectively, nor did they have any direct control over the Party, which claimed to manage that property in their interests. That claimed intent, while itself dubious, is nonetheless totally irrelevant as to whether or not there is a relationship of ownership between the workers and capital. Under any meaningful definition of ownership, the means of production remained under state control, and that state remained under party control, and the party answered only to itself. This Also "means of production" aren't the only thing that matter in the establishment of communism. Exchange value has to be abolished, meaning money, the commodity form, etc. The economy has to be in service of use value rather than exchange Granted, this can't be totally achieved in one country, so there has to be some kind of transitory "in between" phase where that final modality is sought after. This does not, however, mean vanguard parties, unaccountable leaders who aren't subject to instant recall, etc. The means of production AND the body politic have to both be in the hands of the working class
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
I don't think abolishing money is necessary for socialism though, which was the point of contention. It's also more of a minor goal in the grand scheme of things, it's the power relationships that it's absolutely critical to get right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
 My God, he's Evolving...  Comrade Sanders confirmed anarcho-communist
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:
"This isn't even my final form! " Bernie Sanders says as he goes super-Stalin
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I don't think abolishing money is necessary for socialism though, which was the point of contention. It's also more of a minor goal in the grand scheme of things, it's the power relationships that it's absolutely critical to get right. I would say the power relationships are the first step, and then eventually the total abolition of the commodity form
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
I would like to see a solution to supply though. Nobody has told me the specifics of how the correct number of goods will be distributed which was an issue in the USSR (Gosplan).
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:i really liked the part about how lend-lease era us was pro-axis, that's some real quality insanity right there. I just skimmed it again and the only thing in there that approximates this claim is probably a reference to the view among anglophone elites that fascism would prevent germany from becoming communist, defeat the specter of socialism abroad, etc. helpful remarks otherwise rudatron posted:Just because your mode of production is not capitalist, doesn't mean that it's socialist, that's not the 'default'. that'd be a hell of a claim, wouldn't it? wonder who made it Anyway, i'm not sure what work you're demanding from me, considering you yourself are rolling on assertions flecked with weasel words (e.g., "meaningful" to whom?) The law of value was not in command of capital goods, there was no labor market, the primary basis for remuneration was labor performed rather than property ownership, planning replaced the anarchy of production, the commanding heights of the economy determined production on the basis of use rather than exchange, and seizing the means of production in the interests of capitalist production was simply not an option. the word for this, via theory rather than "default," is socialism. you counter that it lacked "worker control," but workers did control the economy — as a class, which is exactly what "dictatorship of the proletariat" denotes! to ignore this and claim it was "state capitalism" is to completely throw out marxist class analysis, the definition of "capitalist," and more I'm not disagreeing that political systems tend to have the sort of depersonalizing/bureaucratizing effects you seem to be regarding as proof of your claim. but "having a political process," doesn't negate its economic status, even if that process doesn't conform to the exact specifications you or i regard as the best possible. yes, there were both workers and managers, but the distinction was strictly administrative and did not imply exploitation. worker councils were the basic political building block of the entire system, and despite a demographic of intellectuals/clerks that grew over the decades, even into the 1980's the party was mostly made up of industrial and agricultural workers (nearly 60% in 1987) rudatron posted:You're also overplaying the effectiveness of the late Soviet economy. Soviet goods were generally regarded as inferior in quality to Western goods to a somewhat substantial degree, and the failure to either innovate or adapt to new technology, means that they were comparatively primitive. Soviet goods weren't good enough to compete internationally. My 2% figure came from that notoriously pro-communist agency, the CIA. that said, if you had asked what I thought about the quality of Soviet goods, i'd have said much the same thing you say here. it's one of the many structural issues of the USSR i keep saying socialists need to take seriously. Yossarian-22 posted:Also "means of production" aren't the only thing that matter in the establishment of communism. Exchange value has to be abolished, meaning money, the commodity form, etc. The economy has to be in service of use value rather than exchange I feel the lines blur here between discussing communism and socialism respectively. I realize i'm being unfair in singling you out on this, since it's something I've seen a few times from a few people, so I apologize in advance, but let's be clear: communism is not strictly speaking a particular state of being, but a process. From The German Ideology, one of my favorite Marxquotes: quote:Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence. To say that socialism is the "lower form" of communism therefore can come across as a little counterintuitive, but suffice to say it's a necessary (and at present badly needed) step along the broader road of human emancipation, which at the furthest point we can currently conceive resembles the "from each, to each" stuff, the breakdown of the distinction between labor and leisure, etc. But we don't suppose that this will be the "end" of history, and in such an era there will surely be other contradictions to overcome and systemic challenges to surmount, even if our current existence is such that we have to reach into sci-fi territory to begin to guess at what they could be. the abolition of money and the commodity form is definitely a longer-term goal of a socialist project, though as we've seen, production for use trumping production for exchange is not only possible, but has been done successfully. in fact, if you think about it, the latter logically precedes the former, since it'd be silly to say one form predominates over another if the other ceases to exist. subordinate presence of the commodity form is one of the signs that socialism "emerges from capitalist society ... still stamped with [its] birthmarks." Woof Blitzer posted:I would like to see a solution to supply though. Nobody has told me the specifics of how the correct number of goods will be distributed which was an issue in the USSR (Gosplan). The anticlimactic answer is "more or less the same way firms do right now, but in coordinated way" — via quantity signals that gauge effective demand, inventories and buffer stocks, etc. As for new goods and technologies, when the USSR was still making proper use of its levers, it made substantial and aggressive use of subsidy (directed according to priorities set out in the plan) in order to offset prohibitive costs that would prevent attempts to innovate. gutting this system in favor of a more market-oriented approach proved to be the beginning of the era of stagnant growth and garbage output edit: on review, this is way longer than i expected. i'll do better next time baloogan Aeolius fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:
Revisionist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
wrhbsrhbrew4hrhwershwsbwberb
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:wrhbsrhbrew4hrhwershwsbwberb now thats some dialectics!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Woof Blitzer posted:I would like to see a solution to supply though. Nobody has told me the specifics of how the correct number of goods will be distributed which was an issue in the USSR (Gosplan). I read an interesting book about this last year, written shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union. The authors had an idea about what we would now recognize as, basically, the Internet, Amazon, and Wal*Mart's supply chains. These kind of predictive algorithms can guess whether or not a woman is pregnant before even she realizes it. If we put them under democratic control instead of capitalist control, we could distribute the things people need in a fair way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
does anyone know of any reading on consumer goods in the USSR?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Woof Blitzer posted:I would like to see a solution to supply though. Nobody has told me the specifics of how the correct number of goods will be distributed which was an issue in the USSR (Gosplan). http://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/30/in-soviet-union-optimization-problem-solves-you/ Good read
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:I read an interesting book about this last year, written shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union. The authors had an idea about what we would now recognize as, basically, the Internet, Amazon, and Wal*Mart's supply chains. These kind of predictive algorithms can guess whether or not a woman is pregnant before even she realizes it. If we put them under democratic control instead of capitalist control, we could distribute the things people need in a fair way. But that's just a more efficient way of amalgamating the information provided by markets. In the absence of markets/capitalism those predictive algorithms aren't going to have the inputs they need to make proper outputs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Also tbqh at this point I think both Stalin and Lenin would've rounded up Trump supporters and had them shot
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
I'm not sure why food/housing/healthcare requirements need a market to determine needs. Those things seem pretty deterministic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
I Wish To Attack Fascists With Weapons, Killing Them
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
.
freckle fucked around with this message at 10:53 on Jan 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:But that's just a more efficient way of amalgamating the information provided by markets. In the absence of markets/capitalism those predictive algorithms aren't going to have the inputs they need to make proper outputs. "markets" in the broadest sense of inventories accessible to the public are very important to this process, yes. "the market" as in the present totalizing system of our world, no. capitalism, emphatically no. quantity signals are much more important than price signals (the most socially useful aspect of which is just to indirectly reflect quantity signals anyway), and you don't need capitalist markets for those.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Holy gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RIPMarkusJ/status/819644109644328960
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Leftypol sponsored Richard D. Wolff's new monthly update. https://twitter.com/catgirlspls/status/819632858788569088
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
v good dsa meeting tonight. had like 40 people and a whole bunch of first timers. had an environmental action speaker asking for civil disobedience signups to train for arrests and stuff. had an infosec speaker that walked everyone through tor and internet/phone security stuff for activists. had a call to action for a leftist coalition action on the 20th. very militant themed. only had two walkouts lol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
That sounds loving amazing tbh
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
jarofpiss posted:v good dsa meeting tonight. had like 40 people and a whole bunch of first timers. had an environmental action speaker asking for civil disobedience signups to train for arrests and stuff. had an infosec speaker that walked everyone through tor and internet/phone security stuff for activists. had a call to action for a leftist coalition action on the 20th. very militant themed. only had two walkouts lol. what metro?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
jarofpiss posted:v good dsa meeting tonight. had like 40 people and a whole bunch of first timers. had an environmental action speaker asking for civil disobedience signups to train for arrests and stuff. had an infosec speaker that walked everyone through tor and internet/phone security stuff for activists. had a call to action for a leftist coalition action on the 20th. very militant themed. only had two walkouts lol. You had walkouts? Even at the 300 person meetings in Brooklyn I've never seen that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 15:21
|
|
