|
yronic heroism posted:Lol if you think Kim does not own any of the means of production I’m sure he functionally owns almost all of it, along with his military cronies. DPRK is essentially a feudal monarchy, any pretense to socialism they might’ve had died decades ago. Majorian posted:Nepal's a weird case, since it's a multi-party parliamentary democracy, and parties frequently have to form coalitions. The current ruling party is center-left, but the Maoists have led the government a bunch of times over the past couple decades. That’s pretty interesting, actually. Thanks! I’d also be willing to argue that the Soviet Union or PRC pre-liberalization aren’t good role models for democratic socialism even if you want to argue that they were socialist and not state capitalist.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:13 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:
yawn is this really the best you've got yronic? why not try going back to being upset i live in france?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I’m sure he functionally owns almost all of it, along with his military cronies. DPRK is essentially a feudal monarchy, any pretense to socialism they might’ve had died decades ago. I know, I was calling out R Guyovich, thanks for dropping some truth the “MOD” doesn’t want us to know. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:That’s pretty interesting, actually. Thanks! Yeah, it's a weird, often-confusing system, but it makes sense as a response to the Panchayat system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yawn  condiv needs more attention guys Someone ask him who’s gonna be the next Speaker of the House.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:
Granted, I would also say that the history of the Soviet Union in particular needs to be grabbed with before you can fully realize any democratic socialist model even if there isn't a reason to "copy" the Soviets. How do you move forward with a democratic socialism model when you meet armed domestic or foreign resistance (for example)? Honestly, as a Russian/Soviet historian, I don't know if much of the left has really grasped what happened in the Soviet Union and why, and that makes me a bit worried. Granted, part of it is, simply that the West, in particular, is using largely outdated works that haven't really incorporated the body of archival evidence out there. As for actual socialist countries that exist, maybe the closest is Cuba although it also has been obviously liberalizing. That said, that really isn't that unique either (look at the NEP). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I know, I was calling out R Guyovich, thanks for dropping some truth the “MOD” doesn’t want us to know. It might help to have a somewhat functioning brain before you call someone out yronic
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, I would also say that the history of the Soviet Union in particular needs to be grabbed with before you can fully realize any democratic socialist model even if there isn't a reason to "copy" the Soviets. How do you move forward with a democratic socialism model when you meet armed domestic or foreign resistance (for example)? realchat: what do you want the West to understand about Soviet/Russian history and is there recommended reading?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, I would also say that the history of the Soviet Union in particular needs to be grabbed with before you can fully realize any democratic socialist model even if there isn't a reason to "copy" the Soviets. How do you move forward with a democratic socialism model when you meet armed domestic or foreign resistance (for example)? Yeah, it doesn't help that the peculiarities and failures of the Soviet system aren't really framed in the broader context of Russian history. A lot of what is frequently cast as inherent problems in socialism were, in fact, simply iterations of political phenomena that occurred throughout Russian history. Stalin only makes sense if you understand Ivan IV, the Time of Troubles, Peter the Great, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, I would also say that the history of the Soviet Union in particular needs to be grabbed with before you can fully realize any democratic socialist model even if there isn't a reason to "copy" the Soviets. How do you move forward with a democratic socialism model when you meet armed domestic or foreign resistance (for example)? I have. If America is to be purified of the worshippers of Mamon, we need to be ready to enact punitive measures on the worshippers of Mamon. We must destroy their temples and their idols and have their children raise by those not affiliated with their idolotry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:realchat: what do you want the West to understand about Soviet/Russian history and is there recommended reading? Depends on what subject you want to talk about, if you are talking about post-war economics/trade, "Red Globalization" is pretty good. Also, "Affirmative Action Empire" if pretty good if you want to read about nationalities policy. Stalin himself is a bit more difficult because it is so politicized, but I think Wheatcroft's Great Famine book is a place to start for at least the Holodomor. Majorian posted:Yeah, it doesn't help that the peculiarities and failures of the Soviet system aren't really framed in the broader context of Russian history. A lot of what is frequently cast as inherent problems in socialism were, in fact, simply iterations of political phenomena that occurred throughout Russian history. Stalin only makes sense if you understand Ivan IV, the Time of Troubles, Peter the Great, etc. That or even Russia under Nicholas II, the circumstances of the Civil War, the NEP and the inter-party debates of the 1920s. The Soviet Union is generally treated as thing ideological entity rather than another Moscow-centric state that existed the way it did for a reason. It is also why comparisons between living standards with the west or democratic socialism is a bit bonkers because it really has nothing to do with what was going over there. Admittedly, I don't think copying whatever Moscow was attempting at the time in the 21st century is a good idea (cough Venezuela cough), but it is more useful to see what happens to a revolutionary state coming out of a developing country under certain economic and political pressure. If you're a leftist revolutionary, a liberal, or hard right...there are plenty of lessons that need to be learned. Crowsbeak posted:I have. If America is to be purified of the worshippers of Mamon, we need to be ready to enact punitive measures on the worshippers of Mamon. We must destroy their temples and their idols and have their children raise by those not affiliated with their idolotry. Yeah, but that eventually gets complicated when you need to implement the NEP... Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
I dont want a command economy. I just want the userers purged. With their idols. Also of course their enablers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, but that eventually gets complicated when you need to implement the NEP... Bukharin would have won. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Bukharin would have won. He really would have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Bukharin would have won. Eh, I think Bukharin had plenty of his own issues, especially once you get to the crisis of the later NEP and essentially where does the Soviet Union go from there. I actually doubt the Soviet Union could have fixed their balance of trade through the type of grain yields they were seeing. Preobrazhensky was more right, even if it is a bit awkward to admit it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
In a weird way, America is in a uniquely good position to become socialist, since it wouldn't have to deal with the same degree of Western retribution that smaller countries have had to deal with (like, say, Yugoslavia or something). Most countries have "the US and other Western countries will sanction us (if not flat-out declare war or something)" as a significant barrier to becoming socialist, but the US would be able to avoid most of that. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, but regarding the defining socialism stuff, basically you can call a system where there isn't private ownership of the means of production (and thus "workers own the means of production" in some form) socialist. This can mean either a situation where all means of production are owned by their labor (i.e. a situation where all companies are coops, or workers' self-management), a situation where the government - which represents the public - owns the means of production, or some sort of anarchist situation where nothing is really "owned" I guess. Maybe there are other options, but I forget off the top of my head. But key to all of these is the fact that private individuals or organizations would not be able to own companies/factories/whatever that they aren't working at (and likewise, people wouldn't be able to work for a company/factory/etc without having proportional ownership in some form). So you definitely wouldn't have any sort of stock market and people wouldn't be able to buy and own shares in other firms. "Capitalists" wouldn't exist, because the option to invest and receive the profits as returns wouldn't exist in the first place. The most obvious criticism of this would be that it would hinder growth (since companies wouldn't have the option of selling shares to raise funds). This is accurate, but the belief (that I share) is that the benefit of giving labor much more of a voice and influence would outweigh whatever potential harm (if any) is caused by limiting growth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
I give you credit, that is a definition. But why should growth have a question mark? Growth is kind of good to have, y’know. Raging capitalist Bernie Sanders, for example, would rather there be more wealth and redistribute it rather than have not a lot to distribute and call it good. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:In a weird way, America is in a uniquely good position to become socialist, since it wouldn't have to deal with the same degree of Western retribution that smaller countries have had to deal with (like, say, Yugoslavia or something). Most countries have "the US and other Western countries will sanction us (if not flat-out declare war or something)" as a significant barrier to becoming socialist, but the US would be able to avoid most of that. Well, in the case of the US, it is arguably it has enough infrastructure (still...) and resources it could be relatively self-sufficient, but I do think it would have to compete with the rest of the world at some level. It could work if the transition is relatively peaceful, and the US pretty much just needs to "coast" more or less and investment doesn't really need to be directed by the state more than it would in any other developed state. Also, there would still be the need for some type of banking/financial system even if it is individuals/cooperatives needing lines of credit (obviously the Soviet Union/PRC also had banking systems.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
The principle reason America is primed for a successful socialist revolution is massive wealth inequality coupled with easy access to firearms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Eh, I think Bukharin had plenty of his own issues, especially once you get to the crisis of the later NEP and essentially where does the Soviet Union go from there.  I was just making a smartass "Bernie would have won" reference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I give you credit, that is a definition. Well, I'm considering growth a good thing. That's why I mentioned less growth as a con. I just think the pros of not letting private investors dictate/influence business behavior (and letting labor have more influence instead) outweigh that con. Also, growth could still be possible through debt or things like government grants (or just a business decide to reinvest money, which I guess is the most obvious way). Ardennes posted:Well, in the case of the US, it is arguably it has enough infrastructure (still...) and resources it could be relatively self-sufficient, but I do think it would have to compete with the rest of the world at some level. It could work if the transition is relatively peaceful, and the US pretty much just needs to "coast" more or less and investment doesn't really need to be directed by the state more than it would in any other developed state. Yeah, I almost said there would be no capital markets, but you would presumably still want the ability to take out debt (though that isn't the same thing as actually owning a company and its profits).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The principle reason America is primed for a successful socialist revolution is massive wealth inequality coupled with easy access to firearms. I mean, we have theoretically easy access to firearms, but a lot of the sale, distribution, and ownership of firearms is concentrated among mostly right-wing shitheads. It also wouldn't make a difference if the military didn't defect in large percentages and bring heavy machinery with them, and that is very unlikely to happen with most of the air force and navy. Socialism is unlikely to come to the United States in the form of armed revolution, or at least, not successfully.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, we have theoretically easy access to firearms, but a lot of the sale, distribution, and ownership of firearms is concentrated among mostly right-wing shitheads. It also wouldn't make a difference if the military didn't defect in large percentages and bring heavy machinery with them, and that is very unlikely to happen with most of the air force and navy. Granted, I think the closest we could get would be a New Deal 2, mostly to keep the population from revolting (basically the actual reason for the New Deal). That said, I think a far-right authoritarian state is more right up our alley.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Socialism is unlikely to come to the United States in the form of armed revolution, or at least, not successfully. Arming yourself doesn't have to be a means to anything. It can be a deterrent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, I think the closest we could get would be a New Deal 2, mostly to keep the population from revolting (basically the actual reason for the New Deal). That said, I think a far-right authoritarian state is more right up our alley. I think this is more likely yes, on both counts. Kilroy posted:Arming yourself doesn't have to be a means to anything. It can be a deterrent. I’m not strictly speaking opposed to the idea of leftists attempting to arm themselves in an organized manner, but I think we have to recognize that this would lead to a strong state crackdown, especially against marginalized peoples.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I’m not really sure I agree with most of these, several of them are either state capitalist or have liberalized since the fall of the Soviet Union. Vietnam and Cuba are arguable, but the DPRK is much closer to feudalism than socialism. the government of the dprk isn't just the kim family no matter how hard the west tries to convince everyone otherwise
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:the government of the dprk isn't just the kim family no matter how hard the west tries to convince everyone otherwise Oh are you actually going to go to bat for North Korea? Lmao
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Oh are you actually going to go to bat for North Korea? Lmao Are you new here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I’m not strictly speaking opposed to the idea of leftists attempting to arm themselves in an organized manner, but I think we have to recognize that this would lead to a strong state crackdown, especially against marginalized peoples.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Are you new here? I’m aware that he’s a tankie, yes. Kilroy posted:That's going to happen anyway once socialists start taking and exercising power. It's a lot harder to get cops to go into armed neighborhoods and gently caress with people and get shot at, than it is to get them to prey on the powerless. Cops will crack skulls for free when the going is easy, but they're not going to risk their lives on the Chamber of Commerce's say-so. I think this is moderately naive, we already live in a world where many gangs have access to automatic weapons and that doesn’t deter the police. They just militarize further in response.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Oh are you actually going to go to bat for North Korea? Lmao oh are you taking a statement of fact as "going to bat" because you only see politics as team sports? Lmao just Lmao.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:the government of the dprk isn't just the kim family no matter how hard the west tries to convince everyone otherwise
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Death to the mods. Death to capitalism. Spare me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Spare me. No, you shall be devoured!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Spare me. #NotAllMods
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Arming yourself doesn't have to be a means to anything. It can be a deterrent. Lightning Knight posted:I’m not strictly speaking opposed to the idea of leftists attempting to arm themselves in an organized manner, but I think we have to recognize that this would lead to a strong state crackdown, especially against marginalized peoples. It's probably worth busting out the concrete example we have of exactly this thing happening. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act The Black Panthers armed themselves to deter police brutality. The response was a gun control law signed by Ronald Reagan, who was Governor of California at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
The most concrete example is cointelpro: an FBI program that (among other things) assassinated black panther leaders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
the reality is any left movement that doesn't want to get throttled in the crib by an even stronger state apparatus than in the panther days will have to be extra careful not to advocate for violence or be seen as doing it not that it matters — when they want to arrest you, they'll arrest you
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Spare me. But sacrifices must be made for the good of the people. We'll miss you KM.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:13 |
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:the reality is any left movement that doesn't want to get throttled in the crib by an even stronger state apparatus than in the panther days will have to be extra careful not to advocate for violence or be seen as doing it Bullshit. They will crush whatever they feel is a threat. The goal should be the creation of both parties that can act within the shstem while creating paralal systems like the original sons of liberty did in 1774. Either the system will accept that liberalism in all of its forms is a rotten edifice and let it be replaced, or well new systems that go around the edifice. Because the system in that case will eventually collapse and the other option are subhuman nazis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 06:17
|
|