(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
rudatron posted:if real socialism is the worker own of the means of production, and the dictatorship of the workers, then that necessarily excludes authoritarianism, because you can't both ration power among the populace, and then concentrate it. that's a contradiction. "Not giving up power" is the whole point of a revolutionary project. You're getting bogged down in the issue of bureaucratic ossification, which is completely besides the point. It is possible even in a one-party state for internal democratic mechanisms to be sufficient to oust particular bureaucratic cliques from power in exchange for others considered more suitable to the interests of the people. You can also have a pluralistic left wing democracy while still banning all capitalist parties. That's what I mean about "authoritarianism" only having meaning within a liberal framework. You say that it's impossible for an authoritarian system to transition to a non-authoritarian one, but how exactly do you think a socialist or communist society is supposed to function? At some level you need a system in place that forbids people from possessing private property, hoarding goods and resources, reimposing commodity forms, and so on. It is all predicated on the valid authority of socialist principles, and it will require a legal apparatus that seeks to enforce it all. It's laughable that in the end you try to moralize about whether socialists or capitalists are "better" people. The issue is not one of character, it's of very base material concerns. The necessity of socialism and the overthrowing of capitalism is driven by the ongoing threat of mass death, if not the existential survival of the human race itself. Humoring a "marketplace of ideas" is a big fat waste of time, and it's ridiculous that you think it would somehow be dialectical to continue wasting time by allowing capitalists and reactionaries to retake power. The promise of 19th century liberal revolutions has not materialized, and insofar as they do within limited geographic areas it does so as a result of a colonial legacy exploited by the very same liberal governments. There is no dialectical value in constantly retreading issues of whether it's ok to have private property, if it's ok to have gay lovers or to be queer, if father really does know best, or even if global climate change is real. Pener Kropoopkin has issued a correction as of 02:33 on Jan 14, 2018 |
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
reading those posts is like opening a window into the broken mirror dimension holy balls
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It is possible even in a one-party state for internal democratic mechanisms to be sufficient to oust particular bureaucratic cliques from power in exchange for others considered more suitable to the interests of the people. Ah yes, the good old NVKD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Ah yes, the good old NVKD. I don't know how you hold in your head "NKVD makes the Soviets undemocratic" when the American Security Agencies have powers and permissions the NKVD could only dream of. The idea that multiple ideologies can control a state is nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:I don't know how you hold in your head "NKVD makes the Soviets undemocratic" when the American Security Agencies have powers and permissions the NKVD could only dream of. Who said that the CIA, NSA, School of the Americas, etc. are democratic mechanisms (other than Pinochet and the other puppets that the US propped up, maybe)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Ah yes, the good old NVKD. It's possible to have a one-party state without an NKVD. I say it's possible only in a strictly technical sense, because actually making sure that one-party rule remains sufficiently open and democratic would be extremely difficult. One party rule just doesn't have a good track record, and while Cuba turned out alright you can't expect everyone to become a Cuba. I think a pluralistic democracy has greater efficacy on a countrywide scale, since it allows people to more broadly change the direction of society politically along existing institutions. It's just that what should never be an option is a return to capitalism or nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
to bring the thread back to its prerogative: is the Tropico series of games revolutionary or counter-revolutionary?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
Autism Sneaks posted:to bring the thread back to its prerogative: is the Tropico series of games revolutionary or counter-revolutionary? depends on your playstyle
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
can someone lock the two fruits sucking each other off on their own thread. i want to talk about video games (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
when cliques in one party states are ousted, it's not because the people as a whole demand it, but usually because the middlemen necessary for the functioning of the state prefer that new clique over the old, in the same way aristocratic lords could get rowdy and replace a king with a new one. it's not about adherence to any sort of internal goal, but personal self-interest of members of the system. anyway, the base issue is that the measures your proposing are anti-thetical themselves to the socialist project - if the workers own the means of production, and they have real power, that would necessarily imply the power to revert back to capitalism, if they so choose. it's the existence of that choice that is the real proof of real power being delegated, instead of just formal (non existent) power, or 'rights on paper'. ideally, they'd keep choosing socialism and the threat of reversion would naturally dissipate, as the vast majority of the people lose interest in any historical regression. then, after the popular legitimization of it occurs, you can talk about legalistic enforcement of socialist principles, in the same way democratic rule is enforced anyway, through popular consensus that is imposed through the social contract but you can't do it before, because the entire premise of socialism is bringing power to ordinary people, and you can't claim to do that while in practice taking it away, which is what you're doing if you're taking away that choice to occur, before it can be made. there's no shortcut around the popular debate over issues, that is both stable and efficient. if you want to prevent retreading issues like you say you do, the only viable way to do that is to have the vast majority of people no longer want to retread them, and to have taken one side or another decisively. that's a process that expedited under a system where ordinary people have power, because being granted power promotes engagement, and you don't have certain specially powerful people making their views, which coincide with their interests, more advertised or appear more popular than they are. ie the majority of people already think climate change is real and human made, but that's not reflected politically in the US, because it's all about special interests, and so the political dialectic cannot continue
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:can someone lock the two fruits sucking each other off on their own thread. i want to talk about video games
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:15
|
|
|
I can sort of see where Pener is coming from that if we accept that Capitalism Is Bad, then why would we welcome the presence of Capitalists in the political representation of a socialist state? I mean, we already accept that, ideally, we shouldn't give Fascists a platform for speech and political representation even in current democracies, so why would Capitalists, heck, even Monarchists, be any different? You're just going to make them vote all they want in committees and legislatures while hoping that they never gain enough seats to threaten your agenda? I just don't know how you reconcile that with the idea that banning political parties and forming a one-party state is also not good either. EDIT: okay, so apparently per rudatron's post above mine, you really should "trust the process", that people should be free to "vote themselves back into Capitalism" if they want to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I can sort of see where Pener is coming from that if we accept that Capitalism Is Bad, then why would we welcome the presence of Capitalists in the political representation of a socialist state? i was under the impression pener very explicitly came out in support of total authoritarianism if it’s done by leftists a couple of pages back and thus having a one party state is good and proper by his measure, and that such a system is completely democratic because all the people with the “right” marxist opinions would be allowed to do democracy
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Authoritarianism is good when it's leftist. You're not gonna convince me that it's good we're doomed to spend the rest of our lives arguing over whether or not it's ok to miscegenate, or if taxation is theft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Insisting that we should continue entertaining the legitimacy of liberalism, conservatism, and fascism in light of the historical record is farcical, and is itself rooted in liberal pretensions to legalistic freedoms. I'm not going to entertain some punk accusations of paternalism for the sake of having to constantly remain vigilant against, say, privatizing public healthcare. If you're not committed to overthrowing capitalism and keeping it that way, you're not a real leftist. You're a liberal with left wing sympathies. So, yes, assuming the conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
rudatron posted:then, after the popular legitimization of it occurs, you can talk about legalistic enforcement of socialist principles, in the same way democratic rule is enforced anyway, through popular consensus that is imposed through the social contract "social contract" is an authoritarian principle though. The whole point of the social contract is that you tacitly accept the authority of the state in exchange for what limited rights and freedoms you do have. You've got the historical process completely reversed. Any society that commits itself to a socialist project has already made the decision to preclude the choice for a return to capitalism. If we take your claim at face value, then the socialist government would constantly have to be ratified over and over again, and that's the essential principle of democratic socialism. But SDs have such a terrible track record it doesn't even exist. They could never even attempt to attack capitalism in the first place, and many SD governments got coup'd anyway in the name of anticommunism. You're insisting that a socialist society should be held to some kind of liberal standard that absolutely nobody else holds themselves to, not even actually existing liberal democracies. Theesh, I claim, eesh pure eyedeyology. *sniff*
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
main conclusions from this thread: rudatron really quite good, pener much worse than previously thought (and how!) and of course smac is still the best civ to have existed
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:32
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Any society that commits itself to a socialist project has already made the decision to preclude the choice for a return to capitalism. Please define 'society': 50% + 1 of the eligible voting population, all the eligible voting population, all the population?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:35
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Who said that the CIA, NSA, School of the Americas, etc. are democratic mechanisms (other than Pinochet and the other puppets that the US propped up, maybe)? I dunno dude but lmao if you think Western democracies don't do plenty of repression of ideological dissidents, it's simply the nature of state power. My point is ideological democracy has only ever existed when societial structures are at their weakest. IE: when the status quo is not powerful enough to suppress dissent. This is as true of Norway as it is Saudi Arabia, or Cuba. The utility(and government structure is and has always been an argument of utility, not morality) of a multiparty democracy is so different factions and interest groups within the state's ideology get a voice in how things are run.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Please define 'society': 50% + 1 of the eligible voting population, all the eligible voting population, all the population? I think you'll find the ends justify the means. Cue Homework Explainer sweeping in to justify the Great Purge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:American Security Agencies have powers and permissions the NKVD could only dream of. got I wish the american security agencies could execute 90% of congress lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:44
|
|
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:got I wish the american security agencies could execute 90% of congress lol Tolerable in Obama's time, terrible in Trump's time. Contra the Soviet model, allowing the Great Men who run your society to purge the ruling bodies of said society is real bad. Stalin and Mao had it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Please define 'society': 50% + 1 of the eligible voting population, all the eligible voting population, all the population? Typically the political direction of a society is almost never actually decided electorally, so the question of voting is immaterial. Most ratifying elections as such are post-hoc, and the choice isn't real anyway. It's the most powerful faction that wins a political contest, and the vast majority of the public which decides to go along with their leadership. Whether or not it's truly popular has no bearing on the political reality. Everyone constantly makes the collective decision to recreate the authority of the state, and only a critical mass of opposition could ever do otherwise. Capitalism will never be overthrown by the ballot. It could only ever be supplanted either by outright seizing the state in a violent revolution, or by constructing a new society in parallel to the established one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:i was under the impression pener very explicitly came out in support of total authoritarianism if it’s done by leftists a couple of pages back and thus having a one party state is good and proper by his measure, and that such a system is completely democratic because all the people with the “right” marxist opinions would be allowed to do democracy Well I mean we can't have cucks like you under socialism. Which is what Gulag system would be for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:Tolerable in Obama's time, terrible in Trump's time. Contra the Soviet model, allowing the Great Men who run your society to purge the ruling bodies of said society is real bad. Stalin and Mao had it wrong. pener is legit the living parody right wingers use when they say “ah maybe it’ll work this time”
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Typically the political direction of a society is almost never actually decided electorally, so the question of voting is immaterial. Most ratifying elections as such are post-hoc, and the choice isn't real anyway. It's the most powerful faction that wins a political contest, and the vast majority of the public which decides to go along with their leadership. Whether or not it's truly popular has no bearing on the political reality. Everyone constantly makes the collective decision to recreate the authority of the state, and only a critical mass of opposition could ever do otherwise. Capitalism will never be overthrown by the ballot. It could only ever be supplanted either by outright seizing the state in a violent revolution, or by constructing a new society in parallel to the established one. So how is society committing itself to socialism, then?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:got I wish the american security agencies could execute 90% of congress lol ah, the humble beginnings https://twitter.com/sovietvisuals/status/816405471280197636
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:So how is society committing itself to socialism, then? It'll be when socialism or communism are the dominant political ideologies. No less than that. It's also how we can tell that society is committing itself to capitalism, because the vast majority isn't actively resisting it. Apathy is also a political decision. Doing nothing is a tacit legitimization of authority. Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:Tolerable in Obama's time, terrible in Trump's time. Contra the Soviet model, allowing the Great Men who run your society to purge the ruling bodies of said society is real bad. Stalin and Mao had it wrong. We do allow great men to purge the ruling bodies of society. They're called appointments and nominations. Every new president gets to pick his own cabinet, and if he wants to he could throw everyone out and bring in a completely new staff. It's not quite as permanent as a single bullet to the base of the skull & a shallow grave, but it's still a purge of institutional authorities. More broadly speaking, the Trump administration's justice appointments will dog our legal system for decades, and this is all as a result of a decisively undemocratic electoral system within a nominally liberal framework.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
if we redefine the words to not mean anything the bad things and the good things are exactly the same actually, like for example you could take “purge” and refer to replacing officials in their posts, and equate that to putting the folks you don’t like against the wall and shooting them and their families dead,
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:10
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:if we redefine the words to not mean anything the bad things and the good things are exactly the same actually, like for example you could take “purge” and refer to replacing officials in their posts, and equate that to putting the folks you don’t like against the wall and shooting them and their families dead,
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:13
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's also how we can tell that society is committing itself to capitalism, because the vast majority isn't actively resisting it. By violent revolution? Because even if, let's say 80-85% of the population was 'actively resisting', if the remaining 15-20% consisted of the military and leadership, I'm pretty certain they'll win and most people are clearly not in the mood to be in a ditch with a bullet in the head for their troubles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:main conclusions from this thread: rudatron really quite good, pener much worse than previously thought (and how!) finally bulgogi hoagie has released his new c-spam power rankings
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:By violent revolution? Because even if, let's say 80-85% of the population was 'actively resisting', if the remaining 15-20% consisted of the military and leadership, I'm pretty certain they'll win and most people are clearly not in the mood to be in a ditch with a bullet in the head for their troubles. I explicitly gave you an alternative to violent revolution, come on now. "Military" and "leadership" can't operate isolated from the constant economic activity which is necessary to recreate their power. If all the arms industries became occupied and ground to a halt, then they could probably force soldiers to kill a lot of people I guess but not everyone. Not even close. We don't even have a big enough arsenal to maintain extended bombing campaigns in 3rd world countries, let alone our own. Pener Kropoopkin has issued a correction as of 04:30 on Jan 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:The utility(and government structure is and has always been an argument of utility, not morality) of a multiparty democracy is so different factions and interest groups within the state's ideology get a voice in how things are run. this happens in one-party states, it's what other parties in the governing coalition and consultative bodies like the cppcc do. it's also what local communist party organizations do
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:By violent revolution? Because even if, let's say 80-85% of the population was 'actively resisting', if the remaining 15-20% consisted of the military and leadership, I'm pretty certain they'll win and most people are clearly not in the mood to be in a ditch with a bullet in the head for their troubles. You do realize the military is made up of individuals right? Presumably if socialism ever became the dominant ideology of the general public, this would apply to soldiers too. As was the case in pretty much every single past revolution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:this happens in one-party states, it's what other parties in the governing coalition and consultative bodies like the cppcc do. it's also what local communist party organizations do lenin banned party factions 3 years in lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:if we redefine the words to not mean anything the bad things and the good things are exactly the same actually, like for example you could take “purge” and refer to replacing officials in their posts, and equate that to putting the folks you don’t like against the wall and shooting them and their families dead, "purge" does refer to drumming people out of their posts or out of the party. there were purges outside of '38 and the postwar years that involved exactly that, without executions. big surprise you're dumb enough not to know this
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:"purge" does refer to drumming people out of their posts or out of the party. there were purges outside of '38 and the postwar years that involved exactly that, without executions. big surprise you're dumb enough not to know this so your saying that 'purge' meant one thing, and then it was changed to mean another, different thing? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:lenin banned party factions 3 years in lol formal factions and unofficial currents within the party aren't the same thing you massive idiot
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:finally bulgogi hoagie has released his new c-spam power rankings good snipe, feel free to tell your buddy pener that maybe authoritarianism is bad any day now
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:33
|
|