4 ms·

> Reading Lenin's letters in the Lenin museum in Tampere was very eye opening and educational. Since when is Lenin an authority on communism? He was a thug, sa

by maratd 11y ago

> Reading Lenin's letters in the Lenin museum in Tampere was very eye opening and educational. Since when is Lenin an authority on communism? He was a thug, same as Stalin. > cottage industries (local farmers and makers etc) existing and operating in a free market. To his credit, they did do some very interesting things in the 20s. Then Stalin came to power and that ended. > Again social ownership of the means of production does not necessarily mean state ownership. Yes, it does. The USSR was NEVER communist. United Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. It was a truly socialist state. All the means of production were state controlled, but private property did exist. The GOAL was to eventually reach communism. > Today Europe is largely a social democracy which aims to walk the line between socialism and capitalism. Ok, but the line between socialism and capitalism isn't socialism. As previously mentioned, a welfare state seems a more apt description. > Socialism has had a major impact on European politics. Agreed. > there is not such a fervent religious belief in unbridled capitalism as one would find in the States There is no "fervent religious belief in unbridled capitalism" in the US. Zero. Capitalism is a mixture of free market and government subsidy. The government doesn't manufacture anything, but does get heavily involved in the markets through subsidies, regulations, financial instruments, outright purchases of goods, etc. Generally a 70/30 split is considered the norm, where 30% of all market activity is government controlled. Nobody is excited over this. There is a "fervent" belief in the free market and the idea that capitalism isn't ideal and that we should tweak that split and reduce government involvement. That we should move toward a free market. That gets people excited.

rorykoehler 11y ago
>There is a "fervent" belief in the free market and the idea that capitalism isn't ideal and that we should tweak that split and reduce government involvement. That we should move toward a free market. That gets people excited. Serious question. How is this any different than unbridled capitalism? No government involvement and a laissez-faire approach to the market is exactly what unbridled capitalism looks like in my understanding. Just because Socialism is in the name USSR doesn't necessarily mean anything. If we are to look at the name Nazi which was the National Socialists Party and their Italian counterpart was a major proponent (even father of) of Corporatism, a rather extreme form of capitalism (though in the case of USSR it might be true, as I said earlier Communism is a form of Socialism). The Welfare State has it's roots in Socialism. Socialism is an umbrella term. Anarchism is a main branch of Socialism (the other two being reformism and Marxism) and to be fair extreme Anarchists don't want a State at all so Socialism cannot and does not mean State ownership. This is one of the major confusions into what Socialism means and kills any possible meaningful discussion around the topic, especially in the USA where Communism and Socialism are used interchangeably. The spectrum of allowable political ideology in the USA is so narrow that only center-right and far-right exist. This is a very unhealthy situation as there are great ideas to be found from across the political spectrum. Just to be clear I'm not saying this to say Europe is better or anything but I do find it an unfortunate state of affairs. Also Lenin didn't kill 50m+ people just because he was paranoid. You can't lump them together. Stalin was arguably worse than Hitler. While Lenin was certainly not a saint, he was an intellectual with brilliant ideas, operating in an extremely difficult environment.
- maratd 11y ago
  First, read over your post. You capitalize "Socialism" everywhere, but seem to purposefully lowercase capitalism. If you are so attached to ideology, rather than the results those ideologies bring, we can't have a serious conversation. > Serious question. How is this any different than unbridled capitalism? "Unbridled capitalism", no matter how unrestrained, denotes heavy government involvement by virtue of the second word in there. > No government involvement and a laissez-faire approach to the market is exactly what unbridled capitalism looks like in my understanding. Your understanding is wrong. Capitalism requires the accumulation of substantial capital in private hands and its application. And not just any hands, very specific hands, where that capital is magnified. You can't have that kind of distribution and application of capital without government involvement. Eminent domain, government contracts, grants, regulations, etc. all direct the flow of capital to the few individuals blessed to wield it. In short, the government controls and directs the flow of capital. That's capitalism. > Just because Socialism is in the name USSR doesn't necessarily mean anything. Yes, it does. It means those who were at the center of the creation of the state saw the enterprise as a socialist one. Even your friend Lenin. > If we are to look at the name Nazi which was the National Socialists Party and their Italian counterpart was a major proponent (even father of) of Corporatism, a rather extreme form of capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Economics "Nazis also promised social policies like a national labour service, state-provided health care, guaranteed pensions, and an agrarian settlement program." "To tie farmers to their land, selling agricultural land was prohibited." "Farm ownership was nominally private, but business monopoly rights were granted to marketing boards to control production and prices with a quota system." Sounds like state controlled means of production to me. I can go on, but you get the point. They were clearly socialist. > The Welfare State has it's roots in Socialism. Yes. > Socialism is an umbrella term. No. We defined it a few posts above. > Anarchism is a main branch of Socialism > to be fair extreme Anarchists don't want a State at all so Socialism cannot and does not mean State ownership You're skipping steps there. Socialism -> Communism -> Anarchism. Communists aren't fans of government either. They believe(d) that once all private property is out of the picture, there would be no need for government, since there would be no disputes over private property to mediate ... which would lead to a state without government. Leading to anarchism. > his is one of the major confusions into what Socialism means and kills any possible meaningful discussion around the topic, especially in the USA where Communism and Socialism are used interchangeably. What? The front-runner for the Democratic nomination openly calls himself a socialist ... that's clearly not true. > Also Lenin didn't kill 50m+ people just because he was paranoid. You can't lump them together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin#Red_Terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin#Red_Terror Ok, so he didn't kill 50m+, maybe 1m? How do you differentiate between a thug who was responsible for the murder of 50m and one for who was responsible for 1m? > While Lenin was certainly not a saint, he was an intellectual with brilliant ideas, operating in an extremely difficult environment. I'm glad to hear he's your hero, but at the end, he's just another murderer. An honest, decent man wouldn't be capable of what he did. Being intelligent, well spoken, even brilliant ... doesn't excuse you from being a shitty human being. Stalin was also quite brilliant. That doesn't excuse him either.

by maratd 11y ago

rorykoehler 11y ago

>There is a "fervent" belief in the free market and the idea that capitalism isn't ideal and that we should tweak that split and reduce government involvement. That we should move toward a free market. That gets people excited. Serious question. How is this any different than unbridled capitalism? No government involvement and a laissez-faire approach to the market is exactly what unbridled capitalism looks like in my understanding. Just because Socialism is in the name USSR doesn't necessarily mean anything. If we are to look at the name Nazi which was the National Socialists Party and their Italian counterpart was a major proponent (even father of) of Corporatism, a rather extreme form of capitalism (though in the case of USSR it might be true, as I said earlier Communism is a form of Socialism). The Welfare State has it's roots in Socialism. Socialism is an umbrella term. Anarchism is a main branch of Socialism (the other two being reformism and Marxism) and to be fair extreme Anarchists don't want a State at all so Socialism cannot and does not mean State ownership. This is one of the major confusions into what Socialism means and kills any possible meaningful discussion around the topic, especially in the USA where Communism and Socialism are used interchangeably. The spectrum of allowable political ideology in the USA is so narrow that only center-right and far-right exist. This is a very unhealthy situation as there are great ideas to be found from across the political spectrum. Just to be clear I'm not saying this to say Europe is better or anything but I do find it an unfortunate state of affairs. Also Lenin didn't kill 50m+ people just because he was paranoid. You can't lump them together. Stalin was arguably worse than Hitler. While Lenin was certainly not a saint, he was an intellectual with brilliant ideas, operating in an extremely difficult environment.

maratd 11y ago
First, read over your post. You capitalize "Socialism" everywhere, but seem to purposefully lowercase capitalism. If you are so attached to ideology, rather than the results those ideologies bring, we can't have a serious conversation. > Serious question. How is this any different than unbridled capitalism? "Unbridled capitalism", no matter how unrestrained, denotes heavy government involvement by virtue of the second word in there. > No government involvement and a laissez-faire approach to the market is exactly what unbridled capitalism looks like in my understanding. Your understanding is wrong. Capitalism requires the accumulation of substantial capital in private hands and its application. And not just any hands, very specific hands, where that capital is magnified. You can't have that kind of distribution and application of capital without government involvement. Eminent domain, government contracts, grants, regulations, etc. all direct the flow of capital to the few individuals blessed to wield it. In short, the government controls and directs the flow of capital. That's capitalism. > Just because Socialism is in the name USSR doesn't necessarily mean anything. Yes, it does. It means those who were at the center of the creation of the state saw the enterprise as a socialist one. Even your friend Lenin. > If we are to look at the name Nazi which was the National Socialists Party and their Italian counterpart was a major proponent (even father of) of Corporatism, a rather extreme form of capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Economics "Nazis also promised social policies like a national labour service, state-provided health care, guaranteed pensions, and an agrarian settlement program." "To tie farmers to their land, selling agricultural land was prohibited." "Farm ownership was nominally private, but business monopoly rights were granted to marketing boards to control production and prices with a quota system." Sounds like state controlled means of production to me. I can go on, but you get the point. They were clearly socialist. > The Welfare State has it's roots in Socialism. Yes. > Socialism is an umbrella term. No. We defined it a few posts above. > Anarchism is a main branch of Socialism > to be fair extreme Anarchists don't want a State at all so Socialism cannot and does not mean State ownership You're skipping steps there. Socialism -> Communism -> Anarchism. Communists aren't fans of government either. They believe(d) that once all private property is out of the picture, there would be no need for government, since there would be no disputes over private property to mediate ... which would lead to a state without government. Leading to anarchism. > his is one of the major confusions into what Socialism means and kills any possible meaningful discussion around the topic, especially in the USA where Communism and Socialism are used interchangeably. What? The front-runner for the Democratic nomination openly calls himself a socialist ... that's clearly not true. > Also Lenin didn't kill 50m+ people just because he was paranoid. You can't lump them together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin#Red_Terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin#Red_Terror Ok, so he didn't kill 50m+, maybe 1m? How do you differentiate between a thug who was responsible for the murder of 50m and one for who was responsible for 1m? > While Lenin was certainly not a saint, he was an intellectual with brilliant ideas, operating in an extremely difficult environment. I'm glad to hear he's your hero, but at the end, he's just another murderer. An honest, decent man wouldn't be capable of what he did. Being intelligent, well spoken, even brilliant ... doesn't excuse you from being a shitty human being. Stalin was also quite brilliant. That doesn't excuse him either.