3 ms·

>I'm more interested in the reality than the theory. Reality requires theory; you simply can't claim to make a comment on modern Socialism without reading abou

by ue_ 9y ago

>I'm more interested in the reality than the theory. Reality requires theory; you simply can't claim to make a comment on modern Socialism without reading about what theories modern Socialists have created as to how the economy should be run. I provided counterexamples to the idea that it "never worked", too. Though even if you choose to dismiss 20th century Communism, I hope you realise how ignorant it is of you to dismiss modern innovations in theory, which has not yet been put to the test. Do you see how silly it is to dismiss a theory you haven't even read about? At the moment you appear to be the monarch who says that civil liberties for the populace look great in book form, but implementation of liberties has never worked. What of Lockean liberalism or even capitalism, which has thus far had disastrous consequences and foundations in terrible subjugation and enclosure in Western Europe?

gadders 9y ago
>> Reality requires theory; you simply can't claim to make a comment on modern Socialism without reading about what theories modern Socialists have created as to how the economy should be run Reality does require theory, but in the same way I don't really need to care about how an internal combustion engine works to drive a car, I don't need to care about your theories. The evidence for whether a theory is any good or not is how it works in reality. Do either of the two examples you gave still exists? I think it ironic that you raise the subject of civil liberties, given that they are complete anathema to socialism and must be overcome for any sort of socialism to be implemented.
- ue_ 9y ago
  > they are complete anathema to socialism and must be overcome for any sort of socialism to be implemented. False, Oscar Wilde writes about how Socialism is the very peak of individualism, core freedom for artists and scientists especially who nowadays are limited severely in their freedom by the tyranny of want and the subservience of market forces which degrades culture until it is only the shell of what it once was. He's not the only one; Marcuse and Adorno have also noted this. George Orwell too. In fact, Communism is called the epitome of free association of people for the reason that it is so liberating. >The evidence for whether a theory is any good or not is how it works in reality. Not really, but if you want to go by that measure then capitalism must be immediately replaced. >Do either of the two examples you gave still exists? No, they were both crushed by invading forces; in the case of the Paris Commune by the French government and in the case of Revolutionary Catalonia by Franco while being attacked also by the authoritarian Soviets. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that it is within the interest of governments to oppose Communism, because Communism is a liberation movement which opposes the state. It is also within the interest of capital to crush such movements which attempt to free themselves from it. This is extremely obvious. >I don't really need to care about how an internal combustion engine works to drive a car So you choose to remain ignorant as to what philosophy drives the world which you live in? Why would you do such a thing? I just don't understand it, other than perhaps laziness.

by ue_ 9y ago

gadders 9y ago

>> Reality requires theory; you simply can't claim to make a comment on modern Socialism without reading about what theories modern Socialists have created as to how the economy should be run Reality does require theory, but in the same way I don't really need to care about how an internal combustion engine works to drive a car, I don't need to care about your theories. The evidence for whether a theory is any good or not is how it works in reality. Do either of the two examples you gave still exists? I think it ironic that you raise the subject of civil liberties, given that they are complete anathema to socialism and must be overcome for any sort of socialism to be implemented.

ue_ 9y ago
> they are complete anathema to socialism and must be overcome for any sort of socialism to be implemented. False, Oscar Wilde writes about how Socialism is the very peak of individualism, core freedom for artists and scientists especially who nowadays are limited severely in their freedom by the tyranny of want and the subservience of market forces which degrades culture until it is only the shell of what it once was. He's not the only one; Marcuse and Adorno have also noted this. George Orwell too. In fact, Communism is called the epitome of free association of people for the reason that it is so liberating. >The evidence for whether a theory is any good or not is how it works in reality. Not really, but if you want to go by that measure then capitalism must be immediately replaced. >Do either of the two examples you gave still exists? No, they were both crushed by invading forces; in the case of the Paris Commune by the French government and in the case of Revolutionary Catalonia by Franco while being attacked also by the authoritarian Soviets. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that it is within the interest of governments to oppose Communism, because Communism is a liberation movement which opposes the state. It is also within the interest of capital to crush such movements which attempt to free themselves from it. This is extremely obvious. >I don't really need to care about how an internal combustion engine works to drive a car So you choose to remain ignorant as to what philosophy drives the world which you live in? Why would you do such a thing? I just don't understand it, other than perhaps laziness.