5 ms·

>Every single time, over dozens of times, it resulted in bloody dictatorships. It is very much worth studying why this has happened and what kind of methods ca

by kunimu 9y ago

>Every single time, over dozens of times, it resulted in bloody dictatorships. It is very much worth studying why this has happened and what kind of methods can be used to avert it. Not only is Marxism-Leninism not the only form of Socialist praxis (neither is Marxism the only Socialist theory for that matter), but it's unwise to dismiss "failures" for the reason that they were authoritarian. Allende, Sankara's Burkina Faso, the Paris Commune, revolutionary Catalonia, and most recently Rojava are examples of the Socialist project experiencing some faults but not nearly as uncharitably as you are painting them here.

ucaetano 9y ago
> Not only is Marxism-Leninism not the only form of Socialist praxis (neither is Marxism the only Socialist theory for that matter), but it's unwise to dismiss "failures" for the reason that they were authoritarian. I'm dismissing failures because every single time it ended in bloody dictatorships, but no, This Time It Will Be Different®. No, it won't. Funny how you talk about learning with the failures of history, but you keep insisting in trying again a system that again and again has proven itself to be horrible. And again, that's when the world has been the best that it has ever been. In 60 years, extreme poverty went from ~60% to <10% of the global population because of free trade and globalization. Free trade was the largest income distribution process in history, shifting value from developed countries to developing countries. Sure, there is still a lot to be done, but the current system has worked miracles. It can be improved, but proposing a dramatic change to a system that ALWAYS results in bloody dictatorships makes no sense. Keep your disastrous social and economic experiments to yourself. Socialism has done harm enough.
- kunimu 9y ago
  >but no, This Time It Will Be Different®. Why do you think strawman thought-terminating cliches are an acceptable level of discourse? At best they serve to be distracting and needlessly hostile. >but you keep insisting in trying again a system that again and again has proven itself to be horrible. Not really; have you heard of Badiou's concept of the Communist Hypothesis? His argument is that Socialism, well, Communism has existed as an Idea for centuries, it is always the force to break down the "present state of things", it is the first element of society, the subversive one, to oppose the action of the State. To dismiss thirty years of research into Communism, creating branches such as anarchist Communism, communalism, feminist anarchism, Socialist technocracy and others with faux-empiricism is a little heavy handed in my view. As for your support of the wonders of capitalism, neither I, nor Marx, Engels or any contemporary Communist denies its push to reduce poverty. >shifting value from developed countries to developing countries. "Shifting value" is a very strange way of saying that developing countries are being systematically exploited due to the low cost of labour because they have almost no training. >but the current system has worked miracles So did the feudal system, and in fact so did the Soviet system (which I do not by any means support). >It can be improved So can Socialism. >but proposing a dramatic change to a system that ALWAYS results in bloody dictatorships makes no sense. Capitalism itself was extremely dramatic, it came "soaked from head to toe in blood" as Marx put it. In fact, he dedicates two chapters of his magnum opus to detailing the bloody history of capitalism and the laws passed in Western Europe that allowed it to flourish.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    > Why do you think strawman thought-terminating cliches are an acceptable level of discourse? At best they serve to be distracting and needlessly hostile. But that's the essence of your argument. You are proposing to try again something that 100% of the times led to bloody dictatorships, claiming that this time it will be different due to some vague, hand-wavy reason. > "Shifting value" is a very strange way of saying that developing countries are being systematically exploited due to the low cost of labour because they have almost no training. Yeah, millions being moved out of poverty is the same as "exploited". > So did the feudal system, and in fact so did the Soviet system (which I do not by any means support). No. Unless one of those systems did something like removing 50% of the world population from extreme poverty in half a century. Neither did. Not only that, the Soviet system purposefully murdered millions. And the key word here is "purposefully". Every system results in deaths, the Soviet (and all socialists) fall into a special category where death is part of the governing process. See Holodomor. Killing Fields. Etc. > So can Socialism. I'll say "maybe" to give you the benefit of the doubt, but do we need to kill millions again to find out based on your "hunch"? No, thank you very much. > as Marx put it And you keep citing Marx as if he is a reasonable source, that puzzles me. He's long dead, just as his economic theories. Keep them dead.
    - kunimu 9y ago
      >claiming that this time it will be different due to some vague, hand-wavy reason. Because I'm not an advocate of Marxism-Leninism nor Soviet state capitalism, or depriving people of life. >Yeah, millions being moved out of poverty is the same as "exploited". Both can be true, the forms of exploitation have changed but the essence remains the same - the massive extraction of surplus from those in too dire a situation to do anything about it, especially in sweatshops. >removing 50% of the world population from extreme poverty in half a century The Soviet model transformed Russia from a barely industrialised feudal backwater into competing with the world's largest superpowers and enduring a world war and making extreme advancements in science and technology while facing constant embargoes. It lifted many people to much better standards of living and education and liberty. >where death is part of the governing process. I disagree that this is a feature of Socialism, it is a feature of an authoritarian state. Pinochet's Chile and Hitler's Nazi Germany were destructive even though neither were Socialist societies. > as if he is a reasonable source Marx is highly respected in the fields of classical political economy, philosophy, critical theory, sociology, journalism and revolutionary and liberation movements. Even his bourgeois critics hold him as one of the best critics of capitalism. The continuance of his ideas which goes on to this day in new Communist projects and research within philosophy by the likes of Badiou, Zizek, Negri, and the Frankfurt School has ensured he hasn't died. As his friend Engels said at his funeral: his name will endure through the ages.
Jach 9y ago
The criticism is that it leads to "bloody dictatorships", not necessarily that authoritarian systems are bad. Before the 20th century there were many authoritarian systems (empires and monarchies) that oversaw some of the best governed periods of human history. I'm sure you believe if you controlled a country, you would do a much better job and not make the same mistakes that lead to a bloody dictatorship and worse outcomes for the poor. Excuse us if most of the rest here don't believe that.
- SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
  So sure, there are a few benevolent dictators here and there... but what's the ratio of benevolent to malevolent dictators/authoritarians? Is there such a a stat?
  - Jach 9y ago
    Do you count Kings as dictators? I don't really (the middle eastern monarchies have weathered the chaos in the region, if Kings were no different from dictators you would expect at least some of them to fall too...) but there is of course such a thing as a 'bad king'. I recalled this simplified analysis of Polish monarchs: https://archive.is/QEY1n https://archive.is/QEY1n tldr 250 out of 835 years of bad monarchs, or a 30% failure ratio by time. 18 individual monarchs out of 48, or a 37.5% failure rate by person. Very few 20th century dictatorships have even survived into the 21st century. I've seen similar ratings for Roman emperors as well but confess I don't remember the details, I wouldn't be surprised if someone has further compiled information to address exactly this question for other European lines of monarchs, the various Chinese dynasties, Japan's weird history, etc. (https://archive.is/I42xd https://archive.is/I42xd is a good reminder of the excesses, no form of government is innocent.)

by kunimu 9y ago

ucaetano 9y ago

> Not only is Marxism-Leninism not the only form of Socialist praxis (neither is Marxism the only Socialist theory for that matter), but it's unwise to dismiss "failures" for the reason that they were authoritarian. I'm dismissing failures because every single time it ended in bloody dictatorships, but no, This Time It Will Be Different®. No, it won't. Funny how you talk about learning with the failures of history, but you keep insisting in trying again a system that again and again has proven itself to be horrible. And again, that's when the world has been the best that it has ever been. In 60 years, extreme poverty went from ~60% to <10% of the global population because of free trade and globalization. Free trade was the largest income distribution process in history, shifting value from developed countries to developing countries. Sure, there is still a lot to be done, but the current system has worked miracles. It can be improved, but proposing a dramatic change to a system that ALWAYS results in bloody dictatorships makes no sense. Keep your disastrous social and economic experiments to yourself. Socialism has done harm enough.

kunimu 9y ago
>but no, This Time It Will Be Different®. Why do you think strawman thought-terminating cliches are an acceptable level of discourse? At best they serve to be distracting and needlessly hostile. >but you keep insisting in trying again a system that again and again has proven itself to be horrible. Not really; have you heard of Badiou's concept of the Communist Hypothesis? His argument is that Socialism, well, Communism has existed as an Idea for centuries, it is always the force to break down the "present state of things", it is the first element of society, the subversive one, to oppose the action of the State. To dismiss thirty years of research into Communism, creating branches such as anarchist Communism, communalism, feminist anarchism, Socialist technocracy and others with faux-empiricism is a little heavy handed in my view. As for your support of the wonders of capitalism, neither I, nor Marx, Engels or any contemporary Communist denies its push to reduce poverty. >shifting value from developed countries to developing countries. "Shifting value" is a very strange way of saying that developing countries are being systematically exploited due to the low cost of labour because they have almost no training. >but the current system has worked miracles So did the feudal system, and in fact so did the Soviet system (which I do not by any means support). >It can be improved So can Socialism. >but proposing a dramatic change to a system that ALWAYS results in bloody dictatorships makes no sense. Capitalism itself was extremely dramatic, it came "soaked from head to toe in blood" as Marx put it. In fact, he dedicates two chapters of his magnum opus to detailing the bloody history of capitalism and the laws passed in Western Europe that allowed it to flourish.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > Why do you think strawman thought-terminating cliches are an acceptable level of discourse? At best they serve to be distracting and needlessly hostile. But that's the essence of your argument. You are proposing to try again something that 100% of the times led to bloody dictatorships, claiming that this time it will be different due to some vague, hand-wavy reason. > "Shifting value" is a very strange way of saying that developing countries are being systematically exploited due to the low cost of labour because they have almost no training. Yeah, millions being moved out of poverty is the same as "exploited". > So did the feudal system, and in fact so did the Soviet system (which I do not by any means support). No. Unless one of those systems did something like removing 50% of the world population from extreme poverty in half a century. Neither did. Not only that, the Soviet system purposefully murdered millions. And the key word here is "purposefully". Every system results in deaths, the Soviet (and all socialists) fall into a special category where death is part of the governing process. See Holodomor. Killing Fields. Etc. > So can Socialism. I'll say "maybe" to give you the benefit of the doubt, but do we need to kill millions again to find out based on your "hunch"? No, thank you very much. > as Marx put it And you keep citing Marx as if he is a reasonable source, that puzzles me. He's long dead, just as his economic theories. Keep them dead.
  - kunimu 9y ago
    >claiming that this time it will be different due to some vague, hand-wavy reason. Because I'm not an advocate of Marxism-Leninism nor Soviet state capitalism, or depriving people of life. >Yeah, millions being moved out of poverty is the same as "exploited". Both can be true, the forms of exploitation have changed but the essence remains the same - the massive extraction of surplus from those in too dire a situation to do anything about it, especially in sweatshops. >removing 50% of the world population from extreme poverty in half a century The Soviet model transformed Russia from a barely industrialised feudal backwater into competing with the world's largest superpowers and enduring a world war and making extreme advancements in science and technology while facing constant embargoes. It lifted many people to much better standards of living and education and liberty. >where death is part of the governing process. I disagree that this is a feature of Socialism, it is a feature of an authoritarian state. Pinochet's Chile and Hitler's Nazi Germany were destructive even though neither were Socialist societies. > as if he is a reasonable source Marx is highly respected in the fields of classical political economy, philosophy, critical theory, sociology, journalism and revolutionary and liberation movements. Even his bourgeois critics hold him as one of the best critics of capitalism. The continuance of his ideas which goes on to this day in new Communist projects and research within philosophy by the likes of Badiou, Zizek, Negri, and the Frankfurt School has ensured he hasn't died. As his friend Engels said at his funeral: his name will endure through the ages.

Jach 9y ago

The criticism is that it leads to "bloody dictatorships", not necessarily that authoritarian systems are bad. Before the 20th century there were many authoritarian systems (empires and monarchies) that oversaw some of the best governed periods of human history. I'm sure you believe if you controlled a country, you would do a much better job and not make the same mistakes that lead to a bloody dictatorship and worse outcomes for the poor. Excuse us if most of the rest here don't believe that.

SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
So sure, there are a few benevolent dictators here and there... but what's the ratio of benevolent to malevolent dictators/authoritarians? Is there such a a stat?
- Jach 9y ago
  Do you count Kings as dictators? I don't really (the middle eastern monarchies have weathered the chaos in the region, if Kings were no different from dictators you would expect at least some of them to fall too...) but there is of course such a thing as a 'bad king'. I recalled this simplified analysis of Polish monarchs: https://archive.is/QEY1n https://archive.is/QEY1n tldr 250 out of 835 years of bad monarchs, or a 30% failure ratio by time. 18 individual monarchs out of 48, or a 37.5% failure rate by person. Very few 20th century dictatorships have even survived into the 21st century. I've seen similar ratings for Roman emperors as well but confess I don't remember the details, I wouldn't be surprised if someone has further compiled information to address exactly this question for other European lines of monarchs, the various Chinese dynasties, Japan's weird history, etc. (https://archive.is/I42xd https://archive.is/I42xd is a good reminder of the excesses, no form of government is innocent.)