2 ms·

>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

by 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.

by kunimu 9y ago

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.