3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.