6 ms·

Did the Communists not build tanks or burn coal? Is it Capitalism, or is it the human desire to take the path of least resistance; is it not human to consume re

Did the Communists not build tanks or burn coal? Is it Capitalism, or is it the human desire to take the path of least resistance; is it not human to consume ready-made energy that has been subsidized by the carbon capacity of the oceans and atmosphere?

inawarminister 8y ago
Indeed. The Aral Sea being drained under Soviet Union was much more immediately catastrophic to the local environment that what the Capitalist world economy is doing that I know of. Of course, global warming, but it took decades if not centuries. [0] http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/introduction.htm http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/introduction.htm
FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
Ah yes. Because clearly the choices are capitalism or Soviet Union dictatorships.
- golergka 8y ago
  That's what history of 20th century shows us, yes.
- simonh 8y ago
  I'll bite. What other alternative(s) would you propose? We frequently see cheap shots at capitalism, where on the same issues the major alternatives attempted in the 20th century were all actually far, far worse. It would be nice to seem some positive contributions on this issue for a change.
  - legatus 8y ago
    There are different examples of radical socialist societies in history, too bad all of them were oppressed by all too powerful neighbours. If you like Orwell, you might like reading "Homage to Catalonia", his experience fighting for Republican Spain in the Civil War. The CNT-FAI supported a radical socialist society, in particular, an anarcho-syndicalist one. Another example is the Free Territory of Ukraine, during the russian civil war. In the early twenties it was conquered by the bolsheviks, since they didn't want Makhno, the military leader of this anarchist society, gaining popular support outside Ukraine. There are other examples: in Korea during the thirties... There are alternatives to both capitalism and Communism (in the Soviet Union sense). The fact that those alternatives aren't considered is caused by lots of propaganda against leftist ideal, take for example the two red scares.
    - ramblerman 8y ago
      Read "Road to Wigan pier" by Orwell. He became seriously disillusioned with socialist ideals later on in his life. And famously said "Socialists don't care about the poor, they just hate the rich"
      - legatus 8y ago
        In "Why I write" (1946), Orwell states that “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.” Could you mind explaining, if that's the case, how Orwell was disillusioned with socialism, unless you mean the socialists of the PSUC? EDIT: Found this quora question: https://www.quora.com/What-s-the-full-Orwell-quote-that-is-often-paraphrased-that-middle-class-socialists-don-t-care-about-the-poor-they-just-hate-the-rich-Where-was-it-written https://www.quora.com/What-s-the-full-Orwell-quote-that-is-o... The quote you provided is a summary by a person that is definitely right or at least alt-right leaning, so he is definitely heavily biased. In any case, as you can read in the quoted passage (this time the real thing), Orwell criticizes the "book socialist" or the orthodox marxist, which he already did in Homage to Catalonia. He's criticizing the soviet union's socialism, not the CNT-FAI's one.
        vlehto 8y ago
        Maybe Orwell was just social democrat later on. I read "why I write" and Orwell was for equality and against aristocratic two tier society. It's a stretch to conclude anything further, as he even supported Churchill's war effort.
  - wu-ikkyu 8y ago
    >What other alternative(s) would you propose? How about a system which: 1. Acknowledges the realities of automation and globalization 2. Does not have maximum employment and perpetual growth as primary goals 3. Does not create artificial scarcity 4. Understands the broken window fallacy
    - gallerdude 8y ago
      I don't think anyone disagrees that our current system has flaws, it's just that the switching cost is really, really high, and even that assumes the next system is a lot better. Also, there's a huge difference between pointing out problems and pointing out solutions.
      - wu-ikkyu 8y ago
        >just that the switching cost is really, really high Climate change says the cost of not switching is far greater. Also, that's what phased roll outs are for. >there's a huge difference between pointing out problems and pointing out solutions. Obviously... But we can't find a solution without first defining and understanding the problem.
        simonh 8y ago
        Addressing climate change wasn’t even on your wish list.
    - ramblerman 8y ago
      Well to be fair that's not a system it's a magic wish with 4 bullet points.
      - wu-ikkyu 8y ago
        Whats "magic" about it, in your opinion?
        erikpukinskis 8y ago
  - drb91 8y ago
    1. All economies run somewhere between a fully unregulated laissez faire economy to a fully managed economy. 2. “Socialism” is present and a fundamental part of (probably) every government on earth, in terms of public education, healthcare, and countless other public services. 3. The US could use some public services it is lacking right now, like national healthcare—our private costs are obscene. You can frame socialism in terms of reduced shared costs. In my experience, this is an effective pitch to otherwise politically apathetic people. > on the same issues the major alternatives attempted in the 20th century were actually far, far worse Actually, I’d take national health care over the current situation in the US any day. I’d hazard a guess that there are multiple places where most americans could appreciate socialist approaches to running public services. I’m curious as to what specifically you’re talking about when saying capitalism did far better in every regard in every problem in the 20th century, because you seem emphatic.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > We frequently see cheap shots at capitalism, where on the same issues the major alternatives attempted in the 20th century were all actually far, far worse. I The main alternatives to the system originally described as “capitalism” that was tried in states which already had developed capitalist economies in the 20th century were blends of elements of democratic socialism with capitalism that have since been dubbed the “modern mixed economy”; they were so successful compared to actual capitalism that they have essentially completely replaced it in the West, while there are persistent efforts (which sometimes succeed in driving some policy) from the capitalist class to drag the West back to (or at least toward) 19th Century capitalism. (The only other alternative tried in any significt way in the developed West in the 20th Century was autocratic fascist corporatism, which, yes, is far, far worse than liberal capitalism.) And the main alternative to that regressive pro-capitalist drive proposed in the modern West (aside from simply preserving the status quo design of the mixed economy) is simply progressively implementing more elements of democratic socialism, not adopting Leninism or any of the other attempts made in the 20th century outside of the developed West that attempt to bypass rather than advance from capitalism. Though, I guess, it's worth noting that autocratic fascist corporatism still seems to have some adherents.
    - erikpukinskis 8y ago
      Indigenous control of resources. The people who live in a place get to make decisions. You’re not allowed to control a mine 200 miles away from where you live and eat, without the permission of the people who do live and eat near the mine. With this, right of return for anyone living in diaspora. We can transition from capitalism to that via an intermediate stage of anarcho-syndicalism with syndicates that own property and pay taxes. Capitalism isn’t “evil” or “useless” it’s just a temporary stage in our development.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Indigenous control of resources. The people who live in a place get to make decisions. This sounds like democratic socialism with some arbitrary restriction on polity scope. > With this, right of return for anyone living in diaspora. How do you concretely define this? This would be a big deal with existing scale polities, but it with your implied smaller polities, it becomes an even hotter issue. > Capitalism isn’t “evil” or “useless” it’s just a temporary stage in our development. Agreed.
  - thelasthuman 8y ago
    Some tweaks I'd make: Corporate structure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation Electoral system: What we have now - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo Range voting - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig Alternative vote - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE Single transferrable vote - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI Marx wrote about the theory of societal evolution; That there are certain phases civilization must pass through. The communism he wrote about would have to be very far down the road, 100+ years (IMO). This does not mean people sit back and do nothing, we still would have to work towards it. (Most) Capitalists profit from the status quo, and work to keep in place systems to maintain their spot in the hierarchy. Thus the antiquated electoral system in the USA, and the top heavy power/pay structures of business. TL;DR: give the average person more of a say/choice in the world they live in (politics/workplace), and they will find their way forward. (IMO)
- kmmlng 8y ago
  I think the point is: the problem might be more deep-seated than capitalism. If it were not possible to find this problem in any other societal system, then you could make a convincing argument that it might be exclusive to capitalism. But this is not the case. Other systems have been tried. Regardless of how you feel about these alternative systems, they were considerably different from capitalism and the problem occured there as well.

inawarminister 8y ago

Indeed. The Aral Sea being drained under Soviet Union was much more immediately catastrophic to the local environment that what the Capitalist world economy is doing that I know of. Of course, global warming, but it took decades if not centuries. [0] http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/introduction.htm http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/introduction.htm

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago

Ah yes. Because clearly the choices are capitalism or Soviet Union dictatorships.

golergka 8y ago
That's what history of 20th century shows us, yes.
simonh 8y ago
I'll bite. What other alternative(s) would you propose? We frequently see cheap shots at capitalism, where on the same issues the major alternatives attempted in the 20th century were all actually far, far worse. It would be nice to seem some positive contributions on this issue for a change.
- legatus 8y ago
  There are different examples of radical socialist societies in history, too bad all of them were oppressed by all too powerful neighbours. If you like Orwell, you might like reading "Homage to Catalonia", his experience fighting for Republican Spain in the Civil War. The CNT-FAI supported a radical socialist society, in particular, an anarcho-syndicalist one. Another example is the Free Territory of Ukraine, during the russian civil war. In the early twenties it was conquered by the bolsheviks, since they didn't want Makhno, the military leader of this anarchist society, gaining popular support outside Ukraine. There are other examples: in Korea during the thirties... There are alternatives to both capitalism and Communism (in the Soviet Union sense). The fact that those alternatives aren't considered is caused by lots of propaganda against leftist ideal, take for example the two red scares.
  - ramblerman 8y ago
    Read "Road to Wigan pier" by Orwell. He became seriously disillusioned with socialist ideals later on in his life. And famously said "Socialists don't care about the poor, they just hate the rich"
    - legatus 8y ago
      In "Why I write" (1946), Orwell states that “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.” Could you mind explaining, if that's the case, how Orwell was disillusioned with socialism, unless you mean the socialists of the PSUC? EDIT: Found this quora question: https://www.quora.com/What-s-the-full-Orwell-quote-that-is-often-paraphrased-that-middle-class-socialists-don-t-care-about-the-poor-they-just-hate-the-rich-Where-was-it-written https://www.quora.com/What-s-the-full-Orwell-quote-that-is-o... The quote you provided is a summary by a person that is definitely right or at least alt-right leaning, so he is definitely heavily biased. In any case, as you can read in the quoted passage (this time the real thing), Orwell criticizes the "book socialist" or the orthodox marxist, which he already did in Homage to Catalonia. He's criticizing the soviet union's socialism, not the CNT-FAI's one.
      - vlehto 8y ago
        Maybe Orwell was just social democrat later on. I read "why I write" and Orwell was for equality and against aristocratic two tier society. It's a stretch to conclude anything further, as he even supported Churchill's war effort.
- wu-ikkyu 8y ago
  >What other alternative(s) would you propose? How about a system which: 1. Acknowledges the realities of automation and globalization 2. Does not have maximum employment and perpetual growth as primary goals 3. Does not create artificial scarcity 4. Understands the broken window fallacy
  - gallerdude 8y ago
    I don't think anyone disagrees that our current system has flaws, it's just that the switching cost is really, really high, and even that assumes the next system is a lot better. Also, there's a huge difference between pointing out problems and pointing out solutions.
    - wu-ikkyu 8y ago
      >just that the switching cost is really, really high Climate change says the cost of not switching is far greater. Also, that's what phased roll outs are for. >there's a huge difference between pointing out problems and pointing out solutions. Obviously... But we can't find a solution without first defining and understanding the problem.
      - simonh 8y ago
        Addressing climate change wasn’t even on your wish list.
  - ramblerman 8y ago
    Well to be fair that's not a system it's a magic wish with 4 bullet points.
    - wu-ikkyu 8y ago
      Whats "magic" about it, in your opinion?
      - erikpukinskis 8y ago
- drb91 8y ago
  1. All economies run somewhere between a fully unregulated laissez faire economy to a fully managed economy. 2. “Socialism” is present and a fundamental part of (probably) every government on earth, in terms of public education, healthcare, and countless other public services. 3. The US could use some public services it is lacking right now, like national healthcare—our private costs are obscene. You can frame socialism in terms of reduced shared costs. In my experience, this is an effective pitch to otherwise politically apathetic people. > on the same issues the major alternatives attempted in the 20th century were actually far, far worse Actually, I’d take national health care over the current situation in the US any day. I’d hazard a guess that there are multiple places where most americans could appreciate socialist approaches to running public services. I’m curious as to what specifically you’re talking about when saying capitalism did far better in every regard in every problem in the 20th century, because you seem emphatic.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > We frequently see cheap shots at capitalism, where on the same issues the major alternatives attempted in the 20th century were all actually far, far worse. I The main alternatives to the system originally described as “capitalism” that was tried in states which already had developed capitalist economies in the 20th century were blends of elements of democratic socialism with capitalism that have since been dubbed the “modern mixed economy”; they were so successful compared to actual capitalism that they have essentially completely replaced it in the West, while there are persistent efforts (which sometimes succeed in driving some policy) from the capitalist class to drag the West back to (or at least toward) 19th Century capitalism. (The only other alternative tried in any significt way in the developed West in the 20th Century was autocratic fascist corporatism, which, yes, is far, far worse than liberal capitalism.) And the main alternative to that regressive pro-capitalist drive proposed in the modern West (aside from simply preserving the status quo design of the mixed economy) is simply progressively implementing more elements of democratic socialism, not adopting Leninism or any of the other attempts made in the 20th century outside of the developed West that attempt to bypass rather than advance from capitalism. Though, I guess, it's worth noting that autocratic fascist corporatism still seems to have some adherents.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    Indigenous control of resources. The people who live in a place get to make decisions. You’re not allowed to control a mine 200 miles away from where you live and eat, without the permission of the people who do live and eat near the mine. With this, right of return for anyone living in diaspora. We can transition from capitalism to that via an intermediate stage of anarcho-syndicalism with syndicates that own property and pay taxes. Capitalism isn’t “evil” or “useless” it’s just a temporary stage in our development.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Indigenous control of resources. The people who live in a place get to make decisions. This sounds like democratic socialism with some arbitrary restriction on polity scope. > With this, right of return for anyone living in diaspora. How do you concretely define this? This would be a big deal with existing scale polities, but it with your implied smaller polities, it becomes an even hotter issue. > Capitalism isn’t “evil” or “useless” it’s just a temporary stage in our development. Agreed.
- thelasthuman 8y ago
  Some tweaks I'd make: Corporate structure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation Electoral system: What we have now - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo Range voting - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig Alternative vote - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE Single transferrable vote - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI Marx wrote about the theory of societal evolution; That there are certain phases civilization must pass through. The communism he wrote about would have to be very far down the road, 100+ years (IMO). This does not mean people sit back and do nothing, we still would have to work towards it. (Most) Capitalists profit from the status quo, and work to keep in place systems to maintain their spot in the hierarchy. Thus the antiquated electoral system in the USA, and the top heavy power/pay structures of business. TL;DR: give the average person more of a say/choice in the world they live in (politics/workplace), and they will find their way forward. (IMO)
kmmlng 8y ago
I think the point is: the problem might be more deep-seated than capitalism. If it were not possible to find this problem in any other societal system, then you could make a convincing argument that it might be exclusive to capitalism. But this is not the case. Other systems have been tried. Regardless of how you feel about these alternative systems, they were considerably different from capitalism and the problem occured there as well.