4 ms·

Revolution would kill tens of millions, minimum. Compared to that, continuing to enjoy the greatest rise in living standards in human history doesn't look half

Revolution would kill tens of millions, minimum. Compared to that, continuing to enjoy the greatest rise in living standards in human history doesn't look half bad.

claudiawerner 8y ago
>Compared to that, continuing to enjoy the greatest rise in living standards in human history doesn't look half bad. This is extremely poor reasoning. An overall "bad" thing does not become "good" or justified because it has improved conditions in some way. By the very same token, slavery has both good sides and bad sides, and by your dismissive style, we ought not to consider the bad sides - the slaves should continue to enjoy the greatest rise in living standards (having food and shelter provided by the master) and the slave owners should continue to enjoy the greatest rise in profits in human history - isn't it clear that everyone wins? What is even more ironic is that for China, a state which claims to be Communist, is being supported by your argument which was specifically repudiated by Marx in criticizing Proudhon for exactly the view you are expounding! >The good side and the bad side, the advantages and drawbacks, taken together form for M. Proudhon the contradiction in every economic category. The problem to be solved: to keep the good side, while eliminating the bad. Slavery is an economic category like any other. Thus it also has its two sides. Let us leave alone the bad side and talk about the good side of slavery. Needless to say, we are dealing only with direct slavery, with Negro slavery in Surinam, in Brazil, in the Southern States of North America. >Without slavery North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe North America off the map of the world, and you will have anarchy – the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations. >What would M. Proudhon do to save slavery? He would formulate the problem thus: preserve the good side of this economic category, eliminate the bad. I will also note that your immediate dismissal of revolution is historically shaky at best, as great advances in history and freedom were gained from revolution - of both country (France, America, many wars of independence, Germany) and economy (the bourgeois revolution in means of production). Just remember this: >If money, according to Augier, “comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,” capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.
- darawk 8y ago
  >? his is extremely poor reasoning. An overall "bad" thing does not become "good" or justified because it has improved conditions in some way. By the very same token, slavery has both good sides and bad sides, and by your dismissive style, we ought not to consider the bad sides - the slaves should continue to enjoy the greatest rise in living standards (having food and shelter provided by the master) and the slave owners should continue to enjoy the greatest rise in profits in human history - isn't it clear that everyone wins? It's pretty clear that the question is whether a thing is good on balance. We all agree slavery is bad on balance. China, on the other hand, who has authoritarian policies, but has simultaneously lifted billions of people out of extreme poverty, is much more mixed.
  - wrs 8y ago
    I have to say that "authoritarian policies" is a deceptively weak phrase for the stuff China is doing lately. In any case this reasoning is flawed -- the correct analogy to "China has authoritarian policies but pulled billions of people out of poverty" would be "the United States had slavery but populated a continent while creating wealth for millions of people". So the story of slavery is "much more mixed".
    - darawk 8y ago
      > I have to say that "authoritarian policies" is a deceptively weak phrase for the stuff China is doing lately. Sure, call it what you want. I'm no fan of the Chinese government. > In any case this reasoning is flawed -- the correct analogy to "China has authoritarian policies but pulled billions of people out of poverty" would be "the United States had slavery but populated a continent while creating wealth for millions of people". So the story of slavery is "much more mixed". So, should the cotton gin makers of their day not have sold cotton gins to the plantation owners? What good would that have done?
      - wrs 8y ago
        The analogy is getting out of hand, but the question here is more like making ankle trackers for the slaves than making cotton gins.
bicubic 8y ago
Ahhh yes, the 'we're in the dystopian dictatorship so deep that it's too big to fail' argument. There's always a human cost to revolutions. That doesn't justify supporting and perpetuating one of the biggest threats to freedom in the entire world.
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  We invaded Iraq under that logic..
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    A misapplication of logic (i.e the claim that the U.S. invaded to instill "freedom and democracy") does not invalidate the logic (i.e fighting for freedom is a good thing).
  - pas 8y ago
    That failure was not because the logic was bad.

Revolution would kill tens of millions, minimum. Compared to that, continuing to enjoy the greatest rise in living standards in human history doesn't look half bad.

claudiawerner 8y ago

>Compared to that, continuing to enjoy the greatest rise in living standards in human history doesn't look half bad. This is extremely poor reasoning. An overall "bad" thing does not become "good" or justified because it has improved conditions in some way. By the very same token, slavery has both good sides and bad sides, and by your dismissive style, we ought not to consider the bad sides - the slaves should continue to enjoy the greatest rise in living standards (having food and shelter provided by the master) and the slave owners should continue to enjoy the greatest rise in profits in human history - isn't it clear that everyone wins? What is even more ironic is that for China, a state which claims to be Communist, is being supported by your argument which was specifically repudiated by Marx in criticizing Proudhon for exactly the view you are expounding! >The good side and the bad side, the advantages and drawbacks, taken together form for M. Proudhon the contradiction in every economic category. The problem to be solved: to keep the good side, while eliminating the bad. Slavery is an economic category like any other. Thus it also has its two sides. Let us leave alone the bad side and talk about the good side of slavery. Needless to say, we are dealing only with direct slavery, with Negro slavery in Surinam, in Brazil, in the Southern States of North America. >Without slavery North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe North America off the map of the world, and you will have anarchy – the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations. >What would M. Proudhon do to save slavery? He would formulate the problem thus: preserve the good side of this economic category, eliminate the bad. I will also note that your immediate dismissal of revolution is historically shaky at best, as great advances in history and freedom were gained from revolution - of both country (France, America, many wars of independence, Germany) and economy (the bourgeois revolution in means of production). Just remember this: >If money, according to Augier, “comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,” capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.

darawk 8y ago
>? his is extremely poor reasoning. An overall "bad" thing does not become "good" or justified because it has improved conditions in some way. By the very same token, slavery has both good sides and bad sides, and by your dismissive style, we ought not to consider the bad sides - the slaves should continue to enjoy the greatest rise in living standards (having food and shelter provided by the master) and the slave owners should continue to enjoy the greatest rise in profits in human history - isn't it clear that everyone wins? It's pretty clear that the question is whether a thing is good on balance. We all agree slavery is bad on balance. China, on the other hand, who has authoritarian policies, but has simultaneously lifted billions of people out of extreme poverty, is much more mixed.
- wrs 8y ago
  I have to say that "authoritarian policies" is a deceptively weak phrase for the stuff China is doing lately. In any case this reasoning is flawed -- the correct analogy to "China has authoritarian policies but pulled billions of people out of poverty" would be "the United States had slavery but populated a continent while creating wealth for millions of people". So the story of slavery is "much more mixed".
  - darawk 8y ago
    > I have to say that "authoritarian policies" is a deceptively weak phrase for the stuff China is doing lately. Sure, call it what you want. I'm no fan of the Chinese government. > In any case this reasoning is flawed -- the correct analogy to "China has authoritarian policies but pulled billions of people out of poverty" would be "the United States had slavery but populated a continent while creating wealth for millions of people". So the story of slavery is "much more mixed". So, should the cotton gin makers of their day not have sold cotton gins to the plantation owners? What good would that have done?
    - wrs 8y ago
      The analogy is getting out of hand, but the question here is more like making ankle trackers for the slaves than making cotton gins.

bicubic 8y ago

Ahhh yes, the 'we're in the dystopian dictatorship so deep that it's too big to fail' argument. There's always a human cost to revolutions. That doesn't justify supporting and perpetuating one of the biggest threats to freedom in the entire world.

yourbandsucks 8y ago
We invaded Iraq under that logic..
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  A misapplication of logic (i.e the claim that the U.S. invaded to instill "freedom and democracy") does not invalidate the logic (i.e fighting for freedom is a good thing).
- pas 8y ago
  That failure was not because the logic was bad.