6 ms·

I was born in the USSR, where Marxist socialism was implemented: no significant private property (you own your clothes and furniture, but not your apartment, a

I was born in the USSR, where Marxist socialism was implemented: no significant private property (you own your clothes and furniture, but not your apartment, a car is borderline suspicious), and most certainly no private business ownership. Life was pretty miserable back then, if you ask me. Even in capitalist societies there are still places like that, with free healthcare, basic necessities available for everyone, guaranteed roof over your head, and even full employment. These are called prisons.

jahaja 7y ago
It's a big problem that our current political imagination is so narrow to only allow the false dichotomy of either neo-liberalism or Stalinism. The number of top-down Stalinist within the general leftist movement is tiny.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  Indeed. Since capitalism is "lots of smaller dictatorships(companies) with a set of rules for all", and the migration to communism was "get rid of the smaller dictatorships and make a nation-wide dictatorship". "Communism" ala USSR, North Korea, etc just moved the problem to a strictly worse area, and something you could not get away with. At least in capitalism, there are better and worse 'masters'.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  The modern democratic and republican parties are chock full of pro-totalitarian, pro-authoritarian, "pro-state control of people's lives" politicians (of course they're inconsistent and they'll say or vote the opposite when they are pandering to their base though). If the "modern socialist" types gained tons of traction tomorrow and became mainstream within the democratic party people like Feinstein and other authoritarians won't stop pushing regressive authoritarian policy. They'd just do it in a way that's sculpted to line up with the (newly) popular "socialist" sentiment. So the end result would be pretty darn Stalinist IMO. So yes, you're right that current socialists are generally not in favor of secret police and shipping undesirables to the gulag but you're also wrong because if socialism becomes popular it will include all the totalitarians on that side of the isle who do want secret police and gulags. As regrettable as it may be I don't see any path for going from the status quo to something more socialist without the current crop of totalitarian jerks in the ruling class turning it into a 1984 dystopia (the technical, procedural and much of the precedent for said dystopia already exists) along the way.
  - jahaja 7y ago
    From my European perspective both those parties are firmly capitalist and right-wing. I will never expect anything other that what you described from members of them. Certainly not to do some sort of socialist transformation. The current US mainstream "socialists" are after all at best bog standard EU social democrats - that is, still capitalist. I don't believe that currently ostracized strains/ideas/people will somehow inherently come to power just because democratic socialist ideas become mainstream. Democratic minded socialist are just as inoculated against authoritarianism as liberals. These people were persecuted and killed by ML/Stalinist authoritarians too.
    - atemerev 7y ago
      From my European perspective the Europe is hopelessly socialist, indeed (which is not a good thing). Even the fringe right-wing authoritarian parties hated by the left (and every sane person) are still socialist, pushing authoritarian market regulations by _them_. Nobody here wants to protect economical liberties and free markets.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      >From my European perspective both those parties are firmly capitalist and right-wing. I hope that "anyone who believes in capitalism is therefore right wing" is not a mainstream European perspective. You can have a pretty darn socialist government without seizing the means of production. >I don't believe that currently ostracized strains/ideas/people will somehow inherently come to power just because democratic socialist ideas become mainstream. The fact of the matter is that these totalitarian beliefs are not nearly ostracized enough for that statement to be anywhere close to reasonable. On one side of the isle it's considered perfectly reasonable to violate all sorts of rights as a hurdle to buying the tools of self defense. On the other side of the isle it's the same thing but for abortion. This is but one example. These kinds of people won't just find a way to use the popular movement of the day to push their beliefs. Sure they might make things more socialist if that's what the people demand but don't think they won't also work on their totalitarian pet project at the same time.
- atemerev 7y ago
  Stalinism wasn’t existing in the USSR since 1956. Marxism, however, was always acknowledged as the foundational ideology — right until the collapse.
  - jahaja 7y ago
    My intention is not to get in to some sort of debate on when the legacy of Stalinism ended, but to say that authoritarianism is properly shunned within the left movement as well.
jerf 7y ago
Yes, it's a bit ironic to complain about "work all the time" culture and think Marxism is going to fix it, when the first thing the State does is essentially extend this workplace culture to the entire culture, so that you are never off the clock of being a correct-thinking employee obedient to your superiors in every way, even your speech, even when alone with your family. (And that was prior to when we all carried around portable surveillance devices voluntarily.) The US may draw you in to that culture, but plenty of people escape it, and plenty of people in it can yet get out of it with reasonable effort. Marxism created cultures where it is a crime to escape that culture.
dictum 7y ago
> Even in capitalist societies there are still places like that, with free healthcare, basic necessities available for everyone, guaranteed roof over your head, and even full employment. These are called prisons. I've seen this quote elsewhere, and the spurious correlation bothers me. That prisons supply inmates with basic necessities does not make systems that supply members with basic necessities akin to prisons. In practice, many of them may operate with restrictions to freedom, but so does employment in most fields under capitalism. Even business ownership is a significant restriction of freedom if you cannot delegate work (i.e. you cannot afford to hire), liquidate assets, or stay free from mounting debt.
- atemerev 7y ago
  The difference you are ignoring here is voluntary and/or unenforced restriction of freedom (which is a contradiction in terms — you are free to change your conditions) vs. imposed and enforced restrictions. Kind of important.
  - hobs 7y ago
    And the obvious thing you are ignoring is that prisons just dont do this: free healthcare, basic necessities available for everyone, guaranteed roof over your head, and even full employment Prisons are places where rape, neglect, and violence are the norm. Being pithy reduces whatever point you had into dust.
    - atemerev 7y ago
      Perhaps in United States. Our European prisons are much more comfortable. Additionally, in the USSR we perhaps had less rape and violence in peacetime (our prison guards were professional and order was enforced), but oh boy, we knew a thing or two about neglect.
      - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        The Gulag Archipelago paints a very different picture, torture was common according to that text. Serves them right for not giving up every single ounce of grain they produced to the government.
Sharlin 7y ago
> Even in capitalist societies there are still places like that, with free healthcare, basic necessities available for everyone, guaranteed roof over your head, and even full employment. These are called prisons. Ah, the good old "noncentral fallacy" [1]. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncentral-fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...
- atemerev 7y ago
  So, you are calling USSR a non-central example of Marxism implementation? What would be a central example, then?
Retra 7y ago
>Even in capitalist societies there are still places like that, with free healthcare, basic necessities available for everyone, guaranteed roof over your head, and even full employment. These are called prisons. Or "schools". Or "military bases." But you do you, I guess.
- atemerev 7y ago
  As a member of military, you are allowed to own property, but have to take orders. Same, same, but different. But yes, many people compared the USSR to essentially a huge military organization. School students are very limited in rights, indeed. Their welfare depends on welfare of their parents. But they can hope to become free adults one day; no such hope for citizens of socialist countries.
  - Retra 7y ago
    What is your point? That every person who has to make decisions with costs may as well be in prison? Going to school and serving in the military are only different kinds of prisons because you can't escape them? You can't escape capitalism either.

jahaja 7y ago

It's a big problem that our current political imagination is so narrow to only allow the false dichotomy of either neo-liberalism or Stalinism. The number of top-down Stalinist within the general leftist movement is tiny.

crankylinuxuser 7y ago
Indeed. Since capitalism is "lots of smaller dictatorships(companies) with a set of rules for all", and the migration to communism was "get rid of the smaller dictatorships and make a nation-wide dictatorship". "Communism" ala USSR, North Korea, etc just moved the problem to a strictly worse area, and something you could not get away with. At least in capitalism, there are better and worse 'masters'.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
The modern democratic and republican parties are chock full of pro-totalitarian, pro-authoritarian, "pro-state control of people's lives" politicians (of course they're inconsistent and they'll say or vote the opposite when they are pandering to their base though). If the "modern socialist" types gained tons of traction tomorrow and became mainstream within the democratic party people like Feinstein and other authoritarians won't stop pushing regressive authoritarian policy. They'd just do it in a way that's sculpted to line up with the (newly) popular "socialist" sentiment. So the end result would be pretty darn Stalinist IMO. So yes, you're right that current socialists are generally not in favor of secret police and shipping undesirables to the gulag but you're also wrong because if socialism becomes popular it will include all the totalitarians on that side of the isle who do want secret police and gulags. As regrettable as it may be I don't see any path for going from the status quo to something more socialist without the current crop of totalitarian jerks in the ruling class turning it into a 1984 dystopia (the technical, procedural and much of the precedent for said dystopia already exists) along the way.
- jahaja 7y ago
  From my European perspective both those parties are firmly capitalist and right-wing. I will never expect anything other that what you described from members of them. Certainly not to do some sort of socialist transformation. The current US mainstream "socialists" are after all at best bog standard EU social democrats - that is, still capitalist. I don't believe that currently ostracized strains/ideas/people will somehow inherently come to power just because democratic socialist ideas become mainstream. Democratic minded socialist are just as inoculated against authoritarianism as liberals. These people were persecuted and killed by ML/Stalinist authoritarians too.
  - atemerev 7y ago
    From my European perspective the Europe is hopelessly socialist, indeed (which is not a good thing). Even the fringe right-wing authoritarian parties hated by the left (and every sane person) are still socialist, pushing authoritarian market regulations by _them_. Nobody here wants to protect economical liberties and free markets.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >From my European perspective both those parties are firmly capitalist and right-wing. I hope that "anyone who believes in capitalism is therefore right wing" is not a mainstream European perspective. You can have a pretty darn socialist government without seizing the means of production. >I don't believe that currently ostracized strains/ideas/people will somehow inherently come to power just because democratic socialist ideas become mainstream. The fact of the matter is that these totalitarian beliefs are not nearly ostracized enough for that statement to be anywhere close to reasonable. On one side of the isle it's considered perfectly reasonable to violate all sorts of rights as a hurdle to buying the tools of self defense. On the other side of the isle it's the same thing but for abortion. This is but one example. These kinds of people won't just find a way to use the popular movement of the day to push their beliefs. Sure they might make things more socialist if that's what the people demand but don't think they won't also work on their totalitarian pet project at the same time.
atemerev 7y ago
Stalinism wasn’t existing in the USSR since 1956. Marxism, however, was always acknowledged as the foundational ideology — right until the collapse.
- jahaja 7y ago
  My intention is not to get in to some sort of debate on when the legacy of Stalinism ended, but to say that authoritarianism is properly shunned within the left movement as well.

jerf 7y ago

Yes, it's a bit ironic to complain about "work all the time" culture and think Marxism is going to fix it, when the first thing the State does is essentially extend this workplace culture to the entire culture, so that you are never off the clock of being a correct-thinking employee obedient to your superiors in every way, even your speech, even when alone with your family. (And that was prior to when we all carried around portable surveillance devices voluntarily.) The US may draw you in to that culture, but plenty of people escape it, and plenty of people in it can yet get out of it with reasonable effort. Marxism created cultures where it is a crime to escape that culture.

dictum 7y ago

> Even in capitalist societies there are still places like that, with free healthcare, basic necessities available for everyone, guaranteed roof over your head, and even full employment. These are called prisons. I've seen this quote elsewhere, and the spurious correlation bothers me. That prisons supply inmates with basic necessities does not make systems that supply members with basic necessities akin to prisons. In practice, many of them may operate with restrictions to freedom, but so does employment in most fields under capitalism. Even business ownership is a significant restriction of freedom if you cannot delegate work (i.e. you cannot afford to hire), liquidate assets, or stay free from mounting debt.

atemerev 7y ago
The difference you are ignoring here is voluntary and/or unenforced restriction of freedom (which is a contradiction in terms — you are free to change your conditions) vs. imposed and enforced restrictions. Kind of important.
- hobs 7y ago
  And the obvious thing you are ignoring is that prisons just dont do this: free healthcare, basic necessities available for everyone, guaranteed roof over your head, and even full employment Prisons are places where rape, neglect, and violence are the norm. Being pithy reduces whatever point you had into dust.
  - atemerev 7y ago
    Perhaps in United States. Our European prisons are much more comfortable. Additionally, in the USSR we perhaps had less rape and violence in peacetime (our prison guards were professional and order was enforced), but oh boy, we knew a thing or two about neglect.
    - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
      The Gulag Archipelago paints a very different picture, torture was common according to that text. Serves them right for not giving up every single ounce of grain they produced to the government.

Sharlin 7y ago

> Even in capitalist societies there are still places like that, with free healthcare, basic necessities available for everyone, guaranteed roof over your head, and even full employment. These are called prisons. Ah, the good old "noncentral fallacy" [1]. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncentral-fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...

atemerev 7y ago
So, you are calling USSR a non-central example of Marxism implementation? What would be a central example, then?

Retra 7y ago

atemerev 7y ago
As a member of military, you are allowed to own property, but have to take orders. Same, same, but different. But yes, many people compared the USSR to essentially a huge military organization. School students are very limited in rights, indeed. Their welfare depends on welfare of their parents. But they can hope to become free adults one day; no such hope for citizens of socialist countries.
- Retra 7y ago
  What is your point? That every person who has to make decisions with costs may as well be in prison? Going to school and serving in the military are only different kinds of prisons because you can't escape them? You can't escape capitalism either.