6 ms·

Socialism is not Marxian.

by antirapepolice 7y ago

ianleeclark 7y ago
I have no idea what this means in this context.
- antirapepolice 7y ago
  Socialism predates Marx. Marx is socialist, socialism is not (only) Marxist. You can be socialist without being Marxist. So "There are non-neoliberal economic ideologies that aren't Marxian." it's not technically true.
  - ianleeclark 7y ago
    > You can be socialist without being Marxist. Okay, understood. > So "There are non-neoliberal economic ideologies that aren't Marxian." it's not technically true. These two things just don't even remotely follow. Socialism isn't Marxism, therefore there have only ever existed Neoliberal and Marxian economic systems? What do you think Neoliberalism is? Furthermore, do you believe the United States was Neoliberal in, say, 1963?
    - antirapepolice 7y ago
      I don't know the history of the U.S well enough, but McCarthyism ended in the 50s, the cold war started immediately after the world war II against communism, so I can't really say U.S. was radically different from now. One thing worth noting is that fascism (and neo-fascist/nazi groups) was anti capitalist, but not (of course) marxist-socialist. They have some common ideas, the nationalization of the means of production for example, but it ends there, they aren't against social classes, they aren't against private property, they are simply against free market. If for Marx communism was the goal, for fascists the goal is complete autarchy. I would add neo-fascism to the list of anti capitalist movements, even though I sincerely hope they'll disappear ASAP.
      - ianleeclark 7y ago
        > I don't know the history of the U.S well enough, but McCarthyism ended in the 50s, the cold war started immediately after the world war II against communism, so I can't really say U.S. was radically different from now. I don't know what to tell you, but the Keynesianism the US applied before 1973 is fundamentally different from what followed in Reaganomics--i.e., Neoliberalism. I don't think you have a strong grasp on what the word means.
        antirapepolice 7y ago
        > Keynesianism the US applied before 1973 is fundamentally different It is true, but I think it was more about war reconstruction and applied automation that drove the public spending up. Governments had to deal with the consequences of the war and made everything possible to give people a job, a purpose, to let the war behind. The crisis of 1973 revealed the truth: that kind of growth is not sustainable, especially if it's global (in Italy we call that period "Italian economic miracle", it was more "spending the Marshall's plan money without thinking of the consequences on the future"). But without doubts it was different from Reaganomics, if I'm not wrong it was even possible to approve in the 60s a public healthcare system (kind of) in USA named Medicare. Of course the conservative attacked the idea and Reagan in particular was very vocal about invasion of the freedom and all the usual things they say. But, if Reagan's idea of economy won is not because Reagan was particularly good, but because lobbies invested an enormous amount of money on propaganda and people in the 70s had good jobs, a powerful enemy to fight, baby boomers had lived 30 years of peace, fought no war and didn't think enough of the consequences of leaving the poorest behind. They had been educated to believe that if you put enough effort in something, you will succeed. If you don't succeed, it's because you haven't worked hard enough. In places like Europe, were being socialist was not seen as a crime, public debate never ceased to address the fundamental differences between a free market economy (even with Keynesian bits) and a more equal society based on the idea that everyone deserves the same level of services from the state and the same protection, regardless of the single economic power. So in a way USA before 1973 was more similar to what we call socialism, but not for the same (correct?) reason. It was the best way they had found to sustain growth and fight unemployment and consequently discontent, but they did'nt really believe in a more equal society, that is the base for the economic ideas of socialism.
allemagne 7y ago
And Marxists would tell you that socialism is inherently Marxian, and Xi Jinping would tell you that the PRC is socialist (with Chinese characteristics!), and Americans will tell you that universal healthcare and Sweden are socialist.
- antirapepolice 7y ago
  > And Marxists would tell you that socialism is inherently Marxian But they would be wrong, it's the other way around. > and Xi Jinping would tell you that the PRC is socialist (with Chinese characteristics!), It is, economically speaking, at least until it entered the WTO it was 100% a socialist country. You're conflating politics and economics, China is a socialist country, Sweden is mostly a socialist country, Italy is mostly a socialist country, the state has a lot of economic power in these countries. It is simply true. What the U.S. take wrong (among many other things) is that it is not bad for the citizens. I live in Italy and would never change it for Silicon Valley. I don't want to live where homeless are homeless because the staste cares more about selling more guns, so that another mass shooting in a school can happen, than helping poor people.

Socialism is not Marxian.

ianleeclark 7y ago

I have no idea what this means in this context.

antirapepolice 7y ago
Socialism predates Marx. Marx is socialist, socialism is not (only) Marxist. You can be socialist without being Marxist. So "There are non-neoliberal economic ideologies that aren't Marxian." it's not technically true.
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  > You can be socialist without being Marxist. Okay, understood. > So "There are non-neoliberal economic ideologies that aren't Marxian." it's not technically true. These two things just don't even remotely follow. Socialism isn't Marxism, therefore there have only ever existed Neoliberal and Marxian economic systems? What do you think Neoliberalism is? Furthermore, do you believe the United States was Neoliberal in, say, 1963?
  - antirapepolice 7y ago
    I don't know the history of the U.S well enough, but McCarthyism ended in the 50s, the cold war started immediately after the world war II against communism, so I can't really say U.S. was radically different from now. One thing worth noting is that fascism (and neo-fascist/nazi groups) was anti capitalist, but not (of course) marxist-socialist. They have some common ideas, the nationalization of the means of production for example, but it ends there, they aren't against social classes, they aren't against private property, they are simply against free market. If for Marx communism was the goal, for fascists the goal is complete autarchy. I would add neo-fascism to the list of anti capitalist movements, even though I sincerely hope they'll disappear ASAP.
    - ianleeclark 7y ago
      > I don't know the history of the U.S well enough, but McCarthyism ended in the 50s, the cold war started immediately after the world war II against communism, so I can't really say U.S. was radically different from now. I don't know what to tell you, but the Keynesianism the US applied before 1973 is fundamentally different from what followed in Reaganomics--i.e., Neoliberalism. I don't think you have a strong grasp on what the word means.
      - antirapepolice 7y ago
        > Keynesianism the US applied before 1973 is fundamentally different It is true, but I think it was more about war reconstruction and applied automation that drove the public spending up. Governments had to deal with the consequences of the war and made everything possible to give people a job, a purpose, to let the war behind. The crisis of 1973 revealed the truth: that kind of growth is not sustainable, especially if it's global (in Italy we call that period "Italian economic miracle", it was more "spending the Marshall's plan money without thinking of the consequences on the future"). But without doubts it was different from Reaganomics, if I'm not wrong it was even possible to approve in the 60s a public healthcare system (kind of) in USA named Medicare. Of course the conservative attacked the idea and Reagan in particular was very vocal about invasion of the freedom and all the usual things they say. But, if Reagan's idea of economy won is not because Reagan was particularly good, but because lobbies invested an enormous amount of money on propaganda and people in the 70s had good jobs, a powerful enemy to fight, baby boomers had lived 30 years of peace, fought no war and didn't think enough of the consequences of leaving the poorest behind. They had been educated to believe that if you put enough effort in something, you will succeed. If you don't succeed, it's because you haven't worked hard enough. In places like Europe, were being socialist was not seen as a crime, public debate never ceased to address the fundamental differences between a free market economy (even with Keynesian bits) and a more equal society based on the idea that everyone deserves the same level of services from the state and the same protection, regardless of the single economic power. So in a way USA before 1973 was more similar to what we call socialism, but not for the same (correct?) reason. It was the best way they had found to sustain growth and fight unemployment and consequently discontent, but they did'nt really believe in a more equal society, that is the base for the economic ideas of socialism.

allemagne 7y ago

And Marxists would tell you that socialism is inherently Marxian, and Xi Jinping would tell you that the PRC is socialist (with Chinese characteristics!), and Americans will tell you that universal healthcare and Sweden are socialist.

antirapepolice 7y ago
> And Marxists would tell you that socialism is inherently Marxian But they would be wrong, it's the other way around. > and Xi Jinping would tell you that the PRC is socialist (with Chinese characteristics!), It is, economically speaking, at least until it entered the WTO it was 100% a socialist country. You're conflating politics and economics, China is a socialist country, Sweden is mostly a socialist country, Italy is mostly a socialist country, the state has a lot of economic power in these countries. It is simply true. What the U.S. take wrong (among many other things) is that it is not bad for the citizens. I live in Italy and would never change it for Silicon Valley. I don't want to live where homeless are homeless because the staste cares more about selling more guns, so that another mass shooting in a school can happen, than helping poor people.