2 ms·

This is a good and clear outline of your positions, and thank you for that. Anytime we discuss systems of government, we have to deal with the reality of those

This is a good and clear outline of your positions, and thank you for that. Anytime we discuss systems of government, we have to deal with the reality of those systems. You can design a utopia on paper, but it doesn't usually play out that way. Governments also take some time to have observable effects, and so often times our discussion of forms of government have to rely on history as an element of that. > In my mind this is an absurd misinterpration of the concept caused by 100 years of propaganda in political education and language. But it's historically perfectly holistic in frame of the Stalinist regimes you mention. Supporters of full socialism and communism both like to reject every historical example and claim they don't count.

cmrdporcupine 7y ago
Except we could just as easily turn it around and point to the genocides and failures of societies with "market systems" as well. The reality is the whole notion of talking about "government systems" like they're replaceable components that we can evaluate like scientific experiments is delusional. Societies and especially economic systems develop their characteristics organically over hundreds of years. Bolsheviks slapping a "socialist" label on their society after their revolution has little bearing on the fact that in many ways Stalin's Russia was contiguous with Tsarist practice [and in fact many top members of his bureauracy were ex-Tsarist bureaucrats, and by the 30s pretty much every leading Bolshevik from 1917 was murdered or exiled...]. Minus the drastic influence of the orthodox church, of course
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  > Except we could just as easily turn it around and point to the genocides and failures of societies with "market systems" as well. Holodomor is a clear example that genocides belong to socialists and communists too. You're right that we can't talk about government systems strictly in the abstract which is why we use history, and while history has different context in each instance it consistently shows us that pure socialism ends at authoritarianism, whether that's the Bolsheviks, the Maoists, or the PCV.

cmrdporcupine 7y ago

Except we could just as easily turn it around and point to the genocides and failures of societies with "market systems" as well. The reality is the whole notion of talking about "government systems" like they're replaceable components that we can evaluate like scientific experiments is delusional. Societies and especially economic systems develop their characteristics organically over hundreds of years. Bolsheviks slapping a "socialist" label on their society after their revolution has little bearing on the fact that in many ways Stalin's Russia was contiguous with Tsarist practice [and in fact many top members of his bureauracy were ex-Tsarist bureaucrats, and by the 30s pretty much every leading Bolshevik from 1917 was murdered or exiled...]. Minus the drastic influence of the orthodox church, of course

vorpalhex 7y ago
> Except we could just as easily turn it around and point to the genocides and failures of societies with "market systems" as well. Holodomor is a clear example that genocides belong to socialists and communists too. You're right that we can't talk about government systems strictly in the abstract which is why we use history, and while history has different context in each instance it consistently shows us that pure socialism ends at authoritarianism, whether that's the Bolsheviks, the Maoists, or the PCV.