2 ms·

Well, certainly not the version you keep peddling as the only version. Socialist of today want to extend democracy into the economic sphere - which today are t

by jahaja 6y ago

Well, certainly not the version you keep peddling as the only version. Socialist of today want to extend democracy into the economic sphere - which today are totally undemocratic. That is, to actually give the workers control of the means of production, not to just change the bosses from capitalists to state bureaucrats.

RhysU 6y ago
"Extending democracy into the economic sphere" is a funny way to describe theft by the majority. Today, under capitalism, we already have democracy in the economic sphere. Each of us already has single-use votes proportional to our means (i.e. money). If you want more votes to use, do something valuable so that others vote for you (i.e. pay you). If a worker wants durable rights to the means of production, they can trade some votes for stock. Now, one might cry foul that not everyone has the same voice under this system. Not everyone has the same voice in the US legislative branch on account of the Senate's design. So it goes. Least bad solution. Etc. Sincerely, please point me somewhere that I might read about why this socialism you profess won't degenerate into sclerotic totalitarianism within two generations. What has changed about people's hearts so that the noble experiment you want to run (with other people's resources) won't cause the same calamities that it has before? As folks often quip, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
- jahaja 6y ago
  > Today, under capitalism, we already have democracy in the economic sphere. Each of us already has single-use votes proportional to our means (i.e. money). If you want more votes to use, do something valuable so that others vote for you (i.e. pay you). If a worker wants durable rights to the means of production, they can trade some votes for stock. I have no idea how you can write such a thing with a straight face. This is not democratic in any way shape or form. > funny way to describe theft by the majority. The concept of private-property is not ordained by God, it's a social construct upheld by force in favour of the propertied. > Sincerely, please point me somewhere that I might read about why this socialism you profess won't degenerate into sclerotic totalitarianism within two generations. Well you are making the suggestion so I think it would be more appropriate for you to supply some basis to it. Please don't be lazy and point to states like the USSR that was never ever democratic to begin with. What I can do however is link to the critics, who were socialists, of the totalitarian regimes when it happened, like for example Bertrand Russell's "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" that was published in 1920, only 3 years after the October revolution. http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17350/pg17350.txt http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17350/pg17350.txt You can just read the preface and skim the first few pages (in Russell's famous easy-to-read writing style) to get an idea of the scathing criticism he delivered. e.g: "But the method by which Moscow aims at establishing Communism is a pioneer method, rough and dangerous, too heroic to count the cost of the opposition it arouses. I do not believe that by this method a stable or desirable form of Communism can be established. Three issues seem to me possible from the present situation. The first is the ultimate defeat of Bolshevism by the forces of capitalism. The second is the victory of the Bolshevists accompanied by a complete loss of their ideals and a régime of Napoleonic imperialism. The third is a prolonged world-war, in which civilization will go under, and all its manifestations (including Communism) will be forgotten."
  - RhysU 6y ago
    > I think it would be more appropriate for you to supply some basis to it. Sure! What word do you see over and over and over again on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_totalitarian_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_totalitarian_regimes ? Of the current countries listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states half are places where I am glad that I do not live. > What I can do however is link to the critics... That socialist intellectuals condemn totalitarianism when it arises from socialist roots is irrelevant. Those victims remain dead and those societies stay shackled no matter how sternly the intellectual writes.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      Sigh. What a pathetic reply.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

by jahaja 6y ago

RhysU 6y ago

"Extending democracy into the economic sphere" is a funny way to describe theft by the majority. Today, under capitalism, we already have democracy in the economic sphere. Each of us already has single-use votes proportional to our means (i.e. money). If you want more votes to use, do something valuable so that others vote for you (i.e. pay you). If a worker wants durable rights to the means of production, they can trade some votes for stock. Now, one might cry foul that not everyone has the same voice under this system. Not everyone has the same voice in the US legislative branch on account of the Senate's design. So it goes. Least bad solution. Etc. Sincerely, please point me somewhere that I might read about why this socialism you profess won't degenerate into sclerotic totalitarianism within two generations. What has changed about people's hearts so that the noble experiment you want to run (with other people's resources) won't cause the same calamities that it has before? As folks often quip, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

jahaja 6y ago
> Today, under capitalism, we already have democracy in the economic sphere. Each of us already has single-use votes proportional to our means (i.e. money). If you want more votes to use, do something valuable so that others vote for you (i.e. pay you). If a worker wants durable rights to the means of production, they can trade some votes for stock. I have no idea how you can write such a thing with a straight face. This is not democratic in any way shape or form. > funny way to describe theft by the majority. The concept of private-property is not ordained by God, it's a social construct upheld by force in favour of the propertied. > Sincerely, please point me somewhere that I might read about why this socialism you profess won't degenerate into sclerotic totalitarianism within two generations. Well you are making the suggestion so I think it would be more appropriate for you to supply some basis to it. Please don't be lazy and point to states like the USSR that was never ever democratic to begin with. What I can do however is link to the critics, who were socialists, of the totalitarian regimes when it happened, like for example Bertrand Russell's "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" that was published in 1920, only 3 years after the October revolution. http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17350/pg17350.txt http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17350/pg17350.txt You can just read the preface and skim the first few pages (in Russell's famous easy-to-read writing style) to get an idea of the scathing criticism he delivered. e.g: "But the method by which Moscow aims at establishing Communism is a pioneer method, rough and dangerous, too heroic to count the cost of the opposition it arouses. I do not believe that by this method a stable or desirable form of Communism can be established. Three issues seem to me possible from the present situation. The first is the ultimate defeat of Bolshevism by the forces of capitalism. The second is the victory of the Bolshevists accompanied by a complete loss of their ideals and a régime of Napoleonic imperialism. The third is a prolonged world-war, in which civilization will go under, and all its manifestations (including Communism) will be forgotten."
- RhysU 6y ago
  > I think it would be more appropriate for you to supply some basis to it. Sure! What word do you see over and over and over again on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_totalitarian_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_totalitarian_regimes ? Of the current countries listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states half are places where I am glad that I do not live. > What I can do however is link to the critics... That socialist intellectuals condemn totalitarianism when it arises from socialist roots is irrelevant. Those victims remain dead and those societies stay shackled no matter how sternly the intellectual writes.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    Sigh. What a pathetic reply.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]