4 ms·

As someone from post-soviet country I find this bit offensive. Something like 'how I become erratic Nacist' and bunch of hogwash how modern nacism can learn fro

by jkot 12y ago

As someone from post-soviet country I find this bit offensive. Something like 'how I become erratic Nacist' and bunch of hogwash how modern nacism can learn from mistakes of the past. But do not be mistaken, this guy is not stupid and probably can negotiate better deal for Greece.

jwdunne 12y ago
Please don't confuse Marx's theories with Marxism-Leninism. The latter is more like state capitalism, i.e like most 'communist' countries we have seen. If you actually read what communism, socialism and marxism are about, you'll find that they are a far cry from the ideology of the soviet union (as defined by their actions). For one, a dictatorship of the working class, such as direct democracy, is a cornerstone of communism but clearly did not feature in Soviet states. It was a distortion by Stalin, I believe, since it's also called Stalinism. It does seem, however, mob mentality (think the effect Hitler's speeches had, despite such insane content) combined with a dictatorship of the proletariat creates the perfect open field for totalitarianism to take hold, where even further power is taken from the working class. The fact it also creates a scapegoat in the capitalist, wealthy class is even worse.
- Kiro 12y ago
  > a dictatorship of the working class, such as direct democracy, is a cornerstone of communism What does this mean? It sounds like you're trying to emphasize it as something good but I can't see how anything with the word dictatorship in it can be that.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    "Dictatorship" in Marxism only works if you use it to mean roughly "power" or "rule". Consider that Marx referred to capitalist democracies as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie: The bourgeois/capitalist class maintains the balance of power. It's also worth pointing out that Marx did not describe the dictatorship of the proletariat as something desirable, but as a necessary temporary state. At the same time he pointed out that there's a fundamental difference: Any capitalist can become a proletarian simply by giving up his wealth.
  - jwdunne 12y ago
    Where the entire working class controls the state and sets policy, which the Soviet Union clearly did not have. I never said it was a good thing, my second paragraph highlights the flaws I see in it. That is what Marx coined it as. Perhaps dictatorship wasn't so strongly associated with tyranny at the time of writing as it is now, which would make sense since we have much greater access to information now, especially accounts on what all the dictatorships of the 20th century were like.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      So what is the difference between democracy and communism? It's just assumed that people will have the power to vote, but will voluntarily choose a communist distribution of wealth?
      - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
        If I understand correctly, no, communism does not assume that, due to "false class consciousness". The proletariat identify themselves with the interests of the bourgeois, not with their own interest, and won't vote in favor of their own true interest. Therefore the proletariat needs saving from itself. This simplifies to "if you don't agree with me, you're too much of an idiot to participate in the conversation". It's a profoundly anti-democratic idea. (Again, presuming that I understand it correctly.)
- jkot 12y ago
  No true Scotsmen fallacy. I read Capital and some other bugs. Problem is that Marxism defined as 'class struggle' is essentially hate movement, they are defined by their enemy. Once they come to power and the 'class struggle' is solved, it does not have any more solutions. So it needs 'constant revolution'. > For one, a dictatorship of the working class, such as direct democracy, is a cornerstone of communism but clearly did not feature in Soviet states. It did. But 'working class' was defined as factory workers, but 90% of people were working in agriculture. Marxist solution was to convert everyone into factory worker and kill rest. > It was a distortion by Stalin, I believe, since it's also called Stalinism. Stalin was not distortion, there were other leaders similar to him, who would take his place if we would not exist. Also other countries followed similar fate (China, North Korea...)
  - jwdunne 12y ago
    Did Marx explicitly state working class as factory workers? Farmers who did not own their land would fall under the same category, surely? From what I've read about Marx's theories and the Soviet Union, they are two separate things. It's like comparing communism to state capitalism. Stalin also lived a life of luxury whilst many starved. This is exactly what communism was meant to prevent. This is just capitalism gone wild but where the state has a monopoly. The man at the top still eats 3 meals a day whilst enjoying movies and fine wine where a whole strata goes hungry. Funny side note: I was born in Scotland but told I'm not Scottish. I'm literally not a true scotsman. Made me laugh.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      The idea that landless workers would fall under the same category comes from Lenin. It was explicitly an attempt to "work around" the many parts of Marx' theories that Lenins opposition in the RSDLP used against his own insistence that it would be possible to carry out a socialist revolution in Russia. When Lenins theory proved conclusively false (the Bolsheviks only managed to get support in the big cities in the elections in 1917, hence their coup d'etat), the Bolsheviks tried a wide range of approaches to demonise and marginalize farmers, and eventually tried to force them into collectives.
    - 12y ago
tomp 12y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the problem with Soviet Union Communism, not Marxism (like the problem with Hitler wasn't nationalistic politics in general, but Nazism in particular)?
- anentropic 12y ago
  though people argue that even if you make the distinction, one thing tends to lead toward the other
- jevgeni 12y ago
  There were a lot of problems with the USSR. If we look at it only from an economic point of view, then it failed because planned economy is broken by design.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the problem with Soviet Union Communism, not Marxism "Communism" was the name of the system Marx advocated (the title of his work with Engels is The Communist Manifesto.) Now, Soviet Communism is distinct from Marx's Communism in that it is based in Leninist vanguardism, which still calls itself Marxist, but radically departs from Marxism in a number of ways, both in terms of understood preconditions and program, in order to address the fact that Russia was not an developed capitalist society of the type Marx's theory was based in.
MisterWebz 12y ago
From the article, if you took the time to read it. This determination to have the complete, closed story, or model, the final word, is something I cannot forgive Marx for. It proved, after all, responsible for a great deal of error and, more significantly, authoritarianism. Errors and authoritarianism that are largely responsible for the left’s current impotence as a force of good and as a check on the abuses of reason and liberty that the neoliberal crew are overseeing today.

by jkot 12y ago

jwdunne 12y ago

Please don't confuse Marx's theories with Marxism-Leninism. The latter is more like state capitalism, i.e like most 'communist' countries we have seen. If you actually read what communism, socialism and marxism are about, you'll find that they are a far cry from the ideology of the soviet union (as defined by their actions). For one, a dictatorship of the working class, such as direct democracy, is a cornerstone of communism but clearly did not feature in Soviet states. It was a distortion by Stalin, I believe, since it's also called Stalinism. It does seem, however, mob mentality (think the effect Hitler's speeches had, despite such insane content) combined with a dictatorship of the proletariat creates the perfect open field for totalitarianism to take hold, where even further power is taken from the working class. The fact it also creates a scapegoat in the capitalist, wealthy class is even worse.

Kiro 12y ago
> a dictatorship of the working class, such as direct democracy, is a cornerstone of communism What does this mean? It sounds like you're trying to emphasize it as something good but I can't see how anything with the word dictatorship in it can be that.
- vidarh 12y ago
  "Dictatorship" in Marxism only works if you use it to mean roughly "power" or "rule". Consider that Marx referred to capitalist democracies as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie: The bourgeois/capitalist class maintains the balance of power. It's also worth pointing out that Marx did not describe the dictatorship of the proletariat as something desirable, but as a necessary temporary state. At the same time he pointed out that there's a fundamental difference: Any capitalist can become a proletarian simply by giving up his wealth.
- jwdunne 12y ago
  Where the entire working class controls the state and sets policy, which the Soviet Union clearly did not have. I never said it was a good thing, my second paragraph highlights the flaws I see in it. That is what Marx coined it as. Perhaps dictatorship wasn't so strongly associated with tyranny at the time of writing as it is now, which would make sense since we have much greater access to information now, especially accounts on what all the dictatorships of the 20th century were like.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    So what is the difference between democracy and communism? It's just assumed that people will have the power to vote, but will voluntarily choose a communist distribution of wealth?
    - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
      If I understand correctly, no, communism does not assume that, due to "false class consciousness". The proletariat identify themselves with the interests of the bourgeois, not with their own interest, and won't vote in favor of their own true interest. Therefore the proletariat needs saving from itself. This simplifies to "if you don't agree with me, you're too much of an idiot to participate in the conversation". It's a profoundly anti-democratic idea. (Again, presuming that I understand it correctly.)
jkot 12y ago
No true Scotsmen fallacy. I read Capital and some other bugs. Problem is that Marxism defined as 'class struggle' is essentially hate movement, they are defined by their enemy. Once they come to power and the 'class struggle' is solved, it does not have any more solutions. So it needs 'constant revolution'. > For one, a dictatorship of the working class, such as direct democracy, is a cornerstone of communism but clearly did not feature in Soviet states. It did. But 'working class' was defined as factory workers, but 90% of people were working in agriculture. Marxist solution was to convert everyone into factory worker and kill rest. > It was a distortion by Stalin, I believe, since it's also called Stalinism. Stalin was not distortion, there were other leaders similar to him, who would take his place if we would not exist. Also other countries followed similar fate (China, North Korea...)
- jwdunne 12y ago
  Did Marx explicitly state working class as factory workers? Farmers who did not own their land would fall under the same category, surely? From what I've read about Marx's theories and the Soviet Union, they are two separate things. It's like comparing communism to state capitalism. Stalin also lived a life of luxury whilst many starved. This is exactly what communism was meant to prevent. This is just capitalism gone wild but where the state has a monopoly. The man at the top still eats 3 meals a day whilst enjoying movies and fine wine where a whole strata goes hungry. Funny side note: I was born in Scotland but told I'm not Scottish. I'm literally not a true scotsman. Made me laugh.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    The idea that landless workers would fall under the same category comes from Lenin. It was explicitly an attempt to "work around" the many parts of Marx' theories that Lenins opposition in the RSDLP used against his own insistence that it would be possible to carry out a socialist revolution in Russia. When Lenins theory proved conclusively false (the Bolsheviks only managed to get support in the big cities in the elections in 1917, hence their coup d'etat), the Bolsheviks tried a wide range of approaches to demonise and marginalize farmers, and eventually tried to force them into collectives.
  - 12y ago

tomp 12y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the problem with Soviet Union Communism, not Marxism (like the problem with Hitler wasn't nationalistic politics in general, but Nazism in particular)?

anentropic 12y ago
though people argue that even if you make the distinction, one thing tends to lead toward the other
jevgeni 12y ago
There were a lot of problems with the USSR. If we look at it only from an economic point of view, then it failed because planned economy is broken by design.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the problem with Soviet Union Communism, not Marxism "Communism" was the name of the system Marx advocated (the title of his work with Engels is The Communist Manifesto.) Now, Soviet Communism is distinct from Marx's Communism in that it is based in Leninist vanguardism, which still calls itself Marxist, but radically departs from Marxism in a number of ways, both in terms of understood preconditions and program, in order to address the fact that Russia was not an developed capitalist society of the type Marx's theory was based in.

MisterWebz 12y ago

From the article, if you took the time to read it. This determination to have the complete, closed story, or model, the final word, is something I cannot forgive Marx for. It proved, after all, responsible for a great deal of error and, more significantly, authoritarianism. Errors and authoritarianism that are largely responsible for the left’s current impotence as a force of good and as a check on the abuses of reason and liberty that the neoliberal crew are overseeing today.