Socialism

"

Bars wrote:

You can't rush economic development

Actually there are several examples of a third world nation rushing to among the worlds most prosperous. Stalin did it. Mao Zedong did it. Im sure there are smaller countries im not aware of which did it (my knowledge of history is pretty damn poor tbh).

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

Bars wrote:

You can't rush economic development

Actually there are several examples of a third world nation rushing to among the worlds most prosperous. Stalin did it. Mao Zedong did it. Im sure there are smaller countries im not aware of which did it (my knowledge of history is pretty damn poor tbh).

IIRC, the Meiji Restoration in Japan was another example of a country making tremendous strides in a short period. There's a lot to be said for taking a good long look at what is being done with an open mind and considering what can be done in a better way, even if that way is vastly different than before.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Depending on how much you already know, this might be a great time to do some thought experiments. Pick a country that you don't know much about that chose socialism, then find some older published books before they went socialist and during the early years. Then make some predictions of your own, based on what you read and your interpretation.

Now, look up the actual history of what happened with socialism in that country and contrast it with expectations, and consider what might have impacted or helped the progression of socialism in that particular place and time.

Do this with a couple other places and see if there is a pattern. Now look at current locations and make a few predictions in a notebook, and then watch as history unfolds.

Such 'evidence' is hardly reliable. History is written by biased individuals.

In the beginning of the cold war, the US government was scared of communism. They were afraid it might result in a regime change in the US, and they were afraid of powerful growing enemy states. If you look in the right places, you can find stories of all kinds of clandestine operations to fuel unrest in communist countries, discredit them at home and abroad, and actual military/ economic attacks.
Thus communism cannot be 'simply' examined in practice. The world is far too interconnected.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

Bars wrote:

You can't rush economic development

Actually there are several examples of a third world nation rushing to among the worlds most prosperous. Stalin did it. Mao Zedong did it. Im sure there are smaller countries im not aware of which did it (my knowledge of history is pretty damn poor tbh).

IIRC, the Meiji Restoration in Japan was another example of a country making tremendous strides in a short period. There's a lot to be said for taking a good long look at what is being done with an open mind and considering what can be done in a better way, even if that way is vastly different than before.

Stalin and Mao butchered tens of millions of their own people. It was industrialization forced at gunpoint and their countries paid with interest later on. If you are calling the Soviet Union during Stalin's reign and Mao's China 'among the world's most prosperous', I don't really know what to tell you. Out of all of human history, these countries at that time were some of the worst places to live in. The Meiji restoration was a fine example of early capitalism introduced when the conditions are right, as Japan was in a late and long overdue feudalism at that time. Not to mention the mass introduction of outside new technology and experts and the end of centuries of isolationism.

History has inertia. If you try to slow progress down, it then catches up in a surprisingly short time. If you try to speed it up, you're just slowing it down in the long term.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Depending on how much you already know, this might be a great time to do some thought experiments. Pick a country that you don't know much about that chose socialism, then find some older published books before they went socialist and during the early years. Then make some predictions of your own, based on what you read and your interpretation.

Now, look up the actual history of what happened with socialism in that country and contrast it with expectations, and consider what might have impacted or helped the progression of socialism in that particular place and time.

Do this with a couple other places and see if there is a pattern. Now look at current locations and make a few predictions in a notebook, and then watch as history unfolds.

Such 'evidence' is hardly reliable. History is written by biased individuals.

In the beginning of the cold war, the US government was scared of communism. They were afraid it might result in a regime change in the US, and they were afraid of powerful growing enemy states. If you look in the right places, you can find stories of all kinds of clandestine operations to fuel unrest in communist countries, discredit them at home and abroad, and actual military/ economic attacks.
Thus communism cannot be 'simply' examined in practice. The world is far too interconnected.

The Domino Theory was a very real fear for a long time in the US. I wasn't saying that the past books were 100% or even 90% accurate - more like a fuzzy snapshot of a day at the beach with friends. They can serve to give a historical perspective (since we don't have access to functional time machines) and allow someone to test out various predictions.

In the real world, there are all sorts of obstacles to a given system. Political infighting being one of the greatest, and hardest to gauge without detailed info. You are right that a truly accurate assessment cannot be simply examined, and that the world is far too interconnected. Even a mid level examination of Marxism in East Asia for instance is about 12-15,000 pages of reading, depending on your sources.

That doesn't preclude using a partial understanding of the past as a way to see the political dynamic as an actual moving object through the lens of history. While imperfect, it gives someone an entry level grasp of just how malleable a system can be. Understanding how that interconnect can actually apply for instance.

History is always being revised. Sometimes more accurately, sometimes less. The more versions you know, the more you begin to recognize the tectonic activity underneath that is really driving the politics.

"

Bars wrote:

Stalin and Mao butchered tens of millions of their own people. It was industrialization forced at gunpoint and their countries paid with interest later on. If you are calling the Soviet Union during Stalin's reign and Mao's China 'among the world's most prosperous', I don't really know what to tell you. Out of all of human history, these countries at that time were some of the worst places to live in. The Meiji restoration was a fine example of early capitalism introduced when the conditions are right, as Japan was in a late and long overdue feudalism at that time. Not to mention the mass introduction of outside new technology and experts and the end of centuries of isolationism.

History has inertia. If you try to slow progress down, it then catches up in a surprisingly short time. If you try to speed it up, you're just slowing it down in the long term.

But how many were saved over the years due to increased health care, a strong military which prevented invasion, and generally better living conditions?

I do not condone atrocities, but you cant deny they were effective. If only they had turned to the power of propaganda and education instead of the iron glove of oppression. They could have had the best of both worlds.

"

SkyCore wrote:

But how many were saved over the years due to increased health care, a strong military which prevented invasion, and generally better living conditions?

I do not condone atrocities, but you cant deny they were effective. If only they had turned to the power of propaganda and education instead of the iron glove of oppression. They could have had the best of both worlds.

I can and I will. Not even going to discuss it. If you think what they did was effective, we have such fundamental differences and disagreements that any further debate is pointless. I live in a post-socialist country, by the way. What they did was so fucked up, billions of people are still paying for it nowadays.

"

SkyCore wrote:

But how many were saved over the years due to increased health care, a strong military which prevented invasion, and generally better living conditions?

Yeah... 'we have first to kill you, before we can save you'.

I live in a post-socialist country too. Fuck socialism. It doesn't only destroy your country economically, that can be solved rather quickly with proper capitalist reforms, it also destroys the culture, middle-class, intellectualism and pushes your nation mentality into worshipping the Government God for generations to come.

I've read / heard somewhere:

Capitalism is a system where the rich get political power
Socialism is a system where the politically powerful get rich*

(*after killing & purging everyone in their way)

No state has had communism yet. The most important consensus is that the measn of productions are owened by the working class. Not the state, not the goverment, not the political elite. The opinion that "socialism" is big goverment is entirely flase. It is no goverment. Dictatoship of the Proletariate, as in a state organisation, CHOSEN AND CONTROLLED by the working class was to be a transitional period before goverment is eliminated entirely. This have never happen. Also real Dictatorship of the Poletariate has never happened, maybe except the first years of Castro in Cuba.

That being said i think Cuba had achieved the best living standards in the world COMPARED TO HER GDP, her resources and the fact that it has an embargo upon it, including the best public healthcare system in the world. So that was somewhat of a success, which could have been much much better if the world, and especially the US was not so hostile against it.

Actual communism is the next form of social organisation, after capitalism, and i beleive humanity will inevatibly embrace it at some point(unless the earth is destroyed), because capitalism reaches a point where it just cannot continue. Marx's writting in the capital are actually the most prophetic words ever written by man, since, literally everything he said has come true.

Marx also pointed out that there is progress through capitalism. That is the main argument of most Ann Ryand heads. However, to quote Noam Chomsky, this is actually a terrible argument. There was great progress through slavery. Is slavery a good system? Stalin took a third world country, and turned it into a superpower that flew people into space and at some point was (in numbers, not technology/strategic position etc.) the biggest military superpower on earth. Was stalinism good?

I agree that Marx is the best prophet. Capitalism will inevitably fail at some point, we're already seeing its downfall. The West is currently becoming politically unstable due to capitalism failing to appropriately redistribute goods. Same will happen to the East once the prospering middle class loses their jobs due to automation. People say socialism is shit because it never worked, but capitalism as we know it will be gone in like 20 years and we need an alternative. Once you reach a certain productivity level, socialism can indeed work imo.