The trouble is that I’m not a “majority” I am a person. More to the point, I am a person who is more used to not being in the majority than I am in it. “Good for the majority” in many cases has often left me out.
It isn’t in my interest to pursue strategies that are good for the majority. There are others like me.
Such states can have many problems, but they’re an undeniable improvement over capitalism.
That’s not clear at all. Let’s go with the “at least communism fed everyone”. In the United States, literally no one starves who isn’t anorexic or similarly mentally ill. Homeless people are fat.
We can talk about other metrics too (spaces races and whatnot), but capitalism seems to at least keep up with communism in those regards without some really absurd double standards.
The default state of things in the west is that monopoly on violence is in the hands of capitalists, and it’s currently being used to subjugate the rest of the population to the will of capitalists.
Which of course never happened in the Soviet Union or Cuba, or any of the the other places?
Look, I’m not even you’re opponent here. There is a profound philosophical question here, one that if anyone actually bothers to attempt to solve it, the sort of violence you think is a solution might actually become possible.
More to the point, not just possible, but justifiable. Like, provably so. Even to people like myself who don’t conform to your ideology.
Wouldn’t it be great if, for instance, we could look at some event somewhere in the world, apply the rules, and say “in situations like this where x and y are occurring, and where z does not occur, that violence was justified”? We have those rules mostly worked out for individual scenarios. We know what self-defense looks like.
We don’t have those rules worked out for group/collective scenarios. And until we do, it will always be anxiety-inducing to contemplate the violence, and politically dangerous to even talk about it (for fear of terrorism conspiracy charges). Better still, with the rules worked out and agreed upon (mostly or wholly), we’d likely see quite alot of behavior changing in a hurry when the government realizes it is inviting justified rebellion if it doesn’t… without having to resort to the violence.
The part you have to get over first is accepting that it may truly be the case that if we figure those rules out honestly, some of your heroes may turn out to have been “not so heroic” and some of your examples of good governments may turn out to have been the tyrants their detractors have claimed all along.
The trouble is that I’m not a “majority” I am a person. More to the point, I am a person who is more used to not being in the majority than I am in it. “Good for the majority” in many cases has often left me out.
Let’s be more specific here then. When means of production are owned publicly then they’re used to create things that are socially necessary and benefit most people. Things like roads, hospitals, schools, public transit, and so on. This is where work should be directed in a fair society.
That’s not clear at all. Let’s go with the “at least communism fed everyone”. In the United States, literally no one starves who isn’t anorexic or similarly mentally ill. Homeless people are fat.
We can talk about other metrics too (spaces races and whatnot), but capitalism seems to at least keep up with communism in those regards without some really absurd double standards.
Absolutely false, the life style in imperial core is directly built on the exploitation of other countries. US was literally founded on genocide and slavery. Even within US itself people of color are exploited at a far higher rate than whites. US also holds 20% of world’s prison population, predominantly minorities, and these are used as slave labor.
Which of course never happened in the Soviet Union or Cuba, or any of the the other places?
Hard to subjugate the population to the will of capitalists when you don’t have capitalists. Means of production in states like Soviet Union or Cuba are under public control and the work is directed towards common benefit.
Look, I’m not even you’re opponent here. There is a profound philosophical question here, one that if anyone actually bothers to attempt to solve it, the sort of violence you think is a solution might actually become possible.
We have mountains of historical evidence that communist revolutions result in improved living conditions for the people of the country. It’s also worth noting that violence has never been the first thing revolutionaries reach for. Revolutions invariably start with peaceful protests, strikes, and other non-violent means. These actions are invariably met with state violence, and that’s how things escalate towards violent revolutions.
However, the key point to acknowledge here is that capitalist states are inherently violent. People are forced into a situation where they have to work for capitalists or starve on the streets. The purpose of the work is to create wealth for the business owners, which is fundamentally different from the purpose of work in a socialist states. In effect, majority of the population is coerced into slaving for the capital owning class. This system is maintained through state violence.
The part you have to get over first is accepting that it may truly be the case that if we figure those rules out honestly, some of your heroes may turn out to have been “not so heroic” and some of your examples of good governments may turn out to have been the tyrants their detractors have claimed all along.
Having personally lived under both communism and capitalism, I find the former to be vastly preferable. Communist states aren’t perfect, but they are a significant improvement over capitalism.
When means of production are owned publicly then they’re used to create things that are socially necessary and benefit most people.
That’s the theory. The practice is that they’re used poorly, and sometimes not at all. 3000 tons of left shoes. Phantom inventories floating around, trying to stave off purges.
At some point they tend to concentrate on “socially necessary” because there’s so little spare capacity left that that no luxuries can even be contemplated. So you got that part right.
And by luxuries, we aren’t talking $300 million yachts… we’re talking oil paints. Then we get the “state-sanctioned art” stuff. “When oil paints are scarce, they can’t be wasted on capitalist propaganda comrade!” and “There are secret fifth columnists who will use this Cerulean Blue and Mummy Brown to destroy our socialist utopia!”.
Gotta love “public ownership”. But when you believe in fairy tales, it’s so often difficult to see reality.
However, the key point to acknowledge here is that capitalist states are inherently violent.
Humans are monkeys. Monkeys are violent. This happens regardless of political ideology or economic systems.
Socialism is inherently violent. There will always be people who do not wish to live in socialism. And if you let them defect, soon there won’t be anyone participating. Thus, they cannot be allowed to defect. The only way to prohibit them from defecting is violence.
Meanwhile, in the United States, any of you are free to set up your own little commune, and do socialism for as long as you like. But it never works, only freeloaders show up. And then you blame capitalism for that.
Capitalism has its share of violence. But it tamps it down… there are easier and safer ways to get what you want than to bash someone over the head and take it.
That’s the theory. The practice is that they’re used poorly, and sometimes not at all. 3000 tons of left shoes. Phantom inventories floating around, trying to stave off purges.
It’s not just theory, it’s a demonstrable fact. USSR lifted millions of people out of poverty and provided them with education, food, housing, and jobs. There are numerous studies showing that USSR managed to provide a much better standard of living than vast majority of capitalist nations, and it did this without exploitation or colonization inherent in capitalism.
These people experienced a far more luxurious life experience than the common Soviet citizen, in the same way Bezos experiences a far more luxurious life experience than myself.
That’s absolute and utter nonsense. Nobody lived like Bezos in USSR, and in fact politicians weren’t even the highest paid profession. Party members lived in apartments, and their lifestyle was incredibly modest compared to capitalist oligarchs. You’re simply discrediting yourself by making such statements.
Gotta love “public ownership”. But when you believe in fairy tales, it’s so often difficult to see reality.
I actually grew up in USSR, but please tell me more what my life there was really like.
No, they didn’t. Ever heard of “coffin problems”? They were a sort of entrance exam that kept “certain people” out of the most prestigious universities while allowing others in without even bothering with the tests. Sort of like the literacy voting tests they had in the Jim Crow south. Impossible to pass if you were the wrong sort of human.
Yes they did, that’s why all the leadership in USSR came from common people from all over the country. To be blunt, comparing problems in USSR to Jim Crow laws makes you an idiot.
Socialism is inherently violent. There will always be people who do not wish to live in socialism. And if you let them defect, soon there won’t be anyone participating. Thus, they cannot be allowed to defect. The only way to prohibit them from defecting is violence.
You can’t make a system where everyone is happy, but you can make one that serves the needs of the majority. That’s what socialism is. It’s a more fair system than capitalism. The only reason you defend capitalism is because you’re the one directly benefiting from the exploitation.
Meanwhile, in the United States, any of you are free to set up your own little commune, and do socialism for as long as you like. But it never works, only freeloaders show up. And then you blame capitalism for that.
You continue to flaunt your utter lack of intelligence here. How are you free to start a commune in US if you don’t own any capital. In order to start a commune, you need to be able to buy land and then to be able to afford to build things on that land. Vast majority of Americans have nowhere near the capital needed to do that. If you’re born poor in US, you have to work at least 40 hours a week just so you don’t starve on the street. The fact that you don’t understand this simple fact is truly amazing.
Capitalism has its share of violence. But it tamps it down… there are easier and safer ways to get what you want than to bash someone over the head and take it.
You’re an utter ignoramus if you think that. Let’s start with the fact that US holds 20% of world’s prison population that’s used as slave labor.
The trouble is that I’m not a “majority” I am a person. More to the point, I am a person who is more used to not being in the majority than I am in it. “Good for the majority” in many cases has often left me out.
It isn’t in my interest to pursue strategies that are good for the majority. There are others like me.
That’s not clear at all. Let’s go with the “at least communism fed everyone”. In the United States, literally no one starves who isn’t anorexic or similarly mentally ill. Homeless people are fat.
We can talk about other metrics too (spaces races and whatnot), but capitalism seems to at least keep up with communism in those regards without some really absurd double standards.
Which of course never happened in the Soviet Union or Cuba, or any of the the other places?
Look, I’m not even you’re opponent here. There is a profound philosophical question here, one that if anyone actually bothers to attempt to solve it, the sort of violence you think is a solution might actually become possible.
More to the point, not just possible, but justifiable. Like, provably so. Even to people like myself who don’t conform to your ideology.
Wouldn’t it be great if, for instance, we could look at some event somewhere in the world, apply the rules, and say “in situations like this where x and y are occurring, and where z does not occur, that violence was justified”? We have those rules mostly worked out for individual scenarios. We know what self-defense looks like.
We don’t have those rules worked out for group/collective scenarios. And until we do, it will always be anxiety-inducing to contemplate the violence, and politically dangerous to even talk about it (for fear of terrorism conspiracy charges). Better still, with the rules worked out and agreed upon (mostly or wholly), we’d likely see quite alot of behavior changing in a hurry when the government realizes it is inviting justified rebellion if it doesn’t… without having to resort to the violence.
The part you have to get over first is accepting that it may truly be the case that if we figure those rules out honestly, some of your heroes may turn out to have been “not so heroic” and some of your examples of good governments may turn out to have been the tyrants their detractors have claimed all along.
Let’s be more specific here then. When means of production are owned publicly then they’re used to create things that are socially necessary and benefit most people. Things like roads, hospitals, schools, public transit, and so on. This is where work should be directed in a fair society.
That’s a false statement https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/31/us/food-insecurity-30-million-census-survey/index.html
Absolutely false, the life style in imperial core is directly built on the exploitation of other countries. US was literally founded on genocide and slavery. Even within US itself people of color are exploited at a far higher rate than whites. US also holds 20% of world’s prison population, predominantly minorities, and these are used as slave labor.
Hard to subjugate the population to the will of capitalists when you don’t have capitalists. Means of production in states like Soviet Union or Cuba are under public control and the work is directed towards common benefit.
We have mountains of historical evidence that communist revolutions result in improved living conditions for the people of the country. It’s also worth noting that violence has never been the first thing revolutionaries reach for. Revolutions invariably start with peaceful protests, strikes, and other non-violent means. These actions are invariably met with state violence, and that’s how things escalate towards violent revolutions.
However, the key point to acknowledge here is that capitalist states are inherently violent. People are forced into a situation where they have to work for capitalists or starve on the streets. The purpose of the work is to create wealth for the business owners, which is fundamentally different from the purpose of work in a socialist states. In effect, majority of the population is coerced into slaving for the capital owning class. This system is maintained through state violence.
Having personally lived under both communism and capitalism, I find the former to be vastly preferable. Communist states aren’t perfect, but they are a significant improvement over capitalism.
That’s the theory. The practice is that they’re used poorly, and sometimes not at all. 3000 tons of left shoes. Phantom inventories floating around, trying to stave off purges.
At some point they tend to concentrate on “socially necessary” because there’s so little spare capacity left that that no luxuries can even be contemplated. So you got that part right.
And by luxuries, we aren’t talking $300 million yachts… we’re talking oil paints. Then we get the “state-sanctioned art” stuff. “When oil paints are scarce, they can’t be wasted on capitalist propaganda comrade!” and “There are secret fifth columnists who will use this Cerulean Blue and Mummy Brown to destroy our socialist utopia!”.
Gotta love “public ownership”. But when you believe in fairy tales, it’s so often difficult to see reality.
Humans are monkeys. Monkeys are violent. This happens regardless of political ideology or economic systems.
Socialism is inherently violent. There will always be people who do not wish to live in socialism. And if you let them defect, soon there won’t be anyone participating. Thus, they cannot be allowed to defect. The only way to prohibit them from defecting is violence.
Meanwhile, in the United States, any of you are free to set up your own little commune, and do socialism for as long as you like. But it never works, only freeloaders show up. And then you blame capitalism for that.
Capitalism has its share of violence. But it tamps it down… there are easier and safer ways to get what you want than to bash someone over the head and take it.
It’s not just theory, it’s a demonstrable fact. USSR lifted millions of people out of poverty and provided them with education, food, housing, and jobs. There are numerous studies showing that USSR managed to provide a much better standard of living than vast majority of capitalist nations, and it did this without exploitation or colonization inherent in capitalism.
That’s absolute and utter nonsense. Nobody lived like Bezos in USSR, and in fact politicians weren’t even the highest paid profession. Party members lived in apartments, and their lifestyle was incredibly modest compared to capitalist oligarchs. You’re simply discrediting yourself by making such statements.
I actually grew up in USSR, but please tell me more what my life there was really like.
Yes they did, that’s why all the leadership in USSR came from common people from all over the country. To be blunt, comparing problems in USSR to Jim Crow laws makes you an idiot.
You can’t make a system where everyone is happy, but you can make one that serves the needs of the majority. That’s what socialism is. It’s a more fair system than capitalism. The only reason you defend capitalism is because you’re the one directly benefiting from the exploitation.
You continue to flaunt your utter lack of intelligence here. How are you free to start a commune in US if you don’t own any capital. In order to start a commune, you need to be able to buy land and then to be able to afford to build things on that land. Vast majority of Americans have nowhere near the capital needed to do that. If you’re born poor in US, you have to work at least 40 hours a week just so you don’t starve on the street. The fact that you don’t understand this simple fact is truly amazing.
You’re an utter ignoramus if you think that. Let’s start with the fact that US holds 20% of world’s prison population that’s used as slave labor.