DissidentRage wrote:To be fair Cuba and Rojava are doing alright
and a few other states like Chile and Venezuela were doing okay until we screwed them over hard.
USSR and China were bureaucratic nightmares but also a product of their environment.
But I do think a major mistake is a lot of these started from the top instead of from the bottom
vijayjohn wrote:Cuba has been growing increasingly capitalistic (like every other communist country ever), and Rojava was never communist.
vijayjohn wrote:Neither of these were ever communist, either.
vijayjohn wrote:Both of those were (and China still is) a lot more than just a "bureaucratic nightmare." India is a bureaucratic nightmare. The leaders of both the USSR and China again grew increasingly capitalistic until eventually, there was no longer any semblance to the ideals of communism in either country.
vijayjohn wrote:What would be one example that started from the top and one that started from the bottom? From what I can tell, they always start from the top. The leaders may not start from the top, but that's true of every system. Even absolute monarchies have sometimes been preceded by a rise to power.
DissidentRage wrote:Cuba has had to make moderate concessions to get through an embargo that was forced onto them in order to survive
Making compromises are not indicative of some kind of failure of socialism
but rather the barbarism of capitalism.
Allende definitely was
Chavez made important moves that were reflective of socialism, like nationalizing the oil industry.
The problems we're seeing now are the result of an oil embargo against Venezuela combined with US-financed counter-revolutionaries with a fondness for Pinochet worship.
I don't know why you bring up India since that's not relevant as it's never even approached socialism.
The Paris Commune started from the bottom with radical Parisian laborers and supported by the National Guard. The Spartacist Uprising was an attempt. In both cases they were murdered wholesale by capitalists.
It set the historical precedent that, given the choice, liberals will choose fascism over socialism. But this isn't a surprise, since liberalism ultimately hinges on misanthropy and a deep-seated hatred for democracy.
vijayjohn wrote:But North Korea has not?
vijayjohn wrote:Why not? If the whole point in the end was to get to the point where there is no state (among other things) and that has literally never happened, then why isn't that indicative of some kind of failure of socialism?
vijayjohn wrote:What is so barbaric about capitalism? Sure, capitalism has problems, but how does that make it barbaric?
vijayjohn wrote:The US has also nationalized several of its industries in the past hundred years. It has nothing to do with socialism.
vijayjohn wrote:The problems we're seeing now are the result of government corruption.
vijayjohn wrote:In the case of the Spartacist Uprising, no; the uprising was crushed, but about 3,000 people were killed in total on both sides, and there were about 500,000 participants in the uprising (on one side of the conflict). Neither of these had anything to do with the dismantlement of the state that existed at the time, let alone the creation of a new one.
vijayjohn wrote:Um, seriously? What do you even think liberalism is?
vijayjohn wrote:If liberals choose fascism over socialism given the choice, then why doesn't this happen in, say, Finland?
DissidentRage wrote:vijayjohn wrote:But North Korea has not?
I'm going to assert that the DPRK is not communist. There's nothing about juche that screams socialist. They've been running as a totalitarian dynasty for three generations now while their people suffer.
DissidentRage wrote:I'm going to assert that the DPRK is not communist. There's nothing about juche that screams socialist.
Because they are the results of active coercion by capitalism.
The implication you have been trying to make is that they imploded because they are somehow functionally flawed by virtue of being communist and just don't work on their own accord. Are you switching gears to imply that failure to withstand the willful sabotage of capitalists is what you're actually referring to? In that case I would perhaps agree with you there. Should've followed the Kronstadt model more thoroughly.
It is inherently, necessarily oppressive, exploitative, and violent, at every level, and it can never be restrained. The Nordic countries were considered bastions of social democracy where capitalism was successfully "kept in check," but the laws meant to protect the people from the toxicity of capitalism are currently being rolled back by reactionary partisans and the oppositions too weak to stop them.
And I put "kept in check" because as a leftist I perceive the tendency of capitalism to destroy lives for profit as its natural function and that it is working as intended when it steamrolls everyone else.
No, the unrest has been stirred up from day one of Chavez being elected specifically by the business sector, and the counter-revolutionaries are actually backed up by the US government. The two leaders of the opposition party spent time in a neo-fascist political/religious group.
The Spartacist Uprising was an attempt to bring in communist influence after an important official died. The response was for social democrats to have the reactionary Freikorps cut off Rosa Luxemburg's head.
In both cases they were murdered wholesale by capitalists.
vijayjohn wrote:Um, seriously? What do you even think liberalism is?
In the context of economic models, supporters for capitalism, including private (not personal) property, with the means of production owned by a few at the top.
Are you suggesting Finland hasn't had a very prominent right-wing movement in the past decade?
The reactions of left-liberals range from weak dismissals to legitimizing their platforms, as many ardent "centrists" do here.
vijayjohn wrote:Sooo basically, you're using "liberalism" indiscriminately as a synonym for "capitalism."
During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. Historian Martin Conway argues: "Liberalism, liberal values and liberal institutions formed an integral part of that process of European consolidation. Fifteen years after the end of the Second World War, the liberal and democratic identity of Western Europe had been reinforced on almost all sides by the definition of the West as a place of freedom. Set against the oppression in the Communist East, by the slow development of a greater understanding of the moral horror of Nazism, and by the engagement of intellectuals and others with the new states (and social and political systems) emerging in the non-European world to the South". As a consequence, liberal values were acquiring a wider currency, transcending the limited contours of liberal parties and electorates, thus becoming part of how West Europeans recognize and communicated with each other.
In Europe and North America, the establishment of social liberalism (often called simply "liberalism" in the United States) became a key component in the expansion of the welfare state. Today, liberal parties continue to wield power and influence throughout the world. However, liberalism still has challenges to overcome in Africa and Asia. The fundamental elements of contemporary society have liberal roots. The early waves of liberalism popularised economic individualism while expanding constitutional government and parliamentary authority. One of the greatest liberal triumphs involved replacing the capricious nature of absolute royal rule with a decision-making process encoded in written law. Liberals sought and established a constitutional order that prized important individual freedoms, such as the freedom of speech and of association; an independent judiciary and public trial by jury; and the abolition of aristocratic privileges.
Social democracy, an ideology advocating progressive modification of capitalism, emerged in the 20th century and was influenced by socialism. Yet unlike socialism, it was not collectivist nor anti-capitalist. Broadly defined as a project that aims to correct, through government reformism, what it regards as the intrinsic defects of capitalism by reducing inequalities, social democracy was also not against the state. Several commentators have noted strong similarities between social liberalism and social democracy, with one political scientist even calling American liberalism "bootleg social democracy" due to the absence of a significant social democratic tradition in the United States that liberals have tried to rectify.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservat ... nservatism
Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism that combines conservative values and policies with classical liberal stances. As these latter two terms have had different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a wide variety of meanings. Historically, the term often referred to the combination of economic liberalism, which champions laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservatism concern for established tradition, respect for authority and religious values. It contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres.
Over time, the general conservative ideology in many countries adopted economic liberal arguments, and +the term liberal conservatism was replaced with conservatism.
Critics of contemporary social democracy, such as Jonas Hinnfors, argue that when social democracy abandoned Marxism it also abandoned socialism and has become a liberal capitalist movement, effectively making social democrats similar to non-socialist parties like the U.S. Democratic Party.
I'm still wondering how you're supposed to reach a bottom-up approach to communism through the state. Isn't the state by definition top-down?
vijayjohn wrote:Yeah, but I want to know what he means by "liberalism." What definition of the term is he using such that it requires adherents to choose fascism over socialism when given a choice? I honestly find this proposition of his baffling since it seems to me that in practice, "liberalism" can mean a fairly wide range of political views.
I don't see why it would be impossible, for example, to be both leftist and liberal; isn't it possible, or did I get that completely wrong?
Saim wrote:The communist thesis regarding fascism is that it is not some sort of deep evil that we can guard against simply by asserting liberal values as almost metaphysically universal (declaration of human rights and all that), as fascism is a reaction to economic crises that are inevitable under capitalism, and that the "Liberal" establishment will prefer fascism over socialism because fascism preserves property rights. So we need radical economic restructuring (i.e. a redistribution of power, not just social-democratic concessions and welfare) if we want to prevent fascism. At least that's how I understand the argument.
So I think the way many anticapitalists would classify it would be that the Left is broadly synonymous to anticapitalism, whereas there would also be a left-wing branch of Liberalism (social democracy, left-liberalism, social liberalism), which wouldn't necessarily be part of the capital-l Left.
Although I'm against capitalism as well but I'd probably prefer to make common cause with social democrats and left-liberals on many issues than with Marxist-Leninists. Of course if I say that to a Marxist-Leninist they'll inevitably call me a liberal as well (or a Trotskyite).
But then even under this theory, I don't see how there's any way to guarantee that power is redistributed in such a way that fascism doesn't arise anyway. As I'm sure you know, there are plenty of communist states that have been characterized by racism and/or ethnic discrimination at one point or another, too.
md0 wrote:But I would note that fascism is not just racism. Corporatism is one of the most characteristic aspects of fascism.
Dr. House wrote:Economic Left/Right -1.38
Social Lib/Auth -1.64
Wow this is quite accurate. What party is the closest to this result?
lolIt set the historical precedent that, given the choice, liberals will choose fascism over socialism. But this isn't a surprise, since liberalism ultimately hinges on misanthropy and a deep-seated hatred for democracy.
You're right. I didn't pay close attention to those timestamps. If I had, I would not have posted.md0 wrote:Maybe we shouldn't wake the tankie up again. He disappeared since this thread, and personally I didn't miss him.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests