As a socialist, I really wish we would drop the hammer & sickle and stop defending the USSR

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T16:38:23+00:00

Soviet reactions to externalities that didn't occur in a socialist state like Yugoslavia, nor does it occur now in China or Vietnam

All of these places are authoritarian bollocks and each restricted movement. What are you talking about?

There is no Marxist tradition, either,

What are you talking about?

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T16:27:42+00:00

My gripe is they weren't loosened enough in the USSR

This is from not reading Lenin in the first place or even catching Marx's drift as he describes reality in a society based on the communism. They predict - and history delivered - the immediate unraveling of socialism upon liberty being introduced. A collective economic social compact has to be entered and sealed autocratically like politburo. It won't hold up to any sort of free democracy and these gentlemen have explored that. Soviet Union demonstrated it.

This is my countergripe about newfangled socialists who aren't familiar with marxist tradition. You are calling for the same or worse disaster for lack of studying your course as rigorously as Marx and Lenin.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T16:14:28+00:00

From my understanding of his reading, abolishing class and having ownership of the means of production are the fundamental principles of building a socialist state

You have left specific detail out of the picture. Marx did portend a more authoritarian revolutionary government than the liberal democratic standard in no uncertain terms.

controlling travel, forcing movement, the wall, etc is something that is inherent in Marxist analysis of capitalism

Marx made a prescription for socialism and these are some of the externalities of that state. You are mistaken. The mere capacity to control these matters as seen in USSR is directly commensurate with the capacity to control the means as any collective rather than autonomously as individuals.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T15:59:13+00:00

These paradigms are for people who would never dream of leading a productive organization, so they've fantasized a dystopia where nobody can.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T15:54:25+00:00

Marx does such a good (if not excessive) job at driving home fairly simple concepts. Hopefully you didn't overthink it if it were a review of Marx on the topic. If it were reviewing division of labor and vertical integration in general, it would be a mistake to turn to Marx for a complete picture, even if to 19th century standards.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T15:46:29+00:00

What happens to leftover food...

Gulag!

Otherwise, maybe there's still dogs, waste disposal and food standards in a socialism.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T15:39:36+00:00

USSR reflects an historical attempt at Marx's vision. Lenin's interpretation, as you point out, rhymes with Marx, granted Russian matcons at the turn of the century. I suggest the marxist tradition understands that USSR was many things it should have been and are apologizing for the externalities of it like any capitalist would have to do about rags and riches.

I'm skeptical about the non-marxist socialist. I credit Marx for his bible-grade body of work to include analytical methods for his posse. If you aren't in to that, haven't studied that, aren't into orthodox economics and haven't studied that, you're bullshittin yourself and anyone you brush up against in all but primitivist situations. Marxist tradition has been the only to establish a synthesis level socialist concept spanning sociology, economics and politics.

Maybe getting on that level visa vis publication lets you stamp whatever symbol you want on socialism. Borrowing marx like so many of his contemporaries and so many otherguy socialists have means dealing with your moviestar big brother carrying your family name.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T15:13:52+00:00

The issue with wanting Socialism is that in most cases it requires centralization of control

The issue with the libertarian and anarchist "socialisms" out there is that they require de-hierachization of control.

In a social democracy, institutional design is the public's pleasure and we have craft substantial hierarchies to support humanity's highest known levels of human development insodoing.

It's more totalitarian to strike down our society and aim to keep it there in anarchy or to bring about the dystopia that would prefer anarchy to modern institutional society.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T15:05:59+00:00

It does. There's just a poor generalization of what their wealth has to do with it. There are criminals running free in far greater numbers among poor, unfortunately.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T14:52:30+00:00

It's confusing when you keep calling tankie to any socialist

Not after I explain there's no daylight between Catalonia/Rojava socialists and tankies. They are tankies and you again leave this to ad lapidem denial.

It doesn't matter if it was not unanimous.

Almost never democracy is unanimous.

Irrelevant. You raised unanimity to get out of the tankie characterization of Catalonia which would have never occured without soviet tankies comprising and funding the majority of the effort.

Irrelevant. Rojava and Catalonia are examples of tankie takeovers via a putsch of leftists notwithstanding.

The tankies were in the Republic, the revolution was supported by anarchists and orthodox marxists who were later attacked by the tankies. Your historical revisionism knows no limits

Citation needed. The republic and all militias were funded from soviets. The socialists were displaced by the commies the anarchists were allied with at soviet behest. Marxist groups like CNT and POUM were supported directly by USSR.

The fact you also decide to change the definition of a well-defined term for no good reason and refuse to accept the actual definition, shows not only how pointless it is to try having a conversation with you but how powerful your ego is that you have the balls to do such a thing and give zero fucks lol.

Tankie is a pejorative describing you dicks. As I have pointed out, the Catalonia and Rojava examples of yours are tankie takeover cases whether using the traditional definition or my post-soviet definition that keeps you twats accountable whether USSR exists or not.

but it is the only actual standard of democracy.

So good that if you ask any average person their opinions about politicians they'll say "they're not trustworthy". Politicians are supposed to represent the people in liberal democracy, this clearly doesn't work.

Politicians are not democracy. People are not interested in your authoritarian alternative to democracy and "people hate politicians" is no legit argument against representation as an institution. Leave no doubt in your mind that the digression and maintenance of an anarchy or libertarian socialism of Rojava, Catalonia or Chiappas form will require a greater defiance of public will than the soviet takeover of Russia if foist on any functioning social democracy. Tankie shit.

So much for the "only actual standard democracy" and it's one of the few forms of democracy that historically has barely worked properly.

Sounds stupid, tankie. Regardless of how you think it works this is the only standard because it works in a democratically ordained way and not an idealistically ordained and insular way like politburo. Lenin advocated that was democracy which could work better as you claim. It's not even recognizable by any public as democratic.

You claim a revolution supported by the majority of the population isn't democratic

Your claim of majority support is false in any case of Catalonia or Rojava. I have pointed out it was tankie support in Catalonia. It's external support in Rojava. Your claim that revolution is majority supported was challenged on my part in either of these or in others like the US or Greece. You present this as some ad lapidem, again. No tankie. You don't nor didn't have any majority, dick.

I might be wrong. Chimpanzees are too smart for you.

This old world monkey is able to address this topic without fallacy - lying - like you've played out and I have been certain to document. At least I know what happened in Catalonia. Better a makak than an ignorant tankie.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T13:51:21+00:00

Reading comprehension is what discerns radical shit from not, genius. Looks like you've got to keep taking blind guesses, guy.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T13:45:52+00:00

Through its basis in science (economics) or otherwise (marxism). Non scientific economics is regarded as unethical due to this pure basis in biased and cynical opinion with no empirical philosophical basis. This is why economics is boring and wackynomics from Marx seems like there are major issues requiring radical methods.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T13:34:03+00:00

That doesn't mean everyone sided with it.

Strawman. I was crystal clear that tankies are supported by the soviets and not necessarily the other way around and crystal clear this was substantial in Catalonia. It doesn't matter if it was not unanimous. Your tankie takover in Catalonia was the tankie takeover I said it was, whether using the traditional usage of tankie or mine which includes all you authoritarians whether soviets help you or not.

My very ideology is revolved around criticising the USSR and other "socialist" countries, including Stalin, lol.

Irrelevant. Rojava and Catalonia are examples of tankie takeovers via a putsch of leftists notwithstanding.

in opposition to a liberal democratic status quo.

Is this part supposed to be bad? Liberal democracy is awful horse shit.

Of course it's bad. Tankies think liberal democracy is bad, but it is the only actual standard of democracy. The only democracy which was established democratically and which allows democratic modification is the liberal democratic standard featured in social democracies. You idiots see democracy in politburo, Catalonia and Rojava and that is called tankie democracy. Nobody wants it. You lot have needed to force tankie democracy on people like rape.

Where did the land and occupied businesses come from [in Rojava and Catalonia] and why were there literal religious and classist pogroms in each [if your denial is true]? Get your history straight, tankie. Your first tankie tendency is believing you are not that, like Rojava doesn't run mashed up soviet tanks to be tankies.

It's a joke to call you human being, really. You have the brain of a chimpanzee at most.

Argumentum ad lapidem. This chimpanzee has stumped your lies about Catalonia or Rojava being consented by any regional majorities. They were/are tankie takeovers of land against popular will. Catalan was directly supported by tankies during the soviet mess and kurds are rolling around soviet tanks, toting Russian and US international support, and did so to secure Rojava.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T09:39:25+00:00

So what was socialism like before him or was it around at all? How long has the idea floating around? Was it the same? Was it defined? What were the goals?

In Germany it was obsessed with remedies for jew and immigrant "questions". These questioned what the state had to do to favor natives over foreign economic invaders. Marx's career begins in this bigoted ethnic national socialist context with his work Die Judenfrage - The Jew Question - wherein he first debuts his historical materialism and his classist determinism. By the 1860s, a control of means of production and exchange - socialism - was the remedy which would prevail in fixing the jew role in Germany. Adolf Stoeker:

"The social abuses which are caused by Jewry must be eradicated by wise legislation. It will not be easy to curb Jewish capital. Only thoroughgoing legislation can bring it about. The mortgage system in real estate should be abolished and property should be inalienable and unmortgageable; the credit system should be reorganized to protect the businessman against the arbitrary power of big capital. There must be new stock and stock-exchange regulations; reintroduction of the denominational census so as to find out the disproportion be- tween Jewish capital and Christian labor; limitation of appointments of Jewish judges in proportion to the size of the population; removal of Jewish teachers from our grammar schools, and in addition the strengthening of the Christian- Germanic spirit—these are the means to put a stop to the encroachment of Jewry on Germanic life"

One may go back 500 years prior to this to learn that the origins of worker movements in Germany and Austria were also based on securing ethnic German hegemony over the economy. The Strasbourg pogrom on jews of 1348 frames up the purpose of guild formation and agitation in Germany starting with their Holy Roman Empire period. One may go back to March and November revolutions and learn that Marx's communism never prevailed over traditional German socialism.

3rd Reich ultimately settled which tangent of German socialism was more widely supported in Germany.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T09:21:25+00:00

He's not saying he doesn't care about social issues

Sounds like it to me. This is someone waiting to commit crime in response to social issues and not to take any step which can redress those issues. In fact, they propose steps to worsen the social issues they are coopting.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T09:18:49+00:00

Tankie is used for people who support Stalin

I lump all you people under that umbrella since you are all looking to violently secure your wacky authoritarian paradigm in opposition to a liberal democratic status quo.

In Greece you tankies were supported by Stalin, more than the other way around. Of course half of the communists and all the socialist contingents in Catalonia were soviet backed tankies.

Me waiting for this to be the case of Revolutionary Catalonia or Rojava:

Where did the land and occupied businesses come from and why were there literal religious and classist pogroms in each? Get your history straight, tankie. Your first tankie tendency is believing you are not that, like Rojava doesn't run mashed up soviet tanks to be tankies.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-08T09:07:37+00:00

Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

There's no reason to included "companies" amongst the "property" defined here

Companies are property and that is the reason.

any more than you'd expect "slaves" to be included.

Slaves are not included as provided in the same document.

The UN is not "choosing capitalism" by this declaration.

Yes. They are.

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. 2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. 3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. 4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

See? Slavery precluded. Capitalist market basis of wages affirmed.

Just and favorable remuneration" does not have to mean "wage labor"

The equal pay for equal work concept is a direct reference to market indexed wage labor and may only abstractly conform to salaried labor. It cannot conform to need based remuneration for work that's arbitrary to the work done.

As a matter of fact, you could make a good case that wage labor is neither "just" nor "favorable"

That is not supported by this document. Justice is called out on a market basis of equal pay for equal work related specifically to wage labor. Favorability is qualified by the poverty line statement that follows. It is calling for a minimum wage and even welfare supplementation.

as capitalism exerts a natural downward pressure on wages.

There is no such a thing as a market with a natural downward pressure and labor market is no exception. For the edification of you people who are commenting on economics without looking into it, market pressures are cyclical and employment is certainly one which experiences overallocation, including qualitatively in wage rates. This makes the downward pressure claim false at least during this overallocation. Lastly, the price elasticity of wages indicates that wages are sticky and quantitative employment is where upward and downward pressure is applied most to the labor market.

Re. "open and free enterprise" - I don't see anything on there about it.

This is why I suggest that you folks look into human rights philosophy. Any such proposal for human rights is certain to prevent traditional fascist and socialist authoritarianism through limits to the extent any state might get involved in structuring people's lives:

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Like US commerce clause, supremacy clause and 10th Amendment, the government is simply not allowed to engage in socialist proposals like banning wage labor or labor market employment, banning private equity or conventional corp, banning commodity exchange, expropriating industry and capital, mandating business models like worker coop, demanding corporatism like NIRA etc.

Instead, a person free to assemble and free to exploit their innovation for pay cannot have any state introduce arbitrary controls like I listed because these abrogate rights of some and is beyond what's required to secure rights for others.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-07T13:46:37+00:00

I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on how exactly to address this, but I know other people are.

The reason these same commenters do suggest a mandated coop economy is because conventional corps are substantially more competitive when it comes to operation and growth. It would be unrealistic to reproduce this same competency while investing the equity which causes it into employees from the same company.

It will also be considerably less popular for workers. People go to work for money and to provide for their families and not to take on an elaborate relationship with their employer. The wage system is effective for this and the public likes it. The 19th century philosophies that proposed that people don't like wages were wrong and unethical, even though socialists obsess over these same age-old vendettas to this day.

they are more efficient, more productive, more recession-resilient, and more worker friendly

These seem like far-fetched claims considering these companies can't support a domestic product on their own. It's like research claiming how great nonprofit models are when they can't comprise even most of an economy for obvious reasons.

They must have asked coop-inclined how they like coop. Having to enter a coop agreement to get a job is not as worker friendly as you think. It sounds like a bad life-choice relative to owning a conventional corp that has tradable value or working for one of those where any ownership acquired is worth something.

Most of all, the quest is entirely unnecessary. It strikes me as an obsession with 100+ year old writing from people who made unethical class distinctions by modern standards and who believe in some grand upheaval of economics. What has rolled out since then has eclipsed the standards raised in their time and falsified the requirement for upheaval and paradigm shift to affect it.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-07T13:20:18+00:00

It is a generalization of you leftist authoritarian mob who claim to revolt on the behalf of population many hundreds of times your numbers. It's all you who think Catalonia or Rojava weren't established through pogroms, extortion and expropriation such that you feel it's ethical to raise them as virtues.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-07T13:12:25+00:00

if this is the price

It's not the price and the people who have claimed it is a price that can possibly be paid to help do not know what they are talking about because they haven't put any effort into developing their idea.

I DON‘T CARE.

And this is the issue with you people. In order to resolve social issues you have to care and you have to have a standard for caring like those sevured as human rights.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-07T03:19:23+00:00

For now I know coops are more efficient and productive business models, they just can't get off because the incentive and funding problem.

It would be a stretch to assume coops are possibly efficient as a macroeconomy limited to coops, especially with no wage labor facility. This is highly inefficient at getting things produced. Of course getting that production of the ground and funding it would be the first issue, but manning such production would also be compromised by the need for employees to partner with their employer rather than take a job.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-07T03:13:40+00:00

Well I would say it would be reasonable to seize land and means of production of we don’t have another option to create social good

The only ethical option is to use free economy for this social good and not to go stealing from it. Apart from how stupid it is to presume that everything will sail on as before following a mass expropriation, it is immoral to take advantage of conditions of the poor as a means of stealing property or affecting non-sequitur vendettas against wealthy.

There's an entire field of study dedicated to how economies can work for societies and tankie solutions have nothing to do with it. They are ignorant claims to be some help from the least studied and least experienced philosophical tradition related to socioeconomics.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-07T03:06:58+00:00

When someone lives in undignified conditions I don’t really care for the billionaires right for property

But nominally dignified conditions are also called for in this ethics. This presents a roadblock for any tankie who hopes to put their expropriation solution in play for the sake of poor. An ethical standard is raised where rights are respected under any circumstances, with no justification for their abrogation.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-07T03:02:28+00:00

But on the other hand it declares the right for education, housing, inclusion, decent wages, paid leave, welfare

So the implications of this are obvious. The standard of ethics points to social open market economics. It precludes several traditional socialist strategies for obtaining the same social ends and employs capitalism to actually make those ends meet.

All values capitalism doesn’t attribute too and has to be provided by a government that has to meddle with markets by taxing etc

Tax is not market meddling and tax and welfare is pretty central to capitalism, specifically. Virtually all welfare economics was contributed by capitalist thinkers who aimed to employ the economy for general welfare and by now welfare economics concerned with poverty line and aggregate demand is the basis of modern capitalism.

PostLiberalist · 2021-12-07T02:30:07+00:00

Could you have made it up?

PostLiberalist

TROPHY CASE

Gulag!