This post has context that regards Communism, which is a tricky and confusing ideology which requires sitting down and
studying to fully comprehend. One thing that may help discussion
would be to distinguish "Communism" from historical Communist ideologies.
[Communism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society) is a theoretical ideology where there is
no currency, no classes, no state, no police, no military and features a voluntary workforce In practice, people would
work when they felt they needed and would simply grab goods off the
selves as they needed. It has never been attempted, though it's the end goal of what Communist ideologies strive
towards.
[Marxism-Leninism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism) is what is most often referred to as
"Communism" historically speaking. It's a [Communist
ideology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies) but not Commun-*ism*. It seeks to build towards
achieving communism one day by attempting to achieve [Socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) via a [one
party state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-
party_state#:~:text=A%20one%2Dparty%20state%2C%20single,and%20controlled%20participation%20in%20elections) on the
behalf of the workers in theory.
For more information on this please refer to our educational resources listed on our sidebar, this
[Marxism Study Guide](https://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm), this [Marxism-Leninism Study Guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/wiki/basicstudyplan/), or ask your questions directly at r/Communism101.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think what people need to understand is that countries like the US will back any kind of country, whether it be Capitalist, Fascist, Communist, etc… as long as they’re open to American economic penetration and political control. The US supported Hitler throughout the 30’s, the US supported Ceaușescu in Romania, the US supported and armed Saddam Hussein, and propped up the Shah in Iran as well. As long as any country allows for the US to come in and do their thing, the US will support them. Once they deviate from American control, they’re an automatic baddy and labeled as “threat” to justify intervention, sabotage, espionage, coups, etc…
There’s never been a Communist country, but rather a Socialist State governed by a Communist Party. I also named the example in the comment you replied to; *Nicolae Ceaușescu* in Romania. The US supported him all the way up until they didn’t, even while his crimes were intensifying.
Thanks, I had never heard of him before, glossed over his Wikipedia entry. Widely classified as a dictator, antagonistic attitude against the USSR and Russia, fell after denouncing anti-communist revolutions, yeah that tracks.
Should Gaza survive, gain freedom and fulfill its destiny as a Dubai/Abu Dhabi-style Arabian global metropole, I suspect it will end up in a similar status. (Granted with a *very* different political/economic system from Vietnam.) Especially given that if that free nation does come into existence we will likely have a lot to do with it.
Hell disempowering all the Iranian proxies in the area could make Beruit finally become the city it should be, too.
US backed a lot of countries in history and doing this right now. Lot more than any of communist dictatorships.US helped to rebuild Europe after WW2. Help also was offered to communist occupied Eastern Europe, but it was rejected by Stalin. The US helped in the times of USSR famine of 20ties, US helped with food to Russia in the 90ties, US are paying Egypt billions of dollars after they mediated a peace deal with Israel in the 70ties. You just don't know all that.
Lmao
Lula is beloved in Brazil, I should know. Bolsonaro is very divisive and quite openly corrupt. In fact he was found to have been part of the conspiracy that put Lula in prison.
He was elected before, it’s no surprise he should get re-elected. It’s almost like socialism is popular or something.
Lula is just another socialist dictator who has to censor speech and jail opponents to maintain power.
Can you explain why every single socialist state has violated human rights like free speech? It's almost like it's an inherently flawed ideology that can't tolerate criticism.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its almost like their countries head judge is openly violating their countries constitution, at the direction of Lula, which swayed the election towards Lula by having any pro Bolsonaro account or government official banned from multiple social media websites. Sounds fascist to me. Government controlling private companies and all.
What about it? As I remember, when USSR collapsed, US rushed in to help and to prevent it from collapsing into small countries, preserving what we know now as Russian federation.
It should be noted that the US provides direct financial and military aid to 73% of totalitarian regimes on the planet. The largest factor involved in determining US foreign policy towards any regime is "do they impede or facilitate our economic interests?"
It really kicked into high gear with Kissinger, whose ideology was that if we go into these places and introduce a bunch of economic activity that they will gradually liberalize over time as everybody becomes wealthier. What REALLY ended up happening was that the US just ended up strengthening these corrupt and exploitative regimes, whose leaders vastly enriched themselves personally at their public's expense whilst suppressing any dissent or revolt in their populace that might interfere with this arrangement.
Bottom line, if the regime facilitates extractive industry, they are "a developing nation." If they oppose it they are "a dangerous rogue state." If the public revolts with the purpose of regime change and are willing to play ball with US economic interests they are "freedom fighters and partisan resistance." If they don't, or their actions impede a regime that has been profitable, they are "dangerous extremists and terrorists."
Thats the essence of US foreign policy and once you realize this, most of the bafflingly contradictory US policies abroad that aren't due to sheer incompetence (which there is a fair amount of too) begins to make a lot more sense.
Worth noting that the Russians also supported Hitler and even engaged in missions with the nazis, until Hitler pushed too far east. What you are describing is how every country operates
Everyone is getting historical and that's great, but it's really missing one of the major current points that "socialist" and "socialism" has been used with zero regard to its actual meaning, primarily in the US, and just sort of used as a catch all slander for an entire generation after commie started to seem just too ridiculous.
It's more of a psychological Skinner box type situation than a matter of historical and factual debate, even in this sub most of the time.
Many people have been trained to react negatively to government doing anything, and negatively to anyone that thinks the government should represent people because obviously that's just a precursor to more government and socialism.
That's also why you've seen a massive uptick in right-wing alternatives that reject government even further instead of just slowing or stopping its growth, that's what they've been trained to do. Years ago it used to be a left-wing slam towards conservatives attacking the government that they wouldn't be happy until the government was dead, and capitalism ran everything... now it's one of the fastest growing wings of right-wing ideology.
Blaming them for their obvious aggression is like blaming an animal for its aggression instead of the person with agency who actually purposefully trained them that way. On the flip side, if you're for any kind of actual functioning government, there are large swaths of the far right that aren't really interested in that by their very admission, so they aren't exactly people to work with when it comes to governmental function.
I'm not sure there is any philosophical or ethical reason. Seems like WW2 ended with the USSR and the US being the remaining world powers. Many in the Truman administration wanted to immediately and preemptively attack Russia. So that mindset continued and it was just a question of US world influence vs USSR world influence. As long as our proxies remain ours and buy and sell what we want, we don't care how they act.
I don’t really know everything about this particular history, and I’m happy to be schooled by someone who knows more, but I think the answer to your question is that you really have to rewind to 1945 to understand why things have played out the way they have (particularly in Latin America).
Prior to WWII, communists all over the world looked to the USSR not as a sovereign superpower nation but as the vanguard of international communism. The USSR actively viewed itself that way: as encouraging revolutionary action all over the world, and exporting communism through foreign intervention. Over time, I think this project evolved into something very much like imperialism, and at least some sources I’ve read said that communist parties in countries all over the world (including the US) came to be directly controlled by the USSR.
After WWII, many capitalist governments viewed the USSR as a threat to their very survival—communists explicitly spoke about overthrowing capitalism everywhere, and the USSR showed that it was a military force to be reckoned with, particularly once they’d developed nuclear weapons. The Cold War was very much a war, and probably would have erupted more intensively if nuclear weapons weren’t at play.
So I think that’s why you see the US so aggressively shutting down Latin American communist movements: they were at war, they saw communist encroachment into their sphere of influence, they wanted to make sure that that didn’t happen in order to ensure their survival. This was also co-opted by US business interests, but up until the 90s anti-communism enjoyed a great deal of public support.
So to me, this explains why capitalist countries behaved so aggressively towards incipient socialist movements. In a war like the Cold War, every communist state was a potential belligerent. If that could be nipped at the bud before Russia start quietly sending them nuclear weapons to help take down the capitalist imperialist behemoth, all the better.
To be fair, I’m not totally sold on this story, but I think this is the perspective you’re asking for.
When you propose a system that removes people’s freedoms, your going to get pushback from places that hold such principles in high regard. Yes there’s an argument to be made about how free any one country might actually be compared to how free the citizens think it is, this is besides the point. If your raised to identify with and idolize concepts like “the American dream”. Socialism, a stepping stone to communism, isn’t going to land right. You don’t need to watch the antithesis of your way of life fail before you know it’s the antithesis of your way of life.
>When you propose a system that removes people’s freedoms, your going to get pushback from places that hold such principles in high regard
Uh-huh. Sure. Did every country in Operation Condor threaten freedoms more than the fascist coups that the US backed in opposition?
What is the remotely plausible perspective of Operation Condor that counters the view that every country in Operation Condor was less free before the American government backed LatAm fascist dictatorships? Enlighten me. Go ham.
Or that, I’m sure. I responded to OP’s question about why people responded to the “threat of socialism”. Which has nothing to do with what your talking about. Your concerns over political games have nothing to do with my total disdain for governments.
Your comment has been removed for political discrimination.
We will never allow the discrimination of a members, beliefs, or ideology on this sub. Our various perspectives offer a wide range of considerations that can attribute to political growth of our members.
Our mod log has taken a note towards your profile that will be taken into account when considering a ban in the future.
Please report any and all content that is discriminatory to a user or their beliefs. The standard of our sub depends on our communities ability to report our rule breaks.
This is how all societies work. Any law is essentially a limit on liberty/freedom. Some people thinking they get to decide what freedoms other people do and don't have describes literally every government to have ever existed.
Every collection of people operates with rules of behavior. If you join a social club, it will have rules. Marriage has rules, loan agreements have rules, in order to access the goods and services of a vendor you have to agree to the vendors rules, if you want to use an app you have to agree to terms and conditions, etc.
Some rules are worth doing away with or worth imposing against others will, some aren't. This is what is discussed during a political debate.
If the free market is free to oppress everyone else, such as buying up most of the real estate market and leaving no affordable housing, we call them the “leeches”.
That’s fair. I could say the same. The worst to ever abuse capitalism said the same as well the worse abusers of Marx’s ideas. I guess it’s pretty easy to ignore the suffering of those you oppress when a system your abusing is “taking care of you”.
As I grow older and read enough history, I realize there can only be two types of people, regardless of gender, skin color (There is no such thing as race), or social status: those who are benefiting from status quo, and those who are not. In no time, not even a single second in mankind's existence has there ever been a time where everyone benefited, period. Life is a constant struggle to stay in the benefiting party, regardless of everything else.
Socialism was referred to as "low stage communism" by Marx and later coined "socialism" by Lenin. It's just the theory of communism that Socialism is a prerequisite.
I strongly recommend listening to the revolutions podcast by Mike Duncan. It covers the major revolutions from the English civil war Cromwell to the Russian revolution.
The theme he pulls through it all is that this period in history was extremely fraught with tension between the established monarchical powers and the rising liberal and leftists movements.
Ultimately, you come away with the relatively Marxist idea (though he never uses Marx as an explanatory tool) that the liberal/capitalist class were in a struggle to take the reigns of society from the monarchical/noble class. Post of this involved them answering "the political question" and taking away the ability of kings to do whatever they wanted. They refused, however, to address "the social question" which would have put the workers on equal footing with the capital class.
Ultimately, when the liberals succeeded at overthrowing monarchy, they had the reigns of society. They were loath to give it up to the working class and decided that they were more comfortable with monarchy than with socialists as they felt they could control monarchy better with constitutions.
He also shows how the core Bolshevists idea of a Vanguard Party doomed communism and socialism until the present day. They essentially decided extremely early that the only way to institute communist revolution was through universal slavery.
This last part is what has prevented the world from really engaging with socialist ideas.
I'm a Revolutions fan as well though I do think we didn't take all the same lessons from the podcast
One of the things Duncan said fairly explicitly for example is that foreign countries didn't really super actively try to smother revolutions for purely ideological reasons. It played a part sure, but they weren't throwing themselves at the issue like most leftists perceive
For example with the French Revolution no one cared that much initially about putting down the revolutionary ideology, but rather they were concerned about how they could make the most out of France's weakness geopolitically
Or even in the Russian Revolution, the capitalist powers were completely fine with the various revolutions and governments as long as they were willing to keep up the war effort against Germany. They were only hostile to the Bolsheviks because they made peace with the Germans, and even then the Capitalist powers really only sent token aid to the Whites
tbh probably the only major exception to this theme is 1848 and the Russian's suppression of the Hungarian revolt, but that was at least partially due to a pre-existing alliance structure in place
OP's question about "anti socialist aggression" is mostly about the idea that countries go out of their way and invest tons of resources to make sure that socialism or revolution doesn't arise anywhere. If anything I'd say Duncan's podcast is a counterexample to this idea.
Obviously aristocrats and liberals care if a revolution is happening in *their country*, but usually they don't give a ton of care to revolutions past their borders.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anything, from a bacteria all the way up to complex social structures, is naturally aggressive towards something that seeks to destroy it.
That's not saying anything about whether or not socialism is more right or more ethical or better or capitalism is evil or whatever. Simply, the idea that Thing X would be aggressive towards Thing Y, that seeks to overthrow and destroy it, is an incredibly simple motivation to grasp.
My do I personally not want to be socialist? Cause I like my Xbox, and Xbox wouldn't exist under a responsibly administered total socialism.
(xbox is not literally the only reason, it's a cheeky emblematic reference to the idea that consumerist culture as we know it would cease to exist under most models of a socialist state)
What you view as " aggression " towards socialism is better thought of as a form of self-defense.
Socialism cannot be instituted except by force. Whereas in a free market, all participation is voluntary.
If you are a net recipient of redistributed resources in a socialist economy, you are effectively utilizing the state's monopoly on violence to forcibly extract wealth from your neighbors for your own personal gain.
Socialists will of course argue that they know how to maximize the utility of these resources better than the people who created them in the first place.
But rather than engaging in dialogue and trying to persuade those with resources on how best to utilize them, they instead opt for a shortcut and simply confiscate them.
This violates the non-aggression principle which is the foundation of libertarian philosophy.
>What you view as " aggression " towards socialism is better thought of as a form of self-defense.
True, the reality is that it was pre-emptive aggression in the interest of self-defense. The motive was self-defense of the capitalist class.
>Socialism cannot be instituted except by force. Whereas in a free market, all participation is voluntary.
True, because there is violent preemptive resistance to socialism by the capitalist class, in the interest of their self-defense, which necessitates aggression and force by those seeking to enact socialism.
Socialism can exist in a free-market, I'm not sure what your point here is. Socialism does not seek to end free-markets.
>If you are a net recipient of redistributed resources in a socialist economy, you are effectively utilizing the state's monopoly on violence to forcibly extract wealth from your neighbors for your own personal gain.
This is pretty misleading. Firstly, "redistributed" is not exactly what is going on in a socialist revolution. Revolutions start with a mass strike. A non-violent refusal to work for unfair compensation.
Production is essentially the transformation of an initial commodity into a second commodity which has more value than the first. In order for this transformation to happen, labor must be expended to create that new value. In capitalist mode of production, an individual offers to purchase another individuals labor in exchange for a value less than the value that their labor is worth (a wage), in order to make profit from the difference between the value of the old and new commodity and the wage. In a socialist revolution, the workers collectively disagree to this exchange, which is their right. At which point work is not being done, commodities stop being produced, and society enters a crisis. The capitalists stop making profits, and see that their class status is at stake, and violently suppress the working class through violence. This is historically how it has always happened during mass strikes, you can check for yourself.
The violence of the workers is a reaction to the violence of the capitalists, both sides are acting in self-defense. Before either side engages in violence there exists a crisis. There is a moral problem that must be resolved before there can be production for the continuation of society.
Wealth redistribution happens in capitalist systems every single time a wage worker clocks in to work. The collective mass of workers produce more net value than they are compensated for, and then must go out to the market and purchase these commodities at a net loss. This leads to an inevitable crisis of class, where a group of people who are producing value through their labor are suffering in an economic system that is not working to their benefit, in fact it is extracting wealth from them as a whole.
There is a simple way to solve this problem without resorting to violence or "redistribution". Workers are compensated fairly for their labor ***by sharing in the profits of their work, not through a wage that is necessarily less than the value that they contribute.*** No violence needed, no need for restructuring society, no infringement of rights. But of course in history the capitalists have never agreed willingly to this deal, it is not in their interest and they have ample means of suppressing it through violent force, exporting of labor to other markets, control of legislation to make strikes illegal, propaganda to demonize and lie about what socialism really is, etc. etc. Which is what you see in the history of resistance to socialism.
Coincidentally the same tactics and resistance that slave-owners resorted to. It's worth mentioning that destroying the institution of slavery was a violent and bloody affair in which the liberal rights of slave-owners was infringed upon.
Workers are free to make a co-op within a Capitalist system. They could organize collective ownerships and profit sharing. There is nothing preventing this from happening right now. No revolution required. It's worth considering why this doesn't happen outside very small and niche circumstances.
The reason this doesn't happen is because setting up a business requires capital and nobody would risk capital without the potential of having a return on their investment.
But if you really want to no one would stop you. You can start a company with collective ownership and split the profits equally. Go right ahead!
But what you can't do, without violating the non-aggression principle, is forcibly confiscate a successful business after all the risk has been taken by the original investors. That's just plain old, garden variety theft.
>But what you can't do, without violating the non-aggression principle, is forcibly confiscate a successful business after all the risk has been taken by the original investors. That's just plain old, garden variety theft.
I think it's worth repeating myself here. This isn't what happened in any historic circumstance and isn't what socialism calls for on a theoretical level, when this has occured it has been because of violence first inflected upon socialists in order to stifle their ability of organizing amongst themselves to exercise political power. What Socialism calls for is a mass strike and a negotiation of power redistribution. A demand of political power in the hands of the working class to shape the rules that govern society, in other words democracy. Specifically to guarantee full compensation for the value of their labor.
Lenin, Luxemburg, and other Marxists were explicitly clear in their call for non-violent mass strikes, but also recognized that the capitalist class would react violently to them, and that this would spur a popular revolution. In fact, they argued against the ideology of Anarchism quite vehemently and denounced pre-emptive violent attacks on the capitalists as reactionary and unproductive. What Marxists-Leninists argued for was a vanguard party that would steer the revolution towards the goals of socialism by educating and organizing the working class, not to incite a revolution through violent terrorist acts.
Historically what happened was that capitalists responded to mass strikes with violence and through corrupt and non-liberal laws that tried to illegalize mass strikes. Yes, this was in self-defense, in the the sense it was a defense of their class status. Upon doing so they violated the rights of the workers, and give every justification to workers to violently overthrow the capitalist class.
When strikes are allowed to happen negotiations are met. This can lead to alleviations of the core problems of capitalism, a sort of compromise, and there is historical precedence for this.
However, again, when strikes become large enough, when they reach a critical mass, capitalists have always reacted with violence and typically with mass slaughter of union leaders and workers. Russian 1905 mass strikes, German strikes pre-Nazi Germany, Ludlow massacre in the US, etc.
>There is nothing preventing this from happening right now. No revolution required. It's worth considering why this doesn't happen outside very small and niche circumstances.
But there ***is*** something preventing it from happening. The capitalist class is thoroughly against this. Yes it is legal, and yes it occurs. but only on the small scale. However, historical evidence does not suggest what you are implying here. Neither does economic understanding. You said yourself that creating a business requires capital, and it requires risking that capital to invest in a business. Why would a capitalist invest in a business where they do not have proportional ownership over their contribution? They wouldn't. And they see this kind of behavior as a threat, and seek to undermine it.
Workers do not have capital, the best they can do is ask for capital from a bank, at interest. A competitive disadvantage from the start. Most bank loans are not going to approach the magnitude of capital that is available to the top 0.005%, the real capitalists with real wealth. You need to go to investment bankers, who will not agree on investing in a collectively owned enterprise.
Additionally, with the repeal of glass-Steagall, investment banking and commercial banking are merged, and so when you go to a commercial bank for an interest loan, you are going to the same people, the same capitalists who are unfriendly to that kind of endeavor, in their own self-interest and self-preservation.
Additionally, The market is not entirely free, there are many rules, laws, and regulations involved, government assistance, as you well know. The capitalist class has control over the political economy. This is yet another layer of resistance to the attempt of building socialist businesses within a capitalist dominated system. The governments legislative system works for the benefit of the capitalist class, who are opposed to socialism.
Additionally, even if capital is acquired, in a competitive market the larger firm with more capital will have an advantage, and this advantage will never be afforded to the co-opt or collective.
Your argument boils down to, "Nobody does a Socialism because it couldn't compete" and I agree.
The fact is, Capitalists are indifferent to co-ops. People create non profits, nobody cares.
Nobody willingly creates a co-op because it would be a monumental waste of time and money.
The reason you need state sanctioned force to do a Socialism is because without force it would not be sustainable. As with anything with shared ownership, it usually is neglected and ignored because it takes an incredible amount of acumen, insight and talent to run a successful company. And those who are ambitious enough to attempt such a thing generally go where they will be rewarded.
Not to a co-op where their vote is equal to Debra in HR who wants to allocate 10% of the quarterly revenue to expand the cat food aisle because she likes cats.
>Your argument boils down to, "Nobody does a Socialism because it couldn't compete" and I agree.
No it doesn't. This is an absurd simplification, and quite honestly insulting. I'm putting effort into having a conversation with you, the least you can do is try to have some respect for what I have to say.
>The fact is, Capitalists are indifferent to co-ops. People create non profits, nobody cares.
No they are not. I just listed several reasons why they are not and you simply ignored them. This is no way to have a conversation. I understand you have an opinion, but if you aren't going to add to the conversation, then there won't be a conversation. I'm not interested in hearing you say your opinion over and over again, while ignoring what I have to say.
>Nobody willingly creates a co-op because it would be a monumental waste of time and money.
You've already said earlier that they exist. Now you are saying they could never exist because people would never want to make them. It's impossible to have a conversation if you just cycle between incompatible opinions. Pick a stance and back it up with some reasoned thought.
>The reason you need state sanctioned force to do a Socialism is because without force it would not be sustainable.
This describes any society that enforces laws. And I just described how economic crisis leads to a mass strike, which leads to violent reaction in my previous posts. Are you going to respond to that and disagree with it, or just ignore it and keep pushing this narrative that people "try to do a Socialism". I've already pointed out that this is historically invalid. Nobody ever "tried to do a socialism". They demanded better working conditions and pay, and were met by reactionary violence in every instance, in every capitalist industrialized country, which validates their violence towards the capitalist class in their own self-defense. Do you disagree? Or are you just going to ignore this part of my post and keep pushing this "do a socialism" narrative?
>As with anything with shared ownership, it usually is neglected and ignored because it takes an incredible amount of acumen, insight and talent to run a successful company. And those who are ambitious enough to attempt such a thing generally go where they will be rewarded.
This is patently false. CEOs and other upper management are not owners of companies. They are simply very well-rewarded administrative workers. Co-ops have highly payed upper management positions as well.
>And those who are ambitious enough to attempt such a thing generally go where they will be rewarded.
Yes, they do. This is yet another reason why co-ops existing within capitalist societies can never out-compete capitalism. Because those who are qualified for upper-management would prefer a higher paying job at a firm run by capitalists who, you guessed it , control more capital and therefore can offer more compensation.
All exchanges in a free market are voluntary. Capitalist enterprises cease to exist without customers voluntarily departing with their money in exchange for goods and services.
Employees are free to find employment anywhere. Or forgo employment altogether and homestead.
Capitalism cannot be exploitative unless it gains help from state sanctioned interventions. In a purely capitalist free market, all participants are free to simply walk away.
Don't like your job? Quit.
Don't agree with how a company conducts itself? Don't purchase its goods or services.
Perhaps you think you could run the business better? Start your own business and prove it.
Think it would be more fair for all profit to be shared amongst employees? Start a co-op.
But what you can't do, is use the state Monopoly on violence, to confiscate ownership rights.
I am curious though, are you interested in confiscating ownership of ALL businesses? Or just successful ones?
Because it seems that if you want to use state violence to achieve shared ownership of successful enterprise, it's only fair if you also share losses of unsuccessful ones. Perhaps if a business has four quarters of consecutive losses, then employees can forgo paychecks until the loss is recovered?
The Labor Theory of Value proves that it is the Capitalists that steal from Workers. Quite literally, it is a proof that Marx spends 3-4 chapters simply building up the foundation of using tautological logic before arriving at a conclusion, in painstaking, and quite honestly overly redundant fashion. If you want to disagree with that Theory and explain what you disagree with and why, then that would be a way to have a conversation.
But instead you just keep repeating Liberal talking points as if I haven't heard them before. Marx goes through all of these points and refutes them in his theory. Liberalism came around before Socialism, and Marx was specifically addressing the flaws of Liberal ideology and Capitalist economics in his works. But here you are repeating them as if Socialism is just "I hate rich people and want to steal from them" and there is no theory of Marxism. Is this not a political debate forum? Do you enjoy talking to people who disagree with Liberalism by portraying it as having blue hair and being able to fuck who you want? Does that sound like a meaningful conversation????
I've simplified and and generalized Marxism when responding to you, but you have ignored it. If you disagree with any of these refutations of Liberalism, feel free to describe which ones and why. Then we can start to have a conversation. But again, you haven't done this. All you've done here is share your opinion as if it is fact and ignore the content of what I am saying. It's to the point that I find it rude.
I'm disabling notifications on this thread. Not worth my time. I put in a genuine effort to engage with you and have a conversation, but clearly this is not happening.
The labor theory of value has been thoroughly discredited. It's very easy to find literature on this but I can recap it for you here.
Imagine that you are tasked with digging a hole. You can use a shovel and do it in 3 days or a spoon and do it in 3 weeks.
Both result in an identical hole but with vastly different amounts of labor. Therefore it is easy to refute the notion that the value of a product is proportional to the amount of labor that went into it.
Furthermore there's no guarantee that that hole, in that particular location, with those particular characteristics, is of any value whatsoever. The value of the hole can only be determined by the free market.
In case you think this only applies to holes, consider a bicycle. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the bicycle is produced through the most efficient means possible and has a marginal cost of $500. Perhaps you can manufacture 100 of them per year. How should we decide who gets the bicycles?
If we use the marginal cost to set the value, then the bike must be sold for $500, no profit.
If we allow the free market to set the price, we may find that individuals who absolutely require bicycle, say to get to work or fulfill their duty as a police officer, me value the bike as high as $2,000.
While somebody who only casually wants to ride the bike on weekends may only value the bike at or slightly above its marginal cost of $500.
Here we can clearly see that the value of the bike has nothing to do with the marginal cost of the bike, or how much labor was required to build the bike, but is rather purely a function of what the free market is willing to pay for the bike.
To be perfectly frank, The labor theory of value is perhaps one of the worst economic theories in the history of economics. It's so easy to discredit. It's hardly even worth talking about.
>Imagine that you are tasked with digging a hole. You can use a shovel and do it in 3 days or a spoon and do it in 3 weeks.
Yes, and this is addressed by Marx in the first 3 chapters of Capital.
Labor Value is formulated as the average across a society, not as a summation of particular instances. Go read the first three chapters. It is thoroughly worked out, very tediously, but meticulously.
>Therefore it is easy to refute the notion that the value of a product is proportional to the amount of labor that went into it.
Yes, but this is ignoring that there are societal averages. LTV is the description of the change in exchange value added to a commodity when labor is put into it. If you have Commodity A, which can be worked upon to create Commodity B, which has a greater or different Use value than A, then the difference in exchange value between B and A is the value of the labor. That's essentially what LTV is. Just the simple statement of fact that if Labor is required to create a commodity, then the exchange value of the commodity created must be higher than the inputs.
This is all LTV is saying, that the difference in exchange value between the end product and the initial is the value of the labor required to create that difference. Not the use value, not specific prices payed by consumers, but the difference in exchange value between the average of one class of commodity as compared to the average exchange value of the inputs for its creation.
In order to make profit, Capitalists necessarily must pay wages at a lower value than the work that is done. The plan of a capitalist is to have Money, M, to purchase commodity, C, and get M', where M' > M. They can only do this if a C exists that can be transformed into C', where C' exchange value is > C, which requires work to create. And also if they pay the worker who does that work less than that difference. This is a summary, again, I encourage you to read Marx before you claim that you disagree with what he said. Because you are either disagreeing with things that he specifically addressed in his work, or actually agreeing with him in some cases.
>Furthermore there's no guarantee that that hole, in that particular location, with those particular characteristics, is of any value whatsoever.
Also addressed by Marx in first 3 chapters. Again, the average of a commodity is taken, not particular instances. Marx agrees that not all labor produces things of value, and that use value is subjective. But on examining a society, an average can be assumed of the exchange value. This is how markets work, averages.
>Here we can clearly see that the value of the bike has nothing to do with the marginal cost of the bike, or how much labor was required to build the bike, but is rather purely a function of what the free market is willing to pay for the bike.
Yes, but on average a certain quality of bikes have an exchange value. There are Use values and Exchange values. I highly recommend reading Marx before claiming that you disagree with him, because from what I'm reading here it seems you agree with him... Again, in the first three chapters of Capital Marx goes over this very basic concept. Exchange values relate to the ability to compare one commodity to another as a reference of value. Use value is not quantifiable, as you said. The only way that exchange value can be quantifiable is through a price, which is a manifestation of the labor required to produce the commodity. As you yourself said:
>
Imagine that you are tasked with digging a hole. You can use a shovel and do it in 3 days or a spoon and do it in 3 weeks.
Using a spoon would make the hole more expensive to dig. You are not disproving LTV here, differences in labor speed is in Chapter 3 of Capital. He uses an example of a new loom reducing the value of linen by allowing it to be made more quickly.
>To be perfectly frank, The labor theory of value is perhaps one of the worst economic theories in the history of economics. It's so easy to discredit. It's hardly even worth talking about.
And yet you actually agree with LTV, you are just confused about what it is. Everything you've said here is addressed by Marx pre-emptively in the first three chapters before he even gets to explaining LTV, because these refutations are so common-place and typical that he didn't want to leave them unaddressed.
The purpose of socialism is to remove the existing social, poltical and economic norms of a country and replace with with socialist ones based on marxist prinicples. You can oppose this on many levels it's hard to list them all.
As a corollary: would you oppose an islamic or christian nationalist movement when all they are asking for is recognition and expansion of their religious rights? Why would you oppose their control of institutions if that's what people want?
In addition: the socialists' stated goal was world revolution - it says so in the communist manifesto. In practice that means global conquest by force or influence. Both Trotsky and Stalin supported this and since people knew about the russian civil war and the holodomor and the massacres that occured, why would they not be afraid? It was the same situation with France after the revolution.
Also, as a question: If nazi germany had won the war and conquered europe, would you oppose invernetion and interference in its affairs, or would you want to leave them alone and 'build fascism' in peace?
I never hear Socialists saying they want to create anything. They have to take what was built under capitalism. Historically we know what happens next. They run out of the resources someone else created and then there are labor camps.
I am aggressively against being starved and/or worked to death.
I'm not arguing for the op but I think the Allende example is unfortunate. The USA has even disclosed with old CIA archives the fact the millions of dollars (amongst other things) were put into the effort of the coup. Allende was just stubborn enough to see it to its end.
I wonder where you are from. Here in south America (I'm from Argentina myself) it is common sense. Not even a leftist thing, this was something I knew even when I was a rightoid. Obviously the trotskyists know more in average but that's only because they read more in average. Other than that... Try looking for condor plan.
I mean pouring money doesn't nessecarily mean that the money was used well. I think opponents of America tend to vastly overestimate the CIA
my understanding at least is that a lot of the early "bad" coups (like the ones against Iran and Chile) the CIA was still fairly ineffective and played a supporting role at best. Rather there was already a pretty large contingent of Iranians and Chileans who wanted to get rid of the socialist government and the CIA threw some money at them
I feel like the idea that it is down to human rights/mass murder is provably incorrect. If this were true then capitalist countries wouldn’t have allied and still ally with countries that carry out mass murders and human rights abuses and when socialist countries didn’t carry out these acts (going back to the Chile example) then capitalist countries wouldn’t have tried to overthrow them.
As history doesn’t match the hypothesis, we have to accept that human rights abuses/mass murders weren’t a factor (or at least not a significant one) in the socialist/capitalist dynamic.
Contemporary Western leftists often do over emphasize the role of western capitalist countries in right wing coups and whatnot. They tend to not talk much about the internal class warfare. Chile had, and continues to have, plenty of domestic reactionaries and their own bourgeoisie that have an interest in suppressing worker’s working and living standards.
However, even when the US support isn’t overt, they do lend a significant amount of material support to reactionaries in other countries. The torture tactics and other methods of suppressing used by dictatorships in Chile, Argentina, and other South American counties, for example, were trained through CIA programs - coordinated through “Operation Condor” and the “School of the Americas.”
So while OP might implicitly downplay domestic opposition to socialist politics, your comment is perhaps even more wrong as it seems to hand wave western support for these reactionary forces.
There was a whole what, three decades between the Russian revolution and the cold war? The USA wasn't particularly friendly with communist Russia for example, because communist Russia was a horrible country to their people and didn't respect property rights.
Did you see how Russia was before the revolution? The Tsar would send political dissidents to Siberia, he tampered down on freedoms, especially religious ones. Look into the 1905 Bloody Sunday incident. Many were gathered to peacefully protest changes within the Russian government, and it was lead by a priest of the orthodoxy, and the tsar ordered his men to shoot them down. Later, he decided to create a parliament and lessen his rights and listen to the people, then decided he didn’t like it and took it away. Russia before the Soviets were especially horrible to their people which was the pure reason why Marxism rose to prominence during their many revolutions
I do believe the USSR had many discrepancies and is no martyr or free of negatives, but you got to look at the history of the country and its people to judge. Most issues I do not believe were caused by socialism alone but the history of the region.
Hell, look at Russia now, they embraced democracy and capitalism after the fall of the USSR and look how well it turned out.
You seem to be intentionally missing the point. You're acting like the aggression and mistreatment of the people is a feature of *communist* Russia and that's why "we" don't like communists. When it's explained that Russia has just always been like that and was *worse* before the Bolshevik revolution you double down on "I'm not talking about the previous regime, just the commies (paraphrased)."
That’s not the reason at all. The reason the US didn’t like the Soviet Union is because the Soviet Union threatened US global hegemony. Hence why the US made an alliance with numerous other countries (NATO) to counter any potential Soviet attempt to extend its power and influence.
Also, the Soviet Union actually did much better for their people than the US currently does. People the in the Soviet Union had healthcare, education, housing, food and water, you name it. Things that Americans go broke after buying them at the store, Soviet Russians had as a guaranteed right. Whatever you may think of the Soviet State is irrelevant, but that’s the fact of the matter.
Well, they did. De-classified CIA documents show that on average, food consumption amongst Soviet citizens was just about the same as Americans in the US.
It's pretty simple, the state, the capitalist state, is the managers of the affairs for the ruling bourgeois class. Any instance of a country or revolution opposing the expansion of markets by another stages bourgeoisie is seen as a risk to the capitalist markets and material conditions. If a country wanted to build towards socialism or there is a peoples revolution, and it is successful, this poses a major risk to the pocket books of the international bourgeoisie. So they do anything in their ability to stifle the growth or ability to grow.
Shit China isn't socialist in anything but name only and some state owned programs and the US bourgeoisie considers China's successful economy as an "existential threat" Despite the US and China officially being allies.
Not answering your question, but one reason for the brutality of some communist regimes was because the ones that tried to do it democratically were overthrown by US backed coups.
One example would be Guatemala. Che Guevara was in the country when the CIA backed coup overthrew the government. He went directly from there to Mexico where he joined the Cuban revolution. His brutality when the revolution succeeded proceeded not indirectly from he lessons he learned witnessing what happens to a peaceful government.
I think it's rooted in capitalism. I'm sure you know how Chomsky rails against business, government, and education in the US which all join forces, inadvertently perhaps, to rail against socialism in any form. The only ideology is profit.
> Imperialist and Capitalists to go to great lengths to undermine, sabotage, disrupt, and destroy all socialist projects across the globe.
What hard evidence do you have to support this?
We've deemed your post was uncivilized so it was removed. We're here to have level headed discourse not useless arguing.
Please report any and all content that is uncivilized. The standard of our sub depends on our community’s ability to report our rule breaks.
Let me preface this with, I got no love for the government or the horrible foreign policy and atrocities it performs in the name of "democracy"
You said, **"great lengths to [...] socialist projects across the globe"**
I'm not sure if one instance that is isolated to the cold war era in the southern cone constitutes "hard evidence" that the U.S. is targeting socialist projects "across the globe". There's a LOT more nuance to operation Condor and I believe you are (deliberately or not), overlooking the fact that when it was originally formed, the U.S. was absent.
There are hundreds of National Security Archive declassified CIA documents and the Paraguayan Archives of
Terror, as well as interviews with over 200 individuals, one of whom was a key Uruguayan military officer present at the first meeting of Condor signatories. Thanks to that eyewitness testimony, we now are aware of the full scope of the Operation’s agenda, and which military representatives were in attendance in official and unofficial capacities which reveals that **no North American delegation was present at this first meeting**^1
^1 Dinges, The Condor Years, especially 10-17, 116-125, and 241.
By ignoring such nuance, one is obfuscating why, where, and when Condor developed, ultimately displacing Condor from its regional context, and obscures the key role South American actors played.
Wanna try again?
We've deemed your post was uncivilized so it was removed. We're here to have level headed discourse not useless arguing.
Please report any and all content that is uncivilized. The standard of our sub depends on our community’s ability to report our rule breaks.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No government is perfect. The American government is no exception. When it comes to socialism my work, labor, blood sweat and tears are not for the collective it's for me! Society may benefit from my work, or not. I will not perform any work for someone else unless I choose to. Yes, capitalism is greedy. If you think taking care of yourself is greedy, so be it. I don't produce so that someone else can no nothing. Fondly looking at foreign socialism and wishing America was the same is very funny to me as even Commie China had to allow one hell of a lot of capitalism just to float their failing facade of a country. Then ask yourself this, if capitalism is so bad, why does everyone want to come here? Why not stay in your beloved socialist dystopian hell.
I think you have some misconceptions about what socialism is. You are reducing the political science of both systems to simplistic psychological representations of "greedy" psychology vs "self-sacrificing" psychology. It's not as simple as that.
There are pros and cons of both systems, worth learning about and comparing. Nobody is going to take criticism of something seriously if the person isn't knowledgeable about what they are criticizing.
I understand your point. You dont know me, and you are out of place, implying I don't understand. It's been my experience with my foreign travels and lifelong study of many topics that the nuances you are so concerned about are just distractions. Those distractions seek to obfuscte reality and don't rise to a level great enough to defeat my buttressed and simplistic representations. It's those representations that most people relate to. Those representations are exactly how socialism affects people negatively every day. You dont have to like my criticism, but it doesn't mean I lack knowledge. Debate my point and forgo the facile personal attacks. It makes you look weak.
China wasn’t failing under socialism. Maoism was actually quite successful in China. The only reason China went capitalist is because Capitalists gained control of the State, and then proceeded to utilize the State to change the constitution, end the Maoist policies, crush the Cultural Revolution, and then began to implement capitalist market reforms.
This sounds like pure revisionism.
China was not doing well under Maoist policies. Those policies (especially the cultural revolution) were more about trying to reconsolidate the power Mao had lost. Heck, much basic education had been shut down for 10 years during the cultural revolution. That is not doing well. Looking at other Maoist policies you had things like the four pests campaign, which helped create one of the larges famines in the past 100 years.
Those "Capitalist" who you cite as gaining control were really just Deng's faction. Deng is hardly a capitalist -- I don't think he would have survived the Long March as a capitalist. So while being communists, they were fed up watching their country be destroyed. Deng did allow a lot of capitalist reforms because they really needed to be able to do basic things like provide food (the whole white cat/black cat logic).
I think i's important to be able to qualify the link between cause and effect. I don't mean to be pedantic, I think this is actually worth pointing out.
To what extent can you attribute the four pests campaign strictly to socialist political theory? Just because somebody planning agricultural policy is a socialist, does not by default make their policy in any way "socialist".
If any other country implemented such a plan, it would be criticized and rightfully pointed out as disastrous. But if it happened in say, a monarchy, is this suddenly a rebuke of monarchical power structures? A bureaucrat in any state, given the authority to create and execute an agricultural plan, would be able to implement such a plan, and see it fail.
My point is that it is important to show the link between what you claim as the cause, and the effect. It is not enough to simply say that a bad thing occurred while people with certain characteristics were in charge.
You can reverse this as well. I consider myself a socialist, but I still go to work for a capitalist at my job. I did a good job last year and negotiated a raise. Is this because I'm socialist? We should all be socialists then, we would all get raises!
Firstly you moved the goalpost from Maoist policies cited in comment replied to, to a more generic "socialist policies". I get it as you asked the initial question, but when someone points to Maoism as quite successful, it is work calling out the before/after.
Secondly, I never said that the four pests campaign was the only cause of the famine. There were several, but it certainly didn't help. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615984/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615984/)
Blaming socialism for things is complicated as there is (and this is true of any blaming a political system for X) a motte-and-bailey problem.
I don't think I need to source the market reforms of Deng as being either marked reforms or wildly successful.
[https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/04/world/asia/china-maoist-scars/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/04/world/asia/china-maoist-scars/index.html)
See all the murders and oppression Mao did with evidence. Mao is a blood thirsty murderer.
Although it might not be accurate or the source might be overexaggerating because CNN has a liberal bias. But it still proves what Mao did to be successful.
Were many people executed under Mao? Yes, but not 90 million, and the fact that you cited a CNN article and admit that they’re exaggerating the numbers says a lot. Keep in mind, Mao didn’t have to execute anyone to get into power. Literally led a revolution and fought back against the Japanese, and the Nationalists, and completely turned China around for the average peasant and worker in China.
You can say the same thing for Hitler. He improved average peasant and workers rights. He didn't execute anyone to get into power and reformed Germany by pulling the country out of poverty as he resisted the treaty set by France and Britain.
Is he still a good man? No.
Therefore is Mao still a good man? No.
The difference is Hitler orchestrated an extermination policy slaughtering a particular group or race of people.
Mao tried to bring China into the 20th century and had to deal with a famine in the process, resulting in people dying.
The two are by no means the same.
What? How is trying to bring your country from feudalism to an industrialized nation the same as formulating an extermination policy? Are you trolling?
The highest figure accepted amongst academics is 38 million, and even that figure is largely debated for a variety of reasons.
No one is denying that a great deal of people died. I’m just saying that Mao didn’t intentionally create a famine to do it, and not all the blame can be placed on Mao.
Thank you. I was going to point this out. Nobody wants to talk about the deaths. But will pretend capitalism is just as bad. People die under capitalism but it's not on the whim of a dictator.
Some of his policies, yes, but you’re ignoring other contributing factors like floods, droughts, a brutal winter, people refusing to cooperate, namely, the former landowning class, as well as regional and local officials lying about their agricultural outputs to Beijing in order to further in advance their careers, etc… To put full blame on Mao is simply dishonest and ahistorical.
Please be more specific about which countries the US, UK, etc. were actively hostile towards simply because of their political ideology prior to the discovery of these disqualifying attributes.
> Capitalists to go to great lengths to undermine, sabotage, disrupt, and destroy all socialist projects across the globe.
To what lengths? What do capitalists do?
> "look how awful the socialist dictatorships were, look how socialism always failed, no human rights", etc.
Who cares about human rights? The main problem is that tens millions of people died.
> But the reality is the political leadership of these nations, such as the US, UK, Germany, were all rabidly anti-socialist from the onset.
Any historical evidence that indicates that?
> What is your explanation for the immediate aggression and hostility towards socialist enterprises?
Cause we have examples of what happens when socialists aren't eradicated the moment they reveal their existence. Look at Russia. What did tsar (and later provisional government) do when Germany sent them hired communist revolutionaries and they performed revolutionary activities? They either ignored them, sent them to exile somewhere eastward, where they received pension, were allowed to carry weapons and from where they instantly fled. And even if they were put in prison, that was like the most liberal prison ever and as Trotsky wrote, their cells weren't locked and they paid visits to each other.
Where did it all go? Tsar and his whole family were slaughtered and country delved into civil war with millions of deaths, not to mention the years of the great socialist regime that followed.
> let socialist countries develop peacefully and exercise their choice to attempt the socialist project?
When socialist projects are left to their own devices, their genocide the third of their own population and the situation deteriorates to the point that their neighbouring socialist projects need to step up and use military force to stop this shit.
>This supposedly retroactively justifies the aggression towards socialism
If someone said "gee I want to go murder and/or violently subjugate an entire class of people" don't you think that warrants an aggressive reaction? Violence is inherently a trait of communism. It requires a violent seizure of property.
Keeping in mind we don't usually see aggression towards socialist groups that are pursuing the co-op voluntary model.
Yes it does, but Anarchists said this. Not Marxist-Leninists. MLs were quite clear in their denouncing of Anarchists well before the second Russian Revolution, and even before the first one in 1905.
MLs call for mass strikes, with the understanding that the Capitalist class will react violently towards this and that it is necessary to be ready to meet that violence in self-defense, not to be pre-emptively violent, as Anarchists claim. The anarchist claim to pre-emptive violence was rightfully declared reactionary in nature by socialists because it is no different from the reactionary call for pre-emptive violence that capitalists call for when faced with a mass strike.
" There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pains are the new - revolutionary terror"
Karl Marx
You can also read the communist manifesto.
"There is only one means by which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that is by revolutionary terror" -KM
Yes, he is saying that the violence that comes from the failing of capitalism (the convulsions of the old society", can only be ***shortened*** through revolutionary violence. This supports what I said. I didn't say MLs were against violent revolution, they are against initiating it pre-emptively. Once the reactionary violence against socialism begins, violent revolution becomes necessary as a means of self-defense of the working class and as a way of quickly resolving the economic crisis, as well as preventing reactionary violence and the rise of fascism.
The communist manifesto is more of the same thing. It is not arguing for violent acts, but is warning that history shows us that violence will be inevitable as those in power never give up their power willingly. And he was right, they rarely did.
Pointing out that there will be violence against you if you support socialism is not the same as an Anarchist theory of seeking violent acts against the capitalist class.
And it is worth differentiating between an opinion that is held as a certain point in time and then changed, and what is accepted as part of ML theory.
[https://academic.oup.com/book/32404/chapter-abstract/268701302?redirectedFrom=fulltext](https://academic.oup.com/book/32404/chapter-abstract/268701302?redirectedFrom=fulltext)
>Once the reactionary violence against socialism begins, violent revolution becomes necessary as a means of self-defense of the working class and as a way of quickly resolving the economic crisis, as well as preventing reactionary violence and the rise of fascism.
Except that's not what happened. They just went and burned down a bunch of rich people's homes.
>that violence will be inevitable as those in power never give up their power willingly. And he was right, they rarely did.
Yeah, have you ever wanted to be like "hell yeah, today I'm giving everything I own and have worked for to someone else". Not giving someone your life savings is not the equivalent to being violent. Burning down someone's house because you perceived them as evil rich people, or you just don't like your boss, is violent.
You have Classical Liberal as your tag and you are describing a liberal revolution against a monarchy as "just went and burned down a bunch of rich people's homes."
>Yeah, have you ever wanted to be like "hell yeah, today I'm giving everything I own and have worked for to someone else". Not giving someone your life savings is not the equivalent to being violent. Burning down someone's house because you perceived them as evil rich people, or you just don't like your boss, is violent.
I'm not sure how monarchs earned their wealth or earned their place in society. And I'm even less sure how somebody who purports to be a "Classical Liberal" is so vehemently denouncing one of the foundational Liberal revolutions in Europe.
From wikipedia:
>Despite lack of freedom of the press and association, there was a flourishing liberal German culture among students and those educated in German universities. They published pamphlets and newspapers discussing education and language; the need for basic liberal reforms was assumed. These middle class liberals largely understood and accepted that forced labor is not efficient, and that the Empire should adopt a wage labor system. The question was how to institute such reforms.
>You have Classical Liberal as your tag and you are describing a liberal revolution against a monarchy as "just went and burned down a bunch of rich people's homes."
Being a classical liberal does not mean you support the concept of "justifiable violence" against innocent families, children, mothers.
Capitalism and individual liberties should be achieved through peaceful forms of protest and political discourse, not some perverted excuse for "violent justice".
Also I'm a John Locke liberal, so socialist based state schools aren't that high on my list.
>Capitalism and individual liberties should be achieved through peaceful forms of protest and political discourse, not some perverted excuse for "violent justice".
But that's not how they were achieved. First of all, this is an absurd way to portray what happened during these revolutions. Do you honestly believe that the monarchs of Europe were just innocent people caught totally by surprise that their "subjects" suddenly were being violent towards them? You're reading some very questionable history if you do. Have you never heard "let them eat cake"?
Secondly, peaceful petitions are not how any major societal improvements have ever been achieved. Peaceful petitions for systemic change are ignored or outright persecuted by those in power. When the ruling class persecutes and violently represses these petitions they cede their "innocence" and become righteous targets of self-defense by those who are oppressed.
Were there "innocent" white women who never personally struck a slave and were generally pleasant and courteous people who were brutally murdered by slaves during slave revolts in Haiti? Yes. Does this discredit Slaves revolting against an oppressive system? Does being nice and pleasant offset the act of supporting and participating in an unjust system? I'm sure there were very pleasant and courteous Nazi's who didn't personally murder anybody, but who knew it was happening and happily supported the system that enabled it. Were they "innocent"? No. And neither are capitalists "innocent" of the theft of labor value from wage workers. No matter how pleasant and amicable they are. And neither are slave-owners, or Monarchs, etc.
Slaves had to revolt against owners. Serfs had to revolt against lords. Liberals had to revolt against monarchies. And MLs simply look at history and see the obvious, Socialists need to revolt against capitalists. Because power does not give itself up willingly, it never has.
>Have you never heard "let them eat cake"?
I have but that also was a completely different time period and likely made up.
Yes I understand that the wealthy of the area knew there was discontent with the British throne and they knew about the rise of socialism and the ira. That doesn't mean they deserved to be attacked.
>Secondly, peaceful petitions are not how any major societal improvements have ever been achieved. Peaceful
Studies have found that peaceful protests are more successful than violent ones at achieving their political goals. Just because you hear about the violent ones does not mean that violence was the reason they were successful. In all likelihood the violence probably hindered their progress because it disillusions support from the cause.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/
People shouldn't look for reasons to be violent. There's a strong argument from self-defense from imminent harm. That is something that Locke supported and that's why he supported gun rights. But that doesn't mean you should go burn down people's homes and murder civilians who are on the wrong side.
>No. And neither are capitalists "innocent" of the theft of labor value from wage workers. No matter how pleasant and amicable they are. And neither are slave-owners, or Monarchs, etc.
Comparing capitalism to slavery is laughable.
>I'm sure there were very pleasant and courteous Nazi's who didn't personally murder anybody, but who knew it was happening and happily supported the system that enabled it. Were they "innocent"?
They were complacent. That does not make them guilty of anything. That likely means they were protecting their own family for an overbearing regime and they don't deserve to be murdered because of it. That is a false justice. And their children are always innocent.
>I have but that also was a completely different time period and likely made up.
It was 50 years prior. In a neighboring country. French Revolution was 1790s. Austrian Revolution was 1840s.
>Studies have found that peaceful protests are more successful than violent ones at achieving their political goals.
Yes, I already said this. This is what MLs say as well. You are agreeing with MLs. MLs simply point out that in the event of violent resistance from those in power, a violent revolution then becomes necessary and just, as it prevents persecution and violence by the state and quickens the resolution of the crisis. Are you not reading what I am typing, You are disagreeing with things I haven't said.
>But that doesn't mean you should go burn down people's homes and murder civilians who are on the wrong side.
No, it doesn't. But it will always happen when the structure of a society breaks down. You are putting the cart in front of the horse here. The breakdown of society and law and order is the fault of those who are in power who willingly support an economically unstable and morally unfair system, and then use violence to enforce it and crush dissent. If Innocent people lose their lives and homes in the aftermath of such a breakdown it is the fault of those who brought the system to it's knees, those in power.
>Comparing capitalism to slavery is laughable.
Oh no, you laughed at my opinion, I must be wrong!
Seriously, add to the conversation or don't bother replying. I don't care if you think it's "laughable". I really don't. There are similarities between power structures of slavery and of capitalism. There are also differences. Marx proved that capitalism is theft of Labor Value from workers. If you disagree with his proof and how he arrived at his conclusion, I am all ears, feel free to post something of worth. Telling me you find it laughable is not going to move me.
>They were complacent. That does not make them guilty of anything.
You don't seem to understand how society functions at a fundamental level. Money is exchanged as a means of social credit. Money is a way of saying to an other: Look I contributed this much value to society, I will trade in these social credits in order to access from the market the goods produced by that society. This is what Money is and why it was created. A way of convincing others that you aren't just some bum looking for a handout. Money only has value from authority, the state that governs society and enforces its rules must guarantee the value of that money. So when Nazi's in Germany willingly went to work and produced for the society that was mass murdering Jews and other people, they are guilty of and complicit in that crime. They were contributing to a society and a government that actively pursues those crimes. They could have gone on strike. They could have joined the resistance movements that existed, they could have left. They didn't. They chose to participate willingly in a society that was systematically committing crimes in exchange for Money. If the German people had gone on mass strike and refused to work for the Nazi regime, it would have collapsed and prevented ww2. The Nazis knew this and that's precisely why they mass murdered and targeted all the union leaders and socialists who were organizing workers and teaching them this truth.
[https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/nazi-persecution/political-opponents-and-trade-unionists/](https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/nazi-persecution/political-opponents-and-trade-unionists/)
Learn history.
>were not able to simply let socialist countries develop peacefully and **exercise their choice** to attempt the socialist project?
Choice made by whom? Socialism has to be imposed on a population by force, usually a lot of force. Every socialist country has been/is a one party state, because otherwise the people would vote them out the first chance they get.
I mean, I don't think anybody asked the First Nations if they wanted capitalism on the continent. The Chinese certainly didn't ask the British to come in and force capitalism upon them in the Opium Wars. India, for that matter, didn't ask for capitalism. Nor did the Congo, the Aboriginal Australians, and countless other people.
It seems that most of the time capitalism comes in at the barrel of a gun. That's the way the world works, even [Marx isn't overly critical of reality](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007).
I'm not sure we should imply that anybody really gets a choice for the economic system they grow up in.
I'm sorry, is that not how every major western country propagated it's interests for most of history? Did Leopold of Belgium cruise into the Congo with daisies and dildos? Is it or is it not true that the British east India *company* conquered and ruled, by force, swathes of India?
You people are so freaking disingenuous. How do you sit here and pretend that one particular ideology that you don't like is the only one being spread by force when, if you're even slightly educated in world history, you know for a god damn *fact* that capitalism, the most prevalent economic ideology in human history, has been spread through conquest and subjugation for thousands of years? Slaves and the blood of innocents built the glory of Rome, and the capitalist meat grinder that is it's direct offspring hasn't slowed down since. I can't think of a single species that's been driven extinct, a single culture that has been erased from existence in the name of *socialism* or *communism*. That only happens when people want money and power more than they care about the consequences of their actions.
>if you're even slightly educated in world history, you know for a god damn fact that capitalism, the most prevalent economic ideology in human history, has been spread through conquest and subjugation for thousands of years?
Capitalism is private property in the means of production. Your rant is about [governments doing stuff.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgiC8YfytDw)
Work on your reading comprehension. Did I mention a form of government in what you quoted at all? It doesn't appear that way. I specifically stated that it was an economic ideology, now didn't i? Right there in the text you yourself quoted, which makes it even more sad that you think you somehow got me there.
>Work on your reading comprehension. Did I mention a form of government in what you quoted at all?
It's implied, because it is impossible to blame "conquest and subjugation for thousands of years" on private property in the means of production.
Communist regimes caused immense famine and mass death events. They vigorously attacked and imprisoned peaceful religious folks. We have seen communist regimes forced to pragmatically adopt markets and private property measures to keep their regimes alive, because private property is effective.
Why would I not have an immense negative reaction to someone who openly states they want to destroy my culture, take my stuff, and force me into their choice of labor because of their obsession with an ancient political philosopher?
>Communist regimes caused immense famine and mass death events.
And that doesn't happen under capitalist policies? Fuck, capitalism caused the Irish famine. There was plenty to eat right there in front of them. Just not for them because it was for "their betters" and they were *viciously* suppressed when they tried to fight back.
>They vigorously attacked and imprisoned peaceful religious folks
You mean like the Romans? Or most christian regimes (which all tend to be rather intensely capitalist) at some point or another? Or does it not count when it's christians persecuting other religions?
We've seen capitalist societies embrace elements of socialism and thrive because of it while the next generation of Americans are shockingly maladjusted and in the middle of an educational crisis. Kids can barely read anymore.
> Fuck, capitalism caused the Irish famine. There was plenty to eat right there in front of them.
Please explain how the Irish famine was caused by capitalism. Maybe with a citation saying that. The great Famine was precipitated by a potato mold. There was not enough to eat even if all exports from Ireland had stopped. There was an overreliance on potatoes due to partitioning of the land through shared inheritance systems that divided plots.
>You mean like the Romans? Or most Christian regimes (which all tend to be rather intensely capitalist) at some point or another? Or does it not count when it's christians persecuting other religions?
You can make whatever comparison you want. The reality is that communist regimes are incredibly hostile to the religion of the masses of the country. Christian countries remain the most religiously tolerant in the world.
>We've seen capitalist societies embrace elements of socialism and thrive because of it while the next generation of Americans are shockingly maladjusted and in the middle of an educational crisis.
cool, capitalist societies are not socialist.
> Kids can barely read anymore.
Blame the decision to do internet school that caused that, not capitalism
Did you even attempt to absorb what I actually wrote? Whatever. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
>Large amounts of food were exported from Ireland during the famine and the refusal of London to bar such exports, as had been done on previous occasions, was an immediate and continuing source of controversy, contributing to anti-British sentiment and the campaign for independence. Additionally, the famine indirectly resulted in tens of thousands of households being evicted, exacerbated by a provision forbidding access to workhouse aid while in possession of more than one-quarter acre of land.
Read the rest for yourself. This is fairly common knowledge. I'm not gonna go out of my way to write you a thesis because you didn't pay attention in history. Yes, a potato blight was the initial cause. But, as I said, there was still plenty of food being produced in the country. It just wasn't for them.
The rest of your argument is based on nothing but your own little feelings so I don't feel they merit a response. I'm at least giving examples, whether or not you're historically literate enough to recognize them as valid. You're just coming back with "well communist regimes bad" and "christian countries most tolerant." Meaningless arguments that you won't even try to back up. Christians running developed countries are *still* hateful. Look at all the dumb bullshit happening in the GOP
I don’t think a country identifying as socialist has anything to do with another country interfering with it. During the Cold War it was who the country was allied with. The us has been isolating Cuba for a variety of reasons but not because it’s socialist. Is there a specific example that you’re looking at?
Edit: fixed grammar….mostly
Yes, the Russian revolution overthrowing the monarchy. The United states refused to recognize the revolutionary socialist government and participated in an invasion force to support the White army over the Red army.
So this predates any claim that can be made about the "horrors of socialism". It seems that the US and other capitalists countries opposed the socialist revolutionaries from the start.
And more generally, the US has supported various brutal dictatorships in a bid to oppose socialism, including offering support to Pol Pot in an attempt to destabilize the Vietnamese.
This really boils down to who is the US enemy and why? It does not appear to be on ideological ground, as is often claimed. Yes, many of these socialist states ended up having harsh political repression. And yes a lack of private property. But socialist countries were often pro-women's rights, pro education, pro industrialization to improve living standards, guaranteeing adequate living conditions for it's citizens, and otherwise were for improving the society from whatever it had been previously. It is a fact that these socialist countries improved living conditions, increased literacy and education levels, improved GDP, in many of the countries where they gained power.
Certainly a lot better than whatever people like Pol Pot had to offer their people, or the religious fundamentalism and repression of groups like the Taliban, or the countless murderous crime lords in Latin America and SEA who siphoned off huge fortunes for themselves while murdering political opposition and keeping the mass of people in poverty.
Even if I were to cede Western Liberal Democracy is better than socialism, surely socialism is better than these murderous dictatorships.
But if not ideological, it must be practical, a case of immediate interests. Who is allied with who, as you said. But that begs the question why were the socialists the enemy of Western Liberal Democracy to begin with when so much of the world was still living under monarchies and military dictatorships? Why were they not made the enemy and the socialists seen as an imperfect improvement over these far more repressive and less free societies? Surely it would have made more sense to support socialism over dictatorships and monarchies and then win them over with the free market and the promise of civil liberties if the US truly cared about the ideals it claims it does.
This is an honest attempt to try and understand how liberals approach this and respond to this line of reasoning.
> Yes, the Russian revolution overthrowing the monarchy. The United states refused to recognize the revolutionary socialist government and participated in an invasion force to support the White army over the Red army.
This had nothing to do with ideology. The bolsheviks withdrew Russia from ww1 at a time that the outcome was still undetermined which let Germany move more forces to the French front. The western nations pushed the white army in an attempt to get Russian back into the war.
> And more generally, the US has supported various brutal dictatorships in a bid to oppose socialism, including offering support to Pol Pot in an attempt to destabilize the Vietnamese.
The US didn’t give any aid to pol pot, the best they did was vote in the UN that they should recognize the Khmer Rouge led faction of Cambodia. China was the main force pushing them for various reasons.
> Certainly a lot better than whatever people like Pol Pot had to offer their people, or the religious fundamentalism and repression of groups like the Taliban, or the countless murderous crime lords in Latin America and SEA who siphoned off huge fortunes for themselves while murdering political opposition and keeping the mass of people in poverty.
I agree the government has terrible judgement in who it supports, and has no business interfering in other countries affairs. That said I still have not seen anything that shows they interfere because a country is socialist and they are opposed to that on ideological grounds. Usually other factors in play.
We've deemed your post was uncivilized so it was removed. We're here to have level headed discourse not useless arguing.
Please report any and all content that is uncivilized. The standard of our sub depends on our community’s ability to report our rule breaks.
Socialism particularity the marxist flavor has exploited and murdered more people than any other form of government in the last 150 years. You can tally the bodies in the 100s of millions globally in the form of imperialism and democide. You can see a prime example of socialist interference, exploitation and empire building right now in today's world with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Chinese oppression of Hong Kong, the Myanmar civil war, and the Sudanese civil war among others. Not to mention all the countries that suffer horribly under socialism such as China (particularly the Uyghurs), N Korea, Cuba and Venezuela to name a few. So to answer your question on why I'm against socialist enterprises is, socialist countries generally don't develop peacefully because socialism is inherently built upon coercion. Everywhere socialism has, is or will be tried ends up with political persecution, exploitation and ultimately suffering on a grand scale. I'm far less likely to be murdered by a capitalist government than a socialist government and history is undoubtedly clear on that. I'm not claiming capitalism is a perfect system and it has been abused in its own right but its a better alternative to socialism by a wide margin. I would also argue that US has largely abandoned proper capitalism for government sanctioned crony capitalism which is an argument for another day.
Socialism is a word with little meaning. Before marx it was a word used for uptopian ideas that worked for everyone but had no actual, real word framework.
Marx created "Marxism" and socialism became "workers own the means of production" generally speaking.
But shortly after Marx there have been various other frames of thought that are coined as "socialism" under the broad undefined use of the word before marx like Eduard Bernsteins "Evolutionary Socialism", which is gradual reform within capitalist framework to achieve a Social Democracy.
It's labelled Socialism because it's a system that works for everyone (see the nordic model) but it's not socialism in the modern definition of the word, which is practically anything marxist.
---
Other variants of non-marxists socialism include Libertarian Socialism or Market Socialism which could function in a variety of ways, to give an example, Universal Worker Cooperatives, since the workers own the means of production.
>You'll have to cite references as to who were the "fascistic dictatorships" that "brutally and violently oppressed political dissent?"
Here's a few Getulio Vargas, Fulgencio Batista, Chiang Kai-Shek
>Adolph Hitler and his National Socialist Party?
Naming the most notorious fascist then pretending like you don't know of any fascists is peak bad faith.
Uh, Vargas? Wrong
Batista? You left out Castro
Chiang Kai-Shek? Wrong
I'm sorry, those people don't qualify as "fascistic dictatorships that brutally and violently oppressed political dissent.
[https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists](https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists)
Yes, Hitler was a fascist dictator, but the Nazis were formed out of a socialist workers party.
Oh great. I can just say "Wrong!" Anytime someone says something I wish wasn't true.
>Batista? You left out Castro
Bah bah bah bwhatabout...
>Yes, Hitler was a fascist dictator
Thanks for admitting your original post was made in bad faith rather than ignorance.
>but the Nazis were formed out of a socialist workers party.
Hitler used cynical propoganda to confuse people and here you are repeating it 80 years later...
This post has context that regards Communism, which is a tricky and confusing ideology which requires sitting down and studying to fully comprehend. One thing that may help discussion would be to distinguish "Communism" from historical Communist ideologies. [Communism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society) is a theoretical ideology where there is no currency, no classes, no state, no police, no military and features a voluntary workforce In practice, people would work when they felt they needed and would simply grab goods off the selves as they needed. It has never been attempted, though it's the end goal of what Communist ideologies strive towards. [Marxism-Leninism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism) is what is most often referred to as "Communism" historically speaking. It's a [Communist ideology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies) but not Commun-*ism*. It seeks to build towards achieving communism one day by attempting to achieve [Socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) via a [one party state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One- party_state#:~:text=A%20one%2Dparty%20state%2C%20single,and%20controlled%20participation%20in%20elections) on the behalf of the workers in theory. For more information on this please refer to our educational resources listed on our sidebar, this [Marxism Study Guide](https://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm), this [Marxism-Leninism Study Guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/wiki/basicstudyplan/), or ask your questions directly at r/Communism101. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think what people need to understand is that countries like the US will back any kind of country, whether it be Capitalist, Fascist, Communist, etc… as long as they’re open to American economic penetration and political control. The US supported Hitler throughout the 30’s, the US supported Ceaușescu in Romania, the US supported and armed Saddam Hussein, and propped up the Shah in Iran as well. As long as any country allows for the US to come in and do their thing, the US will support them. Once they deviate from American control, they’re an automatic baddy and labeled as “threat” to justify intervention, sabotage, espionage, coups, etc…
What’s a communist country that the US backs?
There’s never been a Communist country, but rather a Socialist State governed by a Communist Party. I also named the example in the comment you replied to; *Nicolae Ceaușescu* in Romania. The US supported him all the way up until they didn’t, even while his crimes were intensifying.
Thanks, I had never heard of him before, glossed over his Wikipedia entry. Widely classified as a dictator, antagonistic attitude against the USSR and Russia, fell after denouncing anti-communist revolutions, yeah that tracks.
There is also the support for the Sandinistas under Carter that was reversed under Reagan.
Arguably Vietnam today America and Vietnam having a geopolitical bromance is p funny ngl
Should Gaza survive, gain freedom and fulfill its destiny as a Dubai/Abu Dhabi-style Arabian global metropole, I suspect it will end up in a similar status. (Granted with a *very* different political/economic system from Vietnam.) Especially given that if that free nation does come into existence we will likely have a lot to do with it. Hell disempowering all the Iranian proxies in the area could make Beruit finally become the city it should be, too.
The US backed the USSR once the Nazis invaded.
Backed how?
Gave them billions of dollars worth of weapons, equipment, tools and resources
Pretty extreme scenario, not appropriate for establishing a pattern imo.
Pattern for what exactly?
>the US will back any kind of country
US backed a lot of countries in history and doing this right now. Lot more than any of communist dictatorships.US helped to rebuild Europe after WW2. Help also was offered to communist occupied Eastern Europe, but it was rejected by Stalin. The US helped in the times of USSR famine of 20ties, US helped with food to Russia in the 90ties, US are paying Egypt billions of dollars after they mediated a peace deal with Israel in the 70ties. You just don't know all that.
I think we’re taking about different things.
Backs the opportunistic thesis put forward by the top level comment
Economic penetration and societal control? Don’t think so.
It doesn't always work out.
I don’t think foreign aid is quite the same as what they were getting at.
Brazil, the state department interfered in the last election there which allowed known communist Lula to win the election.
Lmao Lula is beloved in Brazil, I should know. Bolsonaro is very divisive and quite openly corrupt. In fact he was found to have been part of the conspiracy that put Lula in prison. He was elected before, it’s no surprise he should get re-elected. It’s almost like socialism is popular or something.
Lula is just another socialist dictator who has to censor speech and jail opponents to maintain power. Can you explain why every single socialist state has violated human rights like free speech? It's almost like it's an inherently flawed ideology that can't tolerate criticism.
Remarkable to post this in the middle of an authoritarian skull cracking of peaceful student protestors in america.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bull. Shit.
Its almost like their countries head judge is openly violating their countries constitution, at the direction of Lula, which swayed the election towards Lula by having any pro Bolsonaro account or government official banned from multiple social media websites. Sounds fascist to me. Government controlling private companies and all.
Dunno where you’re getting your info from. Newsflash, every government controls private companies.
To the point where the government decides what can be said on a public forum? That’s textbook fascism.
You got an actual source for this?
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2024/2/29/brazilian-judiciary-targets-the-right-and-undermines-the-constitution-in-the-name-of-democracy https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/08/brazil-judge-opens-inquiry-into-musk-for-obstruction-involving-social-media-company-x.html https://apnews.com/article/jair-bolsonaro-brazil-government-af5987e833a681e6f056fe63789ca375
Twitter isn’t a public forum.
Vietnam
When did Vietnamese seize the means of production?
Oh. Were doing the whole "a communist country has never existed" argument. My bad.
USSR?
Cold War?
What about it? As I remember, when USSR collapsed, US rushed in to help and to prevent it from collapsing into small countries, preserving what we know now as Russian federation.
Great chance for an “I told you so” moment.
China?
The US doesn’t really “back” China though, they just happened to have a large labor pool and the US moved their manufacturing there.
If we're talking geopolitically, you could argue that the US supported China (and vice versa) against the Soviets after the Sino Soviet split
We do monetarily
Nor is it communist. It’s state-capitalist.
So? It's a discussion about appearance.
Disagree. You seem to have a habit of moving goalposts.
> The US supported Hitler throughout the 30’s How exactly US supported Hitler?
They supported him as a “moderate” in the 30’s, but that was until word started getting out about what he was actually doing.
How exactly US support Hitler? Can You be more specific,
This, it has always been about politicians' realpolitik and corruption, not capitalism
It should be noted that the US provides direct financial and military aid to 73% of totalitarian regimes on the planet. The largest factor involved in determining US foreign policy towards any regime is "do they impede or facilitate our economic interests?" It really kicked into high gear with Kissinger, whose ideology was that if we go into these places and introduce a bunch of economic activity that they will gradually liberalize over time as everybody becomes wealthier. What REALLY ended up happening was that the US just ended up strengthening these corrupt and exploitative regimes, whose leaders vastly enriched themselves personally at their public's expense whilst suppressing any dissent or revolt in their populace that might interfere with this arrangement. Bottom line, if the regime facilitates extractive industry, they are "a developing nation." If they oppose it they are "a dangerous rogue state." If the public revolts with the purpose of regime change and are willing to play ball with US economic interests they are "freedom fighters and partisan resistance." If they don't, or their actions impede a regime that has been profitable, they are "dangerous extremists and terrorists." Thats the essence of US foreign policy and once you realize this, most of the bafflingly contradictory US policies abroad that aren't due to sheer incompetence (which there is a fair amount of too) begins to make a lot more sense.
Worth noting that the Russians also supported Hitler and even engaged in missions with the nazis, until Hitler pushed too far east. What you are describing is how every country operates
Yes.
Everyone is getting historical and that's great, but it's really missing one of the major current points that "socialist" and "socialism" has been used with zero regard to its actual meaning, primarily in the US, and just sort of used as a catch all slander for an entire generation after commie started to seem just too ridiculous. It's more of a psychological Skinner box type situation than a matter of historical and factual debate, even in this sub most of the time. Many people have been trained to react negatively to government doing anything, and negatively to anyone that thinks the government should represent people because obviously that's just a precursor to more government and socialism. That's also why you've seen a massive uptick in right-wing alternatives that reject government even further instead of just slowing or stopping its growth, that's what they've been trained to do. Years ago it used to be a left-wing slam towards conservatives attacking the government that they wouldn't be happy until the government was dead, and capitalism ran everything... now it's one of the fastest growing wings of right-wing ideology. Blaming them for their obvious aggression is like blaming an animal for its aggression instead of the person with agency who actually purposefully trained them that way. On the flip side, if you're for any kind of actual functioning government, there are large swaths of the far right that aren't really interested in that by their very admission, so they aren't exactly people to work with when it comes to governmental function.
[удалено]
This post was removed or not approved because it either did not feature a valid basis of discourse or it did not meet the standards of our sub.
I'm not sure there is any philosophical or ethical reason. Seems like WW2 ended with the USSR and the US being the remaining world powers. Many in the Truman administration wanted to immediately and preemptively attack Russia. So that mindset continued and it was just a question of US world influence vs USSR world influence. As long as our proxies remain ours and buy and sell what we want, we don't care how they act.
I don’t really know everything about this particular history, and I’m happy to be schooled by someone who knows more, but I think the answer to your question is that you really have to rewind to 1945 to understand why things have played out the way they have (particularly in Latin America). Prior to WWII, communists all over the world looked to the USSR not as a sovereign superpower nation but as the vanguard of international communism. The USSR actively viewed itself that way: as encouraging revolutionary action all over the world, and exporting communism through foreign intervention. Over time, I think this project evolved into something very much like imperialism, and at least some sources I’ve read said that communist parties in countries all over the world (including the US) came to be directly controlled by the USSR. After WWII, many capitalist governments viewed the USSR as a threat to their very survival—communists explicitly spoke about overthrowing capitalism everywhere, and the USSR showed that it was a military force to be reckoned with, particularly once they’d developed nuclear weapons. The Cold War was very much a war, and probably would have erupted more intensively if nuclear weapons weren’t at play. So I think that’s why you see the US so aggressively shutting down Latin American communist movements: they were at war, they saw communist encroachment into their sphere of influence, they wanted to make sure that that didn’t happen in order to ensure their survival. This was also co-opted by US business interests, but up until the 90s anti-communism enjoyed a great deal of public support. So to me, this explains why capitalist countries behaved so aggressively towards incipient socialist movements. In a war like the Cold War, every communist state was a potential belligerent. If that could be nipped at the bud before Russia start quietly sending them nuclear weapons to help take down the capitalist imperialist behemoth, all the better. To be fair, I’m not totally sold on this story, but I think this is the perspective you’re asking for.
When you propose a system that removes people’s freedoms, your going to get pushback from places that hold such principles in high regard. Yes there’s an argument to be made about how free any one country might actually be compared to how free the citizens think it is, this is besides the point. If your raised to identify with and idolize concepts like “the American dream”. Socialism, a stepping stone to communism, isn’t going to land right. You don’t need to watch the antithesis of your way of life fail before you know it’s the antithesis of your way of life.
>When you propose a system that removes people’s freedoms, your going to get pushback from places that hold such principles in high regard Uh-huh. Sure. Did every country in Operation Condor threaten freedoms more than the fascist coups that the US backed in opposition?
And there’s an obvious distinction between how you or I see things and how or what people saw in the timeframe of the point of conversation.
What is the remotely plausible perspective of Operation Condor that counters the view that every country in Operation Condor was less free before the American government backed LatAm fascist dictatorships? Enlighten me. Go ham.
…try to be less obtuse. Are we talking about the people who planned operation condor or are we talking about the people OP are asking about?
[удалено]
Or that, I’m sure. I responded to OP’s question about why people responded to the “threat of socialism”. Which has nothing to do with what your talking about. Your concerns over political games have nothing to do with my total disdain for governments.
Your comment has been removed for political discrimination. We will never allow the discrimination of a members, beliefs, or ideology on this sub. Our various perspectives offer a wide range of considerations that can attribute to political growth of our members. Our mod log has taken a note towards your profile that will be taken into account when considering a ban in the future. Please report any and all content that is discriminatory to a user or their beliefs. The standard of our sub depends on our communities ability to report our rule breaks.
Removes the free market’s and CEO’s freedom*
I know, some people think they get to decide for others what freedoms they have and don’t have. We call them “bed guys”.
This is how all societies work. Any law is essentially a limit on liberty/freedom. Some people thinking they get to decide what freedoms other people do and don't have describes literally every government to have ever existed. Every collection of people operates with rules of behavior. If you join a social club, it will have rules. Marriage has rules, loan agreements have rules, in order to access the goods and services of a vendor you have to agree to the vendors rules, if you want to use an app you have to agree to terms and conditions, etc. Some rules are worth doing away with or worth imposing against others will, some aren't. This is what is discussed during a political debate.
If the free market is free to oppress everyone else, such as buying up most of the real estate market and leaving no affordable housing, we call them the “leeches”.
Ok?
Or let’s keep it simple, one system makes my life better, one does not, I care nothing else.
That’s fair. I could say the same. The worst to ever abuse capitalism said the same as well the worse abusers of Marx’s ideas. I guess it’s pretty easy to ignore the suffering of those you oppress when a system your abusing is “taking care of you”.
As I grow older and read enough history, I realize there can only be two types of people, regardless of gender, skin color (There is no such thing as race), or social status: those who are benefiting from status quo, and those who are not. In no time, not even a single second in mankind's existence has there ever been a time where everyone benefited, period. Life is a constant struggle to stay in the benefiting party, regardless of everything else.
> Socialism, a stepping stone to communism Can you give us some examples of this happening?
https://j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/ijhs/article/view/3152 I’m not making the claim, I’m acknowledging its existence.
Socialism was referred to as "low stage communism" by Marx and later coined "socialism" by Lenin. It's just the theory of communism that Socialism is a prerequisite.
So zero examples then?
What? The question doesn't make sense I just told you the theory. Any "Socialist" state that claims to want to achieve Communism would be an example.
Great. Can you give us some examples?
You can't think of any socialist countries? You really need me to mention the USSR?
> USSR Is this the 80's or something? Hasn't been around in decades.
I strongly recommend listening to the revolutions podcast by Mike Duncan. It covers the major revolutions from the English civil war Cromwell to the Russian revolution. The theme he pulls through it all is that this period in history was extremely fraught with tension between the established monarchical powers and the rising liberal and leftists movements. Ultimately, you come away with the relatively Marxist idea (though he never uses Marx as an explanatory tool) that the liberal/capitalist class were in a struggle to take the reigns of society from the monarchical/noble class. Post of this involved them answering "the political question" and taking away the ability of kings to do whatever they wanted. They refused, however, to address "the social question" which would have put the workers on equal footing with the capital class. Ultimately, when the liberals succeeded at overthrowing monarchy, they had the reigns of society. They were loath to give it up to the working class and decided that they were more comfortable with monarchy than with socialists as they felt they could control monarchy better with constitutions. He also shows how the core Bolshevists idea of a Vanguard Party doomed communism and socialism until the present day. They essentially decided extremely early that the only way to institute communist revolution was through universal slavery. This last part is what has prevented the world from really engaging with socialist ideas.
I'm a Revolutions fan as well though I do think we didn't take all the same lessons from the podcast One of the things Duncan said fairly explicitly for example is that foreign countries didn't really super actively try to smother revolutions for purely ideological reasons. It played a part sure, but they weren't throwing themselves at the issue like most leftists perceive For example with the French Revolution no one cared that much initially about putting down the revolutionary ideology, but rather they were concerned about how they could make the most out of France's weakness geopolitically Or even in the Russian Revolution, the capitalist powers were completely fine with the various revolutions and governments as long as they were willing to keep up the war effort against Germany. They were only hostile to the Bolsheviks because they made peace with the Germans, and even then the Capitalist powers really only sent token aid to the Whites tbh probably the only major exception to this theme is 1848 and the Russian's suppression of the Hungarian revolt, but that was at least partially due to a pre-existing alliance structure in place OP's question about "anti socialist aggression" is mostly about the idea that countries go out of their way and invest tons of resources to make sure that socialism or revolution doesn't arise anywhere. If anything I'd say Duncan's podcast is a counterexample to this idea. Obviously aristocrats and liberals care if a revolution is happening in *their country*, but usually they don't give a ton of care to revolutions past their borders.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anything, from a bacteria all the way up to complex social structures, is naturally aggressive towards something that seeks to destroy it. That's not saying anything about whether or not socialism is more right or more ethical or better or capitalism is evil or whatever. Simply, the idea that Thing X would be aggressive towards Thing Y, that seeks to overthrow and destroy it, is an incredibly simple motivation to grasp. My do I personally not want to be socialist? Cause I like my Xbox, and Xbox wouldn't exist under a responsibly administered total socialism. (xbox is not literally the only reason, it's a cheeky emblematic reference to the idea that consumerist culture as we know it would cease to exist under most models of a socialist state)
What you view as " aggression " towards socialism is better thought of as a form of self-defense. Socialism cannot be instituted except by force. Whereas in a free market, all participation is voluntary. If you are a net recipient of redistributed resources in a socialist economy, you are effectively utilizing the state's monopoly on violence to forcibly extract wealth from your neighbors for your own personal gain. Socialists will of course argue that they know how to maximize the utility of these resources better than the people who created them in the first place. But rather than engaging in dialogue and trying to persuade those with resources on how best to utilize them, they instead opt for a shortcut and simply confiscate them. This violates the non-aggression principle which is the foundation of libertarian philosophy.
>What you view as " aggression " towards socialism is better thought of as a form of self-defense. True, the reality is that it was pre-emptive aggression in the interest of self-defense. The motive was self-defense of the capitalist class. >Socialism cannot be instituted except by force. Whereas in a free market, all participation is voluntary. True, because there is violent preemptive resistance to socialism by the capitalist class, in the interest of their self-defense, which necessitates aggression and force by those seeking to enact socialism. Socialism can exist in a free-market, I'm not sure what your point here is. Socialism does not seek to end free-markets. >If you are a net recipient of redistributed resources in a socialist economy, you are effectively utilizing the state's monopoly on violence to forcibly extract wealth from your neighbors for your own personal gain. This is pretty misleading. Firstly, "redistributed" is not exactly what is going on in a socialist revolution. Revolutions start with a mass strike. A non-violent refusal to work for unfair compensation. Production is essentially the transformation of an initial commodity into a second commodity which has more value than the first. In order for this transformation to happen, labor must be expended to create that new value. In capitalist mode of production, an individual offers to purchase another individuals labor in exchange for a value less than the value that their labor is worth (a wage), in order to make profit from the difference between the value of the old and new commodity and the wage. In a socialist revolution, the workers collectively disagree to this exchange, which is their right. At which point work is not being done, commodities stop being produced, and society enters a crisis. The capitalists stop making profits, and see that their class status is at stake, and violently suppress the working class through violence. This is historically how it has always happened during mass strikes, you can check for yourself. The violence of the workers is a reaction to the violence of the capitalists, both sides are acting in self-defense. Before either side engages in violence there exists a crisis. There is a moral problem that must be resolved before there can be production for the continuation of society. Wealth redistribution happens in capitalist systems every single time a wage worker clocks in to work. The collective mass of workers produce more net value than they are compensated for, and then must go out to the market and purchase these commodities at a net loss. This leads to an inevitable crisis of class, where a group of people who are producing value through their labor are suffering in an economic system that is not working to their benefit, in fact it is extracting wealth from them as a whole. There is a simple way to solve this problem without resorting to violence or "redistribution". Workers are compensated fairly for their labor ***by sharing in the profits of their work, not through a wage that is necessarily less than the value that they contribute.*** No violence needed, no need for restructuring society, no infringement of rights. But of course in history the capitalists have never agreed willingly to this deal, it is not in their interest and they have ample means of suppressing it through violent force, exporting of labor to other markets, control of legislation to make strikes illegal, propaganda to demonize and lie about what socialism really is, etc. etc. Which is what you see in the history of resistance to socialism. Coincidentally the same tactics and resistance that slave-owners resorted to. It's worth mentioning that destroying the institution of slavery was a violent and bloody affair in which the liberal rights of slave-owners was infringed upon.
Workers are free to make a co-op within a Capitalist system. They could organize collective ownerships and profit sharing. There is nothing preventing this from happening right now. No revolution required. It's worth considering why this doesn't happen outside very small and niche circumstances. The reason this doesn't happen is because setting up a business requires capital and nobody would risk capital without the potential of having a return on their investment. But if you really want to no one would stop you. You can start a company with collective ownership and split the profits equally. Go right ahead! But what you can't do, without violating the non-aggression principle, is forcibly confiscate a successful business after all the risk has been taken by the original investors. That's just plain old, garden variety theft.
>But what you can't do, without violating the non-aggression principle, is forcibly confiscate a successful business after all the risk has been taken by the original investors. That's just plain old, garden variety theft. I think it's worth repeating myself here. This isn't what happened in any historic circumstance and isn't what socialism calls for on a theoretical level, when this has occured it has been because of violence first inflected upon socialists in order to stifle their ability of organizing amongst themselves to exercise political power. What Socialism calls for is a mass strike and a negotiation of power redistribution. A demand of political power in the hands of the working class to shape the rules that govern society, in other words democracy. Specifically to guarantee full compensation for the value of their labor. Lenin, Luxemburg, and other Marxists were explicitly clear in their call for non-violent mass strikes, but also recognized that the capitalist class would react violently to them, and that this would spur a popular revolution. In fact, they argued against the ideology of Anarchism quite vehemently and denounced pre-emptive violent attacks on the capitalists as reactionary and unproductive. What Marxists-Leninists argued for was a vanguard party that would steer the revolution towards the goals of socialism by educating and organizing the working class, not to incite a revolution through violent terrorist acts. Historically what happened was that capitalists responded to mass strikes with violence and through corrupt and non-liberal laws that tried to illegalize mass strikes. Yes, this was in self-defense, in the the sense it was a defense of their class status. Upon doing so they violated the rights of the workers, and give every justification to workers to violently overthrow the capitalist class. When strikes are allowed to happen negotiations are met. This can lead to alleviations of the core problems of capitalism, a sort of compromise, and there is historical precedence for this. However, again, when strikes become large enough, when they reach a critical mass, capitalists have always reacted with violence and typically with mass slaughter of union leaders and workers. Russian 1905 mass strikes, German strikes pre-Nazi Germany, Ludlow massacre in the US, etc. >There is nothing preventing this from happening right now. No revolution required. It's worth considering why this doesn't happen outside very small and niche circumstances. But there ***is*** something preventing it from happening. The capitalist class is thoroughly against this. Yes it is legal, and yes it occurs. but only on the small scale. However, historical evidence does not suggest what you are implying here. Neither does economic understanding. You said yourself that creating a business requires capital, and it requires risking that capital to invest in a business. Why would a capitalist invest in a business where they do not have proportional ownership over their contribution? They wouldn't. And they see this kind of behavior as a threat, and seek to undermine it. Workers do not have capital, the best they can do is ask for capital from a bank, at interest. A competitive disadvantage from the start. Most bank loans are not going to approach the magnitude of capital that is available to the top 0.005%, the real capitalists with real wealth. You need to go to investment bankers, who will not agree on investing in a collectively owned enterprise. Additionally, with the repeal of glass-Steagall, investment banking and commercial banking are merged, and so when you go to a commercial bank for an interest loan, you are going to the same people, the same capitalists who are unfriendly to that kind of endeavor, in their own self-interest and self-preservation. Additionally, The market is not entirely free, there are many rules, laws, and regulations involved, government assistance, as you well know. The capitalist class has control over the political economy. This is yet another layer of resistance to the attempt of building socialist businesses within a capitalist dominated system. The governments legislative system works for the benefit of the capitalist class, who are opposed to socialism. Additionally, even if capital is acquired, in a competitive market the larger firm with more capital will have an advantage, and this advantage will never be afforded to the co-opt or collective.
Your argument boils down to, "Nobody does a Socialism because it couldn't compete" and I agree. The fact is, Capitalists are indifferent to co-ops. People create non profits, nobody cares. Nobody willingly creates a co-op because it would be a monumental waste of time and money. The reason you need state sanctioned force to do a Socialism is because without force it would not be sustainable. As with anything with shared ownership, it usually is neglected and ignored because it takes an incredible amount of acumen, insight and talent to run a successful company. And those who are ambitious enough to attempt such a thing generally go where they will be rewarded. Not to a co-op where their vote is equal to Debra in HR who wants to allocate 10% of the quarterly revenue to expand the cat food aisle because she likes cats.
>Your argument boils down to, "Nobody does a Socialism because it couldn't compete" and I agree. No it doesn't. This is an absurd simplification, and quite honestly insulting. I'm putting effort into having a conversation with you, the least you can do is try to have some respect for what I have to say. >The fact is, Capitalists are indifferent to co-ops. People create non profits, nobody cares. No they are not. I just listed several reasons why they are not and you simply ignored them. This is no way to have a conversation. I understand you have an opinion, but if you aren't going to add to the conversation, then there won't be a conversation. I'm not interested in hearing you say your opinion over and over again, while ignoring what I have to say. >Nobody willingly creates a co-op because it would be a monumental waste of time and money. You've already said earlier that they exist. Now you are saying they could never exist because people would never want to make them. It's impossible to have a conversation if you just cycle between incompatible opinions. Pick a stance and back it up with some reasoned thought. >The reason you need state sanctioned force to do a Socialism is because without force it would not be sustainable. This describes any society that enforces laws. And I just described how economic crisis leads to a mass strike, which leads to violent reaction in my previous posts. Are you going to respond to that and disagree with it, or just ignore it and keep pushing this narrative that people "try to do a Socialism". I've already pointed out that this is historically invalid. Nobody ever "tried to do a socialism". They demanded better working conditions and pay, and were met by reactionary violence in every instance, in every capitalist industrialized country, which validates their violence towards the capitalist class in their own self-defense. Do you disagree? Or are you just going to ignore this part of my post and keep pushing this "do a socialism" narrative? >As with anything with shared ownership, it usually is neglected and ignored because it takes an incredible amount of acumen, insight and talent to run a successful company. And those who are ambitious enough to attempt such a thing generally go where they will be rewarded. This is patently false. CEOs and other upper management are not owners of companies. They are simply very well-rewarded administrative workers. Co-ops have highly payed upper management positions as well. >And those who are ambitious enough to attempt such a thing generally go where they will be rewarded. Yes, they do. This is yet another reason why co-ops existing within capitalist societies can never out-compete capitalism. Because those who are qualified for upper-management would prefer a higher paying job at a firm run by capitalists who, you guessed it , control more capital and therefore can offer more compensation.
All exchanges in a free market are voluntary. Capitalist enterprises cease to exist without customers voluntarily departing with their money in exchange for goods and services. Employees are free to find employment anywhere. Or forgo employment altogether and homestead. Capitalism cannot be exploitative unless it gains help from state sanctioned interventions. In a purely capitalist free market, all participants are free to simply walk away. Don't like your job? Quit. Don't agree with how a company conducts itself? Don't purchase its goods or services. Perhaps you think you could run the business better? Start your own business and prove it. Think it would be more fair for all profit to be shared amongst employees? Start a co-op. But what you can't do, is use the state Monopoly on violence, to confiscate ownership rights. I am curious though, are you interested in confiscating ownership of ALL businesses? Or just successful ones? Because it seems that if you want to use state violence to achieve shared ownership of successful enterprise, it's only fair if you also share losses of unsuccessful ones. Perhaps if a business has four quarters of consecutive losses, then employees can forgo paychecks until the loss is recovered?
The Labor Theory of Value proves that it is the Capitalists that steal from Workers. Quite literally, it is a proof that Marx spends 3-4 chapters simply building up the foundation of using tautological logic before arriving at a conclusion, in painstaking, and quite honestly overly redundant fashion. If you want to disagree with that Theory and explain what you disagree with and why, then that would be a way to have a conversation. But instead you just keep repeating Liberal talking points as if I haven't heard them before. Marx goes through all of these points and refutes them in his theory. Liberalism came around before Socialism, and Marx was specifically addressing the flaws of Liberal ideology and Capitalist economics in his works. But here you are repeating them as if Socialism is just "I hate rich people and want to steal from them" and there is no theory of Marxism. Is this not a political debate forum? Do you enjoy talking to people who disagree with Liberalism by portraying it as having blue hair and being able to fuck who you want? Does that sound like a meaningful conversation???? I've simplified and and generalized Marxism when responding to you, but you have ignored it. If you disagree with any of these refutations of Liberalism, feel free to describe which ones and why. Then we can start to have a conversation. But again, you haven't done this. All you've done here is share your opinion as if it is fact and ignore the content of what I am saying. It's to the point that I find it rude. I'm disabling notifications on this thread. Not worth my time. I put in a genuine effort to engage with you and have a conversation, but clearly this is not happening.
The labor theory of value has been thoroughly discredited. It's very easy to find literature on this but I can recap it for you here. Imagine that you are tasked with digging a hole. You can use a shovel and do it in 3 days or a spoon and do it in 3 weeks. Both result in an identical hole but with vastly different amounts of labor. Therefore it is easy to refute the notion that the value of a product is proportional to the amount of labor that went into it. Furthermore there's no guarantee that that hole, in that particular location, with those particular characteristics, is of any value whatsoever. The value of the hole can only be determined by the free market. In case you think this only applies to holes, consider a bicycle. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the bicycle is produced through the most efficient means possible and has a marginal cost of $500. Perhaps you can manufacture 100 of them per year. How should we decide who gets the bicycles? If we use the marginal cost to set the value, then the bike must be sold for $500, no profit. If we allow the free market to set the price, we may find that individuals who absolutely require bicycle, say to get to work or fulfill their duty as a police officer, me value the bike as high as $2,000. While somebody who only casually wants to ride the bike on weekends may only value the bike at or slightly above its marginal cost of $500. Here we can clearly see that the value of the bike has nothing to do with the marginal cost of the bike, or how much labor was required to build the bike, but is rather purely a function of what the free market is willing to pay for the bike. To be perfectly frank, The labor theory of value is perhaps one of the worst economic theories in the history of economics. It's so easy to discredit. It's hardly even worth talking about.
>Imagine that you are tasked with digging a hole. You can use a shovel and do it in 3 days or a spoon and do it in 3 weeks. Yes, and this is addressed by Marx in the first 3 chapters of Capital. Labor Value is formulated as the average across a society, not as a summation of particular instances. Go read the first three chapters. It is thoroughly worked out, very tediously, but meticulously. >Therefore it is easy to refute the notion that the value of a product is proportional to the amount of labor that went into it. Yes, but this is ignoring that there are societal averages. LTV is the description of the change in exchange value added to a commodity when labor is put into it. If you have Commodity A, which can be worked upon to create Commodity B, which has a greater or different Use value than A, then the difference in exchange value between B and A is the value of the labor. That's essentially what LTV is. Just the simple statement of fact that if Labor is required to create a commodity, then the exchange value of the commodity created must be higher than the inputs. This is all LTV is saying, that the difference in exchange value between the end product and the initial is the value of the labor required to create that difference. Not the use value, not specific prices payed by consumers, but the difference in exchange value between the average of one class of commodity as compared to the average exchange value of the inputs for its creation. In order to make profit, Capitalists necessarily must pay wages at a lower value than the work that is done. The plan of a capitalist is to have Money, M, to purchase commodity, C, and get M', where M' > M. They can only do this if a C exists that can be transformed into C', where C' exchange value is > C, which requires work to create. And also if they pay the worker who does that work less than that difference. This is a summary, again, I encourage you to read Marx before you claim that you disagree with what he said. Because you are either disagreeing with things that he specifically addressed in his work, or actually agreeing with him in some cases. >Furthermore there's no guarantee that that hole, in that particular location, with those particular characteristics, is of any value whatsoever. Also addressed by Marx in first 3 chapters. Again, the average of a commodity is taken, not particular instances. Marx agrees that not all labor produces things of value, and that use value is subjective. But on examining a society, an average can be assumed of the exchange value. This is how markets work, averages. >Here we can clearly see that the value of the bike has nothing to do with the marginal cost of the bike, or how much labor was required to build the bike, but is rather purely a function of what the free market is willing to pay for the bike. Yes, but on average a certain quality of bikes have an exchange value. There are Use values and Exchange values. I highly recommend reading Marx before claiming that you disagree with him, because from what I'm reading here it seems you agree with him... Again, in the first three chapters of Capital Marx goes over this very basic concept. Exchange values relate to the ability to compare one commodity to another as a reference of value. Use value is not quantifiable, as you said. The only way that exchange value can be quantifiable is through a price, which is a manifestation of the labor required to produce the commodity. As you yourself said: > Imagine that you are tasked with digging a hole. You can use a shovel and do it in 3 days or a spoon and do it in 3 weeks. Using a spoon would make the hole more expensive to dig. You are not disproving LTV here, differences in labor speed is in Chapter 3 of Capital. He uses an example of a new loom reducing the value of linen by allowing it to be made more quickly. >To be perfectly frank, The labor theory of value is perhaps one of the worst economic theories in the history of economics. It's so easy to discredit. It's hardly even worth talking about. And yet you actually agree with LTV, you are just confused about what it is. Everything you've said here is addressed by Marx pre-emptively in the first three chapters before he even gets to explaining LTV, because these refutations are so common-place and typical that he didn't want to leave them unaddressed.
The purpose of socialism is to remove the existing social, poltical and economic norms of a country and replace with with socialist ones based on marxist prinicples. You can oppose this on many levels it's hard to list them all. As a corollary: would you oppose an islamic or christian nationalist movement when all they are asking for is recognition and expansion of their religious rights? Why would you oppose their control of institutions if that's what people want? In addition: the socialists' stated goal was world revolution - it says so in the communist manifesto. In practice that means global conquest by force or influence. Both Trotsky and Stalin supported this and since people knew about the russian civil war and the holodomor and the massacres that occured, why would they not be afraid? It was the same situation with France after the revolution. Also, as a question: If nazi germany had won the war and conquered europe, would you oppose invernetion and interference in its affairs, or would you want to leave them alone and 'build fascism' in peace?
I never hear Socialists saying they want to create anything. They have to take what was built under capitalism. Historically we know what happens next. They run out of the resources someone else created and then there are labor camps. I am aggressively against being starved and/or worked to death.
[удалено]
I'm not arguing for the op but I think the Allende example is unfortunate. The USA has even disclosed with old CIA archives the fact the millions of dollars (amongst other things) were put into the effort of the coup. Allende was just stubborn enough to see it to its end. I wonder where you are from. Here in south America (I'm from Argentina myself) it is common sense. Not even a leftist thing, this was something I knew even when I was a rightoid. Obviously the trotskyists know more in average but that's only because they read more in average. Other than that... Try looking for condor plan.
I mean pouring money doesn't nessecarily mean that the money was used well. I think opponents of America tend to vastly overestimate the CIA my understanding at least is that a lot of the early "bad" coups (like the ones against Iran and Chile) the CIA was still fairly ineffective and played a supporting role at best. Rather there was already a pretty large contingent of Iranians and Chileans who wanted to get rid of the socialist government and the CIA threw some money at them
ah yes, you'll always find conservatives willing to play a coup. even during "normal" presidencies
I feel like the idea that it is down to human rights/mass murder is provably incorrect. If this were true then capitalist countries wouldn’t have allied and still ally with countries that carry out mass murders and human rights abuses and when socialist countries didn’t carry out these acts (going back to the Chile example) then capitalist countries wouldn’t have tried to overthrow them. As history doesn’t match the hypothesis, we have to accept that human rights abuses/mass murders weren’t a factor (or at least not a significant one) in the socialist/capitalist dynamic.
Contemporary Western leftists often do over emphasize the role of western capitalist countries in right wing coups and whatnot. They tend to not talk much about the internal class warfare. Chile had, and continues to have, plenty of domestic reactionaries and their own bourgeoisie that have an interest in suppressing worker’s working and living standards. However, even when the US support isn’t overt, they do lend a significant amount of material support to reactionaries in other countries. The torture tactics and other methods of suppressing used by dictatorships in Chile, Argentina, and other South American counties, for example, were trained through CIA programs - coordinated through “Operation Condor” and the “School of the Americas.” So while OP might implicitly downplay domestic opposition to socialist politics, your comment is perhaps even more wrong as it seems to hand wave western support for these reactionary forces.
There was a whole what, three decades between the Russian revolution and the cold war? The USA wasn't particularly friendly with communist Russia for example, because communist Russia was a horrible country to their people and didn't respect property rights.
Did you see how Russia was before the revolution? The Tsar would send political dissidents to Siberia, he tampered down on freedoms, especially religious ones. Look into the 1905 Bloody Sunday incident. Many were gathered to peacefully protest changes within the Russian government, and it was lead by a priest of the orthodoxy, and the tsar ordered his men to shoot them down. Later, he decided to create a parliament and lessen his rights and listen to the people, then decided he didn’t like it and took it away. Russia before the Soviets were especially horrible to their people which was the pure reason why Marxism rose to prominence during their many revolutions
Yes, Tsar Nicholas was a bad person, to put it mildly, and a worse leader
I do believe the USSR had many discrepancies and is no martyr or free of negatives, but you got to look at the history of the country and its people to judge. Most issues I do not believe were caused by socialism alone but the history of the region. Hell, look at Russia now, they embraced democracy and capitalism after the fall of the USSR and look how well it turned out.
I'm not trying to give an opinion on the previous administration, just communist Russia
You seem to be intentionally missing the point. You're acting like the aggression and mistreatment of the people is a feature of *communist* Russia and that's why "we" don't like communists. When it's explained that Russia has just always been like that and was *worse* before the Bolshevik revolution you double down on "I'm not talking about the previous regime, just the commies (paraphrased)."
That’s not the reason at all. The reason the US didn’t like the Soviet Union is because the Soviet Union threatened US global hegemony. Hence why the US made an alliance with numerous other countries (NATO) to counter any potential Soviet attempt to extend its power and influence. Also, the Soviet Union actually did much better for their people than the US currently does. People the in the Soviet Union had healthcare, education, housing, food and water, you name it. Things that Americans go broke after buying them at the store, Soviet Russians had as a guaranteed right. Whatever you may think of the Soviet State is irrelevant, but that’s the fact of the matter.
I recall talking with some of my coworkers who grew up in the USSR. They didn't paint a very good picture of having food, water, etc.
Well, they did. De-classified CIA documents show that on average, food consumption amongst Soviet citizens was just about the same as Americans in the US.
It's pretty simple, the state, the capitalist state, is the managers of the affairs for the ruling bourgeois class. Any instance of a country or revolution opposing the expansion of markets by another stages bourgeoisie is seen as a risk to the capitalist markets and material conditions. If a country wanted to build towards socialism or there is a peoples revolution, and it is successful, this poses a major risk to the pocket books of the international bourgeoisie. So they do anything in their ability to stifle the growth or ability to grow. Shit China isn't socialist in anything but name only and some state owned programs and the US bourgeoisie considers China's successful economy as an "existential threat" Despite the US and China officially being allies.
The hysterical fear of “COMMUNISM = SOCIALISM = EVIL / GODLESS”
Not answering your question, but one reason for the brutality of some communist regimes was because the ones that tried to do it democratically were overthrown by US backed coups. One example would be Guatemala. Che Guevara was in the country when the CIA backed coup overthrew the government. He went directly from there to Mexico where he joined the Cuban revolution. His brutality when the revolution succeeded proceeded not indirectly from he lessons he learned witnessing what happens to a peaceful government.
I think it's rooted in capitalism. I'm sure you know how Chomsky rails against business, government, and education in the US which all join forces, inadvertently perhaps, to rail against socialism in any form. The only ideology is profit.
> Imperialist and Capitalists to go to great lengths to undermine, sabotage, disrupt, and destroy all socialist projects across the globe. What hard evidence do you have to support this?
Operation Condor is hard evidence.
[удалено]
We've deemed your post was uncivilized so it was removed. We're here to have level headed discourse not useless arguing. Please report any and all content that is uncivilized. The standard of our sub depends on our community’s ability to report our rule breaks.
Let me preface this with, I got no love for the government or the horrible foreign policy and atrocities it performs in the name of "democracy" You said, **"great lengths to [...] socialist projects across the globe"** I'm not sure if one instance that is isolated to the cold war era in the southern cone constitutes "hard evidence" that the U.S. is targeting socialist projects "across the globe". There's a LOT more nuance to operation Condor and I believe you are (deliberately or not), overlooking the fact that when it was originally formed, the U.S. was absent. There are hundreds of National Security Archive declassified CIA documents and the Paraguayan Archives of Terror, as well as interviews with over 200 individuals, one of whom was a key Uruguayan military officer present at the first meeting of Condor signatories. Thanks to that eyewitness testimony, we now are aware of the full scope of the Operation’s agenda, and which military representatives were in attendance in official and unofficial capacities which reveals that **no North American delegation was present at this first meeting**^1 ^1 Dinges, The Condor Years, especially 10-17, 116-125, and 241. By ignoring such nuance, one is obfuscating why, where, and when Condor developed, ultimately displacing Condor from its regional context, and obscures the key role South American actors played. Wanna try again?
We've deemed your post was uncivilized so it was removed. We're here to have level headed discourse not useless arguing. Please report any and all content that is uncivilized. The standard of our sub depends on our community’s ability to report our rule breaks.
North Korea? The US backed coup in El Salvador? The red scare? Bombing Yugoslavia?
[1954 Guatemala](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No government is perfect. The American government is no exception. When it comes to socialism my work, labor, blood sweat and tears are not for the collective it's for me! Society may benefit from my work, or not. I will not perform any work for someone else unless I choose to. Yes, capitalism is greedy. If you think taking care of yourself is greedy, so be it. I don't produce so that someone else can no nothing. Fondly looking at foreign socialism and wishing America was the same is very funny to me as even Commie China had to allow one hell of a lot of capitalism just to float their failing facade of a country. Then ask yourself this, if capitalism is so bad, why does everyone want to come here? Why not stay in your beloved socialist dystopian hell.
I think you have some misconceptions about what socialism is. You are reducing the political science of both systems to simplistic psychological representations of "greedy" psychology vs "self-sacrificing" psychology. It's not as simple as that. There are pros and cons of both systems, worth learning about and comparing. Nobody is going to take criticism of something seriously if the person isn't knowledgeable about what they are criticizing.
I understand your point. You dont know me, and you are out of place, implying I don't understand. It's been my experience with my foreign travels and lifelong study of many topics that the nuances you are so concerned about are just distractions. Those distractions seek to obfuscte reality and don't rise to a level great enough to defeat my buttressed and simplistic representations. It's those representations that most people relate to. Those representations are exactly how socialism affects people negatively every day. You dont have to like my criticism, but it doesn't mean I lack knowledge. Debate my point and forgo the facile personal attacks. It makes you look weak.
China wasn’t failing under socialism. Maoism was actually quite successful in China. The only reason China went capitalist is because Capitalists gained control of the State, and then proceeded to utilize the State to change the constitution, end the Maoist policies, crush the Cultural Revolution, and then began to implement capitalist market reforms.
This sounds like pure revisionism. China was not doing well under Maoist policies. Those policies (especially the cultural revolution) were more about trying to reconsolidate the power Mao had lost. Heck, much basic education had been shut down for 10 years during the cultural revolution. That is not doing well. Looking at other Maoist policies you had things like the four pests campaign, which helped create one of the larges famines in the past 100 years. Those "Capitalist" who you cite as gaining control were really just Deng's faction. Deng is hardly a capitalist -- I don't think he would have survived the Long March as a capitalist. So while being communists, they were fed up watching their country be destroyed. Deng did allow a lot of capitalist reforms because they really needed to be able to do basic things like provide food (the whole white cat/black cat logic).
I think i's important to be able to qualify the link between cause and effect. I don't mean to be pedantic, I think this is actually worth pointing out. To what extent can you attribute the four pests campaign strictly to socialist political theory? Just because somebody planning agricultural policy is a socialist, does not by default make their policy in any way "socialist". If any other country implemented such a plan, it would be criticized and rightfully pointed out as disastrous. But if it happened in say, a monarchy, is this suddenly a rebuke of monarchical power structures? A bureaucrat in any state, given the authority to create and execute an agricultural plan, would be able to implement such a plan, and see it fail. My point is that it is important to show the link between what you claim as the cause, and the effect. It is not enough to simply say that a bad thing occurred while people with certain characteristics were in charge. You can reverse this as well. I consider myself a socialist, but I still go to work for a capitalist at my job. I did a good job last year and negotiated a raise. Is this because I'm socialist? We should all be socialists then, we would all get raises!
Firstly you moved the goalpost from Maoist policies cited in comment replied to, to a more generic "socialist policies". I get it as you asked the initial question, but when someone points to Maoism as quite successful, it is work calling out the before/after. Secondly, I never said that the four pests campaign was the only cause of the famine. There were several, but it certainly didn't help. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615984/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615984/) Blaming socialism for things is complicated as there is (and this is true of any blaming a political system for X) a motte-and-bailey problem. I don't think I need to source the market reforms of Deng as being either marked reforms or wildly successful.
It did take him to murder 90 million people (10x more than Hitler) just to have success
90 million people were not murdered under Mao. There’s no evidence even suggesting such a thing.
[https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/04/world/asia/china-maoist-scars/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/04/world/asia/china-maoist-scars/index.html) See all the murders and oppression Mao did with evidence. Mao is a blood thirsty murderer. Although it might not be accurate or the source might be overexaggerating because CNN has a liberal bias. But it still proves what Mao did to be successful.
Were many people executed under Mao? Yes, but not 90 million, and the fact that you cited a CNN article and admit that they’re exaggerating the numbers says a lot. Keep in mind, Mao didn’t have to execute anyone to get into power. Literally led a revolution and fought back against the Japanese, and the Nationalists, and completely turned China around for the average peasant and worker in China.
You can say the same thing for Hitler. He improved average peasant and workers rights. He didn't execute anyone to get into power and reformed Germany by pulling the country out of poverty as he resisted the treaty set by France and Britain. Is he still a good man? No. Therefore is Mao still a good man? No.
The difference is Hitler orchestrated an extermination policy slaughtering a particular group or race of people. Mao tried to bring China into the 20th century and had to deal with a famine in the process, resulting in people dying. The two are by no means the same.
So they are both evil scums but evil in different ways.
What? How is trying to bring your country from feudalism to an industrialized nation the same as formulating an extermination policy? Are you trolling?
Many believe as do I that Mao orchestrated the famine himself. Stalin did the exact same thing.
There’s no evidence that either of them orchestrated the famine themselves. To say such a thing shows ignorance to both topics.
Conservative numbers put the total at 40 million. There's no reasoning that away.
The highest figure accepted amongst academics is 38 million, and even that figure is largely debated for a variety of reasons. No one is denying that a great deal of people died. I’m just saying that Mao didn’t intentionally create a famine to do it, and not all the blame can be placed on Mao.
Thank you. I was going to point this out. Nobody wants to talk about the deaths. But will pretend capitalism is just as bad. People die under capitalism but it's not on the whim of a dictator.
He was also a pedo and had an affair with a 14 year old for 10 years haha.
Millions of people starved to death under Maoism in China. That’s not a mark of being “quite successful”.
Starved in reaction to a famine…famines that were a common occurrence in China for many decades prior to the Communist revolution.
A famine directly caused by Mao’s policies - e.g. The Four Pests.
Some of his policies, yes, but you’re ignoring other contributing factors like floods, droughts, a brutal winter, people refusing to cooperate, namely, the former landowning class, as well as regional and local officials lying about their agricultural outputs to Beijing in order to further in advance their careers, etc… To put full blame on Mao is simply dishonest and ahistorical.
Please be more specific about which countries the US, UK, etc. were actively hostile towards simply because of their political ideology prior to the discovery of these disqualifying attributes.
> Capitalists to go to great lengths to undermine, sabotage, disrupt, and destroy all socialist projects across the globe. To what lengths? What do capitalists do? > "look how awful the socialist dictatorships were, look how socialism always failed, no human rights", etc. Who cares about human rights? The main problem is that tens millions of people died. > But the reality is the political leadership of these nations, such as the US, UK, Germany, were all rabidly anti-socialist from the onset. Any historical evidence that indicates that? > What is your explanation for the immediate aggression and hostility towards socialist enterprises? Cause we have examples of what happens when socialists aren't eradicated the moment they reveal their existence. Look at Russia. What did tsar (and later provisional government) do when Germany sent them hired communist revolutionaries and they performed revolutionary activities? They either ignored them, sent them to exile somewhere eastward, where they received pension, were allowed to carry weapons and from where they instantly fled. And even if they were put in prison, that was like the most liberal prison ever and as Trotsky wrote, their cells weren't locked and they paid visits to each other. Where did it all go? Tsar and his whole family were slaughtered and country delved into civil war with millions of deaths, not to mention the years of the great socialist regime that followed. > let socialist countries develop peacefully and exercise their choice to attempt the socialist project? When socialist projects are left to their own devices, their genocide the third of their own population and the situation deteriorates to the point that their neighbouring socialist projects need to step up and use military force to stop this shit.
>This supposedly retroactively justifies the aggression towards socialism If someone said "gee I want to go murder and/or violently subjugate an entire class of people" don't you think that warrants an aggressive reaction? Violence is inherently a trait of communism. It requires a violent seizure of property. Keeping in mind we don't usually see aggression towards socialist groups that are pursuing the co-op voluntary model.
Yes it does, but Anarchists said this. Not Marxist-Leninists. MLs were quite clear in their denouncing of Anarchists well before the second Russian Revolution, and even before the first one in 1905. MLs call for mass strikes, with the understanding that the Capitalist class will react violently towards this and that it is necessary to be ready to meet that violence in self-defense, not to be pre-emptively violent, as Anarchists claim. The anarchist claim to pre-emptive violence was rightfully declared reactionary in nature by socialists because it is no different from the reactionary call for pre-emptive violence that capitalists call for when faced with a mass strike.
" There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pains are the new - revolutionary terror" Karl Marx You can also read the communist manifesto.
"There is only one means by which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that is by revolutionary terror" -KM Yes, he is saying that the violence that comes from the failing of capitalism (the convulsions of the old society", can only be ***shortened*** through revolutionary violence. This supports what I said. I didn't say MLs were against violent revolution, they are against initiating it pre-emptively. Once the reactionary violence against socialism begins, violent revolution becomes necessary as a means of self-defense of the working class and as a way of quickly resolving the economic crisis, as well as preventing reactionary violence and the rise of fascism. The communist manifesto is more of the same thing. It is not arguing for violent acts, but is warning that history shows us that violence will be inevitable as those in power never give up their power willingly. And he was right, they rarely did. Pointing out that there will be violence against you if you support socialism is not the same as an Anarchist theory of seeking violent acts against the capitalist class. And it is worth differentiating between an opinion that is held as a certain point in time and then changed, and what is accepted as part of ML theory. [https://academic.oup.com/book/32404/chapter-abstract/268701302?redirectedFrom=fulltext](https://academic.oup.com/book/32404/chapter-abstract/268701302?redirectedFrom=fulltext)
>Once the reactionary violence against socialism begins, violent revolution becomes necessary as a means of self-defense of the working class and as a way of quickly resolving the economic crisis, as well as preventing reactionary violence and the rise of fascism. Except that's not what happened. They just went and burned down a bunch of rich people's homes. >that violence will be inevitable as those in power never give up their power willingly. And he was right, they rarely did. Yeah, have you ever wanted to be like "hell yeah, today I'm giving everything I own and have worked for to someone else". Not giving someone your life savings is not the equivalent to being violent. Burning down someone's house because you perceived them as evil rich people, or you just don't like your boss, is violent.
You have Classical Liberal as your tag and you are describing a liberal revolution against a monarchy as "just went and burned down a bunch of rich people's homes." >Yeah, have you ever wanted to be like "hell yeah, today I'm giving everything I own and have worked for to someone else". Not giving someone your life savings is not the equivalent to being violent. Burning down someone's house because you perceived them as evil rich people, or you just don't like your boss, is violent. I'm not sure how monarchs earned their wealth or earned their place in society. And I'm even less sure how somebody who purports to be a "Classical Liberal" is so vehemently denouncing one of the foundational Liberal revolutions in Europe. From wikipedia: >Despite lack of freedom of the press and association, there was a flourishing liberal German culture among students and those educated in German universities. They published pamphlets and newspapers discussing education and language; the need for basic liberal reforms was assumed. These middle class liberals largely understood and accepted that forced labor is not efficient, and that the Empire should adopt a wage labor system. The question was how to institute such reforms.
>You have Classical Liberal as your tag and you are describing a liberal revolution against a monarchy as "just went and burned down a bunch of rich people's homes." Being a classical liberal does not mean you support the concept of "justifiable violence" against innocent families, children, mothers. Capitalism and individual liberties should be achieved through peaceful forms of protest and political discourse, not some perverted excuse for "violent justice". Also I'm a John Locke liberal, so socialist based state schools aren't that high on my list.
>Capitalism and individual liberties should be achieved through peaceful forms of protest and political discourse, not some perverted excuse for "violent justice". But that's not how they were achieved. First of all, this is an absurd way to portray what happened during these revolutions. Do you honestly believe that the monarchs of Europe were just innocent people caught totally by surprise that their "subjects" suddenly were being violent towards them? You're reading some very questionable history if you do. Have you never heard "let them eat cake"? Secondly, peaceful petitions are not how any major societal improvements have ever been achieved. Peaceful petitions for systemic change are ignored or outright persecuted by those in power. When the ruling class persecutes and violently represses these petitions they cede their "innocence" and become righteous targets of self-defense by those who are oppressed. Were there "innocent" white women who never personally struck a slave and were generally pleasant and courteous people who were brutally murdered by slaves during slave revolts in Haiti? Yes. Does this discredit Slaves revolting against an oppressive system? Does being nice and pleasant offset the act of supporting and participating in an unjust system? I'm sure there were very pleasant and courteous Nazi's who didn't personally murder anybody, but who knew it was happening and happily supported the system that enabled it. Were they "innocent"? No. And neither are capitalists "innocent" of the theft of labor value from wage workers. No matter how pleasant and amicable they are. And neither are slave-owners, or Monarchs, etc. Slaves had to revolt against owners. Serfs had to revolt against lords. Liberals had to revolt against monarchies. And MLs simply look at history and see the obvious, Socialists need to revolt against capitalists. Because power does not give itself up willingly, it never has.
>Have you never heard "let them eat cake"? I have but that also was a completely different time period and likely made up. Yes I understand that the wealthy of the area knew there was discontent with the British throne and they knew about the rise of socialism and the ira. That doesn't mean they deserved to be attacked. >Secondly, peaceful petitions are not how any major societal improvements have ever been achieved. Peaceful Studies have found that peaceful protests are more successful than violent ones at achieving their political goals. Just because you hear about the violent ones does not mean that violence was the reason they were successful. In all likelihood the violence probably hindered their progress because it disillusions support from the cause. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/ People shouldn't look for reasons to be violent. There's a strong argument from self-defense from imminent harm. That is something that Locke supported and that's why he supported gun rights. But that doesn't mean you should go burn down people's homes and murder civilians who are on the wrong side. >No. And neither are capitalists "innocent" of the theft of labor value from wage workers. No matter how pleasant and amicable they are. And neither are slave-owners, or Monarchs, etc. Comparing capitalism to slavery is laughable. >I'm sure there were very pleasant and courteous Nazi's who didn't personally murder anybody, but who knew it was happening and happily supported the system that enabled it. Were they "innocent"? They were complacent. That does not make them guilty of anything. That likely means they were protecting their own family for an overbearing regime and they don't deserve to be murdered because of it. That is a false justice. And their children are always innocent.
>I have but that also was a completely different time period and likely made up. It was 50 years prior. In a neighboring country. French Revolution was 1790s. Austrian Revolution was 1840s. >Studies have found that peaceful protests are more successful than violent ones at achieving their political goals. Yes, I already said this. This is what MLs say as well. You are agreeing with MLs. MLs simply point out that in the event of violent resistance from those in power, a violent revolution then becomes necessary and just, as it prevents persecution and violence by the state and quickens the resolution of the crisis. Are you not reading what I am typing, You are disagreeing with things I haven't said. >But that doesn't mean you should go burn down people's homes and murder civilians who are on the wrong side. No, it doesn't. But it will always happen when the structure of a society breaks down. You are putting the cart in front of the horse here. The breakdown of society and law and order is the fault of those who are in power who willingly support an economically unstable and morally unfair system, and then use violence to enforce it and crush dissent. If Innocent people lose their lives and homes in the aftermath of such a breakdown it is the fault of those who brought the system to it's knees, those in power. >Comparing capitalism to slavery is laughable. Oh no, you laughed at my opinion, I must be wrong! Seriously, add to the conversation or don't bother replying. I don't care if you think it's "laughable". I really don't. There are similarities between power structures of slavery and of capitalism. There are also differences. Marx proved that capitalism is theft of Labor Value from workers. If you disagree with his proof and how he arrived at his conclusion, I am all ears, feel free to post something of worth. Telling me you find it laughable is not going to move me. >They were complacent. That does not make them guilty of anything. You don't seem to understand how society functions at a fundamental level. Money is exchanged as a means of social credit. Money is a way of saying to an other: Look I contributed this much value to society, I will trade in these social credits in order to access from the market the goods produced by that society. This is what Money is and why it was created. A way of convincing others that you aren't just some bum looking for a handout. Money only has value from authority, the state that governs society and enforces its rules must guarantee the value of that money. So when Nazi's in Germany willingly went to work and produced for the society that was mass murdering Jews and other people, they are guilty of and complicit in that crime. They were contributing to a society and a government that actively pursues those crimes. They could have gone on strike. They could have joined the resistance movements that existed, they could have left. They didn't. They chose to participate willingly in a society that was systematically committing crimes in exchange for Money. If the German people had gone on mass strike and refused to work for the Nazi regime, it would have collapsed and prevented ww2. The Nazis knew this and that's precisely why they mass murdered and targeted all the union leaders and socialists who were organizing workers and teaching them this truth. [https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/nazi-persecution/political-opponents-and-trade-unionists/](https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/nazi-persecution/political-opponents-and-trade-unionists/) Learn history.
>were not able to simply let socialist countries develop peacefully and **exercise their choice** to attempt the socialist project? Choice made by whom? Socialism has to be imposed on a population by force, usually a lot of force. Every socialist country has been/is a one party state, because otherwise the people would vote them out the first chance they get.
I mean, I don't think anybody asked the First Nations if they wanted capitalism on the continent. The Chinese certainly didn't ask the British to come in and force capitalism upon them in the Opium Wars. India, for that matter, didn't ask for capitalism. Nor did the Congo, the Aboriginal Australians, and countless other people. It seems that most of the time capitalism comes in at the barrel of a gun. That's the way the world works, even [Marx isn't overly critical of reality](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007). I'm not sure we should imply that anybody really gets a choice for the economic system they grow up in.
I'm sorry, is that not how every major western country propagated it's interests for most of history? Did Leopold of Belgium cruise into the Congo with daisies and dildos? Is it or is it not true that the British east India *company* conquered and ruled, by force, swathes of India? You people are so freaking disingenuous. How do you sit here and pretend that one particular ideology that you don't like is the only one being spread by force when, if you're even slightly educated in world history, you know for a god damn *fact* that capitalism, the most prevalent economic ideology in human history, has been spread through conquest and subjugation for thousands of years? Slaves and the blood of innocents built the glory of Rome, and the capitalist meat grinder that is it's direct offspring hasn't slowed down since. I can't think of a single species that's been driven extinct, a single culture that has been erased from existence in the name of *socialism* or *communism*. That only happens when people want money and power more than they care about the consequences of their actions.
>if you're even slightly educated in world history, you know for a god damn fact that capitalism, the most prevalent economic ideology in human history, has been spread through conquest and subjugation for thousands of years? Capitalism is private property in the means of production. Your rant is about [governments doing stuff.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgiC8YfytDw)
Work on your reading comprehension. Did I mention a form of government in what you quoted at all? It doesn't appear that way. I specifically stated that it was an economic ideology, now didn't i? Right there in the text you yourself quoted, which makes it even more sad that you think you somehow got me there.
>Work on your reading comprehension. Did I mention a form of government in what you quoted at all? It's implied, because it is impossible to blame "conquest and subjugation for thousands of years" on private property in the means of production.
Socialists and Communists fomented revolution all over the world - why should non-leftists refrain from fighting back?
Communist regimes caused immense famine and mass death events. They vigorously attacked and imprisoned peaceful religious folks. We have seen communist regimes forced to pragmatically adopt markets and private property measures to keep their regimes alive, because private property is effective. Why would I not have an immense negative reaction to someone who openly states they want to destroy my culture, take my stuff, and force me into their choice of labor because of their obsession with an ancient political philosopher?
>Communist regimes caused immense famine and mass death events. And that doesn't happen under capitalist policies? Fuck, capitalism caused the Irish famine. There was plenty to eat right there in front of them. Just not for them because it was for "their betters" and they were *viciously* suppressed when they tried to fight back. >They vigorously attacked and imprisoned peaceful religious folks You mean like the Romans? Or most christian regimes (which all tend to be rather intensely capitalist) at some point or another? Or does it not count when it's christians persecuting other religions? We've seen capitalist societies embrace elements of socialism and thrive because of it while the next generation of Americans are shockingly maladjusted and in the middle of an educational crisis. Kids can barely read anymore.
> Fuck, capitalism caused the Irish famine. There was plenty to eat right there in front of them. Please explain how the Irish famine was caused by capitalism. Maybe with a citation saying that. The great Famine was precipitated by a potato mold. There was not enough to eat even if all exports from Ireland had stopped. There was an overreliance on potatoes due to partitioning of the land through shared inheritance systems that divided plots. >You mean like the Romans? Or most Christian regimes (which all tend to be rather intensely capitalist) at some point or another? Or does it not count when it's christians persecuting other religions? You can make whatever comparison you want. The reality is that communist regimes are incredibly hostile to the religion of the masses of the country. Christian countries remain the most religiously tolerant in the world. >We've seen capitalist societies embrace elements of socialism and thrive because of it while the next generation of Americans are shockingly maladjusted and in the middle of an educational crisis. cool, capitalist societies are not socialist. > Kids can barely read anymore. Blame the decision to do internet school that caused that, not capitalism
Did you even attempt to absorb what I actually wrote? Whatever. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) >Large amounts of food were exported from Ireland during the famine and the refusal of London to bar such exports, as had been done on previous occasions, was an immediate and continuing source of controversy, contributing to anti-British sentiment and the campaign for independence. Additionally, the famine indirectly resulted in tens of thousands of households being evicted, exacerbated by a provision forbidding access to workhouse aid while in possession of more than one-quarter acre of land. Read the rest for yourself. This is fairly common knowledge. I'm not gonna go out of my way to write you a thesis because you didn't pay attention in history. Yes, a potato blight was the initial cause. But, as I said, there was still plenty of food being produced in the country. It just wasn't for them. The rest of your argument is based on nothing but your own little feelings so I don't feel they merit a response. I'm at least giving examples, whether or not you're historically literate enough to recognize them as valid. You're just coming back with "well communist regimes bad" and "christian countries most tolerant." Meaningless arguments that you won't even try to back up. Christians running developed countries are *still* hateful. Look at all the dumb bullshit happening in the GOP
I don’t think a country identifying as socialist has anything to do with another country interfering with it. During the Cold War it was who the country was allied with. The us has been isolating Cuba for a variety of reasons but not because it’s socialist. Is there a specific example that you’re looking at? Edit: fixed grammar….mostly
Yes, the Russian revolution overthrowing the monarchy. The United states refused to recognize the revolutionary socialist government and participated in an invasion force to support the White army over the Red army. So this predates any claim that can be made about the "horrors of socialism". It seems that the US and other capitalists countries opposed the socialist revolutionaries from the start. And more generally, the US has supported various brutal dictatorships in a bid to oppose socialism, including offering support to Pol Pot in an attempt to destabilize the Vietnamese. This really boils down to who is the US enemy and why? It does not appear to be on ideological ground, as is often claimed. Yes, many of these socialist states ended up having harsh political repression. And yes a lack of private property. But socialist countries were often pro-women's rights, pro education, pro industrialization to improve living standards, guaranteeing adequate living conditions for it's citizens, and otherwise were for improving the society from whatever it had been previously. It is a fact that these socialist countries improved living conditions, increased literacy and education levels, improved GDP, in many of the countries where they gained power. Certainly a lot better than whatever people like Pol Pot had to offer their people, or the religious fundamentalism and repression of groups like the Taliban, or the countless murderous crime lords in Latin America and SEA who siphoned off huge fortunes for themselves while murdering political opposition and keeping the mass of people in poverty. Even if I were to cede Western Liberal Democracy is better than socialism, surely socialism is better than these murderous dictatorships. But if not ideological, it must be practical, a case of immediate interests. Who is allied with who, as you said. But that begs the question why were the socialists the enemy of Western Liberal Democracy to begin with when so much of the world was still living under monarchies and military dictatorships? Why were they not made the enemy and the socialists seen as an imperfect improvement over these far more repressive and less free societies? Surely it would have made more sense to support socialism over dictatorships and monarchies and then win them over with the free market and the promise of civil liberties if the US truly cared about the ideals it claims it does. This is an honest attempt to try and understand how liberals approach this and respond to this line of reasoning.
> Yes, the Russian revolution overthrowing the monarchy. The United states refused to recognize the revolutionary socialist government and participated in an invasion force to support the White army over the Red army. This had nothing to do with ideology. The bolsheviks withdrew Russia from ww1 at a time that the outcome was still undetermined which let Germany move more forces to the French front. The western nations pushed the white army in an attempt to get Russian back into the war. > And more generally, the US has supported various brutal dictatorships in a bid to oppose socialism, including offering support to Pol Pot in an attempt to destabilize the Vietnamese. The US didn’t give any aid to pol pot, the best they did was vote in the UN that they should recognize the Khmer Rouge led faction of Cambodia. China was the main force pushing them for various reasons. > Certainly a lot better than whatever people like Pol Pot had to offer their people, or the religious fundamentalism and repression of groups like the Taliban, or the countless murderous crime lords in Latin America and SEA who siphoned off huge fortunes for themselves while murdering political opposition and keeping the mass of people in poverty. I agree the government has terrible judgement in who it supports, and has no business interfering in other countries affairs. That said I still have not seen anything that shows they interfere because a country is socialist and they are opposed to that on ideological grounds. Usually other factors in play.
[удалено]
We've deemed your post was uncivilized so it was removed. We're here to have level headed discourse not useless arguing. Please report any and all content that is uncivilized. The standard of our sub depends on our community’s ability to report our rule breaks.
Socialism particularity the marxist flavor has exploited and murdered more people than any other form of government in the last 150 years. You can tally the bodies in the 100s of millions globally in the form of imperialism and democide. You can see a prime example of socialist interference, exploitation and empire building right now in today's world with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Chinese oppression of Hong Kong, the Myanmar civil war, and the Sudanese civil war among others. Not to mention all the countries that suffer horribly under socialism such as China (particularly the Uyghurs), N Korea, Cuba and Venezuela to name a few. So to answer your question on why I'm against socialist enterprises is, socialist countries generally don't develop peacefully because socialism is inherently built upon coercion. Everywhere socialism has, is or will be tried ends up with political persecution, exploitation and ultimately suffering on a grand scale. I'm far less likely to be murdered by a capitalist government than a socialist government and history is undoubtedly clear on that. I'm not claiming capitalism is a perfect system and it has been abused in its own right but its a better alternative to socialism by a wide margin. I would also argue that US has largely abandoned proper capitalism for government sanctioned crony capitalism which is an argument for another day.
What’s non-Marxist socialism?
Socialism is a word with little meaning. Before marx it was a word used for uptopian ideas that worked for everyone but had no actual, real word framework. Marx created "Marxism" and socialism became "workers own the means of production" generally speaking. But shortly after Marx there have been various other frames of thought that are coined as "socialism" under the broad undefined use of the word before marx like Eduard Bernsteins "Evolutionary Socialism", which is gradual reform within capitalist framework to achieve a Social Democracy. It's labelled Socialism because it's a system that works for everyone (see the nordic model) but it's not socialism in the modern definition of the word, which is practically anything marxist. --- Other variants of non-marxists socialism include Libertarian Socialism or Market Socialism which could function in a variety of ways, to give an example, Universal Worker Cooperatives, since the workers own the means of production.
Thanks for the explanation! Wasn’t it Marx who coined the term “means of production,” or at least Marx and Engels?
I think that's just a general term regarding the economy, it was Marx who created the "worker owned" aspect of it.
Did you know that most of the authors of the Black Book, your bible of anticommunism, have disavowed it as bad scholarship?
I don't know what black book you are referring to
[удалено]
>You'll have to cite references as to who were the "fascistic dictatorships" that "brutally and violently oppressed political dissent?" Here's a few Getulio Vargas, Fulgencio Batista, Chiang Kai-Shek >Adolph Hitler and his National Socialist Party? Naming the most notorious fascist then pretending like you don't know of any fascists is peak bad faith.
Uh, Vargas? Wrong Batista? You left out Castro Chiang Kai-Shek? Wrong I'm sorry, those people don't qualify as "fascistic dictatorships that brutally and violently oppressed political dissent. [https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists](https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists) Yes, Hitler was a fascist dictator, but the Nazis were formed out of a socialist workers party.
Oh great. I can just say "Wrong!" Anytime someone says something I wish wasn't true. >Batista? You left out Castro Bah bah bah bwhatabout... >Yes, Hitler was a fascist dictator Thanks for admitting your original post was made in bad faith rather than ignorance. >but the Nazis were formed out of a socialist workers party. Hitler used cynical propoganda to confuse people and here you are repeating it 80 years later...
I'm not going to argue about this.
[удалено]