Okay, you're decidedly being too interpersonal and defensive, so I'm only going to respond to segments where you're actually addressing *content*, and I'll be excising all the rest.
Truth To Power wrote:
Then I'll try to be clearer: Marxist "argumentation" consists of redefining terms or making up new ones that remove the salient facts. The basic one is the concept of "the means of production," which removes the fact that tools are supplied by their owner while land is already available without any owner.
[Private property] 'ownership' wouldn't even be *valid* within the context of socialism -- yes, capitalism has developed the means of (mass industrial) production that are in use today, but, no, we don't need private 'owners' of that in order for such to be *collectivized* and controlled in common by a workers state, leading into a post-capitalist communistic gift economy.
Truth To Power wrote:
He appears to have had no intention but aggrandizement of his own power. That is normal with Marxists.
Stalin wasn't a Marxist because there's no concept of 'socialism-in-one-country' within Marxism.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
In the context of historical Western imperialism and geopolitics, that's not necessarily so -- the USSR had the status of national-liberation, against Western capitalism. Being anti-USSR then was synonymous with being pro-West.
Truth To Power wrote:
Nonsense. Read "The Gulag Archipelago." The USSR under the Marxists, from Lenin to Gorbachev, was one vast concentration camp.
I'm talking about the USSR *externally*, in the context of West-dominated *geopolitics*, while you're talking about it *internally*.
Also, regarding working and living there, you're *oversimplifying* -- there was a fair amount of collectivization that favored workers' autonomy. I'm including some sample excerpts here:
Employment
Productivity
Several Soviets expressed concern over the focus of sharp growth in per capita income over that of labour productivity.[1] A problem was that wages in the Soviet Union could neither be used as a way of disciplining workers or as an incentive system, except in a limited capacity. Soviet workers were not controlled by the stick and carrot (the carrot being increased wages and the stick being unemployment).[2]
Women
The early Soviet regime ensued a policy of pushing more women into urban industrial employment; these policies were ideologically, politically and/or economically driven. The post-revolutionary turmoils which took place hampered any improvements for immediate prospects of increased employment of women in urban areas. The 13th Party Congress, held in 1924, took employment of women very seriously, and were alarmed with the developments in the country; employment of women had decreased to 23 percent of the total workforce from 25 percent. By 1928, the proportion of women working in the workforce had increased to 24 percent.[4] During Joseph Stalin's rule the number of women working increased from 24 percent of the workforce in 1928 to 39 percent in 1940.[3] In the period 1940–1950 women were 92 percent of new entrants in employment; this is mostly due to the exodus of the males who fought during World War II. As seen in the table, the return of males to civilian life decreased women employment; 56 percent of the workforce were women in 1945, it decreased to 47 in 1950.[5]
Standard of living
Working conditions
Working conditions for a Soviet worker changed over time; for instance, at the beginning of the Communist regime the government pursued a policy of worker participation at the enterprise level.[8] During Joseph Stalin's crash-industrialisation drive, workers lost their right to participate in the functioning of the enterprise, and their working conditions deteriorated.[8] In 1940, for example, a decree was promulgated and became law stating that a worker could be arrested if he had three accumulated absences, late arrivals or changed jobs without the official authorisation.[8] Shock work, which meant that workers had to work past regular hours, was introduced alongside central planning.[8] During World War II the pressure on workers increased and it was expected of them to take on Herculean efforts in their work.[8] In the post-war years conditions did not improve but in fact worsened in some cases.[8] For instance, small theft became illegal; this had been allowed for several years to compensate for workers' low salaries.[8] The situation for the common worker improved during the post-Stalin years, and some of the worst measures approved by the Stalin regime to improve worker productivity were repealed.[8] Because of the lack of a stick and carrot policy under the Brezhnev administration, worker productivity and discipline decreased during the 1970s.[8]
Wages
Since unemployment was rendered unviable through various acts of legislation, the Soviet worker, in contrast to a Capitalist worker, was more secure economically.[9] In return for working, a Soviet worker would get an individual return in the form of a money wage; however, during the period under the New Economic Policy, hyperinflation rendered money effectively useless, and wages sometimes occurred through bartering. Money wage in Soviet parlance was not the same as in Capitalist countries.[1] The money wage was set at the top of the administrative system, and it was the same administrative system which also set bonuses. Wages were 80 percent of the average Soviet workers income, with the remaining 20 coming in the form of bonuses. The Soviet wage system tried systematically to make wages more equal; for instance, the relationship between wages was termed "ITRs", a measure of comparing wages across occupations. For engineers and other technical workers ITR was 1.68 in 1955, but had decreased to 1.21 in 1977.[10] Social wages were also an important part of the general standard of living for an average household; it stood at 23.4 percent of income for the average Soviet worker and their family, and at 19.1 percent for the family income of collective farmers. In the period between 1971–81, the social wage grew faster than the money wage; the money wage grew by 45 percent for workers and employees and 72 for workers at collective farms. In contrast, per capita income from social wages increased by 81 percent. Social wage took many forms; it could be improved health, education, transport or food subsidies, which was the responsibility of the state, or the improvement (or introduction) of sanitation and working facilities.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_wo ... Employment
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Being anti-USSR then was synonymous with being pro-West.
Truth To Power wrote:
And the capitalist West was clearly FAR BETTER for its people than the socialist USSR was for its people, so being pro-West and anti-USSR was the correct stance.
We'd have to look at respective CEO-to-worker pay ratios, in the West versus the USSR. Here's a graph that shows *recent* data, that the current CEO-to-worker pay ratio in the U.S. is 271:1.
---
Truth To Power wrote:
The only reason there is no academic consensus that the USSR committed genocide -- of which the Holodomor was just the worst incident -- is that some academics are Marxists.
Now you're going off on a tangent again, to make scurrilous claims, instead of dealing with the subject matter.
---
Truth To Power wrote:
I've neither excused US policy nor defended US imperialism. I've simply pointed out the FACT that in Venezuela -- unlike in many other countries from Afghanistan to Yemen -- US intervention was of minimal importance in its destruction.
This isn't true at all -- the U.S. has been spreading its colonialism and imperialism throughout all of Latin America since 1898, according to its Monroe Doctrine whereby it considers Latin America to be in its 'backyard' and open to military predation at any time:
► Show Spoiler
Latin America–United States relations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latin America–United States relations are relations between the United States of America and the countries of Latin America. Historically speaking, bilateral relations between the United States and the various countries of Latin America have been multifaceted and complex, at times defined by strong regional cooperation and at others filled with economic and political tension and rivalry. Although relations between the U.S. government and most of Latin America were limited prior to the late 1800s, for most of the past century, the United States has unofficially regarded parts of Latin America as within its sphere of influence, and for much of the Cold War (1947–1991), actively vied with the Soviet Union for influence in the Western Hemisphere.
Today, the ties between the United States and most of Latin America (with the exception of certain countries such as Cuba and Venezuela) are generally cordial, but there remain areas of tension between the two sides. Latin America is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States and its fastest-growing trading partner, as well as the largest source of drugs and U.S. immigrants, both documented and otherwise, all of which underline the continually evolving relationship between the two.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Ame ... _relations
Spanish–American War (1898)
The Spanish–American War was a conflict fought between Spain and the United States in 1898. Hostilities began in the aftermath of sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor, leading to American intervention in the Cuban War of Independence. The sinking of the USS Maine occurred on February 15, resulting in the deaths of 266 people and causing the United States to blame Spain, since the ship had been sent to Havana in order to protect a community of U.S. citizens there.[13] American acquisition of Spain's Pacific possessions led to its involvement in the Philippine Revolution and ultimately in the Philippine–American War.
Revolts against Spanish rule had been occurring for some years in Cuba as is demonstrated by the Virginius Affair in 1873. In the late 1890s, journalists Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst which used yellow journalism, anti-Spanish propaganda, to agitate U.S. public opinion nd encourage war. However, the Hearst and Pulitzer papers circulated among the working class in New York City and did not reach a national audience.[14][15]
After the mysterious sinking of the US Navy battleship Maine in Havana harbor, political pressures from the Democratic Party pushed the administration of Republican President William McKinley into a war he had wished to avoid.[16] Spain promised time and again that it would reform, but never delivered. The United States sent an ultimatum to Spain demanding it surrender control of Cuba. First Madrid, then Washington, formally declared war.[17]
Although the main issue was Cuban independence, the ten-week war was fought in both the Caribbean and the Pacific. US naval power proved decisive, allowing expeditionary forces to disembark in Cuba against a Spanish garrison already facing nationwide Cuban insurgent attacks and further wasted by yellow fever.[18] Numerically superior Cuban, Philippine and US forces obtained the surrender of Santiago de Cuba and Manila despite the good performance of some Spanish infantry units and fierce fighting for positions such as San Juan Hill.[19] With two obsolete Spanish squadrons sunk in Santiago de Cuba and Manila Bay and a third, more modern fleet recalled home to protect the Spanish coasts, Madrid sued for peace.[20]
The result was the 1898 Treaty of Paris, negotiated on terms favorable to the U.S., which allowed temporary U.S. control of Cuba and ceded ownership of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippine islands. The cession of the Philippines involved payment of $20 million ($588,320,000 today) to Spain by the US to cover infrastructure owned by Spain.[21]
The war began exactly fifty-two years after the beginning of the Mexican–American War. It was one of only five US wars (against a total of eleven sovereign states) to have been formally declared by Congress.[22]
Venezuelan crisis of 1902–1903
The Venezuelan crisis of 1902–03 was a naval blockade imposed against Venezuela by Britain, Germany and Italy and lasted from December 1902 to February 1903. The blockade was a result of President Cipriano Castro's refusal to pay foreign debts and damages suffered by European citizens in the recent Venezuelan Civil War. Castro assumed that the United States' Monroe Doctrine would see the US prevent European military intervention, but at the time, President Roosevelt interpreted the Doctrine to concern European seizure of territory, rather than intervention per se. With prior promises that no such seizure would occur, the US allowed the action to go ahead without objection. The blockade quickly disabled Venezuela's small navy, but Castro refused to give in. Instead, he agreed in principle to submit some of the claims to international arbitration, which he had previously rejected. Germany initially objected to this, particularly because it felt some claims should be accepted by Venezuela without arbitration.
U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt forced the blockading nations to back down by sending his own larger fleet under Admiral George Dewey and threatening war if the Germans landed.[24] With Castro failing to back down, increased U.S. and British pressure, and American press reaction to the affair, the blockading nations agreed to a compromise. However, the blockade remained during negotiations over the details of the compromise. The Washington Protocols agreement was signed on February 13, 1903. The agreement lifted the blockade and obligated Venezuela commit 30% of its customs duties to settling claims. When the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague subsequently awarded preferential treatment to the blockading powers against the claims of other nations, the U.S. feared this would encourage future European intervention. This incident was a major driver of the Roosevelt Corollary and the subsequent U.S. Big Stick policy and Dollar Diplomacy in Latin America.
Platt Amendment
On March 2, 1901, the Platt Amendment was passed as part of the 1901 Army Appropriations Bill.[25] It stipulated seven conditions for the withdrawal of United States troops remaining in Cuba at the end of the Spanish–American War and an eighth condition that Cuba sign a treaty accepting these seven conditions. The amendment defined the terms of Cuban and U.S. relations to essentially be an unequal, with U.S. dominance over Cuba. On December 25, 1901, Cuba amended its constitution to contain the text of the Platt Amendment.[26] On May 22, 1903, Cuba entered into a treaty with the United States to allow the United States to intervene unilaterally in Cuban affairs and a pledge to lease land to the United States for naval bases on the island as Guantanamo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Ame ... %80%931903
---
Truth To Power wrote:
Huh? That's the only way it ever happens: takeover of a national government. Claiming that nothing counts as socialism unless the whole world simultaneously becomes socialist is evasive, disingenuous and absurd.
Anyway, were China's tens of millions of dead killed by Stalin? Was 20% of Cambodia's entire population killed by Stalin more than 20 years after he died??
Get serious. It was SOCIALISM.
You sound fucking ridiculous and credulous as hell -- just because some opportunistic dictator *says* that what they're doing is 'socialism' doesn't automatically mean that it *is*.
Again, there's *no* provision for country-by-country 'socialism' according to Marxism:
Proletariat
"The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labour power and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death,whose sole existence depends on the demand for labour...
How did the proletariat originate?
"The Proletariat originated in the industrial revolution... [which was] precipitated by the discovery ofthe steam engine, various spinning machines, the mechanical loom, and awhole series of other mechanical devices. These machines, which were veryexpensive and hence could be bought only by big capitalists, altered thewhole mode of production and displaced the former workers, because themachines turned out cheaper and better commodities than the workers couldproduce with their inefficient spinning wheels and handlooms. The machinesdelivered industry wholly into the hands of the big capitalists and renderedentirely worthless the meagre property of the workers (tools, looms, etc.).The result was that the capitalists soon had everything in their handsand nothing remained to the workers....
"labour was more and more divided among the individual workers sothat the worker who previously had done a complete piece of work now didonly a part of that piece. This division of labour made it possible to producethings faster and cheaper. It reduced the activity of the individual workerto simple, endlessly repeated mechanical motions which could be performednot only as well but much better by a machine. In this way, all these industriesfell, one after another, under the dominance of steam, machinery, and thefactory system, just as spinning and weaving had already done.
Fredrick Engels
Principles of Communism
In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed – a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce.
Karl Marx
Communist Manfesto: Bourgeois and Proletarians
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms ... roletariat
---
Truth To Power wrote:
I make no assumption other than that the false dichotomy of capitalism-socialism is false.
There's *zero* compatibility between capitalism and socialism, because the modes of production are diametrically *opposed* to each other -- capitalism uses the institution of private control over the means of social production, while socialism is about *collectivist* *workers* control over the means of social production. These two modes of production cannot be resolved with each other or 'combined' in any kind of way.
Truth To Power wrote:
There is an alternative to capitalism and socialism -- but both capitalists and socialists don't want anyone to know what it is. They are like two crooked palookas, holding each other up while they pretend to fight in order to avoid meeting the real challenger: JUSTICE.
What a crock of shit -- the *reality* is workers-versus-bosses.
Truth To Power wrote:
Sure it is. He's a fascist dictator.
He also happened to be *democratically elected*, similarly to Trump here in the U.S. -- I would defend neither on their merits, but nothing gives NATO the right to summarily *invade* a sovereign country, Syria.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
because that stance just leaves the door wide open for Western / NATO imperialism.
Truth To Power wrote:
No it doesn't, any more than Russian imperialism.
There *is no* 'Russian imperialism' because it's not taking over territory the way that U.S. / Western imperialism does.
---
Truth To Power wrote:
Problem is, historically there are lots worse things than Western imperialism, including socialism, theocracy and fascism. I don't for a second condone US interventions, but that doesn't mean I supported Saddam, Khaddafi, Noriega, the Taliban, etc., etc.
No, there *aren't* worse things than the ongoing predations of U.S. and Western imperialism.
21st century imperialism
The United States has aggressively used its power to expand its influence in recent times, seeking to enter numerous countries militarily, such as Afghanistan and Iraq;[45][46] building military bases around the world, especially in the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf;[47] deploying its navy in the South China Sea, widely seen as a way to contain Chinese claims in the South China Sea;[48] supporting the overthrow of democratically elected governments such as Venezuela, Iran, and Syria;[49][50][51] supporting rebel groups in Libya and Syria;[52][53] continuing the allegedly illegal occupation of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba;[56] influencing the complete blockade of countries such as Qatar;[57]; using the dominance of the US dollar in worldwide trade to sanction rival countries such as Turkey, Russia, Venezuela and Iran;[58][59][60][61] initiating a trade war with major economic rival China;[62] using protectionist measures against traditional allies and fellow WTO-members, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union;[63] and embargoing countries such as Cuba.[64]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... mperialism
---
Truth To Power wrote:
PLEASE STOP LEAVING VAST EMPTY SPACES IN YOUR RESPONSES.
You're off your rocker -- I don't do this, and please stop making bullshit accusations like this.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
See -- you're only looking at the *power*-politics of the situation, and you're ignoring that there's still a country of *people* to deal with in some way -- similar to the Syria situation.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, I am SEPARATING the power politics from the economic relationships. They are two different things, Marxist claptrap to the contrary.
You keep using the insult 'claptrap' in an abstract way to be dismissive of Marxism on the whole -- this is yet another way for you to not-deal with the *issues* themselves. Please stop stereotyping in this way.
The economics of Venezuela *have* been influenced by U.S. imperialism:
Opposition to U.S. foreign policy
The Bush administration consistently opposed Chávez's policies. Although it did not immediately recognize the Carmona government upon its installation during the 2002 attempted coup, it had funded groups behind the coup, speedily acknowledged the new government and seemed to hope it would last.[33] The U.S. government called Chávez a "negative force" in the region, and sought support from among Venezuela's neighbors to isolate Chávez diplomatically and economically.[citation needed] One notable instance occurred at the 2005 meeting of the Organization of American States. A U.S. resolution to add a mechanism to monitor the nature of American democracies was widely seen as an attempt at diplomatically isolating both Chávez and the Venezuelan government. The failure of the resolution was seen by analysts as politically significant, evidencing widespread support in Latin America for Chávez, his policies, and his views.[citation needed]
The U.S. also opposed and lobbied against numerous Venezuelan arms purchases made under Chávez. This includes a purchase of some 100,000 rifles from Russia, which Donald Rumsfeld implied would be passed on to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and the purchase of aircraft from Brazil.[citation needed] The U.S. has also warned Israel to not carry through on a deal to upgrade Venezuela's aging fleet of F-16s, and has similarly pressured Spain.[citation needed] In August 2005, Chávez rescinded the rights of U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents to operate in Venezuelan territory, territorial airspace, and territorial waters. While U.S. State Department officials stated that the DEA agents' presence was intended to stem cocaine traffic from Colombia, Chávez argued that there was reason to believe the DEA agents were gathering intelligence for a clandestine assassination targeting him, with the ultimate aim of ending the Bolivarian Revolution.[citation needed]
When a Marxist insurgency picked up speed in Colombia in the early 2000s, Chavez chose not to support the U.S. in its backing of the Colombian government. Instead, Chavez declared Venezuela to be neutral in the dispute, yet another action that irritated American officials and tensed up relations between the two nations. The border between Venezuela and Colombia was one of the most dangerous borders in Latin America at the time, because of Colombia's war spilling over to Venezuela.[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ign_policy
Presidency of Nicolás Maduro
On May 28, 2014, the United States House of Representatives passed the Venezuelan Human Rights and Democracy Protection Act (H.R. 4587; 113th Congress), a bill that would apply economic sanctions against Venezuelan officials who were involved in the mistreatment of protestors during the 2014 Venezuelan protests.[73]
On August 11, 2017, President Trump said that he is “not going to rule out a military option” to confront the autocratic government of Nicolás Maduro and the deepening crisis in Venezuela.[80] Venezuela’s Defense Minister, Vladimir Padrino López, immediately criticized Trump for his statement, calling it “an act of supreme extremism” and “an act of madness”. The Venezuelan Communications Minister, Ernesto Villegas, said Trump’s words amounted to “an unprecedented threat to national sovereignty”.[81] President Maduro's son, Nicolás Maduro Guerra, stated during the 5th Constituent Assembly of Venezuela session that if the United States were to attack Venezuela, "the rifles would arrive in New York, Mr. Trump, we would arrive and take the White House".[82]
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
You don't *mind* if the people of Venezuela *suffer* for the actions of stagnant, non-revolutionary leadership (Chavez / Maduro) because all your politics enables is denunciations.
Truth To Power wrote:
Whether they are "revolutionary" or not is irrelevant: they are socialist. I mind a lot that people suffer from bad government policy; but I don't imagine they can be helped as long as they SUPPORT that bad policy.
The *worst* government policy comes cascading down from U.S. imperialism, and it's really a shame that you're so eager to denounce Second-World-type countries instead of attacking the *source* of downhill-rolling shit, which emanates from the *apex* of the world power structure, namely U.S. imperialism.
---
Truth To Power wrote:
I do object to authoritarian solutions, Marxist or otherwise, because it's clear they don't work.
You're still showing yourself to be too credulous -- why should a *country* (erroneously) be deemed to be 'socialist' when socialism itself is a *global*, *international* working-class kind of society -- ?
Your political line is to *impute* 'socialism' onto any country that resists U.S. imperialism, which means you're just parroting the U.S. empire's line regarding the same.
You're not realizing that the only formulation that can *defeat* U.S. and Western imperialism *is* a workers state, or the dictatorship-of-the-proletariat, which then implies *authority* over social production, *against* private-property control. So not all authority is the same, because authority *can* be anti-bourgeois.
---
Truth To Power wrote:
But I definitely offer an alternative trajectory based on educating people in the nature of liberty, justice, and rights.
These are just bullshit liberal abstractions, which serve the interests of the status-quo hegemony, or power structure. These terms *were* revolutionary during the times of the bourgeois revolutions, but only for the interests of the *merchant* class. Today what's at-stake is *productive prowess*, as with mass industrial production techniques, which you're both oblivious-to and ignoring-of.
---
Truth To Power wrote:
I am almost as anti-capitalist as I am anti-socialist. Marxist blather is gibberish because relies on idiosyncratic vocabulary.
Hmmmm, now you're drifting more into the *libertarian* camp -- you wish for a golden age of nascent 18th-century bourgeois ascension. Those days are *over*.
You're *not* anti-capitalist because you prefer to pick on Second-World countries in the same way as U.S. / Western imperialism does, instead of taking-on the most capitalist and imperialist country there is, the U.S.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
This means that there's no longer any socio-material objective need for political *substitutionism* --
Truth To Power wrote:
Gibberish.
In other words we have *technological* means today -- the Internet -- that would enable all non-monetary human / humane need, and wants, to be tallied at the individual scale according to individual *prioritizations*, and those individual priorizations to be *aggregated* and collated according to prioritization-*rank* (#1, #2, #3, etc.).
By doing social production *this* way we can eliminate the market mechanism *altogether*, along with the process of *political commodification* ('representatives'), which would collapse capitalism.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
and, instead of relying on the market-mechanism 'money-backed demand' yardstick,
Truth To Power wrote:
I.e., consent....
Now you're *definitely* not anti-capitalist -- you're having to rely on the markets for the operation of society, which means that you *defend* capitalism.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
we can realistically get information about daily *humane* need from every individual, if need-be, and aggregated over any arbitrary geographic area by *rank* position (#1, #2, #3, etc.).
Truth To Power wrote:
Irrelevant. Finding out what people need barely scratches the surface of the allocation problem.
There's no allocation problem anymore if liberated-workers know exactly what's being mass-demanded, by this kind of survey-type method. Markets, exchanges, and exchange-values then all become obviated.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't *deny* that wants are important as well.
Truth To Power wrote:
Then stop pretending need is all that matters.
I'm *not* 'pretending' that need is all that matters -- see the FAQ again.
Truth To Power wrote:
AND STOP LEAVING HUGE EMPTY SPACES IN YOUR POSTS.
You're seeing things that aren't there -- there are no 'empty spaces' in my posts, and please stop repeating this false allegation.
---
Truth To Power wrote:
I've explained already: Marxists ignore -- refuse even to know -- the crucial difference between producer goods and land (natural resources), invalidly aggregating them as "the means of production" for political reasons.
Now you're back to your capitalist-factional line about wishing that only *equity* values would exist, and that *rentier*-type valuations *wouldn't* exist.
Production goods (factories) and land / natural resources *are* both asset-valuated, and so both exist in material-economic terms as *commodities*, with factories being the 'means of production'.
---
Truth To Power wrote:
Nonsense. Having a meeting doesn't change anything.
Yes, a meeting is *qualitatively* more-socially-organized than the same number of people just being people and living relatively individually.
You're now sounding downright *conservative*, akin to Thatcher's famous (erroneous) quote that 'There is no such thing as society.'
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_ ... e_Minister
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't think your distinctions between magnitude, size, and scale are significant-enough -- I see those three terms as being effectively *synonymous*. You seem to be *dissembling* here for the sake of evasiveness.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, there is a crucial difference between the absolute and relative size of government.
ckaihatsu wrote:
'Scale' *implies* 'magnitude', because the greater the scale, the greater the magnitude as well.
Truth To Power wrote:
I meant magnitude relative to society: the portion of society's functions carried out by government.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Anyway, my initial assertion stands -- there's no objective need for an 'anarchist - totalitarian' axis on the political spectrum because the further-away one's politics is from the center-positioned 'nation-state', or 'nationalism', the more those politics are going to depend on a nationalist-independent 'centralization' of all socio-political operations,
Truth To Power wrote:
Assumption without evidence.
Let me put it *this* way -- the societal hegemony of the bourgeois nation-state and its possible imperialism is *centralized* according to military might and imperialism, but is *decentralized* according to the geopolitical patchwork of hundreds of individual nation-states themselves.
On the 1-dimensional political spectrum this phenomenon can be placed at the 'center' of the continuum, with 'rightward' being more-hegemonic and more-centralized, towards monolithic fascism itself.
*Leftward* would be *critiques* of the nation-state, and *reformist* measures -- still decentralized -- all the way to *centralization* that *displaces* the existing bourgeois nation-state political formulation.
Leftward centralization, akin to a 'centrifugal' physical force, would be *full centralization* of political and material-economic social organization, also in a hegemonic way, but for the particular purpose of *eliminating* the bourgeois ruling class, which is a *qualitatively* different 'ends' than *rightward*-type *bourgeois* / fascist hegemony, for the sake of private power and control.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
which implies 'authoritarianism' since that dynamic of centralization (however determined, though preferably bottom-up) would by-definition *prevail* over all other political-type determinations.
Truth To Power wrote:
But in fact, it doesn't. Totalitarianism doesn't work.
You're *misreading* -- I *don't* support any kind of 'totalitarianism', since that term denotes 'ongoing singular control', when what's needed is 'working class hegemony', or the classical dictatorship-of-the-proletariat.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Positions closer to the bourgeois-nationalist 'center' would effectively be far-more *reformist* than at the more-distant extents, since they would be far more *tolerant* of the existing, status-quo 'centralization' of the bourgeoisie, according to ruling-class interests and the nation-state international patchwork.
Truth To Power wrote:
Impenetrable gibberish.
In other words, it's a *metaphor* -- a *physical* representation of a *spinning*, one-dimensional political spectrum, with *centripetal* force pulling the left- and right-midsections towards the status-quo centralization of political power, the bourgeois nation-state.
At the same time the *centrifugal* force pulls the left- and right-midsections towards the outward *extents*, meaning fully-structured hegemonic control of social production, but with respectively different goals -- the far-left side is to *eliminate* bourgeois ruling-class control over society, while the right-extent is to establish a greater authority of private property and private control over society -- fascism.
---
Truth To Power wrote:
No, but there is a difference between theoretically and politically extreme egalitarianism (or elitism).
ckaihatsu wrote:
Can you *expand* on this at all -- ? Again, there's not enough information here for me to respond appropriately.
Truth To Power wrote:
One can hold extreme egalitarian views -- common enough among Marxists, who think how people produce goods determines the contents of their minds and character -- without supporting Procrustean policies, or extreme elitist views -- like the feudal libertarians -- without supporting fascism.
Hmmmm, this is yet another misconstruing of Marxism -- yes, the way the world produces goods and services needs to be overhauled -- a (worldwide) proletarian revolution -- but this egalitarianism-over-production isn't tantamount to a new-psychology, as you're contending.
Yes, I and other Marxists are anti-Procrustean, anti-elitist, anti-feudalist, and anti-fascist.
Truth To Power wrote:
There is a continuum from mere theoretical recognition of a given degree of human (in)equality to its political enforcement.
Okay, this is commonly known as theory-and-practice.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, you're definitely expressing an *ambivalence* about the bourgeois state by saying that it's not the basic choice.
*Socialists*, on the other hand, call for a *workers state*, so that the existing bourgeois state can be decisively displaced from power, to then wither-away.
Truth To Power wrote:
Right: I don't buy that false dichotomy.
You don't have to, but it's not a false dichotomy -- see the segment above regarding the incompatibility of the capitalist vs. socialist 'mode of production'.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
It's best described as a *plutocracy*, a system that favors and rewards the already-rich just for being rich.
Truth To Power wrote:
I call it plutism (a system that artificially enriches the rich) to distinguish it from plutocracy (government BY the rich).
ckaihatsu wrote:
It's *both*.
Truth To Power wrote:
IMO there is a useful distinction, as plutism is a choice, plutocracy a condition.
You're thinking that disempowered / decentralized / consumerist-type 'choice-making' would be a sufficient social force to 'vote' plutocracy out of power -- you're mistaken.
---
Truth To Power wrote:
Markets work, and are also inherently fair.
Now you're *definitely* pro-capitalism, and *not* anti-capitalism.
---
Truth To Power wrote:
Socialists blame markets and property for problems that are actually caused by privilege. Remove property in privilege, and markets and property would work for people rather than against them.
This is impossible, because as soon as there's any accumulation of equity values that can't be immediately plowed back into investments you're going to have non-productive *assets* on your hands, which are synonymous with your dreaded *rentier*-type capital. Also, as soon as anyone *purchases* any non-investment item, like a painting or actual gold, then you'd also have rentier capital.
Notice that you're also unable to address the modern industrial productive process, which requires *labor* -- all you're concerned with are the *exchange values* over the same, decidedly making you a *libertarian*, at best.