The Ubiquitous Ugliness of Socialism - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14639906
Dave there is no point trying to blame the ghastliness of the USSR on "capitalism", they wanted to be socialist, they went as far into that mass mental problem as they could go, they killed all the opposition or drove them out of the country so they had a pretty free reign to be as wacked out on red kool aid as they wanted, and they wanted it madly. So 27 years on from the fall of the berlin wall you want to say "no, no, no that wasn't socialism it was capitalism" and expect to be taken seriously? Seriously get a grip.

The other thing is you are saying "real" socialism is this:

Then is there a standard and pervasive collective control across the nation by workers of the entire operation of their place of work? Do they decide among themselves what to produce, where to produce, how to produce, and what is to be done with any excess earnings? Do they collectively decide on the pay scale for all who work there?


I have to say that is pretty much exactly how things work in America or indeed any country with a reasonably well functioning market. Or are you forgetting that customers are usually workers also? That there is no law that says you can invest but not work or work but not invest, so there is nothing legal stopping anyone from doing both?

Socialism was always just a scam to trick stupid goys into killing and looting clever goys so that jews could have everything. I don't blame those jews for getting up to some tricks, they had been on the receiving end of some shit for at least a 1000 years, who can blame them for wanting some pay back? But it's over now. The jews worked it out of their system and they have Israel now, so all you goy dummies still repeating the same old drivel is just pathetic; you are just being witless dupes for people who have no further use for you.
Last edited by SolarCross on 09 Jan 2016 06:00, edited 1 time in total.
#14639912
So Mao didn't warn about "capitalist roaders" and workers run the corporations where they work, like GE in America, decide what to produce, where to produce it, how to produce it, where to sell it, and what to do with the profits you say.

Well! I'd much rather discuss things with someone who will discuss reality honestly and not play mind games of fantasies, --not to mention your problem with Jews. Good day.
#14641182
Davea8 wrote:This entire thread has left me feeling somewhat depressed, not because of what socialism is, but because socialism has been twisted, distorted, and misrepresented as something that happened in the Soviet Union.

It did.
Socialism is collective worker control of the means of production.

No, collective ownership, and not just by workers. What you are describing is normally called, "syndicalism."
And to have that control it is necessary to also have collective worker control of government.

That is such an unrealistic chimera as to be useless for purposes of serious political discourse.
But what has been presented here (Soviet structure and Soviet government) is a government that controls workers.

Government is control, sorry.
Somebody says "that is what socialism becomes!" but then by definition, that is not socialism! If you do not have collective worker control of both government and the means of production, you don't have socialism. But no one seems to have thought of this.

Because it's false. Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, not worker control thereof.
The Soviet Union was, and today Russia remains, an economy of state capitalism.

Absurd nonsense. Capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production, so "state capitalism" is a flat-out oxymoron.
You disagree? Then is there a standard and pervasive collective control across the nation by workers of the entire operation of their place of work? Do they decide among themselves what to produce, where to produce, how to produce, and what is to be done with any excess earnings? Do they collectively decide on the pay scale for all who work there? No? Then they do not have socialism.

You are merely raising the bar for "socialism" to such a height as to make the term perfectly useless for meaningful political discourse.
#14641284
Dave is ultimately correct.

Most Marxists, and Lenin, Engels, and Marx himself, specifically said that socialism would have to be a world system. Since it's a dialectic and capitalism is a world system, that's how it goes. Bukharin and Stalin advanced the idea of Socialism in one Country.

But socialism, in the a Marxist sense, is a concept that results from the movement of history. Which is why we can define it as such.

Capitalism is more difficult as that was a word put to a system that was already well in existence. Wealth of Nations, if I'm not mistaken, never uses the word capitalism but we k ow it's the system being described as it actually existed.

Capitalists tend to like to mirror rhetoric so they'll try to equate the two terms as meaning something else, but it's not accurate.
#14641516
taxizen wrote:Dave there is no point trying to blame the ghastliness of the USSR on "capitalism", they wanted to be socialist, they went as far into that mass mental problem as they could go, they killed all the opposition or drove them out of the country so they had a pretty free reign to be as wacked out on red kool aid as they wanted, and they wanted it madly. So 27 years on from the fall of the berlin wall you want to say "no, no, no that wasn't socialism it was capitalism" and expect to be taken seriously? Seriously get a grip.

And it's not like the USSR was the only example. It was essentially the same in China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Ethiopia, and now Venezuela. In each case committed socialists/communists seized power, tried their best to implement their system, and the result was always disastrous, often apocalyptic. But far from being willing to learn from this clear, repeated historical lesson, socialists cling to their ridiculous, anti-scientific Marxist delusions and concoct absurd excuses for the failures: "It wasn't pure enough!"

It will never be pure enough.

It reminds me of the disgusting spectacle of the Muslims surrounding Israel, whose implacable hostility to it they profess as submission to the will of Allah. Well, they have been praying to Allah for Israel's destruction for nearly 70 years, and Allah has been telling them, as clearly as possible, to leave Israel the fuck alone. Do they learn to respect Allah's clearly expressed will? No, they just keep on hating, and say, "We just didn't pray hard enough!"
Socialism was always just a scam to trick stupid goys into killing and looting clever goys so that jews could have everything.

Oh. How disappointing.
I don't blame those jews for getting up to some tricks, they had been on the receiving end of some shit for at least a 1000 years, who can blame them for wanting some pay back? But it's over now. The jews worked it out of their system and they have Israel now, so all you goy dummies still repeating the same old drivel is just pathetic; you are just being witless dupes for people who have no further use for you.

Whatevs.
The Immortal Goon wrote:Most Marxists, and Lenin, Engels, and Marx himself, specifically said that socialism would have to be a world system. Since it's a dialectic and capitalism is a world system, that's how it goes.

But socialism, in the a Marxist sense, is a concept that results from the movement of history. Which is why we can define it as such.

This is just magical thinking. Marxism posits some sort of supernatural force that moves historical events in a direction that is prophesied, but not empirically observed. IOW, it's just stupid, anti-scientific bullshit.
#14641544
Yeah, those Cubans hated socialism so badly that the whole Bay of Pigs thing was a cakewalk for the liberating US forces.

That whole Cuban revolution was disastrous and there is no way it could have continued until the present day.
#14641561
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yeah, those Cubans hated socialism so badly that the whole Bay of Pigs thing was a cakewalk for the liberating US forces.

No; just as in the USSR in WW II, some people did indeed welcome the "liberating" forces -- the Nazis were greeted as liberators in large areas of the USSR -- but the majority, as in almost any country, preferred to be governed by their own people, however corruptly and incompetently, rather than by foreign invaders, however competently and honestly. Look at the history of decolonialization in Africa: there isn't a single former British colony there that is better or more honestly governed now than it was from Whitehall.
That whole Cuban revolution was disastrous and there is no way it could have continued until the present day.

Lots of disastrously wrong ideas continue and even dominate for long periods of time -- hell, look at Islam -- especially when they are not as disastrous as the even worse ideas that went before. Cuba is a bit of a poster child for socialism, but let's not forget that it benefited from three decades of lavish Soviet support, and still couldn't create a prosperous economy.
#14641562
TTP wrote:This is just magical thinking. Marxism posits some sort of supernatural force that moves historical events in a direction that is prophesied, but not empirically observed. IOW, it's just stupid, anti-scientific bullshit.


False.

Marxism is posited on dialectic materialism.

If you believe things change, then you're right. If you study why those things change, then you're about half way to becoming a red yourself. As for the other, "socialist," countries you mentioned:

Engels, who wrote the Communist Manifesto," wrote:Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.
#14641571
Truth To Power wrote:No; just as in the USSR in WW II, some people did indeed welcome the "liberating" forces -- the Nazis were greeted as liberators in large areas of the USSR -- but the majority, as in almost any country, preferred to be governed by their own people, however corruptly and incompetently, rather than by foreign invaders, however competently and honestly. Look at the history of decolonialization in Africa: there isn't a single former British colony there that is better or more honestly governed now than it was from Whitehall.


Oh, you're one of those people who believe colonialism was great for the colonised, even though all the colonised people disagree with you and even went to great lengths to kill and exile the colonialists.

Lots of disastrously wrong ideas continue and even dominate for long periods of time -- hell, look at Islam -- especially when they are not as disastrous as the even worse ideas that went before. Cuba is a bit of a poster child for socialism, but let's not forget that it benefited from three decades of lavish Soviet support, and still couldn't create a prosperous economy.


It's almost as if they were suffering under an economic blockade the whole time!
#14641673
The denial of state capitalism is a reliable indication of a lack of knowledge of the history of communism and the actual results in the world. In state capitalism, the means of production are still owned by those who have power and not by the workers. The workers work for the company and management, not for themselves. In the USSR not long ago the economy had become one in which the managers of factories, for example, were allowed by law to sell off "excess" equipment and keep the proceeds of the sale for themselves. Under a socialist system with a communist government those assets would be the property of the workers.

Many managers became quite wealthy under the system of state capitalism. And in China during its early years of the communist experiment Mao wrote often and at length warning the Party of the risk and dangers of "capitalist roaders" who would seek a foothold from which to prevent the workers from achieving or maintaining control of industry. "The Gang of Four" was a major step and major success of capitalist roaders in seizing the reins of power from the people of China.

Today in both countries very, very wealthy entrepreneurs live and continue to amass wealth from the business interests they control. Ideologues of the right love to describe these events as a case of communist forces realizing that socialism and communism don't work as well as capitalism, at which point they made the "benevolent decision" to introduce capitalist principles to "improve" the situation. But it is foolish to ask the fox how to best manage the henhouse.
#14641842
TTP wrote:This is just magical thinking. Marxism posits some sort of supernatural force that moves historical events in a direction that is prophesied, but not empirically observed. IOW, it's just stupid, anti-scientific bullshit.

The Immortal Goon wrote:False.

No, it is objectively correct.
Marxism is posited on dialectic materialism.

Which is a supernatural force prophesied to direct future events in a way that is not empirically observed.
If you believe things change, then you're right.

I do, and I am.
If you study why those things change, then you're about half way to becoming a red yourself.

No. Marxism does not study why things change. It simply ASSUMES that a supernatural force will make them change in certain prophesied ways, even though they in fact do not change in those ways. Marxism is logically equivalent to a biological "science" -- like Lysenkoism -- that says evolution has to produce a certain type of organism in the future, even though that type of organism has never been observed.
As for the other, "socialist," countries you mentioned:

Engels, who wrote the Communist Manifesto," wrote:Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

A typical Marxist non sequitur. Socialism is defined in the dictionary. It's not just whatever you say it is.
Truth To Power wrote:No; just as in the USSR in WW II, some people did indeed welcome the "liberating" forces -- the Nazis were greeted as liberators in large areas of the USSR -- but the majority, as in almost any country, preferred to be governed by their own people, however corruptly and incompetently, rather than by foreign invaders, however competently and honestly. Look at the history of decolonialization in Africa: there isn't a single former British colony there that is better or more honestly governed now than it was from Whitehall.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Oh, you're one of those people who believe colonialism was great for the colonised, even though all the colonised people disagree with you and even went to great lengths to kill and exile the colonialists.

No, I am one of those people who is willing to know the fact that British colonial administration was better for the colonized than the corrupt and incompetent native governance they suffered both before and after British colonial administration.
Lots of disastrously wrong ideas continue and even dominate for long periods of time -- hell, look at Islam -- especially when they are not as disastrous as the even worse ideas that went before. Cuba is a bit of a poster child for socialism, but let's not forget that it benefited from three decades of lavish Soviet support, and still couldn't create a prosperous economy.

It's almost as if they were suffering under an economic blockade the whole time!

While the blockade was an idiotic policy, it was mostly effective wrt US economic relations, and certainly did not stop Cuba from trading or receiving Soviet support.
#14641858
Truth To Power wrote:No, I am one of those people who is willing to know the fact that British colonial administration was better for the colonized than the corrupt and incompetent native governance they suffered both before and after British colonial administration.


Really? Are you now claiming that indigenous people were better off because they were infected by smallpox and had their land taken?

While the blockade was an idiotic policy, it was mostly effective wrt US economic relations, and certainly did not stop Cuba from trading or receiving Soviet support.


And? How was Cuba supposed to create a prosperous economy with only the Soviet bloc as trading partners? The rest of Latin America, including capitalist dictatorships receiving even more lavish US support, was unable to do so with the whole world as trading partners.

Next time you trynto make a critical analysis of Cuba, please do not forget that Cuba is a developing nation.
#14641912
Davea8 wrote:The denial of state capitalism is a reliable indication of a lack of knowledge of the history of communism and the actual results in the world.

No, it's a reliable indication of calling things by their correct names, instead of evading inconvenient facts by redefining the words that are used to identify them, as socialists (and capitalists) do.
In state capitalism, the means of production are still owned by those who have power and not by the workers.

That's not capitalism, and it doesn't describe the actual situation in socialist countries like the USSR, China, etc., where it was
N E V E R the case that top officials privately owned the means of production.
The workers work for the company and management, not for themselves.

In socialism, they work for the collective and its management, not themselves.
In the USSR not long ago the economy had become one in which the managers of factories, for example, were allowed by law to sell off "excess" equipment and keep the proceeds of the sale for themselves.

Really? Were you planning to quote that law for us? And note that even if you can support your claim -- stranger things have happened -- it "became" that kind of economy, and hadn't been that kind initially.
Under a socialist system with a communist government those assets would be the property of the workers.

No, the masses, as they officially were in the USSR, etc.
Many managers became quite wealthy under the system of state capitalism.

You mean socialism.
And in China during its early years of the communist experiment Mao wrote often and at length warning the Party of the risk and dangers of "capitalist roaders" who would seek a foothold from which to prevent the workers from achieving or maintaining control of industry. "The Gang of Four" was a major step and major success of capitalist roaders in seizing the reins of power from the people of China.

And notice the difference in the condition of the Chinese people since that happened, compared to their condition under Mao.
Today in both countries very, very wealthy entrepreneurs live and continue to amass wealth from the business interests they control.

The XSSR has been capitalist since the early 90s, and China has not been socialist (it still is not capitalist, as all land is publicly owned) since around 1980. In both countries, most of the fortunes have been amassed through control of land and natural resources, not "business interests." It is a socialist canard that the factory owners (who make increased productivity possible) are the ones who get rich under capitalism; in truth, most factory owners and other entrepreneurs go broke. It is landowners who get rich without lifting a finger or making any other sort of contribution, but you'll never see a socialist consent to know that.
Ideologues of the right love to describe these events as a case of communist forces realizing that socialism and communism don't work as well as capitalism, at which point they made the "benevolent decision" to introduce capitalist principles to "improve" the situation.

It was more a question of being unable to sustain their failures indefinitely. And it is obvious that the situation has improved, even in Russia, which went capitalist.
But it is foolish to ask the fox how to best manage the henhouse.

The fox does not provide for or protect the chickens. The farmer does, because he wants the eggs in return. But you'll never see a socialist consent to know the difference between trading and taking.
Last edited by Truth To Power on 14 Jan 2016 20:40, edited 1 time in total.
#14641920
The Soviets were actually heading in the correct direction when they started doing Constructivist architecture, and that's because generally speaking, all forms of modern architecture were going in a nice direction.

The story is that basically, the Nazis became fairly boring in their aesthetics in the aftermath of Night of the Long Knives, and so all the good modernist architects in Germany were forced to ply their business in the Soviet Union. One would think that this would have produced wonderful buildings in the USSR, since looking at what Bauhaus in Germany and Vkhutemas in Russia were doing, you could see that these people were making really pretty buildings.

And then Stalin suddenly had a fit of retardation-flu which he never recovered from either, and Soviet architecture started to suddenly take on a kind of kind-of-classical imitation look which is just completely boring in my view, and creates a total mess where some buildings look normal and then others are just covered in completely useless giant pillars and enormous ornamentation as though someone was pining for the Roman Empire or something.

In the end, the good modernists ended up having to take refuge in places like the UK, Japan, USA, France, and Brazil, and even Mexico.

But there were still some good things in East Germany (GDR), if you count that as 'USSR proper', namely the Bauhaus building itself:

Image

Image

A+.

There is no need for things like giant human statues and enormous screaming eagles and twisty spires and gigantic columns as a front facade to a building and which are useless ornaments because no load is resting on them. Any architect who adorns a building with cylindrical Roman-style columns upon which no load is resting, should probably be shot: that is the one rule I would want to enforce in architecture, if I were ever given the chance to 'make the rules'.
#14641922
Rei Murasame wrote:There is no need for things like giant human statues and enormous screaming eagles and twisty spires and gigantic columns as a front facade to a building and which are useless ornaments because no load is resting on them. Any architect who adorns a building with cylindrical Roman-style columns upon which no load is resting, should probably be shot: that is the one rule I would want to enforce in architecture, if I were ever given the chance to 'make the rules'.

Every day I find joy in the fact that you are not able to make the rules.

Seriously, you would like to shot people who add useless ornaments? After that you would whip people who use colors and stone musicians?
#14641926
Harmattan wrote:Every day I find joy in the fact that you are not able to make the rules.

Oh, here we go now.

Harmattan wrote:Seriously, you would like to shot people who add useless ornaments?

Yes, starting with Joseph Stalin. He would be the first to be shot, because he was the cause of that problem.

Harmattan wrote:After that you would whip people who use colors and stone musicians?

Nope, this logic applies only to architecture. In all other artistic endeavours I'm radically permissive, practically libertarian-ish. Part of my opposition to Islam in particular, is that I find their desire to ban certain pictures and their attempt to ban singing, to be an affront to the human spirit.
#14641936
No, something like Atlantic City (to the extent that modernist buildings are there), Dessau, or Brasilia, or Seoul, Tokyo, or Busan. Even Tel Aviv. None of those are perfect, but they are at least tilting in the correct direction.

Image
Borgata Casino and Hotel in Atlantic City.

Image
Shinjuku.

Of course in the opinions of postmodernist pretentious people, all of those things are tarred as being glass boxes and open spaces, but actually that's an exaggeration, they are merely places where things happen and where the buildings themselves are not mocking the humans who walk among them.

But I think that no one on PoFo will understand me.
#14641942
Harmattan wrote:Every day I find joy in the fact that you are not able to make the rules.

Seriously, you would like to shot people who add useless ornaments? After that you would whip people who use colors and stone musicians?


It's not a wholly unreasonable thing to say that the parts of a building should actually have some sort of function other than just sitting there for the hell of it, and that things can look beautiful in doing their job.

The whole point of giant columns in the first place was that they were actually capable of holding up a building made of stone and marble, not because anybody thought they just looked cool.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] Are you[…]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] The[…]

I (still) have a dream

Because the child's cattle-like parents "fol[…]