[late]

He is acting out his mental illness, that is all.

Hardly, but I will accept that as your projection of your self perception.

[SolarCross]

Hardly, but I will accept that as your projection of your self perception.

[personal insult deleted - Prosthetic Conscience] You want to ban images in case a "nazi" uses it. It would hilarious if it were not so very depressingly pathetic.

[late]

Yeah but you are crazy too. You want to ban images in case a "nazi" uses it. It would hilarious if it were not so very depressingly pathetic.

I did not propose a ban. That's your delusion talking.

If the image in question is racist, I would not have a problem with the Mods removing it, but I didn't report it. I was hoping someone knew about it, and could explain it's provenance.

Depressingly pathetic is a wonderful description of extreme racists.

[Pants-of-dog]

I see that @SolarCross is back with his anger and insults.

SolarCross’s weird idea that he is somehow oppressed by communists always distracts from debates about Marxism.

[late]

I see that @SolarCross is back with his anger and insults.

SolarCross’s weird idea that he is somehow oppressed by communists always distracts from debates about Marxism.

Might one assume he is American? Because for most of the history of communism it has been suppressed by the government, sometimes violently.

Which means he has something else bass ackwards.

[Pants-of-dog]

He is British.

As far as I can tell, the NHS is as close as he has ever been to socialism.

[SolarCross]

He is British.

As far as I can tell, the NHS is as close as he has ever been to socialism.

Lucky for me. No one sane wants to live under communism.

[Pants-of-dog]

Unsurprisingly, @SolarCross made no argument and instead tries to insult Marxists.

I think I have to agree with Orwell that middle class Brits are not the best proponents of Marxism, but I would also add that they make very bad critics as well.

[SolarCross]

Unsurprisingly, @SolarCross made no argument and instead tries to insult Marxists.

I think I have to agree with Orwell that middle class Brits are not the best proponents of Marxism, but I would also add that they make very bad critics as well.

I am not "middle class". I do not really have a class because all that stuff is fake really.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am not "middle class". I do not really have a class because all that stuff is fake really.

I see you included yourself in the group of people who are bad critics of Marxism.

[SolarCross]

I see you included yourself in the group of people who are bad critics of Marxism.

No you did that.

[Pants-of-dog]

Do you have an intelligent criticism of Marxism?

Do you think Marxists were wrong to stop the Nazis and provide you with health coverage?

[SolarCross]

Do you have an intelligent criticism of Marxism?

Do you think Marxists were wrong to stop the Nazis and provide you with health coverage?

marxists are filthy murderous idiots same as nazis, see history.

[Pants-of-dog]

As I said, @SolarCross has no arguments. Only insults. Since that is boring, I will return to the actual topic:

One thing I have noticed about European Marxists like Orwell is that their Marxism is narrow in comparison to other Marxists, especially those from the developing world.

To me, it seems like European Marxists are inherently supportive of some aspects of capitalism, like colonialsim.

[skinster]

It's incredible that critiques of Stalinism -- 'gulagism' -- are invariably one-sided, to the point of being obviously propagandist.

There are no real critiques because there is no real study, just bawling in emotive language.

It is amusing at least.

[ckaihatsu]

The last bit, about Stalin and Mao being successful... Every organisation is going to run into problems. The question is how fast it happens and what tools you have to deal with it. If you look at food production, the problems were severe in Russia, and devastating in China.

Problems with central planning multiply, and lead to inappropriate economic signals. In addition, they were simple economies. As the Russian economy developed in ran into a bunch of problems.

Were you the guy I asked about whether a Carbon Tax would be a negative externality? IOW, Pigovian.

I didn't say this was impossible, so I am not the one who is stuck. You're stuck, because you don't want to acknowledge the fact that this would be tougher than you think..

Well, of *course* I don't think that global (proletarian) revolution is a walk in the park, but I also don't really see what all the anxiety is around the approach of centralized planning. Yes, it didn't work out very well historically, as you're indicating, but that's not so much due to the mechanism itself, or even the bureaucratic elitism of non-market administration there, as much as it was about the overwhelming empirical conditions of *privation* due to imperialism from without and its stranglehold over the domestic economy (in both cases, Russia and China).

No, I don't think we've discussed the issue of carbon taxes.

I'll insist that *linear*-type / 'blueprint' planning is neither objectively required, nor is a desirable approach for centralized planning -- I'll reiterate that *nonlinear*, *communications technology enabled* bottom-up centralized planning (as outlined in the diagram) is possible in the present era, as encapsulated by the landscape-of-piles-of-stuff scenario, which would fulfill the bulk of unmet human need globally, with more-specialized, custom needs left to the individual scale of self-coordination.

[late]

Well, of *course* I don't think that global (proletarian) revolution is a walk in the park, but I also don't really see what all the anxiety is around the approach of centralized planning. Yes, it didn't work out very well historically, as you're indicating, but that's not so much due to the mechanism itself, or even the bureaucratic elitism of non-market administration there, as much as it was about the overwhelming empirical conditions of *privation* due to imperialism from without and its stranglehold over the domestic economy (in both cases, Russia and China).

No, I don't think we've discussed the issue of carbon taxes.

I'll insist that *linear*-type / 'blueprint' planning is neither objectively required, nor is a desirable approach for centralized planning -- I'll reiterate that *nonlinear*, *communications technology enabled* bottom-up centralized planning (as outlined in the diagram) is possible in the present era, as encapsulated by the landscape-of-piles-of-stuff scenario, which would fulfill the bulk of unmet human need globally, with more-specialized, custom needs left to the individual scale of self-coordination.

Now I get it. You didn't answer my question about whether a Carbon Tax is Pigovian because you don't know the answer.

And that explains the rest.

The privation you refer to were largely a result of the excessive concentration of power. Mao and Stalin were basically dictators. What they did interfered with production, and of course, you can only go without eating for so long.

So, to sum up, while I suspect there is a better way to organise humanity, it doesn't look to me like your ideas are up to the task.

[ckaihatsu]

That varies from country to country. The Nordic countries have less income inequality. Coupled with robust social programs, class is not much of a problem.

In the US, class is everything, and that problem is getting worse. And we already have defacto royalty.

Here's from a search:

Sweden’s famous equality has deteriorated due to the rising incomes of top earners. All Swedish income groups have seen incomes grow since the 1990s, but growth has been highly unequal: The top 10% saw their earnings increase by 60%, while the bottom 10% saw their earnings increase by 20%. Top earners have largely benefited from capital gains, rising house prices and the deregulation of the stock market.

The country’s wealth is largely concentrated with the top 1%. Estimates suggest that between 1975 and 2006 the wealth share of the top% may have more than doubled.

The super rich are weighing down one of the world’s most socially equal countries

https://qz.com/1040017/the-super-rich-a ... countries/

[ckaihatsu]

You're having a laugh, imperialist invasions? Lenin crossed German territory to get to Russia because he was working to defeat Russia.

Yes, to defeat the feudalist *czardom*, which itself was historically progressive:

Nicholas II and new revolutionary movement

Main article: History of Russia (1892–1917)

Alexander was succeeded by his son Nicholas II (1894–1917). The Industrial Revolution, which began to exert a significant influence in Russia, was meanwhile creating forces that would finally overthrow the tsar. Politically, these opposition forces organized into three competing parties: The liberal elements among the industrial capitalists and nobility, who believed in peaceful social reform and a constitutional monarchy, founded the Constitutional Democratic party or Kadets in 1905. Followers of the Narodnik tradition established the Socialist-Revolutionary Party or Esers in 1901, advocating the distribution of land among those who actually worked it—the peasants. A third radical group founded the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party or RSDLP in 1898; this party was the primary exponent of Marxism in Russia. Gathering their support from the radical intellectuals and the urban working class, they advocated complete social, economic and political revolution.[140]

In 1903 the RSDLP split into two wings: the radical Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, and the relatively moderate Mensheviks, led by Yuli Martov. The Mensheviks believed that Russian socialism would grow gradually and peacefully and that the tsar's regime should be succeeded by a democratic republic in which the socialists would cooperate with the liberal bourgeois parties. The Bolsheviks advocated the formation of a small elite of professional revolutionists, subject to strong party discipline, to act as the vanguard of the proletariat in order to seize power by force.[141]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... y_movement

---

That's why the German high command stuffed his pockets with gold in order to buy a second revolution. And Lenin repaid his German employers handsomely at Brest Litosk. Germany could have swept away the Bolshevik regime if they wanted to, but they chose to keep the Bolsheviks in power. The foreign forces that supported the Whites were paltry in comparison to the Heer. Some of these forces didn't even fully support the Whites.

The foreign force that did the most damage to the Bolshevik position were the Czech legion. Were these imperialist invaders hell bent on restoring White rule at any cost, as per the pathetic fantasy world of the left. No the reason they rose up against the Bureaucratic incompetence and high handed authoritarianism of the Bolsheviks is because they were trying to escape from Russia not invade it.

You're contending an under-the-table arrangement between Lenin and Germany. I'll have to see some supporting evidence for this contention.

Ditto for the Czech legion, though it's more believable / understandable -- but not necessarily acceptable -- considering the numerous local uprisings like Kronstandt.

My position is that the feudal regime of the czar had to be overthrown *and* the nascent 'soviet' workers-councils form of running society should have been supported and expanded outward, and not opposed. These revolutionary developments were all historically progressive:

Political issues

Many sections of the country had reason to be dissatisfied with the existing autocracy. Nicholas II was a deeply conservative ruler and maintained a strict authoritarian system. Individuals and society in general were expected to show self-restraint, devotion to community, deference to the social hierarchy and a sense of duty to the country. Religious faith helped bind all of these tenets together as a source of comfort and reassurance in the face of difficult conditions and as a means of political authority exercised through the clergy. Perhaps more than any other modern monarch, Nicholas II attached his fate and the future of his dynasty to the notion of the ruler as a saintly and infallible father to his people.[nb 3]

This vision of the Romanov monarchy left him unaware of the state of his country. With a firm belief that his power to rule was granted by Divine Right, Nicholas assumed that the Russian people were devoted to him with unquestioning loyalty. This ironclad belief rendered Nicholas unwilling to allow the progressive reforms that might have alleviated the suffering of the Russian people. Even after the 1905 Revolution spurred the Tsar to decree limited civil rights and democratic representation, he worked to limit even these liberties in order to preserve the ultimate authority of the crown.[nb 3]

Despite constant oppression, the desire of the people for democratic participation in government decisions was strong. Since the Age of Enlightenment, Russian intellectuals had promoted Enlightenment ideals such as the dignity of the individual and the rectitude of democratic representation. These ideals were championed most vociferously by Russia's liberals, although populists, Marxists, and anarchists also claimed to support democratic reforms. A growing opposition movement had begun to challenge the Romanov monarchy openly well before the turmoil of World War I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_R ... cal_issues

Provisions

The October Manifesto addressed the unrest application throughout the Russian Empire and pledged to grant basic civil liberties, including

• To grant to the population the essential foundations of civil freedoms based on the principles of genuine inviolability of the person, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association.

• Without postponing the scheduled elections to the State Duma, to admit to participation in the Duma (insofar as possible in the short time that remains before it is scheduled to convene) of all those classes of the population that now are completely deprived of voting rights; and to leave the further development of a general statute on elections to the future legislative order.

• To establish as an unbreakable rule that no law shall take effect without confirmation by the State Duma and that the elected representatives of the people shall be guaranteed the opportunity to participate in the supervision of the legality of the actions of our appointed officials.

• The Manifesto also introduced universal manhood suffrage in Russia which was common in some Western countries, such as France, Germany and the United States.[6]

This document, although granting basic rights to the Russian people, did not guarantee that the Russian government would function in a democratic way. Instead, the Manifesto just stated that the people now had basic rights and a voice in legislation.[7]

The freedom of religion clause outraged the Russian Orthodox Church because it allowed people to switch to evangelical Protestantism, which they denounced as heresy.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_M ... Provisions

[ckaihatsu]

I do not care at all what you would appreaciate. Fact is nothing you have ever posted here has ever been even remotely reflected by actual reality; it has been 100% purest delusion. At that point it is basically impossible to avoid mentioning that you clearly are a lunatic.

No, that's not true at all -- I reference and include outside material to back up my contentions about historical events.

At this point you're just doing character assassination, and you're impugning me in the process. You need to stop and get back to the actual political issues at-hand.