JohnRawls wrote:
I am not interested in "value" judgements. I live in country that managed to recover from the socialist disaster. I have felt the price of that and I know the downsides and the upsides of the socialist system. Not everything is bad but the implementation that have existed till now besides the northern European ones are just flawed and severely lacking compared to liberalism or capitalism.
Since you have problems with understanding, I'm going to have to do the following to your wording:
I am not interested in "value" judgements. I live in country that managed to recover from the [Stalinist] disaster. I have felt the price of that and I know the downsides and the upsides of the [Stalinist] system. Not everything is bad but the implementation that have existed till now besides the northern European ones are just flawed and severely lacking compared to liberalism or capitalism.
JR, you're conflating Communist-Manifesto workers-of-the-world socialism, with Stalinism, and then with European social democracy. You gloss over political distinctions, and you gloss over historical factors. Time to tighten-up.
JohnRawls wrote:
If the marxists spent more time on aknowledging this and improving on the problems then you might have had a solution by now. But every god damn time it is "socialism wasn't implemented" or "this doesn't exist" or walls of text of marxist theory that goes against all if not most of modern economic theories.
Yeah, the solution is called workers-of-the-world socialism. No more bourgeois ruling class, no more capitalist exchange values. I didn't make history the way it is, and it wasn't proletarian-socialism.
JohnRawls wrote:
To put it short:
1) Socialist economic policy is simply inefficient and unproductive compared to liberal capitalism. This is a fact and the collapse of USSR is a huge impossible to ignore example of this. Well SU and Warshaw pact and the modern attempters like Venezuela.
To put it short:
1) [Stalinist] economic policy is simply inefficient and unproductive compared to liberal capitalism. This is a fact and the collapse of USSR is a huge impossible to ignore example of this. Well SU and Warshaw pact and the modern attempters like Venezuela.
'Inefficient' and 'unproductive' have little meaning once a country is internally *industrialized* and can be economically self-sufficient, not that that is *enough*, as your critique bears out. Nationalist *marginalization*, as we saw with the USSR, was *very* effective for awhile, but then it became too isolated and separate from world commerce, in a larger sea of capitalism, unfortunately.
That's why workers-of-the-world socialism is all-or-nothing -- any parts that *nationalize*, as the USSR did because of Stalin / Stalinism, means that there's still that larger sea of capitalism, so the proletarian revolution wasn't complete.
JohnRawls wrote:
2) 99% of implementation for socialist or communist models were at best autocratic and at worst dictatorial and tyrannical. Obviously execption can be found but all important implementations are that. And this has severe consequences for the whole system starting from the collapsing feedback loop over time to the system not wanting to change and the whole change being a whim of the higher leadership or leader. I do not understand how a true communist can be okay with being under a dictatorship.
2) 99% of implementation for [Stalinism] were at best autocratic and at worst dictatorial and tyrannical. Obviously execption can be found but all important implementations are that. And this has severe consequences for the whole system starting from the collapsing feedback loop over time to the system not wanting to change and the whole change being a whim of the higher leadership or leader. I do not understand how a true communist can be okay with being under a dictatorship.
Yeah, a true communist *isn't* okay with Stalinism, and that's why I keep *objecting* to your misuse of terms, and that's why I'm visually *parsing* your words, into correct terminology.
JohnRawls wrote:
3) The ideological question of socialist/communist ideal vs local ideology. Communist/socialist ideal wants to surplant local culture and local ways of life in a lot of cases. And i am not talking about just replacing religious practices but more important things like national differences of peoples, races, regions and suplanting them with a single socialist/communist ideal of some sort.
Well, it's certainly *desirable*, but I don't think that such would be politically / absolutely *necessary* -- and, besides, the radical-reforms of the Bolshevik Revolution concerning religion were really more at the *official* / institutional level, meaning state policy and functioning:
• All private property was nationalized by the government.
• All Russian banks were nationalized.
• Private bank accounts were expropriated.
• The properties of the Church (including bank accounts) were expropriated.
• All foreign debts were repudiated.
• Control of the factories was given to the soviets.
• Wages were fixed at higher rates than during the war, and a shorter, eight-hour working day was introduced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution
- By skinster