Whats with the leftwing bent of Wrongplanet?

Post Reply New Topic

State socialism would be control of the economy on behalf of the people. (There are many other types of socialism, too, which do not require state involvement.)

However, Trotsky pointed out that, in the USSR, government bureaucrats faired much better economically than the masses. For that reason, the Soviet Union was not socialist. I think that Trotsky's term, state capitalism, is quite accurate.



Because many leftists, like myself, have read Marx. I know what he said and did not say, how his views evolved throughout his career, and so on. It is abundantly clear that he would not have approved of the Soviet system.



That is too much of a generalization. You make certain claims but do not back them up.

Simply consult history. What has been the result of every single such attempted revolution that managed to succeed? Tyranny. It was subverted and turned to the advantage of whatever group claimed to be representing "revolution". Anyone who is not a blind dogmatic and consults the historical record will have ample evidence.

Now, we have yet to see whether or not social democracy will work out, but right now it looks like the method is going to suffocate itself under the weight of its own programs and anti-incentives.

(Backing of Nominalist)
Actually, contrary to what most people argue, I argue that capitalism cannot work because of human nature. Humans will generally do what best serves their interests, so which is better, a system in which those interests are left unbridled or a system in which those interests are mitigated by democracy. The concept of socialism stems from the concept of democracy, i.e. that through a collective hedonism we can promote that which brings about the most happiness. This idea was incredibly unpopular in 1700s England, democracy. I'm sure people said, "You know, I just don't think democracy can work because of human nature; people are too self-serving and, in creating this system, we'll just have a tyrant rise to power. I mean, look at democracy's history: it failed in Athens and in Rome." Socialism is, basically, economic democracy, as opposed to economic anarchy, which is what Capitalism is, and economic monarchy (feudalism).



Actually, I maintain the the U.S.S.R. was socialist, albeit a very deformed socialism in which (a) the bureaucracy had gained too much political power and (b) ultra-leftism (overly militant tactics to enforce socialism) ended up harming the workers. The U.S.S.R., however, made incredible strides that no capitalist country could touch. Unemployment disappeared. Starvation ended after a two year famine in the Ukraine. The technology went from farming methods dating back to Roman Empire to launching the world's first satellite in forty years. Housing, employment, food and fair education became rights.

Nominalist,

While Trotsky may have used the term "state capitalism", that term was coined by Tony Cliff, who followed in the school of thought of Max Shachtman, who called the Soviet Union "bureaucratic collectivism". Trotsky actually wrote a good bit of material in response to these schools of thought maintaining that the U.S.S.R. was not state capitalist.

Sources:
Is the Bureacracy a ruling class:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... t/ch09.htm

In Defense of Marxism - Book against Shachtman
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... /index.htm



That's mostly mainstream Trotskyists who use Trotskyism as an excuse not to support any socialist country. Maoists generally call the U.S.S.R., China, Cuba, and Venezuela "capitalist hell-holes", except under the rules of Mao and Stalin. Popular frontists don't say anything. Ever.

I maintain that these countries are in fact socialist, albeit socialism with problems. Those problems lied in the fact that (if we compared socialist countries to the U.S.) the executive branch became too powerful, so the solution is the disempower the executive.

A system where their interests are bridled by competing interests. No system has gone with total democracy, and you know that dongiovanni. Most systems have pushed for some issue of competing interests and limits on democracy, and the American system has done so the very explicitly. Frankly, I would argue that democracy cannot work due to the need for anarchy, and that unbridled democracy will only result in failure due to the need for anarchic economic calculations, which will not be allowed by a democratic system. I mean, heck, one of the strongest theoretical arguments against socialism was based upon the need for anarchic economic calculation, with the claim that a lack of anarchy would result in poor, perhaps incredibly poor functioning of the economic system. The issue of self-interest is just one other factor in this whole display. Besides, no socialist system can be purely democratic anyway, the bureaucratic mechanisms will have to play a very dominant role, and the interplay between the democratic and bureaucratic controls of the economy will likely end up with an increase in inefficiency there as well, as voters are likely worse predictors of their yearly needs than they are as shoppers towards their weekly needs, but plans need to be long run, and so the tension between foolish voters, and unconcerned bureaucrats will hold it's own large problems that will likely be insoluble.

I find this talk disgusting. I feel the same way about libs as I do about autism speaks. They make it seem as if we are to stupid to take care of ourselves. All the ideas about draining the rich to give to the poor, is only because the rich have proven they can take care of themselves, and are therefore without need for an overactive government. I myself am not rich, I'm a child in a single parent home where the main source of income is waiter's tips. but I know how to make money, and I don't want the government to forget it's role as supreme law-making body over being a nanny. If a person can't make it alone, I would be disgusted if people didn't help him/her. But being forced to do so is completely different, and disgusting in itself. So the libs need to quit playing "Robin Hood" and work on the matters at hand. There are a group of people who want to destroy America. We are currently buying too much oil from Iran while they use the extra to fund their nuclear ambitions. There is too much money being spent on worthless programs to be robbing people of hard-earned money. (At least Robin Hood stole from those who stole what little money some people had, which in effect was giving poor people their money back, rather than taking from the rich and giving the poor what isn't theirs.)

but your icon has a character invented by a very left wing anarchist

Check.