The EVILution of Communism by James Lindsay

[Cognisant]

Here's a link to a series of videos that are a deep dive into Progressiveness, Communism, etc.
The EVILution of Communism Workshop
These lectures range from 1.5 to over 2 hours long and the last one should be of particular interest to anyone from the UK or Australia as he basically explains how/why our political systems are soo messed up.

Fair warning these videos are incredibly information dense and cover a lot time periods and topics.

You're not obligated to engage with any of this, don't whine at me that I'm not spoon feeding you 3+ hours of content.
I'm posting this to share something I found interesting and enjoyed watching, I hope you benefit from it too.

 

[Cognisant]

Actually I do have a summary, although these are my thoughts after watching the videos I linked to.

At the absolute most foundational level what motivates Marxists is the same thing that motivates Marx, and is why his philosophy is endearingly popular with upper class over educated well connected dipshits.

They hate working.

They want a totalitarian government that has absolute power, a society in which people have no property rights, so that the wealth generated by the productive people is shared with everyone. Of course it's never the productive people who want this, the workers don't want communism they just want some common sense reforms.

However to be fair I also hate working and I think living in a Star Trek society where nobody has to work would be awesome, but I'm a technological determinism, I don't think we're going to enjoy that lifestyle until we have that level of technology.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Even in a society with no economic incentive to put in labor, the ones who are willingly doing so (engage in labor) are still going to accrue more capital be it social/peripheral capital.

Then there's having the skills of orchestrating resources, be it human or material. That again aligns with what we have as an economy today.

I think the upper class, more specifically old money aristocrats overestimate their own skills and ability to fit that mold in a social economy.

The dynamic would be way different if people's needs able to be met without individual effort.

I do think that everyone born into such a society would be a toddler until their mid thirties. But honestly that's the way things are going now, and reactionaries hate that and blame it on a society which is built off scarcity and untethered capitalism.

Just a sign you're suffering of success if you ask me.

 

[melin376]

Actually I do have a summary, although these are my thoughts after watching the videos I linked to.

At the absolute most foundational level what motivates Marxists is the same thing that motivates Marx, and is why his philosophy is endearingly popular with upper class over educated well connected dipshits.

They hate working.

They want a totalitarian government that has absolute power, a society in which people have no property rights, so that the wealth generated by the productive people is shared with everyone. Of course it's never the productive people who want this, the workers don't want communism they just want some common sense reforms.

However to be fair I also hate working and I think living in a Star Trek society where nobody has to work would be awesome, but I'm a technological determinism, I don't think we're going to enjoy that lifestyle until we have that level of technology.

the gap between wanting a fairer society and how that actually plays out in reality is a tricky one.

 

[fluffy]

Actually I do have a summary, although these are my thoughts after watching the videos I linked to.

At the absolute most foundational level what motivates Marxists is the same thing that motivates Marx, and is why his philosophy is endearingly popular with upper class over educated well connected dipshits.

They hate working.

They want a totalitarian government that has absolute power, a society in which people have no property rights, so that the wealth generated by the productive people is shared with everyone. Of course it's never the productive people who want this, the workers don't want communism they just want some common sense reforms.

However to be fair I also hate working and I think living in a Star Trek society where nobody has to work would be awesome, but I'm a technological determinism, I don't think we're going to enjoy that lifestyle until we have that level of technology.

the gap between wanting a fairer society and how that actually plays out in reality is a tricky one.

If a person has blue hair does this have anything to do with what cog is saying? Personally can be influenced by many factors and we can not say why the left and right are different without knowing them. Why blue hair? Anything else? It is odd we cannot nail this down to a concrete explanation.

 

[fluffy]

Actually I do have a summary, although these are my thoughts after watching the videos I linked to.

At the absolute most foundational level what motivates Marxists is the same thing that motivates Marx, and is why his philosophy is endearingly popular with upper class over educated well connected dipshits.

They hate working.

They want a totalitarian government that has absolute power, a society in which people have no property rights, so that the wealth generated by the productive people is shared with everyone. Of course it's never the productive people who want this, the workers don't want communism they just want some common sense reforms.

However to be fair I also hate working and I think living in a Star Trek society where nobody has to work would be awesome, but I'm a technological determinism, I don't think we're going to enjoy that lifestyle until we have that level of technology.

the gap between wanting a fairer society and how that actually plays out in reality is a tricky one.

If a person has blue hair does this have anything to do with what cog is saying? Personally can be influenced by many factors and we can not say why the left and right are different without knowing them. Why blue hair? Anything else? It is odd we cannot nail this down to a concrete explanation.

Work is not even the issue, but the type of work.

What is production. It is something to do with physical goods. So what is working without physical goods, it is service work, and mental paperwork work.

Most physically work is done by the right and the other work by the left. But in cases that work is done, both requires some mental effort.

Maybe blue hair has something to do with this, I don't know. But I think the same persons who depend on the economy cannot do without either workers not working.

We need all kinds of work to keep the economy running.

Class systems today are not the ones Marx saw in the 1830's but poor people had been taken advantage of where today few people are poor in the sense of poverty back then.

Cog seems to not understand that a class system where upper class people exist was what Marx talked about. But back then you were rich or poor with no middle class.

In fact class struggles is why cog gets frustrated. The workers against the blue hair upper class people is the same as Marx said.

 

[fractalwalrus]

At the absolute most foundational level what motivates Marxists is the same thing that motivates Marx, and is why his philosophy is endearingly popular with upper class over educated well connected dipshits.

They hate working.

For people who hate working, they sure have seemed to put in a lot of work to take over our societies as you claim they have done.

They want a totalitarian government that has absolute power, a society in which people have no property rights, so that the wealth generated by the productive people is shared with everyone. Of course it's never the productive people who want this, the workers don't want communism they just want some common sense reforms.

Right, that darned stateless, classless, totalitarian society they keep talking about. And, when these Marxists refer to property, they make distinctions between private and personal property, but that takes some reading to understand. Furthermore, it would seem to me that if I were lazy I would be a capitalist, so that I would not have to share a business with the people who work for it. I could, under capitalism, invest my money in the right stocks, or own a business and never work a day in my life. Plenty of people do this now.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Cog seems to not understand that a class system where upper class people exist was what Marx talked about. But back then you were rich or poor with no middle class.

In fact class struggles is why cog gets frustrated. The workers against the blue hair upper class people is the same as Marx said.

Marx's class distinction was between those who owned the means of production, and those who worked for those who owned the means of production. It was not referring explicitly to income brackets. I would have thought an edgelord would be interested in picking up the one author their government and mainstream media tell them not to read cuz he is teh evilz, but no. Instead, you get yokels on YouTube talking about stuff they know nothing about because it gets them clicks to spout back socially appropriate points. They'll strawman the arguments so hard that nary a crow or any other bird would dare land in the field. Whatever, I can't make anyone learn. People gonna go for feelz over reelz almost every time. And this is an observation from someone who tries to be as impartial as possible. I'll chime in and defend conservatives when I think their ideology is being misrepresented, but, you know what, it doesn't matter. Some people are here to play, not to learn.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Cog to me seems to be making a judgment about Marxism, and alludes to it being liked by the upper class.

The insinuation being that societies where "Marxist" policies are implemented destroy the working class and magnifies the bougies.

A likely story.

I guess you can say that Marx indeed published books and made a certain sociopolitical analysis public. The Communist Manifesto.

I don't think he was starting a club at all. Lmao.

But I'm pretty sure Marx hasn't been alive for a while, and he's probably rolling in his grave because he ultimately failed his goal, and I guess according to Cogs post, the private school hipster atheist that picked up Marxism in college haven't been doing that great.

Marx saw the obsession with utility to be part of the very thorn in humanities side, saw it to be part of a cycle of humans destroying themselves.

The idea that people who were attracted to Marx because they thought like is dubious at best.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Marx was ultimately absolutely right.
I challenge anyone finding something he wrote that is incorrect.
I have yet to see anyone study his work and find whats wrong with it.
Whether people understand his work is another story.

 

[Hadoblado]

Ummm the collapse of capitalism and its replacement by socialism?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Ummm the collapse of capitalism and its replacement by socialism?

That still can happen, but I don't mean that. For whats it worth, his claims vs his observations of capitalism.

His observation of capitalism is on point.

I don't think he measures up to modern day economist, but at the time that was comprehensive work. Its still studied today.

 

[Cognisant]

Capitalism is a terrible system, truly awful, nobody can deny it.

But it works better than anything else.

 

[Haim]

Marx was ultimately absolutely right.
I challenge anyone finding something he wrote that is incorrect.
I have yet to see anyone study his work and find whats wrong with it.
Whether people understand his work is another story.

That is like saying coca cola ad was right "Things go better with Coke"
Its about creating a group the "not rich" those creating an identity.
The new identity will support a new government that will have the power centralized to it, it will use this propaganda to gain support. It was never about equality from the first place. Than there the true goal which is the perpetual destruction of the current identities. Be it family, class, race, religion, humanity, culture or nationality. That is the identity of a communist, its operating system, if its something that oppose your very identity then its good.

 

[ZenRaiden]

But it works better than anything else.

I mean sure. But again dodging the challenge.

You guys got nothing on Marx. NOFFING

 

[Hadoblado]

I think Cog is basically right here. Marx made a lot of scathing criticisms of capitalism (most of which I at least partially agree with), but his overall conclusions regarding capitalism seem wrong or at least lack perspective. Capitalism has done an insane amount of work for improving our quality of life. It's also extremely adaptable. Any system with the means to replace capitalism is likely leveraging something far worse than capitalism to achieve it. Marx didn't see soviet Russia coming.

If we treat Marx's vision like Marx treated capitalism, we've got to admit to the corrupting influence of perverse incentives in revolution. There is more to power dynamics than capital. The chances that a socialist revolution results in a functional socialist society are low.

 

[ZenRaiden]

There are literally economist who disagree.

This is basically coming down to ideology or school of thought territory.

Thinking certain way is just indoctrination of sorts.

You have certain theoretical ideas, then they translate to the wide world.

I do recommend watching this guy, because hes very bright and actually covers good reasons as well easy to follow.

Make of it what you will, but ultimately Marxs criticism is not the issue. Was he wrong or not is the issue.

 

[ZenRaiden]

There is more to power dynamics than capital. The chances that a socialist revolution results in a functional socialist society are low.

The big dynamic was innovation. Technology does not run on capitalism.
Capitalism may help innovation, but without knowledge capitalism would be just slavery with extra steps.

How is some coalminer or guy in fords factory barely surviving on low wage helping the economy really. There are people like Milton Freedman that would have you believe that is basically the motor of economy, but it is actually worker rights and overall push for better living standards of working class people that we get to have more, instead of slaving away 16 hours a day or worse having child labor.

Don't be duped by big head people who want your wealth.

I know hot shots who think that they will hit it big once in life and be rich and those pesky socialist would have them stripped of that fortune, but reality paints a different picture. Its almost always rich people from the elite class who forward ideas of capitalism raising living standards. Which is defacto fallacy. One only needs to stop putting cart before the horse.
And look at history. Marx in context of history was right.
People need reminders that capitalism in its early stages was ruthless.
That is why people need to study history.
Because without that understanding anyone can claim anything nonsensical as it maybe.

One thing is for sure plebs always get cheated out of their wealth by financiers.

 

[sushi]

Marx was ultimately absolutely right.
I challenge anyone finding something he wrote that is incorrect.
I have yet to see anyone study his work and find whats wrong with it.
Whether people understand his work is another story.

abolishing private property doesnt solve any problems

the best the state can do is do more to help the poor rather than completely eliminating capitalism

its like someone can enter into your home and live with you if private property ceased to exist.

He is right about capitalism but wrong about socialism, das kapital was pretty straightfoward about how capitalism works.

probably the best direction in future society is all basic needs like food and water reach post scarcity level, while abstract needs continue to be bought and sold.

 

[Hadoblado]

There is more to power dynamics than capital. The chances that a socialist revolution results in a functional socialist society are low.

The big dynamic was innovation. Technology does not run on capitalism.
Capitalism may help innovation, but without knowledge capitalism would be just slavery with extra steps.

How is some coalminer or guy in fords factory barely surviving on low wage helping the economy really. There are people like Milton Freedman that would have you believe that is basically the motor of economy, but it is actually worker rights and overall push for better living standards of working class people that we get to have more, instead of slaving away 16 hours a day or worse having child labor.

Don't be duped by big head people who want your wealth.

I know hot shots who think that they will hit it big once in life and be rich and those pesky socialist would have them stripped of that fortune, but reality paints a different picture. Its almost always rich people from the elite class who forward ideas of capitalism raising living standards. Which is defacto fallacy. One only needs to stop putting cart before the horse.
And look at history. Marx in context of history was right.
People need reminders that capitalism in its early stages was ruthless.
That is why people need to study history.
Because without that understanding anyone can claim anything nonsensical as it maybe.

One thing is for sure plebs always get cheated out of their wealth by financiers.

What does technology run on? Because historically there's a pretty glaring correlation between capitalism and innovation.

How does cheap/free labour help an economy? Really?

Don't mistake me for some capitalist fanboy, but if you can't acknowledge the upsides of capitalism you're kinda lost.

 

[ZenRaiden]

How does cheap/free labour help an economy? Really?

Whats the goal of economy?

What does technology run on?

I acknowledged economy is important for innovation. Its a close loop.

abolishing private property doesnt solve any problems

Eh, depends how we look at it. It can be argued it does.
I saudi people have UBI in extreme case, they own their oil.
By your logic Saudi people should just relinquish ownership of their oil.
Would that help their economy?
So clearly there are cases to be made for private and common property.

 

[fluffy]

Finance world is about taking money by debts.

But then you cannot take everything.

Like 95% of people are not rich not even 99% not even 99.9% - they can just rebuild after the collapse because they actually have the physical goods on hand. The property the computers, the books to know how to recreate civilization. I'd say that's the plan by some groups. Who will take my house when the bank doesn't exist? Myself I could have a job at the farm locally, but then Chicago, New York and L.A. they might be abandoned.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Back when Muhammad Ali had the worlds attention he would use it to "speak truth to power" which shows the most unlikely union of Islam and Communism never to be seen publicly again.

I would look to them if you're tyring to judge Marxism and what Marxist would say today would say. They probably have more updated lexicon and way of thinking now of course, but if you're doing research on it I would start there..

Ali was friends with the likes of Malcom X, who was killed, and also straight up said he was a communist. Not at random I would note.

This honestly is the driving force of people who can justify violence. Inspiration for Americans going forward for sure.

It's the thing to talk about if you're trying to challenge lefties. Malcom X's philosophy on the utilization of violence is past that blurry line that which everyone would disagree within.

Violence can be justified of course. In self-defense for example. However history is told by the victors.

This whole "Capitalism is the worst, except for everything else" attitude doesn't lead anywhere.

We can aim for a more prosperous society. There were times in the past where we hypothetically lived in prosperity but it isn't anymore. Why is that? It's just that the people who hold the keys to power would rather protect their interest. And in this system, who am I to challenge that? I was born, I did not get to pick to be who I am and neither did they.

Ultimately,
Government owns all the land. Property...
it is a market economy. The big players are gonna play ball or not. They can only give out so many opportunities, so it's a game of chance at some point unless youre in the top 10%.
Hope you were dealt good cards.

Is that really the world we live in? Where you either fold or hang on a hope someone else doesn't have it better than you do?

Fucking wack.

 

[scorpiomover]

Actually I do have a summary, although these are my thoughts after watching the videos I linked to.

At the absolute most foundational level what motivates Marxists is the same thing that motivates Marx, and is why his philosophy is endearingly popular with upper class over educated well connected dipshits.

They hate working.

They want a totalitarian government that has absolute power, a society in which people have no property rights, so that the wealth generated by the productive people is shared with everyone. Of course it's never the productive people who want this, the workers don't want communism they just want some common sense reforms.

Are you sure Marx wasn't motivated to get rid of the class system, because he was a Jew in 19th Century Europe, who wanted to marry an upper-class posh German woman called Jenny Von Westphalen and wasn't allowed to, because he was the wrong class?

 

[Cognisant]

Wow that's soo relatable, no wonder he's a household name to this day.

No I'm pretty sure he was just a useless sack of shit who developed a philosophy justifying him being a useless sack of shit, which has lasting appeal to useless sacks of shit.

 

[scorpiomover]

I think Cog is basically right here. Marx made a lot of scathing criticisms of capitalism (most of which I at least partially agree with), but his overall conclusions regarding capitalism seem wrong or at least lack perspective. Capitalism has done an insane amount of work for improving our quality of life. It's also extremely adaptable. Any system with the means to replace capitalism is likely leveraging something far worse than capitalism to achieve it.

To understand the complaints against capitalism, you have to understand what it was being compared against, what came before it, i.e. feudal serfdon, and what problems that occurred in capitalism, that didn't occur under feudal serfdom.

Marx didn't see soviet Russia coming.

Doubt so. Was pretty obvious. "Oh, let's get rid of the aristocracy. Who will make decisions for us, now? Who will be in charge? Oh, let's put the middle-class bourgeousie in charge, instead. They're smarter than us working-class stiffs."

If we treat Marx's vision like Marx treated capitalism, we've got to admit to the corrupting influence of perverse incentives in revolution. There is more to power dynamics than capital. The chances that a socialist revolution results in a functional socialist society are low.

But isn't that what most Western countries have had? A socialist revolution that has affected everything, from women's rights to LGBT rights, to anti-racism laws, to green taxes that help us 'save the planet'?

 

[Cognisant]

We have had a civil liberties revolution and ecological awareness revolution, which is not to say all problems have been solved, but they're not really problems like they used to be. Women can vote, we don't have a patriarchy like in Islamic countries where women are literal second class citizens, we don't have actual chattel slavery which still exists in the most backwards and barbaric parts of the world. We may not be net carbon zero yet and we may disagree internally about how to go about it, but on the whole the western world is moving towards that target at an incredible pace.

But no amount of progress is every enough for the progressives, the long march of progress must continue, there must always be another revolution, this is their seat of power and the revolutionaries are far too comfortable in it to give it up.

So now we have progress for the sake of progress, the kind of progress that nobody reasonable asked for or wants.

Imo the only "progress" that matters is technological progress and every other kind of progress is a consequence of that, it's no coincidence that the feminist movement occurred alongside the proliferation of electricity and washing machines. If you think washing your clothes is a pain in the butt now imagine having to do it all by hand, having to start a fire in a wood stove to boil water, having to constantly visit the market because you couldn't refrigerate food.

Back in the day a woman's work was never done! Taking care of a household was a full time back-breaking job, hence why little old ladies from the greatest generation had a reputation for being tough as nails, because they were!

The trans problem will continue to be a problem until the technological challenge of successfully and completely transitioning someone is solved and then overnight the world will change and it won't be a social issue anymore. Ended, forever.

 

[Hadoblado]

I think Cog is basically right here. Marx made a lot of scathing criticisms of capitalism (most of which I at least partially agree with), but his overall conclusions regarding capitalism seem wrong or at least lack perspective. Capitalism has done an insane amount of work for improving our quality of life. It's also extremely adaptable. Any system with the means to replace capitalism is likely leveraging something far worse than capitalism to achieve it.

To understand the complaints against capitalism, you have to understand what it was being compared against, what came before it, i.e. feudal serfdon, and what problems that occurred in capitalism, that didn't occur under feudal serfdom.

Marx didn't see soviet Russia coming.

Doubt so. Was pretty obvious. "Oh, let's get rid of the aristocracy. Who will make decisions for us, now? Who will be in charge? Oh, let's put the middle-class bourgeousie in charge, instead. They're smarter than us working-class stiffs."

If we treat Marx's vision like Marx treated capitalism, we've got to admit to the corrupting influence of perverse incentives in revolution. There is more to power dynamics than capital. The chances that a socialist revolution results in a functional socialist society are low.

But isn't that what most Western countries have had? A socialist revolution that has affected everything, from women's rights to LGBT rights, to anti-racism laws, to green taxes that help us 'save the planet'?

A socialist revolution? What no. Socialism != government doing stuff.

 

[Haim]

Actually I do have a summary, although these are my thoughts after watching the videos I linked to.

At the absolute most foundational level what motivates Marxists is the same thing that motivates Marx, and is why his philosophy is endearingly popular with upper class over educated well connected dipshits.

They hate working.

They want a totalitarian government that has absolute power, a society in which people have no property rights, so that the wealth generated by the productive people is shared with everyone. Of course it's never the productive people who want this, the workers don't want communism they just want some common sense reforms.

Are you sure Marx wasn't motivated to get rid of the class system, because he was a Jew in 19th Century Europe, who wanted to marry an upper-class posh German woman called Jenny Von Westphalen and wasn't allowed to, because he was the wrong class?

Some Jews try to reject their identity. Its kind of like feminist that try to reject the thing that make her woman identity, in the end of the day she is a woman so it end up causing cognitive dissonance which lead to craziness.
Those Jews want to have another identity, usually the identity they want is the local population. Marx was an advanced version of that, he will reject his identity and also another people will reject theirs, ending up with null identity, the dystopian globalist human. The communist is the identity which will lead the process to null identity.

 

[Cognisant]

Spoiler

Everything progressive, such as identity politics, is just a means to an end for the communists, poison for the libertarian capitalist regime. The moment the communists are in control all pretence is dropped and the purge begins.

The left vs right divide isn't libertarianism vs conservatism, both the far left and far right are conservative, it's just that the far right are libertarian conservatives and the far left are authoritarian conservatives.

Fascists are also authoritarian conservatives, there's no actual difference, both systems represent the absolute consolidation of power in governmental authority. They hate each other for the same reason every sect of Islam hates the others, they're all running the same playbook, all in direct competition for the same resources. It's conquer or be conquered.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I think Cog is basically right here. Marx made a lot of scathing criticisms of capitalism (most of which I at least partially agree with), but his overall conclusions regarding capitalism seem wrong or at least lack perspective. Capitalism has done an insane amount of work for improving our quality of life. It's also extremely adaptable. Any system with the means to replace capitalism is likely leveraging something far worse than capitalism to achieve it.

To understand the complaints against capitalism, you have to understand what it was being compared against, what came before it, i.e. feudal serfdon, and what problems that occurred in capitalism, that didn't occur under feudal serfdom.

Marx didn't see soviet Russia coming.

Doubt so. Was pretty obvious. "Oh, let's get rid of the aristocracy. Who will make decisions for us, now? Who will be in charge? Oh, let's put the middle-class bourgeousie in charge, instead. They're smarter than us working-class stiffs."

If we treat Marx's vision like Marx treated capitalism, we've got to admit to the corrupting influence of perverse incentives in revolution. There is more to power dynamics than capital. The chances that a socialist revolution results in a functional socialist society are low.

But isn't that what most Western countries have had? A socialist revolution that has affected everything, from women's rights to LGBT rights, to anti-racism laws, to green taxes that help us 'save the planet'?

Marx was accurate in his analysis due to predicting revolutions all over the world that would throw out colonial monarchy.

Rather he didn't make the prediction he saw such repeating pattern, and figure that after such revolutions the people would make the virtually everything better.

If you compare the nuanced differences in say:

The people of France chopping the heads off of all nobility and royalty vs. Russian royalty being gunned down by an inside plot of mutiny

There are many differences and contexts in each statement and respective circumstance.

You might get a lot of credit in liberal circles for dunking on Reagan (who got his ideas from Milton Friedman IIRC) for shaping us into this hell hole, but it won't get mainstream appeal, because hardly anyone is intelligent nor dutiful enough to educate themselves to such a high level to actually give useful criticisms.

Friedman himself is the progenitor of neo-liberalism. HE was a libertarian. The furthest you can get from socialism.

If you have an issue with how things work, you can find a very big example of a libertarians policies being implemented, and it being generally shitty for decades. It's always becoming clearer just how shitty it was. Again. Even within the scope of our policy options as a capitalist nation, we do not have to be fucking libertarians.

There are some places in the South where there is a district of water municipalities every other block. And they don't all use the same water purification process. AND THE DIRECTOR OF EACH DISTRICT IS ELECTED? WHO IS RUNNING THAT PLACE? HOW IS THIS MORE EFFICIENT? HOW MUCH TIME AND EFFORT IS REQUIRED TO-

People think they have the smoking pistol and just say COMMUNIST RUSSIA????? Were policies that had socialist ends instituted, within a government that had the trust of its people?

So, maybe you can go to your conservative circle jerks and talk about that and people already agree with you. But I'd like an actually quality discussion.

Not that I am directing that at anyone. Surely no one on the forum dips down the quality of posts. Couldn't be me.

 

[Haim]

What is your point? that government is inefficient?
That specifically USA government is inefficient and bad?
Well you don't fucking say so.
Nothing to do with to topic which speak about a macro system.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

What is your point? that government is inefficient?
That specifically USA government is inefficient and bad?
Well you don't fucking say so.
Nothing to do with to topic which speak about a macro system.

Your words don't even connect to anything I say.

Read a book on Systems Design or Systems Thinking or something.

If a system is inefficient, it can be made efficient. It is possible to be too efficient, at which point you are sacrificing heat exposure for that efficiency. Which isn't a problem if you can cool down. But if you cannot cool down, such heat can damage the system.

What is your point? Or is your point that my point is relevant and you want a deeper explanation on something specific. Please do tell.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I need to make a graph out of post-it notes for mfs I guess

Do you prefer apples or oranges?

 

[Haim]

What is your point? that government is inefficient?
That specifically USA government is inefficient and bad?
Well you don't fucking say so.
Nothing to do with to topic which speak about a macro system.

Your words don't even connect to anything I say.

Read a book on Systems Design or Systems Thinking or something.

If a system is inefficient, it can be made efficient. It is possible to be too efficient, at which point you are sacrificing heat exposure for that efficiency. Which isn't a problem if you can cool down. But if you cannot cool down, such heat can damage the system.

What is your point? Or is your point that my point is relevant and you want a deeper explanation on something specific. Please do tell.

My point is there pretty much any government ever existing have some inefficiency and made some bad decision. It like comparing china police force to USA by stating that in the USA 20 years ago there was this case of corrupt policemen, it just irrelevant. You would want to compare at large scale not some specific policy, you need to look at things such as the 4th amendment or not being able to kill a person without due process.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

What is your point? that government is inefficient?
That specifically USA government is inefficient and bad?
Well you don't fucking say so.
Nothing to do with to topic which speak about a macro system.

Your words don't even connect to anything I say.

Read a book on Systems Design or Systems Thinking or something.

If a system is inefficient, it can be made efficient. It is possible to be too efficient, at which point you are sacrificing heat exposure for that efficiency. Which isn't a problem if you can cool down. But if you cannot cool down, such heat can damage the system.

What is your point? Or is your point that my point is relevant and you want a deeper explanation on something specific. Please do tell.

My point is there pretty much any government ever existing have some inefficiency and made some bad decision. It like comparing china police force to USA by stating that in the USA 20 years ago there was this case of corrupt policemen, it just irrelevant. You would want to compare at large scale not some specific policy, you need to look at things such as the 4th amendment or not being able to kill a person without due process.

You're saying I'm equivocating. That is a start.

Texas as a key example has failed Texans several times in the last five years.

It's just one big company for the power grid. But the only "generate" the power. You have the "choice" to choose between electricity providers. They all have different offers and business models There is an illusion of choice.

You are being charged, so they can run the run the power grid, so they can charge you again, for giving you the power grid. This is the recourse available to most people.

The labor of the average person is grazed upon by the upper class and the upper class can at any point pollute the local sources of water at a moments notice without the people's permission. SpaceX and Tesla? Yeah, he has the means, let him do it, where it is most convenient for him. Fuck what everyone else thinks.

Instead of making it one asshole (the government) you have to worry about with the government regulatory process, you have to worry about several assholes.

Libertarianism is basically rule by assholes, and like the ocean, there's always a bigger asshole.

If you want to talk about the macro-scale, assume that we could restrict the behavior of super large nations, China, is operating based off of an ideology of libertarianism. If we were to allow that, China would quickly usurp dominance in a playing field where others are friendly and don't have defenses.

If you want to imply that we should have libertarian policies for foreign affairs, as well as domestic affairs, that is your opinion and you are entitled to that.

I think that's disastrous. I as an American who is persuing their higher education, will benefit from that scenario. People who aren't like me will not. For me it is a thing of sympathy.

Of course I'm referring to a dogmatic view of libertarianism. My point is, that it's not lacking any tact in what I'm talking about. Give me freedom or give me death. You would rather live under rule of a tyrannical government than die trying to destroy one.

 

[scorpiomover]

If we treat Marx's vision like Marx treated capitalism, we've got to admit to the corrupting influence of perverse incentives in revolution. There is more to power dynamics than capital. The chances that a socialist revolution results in a functional socialist society are low.

But isn't that what most Western countries have had? A socialist revolution that has affected everything, from women's rights to LGBT rights, to anti-racism laws, to green taxes that help us 'save the planet'?

A socialist revolution? What no. Socialism != government doing stuff.

If your claim is true, then:
A) How do you define socialism?
B) What objective traits do people who define themselves as socialists have in common?

 

[Haim]

That is specific to USA stupid government and could happen in any century including China. We are talking about thing in the order of magnitude that you will disappear because you posted something on twitter. I mean like you wake up on the morning and care about the stupid structure of the electricity company? I get if you were talking about Comcast, that not a kind of thing that change your life.
The all water thing seem stupid to me, really that one rocket will have that much effect? if you cared about the environment you would think about the fuel that burned, that fuel that can be saved from more efficient space flight and the fuel that can be saved by not having space program at all(aside from satellites).

Again you give an example which can happen in any country, as if China does not have corporations. It would be good for USA to have regulations which benefit the public and not make busywork without solving any issue. For example the recent regulation which effected Steam, the issue is they sell you license which they can revoke at any time, from a gray area which you could claim buying a game is a purchase agreement which include a license they fucking forced them to tell you "you own nothing and you will like it", they could have made it so they must give your money back or making it that a buying a license for a game is a purchase agreement and not just license.

Considering USA foreign spending, it is really a sensitive topic, really hard to say.
From my country perspective on the one hand without your aid we are probably fucked for short term or forever term on the another hand we would be in a position where we can or must actually solve the issue and not do temporary half measures with soft gloves. From USA perspective there is a lot to lose, first there is the tech and the field tests, then there is the geopolitical advantage. If the petrodollar collapse you are really fucked, Iran is a big treat to the petrodollar, not to mention that after Israel the Arab wars will be with EU or between countries with oil or USA. We are cultural compass to the west, the western culture will collapse sooner without us, without reference point it is easy for politicians to change people identity from western one to whatever is going on in UK.
In 7 October we had a harsh lesson of the cost of not fighting. Not giving Ukraine aid could mean losing a place where you can lunch nukes and another missiles to Russia. It could also mean less power to NATO and not having world government, hard to say what the long term effect. Another possibility is an collapse of Russia government, that could mean a new government that will make Russia an economic power house, which can be good or bad. It would also mean Russian refugees, which mean less chance of Islamic conquest of EU countries.
Not fighting in Arab countries could mean Islamic conquest of EU. There is a reason the crusade wars started, it was the Muslim conquest of Spain. The Muslims already done the same to many countries, there were non Muslims countries before they invaded, now no one remember them as if they were always Muslim states.
With that said it need to be done in a wise manner, giving guns to one group so they can shoot you tomorrow is fucking stupid.
Giving Yemen humanitarian aid is fucking stupid, without the aid the Houthi would be fucked, it will be much better for the Yemeni people. Before Nazi Germany collapsed people were starving to death, the all point of modern war is economic, the all fucking point is causing collapse.

 

[Hadoblado]

If we treat Marx's vision like Marx treated capitalism, we've got to admit to the corrupting influence of perverse incentives in revolution. There is more to power dynamics than capital. The chances that a socialist revolution results in a functional socialist society are low.

But isn't that what most Western countries have had? A socialist revolution that has affected everything, from women's rights to LGBT rights, to anti-racism laws, to green taxes that help us 'save the planet'?

A socialist revolution? What no. Socialism != government doing stuff.

If your claim is true, then:
A) How do you define socialism?
B) What objective traits do people who define themselves as socialists have in common?

Bare minimum for socialism is collective ownership of means of production. The existence of government does not imply socialism. Women having rights is not socialism. Races being equal under the law is not socialism. Blue hair is not socialism.

Sorry for tone, I'm a little exasperated at people broadening the term to encompass anything and everything beyond the conservative spectrum.

 

[Haim]

That is not really the current meaning of socialism, it basically
when the government spend resources in collective manner, like food stamps, health care and unemployment benefits. So basically you take money from everyone and give to one person/family.

 

[fluffy]

The only socialism that works is in Norway and most people there don't have blue hair.

I cannot see how much it even is socialism because the laws need government to enforce it and we will never get this in the USA

 

[Hadoblado]

That is not really the current meaning of socialism, it basically
when the government spend resources in collective manner, like food stamps, health care and unemployment benefits. So basically you take money from everyone and give to one person/family.

I am aware, but we were talking specifically about Marx, not the semantic engineering of the term to broaden to mean anything conservatives don't like.

I personally reject the shift in terminology as it lowers the resolution of political discourse even further, as evidenced by both yours and Scorpio's response.

1) I said Marx was wrong about capitalism collapsing and a successful socialist revolution.
2) Scorpio conflated Marx's socialism w/ women's rights and racial equality
3) I try to course correct (albeit tactlessly)
4) You insist that Scorpio's interpretation is correct without considering the context of the conversation

We were talking about Marx. Now, we're messing around with semantics. Diluting the term serves no purpose but to confuse everyone.

Marx was wrong. Capitalism is not overthrown. Socialism (as a transitionary phase between capitalism and communism) has not come to pass. Other social movements have occurred, and mixed economies are both normal and healthy, but they're not a step toward communism. They're ends in themselves because they work better than either pure communism or pure capitalism.

 

[Cognisant]

Bare minimum for socialism is collective ownership of means of production.

Collective (read: government) ownership of the means of production isn't socialism, that's full on communism.

Socialism isn't inherently a bad thing, a pension for the elderly is socialism, unemployment assistance for people between jobs is socialism, when done correctly socialism is society creating a safety net for its citizens, I'm quite happy for my tax dollars to go towards providing homeless people food and shelter.

Socialism as a stepping stone towards communism is when the government essentially dominates the economy through excessive taxation, this includes printing money, which it uses to fund excessive support programs which make people dependent on the government either for hand outs or employment.

Australia is a socialist country, one in five workers are a public servant and government spending is just under 28% of the GDP, when a government dominates the economy like this the free market isn't free. The government may not literally own the means of production (collectivization) but it doesn't have to, it can play kingmaker, your business lives or dies based on government regulations and handouts.

Edit: I know if you Google "socialism" this isn't the definition it gives you, I'm saying that definition is wrong, because if collective ownership of the means of production is socialism then what is the distinction between socialism and communism?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Technically everything the US government does is socialist because it was likely done with tax revenue.

We elect representatives to manage that for our interest.

If that interest is a program that benefits us it's not necessarily socialist.

See socialist is just a label people put on policy they don't like in the post ww2 era.

It was convenient then, now it's just petulance and hubris.

You have to be willing to accept ideas you aren't comfortable with to actually get at the root of an issue.

You basically are claiming you have the genealogy of some abstract class of political policy: socialist.

Every demonstration to say a policy is socialist would require reading the bill a policy gets it's power from, line by line and determining what the outcome of every provision and statement would read as.

You want to put a label. And make what you think is bad an easier target. Good for you. Have fun swinging in midair I guess.

 

[scorpiomover]

I think Cog is basically right here. Marx made a lot of scathing criticisms of capitalism (most of which I at least partially agree with), but his overall conclusions regarding capitalism seem wrong or at least lack perspective. Capitalism has done an insane amount of work for improving our quality of life. It's also extremely adaptable. Any system with the means to replace capitalism is likely leveraging something far worse than capitalism to achieve it.

To understand the complaints against capitalism, you have to understand what it was being compared against, what came before it, i.e. feudal serfdon, and what problems that occurred in capitalism, that didn't occur under feudal serfdom.

Marx didn't see soviet Russia coming.

Doubt so. Was pretty obvious. "Oh, let's get rid of the aristocracy. Who will make decisions for us, now? Who will be in charge? Oh, let's put the middle-class bourgeousie in charge, instead. They're smarter than us working-class stiffs."

If we treat Marx's vision like Marx treated capitalism, we've got to admit to the corrupting influence of perverse incentives in revolution. There is more to power dynamics than capital. The chances that a socialist revolution results in a functional socialist society are low.

But isn't that what most Western countries have had? A socialist revolution that has affected everything, from women's rights to LGBT rights, to anti-racism laws, to green taxes that help us 'save the planet'?

Marx was accurate in his analysis due to predicting revolutions all over the world that would throw out colonial monarchy.

OK. But does that mean he is always right about everything? People are right when their logic makes sense, not because they got lucky about a prediction that happens to occur.

Rather he didn't make the prediction he saw such repeating pattern, and figure that after such revolutions the people would make the virtually everything better.

If you compare the nuanced differences in say:

The people of France chopping the heads off of all nobility and royalty vs. Russian royalty being gunned down by an inside plot of mutiny

There are many differences and contexts in each statement and respective circumstance.

You might get a lot of credit in liberal circles for dunking on Reagan (who got his ideas from Milton Friedman IIRC) for shaping us into this hell hole, but it won't get mainstream appeal, because hardly anyone is intelligent nor dutiful enough to educate themselves to such a high level to actually give useful criticisms.

That's kind of the problem. Giving good advice is hard work. The more effort you put into understanding the situation, and the more effort you put into figuring out a viable solution, the better the chances of your solution being viable. The better your odds, the better the cumulatives results of all of your policies over the long term and so the better your overall results. So to give advice that will make the lives of over 300 million people's lives better, you need to give really good advice, and that takes a huge effort to figure out, and a lot of effort to understand fully.

Friedman himself is the progenitor of neo-liberalism. HE was a libertarian. The furthest you can get from socialism.

Most modern socialists favour neo-liberalist policies, such as PPIs (Public-Private Initiatives). Old-fashioned socialists favoured old-fashioned socialist policies such as nationalisation.

Spoiler: A bit of history

In the 1700s, classical liberalism became popular. This was the idea that without a monarchy or aristocracy, with everyone being treated equally, then people would naturally have no reason to be cruel to each other, and things would naturally work out to be utopian.

However, in the 1800s, it became clear that many ordinary folk who were able to start businesses and establish factories, were treating their employees abominably, and the workers had no choice but to put up with it or risk starvation. So the idea that businesses needed to be controlled, became popular, including government ownership of industries that made and ran necessities. This became known as socialism.

However, in the 1900s, it also became clear that socialism was becoming somewhat tyrannical. So a bunch of liberals, including Von Mises, Hayek and later on, Karl Popper, came up with the idea that neither one worked, but each had a point. So the best choice would be a half-way house between classical liberalism and socialism, where you had the benefits of classical liberalism, but you also applied some of the control of business from socialism, and so had some of the benefits of socialism. In this case, the controls were more indirect, applied by means of regulations, fines for breaches of regulations, and by involving business in the public sector, and thereby giving their aims an altruistic aim to help the public by providing much-needed public services. This became known as neo-liberalism.

By the 1980s, right-wing parties embraced neo-liberalism, because it promised capitalism, but with the benefits of liberalism and the benefits of socialism.

By the 1990s, left-wing parties accepted that by embracing neo-liberalism, they could draw all the billionaires and corporations to their side, and thus would finally have the funding to make their social ideals a reality. Capitalists followed the money. Being in favour of liberal values and being a capitalist was good for business, as it meant you'd serve everyone and make even more money than ever. But being seen to be in favour of liberal values and being a capitalist was even better for business, as it meant that everyone thought you'd serve them and so would bring you far more customers than ever. So the corporations switched allegiances.

If you have an issue with how things work, you can find a very big example of a libertarians policies being implemented, and it being generally shitty for decades. It's always becoming clearer just how shitty it was. Again.

As I pointed out earlier in this post, it's the amount of mental effort and discipline that is applied to keep working on problems and testing them safely, that determines the average quality of your policies and their benefits to the public.

Or, as Edison said, "Genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration."

Don't matter whether you are on the left or the right. Same problem. Same solution.

So, maybe you can go to your conservative circle jerks and talk about that and people already agree with you. But I'd like an actually quality discussion.

Then you'd like a quality discussion, where we put in a lot of effort to come up with quality points? Sounds good to me.

 

[Hadoblado]

Bare minimum for socialism is collective ownership of means of production.

Collective (read: government) ownership of the means of production isn't socialism, that's full on communism.

Socialism isn't inherently a bad thing, a pension for the elderly is socialism, unemployment assistance for people between jobs is socialism, when done correctly socialism is society creating a safety net for its citizens, I'm quite happy for my tax dollars to go towards providing homeless people food and shelter.

Socialism as a stepping stone towards communism is when the government essentially dominates the economy through excessive taxation, this includes printing money, which it uses to fund excessive support programs which make people dependent on the government either for hand outs or employment.

Australia is a socialist country, one in five workers are a public servant and government spending is just under 28% of the GDP, when a government dominates the economy like this the free market isn't free. The government may not literally own the means of production (collectivization) but it doesn't have to, it can play kingmaker, your business lives or dies based on government regulations and handouts.

Edit: I know if you Google "socialism" this isn't the definition it gives you, I'm saying that definition is wrong, because if collective ownership of the means of production is socialism then what is the distinction between socialism and communism?

Collective (read: collective) ownership of the means of production is socialism. Communism is a classless stateless society. That is, everyone's relationship to the means of production is equal, and the coercive state structure is abolished.

Yes, communism is pie in the sky 'everyone will just get along' kumbaya bullshit. Yes attempts to bring about communism result in some of the most vicious atrocities known to man. But this is the idea of communism.

Socialism isn't the government printing money. You can be a socialist and against printing money. Socialism isn't excessive taxation. You can be a socialist and against excessive taxation. You can also print money or tax excessively and not be socialist. It's neither necessary nor sufficient. It's not useful to equate these thing beyond political pragmatism (i.e. obfuscation).

 

[Cognisant]

Communism is a classless stateless society. That is, everyone's relationship to the means of production is equal, and the coercive state structure is abolished.

That definition serves no function, it's synonymous with anarchy and if you ask a communist whether they're an anarchist I guarantee you they'll say no. These are word games Hado, that definition of communism has no basis in a real world where real communist regimes exist.

It's not useful to equate these thing beyond political pragmatism (i.e. obfuscation).

That definition of communism exists solely to obfuscate criticism of communism, to get us arguing about fantasy land communism which has never and will never exist, while actual real world communism flys under the proverbial radar.

You can also print money or tax excessively and not be socialist.

So if 99% of a nation's economic activity is controlled by the government that nation isn't communist until they reach 100%?

You said it yourself socialism is a transitionary phase between capitalism and communism, the government growing in power and gobbling up the economy is exactly that.

Edit: Am I to believe the CCP the Chinese Communist Party actually believe they represent a stateless society, or that you know more about communism than Xi Jinping.

Hang on let me make a phone call.
Hello is this Xi, oh good, well y'see I have some terrible news, no not that, or that, worse even, yes I know hard to believe right, well it turns out you named you party wrong, mhmm, well apparently it's supposed to be the Chinese Socialist Party, yeah I know it doesn't quite have the same ring to it, yes I know the signage is already up, it's because of the definition of communism, well it's wrong because it's not actual communism unless it's a stateless society... mhmm, mhmm, oh that sounds great, yes thank you for your time.

So uh yeah turns out Xi is actually quite a reasonable guy, they're going to correct the signange since they don't want anyone thinking they support any kind of anarchy, he even said he'll drop by my place for tea and cakes later to thank me for letting him know, isn't that nice.

 

[Hadoblado]

You won't be the first person to point out this similarity, just ask anarchocommunists. Nor are you the first person to identify glaring discrepancies between the ideas of communism, the implementation, and the self-identification of political entities.

+ The democratic republic of china isn't a great example of a democracy or a republic
+ The national socialist party killed/imprisoned the socialists on coming to power

That definition of communism exists solely to obfuscate criticism of communism, to get us arguing about fantasy land communism which has never and will never exist, while actual real world communism flys under the proverbial radar.

No it doesn't. It's the original definition. To the extent that Communism is associated with Marx, this is what communism is.

Edit: Was having a self-righteous tantrum.

 

[Cognisant]

A pity I missed that, would have been entertaining.

No it doesn't. It's the original definition. To the extent that Communism is associated with Marx, this is what communism is.

Marx is dead and were he still alive somehow and aware of the atrocities committed in the name of communism I'm sure he would disavow any association with it.

But I'm not going to try to force you to accept my definitions.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't think it would be honest for him to disavow any association with the atrocities committed in the name of communism. They were attempted in the name of communism, and even if they diverged substantially from his vision, they were still facilitated by his ideas. If he were alive to see Mao or Lenin or Stalin or Hitler, he would have to acknowledge that the transitional phase is vulnerable to exploitation by totalitarians. This is a fundamental flaw in his intended vision. Violent revolution does not make for social stability, it creates an environment for the most ruthless to succeed. This is a valid criticism of Marx and of the socialist transition to communism.

He would have to reflect on why every time communism is forcefully implemented as he expected, the end result is totalitarianism. He would have to take an L.