PDA

View Full Version : Socialist and Libertarian Alliance?



Ethereal
10-23-2018, 07:37 PM
I recently read this article in Foreign Policy: Socialists and Libertarians Need an Alliance Against the Establishment:LINK (https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/24/socialists-and-libertarians-need-an-alliance-against-the-establishment/?fbclid=IwAR2tXzRmodh7G1LRnK84VFOXaXSE7GCNGt7xOEyr-TSIU93aha1NUjL8IjI)

The article argues in favor of an alliance between socialists and libertarians on foreign policy. Specifically, on reducing the extravagant spending on foreign militarism. This will allow socialists and libertarians more wiggle room to compromise on their domestic differences over economics. The massive savings from reducing "national security" spending will allow socialists to strengthen entitlement programs while allowing libertarians to pursue tax relief and deficit reduction. It's a win-win situation for both sides. The same logic would apply to spending on the US police state, specifically, the regressive drug war, which has cost taxpayers about $1 trillion in direct revenues, to say nothing of all the indirect costs that come with ruining millions of lives needlessly. I think this is a good, practical idea and the perfect example of a reasonable compromise between two sides that don't agree on everything.

Chris
10-23-2018, 07:44 PM
The two are opposites.

Rothbard tried it in the 60s, a fusion of the anti-war Old Right and anti-war New Left, but grew disillusioned. One idea they experimented with was corporate liberalism. See https://c4ss.org/content/12938.

midcan5
10-23-2018, 07:47 PM
That's kinda interesting but I wonder how many Americans define themselves as socialists and even libertarians are not that great in number. The labels appeal more to the young and a few old hippies. But I haven't read it yet. Be back if it strikes a cord.


"In 1929 Federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the United States. By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in India, a socialist country. The National Science Foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in Scientific Instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals." William Manchester "The Glory and the Dream"

Cthulhu
10-23-2018, 08:54 PM
Why ally with socialism at all?

Nazis were socialists. United Soviet Socialist Republic comes to mind. Socialists have a rather large body count. I'll pass on becoming bedfellows with murderers.

Captain Obvious
10-23-2018, 09:13 PM
Why ally with socialism at all?

Nazis were socialists. United Soviet Socialist Republic comes to mind. Socialists have a rather large body count. I'll pass on becoming bedfellows with murderers.

America was capitalistic, we know how that went.

I don't get the point of this also, what do voters think?

Alliance?

I still think at the end of the day the super wealthy and privileged will still be super wealthy and privileged, bombs will be made and there will be aggression.

Alliances among thieves.

Chris
10-23-2018, 09:33 PM
America was capitalistic, we know how that went.

I don't get the point of this also, what do voters think?

Alliance?

I still think at the end of the day the super wealthy and privileged will still be super wealthy and privileged, bombs will be made and there will be aggression.

Alliances among thieves.

IOW, the wealthy will always rent seek favors from the powerful under any stateful system.

Ethereal
10-23-2018, 10:31 PM
Why ally with socialism at all?

To achieve political objectives that are central to libertarian ideology.


Nazis were socialists. United Soviet Socialist Republic comes to mind. Socialists have a rather large body count. I'll pass on becoming bedfellows with murderers.

I'm pretty sure Bernie Sanders hasn't murdered anyone.

IMPress Polly
10-24-2018, 05:23 AM
I think it's a neat idea! I mean honestly I think that people may be defining these terms pretty generously these days (I mean if we're suggesting that Bernie Sanders is an authentic socialist and Rand Paul and authentic libertarian, for example), but no matter how you define them, an anti-war right-left alliance seems like something that's plausible here, at least in theory. It's something I witnessed happen to some extent, in fact, in the 2000s when the Iraq War was considered the major and defining issue of the day.

Still, I think it's tough to really excite people about the issue of militarism in today's context wherein nearly all of the troops that we had stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan and such have been brought home. If you look at the polls, foreign policy currently ranks among the lowest-priority issues that people plan to vote on in the upcoming midterm elections. People are more driven by domestic issues like health care and gun policy and immigration policy right now when it comes to their politics. Save for a situation wherein another all-out war presents itself as a clear and imminent danger, like the prospect of invading Iraq did beginning in 2002, it's difficult to foresee a situation wherein foreign policy would interest the average American more than domestic issues. Even I'm more interested in domestic policies right now, to tell you the truth. I mean, honestly, right now I'm actually more concerned about the prospect of us withdrawing our small measure of military support for the Kurds in Syria and about aggressions that we're indirectly supporting (like Saudi Arabia's brutalization of Yemen) than I am about the prospect of us getting properly involved in something like another Iraq War. And therein lies the challenge of forging such an alliance in the current historical context: how do you get people to see an address of American imperialism as a priority issue that necessitates such an alliance at a time like this?

Green Arrow
10-24-2018, 06:27 AM
Ethereal, I have long favored and proposed such an alliance, the trouble is I don’t think it can ever happen. Exhibits A and B:


The two are opposites.

Rothbard tried it in the 60s, a fusion of the anti-war Old Right and anti-war New Left, but grew disillusioned. One idea they experimented with was corporate liberalism. See https://c4ss.org/content/12938.


Why ally with socialism at all?

Nazis were socialists. United Soviet Socialist Republic comes to mind. Socialists have a rather large body count. I'll pass on becoming bedfellows with murderers.

Green Arrow
10-24-2018, 06:29 AM
To achieve political objectives that are central to libertarian ideology.



I'm pretty sure Bernie Sanders hasn't murdered anyone.

He’s just biding his time until he can gain power, that’s when he puts REAL socialism, teh ebil kind, into action.

donttread
10-24-2018, 07:34 AM
I recently read this article in Foreign Policy: Socialists and Libertarians Need an Alliance Against the Establishment:LINK (https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/24/socialists-and-libertarians-need-an-alliance-against-the-establishment/?fbclid=IwAR2tXzRmodh7G1LRnK84VFOXaXSE7GCNGt7xOEyr-TSIU93aha1NUjL8IjI)

The article argues in favor of an alliance between socialists and libertarians on foreign policy. Specifically, on reducing the extravagant spending on foreign militarism. This will allow socialists and libertarians more wiggle room to compromise on their domestic differences over economics. The massive savings from reducing "national security" spending will allow socialists to strengthen entitlement programs while allowing libertarians to pursue tax relief and deficit reduction. It's a win-win situation for both sides. The same logic would apply to spending on the US police state, specifically, the regressive drug war, which has cost taxpayers about $1 trillion in direct revenues, to say nothing of all the indirect costs that come with ruining millions of lives needlessly. I think this is a good, practical idea and the perfect example of a reasonable compromise between two sides that don't agree on everything.


I'd rather see the LP have an alliance at the state level with the greens.

Captdon
10-24-2018, 08:07 AM
He’s just biding his time until he can gain power, that’s when he puts REAL socialism, teh ebil kind, into action.

The idea that Sanders isn't a socialist is hard to fathom. Everything he says is socialistic. He and Warren both.

Green Arrow
10-24-2018, 08:42 AM
The idea that Sanders isn't a socialist is hard to fathom. Everything he says is socialistic. He and Warren both.

He’s a democratic socialist. Warren is unknown.

Chris
10-24-2018, 08:45 AM
Ethereal, I have long favored and proposed such an alliance, the trouble is I don’t think it can ever happen. Exhibits A and B:

Because they are opposites. Libertarianism entails small, limited government; socialism, central planning. Libertarianism respects private property; socialism does not. Libertarianism is based on individualism; socialism, collectivism. On and on.

Ethereal
10-24-2018, 08:47 AM
I think it's a neat idea! I mean honestly I think that people may be defining these terms pretty generously these days (I mean if we're suggesting that Bernie Sanders is an authentic socialist and Rand Paul and authentic libertarian, for example), but no matter how you define them, an anti-war right-left alliance seems like something that's plausible here, at least in theory. It's something I witnessed happen to some extent, in fact, in the 2000s when the Iraq War was considered the major and defining issue of the day.

Still, I think it's tough to really excite people about the issue of militarism in today's context wherein nearly all of the troops that we had stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan and such have been brought home. If you look at the polls, foreign policy currently ranks among the lowest-priority issues that people plan to vote on in the upcoming midterm elections. People are more driven by domestic issues like health care and gun policy and immigration policy right now when it comes to their politics. Save for a situation wherein another all-out war presents itself as a clear and imminent danger, like the prospect of invading Iraq did beginning in 2002, it's difficult to foresee a situation wherein foreign policy would interest the average American more than domestic issues. Even I'm more interested in domestic policies right now, to tell you the truth. I mean, honestly, right now I'm actually more concerned about the prospect of us withdrawing our small measure of military support for the Kurds in Syria and about aggressions that we're indirectly supporting (like Saudi Arabia's brutalization of Yemen) than I am about the prospect of us getting properly involved in something like another Iraq War. And therein lies the challenge of forging such an alliance in the current historical context: how do you get people to see an address of American imperialism as a priority issue that necessitates such an alliance at a time like this?
We have to make the connection between domestic and foreign policy more obvious.

Specifically, we have to demonstrate how spending on foreign policy is detracting from domestic issues.

Every dollar spent on maintaining a bloated and corrupt overseas empire is one less dollar we have to spend on things that matter most to Americans.

Putting it in terms of pure dollars and cents is something that I believe will resonant with average Americans.

Chris
10-24-2018, 08:49 AM
I'd rather see the LP have an alliance at the state level with the greens.

I was reading last night how Badnarik and the Greens put together an alliance back in '04. Can't find much detail though.

Ethereal
10-24-2018, 08:49 AM
@Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870), I have long favored and proposed such an alliance, the trouble is I don’t think it can ever happen. Exhibits A and B:

There will always be holdouts, but I don't think they're necessarily representative of what a broad libertarian movement would look like.

Chris
10-24-2018, 08:58 AM
We have to make the connection between domestic and foreign policy more obvious.

Specifically, we have to demonstrate how spending on foreign policy is detracting from domestic issues.

Every dollar spent on maintaining a bloated and corrupt overseas empire is one less dollar we have to spend on things that matter most to Americans.

Putting it in terms of pure dollars and cents is something that I believe will resonant with average Americans.


That was Rothbard's angle back in the 60s, to leverage common anti-war sentiments. The New Left also adopted libertarian ideas on the domestic front. It failed. You can read about it here: https://mises.org/library/new-left-was-great-it-collapsed.

Green Arrow
10-24-2018, 09:02 AM
There will always be holdouts, but I don't think they're necessarily representative of what a broad libertarian movement would look like.

The issue I have is 90% of the libertarians I have encountered in my life (and I’ve encountered a lot) think socialism and socialists are of the devil and want nothing to do with us. It’s beyond the point of considering it, they actively try to find reasons for it not to work instead of finding reasons it can.

Chris
10-24-2018, 09:09 AM
The idea that Sanders isn't a socialist is hard to fathom. Everything he says is socialistic. He and Warren both.

Democratic socialism and social democracy are thin veneers over core socialism.


Warren, though, it's hard to tell what she is, 1/1024th something or other.

Chris
10-24-2018, 09:11 AM
The issue I have is 90% of the libertarians I have encountered in my life (and I’ve encountered a lot) think socialism and socialists are of the devil and want nothing to do with us. It’s beyond the point of considering it, they actively try to find reasons for it not to work instead of finding reasons it can.


Socialism isn't the devil. It's central planning. It's well-intentioned but fails every time tried.

Don29palms
10-24-2018, 09:12 AM
The issue I have is 90% of the libertarians I have encountered in my life (and I’ve encountered a lot) think socialism and socialists are of the devil and want nothing to do with us. It’s beyond the point of considering it, they actively try to find reasons for it not to work instead of finding reasons it can.
Because socialism can't and doesn't work.

Chris
10-24-2018, 09:26 AM
There will always be holdouts, but I don't think they're necessarily representative of what a broad libertarian movement would look like.

Nor is it true that you are necessarily representative of libertarianism. In the libertarianism thread, you announced you no longer considered yourself one: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/102036-Libertarianism?p=2444038&viewfull=1#post2444038.

The Xl
10-24-2018, 09:29 AM
I'm down with it. The establishment left and right are the real immediate threat anyway

Cthulhu
10-24-2018, 10:11 AM
To achieve political objectives that are central to libertarian ideology.



I'm pretty sure Bernie Sanders hasn't murdered anyone.Indeed, Sanders hasn't killed anybody.

But socialism coasts for about 2ish decades off of the vapors of the previous capitalism then a very nasty change occurs. Sometimes sooner. And lots of people start dying due to shortages caused by free X. That is what is happening right now in Europe - that is the quasi peaceful socialism.

Violent socialism is always fast behind. Case in point of the Nazis, early China, and the USSR.

Socialism blows chunks.

Immediate gain with shady "allies" always comes at a terrible cost.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Cthulhu
10-24-2018, 10:14 AM
He’s just biding his time until he can gain power, that’s when he puts REAL socialism, teh ebil kind, into action.When backed by the power of the state to kill and incarcerate those that don't go along with it - you're exactly right.

Teh evil kind is exactly what you get.

I'd socialism were voluntary - go for it. But historically it doesn't seem to go down that way. So I'm leery at best, and vehemently opposed at worst towards it.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Cthulhu
10-24-2018, 10:17 AM
I'm down with it. The establishment left and right are the real immediate threat anywayThe enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

The Xl
10-24-2018, 10:34 AM
The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

When it's a considerably bigger enemy it is.

Cthulhu
10-24-2018, 10:35 AM
When it's a considerably bigger enemy it is.Difference of opinion then.

Russia and the USA were chill until Germany was fallen.

Just sayin'.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

The Xl
10-24-2018, 11:01 AM
Difference of opinion then.

Russia and the USA were chill until Germany was fallen.

Just sayin'.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

I think it's kinda hard to equate the relatively tame modern European model of socialism to the Bolsheviks.

Chris
10-24-2018, 11:11 AM
I think it's kinda hard to equate the relatively tame modern European model of socialism to the Bolsheviks.

I keep hearing socialism is being tried in Europe, but where? Not the Nordic nations.

Captdon
10-24-2018, 12:32 PM
He’s a democratic socialist. Warren is unknown.

Democratic Socialist is a socialist. Warren is the same.

Captdon
10-24-2018, 12:36 PM
We have to make the connection between domestic and foreign policy more obvious.

Specifically, we have to demonstrate how spending on foreign policy is detracting from domestic issues.

Every dollar spent on maintaining a bloated and corrupt overseas empire is one less dollar we have to spend on things that matter most to Americans.

Putting it in terms of pure dollars and cents is something that I believe will resonant with average Americans.

It hasn't yet and it never will. No one outside of forums and politicians gives a damn about government spending.

Ethereal
10-24-2018, 02:41 PM
Indeed, Sanders hasn't killed anybody.

But socialism coasts for about 2ish decades off of the vapors of the previous capitalism then a very nasty change occurs. Sometimes sooner. And lots of people start dying due to shortages caused by free X. That is what is happening right now in Europe - that is the quasi peaceful socialism.

Violent socialism is always fast behind. Case in point of the Nazis, early China, and the USSR.

Socialism blows chunks.

Immediate gain with shady "allies" always comes at a terrible cost.

Sent from my evil cell phone.
So even if this alliance were to result in less taxes, less deficits, smaller government and more stable entitlement programs, you would be against it because of some hypothetical danger that might materialize at some point in the future?

Chris
10-24-2018, 02:48 PM
Hypothetical? Actual. Socialism => central planning, central planning fails.

Ethereal
10-24-2018, 02:49 PM
When backed by the power of the state to kill and incarcerate those that don't go along with it - you're exactly right.

Teh evil kind is exactly what you get.

I'd socialism were voluntary - go for it. But historically it doesn't seem to go down that way. So I'm leery at best, and vehemently opposed at worst towards it.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Is there some reason why we cannot oppose them on their socialist economic policies while cooperating with them on issues where we share common interests? In other words, is there some reason why cannot walk and chew gum at the same time?

Ethereal
10-24-2018, 02:54 PM
I think it's kinda hard to equate the relatively tame modern European model of socialism to the Bolsheviks.
It's only a matter of time before Denmark descends into a murderous bedlam...

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 05:04 PM
Just a some of observations about socialism. If you examine the 'classic' examples of failed pure socialism i.e. communist states - all were thrust by way of revolution into a new economic paradigm literally overnight with idealistic/populist zealots at the helm. Each one forced this change on some portions of the population who were not in favor and thus the governments were and those remaining still are characterized by military control and authoritarianism. All of the states that became communist through revolution were also comprised of populations that were economically highly segregated, with very large numbers of extremely poor people living subsistence lives while an elite class enjoyed conspicuous wealth. All of the states that became communist were historically accustomed to authoritarian governments. (Russia, for instance, while no longer communist, continues to elect authoritarian leaders.) All communist states became economically isolated because of the actions of capitalistic states that were determined to undermine communism by starving it out of existence.

I think that objectively, it's rather disingenuous to proclaim socialism as doomed to failure when the only examples were turned into enemy states, cut off from normal trade and thus economically and technologically ostracized from the world and threatened with nuclear destruction. If capitalism had to sustain that kind of deliberate and sustained sabotage, it wouldn't fare well either.


We cannot say how such an economic theory put into practice would fare if allowed to evolve over time without being sabotaged by external actors that see it as inimical to their own success.

Chris
10-24-2018, 05:14 PM
Right, pity poor socialism. Socialism turns itself into an enemy of the people from the beginning by not trusting the people, forming a vanguard of the knowing elite, and forcing their views on the people. James C. Scott's Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed has a couple chapters on how the socialist came to power in the USSR and how devastating soviet collectivization was.

Captdon
10-24-2018, 05:36 PM
Just a some of observations about socialism. If you examine the 'classic' examples of failed pure socialism i.e. communist states - all were thrust by way of revolution into a new economic paradigm literally overnight with idealistic/populist zealots at the helm. Each one forced this change on some portions of the population who were not in favor and thus the governments were and those remaining still are characterized by military control and authoritarianism. All of the states that became communist through revolution were also comprised of populations that were economically highly segregated, with very large numbers of extremely poor people living subsistence lives while an elite class enjoyed conspicuous wealth. All of the states that became communist were historically accustomed to authoritarian governments. (Russia, for instance, while no longer communist, continues to elect authoritarian leaders.) All communist states became economically isolated because of the actions of capitalistic states that were determined to undermine communism by starving it out of existence.

I think that objectively, it's rather disingenuous to proclaim socialism as doomed to failure when the only examples were turned into enemy states, cut off from normal trade and thus economically and technologically ostracized from the world and threatened with nuclear destruction. If capitalism had to sustain that kind of deliberate and sustained sabotage, it wouldn't fare well either.


We cannot say how such an economic theory put into practice would fare if allowed to evolve over time without being sabotaged by external actors that see it as inimical to their own success.

Socialism still requires that my money be used to support you. If we all get the same, I have no incentive to do any more than I have to do. That's the failure of communism too.( "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us")Why would you think that would ever be acceptable?

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 07:13 PM
Right, pity poor socialism. Socialism turns itself into an enemy of the people from the beginning by not trusting the people, forming a vanguard of the knowing elite, and forcing their views on the people. James C. Scott's Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed has a couple chapters on how the socialist came to power in the USSR and how devastating soviet collectivization was.
What part of my criticism of forcing ideas down people's throats wasn't clear? Of course, forced collectivization wasn't going to work out very well. Stalin was the poster child for a driven psychopathic leader who only cared about ends and not means. Stalin had a singular vision of modern collective farming. The peasants didn't share his vision. You can't take people from the 17th century to the 20th century overnight, nor can you destroy communities and ways of doing things that have existed for a thousand years and not expect resistance. Before Stalin collectivism, while a goal, was not being forced on people.

Chris
10-24-2018, 07:15 PM
What part of my criticism of forcing ideas down people's throats wasn't clear? Of course, forced collectivization wasn't going to work out very well. Stalin was the poster child for a driven psychopathic leader who only cared about ends and not means. Stalin had a singular vision of modern collective farming. The peasants didn't share his vision. You can't take people from the 17th century to the 20th century overnight, nor can you destroy communities and ways of doing things that have existed for a thousand years and not expect resistance. Before Stalin collectivism, while a goal, was not being forced on people.

Those peasants were doing quite fine before the socialists came along.

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 07:17 PM
Socialism still requires that my money be used to support you. If we all get the same, I have no incentive to do any more than I have to do. That's the failure of communism too.( "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us")Why would you think that would ever be acceptable?
Human currency is taught. People are taught to want things and money in exchange for labor. However kids in school work for grades, so clearly money and goods are not the only possible currencies.

Chris
10-24-2018, 07:17 PM
This is socialism from its origins:


Henri de Saint-Simon

Henri de Saint-Simon (1760–1825), who is called the founder of French socialism, argued that a brotherhood of man must accompany the scientific organization of industry and society. He proposed:


[B]That the state carry out production and distribution
That allowing everyone to have equal opportunity to develop their talents would lead to social harmony
That the traditional state could be virtually eliminated, or transformed
"Rule over men would be replaced by the administration of things"



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#Henri_de_Saint-Simon


The problem, Dr Who, is not the people, not the circumstances, but socialism itself.

Defend it all you like.

Green Arrow
10-24-2018, 07:19 PM
Socialism still requires that my money be used to support you. If we all get the same, I have no incentive to do any more than I have to do. That's the failure of communism too.( "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us")Why would you think that would ever be acceptable?

I would argue that socialism incentivizes work more than capitalism.

Green Arrow
10-24-2018, 07:20 PM
Those peasants were doing quite fine before the socialists came along.

I can’t believe you just seriously made this claim.

Chris
10-24-2018, 07:21 PM
I can’t believe you just seriously made this claim.

I seriously made the claim.

Are you going to claim that socialism made things better for the collectivized farmers in Russia?

Chris
10-24-2018, 07:27 PM
Collectivization in the USSR: How the Russian peasantry was smashed (https://www.rbth.com/multimedia/history/2017/08/25/collectivization-in-the-ussr-how-the-russian-peasantry-was-smashed_828512)


...Starting in 1927, collectivization was aimed at consolidating individual peasant landholdings and labor into collective farms, so called “kolkhozes.” Workers there got no salaries, rather a share of what the kolkhoz produced—only for the needs of themselves and their families, nothing more.

The Soviet leadership hoped collectivization would significantly increase the food supply of the urban population. That was extremely important since the process of industrialization was initiated at the same time. More workers at plants and factories meant food was more in demand.

Collectivization became a large-scaled process in 1929, when Joseph Stalin’s article “The Year of the Great Break” was published. Stalin confirmed the processes of collectivization and industrialization as the main means for modernizing the country. At the same time, he declared need to liquidate the class of affluent peasants known as “kulaks” (“fists” in Russian).

Kolkhozes were intended to become a milestone in Soviet socialist ideology: communities of happy labors working together in total bliss and harmony for the benefit of the whole huge state. However, the reality was not so cheerful.

Collectivization profoundly traumatized the peasantry. The forcible confiscation of meat and bread led to mutinies among the peasants. They even preferred to slaughter their cattle than hand it over to the collective farms. Sometimes the Soviet government had to bring in the army to suppress uprisings.

The old traditions of the Russian peasantry were smashed. Peasants used to be interested in the fruits of their labor, but at the kolkhozes they lost all sense of initiative. The early years of collectivization were catastrophic. In 1932-1933, the country was struck by a great famine that killed about 8 million people, due in no small part to collectivization....


Reagan was right when he said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 07:30 PM
Those peasants were doing quite fine before the socialists came along.

Actually, they weren't - they were often serfs and slaves prior to 1868 after which they became sharecroppers, thus still starving. They were happy after the revolution because they could keep what they needed and sell the surplus in the market. Unfortunately, they were ignorant of modern farming techniques and whatever surplus existed was insufficient to feed the nation. Enter crazy Joe.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 07:31 PM
Soviet collectivization had nothing to do with making the lives of peasant farmers better. It was a scheme to help feed a growing population of urban workers. Rapid industrialization was the goal. Collectivization a means to that end. Resistance was of course met with a diabolical viciousness that would make Hitler blush.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 07:33 PM
Actually, they weren't - they were often serfs and slaves prior to 1868 after which they became sharecroppers, thus still starving. They were happy after the revolution because they could keep what they needed and sell the surplus in the market. Unfortunately, they were ignorant of modern farming techniques and whatever surplus existed was insufficient to feed the nation. Enter crazy Joe.

The regime killed millions of small land owners. Stop apologizing for Soviet crimes. It's disgusting.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 07:36 PM
Collectivization in the USSR: How the Russian peasantry was smashed (https://www.rbth.com/multimedia/history/2017/08/25/collectivization-in-the-ussr-how-the-russian-peasantry-was-smashed_828512)




Reagan was right when he said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"

Thank you. The peasants could feed the nation just fine. What they could not and would not do is fund Soviet schemes.

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 07:39 PM
Soviet collectivization had nothing to do with making the lives of peasant farmers better. It was a scheme to help feed a growing population of urban workers. Rapid industrialization was the goal. Collectivization a means to that end. Resistance was of course met with a diabolical viciousness that would make Hitler blush.
Collectivisation was always part of the original plan, but jamming it down people's throats wasn't, at least under Lenin. It was voluntaristic and encouraged prior to Stalin, when it became mandatory because Stalin had a grand vision of rapid industrialization, as you noted.

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 07:43 PM
The regime killed millions of small land owners. Stop apologizing for Soviet crimes. It's disgusting.
I make no apologies for Stalin - he was a monster and helped set the stage for dysfunction. As I stated before, you can't force people to change. They have to want to embrace new ways and that cannot happen in a five-year plan. Perhaps in 50 or 100 years.

Chris
10-24-2018, 07:47 PM
Soviet collectivization had nothing to do with making the lives of peasant farmers better. It was a scheme to help feed a growing population of urban workers. Rapid industrialization was the goal. Collectivization a means to that end. Resistance was of course met with a diabolical viciousness that would make Hitler blush.

Indeed, it was horrendous what socialism inflicted on them.

What was interesting was American liberals back then heaped praise on the socialists then, even misted the collectivized farms and told great stories about what they were shown. The design of the collectivized farms were based on the same high modern agricultural planning going on in the US, planned not by farmers but architects in hotel rooms. See James C. Scott's Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 07:49 PM
Collectivisation was always part of the original plan, but jamming it down people's throats wasn't, at least under Lenin. It was voluntaristic and encouraged prior to Stalin, when it became mandatory because Stalin had a grand vision of rapid industrialization, as you noted.

Lenin was a tyrant and a murderer.

Collectivization could not work on voluntary basis. It was a miserable failure because the vast majority of the peasants you deride preferred cooperative enterprises where the "means of production" were not socialized.

Chris
10-24-2018, 07:50 PM
Collectivisation was always part of the original plan, but jamming it down people's throats wasn't, at least under Lenin. It was voluntaristic and encouraged prior to Stalin, when it became mandatory because Stalin had a grand vision of rapid industrialization, as you noted.

Lenin was in the vanguard. He with Marx planned it. Neither trusted the people to know what's good for them. Stalin just carried out their plans.

But we must not blame this or that person as if some other good and just person would bring about true socialism. It is socialism itself.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 07:52 PM
Collectivization was also a scheme to raise capital. Basically the state was extorting the farmers. They paid very low prices for produce to sell on the world market. Naturally, the peasants weren't so keen.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 07:53 PM
I make no apologies for Stalin - he was a monster and helped set the stage for dysfunction. As I stated before, you can't force people to change. They have to want to embrace new ways and that cannot happen in a five-year plan. Perhaps in 50 or 100 years.

Or ever.

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 08:01 PM
Lenin was a tyrant and a murderer.

Collectivization could not work on voluntary basis. It was a miserable failure because the vast majority of the peasants you deride preferred cooperative enterprises where the "means of production" were not socialized.

Where did I deride the peasants? They were simply still living the same way at the turn of the century as they had been in the 17th century. That was not a criticism, but a fact. They were largely illiterate as well. Russia was a relatively backward nation as compared with its contemporaries, with a massive agricultural population that even after the official end of serfdom were treated with complete disrespect by various entities like the Russian army who simply took what they wanted and left people to starve. The Bolsheviks didn't become popular because people were happy with the status quo.

Chris
10-24-2018, 08:06 PM
Where did I deride the peasants? They were simply still living the same way at the turn of the century as they had been in the 17th century. That was not a criticism, but a fact. They were largely illiterate as well. Russia was a relatively backward nation as compared with its contemporaries, with a massive agricultural population that even after the official end of serfdom were treated with complete disrespect by various entities like the Russian army who simply took what they wanted and left people to starve. The Bolsheviks didn't become popular because people were happy with the status quo.

Niether D's nor my comments to you have anything to do with your derision of peasants.

Although you do see them as primitive and backward and helpless and in need of collectivization.

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 08:08 PM
Lenin was in the vanguard. He with Marx planned it. Neither trusted the people to know what's good for them. Stalin just carried out their plans.

But we must not blame this or that person as if some other good and just person would bring about true socialism. It is socialism itself.
Stalin was a problematic individual long before he joined the communist party. How he chose to interpret and implement 'the plan' was a function of his psychopathy and narcissism. Neither Lenin or Marx would have had anything to work with if the Tsarist regimes hadn't been so brutal and had so much disregard for their own people.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 08:09 PM
Where did I deride the peasants? They were simply still living the same way at the turn of the century as they had been in the 17th century. That was not a criticism, but a fact. They were largely illiterate as well. Russia was a relatively backward nation as compared with its contemporaries, with a massive agricultural population that even after the official end of serfdom were treated with complete disrespect by various entities like the Russian army who simply took what they wanted and left people to starve. The Bolsheviks didn't become popular because people were happy with the status quo.

You portray the peasants as people who just didn't know what was good for them. Were Soviet economic schemes good for them?

Really? When did the army take what it wanted? I know that happened during the civil war but that was the Red army.

They were treated with infinitely less respect by murderous Soviet bureaucrats.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 08:10 PM
Niether D's nor my comments to you have anything to do with your derision of peasants.

Although you do see them as primitive and backward and helpless and in need of collectivization.

Exactly.

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 08:21 PM
Niether D's nor my comments to you have anything to do with your derision of peasants.

Although you do see them as primitive and backward and helpless and in need of collectivization.

Again, you are wont to put words in my mouth. I stated pretty clearly that changing economic political and economic theories abruptly after a revolution is not a winning approach to change, which in my view needs to evolve organically, not by force. Collectivisation can work among people who are receptive and supportive of the idea - not so much with people who view it as a form of slavery, particularly when they are being forced into unwilling labor. It is an entirely different view of life and expectations, not to mention a dramatic shift in human currency.

That doesn't make the economic theory wrong, it means that it can only be successful in a world with a somewhat different value system.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 08:23 PM
This condescending, elitist attitude played a large role in communist atrocities. There simply comes a time (it doesn't look like one had to wait very long in any historical case) when these regimes simply got fed up with resistance and "ignorance" and sought ways to enforce their will.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 08:24 PM
Again, you are wont to put words in my mouth. I stated pretty clearly that changing economic political and economic theories abruptly after a revolution is not a winning approach to change, which in my view needs to evolve organically, not by force. Collectivisation can work among people who are receptive and supportive of the idea - not so much with people who view it as a form of slavery, particularly when they are being forced into unwilling labor. It is an entirely different view of life and expectations, not to mention a dramatic shift in human currency.

That doesn't make the economic theory wrong, it means that it can only be successful in a world with a somewhat different value system.

Again, the problem isn't collectivization. It's the peasants. We get it.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 08:25 PM
BTW, Russia and Japan were the two most rapidly growing economies in 1914.

Chris
10-24-2018, 09:13 PM
Again, you are wont to put words in my mouth. I stated pretty clearly that changing economic political and economic theories abruptly after a revolution is not a winning approach to change, which in my view needs to evolve organically, not by force. Collectivisation can work among people who are receptive and supportive of the idea - not so much with people who view it as a form of slavery, particularly when they are being forced into unwilling labor. It is an entirely different view of life and expectations, not to mention a dramatic shift in human currency.

That doesn't make the economic theory wrong, it means that it can only be successful in a world with a somewhat different value system.


I cited your words and them merely paraphrased. That's not putting words in your mouth.

Chris
10-24-2018, 09:16 PM
Again, the problem isn't collectivization. It's the peasants. We get it.

The problem with the collectivization was it was planned in people's heads in abstractions and simplifications without consideration of the people themselves, the very real and actual people.

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 09:17 PM
You portray the peasants as people who just didn't know what was good for them. Were Soviet economic schemes good for them?

Really? When did the army take what it wanted? I know that happened during the civil war but that was the Red army.

They were treated with infinitely less respect by murderous Soviet bureaucrats.

The Russian agricultural class had reverted to hoarding and subsistence farming prior to and during WWI because they were being paid so little for their crops as a result of extreme inflation, leading to widespread food shortages. This was under Tsar Nicolas II, not under the Bolsheviks. The plight of the peasants was compounded by the fact that the end of feudalism came with a requirement to make redemption payments to the state, and a demand for communal tender of the land they worked. There were numerous peasant revolts during this period over the fact that despite promises, the peasants were still unable to acquire the land that they were working.

The rapid industrialization of Russia began before WWI and the revolution, however, the people in cities that were not large enough to accommodate a burgeoning worker class were suffering from extreme food shortages (owing to the peasants refusing to grow adequate crops) and obscene levels of overcrowding. WWI resulted in conscription from both the worker and peasant classes who ended up suffering from pretty extreme deprivation, particularly after famine struck the country. In 1916 the government introduced razvyorstka - the collection of grain for defense purposes. Razvyorstka was in actuality the forced requisition (confiscation) of grain at low fixed prices that did not compensate the farmers for the actual cost of growing their crops. (This was imitated post-revolution under prodrazvyorstka in 1918).

Chris
10-24-2018, 09:23 PM
Dr Who, you've managed to drag this topic so far off topic, now with Russian history, and to lose its value.

Common Sense
10-24-2018, 09:27 PM
Dr Who, you've managed to drag this topic so far off topic, now with Russian history, and to lose its value.

Didn't D ask her about it?

Mister D
10-24-2018, 09:28 PM
The Russian agricultural class had reverted to hoarding and subsistence farming prior to and during WWI because they were being paid so little for their crops as a result of extreme inflation, leading to widespread food shortages. This was under Tsar Nicolas II, not under the Bolsheviks. The plight of the peasants was compounded by the fact that the end of feudalism came with a requirement to make redemption payments to the state, and a demand for communal tender of the land they worked. There were numerous peasant revolts during this period over the fact that despite promises, the peasants were still unable to acquire the land that they were working.

The rapid industrialization of Russia began before WWI and the revolution, however, the people in cities that were not large enough to accommodate a burgeoning worker class were suffering from extreme food shortages (owing to the peasants refusing to grow adequate crops) and obscene levels of overcrowding. WWI resulted in conscription from both the worker and peasant classes who ended up suffering from pretty extreme deprivation, particularly after famine struck the country. In 1916 the government introduced razvyorstka - the collection of grain for defense purposes. Razvyorstka was in actuality the forced requisition (confiscation) of grain at low fixed prices that did not compensate the farmers for the actual cost of growing their crops. (This was imitated post-revolution under prodrazvyorstka in 1918).

So various Russian entities including the army did not in fact take what they wanted except toward the end of WW1. Just say that next time. In any case, all of this pales in comparison to Soviet brutality.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 09:30 PM
Didn't D ask her about it?

No, I asked about "various entities concluding the army" taking whatever they wanted and leaving the peasants to starve. This does not appear to have occurred.

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 09:31 PM
Right, pity poor socialism. Socialism turns itself into an enemy of the people from the beginning by not trusting the people, forming a vanguard of the knowing elite, and forcing their views on the people. James C. Scott's Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed has a couple chapters on how the socialist came to power in the USSR and how devastating soviet collectivization was.
Who was it that posted the above after my comments on socialism, which was already being discussed? Oh right, it was you.

Dr Who, you've managed to drag this topic so far off topic, now with Russian history, and to lose its value.

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 09:34 PM
So various Russian entities including the army did not in fact take what they wanted except toward the end of WW1. Just say that next time. In any case, all of this pales in comparison to Soviet brutality.
Little wonder that there was increased support for the revolution, don't you think?

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 09:35 PM
Didn't D ask her about it?
No, it was Chris. Faulty memory syndrome.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 09:39 PM
Little wonder that there was increased support for the revolution, don't you think?

The revolution the Bolsheviks betrayed? That one? Anyway, there would likely not have been a revolution had Russia not gone to war and no is defending the Tsarist regime. Someone is defending the Bolsheviks...

Mister D
10-24-2018, 09:41 PM
So we have gone from stupid peasants who didn't know what was good for them to happy peasants in love with Bolshevism.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 09:43 PM
Does anyone seriously believe Tsarist rule was worse than Bolshevism?

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 10:00 PM
The revolution the Bolsheviks betrayed? That one? Anyway, there would likely not have been a revolution had Russia not gone to war and no is defending the Tsarist regime. Someone is defending the Bolsheviks...
Not the Bolsheviks, but socialism which I am not inclined to throw under the bus because it was imposed on people who couldn't understand the concept but were desperate for regime change. If you take someone who has never even seen a car and force them to drive one, it's liable to end in a crash.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 10:07 PM
Not the Bolsheviks, but socialism which I am not inclined to throw under the bus because it was imposed on people who couldn't understand the concept but were desperate for regime change. If you take someone who has never even seen a car and force them to drive one, it's liable to end in a crash.

Imposition seems to be a pattern, Who. And again people just don't understand how awesome socialism is. We get it.

BTW, there were better alternatives to the Bolsheviks but they lacked the fanaticism and will to destroy.

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 10:12 PM
So we have gone from stupid peasants who didn't know what was good for them to happy peasants in love with Bolshevism.
Again, during the period between the revolution and Stalin, the peasants were not all that unhappy. They were keeping a lot more of what they produced. Perhaps the fact that Russia still has all kinds of statues of Lenin all over the place along with Lenin avenues, Lenin squares, Lenin streets and every representation of Stalin has been removed, paints a picture of the Russian peoples' regard for their own history.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 10:13 PM
So where are we? The peasants were ignorant and didn't know what their best interests were? Lenin et al didn't understand socialism? The peasantry loved Bolshevism?

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 10:16 PM
Does anyone seriously believe Tsarist rule was worse than Bolshevism?
I'm sure it depends who you ask. Communism wasn't bad for everyone. In fact, there are many Russians today who preferred communism to the current state of affairs.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 10:19 PM
Again, during the period between the revolution and Stalin, the peasants were not all that unhappy. They were keeping a lot more of what they produced. Perhaps the fact that Russia still has all kinds of statues of Lenin all over the place along with Lenin avenues, Lenin squares, Lenin streets and every representation of Stalin has been removed, paints a picture of the Russian peoples' regard for their own history.

Who, the civil war exhausted the country. There was a great deal of discontent but Russians desired some kind of stability more than anything else.

Statues of Lenin still exist but his ideology doesn't.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 10:23 PM
I'm sure it depends who you ask. Communism wasn't bad for everyone. In fact, there are many Russians today who preferred communism to the current state of affairs.

Neither was Nazism but no one here apologizes for the Nazis. Anyway, no, we could say objectively that communist rule was far more brutal than any Tsar since the Middle Ages ever dreamed of being.

Mister D
10-24-2018, 10:24 PM
So where are we? The peasants were ignorant and didn't know what their best interests were? Lenin et al didn't understand socialism? The peasantry loved Bolshevism?

So?

Mister D
10-24-2018, 10:26 PM
They will always disingenuously assure us they are not apologizing for communist rule. The longer the discussion goes the more difficult it becomes to maintain that pretense.

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 10:31 PM
Who, the civil war exhausted the country. There was a great deal of discontent but Russians desired some kind of stability more than anything else.

Statues of Lenin still exist but his ideology doesn't.
Of course it does. Despite capitalism, Russia still retains a socialist legacy. However, they now also enjoy income inequality issues and have few protections against corrupt business practices.

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 11:07 PM
Neither was Nazism but no one here apologizes for the Nazis. Anyway, no, we could say objectively that communist rule was far more brutal than any Tsar since the Middle Ages ever dreamed of being.
Stalin was a mass murdering monster - no apologies for his behavior. However he was not communism or socialism, he was a psychopathic leader in an era with the technological ability to kill millions of people far more expeditiously than the Tsars could have dreamed of.

Dr. Who
10-24-2018, 11:30 PM
So?
Talking to yourself? Had Lenin been succeeded by someone more like Lenin, the results may have been different, at least in terms of human suffering, but given all of the circumstances i.e. imposition by force and lack of acceptance by the rest of the world, communism was doomed and still is.

Ironically on the current capitalist trajectory, factoring in automation and technology, at some point people will be mostly unemployed and living off the state unless we end up blowing ourselves up and restarting the clock with a very small population of remaining humans. If we don't destroy ourselves, and automation/technology replaces most human labor, what further use is there in capitalism? The bulk of the population will be living off the state - some minimum income, but not as well as they might under socialism. There will be a million really wealthy people and billions of people living at something slightly better than a subsistence existence.

I'm waiting for the replicator to be invented. At that point capitalism is rendered null and void because scarcity disappears.

Cthulhu
10-24-2018, 11:34 PM
So even if this alliance were to result in less taxes, less deficits, smaller government and more stable entitlement programs, you would be against it because of some hypothetical danger that might materialize at some point in the future?I know of no socialist government that does any of what you speak of. Europe can't seem to do it because they don't believe in borders. And the Russians did borders and military too much and bankrupted themselves. While both have a terrific death toll. Europe is going to feel a real nasty pinch soon. Russia just felt it a lot quicker. Kinda like Cuba.

Because let's be honest here, when does a socialist stop socializing their country? Never. They never quit. They only continue the decay until it all falls down.

It's very nature expands state power and taxes.

It's like virgins porking to increase virginity - an oxymoron.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Cthulhu
10-24-2018, 11:39 PM
Is there some reason why we cannot oppose them on their socialist economic policies while cooperating with them on issues where we share common interests? In other words, is there some reason why cannot walk and chew gum at the same time?Because while I agree we should be able to, mankind has proven it cannot serve two Masters. Either one suffers or both suffer. Either way, there is suffering while trying to chew gum and walk.

By all means prove me wrong. I'd love to have the state trimmed down. I just don't think you're going to get it done with people your trying to call allies who will actively try to grow it.

It's like weeding the garden with your kids blowing the dandelion seeds right after your pass. You'll be back next week cleaning it up.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Cthulhu
10-24-2018, 11:42 PM
I would argue that socialism incentivizes work more than capitalism.*raises eyebrow*

Wut?

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Cthulhu
10-24-2018, 11:49 PM
They will always disingenuously assure us they are not apologizing for communist rule. The longer the discussion goes the more difficult it becomes to maintain that pretense.It is one of those natural algorithms of history. Once socialism is instituted, it only goes away with lots of death.

And those who think well of it, always try to assure us that or isn't such a bad idea as the preach to us its virtues from a tower built from the bones of its victims.

No thanks. I've no interest is building any more towers of human bones nor drapes of human flesh.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Common Sense
10-24-2018, 11:52 PM
It is one of those natural algorithms of history. Once socialism is instituted, it only goes away with lots of death.

And those who think we'll of it, always try to assure us that or isn't such a bad idea as the preach to us it's virtues from a tower built from the bones of it's victims.

No thanks. I've no interest is building any more towers of human bones nor drapes of human flesh.

Sent from my evil cell phone.
You might be thinking of communism. Do you think nations like Canada and Norway are destined to end in mass violence due to socialism?

Cthulhu
10-25-2018, 12:01 AM
You might be thinking of communism. Do you think nations like Canada and Norway are destined to end in mass violence due to socialism?It is inevitable. Largely because of immigration in their places.

You can have a welfare state only if you have borders that work.

But if you couple borders with welfare state that means you must employ a mighty military. Which will eat your country like a tumor. And when that collapse happens - people get hungry.

Welfare states with no borders and enforcement of them will inevitably be overrun by immigrants which will bankrupt the system and then everybody starves - but hey, you've got equality as a salve for your empty stomach while you're driven mad with hunger eating the feathers out of your pillows for food. And people just get along great when they are surrounded by others who don't look like them under those conditions.

True fact. *Eyeroll*

Basically it is only a matter of time before that tried and true algorithm destroys a country and kills a lot of people.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Ethereal
10-25-2018, 12:08 AM
I know of no socialist government that does any of what you speak of. Europe can't seem to do it because they don't believe in borders. And the Russians did borders and military too much and bankrupted themselves. While both have a terrific death toll. Europe is going to feel a real nasty pinch soon. Russia just felt it a lot quicker. Kinda like Cuba.

Because let's be honest here, when does a socialist stop socializing their country? Never. They never quit. They only continue the decay until it all falls down.

It's very nature expands state power and taxes.

It's like virgins porking to increase virginity - an oxymoron.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Just because we ally with them on specific issues where we have common interests doesn't mean we have to acquiesce to their socialist economics.

Ethereal
10-25-2018, 12:11 AM
Because while I agree we should be able to, mankind has proven it cannot serve two Masters. Either one suffers or both suffer. Either way, there is suffering while trying to chew gum and walk.

By all means prove me wrong. I'd love to have the state trimmed down. I just don't think you're going to get it done with people your trying to call allies who will actively try to grow it.

It's like weeding the garden with your kids blowing the dandelion seeds right after your pass. You'll be back next week cleaning it up.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

If Bernie Sanders came to Rand Paul with an idea for a bipartisan bill to repeal federal laws against cannabis, would you want Rand Paul to say no just because Bernie is a democratic socialist?

Common Sense
10-25-2018, 12:13 AM
It is inevitable. Largely because of immigration in their places.

You can have a welfare state only if you have borders that work.

But if you couple borders with welfare state that means you must employ a mighty military. Which will eat your country like a tumor. And when that collapse happens - people get hungry.

Welfare states with no borders and enforcement of them will inevitably be overrun by immigrants which will bankrupt the system and then everybody starves - but hey, you've got equality as a salve for your empty stomach while you're driven mad with hunger eating the feathers out of your pillows for food. And people just get along great when they are surrounded by others who don't look like them under those conditions.

True fact. *Eyeroll*

Basically it is only a matter of time before that tried and true algorithm destroys a country and kills a lot of people.

Sent from my evil cell phone.
Sorry, so you do think Canada will be destroyed by socialism?

The US outspends other nations on military spending by a huge margin. Is that eating the US like a tumour?

Captain Obvious
10-25-2018, 12:18 AM
If Bernie Sanders came to Rand Paul with an idea for a bipartisan bill to repeal federal laws against cannabis, would you want Rand Paul to say no just because Bernie is a democratic socialist?

Rand Paul isn't a leader.

He might be someone that says stuff his audience want's to hear but he's just another cog in the establishment.

Bernie Sanders isn't different from that aspect.

Ethereal
10-25-2018, 12:20 AM
Rand Paul isn't a leader.

He might be someone that says stuff his audience want's to hear but he's just another cog in the establishment.

Bernie Sanders isn't different from that aspect.

I disagree on both counts. They are both pretty consistent and they often say things that are radically counter to the establishment narrative.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that you don't have to agree 100% with someone in order to work out reasonable compromises with each other.

Cthulhu
10-25-2018, 06:05 AM
If Bernie Sanders came to Rand Paul with an idea for a bipartisan bill to repeal federal laws against cannabis, would you want Rand Paul to say no just because Bernie is a democratic socialist?Today would depends on the deal. Dealing with them always has a price which is to their benefit.

The Democrats of today didn't happen overnight. It was slowly done over decades.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Chris
10-25-2018, 07:18 AM
You might be thinking of communism. Do you think nations like Canada and Norway are destined to end in mass violence due to socialism?

Marx called the dictatorship of the proletariat socialism, it was supposed to transition to communism, never made it. How was it any different that Henri de Saint-Simon, the founder of French socialism, first principle: That the state carry out production and distribution?

Canada and Norway are capitalist with social programs. Let's not conflate that with socialism.

Chris
10-25-2018, 08:13 AM
Young People Like ‘Socialism,’ but Do They Know What It Is? (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/socialism-popular-young-voters-bernie-sanders/)


Fifty-seven percent of Democrats and 51 percent of young people have a positive view of socialism, Gallup reports, slightly more than those who have a positive view of capitalism. That’s frightening. The record of socialist countries, from the Soviet Union and Mao Zedong’s China to today’s Venezuela, is horrific: little or no economic growth, hunger, authoritarian government, people risking their lives to flee.

So why are people talking about socialism again? It seemed to start with Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign in 2016. Then came a new breed of Democrats fed up with the influence of money in both parties, typified by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s upset victory over a prominent Democratic congressman. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) says its membership skyrocketed after Ocasio-Cortez’s June win.

Socialism is back, after seemingly being buried in the dustbin of history with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, for several reasons. Young people never knew, and many older voters have forgotten, what the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and its Eastern European client states were like. The financial crisis of 2008 certainly gave capitalism a bad name. Bailouts for Wall Street, a very slow economic recovery, and endless wars left people on all sides of the political spectrum looking for alternatives. For some people that alternative was a tough-talking billionaire president, but with his harsh rhetoric toward immigrants and other groups, he seemed like a typical unfeeling capitalist to many other voters.

So now half of Americans 18–29 say they have a positive view of socialism. But there’s a lot of confusion about what that means. The traditional definition of socialism, as summarized in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, is “a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production.” That’s what the Communist Party implemented in the Soviet Union and China. It was the goal of the British Labour Party, and the nationalizations of coal, iron and steel, railroads, utilities, and international telecommunications after World War II led to decades of economic stagnation.

But most American “socialists” probably don’t support government ownership of the means of production. Ask self-proclaimed socialists what they want, and you get vague and lovely answers. Ocasio-Cortez says that “in a modern, moral and wealthy society, no person in America should be too poor to live.” In the Liza Minnelli musical Flora the Red Menace, the Communist organizer sings, “Are you in favor of democracy, the rights of man, everlasting peace, milk and cookies for the kids, security, jobs for everyone, and against slums, the filthy rich, and making cannon fodder of our youth? Then you’re a Communist!”...

Mister D
10-25-2018, 09:12 AM
Of course it does. Despite capitalism, Russia still retains a socialist legacy.

Sorry, what's a socialist legacy? Is that when an ideology is abandoned but progressive folks in the West can't bear to see their daydreams evaporate?


However, they now also enjoy income inequality issues and have few protections against corrupt business practices.
Pssst...that's not socialism.

Mister D
10-25-2018, 09:14 AM
Stalin was a mass murdering monster - no apologies for his behavior. However he was not communism or socialism, he was a psychopathic leader in an era with the technological ability to kill millions of people far more expeditiously than the Tsars could have dreamed of.
Who, there is a pattern of communist mayhem all over the world. That appears to be a pattern. It wasn't Stalin. It was communism.

Mister D
10-25-2018, 09:16 AM
Talking to yourself? Had Lenin been succeeded by someone more like Lenin, the results may have been different, at least in terms of human suffering, but given all of the circumstances i.e. imposition by force and lack of acceptance by the rest of the world, communism was doomed and still is.

Ironically on the current capitalist trajectory, factoring in automation and technology, at some point people will be mostly unemployed and living off the state unless we end up blowing ourselves up and restarting the clock with a very small population of remaining humans. If we don't destroy ourselves, and automation/technology replaces most human labor, what further use is there in capitalism? The bulk of the population will be living off the state - some minimum income, but not as well as they might under socialism. There will be a million really wealthy people and billions of people living at something slightly better than a subsistence existence.

I'm waiting for the replicator to be invented. At that point capitalism is rendered null and void because scarcity disappears.

You're still not answering my question. Where do we stand?

Capitalism is irrelevant but I understand why you want to change the subject. Apologizing for communism must make you a little uncomfortable.

Mister D
10-25-2018, 09:16 AM
*raises eyebrow*

Wut?

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Seriously.

Mister D
10-25-2018, 09:19 AM
It is one of those natural algorithms of history. Once socialism is instituted, it only goes away with lots of death.

And those who think well of it, always try to assure us that or isn't such a bad idea as the preach to us its virtues from a tower built from the bones of its victims.

No thanks. I've no interest is building any more towers of human bones nor drapes of human flesh.

Sent from my evil cell phone.
Hey, did you know what a great guy Lenin was?

Mister D
10-25-2018, 09:19 AM
You might be thinking of communism. Do you think nations like Canada and Norway are destined to end in mass violence due to socialism?

Canada and Norway aren't socialist. They never were.

Chris
10-25-2018, 09:26 AM
Canada and Norway aren't socialist. They never were.

This is what I don't get. There are some rightwingers who accuse Canada of socialism and Canadians like Common Sense and Who and others scream and holler it's not, yet here is Common Sense claiming Canada is socialist.

Polanyi. The Great Transformation, comments that while progressives made noise about social welfare programs it was conservatives who enacted most of those measures. Reactively, perhaps, like Bismark in Germany, but just the same.

Mister D
10-25-2018, 09:29 AM
This is what I don't get. There are some rightwingers who accuse Canada of socialism and Canadians like Common Sense and Who and others scream and holler it's not, yet here is Common Sense claiming Canada is socialist.

Polanyi. The Great Transformation, comments that while progressives made noise about social welfare programs it was conservatives who enacted most of those measures. Reactively, perhaps, like Bismark in Germany, but just the same.
That's a good point. It was also conservative intellectuals who first attacked the new economic ideology.

That said, the state does not own the means of production in either country.

Cthulhu
10-25-2018, 01:40 PM
Hey, did you know what a great guy Lenin was?Castro too!

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Chris
10-25-2018, 01:50 PM
Casto was the first socialist I came across evidence on that he and a few elites were living high on the hog in Cuba while the people were hungry and suffering. It's the same with most socialists, see Venezuela's Rich Aren't Suffering - That's Why Socialism's Such A Bad Idea, The Poor Do (https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/06/21/venezuelas-rich-arent-suffering-thats-why-socialisms-such-a-bad-idea-the-poor-do/#4f0f47465190).

Robo
10-26-2018, 07:08 AM
I recently read this article in Foreign Policy: Socialists and Libertarians Need an Alliance Against the Establishment:LINK (https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/24/socialists-and-libertarians-need-an-alliance-against-the-establishment/?fbclid=IwAR2tXzRmodh7G1LRnK84VFOXaXSE7GCNGt7xOEyr-TSIU93aha1NUjL8IjI)

The article argues in favor of an alliance between socialists and libertarians on foreign policy. Specifically, on reducing the extravagant spending on foreign militarism. This will allow socialists and libertarians more wiggle room to compromise on their domestic differences over economics. The massive savings from reducing "national security" spending will allow socialists to strengthen entitlement programs while allowing libertarians to pursue tax relief and deficit reduction. It's a win-win situation for both sides. The same logic would apply to spending on the US police state, specifically, the regressive drug war, which has cost taxpayers about $1 trillion in direct revenues, to say nothing of all the indirect costs that come with ruining millions of lives needlessly. I think this is a good, practical idea and the perfect example of a reasonable compromise between two sides that don't agree on everything.

True libertarians are small l libertarians and thereby ardent supporters of the Bill Of Rights. That makes them diametrically opposed to enforced socialism of any kind in government.

Captdon
10-26-2018, 10:39 AM
I would argue that socialism incentivizes work more than capitalism.

How? Why would it?

Captdon
10-26-2018, 10:49 AM
Where did I deride the peasants? They were simply still living the same way at the turn of the century as they had been in the 17th century. That was not a criticism, but a fact. They were largely illiterate as well. Russia was a relatively backward nation as compared with its contemporaries, with a massive agricultural population that even after the official end of serfdom were treated with complete disrespect by various entities like the Russian army who simply took what they wanted and left people to starve. The Bolsheviks didn't become popular because people were happy with the status quo.


The Bolsheviks didn't become popular at all. They didn't overthrow the Czar. The provisional government of Kerensky did. The Bolsheviks overthrew them. The people didn't support the Red Army. The Red Army was better then the White Army.

Captdon
10-26-2018, 10:53 AM
Just because we ally with them on specific issues where we have common interests doesn't mean we have to acquiesce to their socialist economics.

They will pick your pockets. Socialism is like a disease. It only destroys. They'll use you and then kill you.

Tahuyaman
10-26-2018, 10:57 AM
Canada and Norway aren't socialist. They never were.

They aren't socialist nations, but they have implemented some elements of socialism into their systems of governance.

Captdon
10-26-2018, 10:57 AM
Who, there is a pattern of communist mayhem all over the world. That appears to be a pattern. It wasn't Stalin. It was communism.

Mao comes to mind. The Khmer Rouge also comes to mind.

Tahuyaman
10-26-2018, 11:00 AM
I would argue that socialism incentivizes work more than capitalism.

Well, one can argue anything. That doesn't meant the argument wil be fact based, rational and persuasive.

Tahuyaman
10-26-2018, 11:02 AM
I seriously made the claim.

Are you going to claim that socialism made things better for the collectivized farmers in Russia?
Those who support socialism usually give themselves an out. When you ask them to show any successful socialist system, they generally say that true socialism has never been tried in its pure form.

Tahuyaman
10-26-2018, 11:10 AM
They will pick your pockets. Socialism is like a disease. It only destroys. They'll use you and then kill you.


The notion of an alliance between the libertarian and socialist systems is idealistic. It can't be done. Those who desire a socialist system will never accept anything where some are rewarded for their personal achievements and others are left behind. That is inherently unfair in the socialist mindset.

The socialists will require equality of outcome regardless of the effort from the individual.

Chris
10-26-2018, 11:13 AM
They aren't socialist nations, but they have implemented some elements of socialism into their systems of governance.

Actually it was not progressives but classical liberals and conservatives who implemented most social programs. It's not socialism, it's social welfare or safety nets. From Adam Smith to Hayek and beyond to John Mackey (Conscious Capitalism), these safety nets have been advocated for any porpserous capitalist system.

Socialism, no matter how much socialist sweet talk about individual freedom, is all about central planning and control of the means of production. It cannot work.

Mister D
10-26-2018, 11:21 AM
I'll go a step further and add that capitalism would likely not have weathered her crises had social welfare compromises not been made.

Mister D
10-26-2018, 11:21 AM
Mao comes to mind. The Khmer Rouge also comes to mind.

You can only shake your head.

Tahuyaman
10-26-2018, 11:23 AM
Actually it was not progressives but classical liberals and conservatives who implemented most social programs. It's not socialism, it's social welfare or safety nets. From Adam Smith to Hayek and beyond to John Mackey (Conscious Capitalism), these safety nets have been advocated for any porpserous capitalist system.

Socialism, no matter how much socialist sweet talk about individual freedom, is all about central planning and control of the means of production. It cannot work.

Several nations have adopted some socialist ideas into their systems. Who implemented them is not the issue.

But yes, socialism is about the collective and centralized government. It does indeed dis-incentivize individual achievement.

Chris
10-26-2018, 11:59 AM
Several nations have adopted some socialist ideas into their systems. Who implemented them is not the issue.

But yes, socialism is about the collective and centralized government. It does indeed dis-incentivize individual achievement.

We've adopted quite a bit of central planning. It's ironic, if you read Hayek's Road, he documents how German socialists put together their system and predicted that even if they lost the war, WWII, which they did, that their system would prevail. FDR, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin had quite the mutual admiration society going about central planning till the war broke out.

Chris
10-26-2018, 12:00 PM
I'll go a step further and add that capitalism would likely not have weathered her crises had social welfare compromises not been made.

Agree, mass man has to be kept happy or will rebel.

Green Arrow
10-26-2018, 01:34 PM
How? Why would it?

It’s the socialist theory of distribution, “To each according to his contribution.” Essentially what this means is each member of the community receives from the community based on what they contributed to the community. Take the example I gave to Ethereal in (I think it was) the “Libertarianism” thread. Say you have an electrician and a farmer, both members of the same socialist community. If the electrician is fully capable of contributing to the community, but instead sits at home all day every day watching TV, he’ll get little (if anything) from the community. But if he contributes to the community, he’ll receive from the community “pie” based on his contribution. So, for example, he can benefit from the farmer’s harvest because he set up and maintains the electrical framework the farmer needs. The farmer, likewise, can benefit from the electrical framework because he provides the harvest the community needs.

This is in contrast to the Marxist/communist theory of distribution, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” In this scenario, contribution doesn’t apply. If you need it, you receive it from another regardless of what you contribute.

It’s also in contrast to the current scenario under a capitalist system, where worker productivity has skyrocketed but wages have largely been stagnant for the last 40-50 years.

Mister D
10-26-2018, 02:35 PM
Agree, mass man has to be kept happy or will rebel.
Well, I think it has more to do with his organic safety nets disappearing. That happen ed for a number of reasons but they were all connected to economic change.

Chris
10-26-2018, 02:37 PM
Well, I think it has more to do with his organic safety nets disappearing. That happen ed for a number of reasons but they were all connected to economic change.

Understood, because liberalism/individualism undermines the old social safety nets, capitalism needs to make up for the loss.

Mister D
10-26-2018, 02:39 PM
Understood, because liberalism/individualism undermines the old social safety nets, capitalism needs to make up for the loss.

I think there are ripple effects too. As things change even if they're initially forced they start to develop a momentum of their own. For example, instances of extended families living in close proximity declines etc.

Chris
10-26-2018, 02:54 PM
I think there are ripple effects too. As things change even if they're initially forced they start to develop a momentum of their own. For example, instances of extended families living in close proximity declines etc.

I'm coming to understand that more and more as the downside of liberalism be it manifested in socialism or capitalism.

Chris
10-26-2018, 03:09 PM
It’s the socialist theory of distribution, “To each according to his contribution.” Essentially what this means is each member of the community receives from the community based on what they contributed to the community. Take the example I gave to Ethereal in (I think it was) the “Libertarianism” thread. Say you have an electrician and a farmer, both members of the same socialist community. If the electrician is fully capable of contributing to the community, but instead sits at home all day every day watching TV, he’ll get little (if anything) from the community. But if he contributes to the community, he’ll receive from the community “pie” based on his contribution. So, for example, he can benefit from the farmer’s harvest because he set up and maintains the electrical framework the farmer needs. The farmer, likewise, can benefit from the electrical framework because he provides the harvest the community needs.

This is in contrast to the Marxist/communist theory of distribution, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” In this scenario, contribution doesn’t apply. If you need it, you receive it from another regardless of what you contribute.

It’s also in contrast to the current scenario under a capitalist system, where worker productivity has skyrocketed but wages have largely been stagnant for the last 40-50 years.


Socialism: “To each according to his contribution.”
Marxism: “To each according to his needs.”

OK, but that's problematic in terms of who decides the value of contribution or need? And to solve that problem, socialists of any sort resort to central planning based on a misbegotten labor theory of value.

Free-market capitalism instead depends on voluntary exchange where each individual exchanges what he values less for what he values more. No need for a central planner to determine value, each individual determines that subjectively. It's the win-win nature of the free market that incentivizes people to risk more to gain more.

Furthermore, while Marxism leads to loss inasmuch as needs will always be greater than abilities, socialism at best leads to break even where ability equals contribution. It must be so because the economy is metaphored as a fixed pie. Free-market capitalism, otoh, is win-win and generates wealth whereby a rising tide floats all boats--see Do the Rich Capture All the Gains from Economic Growth? (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/102219-Do-the-Rich-Capture-All-the-Gains-from-Economic-Growth).

Ethereal
10-26-2018, 04:38 PM
It’s the socialist theory of distribution, “To each according to his contribution.” Essentially what this means is each member of the community receives from the community based on what they contributed to the community. Take the example I gave to @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) in (I think it was) the “Libertarianism” thread. Say you have an electrician and a farmer, both members of the same socialist community. If the electrician is fully capable of contributing to the community, but instead sits at home all day every day watching TV, he’ll get little (if anything) from the community. But if he contributes to the community, he’ll receive from the community “pie” based on his contribution. So, for example, he can benefit from the farmer’s harvest because he set up and maintains the electrical framework the farmer needs. The farmer, likewise, can benefit from the electrical framework because he provides the harvest the community needs.

This is in contrast to the Marxist/communist theory of distribution, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” In this scenario, contribution doesn’t apply. If you need it, you receive it from another regardless of what you contribute.

It’s also in contrast to the current scenario under a capitalist system, where worker productivity has skyrocketed but wages have largely been stagnant for the last 40-50 years.
And I think the key word there is community. The choice shouldn't be between "socialism" and "capitalism" but between home rule and rule from afar. Incidentally, the latter choice played a very important role in numerous revolutions throughout history, including the American revolution.

Cthulhu
11-10-2018, 01:06 PM
Sorry, so you do think Canada will be destroyed by socialism?


Inevitably, yes.


The US outspends other nations on military spending by a huge margin. Is that eating the US like a tumour?

Obviously. Our national debt is atrocious. "Defense" spending is the largest cut of the pie. Most of which is not needed or at best grossly misalocated resources. We have many homeless veterans suffering all manner of ailments - yet we're willing to open our arms and wallets to brazen lawbreakers who routinely waltz across our borders.

Besides, I'm reminded by democrats all the time that military spending is grossly huge whenever a republican is in the office. Democrats don't lie do they?

MisterVeritis
11-10-2018, 01:30 PM
Our national debt is atrocious. "Defense" spending is the largest cut of the pie. Most of which is not needed or at best grossly misallocated resources.
Not even close. So-called mandatory spending, entitlement programs, account for way more than half of all spending. So-called discretionary spending continues to be a shrinking part of the budget. The military budget is the largest portion of the discretionary part of the budget.

Cthulhu
11-10-2018, 01:59 PM
Not even close. So-called mandatory spending, entitlement programs, account for way more than half of all spending. So-called discretionary spending continues to be a shrinking part of the budget. The military budget is the largest portion of the discretionary part of the budget.

I just checked the charts, I was mistaken. Thank you for the correction.

donttread
11-10-2018, 10:16 PM
I recently read this article in Foreign Policy: Socialists and Libertarians Need an Alliance Against the Establishment:LINK (https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/24/socialists-and-libertarians-need-an-alliance-against-the-establishment/?fbclid=IwAR2tXzRmodh7G1LRnK84VFOXaXSE7GCNGt7xOEyr-TSIU93aha1NUjL8IjI)



The article argues in favor of an alliance between socialists and libertarians on foreign policy. Specifically, on reducing the extravagant spending on foreign militarism. This will allow socialists and libertarians more wiggle room to compromise on their domestic differences over economics. The massive savings from reducing "national security" spending will allow socialists to strengthen entitlement programs while allowing libertarians to pursue tax relief and deficit reduction. It's a win-win situation for both sides. The same logic would apply to spending on the US police state, specifically, the regressive drug war, which has cost taxpayers about $1 trillion in direct revenues, to say nothing of all the indirect costs that come with ruining millions of lives needlessly. I think this is a good, practical idea and the perfect example of a reasonable compromise between two sides that don't agree on everything.


I've often thought an LP/Green alliance might work. The LP can be much more flexible at the state level.

Mini Me
11-13-2018, 10:19 AM
America was capitalistic, we know how that went.

I don't get the point of this also, what do voters think?

Alliance?

I still think at the end of the day the super wealthy and privileged will still be super wealthy and privileged, bombs will be made and there will be aggression.

Alliances among thieves. Great!
That makes you a LEFTIST!

This is an epithany for you! Welcome to reality!

Mini Me
11-13-2018, 10:51 AM
We have to make the connection between domestic and foreign policy more obvious.

Specifically, we have to demonstrate how spending on foreign policy is detracting from domestic issues.

Every dollar spent on maintaining a bloated and corrupt overseas empire is one less dollar we have to spend on things that matter most to Americans.

Putting it in terms of pure dollars and cents is something that I believe will resonant with average Americans.
I agree with you. But.....people don't concern them selves with foreign policy until their child comes home in a body bag!

Lately, all we get is Trump rants, and the reaction to it, and the DIVISIVENESS that has split America.

Vested interests are stirring the pot of narratives.

Cthulhu
11-17-2018, 11:48 AM
Great!
That makes you a LEFTIST!

This is an epithany for you! Welcome to reality!

*facepalm*