- 9 days
This isn’t true. People hate socialism because it has never worked. People end up worst off under collectivism.
Socialism always works, and has always dramatically improved the lives of the people as compared to what came before.
- 9 days
Where has it worked ? It didn’t work out too well for my family in Eastern Europe.
Life expectancy doubled in Russia, literacy rates went from 20-30% (depending on the region) to 99.9% within the span of decades. Healthcare was made free and high quality, same as education. Famine was gradually eliminated in a region where Tsarist agriculture made that a common affair. Homes were dramatically upgraded from wooden shacks in rural areas to decent apartments for everyone. I don’t know where in Eastern Europe your family is from, but the great majority of society saw dramatic improvements compared to semi-feudalism before it. Aristocrats and capitalists definitely lost out, and the transition wasn’t bloodless, but the vast majority of society pulled ahead.
- 9 days
Compared to feudalism. Low bar, huh?
Plus lol@famines. Ukraine wants a word.
The majority of socialist states emerged from semi-feudal societies, and they factually made dramatic improvements. The 1930s Soviet famine proves my point, the early 1930s was the last famine in the USSR outside of wartime, becuse by 1933 they had successfully collectivized agriculture and abolished the former Kulak system. The famine wasn’t caused by socialism, it was ended by it.
I already acknowledged that there was a famine in the early 1930s. If your point was that this was a deliberate, intentional famine, then even serious liberal scholars believe it to have been a combination of adverse weather conditions and mismanagement. For instance, Mark Tauger wrote:
[data] indicate that the famine was real, the result of a failure of economic policy, of the ‘revolution from above,’ rather than of a ‘successful’ nationality policy against Ukrainians or other ethnic groups.
Tauger believes it was a failure of economic policy, not an intentional attack on ethnic Ukrainians. The 1930s famine was a combination of drought, flooding, and mismanagement. Further, the Kulaks, wealthy bourgeois farmers, magnified matters by killing their own crops in the midst of a famine rather than letting the Red Army collectivize them. The Politburo was also kept in the dark about how bad the famine was getting:
From: Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Fond 3, Record Series 40, File 80, Page 58.
Excerpt from the protocol number of the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks) “Regarding Measures to Prevent Failure to Sow in Ukraine, March 16th, 1932.
The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine.
Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee – J. STALIN
Letter to Joseph Stalin from Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine regarding the course and the perspectives of the sowing campaign in Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.
There are also isolated cases of starvation, and even whole villages [starving]; however, this is only the result of bungling on the local level, deviations [from the party line], especially in regard of kolkhozes. All rumours about “famine” in Ukraine must be unconditionally rejected. The crucial help that was provided for Ukraine will give us the opportunity to eradicate all such outbreaks [of starvation].
Letter from Joseph Stalin to Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.
Comrade Kosior!
You must read attached summaries. Judging by this information, it looks like the Soviet authority has ceased to exist in some areas of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Can this be true? Is the situation in villages in Ukraine this bad? Where are the operatives of the OGPU [Joint Main Political Directorate], what are they doing?
Could you verify this information and inform the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party about taken measures.
Sincerely, J. Stalin
Evidence doesn’t point to deliberately killing some of the Soviet Union’s most loyal citizens in the breadbasket of the entire USSR, when they desperately needed to advance agricultural production (and did).
- 8 days
The fight isn’t left vs right, it’s down vs up. That’s what they spent their money on, making sure we lowbies keep on fighting against each other. None of it works, except to make sure powerful people remain powerful and rich.
- 7 days
Those who want to act against the rich and powerful are called, “the left.”
- 7 days
How? By funneling taxes to a central authority and empowering them? Because we’re not empowering society by doing that. We’re actually empowering just a small group, who gets all the agency to make decisions on behalf of everybody and, most likely, on behalf of themselves mostly. An actually fair society needs to be governed in a decentralized manner. On the far left, we’ve got communism, and we all know how that went, and on the far right we’ve got fascism, and we definitely know how that went.
I maintain my original hypothesis that “the left” and “the right” are simply constructs designed to keep up fighting among ourselves, where we mostly disagree with each other in a tribalist way, as opposed to actually discussing and thinking about the problems, and trying to come up with solutions. To me, it’s plain simple that we need both mindsets combined to be able to actually fight the rich and the powerful.
But that’s it from me on politics this week. As a problem solver, I have less and less interest on this pointless topic.
- 7 days
That is an anarchist position, anarchism is a strain of leftist thought.
To me, it’s plain simple that we need both mindsets combined to be able to actually fight the rich and the powerful.
We need right-wing thought to fight the rich and powerful? What part? Cutting taxes on the rich? Starting wars of aggression? Kicking down doors and rounding up immigrants?
The right is completely wrong, has no insight on anything, mostly on account of being completely anti-intellectual. All of their policies are about reinforcing existing heirarchies, strengthening the rich and weakening the poor. Opposing those policies is not “tribalism.” I challenge you to name one right-wing position with any merit.
As a problem solver, I have less and less interest on this pointless topic.
Pointless topics! So you don’t actually care about fighting the rich at all.
- 7 days
That is an anarchist position, anarchism is a strain of leftist thought.
Well, there’s also anarcho-capitalism, or minarchism. But what’s happening right here with this discussion is exactly my point. There’s a senseless drive to put individuals into these tiny bubbles of left or right, and this solves nothing.
We need right-wing thought to fight the rich and powerful? What part? Cutting taxes on the rich? Starting wars of aggression? Kicking down doors and rounding up immigrants?
Nah, couldn’t care less for those guys. It’s freakin’ insanity what’s happening right now in the world. What I’m saying is that taxes merely shift the control elsewhere. If you have to tax, those are the guys to be taxed. My problem with taxes is that it accomplishes nothing really. This general position against “the rich” is also slightly biased, but completely understandable given the current events. Dude, I am absolutely disgusted by the stuff those guys are doing! It’s mind blowing to me the level of insanity we have reached. Now, are you going to ask the government to help you out, when they are essentially the enemy? I don’t get it. Also, are we gonna add to the chaos and make it worse, or are we actually gonna shift out of a destructive mindset and try to clearly identify problems and find solutions? It’s just that revenge taxing the rich will essentially accomplish nothing beyond satisfying the egos of a few people.
Pointless topics! So you don’t actually care about fighting the rich at all.
I don’t, not directly. I care about addressing the real problems, the core issues. For example, the fact that the rich and the powerful seem to be above the law. This is why I believe the decentralization of power is a fundamental mechanism in the fight against corruption. A central body of power will always be corrupt.
- 7 days
Well, there’s also anarcho-capitalism, or minarchism
“Anarcho”-capitalism isn’t so much anarchism as it is a rebranding of feudalism. Anarchism is opposed to heirarchies, so it’s incompatible with capitalism. Minarchism is an unrealistic, idealist ideology. Whichever class wields power over the state is going to use the state to advance their interests.
This general position against “the rich” is also slightly biased, but completely understandable given the current events.
It’s just that revenge taxing the rich will essentially accomplish nothing beyond satisfying the egos of a few people.
It’s not biased, and it’s not “revenge.” The rich are a class, which is engaged in class warfare against the poor. Weakening them would be worthwhile even if we didn’t get a direct benefit from it, because the fewer resources they have the less ability they have to impose worse conditions, and the more resources they have the more aggressive they can be.
Now, are you going to ask the government to help you out, when they are essentially the enemy?
An anarchist might oppose taxing taxing the rich for that reason.
I would argue that the government is merely a tool, that can be used by different classes for different purposes. It is not the primary enemy, which is the rich, but the tool is often used by the rich to advance their interests. Imposing taxes on the rich would be an example of the working class wielding the tool of the government against the rich.
I care about addressing the real problems, the core issues. For example, the fact that the rich and the powerful seem to be above the law.
That’s what you just called a “pointless issue,” isn’t it? When we discuss politics, aren’t we discussing strategies for addressing the power of the rich? Is it pointless to discuss those strategies?
