PeterMP Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 11 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: Their historical examples were mostly from two millenia ago - the fall of the Roman Republic and the defeat of Athens by Sparta (although that defeat probably had more to do with plague than governance). The closest example historically was probably Florence, but Savonarola made that more of a theocracy. Luckily, it did produce the genius of Machiavelli, whose masterpiece Discourses on Livy provided much of the framework for our constitution and avert potential pitfalls that ended previous republics. And the length of time matter because why? Your argument extended would seem to suggest that driving on a road shortly after there has been a serious accident is more dangerous than waiting a long time. Do you suggest that people wait a few months to drive on a road after there has been a serious accident on it vs. driving on it the next day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 Clearly historical details of what transpired before the invention of paper at a time when literacy was limited can't be definitive in the way documentation of economic failure and genocide are incontrovertible for regimes like the USSR, PRC, Yugoslavia, etc. Peaceful revolution may produce successful results, whereas violent revolution inevitably produces tyranny - just compare our revolution and the limited retribution carried out against loyalists versus France's Committee for Public Safety. The idea of communetarianism was older than Marx; don't equate voluntary participation inspired by altruism with coercive subjugation into a system where success is criminalized as purely exploitive and individuality must be suppressed for the wealth of the state. Socialism seems to be functioning reasonably well in the land of my viking ancestors, but its implementation came about through democratic participation - something of which Marx did not approve. Lenin had over a quarter million socialists assassinated to ensure that the communist Bolsheviks would face no opposition from the more popular socialist Mensheviks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 It would seem America works best overall because it is a mix of "isms" I am not so sure any pure unfettered "ism" alone would be a solution. It's a constant push & pull of adjusting according to the current conditions on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 9 hours ago, Riggo-toni said: Clearly historical details of what transpired before the invention of paper at a time when literacy was limited can't be definitive in the way documentation of economic failure and genocide are incontrovertible for regimes like the USSR, PRC, Yugoslavia, etc. Peaceful revolution may produce successful results, whereas violent revolution inevitably produces tyranny - just compare our revolution and the limited retribution carried out against loyalists versus France's Committee for Public Safety. The idea of communetarianism was older than Marx; don't equate voluntary participation inspired by altruism with coercive subjugation into a system where success is criminalized as purely exploitive and individuality must be suppressed for the wealth of the state. Socialism seems to be functioning reasonably well in the land of my viking ancestors, but its implementation came about through democratic participation - something of which Marx did not approve. Lenin had over a quarter million socialists assassinated to ensure that the communist Bolsheviks would face no opposition from the more popular socialist Mensheviks. I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence. It seems like you have combined two thoughts. But generally, nobody is claiming the USSR, PRC, Yugoslavia, etc didn't kill lots of people and that Marx didn't believed to create a communist society required violence. I'm not, and I seriously doubt the Harvard students the person that wrote this piece is interacting with, are looking for that sort of violence or share Marx's views on the requirements to create a communist society (Unlike Marx, I also don't believe a communist society needs to be or likely will be associated with atheism). The idea of communism itself and the use of the word is older than Marx. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism I'm not equating two things. It seems to me that the writer of the Harvard piece (and people in this thread) want to equate all communism to Marxism and Lenism. The problem with making distinctions between things is not mine. The Soviet Union also claimed to be a Republic, but that doesn't mean that we should equate all Republics with the death of large numbers of people. That's precisely what this thread is based on doing to communism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 Communism might make sense if we ever reach a technological level comparable to Star Trek. Until then, I wouldn't count on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Has anyone ever done a broad, comparative historical study of the level of violence of different revolutions? Asking how Northern Europe is able to peacefully enact a socialist revolution when France's republican revolution was so violent seems like a worthy question. Or more generally, why have some revolutions been so violent while others have been much less so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 On 1/3/2018 at 4:12 PM, DCSaints_fan said: I'm about as anti-communist as the average blue blooded American, but the problem with pinning the famine numbers on the Soviet and PRC governments is you have to apply the same standards to the Western /democratic governments. And then, in the case of India particularly, then you have a predicament: That criticism raises a good point. The comparison of the morbidity and mortality of India's development and that of China's development is interesting. And apt. Both civic and economic systems had a ton of inefficiency built into them that laid waste to their populations. And if you wanted to ignore that and just examine the body count that resulted from the emergence of Capitalism and Colonialism in post-feudal Europe, the number would be ghastly. The resulting genocide of Africans and Native Americans led to an unprecedented and unrepeated demographic transformation of the Americas, and caused unquantifiable (and largely unacknowledged) human misery. Paradigm-shifting economic and civic revolutions and significant transformations in balances of power have clearly been accompanied by violence, oppression, injustice, and human misery on a massive scale. These kinds of revolutions and transformations are coerced by developments in technology and ideology. So I guess I return to my previous question for clues as to how to influence the revolutions and transformations to be gradual and gentle, like the ones that happened in Northern Europe in the 20th century? How do you get that outcome instead of what happened in Russia and China? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 What to do when the robots take all the jobs? Capitalism won’t look too dandy, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Springfield said: What to do when the robots take all the jobs? Capitalism won’t look too dandy, then. No current economic system will. Look around at all your stuff and imagine if no human was needed to manufacture, sell, service, or distribute any of it. Not even the raw materials. Humans have never existed at a time when most of their needs and wants can be provided without human participation in the work force. We don't have the answers because we've never needed them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 That's what I mean by technological development coercing revolutions in government and economics. Economies and societies have steadily grown larger, more complex, and more efficient. Automation is going to trigger the next paradigm shift. For the first time in our existence, human labor won't be necessary for the majority of resource production. It's going to lead to something pretty different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 On 1/3/2018 at 2:34 PM, Destino said: I think a major issue is the redefinition of the word socialism, as it's commonly used, to mean social spending. This, for example, has resulted in the myth of Nordic socialism which is now held up as an example of socialism working. Try saying socialism doesn't work anywhere on the internet that isn't decidedly right wing and someone will come along soon after to point at its stunning success in Europe. The problem is that this is not socialism. Socialism/communism can not be separated from the economic component. Control of industry is not merely an aspect of socialism, it's a defining characteristic. It's while attempting to implement a socialist/communist economic system that the authoritarian aspects of these ideologies not only become apparent, but prove themselves necessary if a nation is ever to fully implement and maintain socialism/communism. What this intentionally imprecise use of language (by both the right and left) has done is offer a false image of socialism to people. It should come as no surprise that people have begun to view communism and socialism more positively. Where once people understood it to mean government control (common ownership, if you prefer) of industry, they now think it means happy liberal ideas like universal health care, social safety nets, and even (bizarrely) minority rights. Best summation on page 1 IMO. BTW Benning I think you may have misread this since you liked it, given your past posting history (about Capitalism). Bottom-line Communism/Socialism is a Utopian concept and Utopians are evil. The issue is that man made Utopia is unattainable but since Utopia is so good any means justify the ends to try to get there. 5 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said: Has anyone ever done a broad, comparative historical study of the level of violence of different revolutions? Asking how Northern Europe is able to peacefully enact a socialist revolution when France's republican revolution was so violent seems like a worthy question. Or more generally, why have some revolutions been so violent while others have been much less so? What Socialist Revolution are you referring to in Northern Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 5 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said: ........ So I guess I return to my previous question for clues as to how to influence the revolutions and transformations to be gradual and gentle, like the ones that happened in Northern Europe in the 20th century? How do you get that outcome instead of what happened in Russia and China? Oh you think Northern Europe is Socialist. They're not. Those are free market Capitalist nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 6 minutes ago, nonniey said: Oh you think Northern Europe is Socialist. They're not. Those are free market Capitalist nations. Im glad to hear a conservative like yourself say that. I thought all rational thought on the subject had been lost by the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 19 minutes ago, nonniey said: Bottom-line Communism/Socialism is a Utopian concept and Utopians are evil. The issue is that man made Utopia is unattainable but since Utopia is so good any means justify the ends to try to get there. I guess it depends on how you define utopia. Communism sounds like a bee hive or an ant colony to me. Everyone working as best they can for the common good and only taking what they need... do the worker drones make their own bologna sandwiches in this utopia or are those provided? No thanks. Communists even frown on the idea of owning property, so everyone gets government housing. Seriously, who the hell thinks this sounds good? Socialism is worse and sounds like a time share sales pitch that people are always trying to trick you into listening to. I don't want shared ownership. I've had enough drama dealing with partners in business, I'd go crazy in a commune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 7 hours ago, nonniey said: Bottom-line Communism/Socialism is a Utopian concept and Utopians are evil. Uh, no. There are plenty of writers through history that have advocated obtaining Utopia through non-communist/socialist approaches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia "Utopian ideals often place emphasis on egalitarian principles of equality in economics, government and justice, though by no means exclusively, with the method and structure of proposed implementation varying based on ideology.[2][1] According to Lyman Tower Sargent "there are socialist, capitalist, monarchical, democratic, anarchist, ecological, feminist, patriarchal, egalitarian, hierarchical, racist, left-wing, right-wing, reformist, free love, nuclear family, extended family, gay, lesbian, and many more utopias"" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 23 hours ago, PeterMP said: I'm honestly surprised at you and your rigidness on this issue. "But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”" Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 2 Corinthians 9:7 Communist and socialist governments over large, diverse populations tend to miss that bolded part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 17 minutes ago, Zguy28 said: Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 2 Corinthians 9:7 Communist and socialist governments over large, diverse populations tend to miss that bolded part. I'm not sure why that matters very much, especially in the context of communist countries have tended to try and couple their communism with atheism. Through God's will we can either achieve things or not. We can feed the hungry or not. I would point out that the Nordic countries, while being the most heavily taxed of the Western style democracies, also report the highest degrees of happiness. (I think one thing that is missed is the idea of "need". Different people have different needs. A society where things are shared so that everybody receives based on their needs is not a society where everybody has everything equal. I think in the Nordic countries that is going to be the fundamental problem.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 8 minutes ago, PeterMP said: I'm not sure why that matters very much, especially in the context of communist countries have tended to try and couple their communism with atheism. Through God's will we can either achieve things or not. We can feed the hungry or not. I would point out that the Nordic countries, while being the most heavily taxed of the Western style democracies, also report the highest degrees of happiness. (I think one thing that is missed is the idea of "need". Different people have different needs. A society where things are shared so that everybody receives based on their needs is not a society where everybody has everything equal. I think in the Nordic countries that is going to be the fundamental problem.) Sound like Yoda you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 7 hours ago, nonniey said: Oh you think Northern Europe is Socialist. They're not. Those are free market Capitalist nations. They're Socialist Democrats. Their markets are significantly more regulated than ours. They have the most robust social safety nets in the developed world and the government brokers collective bargaining between labor and ownership in their society. Their governments actively and heavily redistribute wealth downwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 34 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said: They're Socialist Democrats. Their markets are significantly more regulated than ours. They have the most robust social safety nets in the developed world and the government brokers collective bargaining between labor and ownership in their society. Their governments actively and heavily redistribute wealth downwards. They also have a cultural identity that encourages egalitarianism and actively discourages standing out. The Danish, for example, have a saying that "The tall grass gets cut down' (roughly). An example of this is the restaurant NOMA, which is thought by many to be the best in the world. I saw the chef who started it on Anthony Bourdain. Now, New Nordic has swept the culture, but when he first opened, he got a lot of pushback from Danes who were upset he thought he was better than everyone else. Their system really works, and I would live there in a heartbeat, but it would require a major attitude shift from many countries to follow their example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 33 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said: They're Socialist Democrats. Their markets are significantly more regulated than ours. They have the most robust social safety nets in the developed world and the government brokers collective bargaining between labor and ownership in their society. Their governments actively and heavily redistribute wealth downwards. Regulated highly taxed capitalism is still capitalism. Look at some of the high tax rates in US history before Regan took office, we used to believe in taxing some groups much more highly than now. Besides the US freely spends public money like anyone else, it's what the US chooses to buy with it that's the difference. We spend more on military and less on healthcare and social programs. They spend less on military and more on healthcare and social programs. I do not believe that the substantive differences between capitalism and socialism are tax revenue allocation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Destino said: Regulated highly taxed capitalism is still capitalism. Look at some of the high tax rates in US history before Regan took office, we used to believe in taxing some groups much more highly than now. Besides the US freely spends public money like anyone else, it's what the US chooses to buy with it that's the difference. We spend more on military and less on healthcare and social programs. They spend less on military and more on healthcare and social programs. I do not believe that the substantive differences between capitalism and socialism are tax revenue allocation. But that's not really the only difference. It isn't just that they spend more on healthcare. It isn't like they just have a supped up Medicaid system. The government actually is more directly involved in the industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden "Private companies in 2015 provide about 20% of public hospital care and about 30% of public primary care, although in 2014 a survey by the SOM Institutefound that 69% of Swedes were opposed to private companies profiting from providing public education, health, and social care, with only about 15% actively in favour." So that's about 80% of the public hospital care is actually government run and 70% of primary care. The government controls a significant amount of the health care industry in Sweden. The difference is a fundamental difference in people's opinions on the ability (and need) for the government to be the provider of at least certain things. Similar for things like electricity. **EDIT** The 80% isn't exactly right. There is some non-profit, but not public healthcare. I can't put a number on it, but the point is that they are running a much more significant public (government operated) healthcare system than we do. They are not running a ramped up Medicaid/Medicare program (only). They are also running a ramped up VA/CDC/NIH/etc system for everybody. It is a fundamental difference about how you see the role of government in industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh8686 Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Like all things in life, the question of what economic system to use will never be properly answered by a binary, either/or approach. The best answer is always found in how you can mix the best parts of every system within the given context of the times so they have complimentary synergy while also counter-balancing each other so you stay in the goldilocks zone of that specific mixture and don't stray into the extremes of attaching to a singular system. To be extreme is to go so far in one direction, that you lose connection with and the benefit of, the diversity and counterbalance found within a multi-dimensional system. Extreme fixations are one of the most pervasive and detrimental behaviors humans fall into. If all you have is a hammer and everything you see is a nail, eventually the house you're in will fall down, because it takes more than a single tool to build and maintain anything in life that is of any degree of complexity. 2 hours ago, Zguy28 said: Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 2 Corinthians 9:7 Communist and socialist governments over large, diverse populations tend to miss that bolded part. If you're going to use this quote to prove the point your intending to, I think it would be accurate to also add to it the reality of what it takes to have a healthy capacity for generosity and the things that work to the detriment of that capacity. If you only look after yourself, only think about yourself, only put in effort for yourself, and ignore or take for granted benefits created by others you will have a very low or weak capacity for generosity. And when you have a society that sets as its norms only looking after yourself and weak shared responsibility you will have a large amount of people who will be products of those norms and consequently have hearts that will not cheerfully choose to give of their own accord. It's like a battery in a car. If it's low on juice it won't get the generosity car running. You have to re-charge the battery (which often takes a jump/help from an outside source in both this metaphor and in literal life), just to have the chance to move in the ways that increase capacitance so our battery is stable and healthy enough to power the circuitry of our feeling of generosity on its own. The point is, that quote from the bible is to encourage authenticity in giving and when taken in context with the aggregate of Jesus's teachings it is definitely not giving people an out to say "I don't have to give because I don't want to". You are right that Jesus doesn't want to force people to give, BUT, you also have to include the fact that he DOES want people to learn how to give and to learn how to want to give and share in the effort of making the world better for everyone. A strong, healthy spirit, has a strong and healthy sense of generosity, because to feel love and the grace of god/spirit is to feel abundance and to exercise choice from that seat of abundance, even and especially in the face of pressure or the risk of loss. It is to know the feeling of home/heaven and to have a spirit that is dedicated to building and sharing in that feeling of home with others. A healthy spirit doesn't sit back and think "well, it's every man for himself" or "****'em, I got mines". A healthy spirit, has healthy eyes and a healthy heart, that looks at those around him and feels their pain and struggle and wants to help rather than exploit others. He maintains the balance of looking after his individual wants and needs with sharing in the betterment of those he shares this world with to create a synergy that rises all ships along with his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 5 hours ago, PeterMP said: Uh, no. There are plenty of writers through history that have advocated obtaining Utopia through non-communist/socialist approaches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia "Utopian ideals often place emphasis on egalitarian principles of equality in economics, government and justice, though by no means exclusively, with the method and structure of proposed implementation varying based on ideology.[2][1] According to Lyman Tower Sargent "there are socialist, capitalist, monarchical, democratic, anarchist, ecological, feminist, patriarchal, egalitarian, hierarchical, racist, left-wing, right-wing, reformist, free love, nuclear family, extended family, gay, lesbian, and many more utopias"" I wasn't limiting myself to communist approaches when I said that Utopians are evil. "Utopia, And Why It’s A Bad Idea" https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2013/03/utopia-and-why-its-a-bad-idea/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.