The Fundamental Problem of Socialism

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Fundamental Problem of Socialism

Post by Arising_uk »

xy.Now! wrote:Wake up, lefties: socialism is a lie; communism, too. ...
Equally applicable to Capitalism, get real righties.
It's all about power for them; about being powerful, about ruling on others, about imposing your will: about being the top dog around. That's what your beloved Karl Marx wanted; that's what socialists want. Anyone seeing nobility or 'benevolence' as the driving forces behind these political movements (socialism, marxism, etc.) is either short-sighted, excessively naive (or young) or simply delusional.
Who ever thought it came from such things.

You've obviously not bothered to read Marx and just have a second-hand cod view.
That "equality" they promise you, and which they purport to you as their motto and even their war cry, is nothing but the promise of power, of strength, which you, on the other hand, cannot help but embrace: "I'm (We're) putting you at my (our) level, you rich brat; you hear me! You're not better than me... ". That's why you all losers feel so atracted to the idea (to marxism, socialism), yes: you like it, you crave for it, because it pictures you in a position you've never been before; the image of you stomping over those above you: over those who are, always were and will always be better than you; not just materially...
And yet we look around and see that the rich children of those at the top appear as stupid as many?

You underestimate and misunderstand the motives of those at the bottom attracted to such things.
Socialism, communism are, at bottom, nothing but the lower instincts wanting to rule; revenge, envy, jelousy: corrosive feelings taking over. The lower castes taking over... In every society, the rise of socialism and communism is to be understood as a sign of its (society's) advanced state of moral decadence.
It is and in general its because of the moral decadence of those at the top.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9991
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"You've obviously not bothered to read Marx"

I have...and I've read about his life...he was a fuckin' hypocrite and a bit of a nutjob (just like Bill).
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re:

Post by Arising_uk »

henry quirk wrote:I have...and I've read about his life...he was a fuckin' hypocrite ...
How so?
and a bit of a nutjob (just like Bill).
Not really as unlike Bill Marx changed the world.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9991
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

He didn't pay his bills or servants (yeah, he had servants), he encouraged his daughters to marry rich, etc.

He was the typical 'do as I say, not as I do' hypocrite.

As for changin' the world: I'm thinkin' we coulda done better without his contribution.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re:

Post by Arising_uk »

henry quirk wrote:He didn't pay his bills or servants (yeah, he had servants), he encouraged his daughters to marry rich, etc. ...
Most people of his class had servants in those days and delayed non-bill paying was a fairly common occurrence but servants were still better off than the lower classes as they had roof and food, although it's true Engels paid his bills by and large. Pretty much no-one married down in those days it was economic suicide and socially unacceptable especially for women who had no other status, he'd have pretty much been a bad father to have said otherwise.
He was the typical 'do as I say, not as I do' hypocrite.
You'll have to point out in his works where he says do as I say? As most of them are his analyses of the economic and industrial conditions around him with his theory of history producing where he thought it would end up. Are you sure you're not thinking about the works and ideas of later 'Marxists'? Remember Marx himself declared himself not a 'Marxist'.
As for changin' the world: I'm thinkin' we coulda done better without his contribution.
Depends who this 'we' is I reckon. Although I don't disagree that the interpretations of his HM were disastrous in the main but think that Stalinism benefited greatly from the US stance at the end of the war.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9991
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"Remember Marx himself declared himself not a 'Marxist'."

"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to." J. R. "Bob" Dobbs
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Fundamental Problem of Socialism

Post by Arising_uk »

But he didn't really preach did he? He produced social and economic analyses of his times and with his theory of history drew conclusions as to where it might go. Now he might have been wrong but he wasn't preaching I think. But if he was he wasn't exactly a hypocrite as he wasn't of the class that was to inherit the production.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9991
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

As I recall, his work was less analysis (though it was that) and more polemic.

Meh...let's just leave it that I got my view of the man (an unkind one) and you got yours.
mickthinks
Posts: 802
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re:

Post by mickthinks »

I got my misinformed prejudices against the man and I can't be arsed to defend them.

I'm guessing that is what you are really trying to say, Henry.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9991
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

No, not exactly....however, as I just told someone, I'm not feelin' any particular obligation to explain, defend, or justify myself to anyone on anything.
mickthinks
Posts: 802
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re:

Post by mickthinks »

I'm not feelin' any particular obligation to explain, defend, or justify myself ...

Naturally you are not obliged to provide explanations, Henry, and if you can't, it is as well to resign yourself to that fact.

And we in turn are not obliged to take your ideas seriously or see you as a competent thinker if you offer no explanations or justifications, but merely shrug your shoulders, either metaphorically or literally, as if your very indifference conferred on you some kind of authority.

You're a fraud posing as a philosopher.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9991
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

Well, I've never claimed to be a philosopher, quite the opposite actually.

As for this 'we' I'm supposed to give a flip about, or be cowed by: I don't, I'm not.

I mean, really: I'm supposed to get my undies in a twist cuz people I don't know, don't respect, people who can't do diddly to compell me in any way, get pissy?

"We won't like you! We won't play with you!": the essence of what you and a few others here and elsewhere have as your 'big stick'.

"...sound and fury, signifyin' nuthin'..."
User avatar
richardtod
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:51 pm

Re: The Fundamental Problem of Socialism

Post by richardtod »

The Fundamental problem with Socialism is that few people who condemn it actually know what it is. Many of the posts here show a distinct lack of understanding of the wide range of ideologies that come under the banner of "Socialism". Some concepts common to all versions of Socialism is the right of every individual to be free of suffering, a right to education', free from fear and tyranny. Examples like Stalin are not Socialist or indeed communist but good old fashioned dictatorship. (I only add this to forestall the usual diatribe that Stalin and Castro equal socialism and NO, Communism and Socialism are NOT the same thing. Call a Communist in France a Socialist and you will have a fight on your hands) It is also very difficult from the perspective of Capitalist ideology to grasp the concept that money is only part of the equation and not the only variable in the measurement of success and failure.

I often speak to people with no real political understanding who feel more (UK) Conservative than Labour or (US) Republican than Democrat, who will agree with my main thrust of political argument only to be shocked to discover that I am a Socialist, there is more we agree on than disagree. What we do agree on is the advances in technology and the improvement of life styles for many under the Capitalist system. Where we diverge is the way in which those benefits have been distributed. (note: I and I believe most socialists, do not believe in every person earning the same no matter what their level of contribution to society might be. I have no objection to a millionaire if, they have treated their employees, creditors and customers well plus made their contribution to the country that has nurtured their success through taxation.)

It is not surprising that there are many forms of the same ideology. I believe even Marx said his ideas would be soon outdated. It is a concept compatible with Christian teaching in a way of thinking about our relationships with one another that has been interpreted in many ways for the modern world. The main differences between Socialists are the subtle differences in how we achieve a "Fair and Just Society" with no man more equal than another but ensuring that the rich resource of human ingenuity, entrepreneurial and manual skills are allowed, in fact encouraged, to prosper to the benefit of society as a whole rather than just a few individuals. A major concern for Socialists is how do you ensure that any Socialist society can be maintained and not go the way of Capitalism in allowing power to drift to a new elite.

No thinking Socialist would say they have all the answers but, if I compare Socialism with Capitalism at least Socialists are asking the questions.

Socialism is often portrayed as a violent and destructive force. However, we must remember that Capitalism was born of violence. The British Empire was not achieved through being nice to the peoples of the world but by political manipulation and thuggery. The response, in some countries to violent oppression has been to fight against it. (As did America in its separation from Great Britain) In many cases it has been the Socialists and/or the Communists who have the organisation to do so. Revolution in Russia and Cuba would never have happened if the people were happy with their rulers. The rise of the Unions was a response to the abuse of workers not because they were being treated fairly. If they were, there would never be any need for Unions. Unfortunately the consequence of the victory of revolution has seldom been to maintain the principles of Socialism. It seems as in all wars, little thought has gone into what comes after the victory. This vacuum creates chaos which is difficult to manage. Stalin is the prime example of the results of the chaos.

The American Constitution and Bill of Rights are, for me, a great start point for the ideal Socialist state but the Founding Fathers I doubt had any concept of Socialism. They also believed in the fundamental rights of the people. What has happened to those ideals? Capitalism has subverted the American people to the will of the corporate organisations. As it has done the world over.

We can see the end result of the greed and selfishness of the Capitalist system in the UK today. This once great and powerful country is now a lost island with no leadership or direction. The political classes and the rich are all 'fighting over the deck chairs on the Titanic'. The people in this country are now left to the whim of the corporations. In that respect at least, Marx's predictions have proved true.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9991
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

Rich,

There's a whole whack of folks critical of capitalism (and it's foundation, the unrestrained market) who don't know jack shit about what they're lambasting.

Mebbe if they did know, we wouldn't be saddled with a pseudo-market and folks wouldnt flutter (like june bugs to a lit candle) to communitarianism (my lump sum designator for anything that puts the one in service to the many).
User avatar
richardtod
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:51 pm

Re: The Fundamental Problem of Socialism

Post by richardtod »

There's a whole whack of folks critical of capitalism (and it's foundation, the unrestrained market) who don't know jack shit about what they're lambasting.

There's a whole whack of folks critical of anything that undermines their ingrained beliefs and who will assert a lack of knowledge on the part of the critic, without any foundation for their argument.

It goes to the heart of my assertion that few actually know what Socialism is or what the objectives are. I have not Lambasted Capitalism and, like Marx, appreciate the benefits it has brought. Personally, I was a director of a not for profit company that assisted small business working for no reward other than seeing businesses prosper. This does not in any way conflict with my Socialism, in fact I see it as a demonstration of it.
Post Reply