Liberal Forum

What about Stalin's "socialism in one state?"

Marxism is supposed to involve some kind of international proletarian revolution yet Stalinism rejected that.

Cannonpointer » 23 Jan 2024, 9:34 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2024, 9:34 pm

Cannonpointer

 Cannonpointer: "...and if you might critique the hybrid socialist/capitalist system in Singapore?" 

Since I reject the notion that Singapore constitutes a hybrid socialist/capitalist system, just as I reject the idea that any nation-state embodies such a hybrid system, I cannot critique it save to say it doesn't exist. A socialist system is one in which the means of industrial/wealth production is socially owned in its totality and democratically administered by the workers who run the various industries.  Cannonpointer correctly notes in a separate post, "The state [of Singapore] owns about a third of the means of production." Indeed. But it wouldn't aggregate a socialist society even if the Singaporean state owned 100% of Singapore's means of production, for state-owned industries are nationalized industries, not socialist industries.

Again, the fundamental definition of a socialist society is one in which the means of industrial production are socially owned (by society at large) and democratically managed by those who work in those industries. Singapore and China, for that matter, cannot currently claim the socialist banner.  However, in this respect, the difference between Singapore and China is that the CPC uses capitalism as a pre-development formation toward re-establishing socialism, while Singapore's government is doing no such thing. The Republic of Singapore isn't a socialist state and doesn't refer to the goal of building socialism in its constitution.

Unlike socialist states, most of which are Marxist-Leninist, its constitution doesn't characterize the state's goal as "building socialism" or its character as "socialist."The constitution officially recognizes government "net investment income" from dividends and interest on state-owned (read: nationalized) assets and companies, enumerating a more vital role for government involvement in the ownership of commercial enterprises than other (non-socialist) countries. But there's no provision stating that Singapore aims to lay the groundwork for a transition to socialism or the socialization of the economy, even if the de facto single governing party (the People's Action Party) has socialist roots. 

Therefore, the most accurate critique of the Singaporean economy would be a partly nationalized market economy or liberalized state capitalism rather than socialism. That doesn't make Singapore a socialist state in the sense of a Marxist-Leninist state. Concerning socialism as a post-capitalist planned economy driven by dynamics other than capital accumulation, Singapore, like nearly every other economy in the world, isn't socialist.
 
 

LowIQTrash » 24 Jan 2024, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 12:54 pm

LowIQTrash

(PART I of III) 

LowIQTrash: "I will concede your argument that the SU did indeed practice socialism as envisioned by Marx..." 

To clarify, I have stated that the U.S.S.R. practiced socialism. But I've not argued that Dr. Marx envisioned what socialism would look like in practice, for he and Engels never did that. They described what they saw as the prerequisites for a socialist society, i.e., a developed capitalist state, as the precursor. But, for reasons I have often discussed herein, they didn't describe a futuristic socialist society because doing so would have flown in the face of the dialectical materialism they set forth.  (As an aside, I will say that I think Marx and Engels were mistaken concerning their belief that socialism could only come to fruition within the context of capitalist societies. After all, although it never evolved into a communist society, the Soviet Union established a successful socialist experiment against semi-agrarianism and held onto it for more than seventy years. I also think that had they lived to see the Bolshevik Revolution, they would have supported it despite their reservations, just as they eventually came to support the Paris Commune after advising against it.) 

LowIDTrash: "The end goal of Marxist politics is communism, which I understand is an abolition of all commodity exchange and markets (not just wage labor and private property) in contrast to 'bourgeois socialism/anarchism' from the likes of Proudhon." 

That's correct. 

LowIDTrash: "I consider communism a pipe dream...yes, of course, with more advanced technology, we can produce more and more products at marginal cost..." 

The pipe dream is the belief that this society won't eventually collapse due to the pressures of its ever-growing wealth disparity. Currently, 66.6% of the total wealth - working-class produced wealth - in the U.S. is owned by 10% of the population. Workers are already at one another's throats while locked in an artificial competition for the few economic crumbs the capitalist class leaves to them. Where is the breaking point, 76.6% of total wealth in the hands of %5 of the populace, 86.6% to 3%, or 96.6% to 1%? We're facing societal collapse because of this discrepancy, yet the band plays on.  

LowIQTrash: "Even if something like that were to happen (who knows when, if ever), communism is also stateless, which means that the borders defining nation-states would be erased. In the spirit of Marx, achieving such a goal requires an international revolution where "workers of the world" unite." 

What of it? Ultimately, nation-states have only been around for roughly 400 of humankind's 300,000-year history. They were only created to accommodate the now utterly antisocial capitalist system, a system that only serves a tiny few while subjecting the social majority to horrors without end.  

LowIQTrash: "I don't see this happening, ever. People tend to be inherently racist (ethnocentric) and favor 'their group' for biological reasons. That isn't something you can 'fix' since it's an ingrained feature of human beings, hence my proposal that nation-states will remain." 

People aren't inherently racist any more than they are intrinsically greedy. It's the ruthless capitalist system that has distorted human nature. And that's not merely figuratively so. For example, the word "race" wasn't used to categorize human beings until the 16th century when capitalism's forerunner - mercantilism, needed a way to justify the slave trade. Dehumanizing people via the n-word, "savages," "uncivilized," etc., served to soothe white Europeans who otherwise might have found an objection or two.  

(END OF PART I)
 
 
 

LowIQTrash » 24 Jan 2024, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 12:54 pm

LowIQTrash

(PART II of III) 

LowIQTrash: "In Marx's ideation of socialism (the end goal of which is communism) anti-bourgeois methods must be taken. However, there are other variants of socialism (Fabian Socialism, National Socialism, Mutualism, Owenism, Guild Socialism), which undoubtedly Marxists like yourself would criticize as anti or pseudo-scientific, that allow for limited ownership of private property." 

Yes, none of those tendencies would allow for the social ownership and democratic administration of the means of industrial production.

LowIQTrash: "The reason I classify National Socialism as a subset of socialism (although you could equally make the case that it should be classified under 'Fascism' - why not both?) is that the Nazis were adamant about controlling the direction of their economy as a whole. Yes, there were privatizations... Still, there's a historical consensus that if you were the owner/the person running the business, you 'had to do' what the Nazis told you to do, or there would be devastating consequences." 

Indeed, "National 'Socialism'" is nothing other than the vulgarity known as fascism, which was hatched in response to Marxism, which was created in response to capitalism. Per "[W]hy, not both [nationalism and socialism]," because they're opposed to one another. Because nationalism abhors socialism, and socialism loathes nationalism - because "National Socialism" is a contradiction in terms - an oxymoron akin to "almost exactly" and "old news."

Nationalism is an inward-looking ideology that demands allegiance to a nation-state, which always translates to a devotion to capitalism. At the same time, socialism is a way of thinking that necessitates loyalty to the international brotherhood and sisterhood of workers. "Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" Sound familiar?  "... the Nazis were adamant about controlling the direction of their economy as a whole. Yes, there were privatizations..."  

"[T]here were privatizations"? Save for a very few insignificant state-owned industries, Germany's entire economy was privately owned. Ergo, what was there to privatize? Answer: Nothing.  "...the Nazis were adamant about controlling the direction of their economy..." A tiny group of individuals was adamant about controlling Germany's economy. That bears no relationship to the societal ownership and democratic administration of the means of production put forth by Marxism. Here is an approximation - although not a blueprint of what a socialist commonwealth's system of economic production would look like: http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf
Does that look like something Germany's Nazis or any other Nazis would promote?   

LowIQTrash: "The idea behind letting private individuals and organizations continue to run their businesses in Nazi Germany was simple - these CEOs had far more experience in their fields and would likely do a better job than a random government bureaucrat appointed to do their job. The only requirement was that once Hitler's government made some 'request,' you had to follow it.)"

IOW, although the pro-capitalist Nazis often told Germany's capitalists what their wage slaves were to produce, they - the Nazis didn't threaten Germany's capitalist system. 

(END OF PART II) 

 
 

LowIQTrash » 24 Jan 2024, 1:21 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 1:21 pm

 

(PART III of III)

LowIQTrash: "And then we had those massive public works projects, Mefo bills, nationalizing the central bank and effectively the money supply, etc. So, as far as socialism goes...the SU was not the only one practicing socialism, and certainly not the first either (Paris Commune? Kibbutz?)

Again, just as Kibbutz's are removed from anything related to the social ownership and democratic administration of a given society's means of production, nationalism is not socialism. And the Paris Commune lasted all of six (6) weeks. 

(END OF PART III)

Be well
Good day
"Harvey Mushman"
 

Harvey Mushman » 26 Jan 2024, 8:42 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 8:42 am

(PART III of III)

LowIQTrash: "And then we had those massive public works projects, Mefo bills, nationalizing the central bank and effectively the money supply, etc. So, as far as socialism goes...the SU was not the only one practicing socialism, and certainly not the first either (Paris Commune? Kibbutz?)

Again, just as Kibbutz's are removed from anything related to the social ownership and democratic administration of a given society's means of production, nationalism is not socialism. And the Paris Commune lasted all of six (6) weeks. 

(END OF PART III)

Be well
Good day
"Harvey Mushman"
 

Three posts of semantics with vocabulary. Reproductions arrive one way. Conceived since inception of its ancestral lineage limited to living a sole existence in series parallel time with all other reproductions present as ancestrally arrived per generation gap added to the 4 that added the 5th.

Dominate genes, 93.75% individual chromosomes arrived from last 30 lifetimes involved with the addition to the 31 relative displaced and siblings if any arrive to the last generation gap added.

Intellectual minds classify these lifetimes as sons, daughters, cousins of parents, aunts and uncles, 4 grandparents, great aunts and uncles to second cousins every other ancestral lineage present which gets labeled race, creed, color, national origin, gender identity declared, language used to communicate between brains sharing space now defending their stereotype character as typecast by rule of law commanding every generation gap be true to their ancestral beliefs or societal evolution disappears when honest soles resist corrupted souls wishing now wasn't eternity.

HarveyMushman » 26 Jan 2024, 8:29 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 8:29 am

Therefore, the most accurate critique of the Singaporean economy would be a partly nationalized market economy or liberalized state capitalism rather than socialism. That doesn't make Singapore a socialist state in the sense of a Marxist-Leninist state. Concerning socialism as a post-capitalist planned economy driven by dynamics other than capital accumulation, Singapore, like nearly every other economy in the world, isn't socialist.

Fair enough. I agree with that critique.

It seems to me that you want to tear down the hierarchies that naturally and inevitably and incontrovertibly self-constitute, and give every human being an equal voice - meaning equal AUTHORITY. 

Divorcing authority from accountability is a fool's game, sir. The worker who votes HIMSELF and HIS generation extra cookies will not pay the long term price to receive the short term benefit. 

Likewise, giving idiots and geniuses the same seat at the table is pissing in the wind and in the face of God. It is an embrace of chaos. 

Next, can we look for you to demand the enfranchisement of children? If not, why not? A smart six year old is less dangerous to a well ordered society than is a 25 year old moron. 
 
It seems to me that you have very much emulated both Marx and Rand, who - opposites in the more obvious aspects - shared one character flaw: They both spent more time thinking about how the people's business ought to be ordered than they did thinking about humans. The most ingenious of systems are of no consequence if they are not suited to the creatures for whose order they are intended. 

An example: Marx said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Lovely statement - but it ignores a few things:

1. People are wont to create MORE than their needs. This means there will be a surplus, once all needs are met. This surplus becomes booty - and the fight is on. In CONCEPT, the booty belongs to "the people." In practice, it is inevitably spoils.
2. People will not be happy having only their needs met. They have wants, in addition to needs. '
3. If need is what gets rewarded by a system, then need, within that system, becomes a virtue. Men should strive to become useful, and their usefulness should be rewarded. In a system designed around Marx's aphorism, NEED will be the virtue, and men will predictably seek to become needy, rather than useful. At best, mediocrity will ensue.

I am not claiming that I have the answer to the proper ordering of the people's business. I am just suggesting that neither do you. Indeed, you do not even HAVE a "people." Unless I am reading you wrong, you want to pretend that people are interchangeable, and any disagreement is racism. And you have distinguished racism and anti-semitism as two different bad things, but you have declined to explain WHY they are different - which, to me, signals a confused mind. If they are different, it ought to be easy to say why. 

You hate the hero, it appears to me. In a movie of your design, everyone would just be equal, and the "action" would be folks getting along and sharing cheerfully and communally - pygmies and norwegians and japanese and filipinos, all together in a stewpot of perfect and shared and exactly equal humanity. That is not how life works, in my opinion. It seems to me that the pygmies have a right to a nation state BY AND FOR pygmies. 

And if that is true, so do Germans and Jews. And there is the rub - it seems to me.
 

@Harvey Mushman  I edited my post since you read it. I was unaware that I had ever published it - thought myself in a state of editing. 
 

HarveyMushman » 26 Jan 2024, 8:40 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 8:40 am

(PART II of III) 

LowIQTrash: "In Marx's ideation of socialism (the end goal of which is communism) anti-bourgeois methods must be taken.

But taken BY WHOM? By revolutionaries? Revolutionaries put their lives at risk - are heroic in every case, no matter their politics. 

Communism is anti-heroic. Communism strives to make all men equal - in outcome as well as opportunity. A communist revolutionary is an oxymoron. Having wrested power from the capitalist class, it will be against his nature - against human nature - to freely cede that power to the unwashed masses who are MANIFESTLY unfit to manage it. 

There will be no abolition of hierarchies, because SOMEONE has to be in charge of that abolition - and there comes hierarchy. 

It appears to me that you need to make peace with the inevitability of hierarchy. 
 

Cannonpointer » 26 Jan 2024, 1:39 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 1:39 pm

@Harvey Mushman  I edited my post since you read it. I was unaware that I had ever published it - thought myself in a state of editing.

You do that sort of thing, too, eh? It's good to know I'm not alone. 

Thank you for the heads up, Cannonpointer. I hope to respond to it next week.

Be well
"Harvey" 

HarveyMushman » 26 Jan 2024, 4:17 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 4:17 pm

You do that sort of thing, too, eh? It's good to know I'm not alone. 

Thank you for the heads up, Cannonpointer. I hope to respond to it next week.

Be well
"Harvey"

Anyone who writes thoughtfully does.

Which means very few on this board.

I look forward to your response - glad you're on the board.
 

Zeets2 » 25 Jan 2024, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 9:33 am

So, you approve of our urban slums packed with homeless, crime, drug abuse, high taxes, massive regulation, poor and failing public schools, traffic, high housing costs, higher service fees, dirtier streets, huge dependency on food stamps, high road and bridge tolls, subsidized housing, and welfare, thousands of illegals, high insurance costs, and city noise that generally have large populations of the wealthy and the poor, with a relatively small middle class who are constantly get squeezed and are leaving our cities in droves, huh?

Ever read Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities?
If that's the kind of city life you enjoy, more power to you.
You won't find me spending very much of my time or money in any US city any longer, even though I may miss watching a ballgame at Yankee Stadium or taking in a Broadway show, which I once did a dozen or so times a year.

You just painted American cities in an incredibly broken manner.  Almost dystopia like...which is true, they are a wreck.

Possibly hyper Capitalism/NeoLiberalism is to blame.  Debtor Capitalism.  Crony Capitalism.

Those have been the dominant economic governing systems for the last 50 years.
 

Cannonpointer » 26 Jan 2024, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 1:45 pm

But taken BY WHOM? By revolutionaries? Revolutionaries put their lives at risk - are heroic in every case, no matter their politics. 

Communism is anti-heroic. Communism strives to make all men equal - in outcome as well as opportunity. A communist revolutionary is an oxymoron. Having wrested power from the capitalist class, it will be against his nature - against human nature - to freely cede that power to the unwashed masses who are MANIFESTLY unfit to manage it. 

There will be no abolition of hierarchies, because SOMEONE has to be in charge of that abolition - and there comes hierarchy. 

It appears to me that you need to make peace with the inevitability of hierarchy. 
 

All genders are created equally unique, not equally talented. All genders of this species every generation gap share evolving in series parallel time as displaced performing social narratives to current events in this atmosphere.

Some become biological parents and others adopt, foster, take care of other person's children loving them as their own. That is what makes this species so different than most, at the same time makes this species so self destructive than any other.

Sumela » 26 Jan 2024, 5:56 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 5:56 pm

You just painted American cities in an incredibly broken manner.  Almost dystopia like...which is true, they are a wreck.

Possibly hyper Capitalism/NeoLiberalism is to blame.  Debtor Capitalism.  Crony Capitalism.

Those have been the dominant economic governing systems for the last 50 years.

Well apparently those are the product of failed liberal policies, and liBRULizm = soshalizm (according to Zeets2' very sophisticated understanding of political economy)

Btw Marxists call it "late capitalism." 

LowIQTrash » 26 Jan 2024, 8:42 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 8:42 pm

Well apparently those are the product of failed liberal policies, and liBRULizm = soshalizm (according to Zeets2' very sophisticated understanding of political economy)

Btw Marxists call it "late capitalism."

Zeets is a cliche and myth filled Dork Machine.
These idiots who equate liberalism with socialism. OMG.

I watch a Marxist on YT named Joti Brar.  She discusses 
late-stage capitalism, how imperialism eventually eats itself.

Brother, Im a work in progress.  I do not yet have a solid
comprehension of many of the issues as you, CP, and Majik.

I began at realizing the Anglo-Zionist Empire was the main problem in the world
....and Im trying to grow from there.

I appreciate you guys.
 

Sumela » 26 Jan 2024, 8:54 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 8:54 pm

Zeets is a cliche and myth filled Dork Machine.
These idiots who equate liberalism with socialism. OMG.

I watch a Marxist on YT named Joti Brar.  She discusses 
late-stage capitalism, how imperialism eventually eats itself.

Brother, Im a work in progress.  I do not yet have a solid
comprehension of many of the issues as you, CP, and Majik.

I began at realizing the Anglo-Zionist Empire was the main problem in the world
....and Im trying to grow from there.

I appreciate you guys.

**** bruh - I'm in the same boat as you, and I profit from your posting and the posts of the others you named as much as you profit from my posting. 

Hell, I voted for Obama. I was a liberal until I red-pilled over climate silliness and race-baiting (specifically, the treyvon be gone affair). When they started the transinsantiy is when I started down the path that had led me here. That's 7 short years ago - the end of 2016.
 
 

Cannonpointer » 26 Jan 2024, 9:02 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024, 9:02 pm

**** bruh - I'm in the same boat as you, and I profit from your posting and the posts of the others you named as much as you profit from my posting. 

Hell, I voted for Obama. I was a liberal until I red-pilled over climate silliness and race-baiting (specifically, the treyvon be gone affair). When they started the transinsantiy is when I started down the path that had led me here. That's 7 short years ago - the end of 2016.

I didnt know that history.    Mine was more bent to the right.  I remember thinking I was clever and funny
for repeating the **** mantra...""nuke the middle east....we can drill through glass"".

My initial knee jerk change once I realized the MIC are psychopaths
was to lean toward Libertarianism....  
 

Cannonpointer » 24 Jan 2024, 2:52 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jan 2024, 2:52 pm

Cannonpointer

(Part I of III)

Cannonpointer: "I'm curious how you see the Cultural Revolution. I have my view of it, which does not cast Mao as quite the devil that Westerners are taught to see him as. That said, I am interested in your apologia for Mao."

My thoughts concerning the Cultural Revolution (CR) are mixed. On the one hand, it was incumbent on the Revolution to rid Chinese society of the bourgeois influences that hampered the Revolution. On the other hand, excesses, such as dictating hairstyles and manners of dress, "served" to trivialize the Revolution. So much so that roughly fifty years later, many communists believe that such overkill "served" to destroy Mao's hope of using the CR to pave the way for communism. 

But that has long confused me because no one knew better than Mao Zedong that only full industrialization can lead to socialism and, eventually, communism, not a cultural revolution. So, it's illogical to think that Mao made such an apparent anti-dialectical error. The fact that many people now believe that the CR carried the opposite effect - that it paved the way for China's acceptance of capitalism in the 1980s may indicate Mao's genius. Since the establishment of socialism is best achieved through full industrialization, the Cultural Revolution, through its backhanded ways, may have been Mao's long-term plan of action toward establishing communism. Then again, this subject does confuse me.

Ultimately, the Chinese people's attitude concerning the CR is salient. Most Chinese think it never should have taken place and that its many atrocities reduced it to mere folly with no long-term positive results. I have to respect that. 

Cannonpointer: "Please distinguish for me the difference between racist invective and anti-Jewish invective. Isn't an anti-Jewish invective racist? Yet you felt the need to distinguish it as a thing apart. Will you please explain your motive for that?"

In writing, "Well, at least it isn't a racist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-Jewish invective," I merged racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and anti-Jewishness as invective or insulting pathologies. I should have written, "Well, at least it isn't a racist invective, a xenophobic invective, a homophobic invective, or an anti-Jewish invective," I apologize for my carelessness. 

With that said, the nature of anti-Jewish invectives isn't racist, for Jewish people are given to a particular religion, not a "race" or, more precisely, a particular pigmentation. Many people refuse to understand that biological fact, but the reality is that genetic markers cannot determine Jewish "descent" any more than they can decide Unitarian descent. 

The fact that Germany couldn't defeat EARTH is not a 'spectacular failure' of ANY ism. That's silly."

I'm sorry, Cannonpointer, but I don't understand what "couldn't defeat EARTH" means. Will you please unpack that? Thank you, sir. 

(END OF PART I)
 
 

Cannonpointer » 25 Jan 2024, 10:42 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 10:42 am

Cannonpointer

(PART II) I wrote, "Moreover, the phrase 'National Socialism' is a contradiction, for nationalism is a rejection of socialism, and socialism is a rejection of nationalism." 

In response, Cannonpointer wrote, "That seems preposterous on its face. Tribal societies cannot be socialist? I think I am going to need you to define socialism because the more you talk about it, the confuseder I get." If "tribal societies" pertain to homogenous societies with distinct languages, customs, cultures, etc., then "tribal" societies can be socialist societies.

But I don't understand what could be preposterous about saying, "'National Socialism' is a contradiction, for nationalism is a rejection of socialism, and socialism is a rejection of nationalism." In brief, nationalism represents the interests of a single nation-state, while socialism's orientation is international. "Workers of the world, unite." I wrote, "...FDR didn't use "socialist methods" to end the then-current depression, appease the working class, and thus save capitalism. As I wrote in this thread's parent post, "The progressive achievements won by Soviet workers pressured the US capitalist state to concede reforms for American workers." Hence, New Deal "reforms" can be likened to an army's defensive fortifications erected in the face of an advancing opponent." 

Cannonpointer's retort: "You just said that the methods weren't socialist, and then you said socialist successes forced the methods. That is rather confusing. If the state using the workers' capital to build good things for the workers is not socialism, what is it? It's not capitalism - capitalism is rapine. Or it could be capitalism - alleviate rapine to avoid the pitchforks. 

A better way for me to have explained it would have been to write, "Although the American capitalist state didn't wish to allow for reforms concerning homeownership, desegregation, investments in education, public healthcare, etc., it was compelled to do so in the face of the success of the Bolshevik Revolution that American workers took notice of."

As I previously stated, these capitalist "reforms" were likened to defensive fortifications erected by an army in response to an advancing enemy army. Although the US government/capitalist state would have preferred not to give an inch, it was forced to in light of that battle for hearts and minds and because of the strong demand for socialism by American workers at the time.

Toward a more complete understanding of that phenomenon, it's vital to understand the derivation of such "reforms." Germany, under Otto Von Bismark during the 1880s, was the first capitalist state to foster social reforms. In the 1870s, the German state passed several anti-socialist laws to thwart the then-burgeoning demand for socialism within Germany's working class. But those laws failed their intent. So, during the 1880s, the German capitalist state enacted social "reforms," e.g., unemployment insurance and old age pensions, intended to appease German workers, thereby lessening the demand for socialism. It worked like a proverbial charm. Within a few years, once-vibrant socialist parties were dissolved or rendered irrelevant. 

IOW, Germnay's capitalist class was confronted with the genuine possibility of losing everything by way of a socialist revolution or losing a little by allowing for reforms that would quash the desire for a socialist society. It chose the former and prevailed in the process. And the same can be said of the American capitalist class during the interwar period of 1918-1939.  

 (END OF PART II)
 
 

Cannonpointer » 25 Jan 2024, 10:42 am » wrote: ↑

25 Jan 2024, 10:42 am

Cannonpointer

(PART III)

 I wrote: "...socialism's character is, at its core, international and necessarily anti-nationalistic."

Cannonpointer: "Really? Isn't socialism an ECONOMIC system that can work in an isolated environment?"

Not at all. As the Bolsheviks learned in the wake of the failure of the German Revolution in 1918, understandably hostile capitalist powers quickly descended upon newly revolutionized nations. As I see it, Stalin's clinging to the illusion that the Soviet Union could "go it alone" had more to do with foolish pride than a misunderstanding of geopolitics concerning socialist states. Stalin knew better but refused to acknowledge Dr. Marx's admonishment: "An island of socialism cannot survive in a sea of capitalism." 

Cannonpointer: "Why does it take more than one tribe to make a country socialist?"

I apologize, for I don't understand what that means. 

Cannonpointer: "My understanding - admittedly pedestrian, but believed nonetheless - was that the Kulaks were put upon because they did not wish to cede their properties to state-run agribusiness."

That's correct. 

Cannonpointer: "It seems that you want to tear down the hierarchies that naturally and inevitably and incontrovertibly self-constitute, and give every human being an equal voice - meaning equal AUTHORITY."

First, I disagree that hierarchies are natural, inevitable, and incontrovertible. Evidence demonstrates that hierarchies are a very recent development vis-a-vis humankind's roughly 200,000 years of existence. Indeed, there have only been hierarchies within human relations since the agricultural revolution a mere 12,000 years ago. Evidence shows that human beings lived cooperatively with one another before that, with no hierarchies. Indeed, human being's once well-demonstrated ability to cooperate enabled us to survive as a species. 

So, yes, I want to destroy the artificial hierarchies that enable the tiny sliver of humanity known as capitalists to hold billions of human beings in bondage while subjecting them to lifetimes filled with material uncertainty and precarity. I want to see the elimination of the hierarchical-induced artificial competition that keeps workers at one another's throats, battling for the few economic crumbs left to them by capitalists. 

For their wholly self-centered reasons, the world's capitalist class' media and other organs of social control have convinced us that hierarchies are natural, inevitable, and incontrovertibly self-constituted, but it isn't so. Humans once lived cooperatively, and we're capable of doing so again. 

And since we, the working class, already operate and manage the means of production, why shouldn't we have an equal say in dispensing the economic wealth our labor produces? Why shouldn't we reject the racism, sexism, xenophobia, and all other contrived social pathologies that render us powerless against our capitalist masters?

(END OF PART III)

Be well
Good Day
"Harvey Mushman"