|
|
Post by Orac on May 4, 2023 8:52:43 GMT
The trick here is the category. If people starve to death outside a communist regime, the deaths are ascribed to 'the capitalist system'. Of course, this is nonsense. In fact, to a significant degree, the converse is true, large numbers of people not starving to death are a result of the 'capitalist system'. Communism is infamous for taking situations that were imperfect, but more or less 'rubbing along' and quickly turning them into epic disasters that made the previous 'early capitalism' suffering look like a picnic. Really? Things were 'rubbing along' in early capitalism, were they? - everything is measured against its practical alternatives |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 8:54:55 GMT
I don't see that you've rebutted Marx's claim that capitalism would follow a socialist trajectory. This is very secondary to the primary issue of whether socialism works. Marx's prediction holds no meaning if socialism is unworkable. In that case, all he is predicting is an eventual collapse, i.e. the most uncontroversial social prediction that can be made. You obviously haven't been following the thread. Society has become a great deal more socialist since Marx's day. On on what basis are you saying it hasn't worked? I don't see a massive population of street urchins, workhouses, people literally dying of starvation on the streets. You would have seen it in Marx's time. Where have you seen this today? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 8:57:29 GMT
Really? Things were 'rubbing along' in early capitalism, were they? - everything is measured against its practical alternatives Okay. There's no dispute that 'communism' in Russia was an abomination. Yet, even that botched and murderous regime produced more for the average Russian after 50 years than capitalism produced for the average Brit after 50 years. Contrast the life of an ordinary Russian in 1977 with that of the ordinary Brit in 1820. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 9:00:02 GMT
Really? Things were 'rubbing along' in early capitalism, were they? - everything is measured against its practical alternatives By the way, the Right is way behind the Left when it comes to criticising what happened in Russia. A member of the Left wrote a book strongly criticising Stalinist Russia. He called his book Animal Farm. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 4, 2023 9:06:16 GMT
This is very secondary to the primary issue of whether socialism works. Marx's prediction holds no meaning if socialism is unworkable. In that case, all he is predicting is an eventual collapse, i.e. the most uncontroversial social prediction that can be made. You obviously haven't been following the thread. Society has become a great deal more socialist since Marx's day. On on what basis are you saying it hasn't worked? I don't see a massive population of street urchins, workhouses, people literally dying of starvation on the streets. You would have seen it in Marx's time. Where have you seen this today? We could argue for hours about definitions and trends here, but there is a shortcut. If socialism is unworkable then all Marx is predicting is eventual failure. The key here is whether socialism is workable, not whether there is some trend towards socialism. A trend towards an unworkable system is just another way of describing a trend towards failure. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 9:13:14 GMT
You obviously haven't been following the thread. Society has become a great deal more socialist since Marx's day. On on what basis are you saying it hasn't worked? I don't see a massive population of street urchins, workhouses, people literally dying of starvation on the streets. You would have seen it in Marx's time. Where have you seen this today? We could argue for hours about definitions and trends here, but there is a shortcut. If socialism is unworkable then all Marx is predicting is eventual failure. The key here is whether socialism is workable, not whether there is some trend towards socialism. A trend towards an unworkable system is just another way of describing a trend towards failure. Today's Britain is much more socialist than it was in Marx's time. Are you saying modern society doesn't 'work' better than the society of his day? |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 4, 2023 9:15:01 GMT
The trick here is the category. If people starve to death outside a communist regime, the deaths are ascribed to 'the capitalist system'. Of course, this is nonsense. In fact, to a significant degree, the converse is true, large numbers of people not starving to death are a result of the 'capitalist system'. Communism is infamous for taking situations that were imperfect, but more or less 'rubbing along' and quickly turning them into epic disasters that made the previous 'early capitalism' suffering look like a picnic. Is transportation to Australia or the American colonies for enforced hard labour over the theft of a loaf of bread really that different from Gulags? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 4, 2023 10:22:31 GMT
We could argue for hours about definitions and trends here, but there is a shortcut. If socialism is unworkable then all Marx is predicting is eventual failure. The key here is whether socialism is workable, not whether there is some trend towards socialism. A trend towards an unworkable system is just another way of describing a trend towards failure. Today's Britain is much more socialist than it was in Marx's time. Are you saying modern society doesn't 'work' better than the society of his day? I think you would have to be careful to separate between the advantages (extra options) provided by the modern world and any benefits that come, regardless of this, from social change itself. having given the issue some thought i have decided on a vague metaphoric metric. My view is, if the benefits of technology and infrastructure created after 1865 were now suddenly removed from us now, our society would fall apart entirely and not function as a society at all. This is ignoring obvious practical issues like skill sets, urbanisation and population levels. Even if we had the skills to provide for survival, our society would have to change entirely to prevent everything falling into chaos. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 10:32:40 GMT
Today's Britain is much more socialist than it was in Marx's time. Are you saying modern society doesn't 'work' better than the society of his day? I think you would have to be careful to separate between the advantages (extra options) provided by the modern world and any benefits that come, regardless of this, from social change itself. having given the issue some thought i have decided on a vague metaphoric metric. My view is, if the benefits of technology and infrastructure created after 1865 were now suddenly removed from us now, our society would fall apart entirely and not function as a society at all. This is ignoring obvious practical issues like skill sets, urbanisation and population levels. Even if we had the skills to provide for survival, our society would have to change entirely to prevent everything falling into chaos. Suppose it was possible to find an objective person to decide the issue. Do you think that he would decide that the ordinary person was better off after 60 years of communism in Russia than the average person was after 60 years of capitalism in the UK. Contrast the life conditions of the average Russian in 1977 with that of the average Brit in 1830. If that objective person had to choose between both systems, which do you think he would say was better, based entirely on the life conditions of the average citizen? I don't doubt he would say that the Russian system had achieved more. Now, consider that the Russian system wasn't even Marxism. It was a cruel, murderous distortion of it, yet it still came out ahead. Imagine what a real Marxist state would have achieved by that time. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 4, 2023 10:34:21 GMT
The trick here is the category. If people starve to death outside a communist regime, the deaths are ascribed to 'the capitalist system'. Of course, this is nonsense. In fact, to a significant degree, the converse is true, large numbers of people not starving to death are a result of the 'capitalist system'. Communism is infamous for taking situations that were imperfect, but more or less 'rubbing along' and quickly turning them into epic disasters that made the previous 'early capitalism' suffering look like a picnic. Is transportation to Australia or the American colonies for enforced hard labour over the theft of a loaf of bread really that different from Gulags? The separation between the two is in the practical - overly harsh penalties for theft have one set of results and harsh penalties for trying to grow your own food have another, far more dismal, result. One is vaguely acting (though brutally) somewhat in favour of civilisation and the other is unambiguously tearing it down. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 4, 2023 10:46:41 GMT
I dont really see what Potato Blight has to do with Capitalism - perhaps its allergic to Socialism? 'In the early 1840s the UK was relatively less affected than the rest of Europe. Yet thousands of working-class people still starved to death, including in England, Scotland and Wales, in part as it had become illegal to give poor people aid.*' People in England, Scotland and Wales were dying from starvation because of the 1834 Poor Law, Doc. So, capitalist laws also starved people. And let's not forget the starving children who were hanged for stealing food under the Bloody Code. *Vernon, James (2007). "Chpts. 1-3". Hunger: A Modern History. Harvard University Press. Polanyi, Karl (2002). "Chpts 1-12, esp chpt 8". The Great Transformation. Beacon Press. Oh - so we have suddenly left Ireland and moved onto something else. As you say England, Scotland and Wales suffered less than other areas in Europe - which considering that at that time the UK was arguably the most capitalist country in Europe due to the Industrial Revolution that was in full swing, tends to show that capitalism was pretty irrelevant either way. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 4, 2023 11:24:33 GMT
I’m confusing nothing . Communism needs to be imposed and dissidents need to be silenced. Russia and China were not pretend communism they were default communism. Cuba has had about 80 years to become a Marxist utopia. It’s a dump and most people in Havana are either hustlers or poor in my experience . I spoke to a few and they hate , fucking hate the government. Where was Marxism imposed? Marxism would have to be imposed..Communism was imposed. Marxism is a form of communism. You are merely trying to peddle a form of communism. Communism always fails. USSR,China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Cuba all failed because precisely they didn’t follow Marx’s blueprint? 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 11:46:59 GMT
'In the early 1840s the UK was relatively less affected than the rest of Europe. Yet thousands of working-class people still starved to death, including in England, Scotland and Wales, in part as it had become illegal to give poor people aid.*' People in England, Scotland and Wales were dying from starvation because of the 1834 Poor Law, Doc. So, capitalist laws also starved people. And let's not forget the starving children who were hanged for stealing food under the Bloody Code. *Vernon, James (2007). "Chpts. 1-3". Hunger: A Modern History. Harvard University Press. Polanyi, Karl (2002). "Chpts 1-12, esp chpt 8". The Great Transformation. Beacon Press. Oh - so we have suddenly left Ireland and moved onto something else. As you say England, Scotland and Wales suffered less than other areas in Europe - which considering that at that time the UK was arguably the most capitalist country in Europe due to the Industrial Revolution that was in full swing, tends to show that capitalism was pretty irrelevant either way. Wasn't it the same thing at the same time. Capitalism ignored what they went through. And capitalism has maintained high prices, causing starvation all over the world. Nobody's saying that 'communist' Russia wasn't a shithole. The fact is that early capitalism was just as big a shithole. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 4, 2023 11:47:46 GMT
Where was Marxism imposed? Marxism would have to be imposed..Communism was imposed. Marxism is a form of communism. You are merely trying to peddle a form of communism. Communism always fails. USSR,China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Cuba all failed because precisely they didn’t follow Marx’s blueprint? 😆 Where was Marxism imposed? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 4, 2023 12:00:04 GMT
Marxism would have to be imposed..Communism was imposed. Marxism is a form of communism. You are merely trying to peddle a form of communism. Communism always fails. USSR,China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Cuba all failed because precisely they didn’t follow Marx’s blueprint? 😆 Where was Marxism imposed? Communism was imposed . Marxism is communism. Communism always fails. |
|
