[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
still don’t have that winning argument, eh?[/quote]
Still terrified of the search function and unable to come up with any sort of question, I see. Well, if you decide to actually put any effort in, I’ll be here.
and still no best argument for the supposed superiority of socialism . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
and still no best argument for the supposed superiority of socialism . . . [/quote]
Answer me this: why should I put any effort into this when you have ignored 90% of what I have said so far? If you just ignore everything, what’s the point? By the way, please address this post before you say anything else:
[quote][quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Ryan, it absolutely amazes me that you can read the same thread that I am reading and come away with the conclusions that you do. Explains why you can still be a fan of socialism in this day and age. You did not prove any part of my position as “flat-out” wrong. All you’ve done is provide your pov and some links that you believe prove you point. That is not proving my data as false - that’s merely pontificating on your pov.[/quote]
You said the Soviet government left the Russian people poorer than they were under the czar and poorer than they were under capitalism, and both claims were shown to be false. Spin it however you want.
The obvious?
That was my post to you. It doesn’t sound insulting to me. Unless you mean me telling you that you were mistaken, which is not an insult, but a simple fact. Please, for once, actually point something out, instead of vaguely hinting at things.
It does not terrify me at all. Far from it. The benefits of socialism are obvious, and whether you like it or not, socialistic policies will continue to be implemented to save capitalism from imploding. At this point, it is not socialism that requires a defense. As I said before, there are literally pages and pages in other threads where I and others discuss socialism in some detail. Please look them up if you are interested, but it is pointless to rehash an old discussion yet again because you are too lazy to look through a couple of pages. Or, if you have a specific question, ask it.
I’m not entirely sure which specific statement you’re referring to when you say your “first statement,” but seeing as all your statements are hobbled by your lack of knowledge regarding socialism, it is very doubtful that it was correct.
I suppose I am afraid of the discussion as much as you are afraid to use the search function.
In several threads. Look them up, or ask an intelligent question. But here is what I will not do: I will not respond to you simply saying, “Sell me on socialism, go.” The question is far too vague and a proper response to the general question would be many pages in length.
But why are you so terrified of simply asking a more specific question? Why does it scare you so much? Could it be that you simply have no idea what socialists actually think, and you’re afraid of further airing your ignorance?[/quote]
We can’t have any sort of discussion until you stop dodging questions. I know that doesn’t leave you with much ammo, but such is life.
and still no best argument for the supposed superiority of socialism . . .
Stop dodging questions, and we’ll talk.
and still no best argument for the supposed superiority of socialism . . .
Quit dodging questions.
and still no best argument for the supposed superiority of socialism . . .
Here, this one even has videos, for Irishmen with short attention spans.
Here is a thread wherein I talk about socialism.
See if you can’t come up with a big boy question.
you seriously cannot articulate a best argument for socialism all on your own on a challenge?
I’ve already got Marx’s and Engels’ books in my library. Don’t need to read any websites or even your prior posts.
The question is an easy one. Seriously it cannot be any easier . . . this is kindergarten easy . . .
What is YOUR best single argument for the superiority of socialism?
Oh yes, I can articulate an argument, not simply for the superiority of socialism, but of the eventual necessity of socialism, at great length. That is the entire point. Allow me to quote myself yet again for you, since you obviously ignored it:
“But here is what I will not do: I will not respond to you simply saying, “Sell me on socialism, go.” The question is far too vague and a proper response to the general question would be many pages in length.”
Let me break it down very simply for you: I will not kill myself writing a huge, detailed post to answer your very general question, that you will likely ignore anyway. Furthermore, I should not need to. If you really do own Marx and Engels’ books (I’m not quite sure what that means, since they wrote voluminously, and in any case you didn’t pay too much attention to them), you have the answer to your question on your shelf already, more detailed and more eloquent than I could manage.
Now, to reiterate once again, if you have an intelligent, specific question, ask it. But if all you can manage is a general “why is socialism good,” and you require a better answer than what can be found on this forum already, then your only real option is a theoretical text.
so, you can’t provide an single coherent argument for the supposed superiority of socialism?
I’m not asking you to sell me on socialism, I want to know what the best argument you have for its superiority to all other forms of human government. Surely, you have thought this through right? You are a socialist because of rational arguments right? You’re convinced of its superiority, right?
You demonstrated a passion for criticizing capitalism, but where’s the passion for the superiority of socialism?
Well . . . what it is the best argument you have for its supposed superiority?
easy peasy . . . has to be a cakewalk for a dedicated socialist . . . like breathing air . . . come on - you’re the expert here - what is the best argument you have for the superiority of socialism.
Don’t need you to expound the theory, defend the concept or even demonstrate its successful inplementation . . . all I am asking for is the single best argument you have for the superiority of socialism . . .
apparently, this is a very difficult task for you . . .
Not at all, it’s simply a very involved one, and you will almost certainly require an explanation of the explanation.
The briefest way I can put it is to say that it resolves the inherent contradictions in capitalism and diffuses the tensions that necessarily result, ending exploitation and providing the foundation for a classless society.
[quote]florelius wrote:
Sovjet: Me and I guess ryan to agree with you irish that the sovjetunion was not a win from a humanitarian perspective, but as I sad earlyer, the sovjet union proved that it is possible to trancend from agricultural based economy to an industrial based economy without an marked-economy. Offcourse the transition was brutal, but so was the english transition to an industry based economy for the english worker or the irish farmer. Or what about the american economic transition to an industry based marked economy, the cotton created by the blackslaves in the south financed the american transition. So the sovjet transition doesnt equal that socialisme is brutal. its better to say that most historical evidence points to that a transition to an industry based economy is going to be brutal.
[/quote]
I have a free moment, so I’m going to hop in here. “Not a win”? 35 million dead is “not a win”? What would it take to make it downright unpleasant?
The way the Soviets modernized runs as follows: The intelligentsia blamed the peasants for Russia’s backwardness and detested them. When the Bolshevik’s seized control, this hatred became a point of policy: The new Soviet Union was to be a Worker’s paradise, and peasants were preventing this.
You claim the USSR modernized without a market economy – NO. Not at all. What happened is that the wealth of the peasants was sold off to Western countries to buy the machinery needed to make the USSR a modern country. Then the peasants (at least the ones who didn’t starve to death) were transported to places like Siberia to be worked to death building the infrastructure for this paradise. When the Soviets ran short of cash they also sold off museum/historical exhibits (such as from the Tetryakov Gallery) and the Russians are still trying to get back all those icons, Fabergé eggs and other items. They did embark on a huge training program for engineers (in the 1920’s) to support this new economy, but when the engineers started telling them things like setting up smelting plants inside the Arctic Circle were going to fail, the engineers themselves were put on trial as enemies of the people. the so-called Engineering Trials of the 1930’s. All in all this mode of modernization still had the USSR lagging slightly behind the West in the 1930’s (during the Depression, I might add) before finally levelling off to its moribund steady state in the late 1950’s from which it didn’t budge, even though the official (falsified) statistics showed astonishingly high sustained growth of over 10%. It was widely reported that the Soviets were simply going to outgrow the West (this was a common refrain during the 1960’s on campus’s everywhere) and so the whole Cold War was going to be moot.
(Again, when the USSR fell and an actual assessment was made, the entire Soviet economy was roughly the size of the Netherlands. The standard of living in the USSR was lower in 1989 than in 1914. Any statistics coming from the USSR are probably false. Indeed, the first major census under Stalin accurately reported millions of deaths and a shrinking population from forced collectivization. Stalin had them shot for treason and subsequent census figures always showed strong positive growth. This set the stage for all official reporting.)
Your history about the role of the Blacks “financing” modernization in the US is about 180 degrees off the mark. It was investment in the northern US – completely free of slaves – that fueled this transition. Black slave labor was increasing the price of cotton and the whole southern US was in an extended depression from about the mid 1830’s on. The Civil War was an attempt to keep this industrialization out of the South. By the start of the Civil War, the value of slaves was so low that many large southern plantations were on the verge of bankruptcy --they could no longer use slaves as collateral for the yearly loans needed to function, and the care and feeding of slaves in the off-season was a huge drain financially. In other words, the politically correct assessment that it was the slaves that caused industrialization is flatly wrong but rather it was industrialization that eliminated the need for slaves. Your analysis, incidentally, is standard Marxist fare in which workers are equated with slaves, so according to the theory, slavery (or something close to it for the workers) must cause a shift to a market economy. Nope.
Oh and the reason the transition was so brutal for the Irish was precisely because the Crown made it a national policy to reform land usage along mostly ethnic/religious lines. If you were Catholic, you basically couldn’t own land. Large English-owned plantations to grow wheat were planted for export only, so there was the surreal situation that the potatoes and Irish were dying in droves amid record wheat harvests. The Crown refused to admit there was any sort of a problem and it was up to Irish immigrants in the US, Canada and Australia to privately finance relief. If the state messes up and refuses to admit it, where does that leave the people? These policies directly caused the Great Famine and the parallels to certain Socialist agrarian reform practices are interesting.
And as always, I could just be full of shit…
– jj
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Not at all, it’s simply a very involved one, and you will almost certainly require an explanation of the explanation.
The briefest way I can put it is to say that it resolves the inherent contradictions in capitalism and diffuses the tensions that necessarily result, ending exploitation and providing the foundation for a classless society.
[/quote]
FINALLY! ok, you’re argument is (asking only to make sure I understand the main points here) that socialism is superior to capitalism because:
- It resolves the “inherent contradictions in capitalism”
- It diffuses the "tensions that necessarily result (I assume from capitalism’s inherent contradictions?)
- It ends exploitation
- It provides the “foundation for a class-less society”
ok, did you want to enumerate the “inherent contradictions”, or do you want to let that stand undefined?
thanks for the response!
Hey JJ! just in time - good post and as always, yes - you are full of shit - lol. I finally got Ryan to post his best argument for the superiority of socialism. We can actually begin a real dissection of the philosophy.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Not at all, it’s simply a very involved one, and you will almost certainly require an explanation of the explanation.
The briefest way I can put it is to say that it resolves the inherent contradictions in capitalism and diffuses the tensions that necessarily result, ending exploitation and providing the foundation for a classless society.
[/quote]
FINALLY! ok, you’re argument is (asking only to make sure I understand the main points here) that socialism is superior to capitalism because:
- It resolves the “inherent contradictions in capitalism”
- It diffuses the "tensions that necessarily result (I assume from capitalism’s inherent contradictions?)
- It ends exploitation
- It provides the “foundation for a class-less society”
ok, did you want to enumerate the “inherent contradictions”, or do you want to let that stand undefined?
thanks for the response![/quote]
There are many both major and minor contradictions, but the principle one, and also the one which will eventually lead to its destruction (at least in the form that we have seen thus far) is the fact that productive resources are produced, and then operated collectively (by large groups of people working together), but the profits are collected by a small class which does little to no work. Furthermore, this class will not permit the utilization of these resources unless they are operated in a way that affords this profit. It is this “mismatch” between the needs of the public and the wants of the small class of owners that breeds the tensions between them, which are amplified as capitalism progresses, and as the interests of capitalists and the public grow further removed from each other. This is also one of the chief defects of capitalist economic theory, which makes little to no provision for fundamental change in the economy. Capitalism is not static, and this is why conservative solutions do not work, as they are concerned with an economy which no longer exists.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Not at all, it’s simply a very involved one, and you will almost certainly require an explanation of the explanation.
The briefest way I can put it is to say that it resolves the inherent contradictions in capitalism and diffuses the tensions that necessarily result, ending exploitation and providing the foundation for a classless society.
[/quote]
FINALLY! ok, you’re argument is (asking only to make sure I understand the main points here) that socialism is superior to capitalism because:
- It resolves the “inherent contradictions in capitalism”
- It diffuses the "tensions that necessarily result (I assume from capitalism’s inherent contradictions?)
- It ends exploitation
- It provides the “foundation for a class-less society”
ok, did you want to enumerate the “inherent contradictions”, or do you want to let that stand undefined?
thanks for the response![/quote]
Oooooooh!! Let me help:
http://bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl?term=CONTRADICTIONS%20OF%20CAPITALISM
The fundamental argument against this is Marx’s essentially static view of wealth and the role of technology in creating new forms of it. In Marx’s defense, he was writing well before technology as an economic force was understood: You made a factory using technologies that had changed little since the Middle Ages (although, inexplicably, there seemed to be more and more steam engines around.) He used no models of any sort or empirical data to bolster his claim. His claims are statements of fact along with assurances that he is Ishmael – he alone has unlocked the animating forces of History, so we aren’t supposed to debate him on any of it.
Later Marxists (Herbert Marcuse was a notably proponent of this and his writings are bedrock of the American New Left) would amplify this to claim of static wealth to say that capitalist economies simply manufacture needs and wants. A corollary to this claim is that we should just close the patent office since nothing new can be created – capitalists simply hawk the same old junk to rob us of our money. It should then be up to the state to apportion goods as it sees fit. All of this fine analysis predates things like radio, TV, computers, cellphones and personally empowering technologies that are abundant on the internet (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) The internet alone has probably shaken more autocratic regimes (China, Iran) than any government has in the last 30 years.
– jj