It seems extremely questionable to demand an answer from people who follow one political theory for the failures of their theory’s explicit enemies to achieve the theory’s goals.
No, and I’m not doing that. (But you would be correct if I did.)
The left theory and world model need to have an answer ready for how to deal with any kind opposition, including fragmentation or internal opposition or corruption. Or whatever you want to call those “explicit enemies”.
I’m not blaming Marx or his contemporaries for not foreseeing a problem that arose 50 years after they did their writing. But I very much am blaming people for pointing to Marx as “the solution”, because we do have hindsight and those problems did arise and the theory did not and still doesn’t cover how to deal with them.
I don’t except you personally to have an answer either, it’s just really annoying me how “read the theory” people don’t even want to acknowledge that there is a problem with that theory.
The left theory and world model need to have an answer ready for how to deal with any kind opposition, including fragmentation or internal opposition or corruption. Or whatever you want to call those “explicit enemies”.
The answer is the same answer as it is for any democratic polity. The issue of oligarchs pulling off a coup is not exactly a problem unique to socialism; thus, I fail to see why socialist theory, uniquely, must have a novel answer to the question.
I’m not blaming Marx or his contemporaries for not foreseeing a problem that arose 50 years after they did their writing. But I very much am blaming people for pointing to Marx as “the solution”, because we do have hindsight and those problems did arise and the theory did not and still doesn’t cover how to deal with them.
There are plenty of problems with Marx, but the Bolsheviks doing the literal opposite of what he suggested is really not something that can be laid on his theory, even in a “Marx didn’t account for this, we need to figure something out.”
It would be like saying someone is teaching incorrectly because a student who expressed explicit disinterest in following the teacher’s advice went and did the exact opposite.
I don’t except you personally to have an answer either, it’s just really annoying me how “read the theory” people don’t even want to acknowledge that there is a problem with that theory.
But again - the theory we’re discussing is not some gospel that is expected to solve all of mankind’s problems. It’s a question of organizing and economics; expecting it to have an answer to a problem as old as mankind and exists independently from any conception of socialism is asking it for answers that it does not pretend to provide.
I fail to see why socialist theory, uniquely, must have a novel answer to the question.
Because people who claim that socialist theory is superior, kind of have show that it is, in fact, superior.
If it’s the same “but you have to have good people running the system for the system to work”, it’s just as bad as any other. You can have a “benevolent dictator” that is better than even an average democracy. That’s not the point when we talk about dicatorships being bad.
That kind of addresses the
is not some gospel that is expected to solve all of mankind’s problems. It’s a question of organizing and economics;
as well. Other systems also have answers that are not objectively better or worse than socialism, if “good people” run the system. The advantage of a political system needs to be built into the system on a theoretical level, otherwise it’s pointless.
But I think we’ve reached an understanding of each other’s positions, thanks for the exchange!
Because people who claim that socialist theory is superior, kind of have show that it is, in fact, superior.
If I say a hammer is superior to a screwdriver for pushing in nails, and you say that I’ve failed to prove that a hammer can save someone from a heart-attack, which of us is arguing from an absurd position?
If it’s the same “but you have to have good people running the system for the system to work”, it’s just as bad as any other. You can have a “benevolent dictator” that is better than even an average democracy. That’s not the point when we talk about dicatorships being bad.
It’s not about “good people” or “bad people” running the system. Fuck, that kind of ‘great man theory’ is explicitly rejected by Marx.
Other systems also have answers that are not objectively better or worse than socialism, if “good people” run the system. The advantage of a political system needs to be built into the system on a theoretical level, otherwise it’s pointless.
You really are just not getting what socialism is, are you?
But I think we’ve reached an understanding of each other’s positions, thanks for the exchange!
Clearly not, since you continue to argue about socialist theory as being in some way deficient in preventing dictatorship when compared to other theories of political governance, when the core function of socialist theory is about a democratic system.
Clearly not, since you continue to argue about socialist theory as being in some way deficient in preventing dictatorship when compared to other theories of political governance,
No, not deficient, just not superior.
If I say a hammer is superior to a screwdriver for pushing in nails, and you say that I’ve failed to prove that a hammer can save someone from a heart-attack, which of us is arguing from an absurd position?
I don’t care if you use hammer and nail, screw and screwdriver or if you glue something to the wall. The point is that the thing is supposed to not fall down. If it falls down anyway and you say “that’s a problem with the wall, hammer and nail work fine”, that seems absurd to me.
You really are just not getting what socialism is, are you?
Apparently not, which is also a problem with the texts you recommend, because I have read them and they didn’t help me understand.
Okay? Socialism isn’t generally claiming to be superior as a means of preventing sudden coups by oligarchs?
I don’t care if you use hammer and nail, screw and screwdriver or if you glue something to the wall. The point is that the thing is supposed to not fall down. If it falls down anyway and you say “that’s a problem with the wall, hammer and nail work fine”, that seems absurd to me.
“But what if the wall itself falls down??”
“That’s not what the hammer and nail is supposed to solve.”
“I don’t see the point of using it then.”
Apparently not, which is also a problem with the texts you recommend, because I have read them and they didn’t help me understand.
You didn’t understand the basic premise of socialism after reading the Communist Manifesto?
Allow me to summarize simply:
Workers are exploited by capitalist elites who own property for the capitalists’ own interests
This is bad, because classes act in their own interests, and the interests of the few capitalists comes at the expense of the many
Empowering the working class to maintain control of their own labor and its products would lead to a fairer, more equitable society, because the working class, working for its own interests, makes up the majority of modern society, and thus brings a greater good by its empowerment than that of a narrow elite
This should be done by removing the capitalist elites from power and replacing it with a democratic society which does not recognize the right to hold large amounts of capital for personal use
Unless your argument is “Democracy doesn’t solve the problem of coups!”, in which case you should count yourself as a skeptic of democracy more generally, rather than socialism specifically, the issue of coups is not really relevant.
Sure, but that’s like 1/10 to 1/3 of a design for a stable society.
the issue of coups is not really relevant.
Socialism isn’t generally claiming to be superior as a means of preventing sudden coups by oligarchs?
There is a half baked plan for transitioning from a unfair society to a more fair one and no plan at all for keeping it that way?
in which case you should count yourself as a skeptic of democracy more generally
If you insist, but that doesn’t solve the problem, if anything you’re widening the scope. That’s why I mean we understand each other’s positions. You think the economic situation is more important and I disagree and would rather want something stable first that can maintain whatever economic solution we end up with.
Sure, but that’s like 1/10 to 1/3 of a design for a stable society.
That’s just the proposal for changes, not for a totalitarian reorganization of human existence.
Again, this is like critiquing a dentist’s proposal for filling a cavity for not explaining how the full human being functions. The point of change is the tooth, not the full human being.
There is a half baked plan for transitioning from a unfair society to a more fair one and no plan at all for keeping it that way?
There are multiple ideas for how to transition from an unfair society, and Marx himself espoused the idea that different societies might need different solutions. The only one that has been conclusively tried and disproven is the ML system of “Give all power to a small group of elites and they’ll eventually give power back to the workers, pinky-promise”, which anyone with half a fucking brain could see wasn’t going to work out.
Put another way - what exactly do you think the point of failure would be if, in Spain, private capitalist corporations no longer predominated, and groups like the Mondragon Corporation dominated the economy instead?
If you insist, but that doesn’t solve the problem, if anything you’re widening the scope. That’s why I mean we understand each other’s positions. You think the economic situation is more important and I disagree and would rather want something stable first that can maintain whatever economic solution we end up with.
I’m literally not saying the economic situation is more important. This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that you aren’t understanding the argument.
No, and I’m not doing that. (But you would be correct if I did.)
The left theory and world model need to have an answer ready for how to deal with any kind opposition, including fragmentation or internal opposition or corruption. Or whatever you want to call those “explicit enemies”.
I’m not blaming Marx or his contemporaries for not foreseeing a problem that arose 50 years after they did their writing. But I very much am blaming people for pointing to Marx as “the solution”, because we do have hindsight and those problems did arise and the theory did not and still doesn’t cover how to deal with them.
I don’t except you personally to have an answer either, it’s just really annoying me how “read the theory” people don’t even want to acknowledge that there is a problem with that theory.
The answer is the same answer as it is for any democratic polity. The issue of oligarchs pulling off a coup is not exactly a problem unique to socialism; thus, I fail to see why socialist theory, uniquely, must have a novel answer to the question.
There are plenty of problems with Marx, but the Bolsheviks doing the literal opposite of what he suggested is really not something that can be laid on his theory, even in a “Marx didn’t account for this, we need to figure something out.”
It would be like saying someone is teaching incorrectly because a student who expressed explicit disinterest in following the teacher’s advice went and did the exact opposite.
But again - the theory we’re discussing is not some gospel that is expected to solve all of mankind’s problems. It’s a question of organizing and economics; expecting it to have an answer to a problem as old as mankind and exists independently from any conception of socialism is asking it for answers that it does not pretend to provide.
Because people who claim that socialist theory is superior, kind of have show that it is, in fact, superior.
If it’s the same “but you have to have good people running the system for the system to work”, it’s just as bad as any other. You can have a “benevolent dictator” that is better than even an average democracy. That’s not the point when we talk about dicatorships being bad.
That kind of addresses the
as well. Other systems also have answers that are not objectively better or worse than socialism, if “good people” run the system. The advantage of a political system needs to be built into the system on a theoretical level, otherwise it’s pointless.
But I think we’ve reached an understanding of each other’s positions, thanks for the exchange!
If I say a hammer is superior to a screwdriver for pushing in nails, and you say that I’ve failed to prove that a hammer can save someone from a heart-attack, which of us is arguing from an absurd position?
It’s not about “good people” or “bad people” running the system. Fuck, that kind of ‘great man theory’ is explicitly rejected by Marx.
You really are just not getting what socialism is, are you?
Clearly not, since you continue to argue about socialist theory as being in some way deficient in preventing dictatorship when compared to other theories of political governance, when the core function of socialist theory is about a democratic system.
No, not deficient, just not superior.
I don’t care if you use hammer and nail, screw and screwdriver or if you glue something to the wall. The point is that the thing is supposed to not fall down. If it falls down anyway and you say “that’s a problem with the wall, hammer and nail work fine”, that seems absurd to me.
Apparently not, which is also a problem with the texts you recommend, because I have read them and they didn’t help me understand.
Okay? Socialism isn’t generally claiming to be superior as a means of preventing sudden coups by oligarchs?
“But what if the wall itself falls down??”
“That’s not what the hammer and nail is supposed to solve.”
“I don’t see the point of using it then.”
You didn’t understand the basic premise of socialism after reading the Communist Manifesto?
Allow me to summarize simply:
Workers are exploited by capitalist elites who own property for the capitalists’ own interests
This is bad, because classes act in their own interests, and the interests of the few capitalists comes at the expense of the many
Empowering the working class to maintain control of their own labor and its products would lead to a fairer, more equitable society, because the working class, working for its own interests, makes up the majority of modern society, and thus brings a greater good by its empowerment than that of a narrow elite
This should be done by removing the capitalist elites from power and replacing it with a democratic society which does not recognize the right to hold large amounts of capital for personal use
Unless your argument is “Democracy doesn’t solve the problem of coups!”, in which case you should count yourself as a skeptic of democracy more generally, rather than socialism specifically, the issue of coups is not really relevant.
Sure, but that’s like 1/10 to 1/3 of a design for a stable society.
There is a half baked plan for transitioning from a unfair society to a more fair one and no plan at all for keeping it that way?
If you insist, but that doesn’t solve the problem, if anything you’re widening the scope. That’s why I mean we understand each other’s positions. You think the economic situation is more important and I disagree and would rather want something stable first that can maintain whatever economic solution we end up with.
That’s just the proposal for changes, not for a totalitarian reorganization of human existence.
Again, this is like critiquing a dentist’s proposal for filling a cavity for not explaining how the full human being functions. The point of change is the tooth, not the full human being.
There are multiple ideas for how to transition from an unfair society, and Marx himself espoused the idea that different societies might need different solutions. The only one that has been conclusively tried and disproven is the ML system of “Give all power to a small group of elites and they’ll eventually give power back to the workers, pinky-promise”, which anyone with half a fucking brain could see wasn’t going to work out.
Put another way - what exactly do you think the point of failure would be if, in Spain, private capitalist corporations no longer predominated, and groups like the Mondragon Corporation dominated the economy instead?
I’m literally not saying the economic situation is more important. This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that you aren’t understanding the argument.