Ukraine Crisis

[Immanuel Can]

When Immanuel and Alexis conflate socialism and one party communism they are not telling the truth.

Where is your "real Socialism" in evidence, Belinda? Where has Socialism produced anything but one-party Communism? And where has it not delivered poverty, repression and death?

I'm ready to be refuted. Let's see your evidence.

[Belinda]

When Immanuel and Alexis conflate socialism and one party communism they are not telling the truth.

Where is your "real Socialism" in evidence, Belinda? Where has Socialism produced anything but one-party Communism? And where has it not delivered poverty, repression and death?

I'm ready to be refuted. Let's see your evidence.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/H ... ve%20steps.

[Gary Childress]

https://www.usa.gov/about-social-security#

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithson ... 180975627/

Not many dead bodies piled up at the post office that I know of. Unless they're being shipped off for funeral services or something.

[Alexis Jacobi]

-- A core tenet of the Left is victimhood.

This comment -- an attempt at encapsulation and general description -- interested me. For the following reasons.

First, I think it is true and I take issue with you that it is a wrong approach or somehow morally compromised. To be a 'victim' is a criticism. Victims are weak, victims complain, victims can't or don't seize the day. So, I understand what you are trying to say, but because I take positions that are neither of the Left nor of the Right (believing that genuine understanding must bridge all perspectives and ideology) I can't go along with your criticism without commenting.

One of Noam Chomsky's books that I read a couple of times is Year 501 -- The Conquest Continues. What he does in this book is to work with one central idea and to elucidate I'll quote Eduardo Galeano (in Open Veins of Latin America):

“The division of labor among nations is that some specialize in winning and others in losing. Our part of the world, known today as Latin America, was precocious: it has specialized in losing ever since those remote time when Renaissance Europeans ventured across the ocean and buried their teeth in the throats of the Indian civilizations.”

Chomsky in his book traces what he takes as 'cause' -- that Europe buried its teeth in Latin America -- and traces out over a 500 year period the historical result and effect of that initial act. That is, what was set in motion. The idea is coherent: What is set in motion continues in motion until something acts on it which changes or alters its motion. I will refer to one example that Galeano often mentions, that being that the road and rail systems of Latin America are shaped like a funnel and all lines of communication led to ports where the goods were then shipped off to Europe. The idea of 'open veins' is in no sense inaccurate nor unfair, as I'd imagine you would agree with. (What I assume you criticize is remaining a victim and becoming incapable or unwilling to work within the circumstances of reality: what fate has dealt one).

Now, I live in Latin America and I purposefully have visited and spent time in some of the poorest and most abject parts of cities where real crushing poverty is visible. (The poverty of the countryside is similar but different). I feel that I have *seen* what I consider to be the *effects* of what had been set in motion so many years ago. It is a tangle, it is a swamp, it is a quagmire, and it is a trap from which it is very hard to escape. It is not at all hard to understand the sense of what *oppression* is and what I mean is the exploitation of the lower classes by the upper and wealthy classes. The poor in Latin America are the 'victims' of the more powerful classes. And it is therefore not inaccurate nor unfair to talk about systemic oppression. It is a real thing.

So, we must perform an act of seeing, an act of understanding, when we make a comparison between the conditions and 'causes' by which Latin America and its on-going conditions were created, and our own circumstances -- speaking here of Americans -- who are inheritors of a very very different system. In short, the Latin American systems were, literally, funnel systems. But our own system was very different. Those who established the Colonies left oppression to come to a new land where they could build a new world -- indeed their own vision of Utopia. Yes, they took advantage of the natural riches and explored them in some sense similarly to the *funnel system* but they wanted to build a social and political world that was ideal and (they hoped) perfect. So all our institutions are of an incomparably superior sort. And I need only refer to our Constitutional and legal systems.

In Latin America these were, always, a sham. Their function was to allow the funnel systems to operate as they did. The notion of *rights* for those who were conquered effectively did not exist. Rights existed for those who operated the funnel. And, to be truthful, and even though there have been some restructuring, the jurisprudential systems in Latin America are ridiculous. The institutions are a mess and, naturally, highly corrupt. The systems are corrupt and the societies are corrupt. What was set in motion originally does not change easily. So in that sense to say "the conquest continues" is merely a way to get oriented within actual facts. So for poor people (or *oppressed people*) to get out of their condition of poverty an entire range of understanding is needed. That does mean examining 'victimhood' and making choices about what to do in relation to it. But to see and understand one's circumstances, and especially for semi-uneducated and semi-literate people (the poor generally), that is actually a major part of the effort to get out of impoverishment.

How can one do this though? What 'lens' should be used? Is it proper or improper, helpful or non-helpful, to see one's condition through a Marxist lens? I say it is not only helpful but necessary -- mandatory. You have to see your conditions realistically. And that can mean and does mean seeing things differently from how 'they' present reality to you. Are the poor responsible for their oppression? Are they responsible for the causes that created the conditions, the reality, in which they now live? No. But how will they change their circumstances?

How will the Cuban people change their government? That in fact is the question we are talking about. How will they become empowered to participate politically and economically? There will have to be an overturning within the oppressive system. But the State will fight against that tooth and nail.

[Alexis Jacobi]

When Immanuel and Alexis conflate socialism and one party communism they are not telling the truth.

Trust me, you likely do not fully grasp the range of my thought on these matters. Perhaps my recent post will help?

[Immanuel Can]

When Immanuel and Alexis conflate socialism and one party communism they are not telling the truth.

Where is your "real Socialism" in evidence, Belinda? Where has Socialism produced anything but one-party Communism? And where has it not delivered poverty, repression and death?

I'm ready to be refuted. Let's see your evidence.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/H ... ve%20steps.

Seriously, B? The NHS is your example?

It's not a country, B. It's not even a province or a town. It's just a welfare program. It has no control of the economy...Socialists would never accept that, since economics are their primary area of interest...that, and political manipulating, which the NHS also has not status to do.

I like the idea of a national health program, becuase it's hard to function without it. But even I have to admit that national health programs bankrupt economies. And they're inevitably run with great inefficiency, and not on the cutting edge of technology. So there are big trade-offs there, and the NHS has never, even once, made any money. It's a huge money-loser.

Don't give us some social-welfare program like the NHS, which depends entirely for its survival on the very "capitalism" deplored by Socialists. Give us a country that's Socialist. Show us that Socialism has the pedigree to have control of the general economic and political system, not that it can survive, like the NHS, on artificial-respiration from capitalism.

Go ahead. Where shall we start? North Korea? China? Russia? Venezuela? Cuba? Zimbabwe? You pick it.

Or are you just so addicted to Socialist ideology that even though it's never worked even once, destroys economies and always kills people, you still want it?

[Gary Childress]

Don't give us some social-welfare program like the NHS, which depends entirely for its survival on the very "capitalism" deplored by Socialists. Give us a country that's Socialist. Show us that Socialism has the pedigree to have control of the general economic and political system, not that it can survive, like the NHS, on artificial-respiration from capitalism.

How do you define "socialism", IC? How do you define "capitalism"? Maybe the best place to start is with definitions so we know what we're talking about?

[promethean75]

oh gawd not this again. do i have to watch IC mangle marxism and u carry around in your head for the rest of your life what u believe is an accurate definition of it as IC has described? you're heartless for wanting to put a man through that, Gary.

[Immanuel Can]

Don't give us some social-welfare program like the NHS, which depends entirely for its survival on the very "capitalism" deplored by Socialists. Give us a country that's Socialist. Show us that Socialism has the pedigree to have control of the general economic and political system, not that it can survive, like the NHS, on artificial-respiration from capitalism.

How do you define "socialism", IC?

so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌliz(ə)m/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: socialism
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." (Oxford)

How do you define "capitalism"?

It's a Marxist word, a Marxist attempt to create an ideological "other" against which it can position itself. So they will have to define it. I don't personally believe it refers accurately to anything. It's a fake word.

If you ask the Marxists, they insist it means, "the generating of surplus value from the labour of the workers," which is nonsense, but that's what they want to make it out to be. "Surplus value" is nonsense: somebody pays for everything. There is no "surplus value." And labour does not equal the only form of value. And value isn't zero-sum. But the "crude Marxists," as their Neo-Marxist friends call them, think it is.

What they're actually against is free markets, and freedom of any kind, in fact. See the above definition of Socialism as to why.

[Gary Childress]

Don't give us some social-welfare program like the NHS, which depends entirely for its survival on the very "capitalism" deplored by Socialists. Give us a country that's Socialist. Show us that Socialism has the pedigree to have control of the general economic and political system, not that it can survive, like the NHS, on artificial-respiration from capitalism.

How do you define "socialism", IC?

so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌliz(ə)m/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: socialism
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." (Oxford)

How do you define "capitalism"?

It's a Marxist word, a Marxist attempt to create an ideological "other" against which it can position itself. So they will have to define it. I don't personally believe it refers accurately to anything. It's a fake word.

If you ask the Marxists, they insist it means, "the generating of surplus value from the labour of the workers," which is nonsense, but that's what they want to make it out to be. "Surplus value" is nonsense: somebody pays for everything. There is no "surplus value." And labour does not equal the only form of value. And value isn't zero-sum. But the "crude Marxists," as their Neo-Marxist friends call them, think it is.

What they're actually against is free markets, and freedom of any kind, in fact. See the above definition of Socialism as to why.

That's my understanding of the definition of socialism also. I suppose you have a solid point in so far as no society of significant size has yet successfully operated for relatively extended periods of time purely under the principle of socialism as defined above. All of them seem to have fallen prey to someone (or some group) simply taking over the government for themselves. Of course, that usually involves sidestepping democratic processes, so it's a little difficult to call them "socialist" according to the definition given above because such instances are not instances of "means of production, distribution, and exchange" being "owned or regulated by the community as a whole." They're instances of "means of production, distribution, and exchange" being "owned or regulated" by a few.

But maybe that's because putting all our eggs in the public administration basket just exacerbates the problem of some monopolizing everything--makes it easier for that to come about?

[Immanuel Can]

I suppose you have a solid point in so far as no society of significant size has yet successfully operated for relatively extended periods of time purely under the principle of socialism as defined above.

No society has successfully operated at all that way, actually. The decline Socialism produces is immediate, as are the purges, the reprisals, the prison camps, the famines, and so on.

But maybe that's because putting all our eggs in the public administration basket just exacerbates the problem of some monopolizing everything--makes it easier for that to come about?

Exactly right.

That's why despots love Socialism. It is the perfect form of mass-management for them...everybody has to buy into one system, with them at the head. There's only one viable political party allowed (the Socialist one), so democracy dies immediately. There is centralized control of the police state, centralized planning of all internal operations and foreign affairs, and control even of the people who are encouraged to show their loyalty by snitching on their neighbours for being potential dissenters...and people can be told to expect hardship and deprivation for an indefinite period of time, in the name of the revolution.

It's a totalitarian's dream.

[Gary Childress]

I suppose you have a solid point in so far as no society of significant size has yet successfully operated for relatively extended periods of time purely under the principle of socialism as defined above.

No society has successfully operated at all that way, actually. The decline Socialism produces is immediate, as are the purges, the reprisals, the prison camps, the famines, and so on.

I don't know. I've heard that Israeli kibbutz's were relatively democratic and communal in many instances. Of course, that's a lot different from a nation being based on the kibbutz model. I mean, the USSR was supposed to be composed of united "soviets" (worker-run institutions) and such, but the few seized all the power and centralized it. I don't think it can be said that the US and UK didn't do their best to fight against the "reds" in the Russian revolution. I kind of wonder what our leaders visualized we were fighting for in the Russian civil war, though. I mean, that was a war for the Russian people to decide among themselves, not for some investors looking to protect a few friends or investments from the "reds".

In any case, the American elite have done enough to meddle in the world. There's no reason for it. We need to dismantle the Military Industrial Complex and build things to make people happy, instead of hurt. Militarism is a curse.

[Immanuel Can]

I suppose you have a solid point in so far as no society of significant size has yet successfully operated for relatively extended periods of time purely under the principle of socialism as defined above.

No society has successfully operated at all that way, actually. The decline Socialism produces is immediate, as are the purges, the reprisals, the prison camps, the famines, and so on.

I don't know. I've heard that Israeli kibbutz's were relatively democratic and communal in many instances.

Still within a free-market country, of course.

I mean, the USSR was supposed to be composed of united "soviets" (worker-run institutions) and such, but the few seized all the power and centralized it.

That's one thing you can count on, with regard to despots; they're never going to tell you what they're really going to do. The "Democratic Socialist" lingo is for public consumption. The Socialist Dictatorship stuff is the reality. That's how it's worked out in 100% of the cases.

In any case, the American elite have done enough to meddle in the world. There's no reason for it. We need to dismantle the Military Industrial Complex and build things to make people happy, instead of hurt. Militarism is a curse.

Well, we have another good example of the Socialist doublespeak: the Democrats talk lots about compassion, and peace, and the common good. But the war in Ukraine is entirely on them. And that might be WW3, for all we know now. They're making the military-industrial complex very, very happy these days.

[Gary Childress]

No society has successfully operated at all that way, actually. The decline Socialism produces is immediate, as are the purges, the reprisals, the prison camps, the famines, and so on.

I don't know. I've heard that Israeli kibbutz's were relatively democratic and communal in many instances.

Still within a free-market country, of course.

I mean, the USSR was supposed to be composed of united "soviets" (worker-run institutions) and such, but the few seized all the power and centralized it.

That's one thing you can count on, with regard to despots; they're never going to tell you what they're really going to do. The "Democratic Socialist" lingo is for public consumption. The Socialist Dictatorship stuff is the reality. That's how it's worked out in 100% of the cases.

In any case, the American elite have done enough to meddle in the world. There's no reason for it. We need to dismantle the Military Industrial Complex and build things to make people happy, instead of hurt. Militarism is a curse.

Well, we have another good example of the Socialist doublespeak: the Democrats talk lots about compassion, and peace, and the common good. But the war in Ukraine is entirely on them. And that might be WW3, for all we know now. They're making the military-industrial complex very, very happy these days.

Well, to be fair to all political parties as a separate institution, before that the Bush family did a pretty good number on everyone with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Their family had pretty direct ties to the oil industry.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Gary Childress]

But you're right. Right now it's the Democrats who have the reigns of power.