You must log in or # to comment.
socialism might be nice but just getting rid of billionaires is a great start.
Can’t do that without taking supremacy of Capital. There is no path to keep billionaires from existing within Capitalism.
We could always introduce a purge. Maybe every 5-10 years (random) the 10 wealthiest individuals must fight to the death. Win or lose they lose all their money and have to start over. Its like the Olympics. And they can use their money to equip themselves, with tech and weapons.
Its like the Olympics
But yeah capitalism is no bueno
In capitalism, the wealthiests make the rule, not us.
I’d say Capital itself makes the rules, the wealthiest just try to guess at those rules the best they can. The M-C-M’ circuit isn’t very “human” in design, it’s more like a law of nature for this level of development.
(appeal to authority)
The idea of socialism has a lot of appeal .
That is why wannabe tyrants latch onto it .
In general, actually, Socialism has a better track record than Capitalism when it comes to “tyrants.” You should read Blackshirts and Reds.
Indeed
"The economic disasters of socialism and communism come from assuming a blanket superiority of those who want to run a whole economy. Thomas Sowell " If the tyrant is going to use AI to control people we will be entering a dystopian nightmare. The smaller the government and the less influence they have on your personal life the better. This doesn’t apply to socialism only but also fascism. Free speech, liberty and property rights should be the core values of every society.
First off, Sowell is a crank economist that purely exists to push deregulation and allow for higher and higher exploitation of the working class for the benefit of the Capialist class.
Secondly, the economy is already planned, just by those directing it for their personal enrichment. Socialism changes that equation to be planned along a common goal, and democratizes that process.
Thirdly, Socialism and Communism have been economic successes, you’ll notice that the “disasters” are left undescribed. Rapid industrialization, stable and constant growth, and massive infrastructure improvements and projects have been staples of Socialist economies, and by and large the Working Class saw the most dramatic improvements.
Finally, there is the non-sequitor of “free speech, liberty, and property rights.” Not only are the first 2 entirely unrelated to Capitalism and Socialism, just vague “values,” the latter has nothing to do with personal liberty, but the ability of few small individuals to carve out the bulk of society and build their own kingdoms on the backs of the working class.
crank economist?
Really? Ever read basic economics? Even if you don’t agree with everything he says, by stating he is a crank economist you are disqualifying yourself.
https://rumble.com/v4u4a8i-basic-economics-by-thomas-sowell.html?e9s=src_v1_pr
I’m well aware of Basic Economics. I maintain that he’s a crank, just because you personally agree with him doesn’t disqualify myself, I could be just as dishonest and say that you disqualify yourself by quoting him.
Again, I elaborated quite well on some of his dishonesty from the single quote you provided, and I can go more in-depth than that even. His purpose is clear: push deregulation so those who sponsor him can get wealthier and wealthier, no matter how he attempts to squirm to justify that goal.
His purpose is clear: push deregulation so those who sponsor him can get wealthier and wealthier, no matter how he attempts to squirm to justify that goal.
See Argentina what a blessing deregulation is, we need a lot more Milei and less Marx. Socialism is one of the main reasons why Africa is still poor (read Magatte Wade - the heart of a cheetah). Economy is not a zero sum game - who cares that someone else is rich. Is that envy speaking?
Sowell started out as a Marxist btw. It is just a flawed ideology and in its most extreme form always ends in dictatorship.
https://rumble.com/vjzm8i-why-socialism-is-very-appealing-thomas-sowell.html
I’m well aware of Basic Economics.
So I guess you haven’t read it?
Argentina is collapsing. Its economy wasn’t great before, but austerity is destroying its own foundation for short-term profits for the wealthy. See again: Sowell purely works for the obscenely wealthy against the needs of the people.
As for Africa, it is not Socialism that keeps the various African nations under-developed. Like Parenti said, they aren’t under-developed at all, really, they are over-exploited. Imperialism from the Global North has carved out of Africa and South America the lion’s share of their resources:
But that expropriation of the Third World—has been going on for 400 years—brings us to another revelation—namely, that the Third World is not poor. You don’t go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich—only the people are poor. But there’s billions to be made there, to be carved out, and to be taken—there’s been billions for 400 years! The Capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labour. They have taken out of these countries—these countries are not underdeveloped—they’re overexploited!
Please, elaborate on what you think Socialism is, if it is keeping African nations under-developed.
No, economy is not a zero-sum game, correct. However, one has to call into question the purpose of a system that is built to make a few people obscenely wealthy on the backs of the vast majority. Capitalism naturally suppresses the wages and material conditions of workers, whose conditions gradually, microscopically improve, or even deteriorate, while Capital concentrates in fewer and fewer hands. The end result of Capitalism is monopoly. Once a hypothesis, this statement is now a confirmed fact.
I’m aware of Sowell’s past as a “Marxist.” Many people have donned such a moniker and failed to genuinely grasp Marxism, and the existence of one such fellow-turned crank does not at all lend credibility to Sowell. Marxism does not turn to dictatorship, rather the vast majority of AES states represented vast democratization of the economy, from Cuba (previously a country of fascist slavers) to Russia (under the thumb of the Tsar) to China (under the thumb of the Nationalist Kuomintang) to Vietnam (under the thumb of colonialist France) and more.
I’ve read enough of Basic Economics to know that Sowell is a crank. I haven’t read it cover to cover, nor do I care to waste my time studying every crank in the world of economics in-depth. I don’t imagine you’ve read Marx’s works much either, nor do I expect you to, you clearly have chosen the side of Sowell and the microscopic few that profit off of the vast majority of the population via extortion.
Argentina is collapsing.
Jaja, I love real world examples. The opposite is true. You can see basic economics working in practice 😀
Poverty is down and lower than when Milei started his presidency. Do you really think the poor care that his policies will make a few rich folks even richer? They just want shelter, safety and some food.
Stalin , Mao , and Pol Pot types of leaders are every bit as much of a problem as Hitler , Pinochet , and Mussolini types of leaders
At this point it doesn’t matter what economic policies a tyrant nominally supports , the problem is the authoritarianism that they use that overshadows their economic outlook. Your freedom is just as screwed if you are a fascist labor conscript , or you are a prisoner working in a gulag on some trumped up charge.
You should read Blackshirts and Reds. Ultimately, the Communists and Nazis historically served entirely different classes and their interests, and to equate the two is a form of Nazi Apologia due to this vast difference.
The Communists doubled life expectancy, lowered wealth disparity, ended famine, reached near 100% literacy rates from around 25% literacy rates, had free healthcare and education, and full employment. The Nazis, on the other hand, served wealthy Capitalists and invented industrialized murder.
Further, the Communists dramatically democratized the economy. Consider reading Soviet Democracy and Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union for historical texts on how the USSR’s economy was democratized and how it functioned.
As a side note, Pol Pot denounced Marxism and did his own thing, he shouldn’t be grouped with Marxists.
Totally agree. I still think from a economic and personal freedom perspective you’re a lot better off in a capitalist society under authoritarian control than in a Marxist one. Nobody is safe in an authoritarian communist (or probably better term - collectivist) society. How much examples do you need. Mao was the worst. China embraced capitalism and significantly improved the living standards of its people after Mao, while still remaining an authoritarian regime. Pinochet made the economy thriving and under socialist Salvador Allende the economy was a mess.
I am certainly not in favor of an authoritarian regime but at least capitalism gives you more economic freedom and property rights.
Did he form these views before or after he lived out his life in the country that is the anthesis of socialism? 🤔
After. In 1923, he fled Berlin to the United States, and was a member of a liberal political party. He was thoroughly anti-soviet at the time, but eventually his views changed and balanced out. In 1949, he wrote Why Socialism? as he became increasingly convinced of the logical necessity for the transition to Socialism, and a world government. He also changed his tune on Lenin and the Soviets:
“I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of the conscience of humanity.”
Part of what changed his views were becoming friends with prominent American Communists such as the legendary Paul Robeson. Over time, he took increasingly gentle and in some cases supportive stances towards the Soviet system, and was anti-War, including the nuclear Arms Race that the US relentlessly pushed forward.
Einstein, however, had serious internal chauvanism. He was a supporter of Zionism (which, while faded over time, never truly faded), and had this to say about the Chinese:
“Chinese don’t sit on benches while eating but squat like Europeans do when they relieve themselves out in the leafy woods. All this occurs quietly and demurely. Even the children are spiritless and look obtuse… It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”
Overall, I believe he harbored extremely reactionary views, such as support of Zionism (which, while eventually fading, persisted), the shown racism towards Chinese people, and more. While the logical necessity of Socialism is elucidated quite clearly in Why Socialism? it appears he harbored western-supremacist views.
This stands in stark contrast to contemporary intellectuals like Frantz Fanon, who lived in Algeria and the USSR. I don’t think Einstein should be lionized, however I do think his essay Why Socialism? serves as a good starting point for those who think Socialism to be utter nonsense, and serve as a springboard for actual, genuine works of theory.
That’s a very detailed explanation, as a scientist as much as I knew about him I didn’t know that much.
Although I do wonder why it would matter.
I mean by that, although a great scientist, politics is not is area of expertise. So I wouldn’t put that much importance in his opinions.
Not that you can’t be curious, but valuing it for his fame is a known bias we should avoid.
It’s especially true for intelligence. We tend to put it on a pedestal like it’s what made Einstein, or anyone, be successful. When it’s only a part.
I’d say intelligence is like a good soil, there is still so much labor to make it into food. Einstein did the work in physics but on any other matter your still just eating dirt.
This interview with Noam Chomsky explains why we should listen to intellectuals when they speak of matters that are not necessarily in their field of expertise:
Some years ago, for example, I did some work in mathematical linguistics and automata theory, and occasionally gave invited lectures at mathematics or engineering colloquia. No one would have dreamed of challenging my credentials to speak on these topics – which were zero, as everyone knew; that would have been laughable. The participants were concerned with what I had to say, not my right to say it. But when I speak, say, about international affairs, I’m constantly challenged to present the credentials that authorize me to enter this august arena, in the United States, at least – elsewhere not.
Anyone can give their opinions on football teams, movies, recipes for cooking. But, for some reason you have to be an expert to talk about economics or politics. The reason- those discussions challenge the accepted power structures of authority. So, those discussions are guarded, and any challenge dismissed.
Chomsky is right here, but it’s also worth noting that even “experts” can be either minimized or magnified depending on their usefulness to the Capitalist system. Chomsky himself has a fair amount of skeletons in his closet.
I think Gabriel Rockhill would consider Chomsky as part of the compatible left. It’s essential to separate the ideas from the person. I tend not to expect too much from libertarian socialists like Chomsky, and they rarely disappoint me. He can be a resource for early radicalization and dissident thought though.
I agree, I just think that with figures you describe as the “compatible left,” they need to be taken with consideration as to their broader views and roles. Disclaimers are handy, such as Paul Cockshott, whose work on economic planning under Socialism is valuable, yet TERF extremism and transphobia is actively harmful.
Nobody is perfect, of course, but some people’s works need to be examined from a critical lense to separate the good from the bad more than others.
I deleted my comment because this is a masterful response. I want to remain on record, though, that you’re replying to an idiot who is trying to cause problems. You’re better than me for not pointing that out lol.
Oh I’m aware, haha. I just try to take the road less traveled in case any onlookers might have their views changed by seeing a genuine response.
Your comment taught me a lot that I didn’t previously know so thank you!
No problem! Glad you enjoyed!
(also pinging @Cowbee@lemmy.ml)
Sometimes*, it’s still worth replying to bad faith ‘debate’, not to discuss or even necessarily refute them, but to address their audience, including lurkers.
That said, it’s also good to have FAQs and links so you don’t waste 30 minutes of your labor replying to a downvoted sunken bad faith one-liner.
No thats a great mindset. I just have no faith in humanity.
I’ve had many people at this point DM or reply to me saying they appreciate my input and learned something new, and this helps me keep my faith up. There are also those who consider me a “troll” which is silly, and others who are eternally anti-Marxist-Leninist no matter what, but those aren’t the people I really try to reach, it’s the more reasonable people that are more receptive and act in better faith. Funnily enough, I have developed a bit of an “anti-fan club.”
In cases like this, it’s pretty much a lay-up for me to put a bit of effort in, as you can see from the response my comments are getting on this post. In other cases, I ignore because I can tell the other person’s mind is made up and there’s no chance of onlookers anyways.
Ultimately, it’s a balance.
