"That's essentially what I'm saying [that no true socialist country would be unsuccessful], and socialist countries with failures I think are largely the result of other influences, like residual bourgeoisie or foreign intervention."
A true socialist country cannot exist because of human nature but if we posit that on exists anyways then yes is would succeed
How is human nature in contradiction with socialism?
Socialism only work if everyone is dedicated to making it work. In a society sized system there will be jealousy, laziness, and greed which all throw a wrench in socialism.
So, jealousy, laziness and greed is inherent in all humans or is if a product of Western thought, the absurd notion of Darwinism and a hostile, cutthroat environment?
What if greed where more a product of necessity in order to survive, as it is in capitalism, rather than human nature?
Greed is at its core a desire for victory and to crush all who stand before you it is in a humans nature to want to stand at the top
If that's the case (which I don't believe necessarily is), wouldn't you prefer a system that would require you to take care of one other for survival, or one that permits you to only care about yourself?
Well I said it, so I agree.
So, only socialism in a completely closed system, which isn't possible, is that correct?
Well the end goal is the global revolution. :)
It's exactly the opposite if that.
Actually it works quite well at achieving its goals. Wealth is redistributed and everyone ends up the same. Well except for the elite ruling class that is...
That's incredibly naive and contradicted by history.
Socialism is not a very good idea gone bad, it is a very bad idea gone exactly right. It fails because it doesn't work. Because redistribution is opposite to success. Doctor Wasdarb's system of socialism/communism is anarchism, I know because I've had a somewhat lengthy discussion with him about it. So this quote might be true about his idea of socialism, which btw can't work, because his idea of socialism isn't what socialism is typically defined as.
Not gonna argue with you, because we've talked a bit. But about the anarchism, I really am more open minded than people accuse me of. I've become more sympathetic with orthodox Marxism, although I'm not dogmatic, and I would hope that the anarchists and the Marxists will be able to work together, due to their common belief in the opposition to imperialism and support for self determination.
Yeah no, I don't expect you to explain your beliefs again lol. And I disagree with both but the anarcho-communism is at least a system that isn't morally wrong. I disagree with forced redistribution wholly. But everyone is entitled to their own opinions. To each their own
Is it forced redistribution if people want it redistributed, even if it uses the state organizational apparatus?
Not everyone will agree to it being redistributed, and people voting to take away my property doesn't make it right. And it's still stealing just legal stealing
Definitely agree with @DoctorWasdarb
Take Cuba for example. They failed but they also had U.S. sanctions. So did communism make the Cuba fail or did the sanctions? The sanctions are intended to make a country fail.
Great example. Also you can't underestimate the role of western propaganda.
The sanctions go both ways. But for some reason, the Communist country fails while the Capitalist country thrives.
Please. The US is the biggest economy in the world. It has the ability to trade with hundreds of other nations. Yet you're surprised it's better than poor little Cuba?
Not just USA - Cuba. All the communist countries failed. Including The superpower USSR. South Korea vs North Korea, West Germany vs East Germany... China was very poor. Now that they are changing to capitalism their economy is growing like crazy. There has never been a case of a successful Communist state.
That's why former residents of East Germany, according to polls, would like to see a return to socialism, right?
I doubt it. Do you have a source?
Anyways, my point is that people in the West were much better off than everyone in the East (excluding the government ).
I picked an article which was critical of East Germany, because naturally, I figured you'd be more receiving of it. I don't endorse the position in this article towards East Germany.
I ran out of characters, but this is a quote by DoctorWasdarb. Just interested in other people's thoughts about this.
Nah, it's the no true Scotsman fallacy
Its always that the other guys fucked up..."If I did it, it would be different"
Thats the beauty of the "no true scotsman" bullshit...it always leaves run to fuck up again.
FATSAHDOW: I agree. There is a suspicious history of socialist or communist nations starting off "true to the values of the ideology" but then somehow always devolving into totalitarianism. It's almost like there's a pattern...
As I said in the original poll, the development into totalitarianism is the result of the return of bourgeois influence on the government. A state is necessarily a dictatorship of a class. In our modern society our two main choices are a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or of the proletariat. A dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be totalitarian because it represents the entire working class. The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is totalitarian, because it is a minority oppressing a majority.
Also as I said in the original poll, fighting against internal bourgeois revisionism is equally as important, if not more important, than fighting against external intervention, due to the fact that the great socialist experiments have mostly failed to achieve their goals almost entirely because of revisionism.
The difference is, you believe it will be different if the Dictatorship is held by the proletariat.
I dont believe it would be. Thats not to say the proletariat would not start off with more altruistic intentions. But it not that being Bourgeois makes these people act like cunts. Its the power and influence they gain. The proletariat dictator will act like a cunt for the exact same reason.
Even people with the Nobelist intentions will abuse power once given to them.
In practice communist regimes have only murdered their political enemies during the beginning, middle, and end of their reign. Does communism always go bad? I don't know. All I know is that it always has every time it's ever been tried. Will my phone fall if I drop it? Maybe this time it will fall up!
I know, I know, those weren't "true communists". That's like saying that my phone will fall up with "true gravity", we've just never been in a true gravitational field.
"The proletariat dictator will act like a c**t for the exact same reason."
A dictatorship of the proletariat just means that the proletariat is the class represented by the government. It is not a dictatorship of an individual.
Against whom will the proletariat be cunts? The proletariat are the people. The bourgeoisie aren't cunts because they have power. They're cunts because they're a small minority trying to subvert a majority. That's where the dictatorship of the proletariat is different. Finally the government will represent the people. You can't have democracy without socialism.
"In practice communist regimes have only murdered their political enemies during the beginning, middle, and end of their reign."
Why did Mao's China turn super capitalist after his death? One of the reasons is that he didn't purge the government of capitalists. It's not about "political enemies." It's about protecting the revolution fro, bourgeois opportunists. The proletariat should have complete rights to freedom of speech, etc. The bourgeoisie, that's up to the workers to decide.
"Does communism always go bad?"
Socialism has been an incredible success. I honestly don't understand why people think it has failed every time. What's failed has been revolutions, succumbing to revisionism. But that's not the fault of socialist organization.
I know, I know, those weren't "true communists".
Who did I say weren't real communists?