Augustus
…
Although that happened 200-400 years ago and didn't involve the best part of 2 million people
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Eat the Rich
- Thread starter Secret Chief
- Start date
Although that happened 200-400 years ago and didn't involve the best part of 2 million people
Does that really make a difference? How long ago it was and how many people were allegedly affected? I don't think moral relativism is a very useful exercise in determining which political/economic system is "better."
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
The Guaianan penal colonies of Devil Island officially closed in 1951, only two years before Krushchev's amnesty to non-political GuLag prisoners, and three years before they started to release political prisoners from the system.
Sometimes, our dark past is not as distant as we like it to be.
It is worth noting that in many ways, the GuLag system was a continuation of the Czarist practice of criminal and political deportation to Siberia, although of course the Okhrana never managed the kind of brutal "efficiency" in oppressing innocents, criminals and political dissidents alike that the NKDV became infamous for, and did not maintain the kind of massive prison population that would be vulnerable to famine or disease.
Meanwhile, in the modern day, the capitalist, profit-driven Putin regime maintains a system of prison camps that is not unlike a smaller, "softer" version of the Soviet GuLag system, complete with forced labor (although to be fair, my understanding is that, much like privatized US prisons, they tend to mostly engage in light manufacturing of e.g. textiles, rather than engaging in the back breaking construction work of the Stalin days, so by the very nature of their slave labor they are in not nearly as much lethal danger there).
As for the number of prisoners, I'm sure we can agree that cruel imprisonment is a moral wrong regardless of how many people are subjected to it, right? We don't need to play Genocide Olympics as to which historical penal colony with a disproportionate death toll was numerically worse per capita do we.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
Sorry, I thought you were discussing the British policy of transportation.
How many people were subjected to a moral wrong certainly matters.
How many people were sent to Devil's Island in the 20th C (seeing as this is the comparison period)? Much more than a couple of dozen a year?
I'd say there is a substantial difference between a small number of people, most of whom were 'normal' criminals, being sent to a penal colony and a couple of million being sent, many of whom just happened to belong to the wrong ethnic group, were slightly richer peasants, were too intellectual and thus a threat.
You don't think repression was worse in the USSR?
Augustus
…
I'd say it does.
The number of people affected is certainly relevant imo.
Also, things that were accepted as the norm 400 years ago may be universally condemned today. Cultures and values change over time.
Total harms and how they compare to other contemporary systems would be useful though.
True, although over the course of time, even the same political system and government may reprove itself for past wrongs, just as the U.S. government condemned its previous crimes of slavery and genocide, and just as Khrushchev condemned the Stalinist regime for its crimes. Khrushchev himself was later removed, as the system slowly reformed. That's not to say that there weren't those unjustly imprisoned or persecuted, but the numbers were much fewer.
It doesn't excuse anyone for any crimes or government abuses, but it's fair question as to whether the economic "system" is to blame or if it's due to some other factor (such as an individual's paranoia or possible malicious agenda).
The trouble with system building is that there are too many intangible and unforeseen factors which can affect how one evaluates and compares one system in one country to another system in another country. Sometimes other ideologies can get thrown into the mix, such as nationalism, so that might also affect the workings of individual systems.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
At this point, we're shifting the goalposts from "there is no repression in capitalism, everyone is free" to "there is repression, but socialism is still inherently worse somehow".
I see the beginning of understanding.
Augustus
…
You seem to be inventing some goalposts then imagining they shifted somewhere.
You do have a habit of making stuff up then deciding other people said it.
Augustus
…
When you have an economic system that is premised on creating a dictatorship of the proletariat that is a problem. If an economic system requires self-appointed leaders to decide only they can be trusted to carry out the will of the people and that anyone who disagrees is a 'counter revolutionary' who deserves liquidation, it is hard to see this ever being successful.
It's not like the Soviet Union was repressive because of a few bad apples, the system requires repression as a means to an end. If you judge this end to be a utopian fantasy, then what scope is there for its success?
The best exposition of this, imo, is the novel Darkness at noon by (former communist) Arthur Koestler.
Do you believe that a Soviet-style regime could realistically lead to a prosperous and open society if it simply had better leaders?
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Or perhaps you're not the only poster in this thread and I was referring to a related conversation.
Ah, we're doing that song and dance again. Yea, I suppose it was a mistake to take you off my ignore list.
Have fun.
Heyo
Veteran Member
The problem, it seems to me, lies in the mixing of economic system with political system. Capitalism works with a more democratic system as well as with a dictatorship whereas communism only ever has been tried in conjunction with dictatorship.
The reason for the "dictatorship of the working class" is the inherent corruptibility of the democratic process. The "freer" a democracy is (in terms of the ability to accumulate wealth), the more likely it is to become a plutocracy.
The US are a prime example for that. They are a failed democracy measured by the extend of how much the will of the people affects politics.
A democratic socialism would have to limit the accumulation of wealth while maintaining the integrity of the democracy.
A democratic capitalism would have to limit the influence of money in politics (if that is even possible) while maintaining the ability to accumulate wealth.
For socialism to exist, it must prevent free economic association,
lest people form employer, employee, supplier, & consumer
relationships. This would replace socialism, so it requires an
authoritarian government.
With such power, leaders tend to apply it broadly, including
the social arena. Capitalism, on the other hand, doesn't require
such governmental power to prevent socialistic free association,
eg, cooperatives. It's allowed because it poses no threat to
the free economic associations of others, ie, capitalism.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Does it, though?
Prohibiting employer-employee relationships would be just another law. Almost all democratic and capitalistic systems have prohibitions on the book that limit personal freedom, e.g. recreational drug use. Heck, they limit economical freedom, e.g. drug trade.
I see no valid reason why a socialist system can't grant personal freedom but limit economic freedom. It is only communist dogma (and lust for power by the leaders) that prevented the experiment. (And intervention by the SU in Eastern block countries that wanted to become more democratic.)
Capitalism also doesn't require corruption - it is just a logical consequence of the profit motive.
Yes.
Just another law?
No, it's far more odious & oppressive than merely
regulating capitalism. It prohibits capitalism.
Reasonable regulation =/= outright prohibition
I don't say that it can't grant personal freedom.
Socialist regimes just tend not to....every time it's tried.
There is always lust for power by leaders.
I prefer avoiding systems which have the
greater tendency towards it.
This is an example of the necessity of quelling
democratic impulses, which could lean capitalistic.
Corruption happens, even in socialist countries.
The USSR had a powerful black market because
of the deprivation of its command economy.
And on top of corruption, it had an authoritarian
government...a characteristic of all attempts at
socialism.
Augustus
…
Expecting people to assume that your posts don't actually relate to the post you replied to or anything else they have said but, in fact, refer to some other unknown poster in the 19 page long thread seems highly unlikely to be a fruitful communication strategy if your goal is mutual understanding...
If you are sure you are indeed being fair and accurate, can you quote anyone saying something along these lines: "there is no repression in capitalism, everyone is free"?
I've not read the whole thread so may have missed it but haven't seen anyone say anything close to this. People tend to be arguing it is less bad.
Also re: "there is repression, but socialism is still inherently worse somehow". People have very much been explaining why they believe it is worse.
I don't see that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" should be a problem. It sounds vaguely reminiscent of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." What's wrong with that?
Of course, we know that even under our own system, we didn't really have that, as the Founders (and many others since then) somehow believed that the majority of people were too stupid to be able to make important decisions. That's why we have limitations to our democracy, such as the Electoral College, along with the fact that most judicial and other government posts into appointed positions rather than elected. They never wanted "the people" to have that much power.
In our system, we call anyone who disagrees a "terrorist," although in the past, they might have been called "subversives" or "pinkos." If you were a black person living in the South and were deemed a "troublemaker," then many would see you as deserving of liquidation. It's not a history to be proud of, and I don't think Russians are too proud of it today.
It's in the past, and both systems (ours and theirs) clearly demonstrated their capacity to recognize it was wrong and made a commitment to reform.
I've read accounts from both sides of the aisle. In the end, I think the differing (and sometimes conflicting) accounts are more focused on whose ox is gored, especially when it comes from emigres who have an ax to grind against their former homeland. There are/were expatriates from America who have expressed rather unkind and unflattering views of their former homeland.
It's not as simple as that. However, if they had perhaps gotten off to a better start, things might have turned out better. Kerensky was also a socialist revolutionary, but more moderate than Lenin or the Bolsheviks. Kerensky's main problem was that he wanted to continue Russia's role as a member of the Allies in World War I.
The Western Allies could have done more to support and bolster his precarious position in Russia. One thing they could have done which would have had far-reaching effects was to make a public declaration that they would accept "peace without annexations or indemnities." That's what Russia had been pressing for, and if they had, the nature and scope of the conflict would have changed. Wilson's government would have gone along with that, but it was the governments of Britain and France who chose to act like a bunch of warmongering, imperialist, intransigent jerks.
Britain and France were indifferent to Russia's suffering, and they were blinded to everything else by their hatred towards Germany. By their own stubbornness and short-sighted foolishness, they set up a situation where they were practically guaranteed to end up with hostile, anti-Western regimes in both Germany and Russia. And that's what ended up happening.
The West was hostile to the Bolshevik regime from the outset - even before they actually did anything - before there were gulags or secret police or any of the things they're commonly associated with. All the Bolsheviks wanted was a better life for workers, but the factory owners and other capitalists in the West were afraid that they would lose money if that ever happened. The Allies sent troops to intervene in the Russian Civil War, marking their hostility towards the Bolsheviks before they were even fully in power. They ostracized and isolated Russia, and Russia was plagued by counter-revolutionary activity and sabotage.
Any country gripped by such a degree of chaos would likely need to use some measure of force to contain it and restore order. We would do the same if such were happening in our country, and in fact, we did do that in the period following the Civil War when there was still a great tide of violence affecting the country. It was done by way of lynch mobs, gunfighters, and hanging judges - and if all else failed, there was the U.S. Cavalry. Perhaps not as sleek or sinister as the old "NKVD," but it is what it is (or was).
It does require that you trust yourself.
If one has difficulty in trusting themselves I can understand the comfort of having government there to watch out for them.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
You'll have to break this down for me a little bit, because I reallay don't understand what you mean by that statement.
The idea behind the invisible hand is that you look after your best interest and I look after mine and we both understand that each is doing the same. So we come to an agreement which works for both of our best interests.
If you feel you are not able to see to your own interests, then you might feel the need for the government to step in to look after your best interests for you.
The problem with that is, IMO, there is no guarantee the government doesn't have an agenda, that may not concern itself with your interests.
So me and you, we should be able to find common ground. Me, you and the government, there's no guarantee that either your interests or mine get served and the government gets to enforce its agenda.