Intellectuals and Socialism

[PureX]

Do you udnerstand the difference between a historical discussion and a theoretical one?

Yes. I understand that historically, totalitarian dictatorships called themselves "communist socialist republics" because they didn't want to be seen as the totalitarian dictatorships that they were, and still are. But theoretically, in a communist state, the people own an control the levers of power, and the means of production. Which, of course, couldn't be further from the reality of a totalitarian dictatorship.

 

[Laika]

Yes. I understand that historically, totalitarian dictatorships called themselves "communist socialist republics" because they didn't want to be seen as the totalitarian dictatorships that they were, and still are. But theoretically, in a communist state, the people own an control the levers of power, and the means of production. Which, of course, couldn't be further from the reality of a totalitarian dictatorship.

The term "Totalitarianism" describes the ideal state of Fascism explicitly in the context of rejecting Marxist Materialism and theory. So its application to Communist dictatorships is debatable because it focuses on the similarities in power structures, rather than the ideological differences. Its based on treating Fascism, Nazism and Communism as the same. Treating the ideology as effectively irrelevant to understanding the nature of the dictatorship hinges on assuming all states are morally equivalent in the use of force. This is usually a libertarian and conservative view of political power and the state as "naturally" corrupting and opposed to freedom without considering historical context).

At best "Totalitarianism" is a short-hand for describing a different intensity of dictatorial rule dependent on the transformation of society by industrialisation. Before the 20th century, "Totalitarian" dictatorships would not have been possible without cinema, radio, television, etc to deliver a propaganda message, and a dramatic expansion of the powers of the state following the pattern of mobilising for "total wars" like world war I and II to institute a deliberate "civil war" with the state against the "enemies of the people". Otherwise its basically calling Communism "Fascist" when the two systems were fanatically opposed to each other and ignoring the depth of animosity between them.

 

[PureX]

The term "Totalitarianism" describes the ideal state of Fascism explicitly in the context of rejecting Marxist Materialism and theory. So its application to Communist dictatorships is debatable because it focuses on the similarities in power structures, rather than the ideological differences. Its based on treating Fascism, Nazism and Communism as the same. Treating the ideology as effectively irrelevant to understanding the nature of the dictatorship hinges on assuming all states are morally equivalent in the use of force. This is usually a libertarian and conservative view of political power and the state as "naturally" corrupting and opposed to freedom without considering historical context).

At best "Totalitarianism" is a short-hand for describing a different intensity of dictatorial rule dependent on the transformation of society by industrialisation. Before the 20th century, "Totalitarian" dictatorships would not have been possible without cinema, radio, television, etc to deliver a propaganda message, and a dramatic expansion of the powers of the state following the pattern of mobilising for "total wars" like world war I and II to institute a deliberate "civil war" with the state against the "enemies of the people". Otherwise its basically calling Communism "Fascist" when the two systems were fanatically opposed to each other and ignoring the depth of animosity between them.

A totalitarian dictatorship is one in which all the power resides in a single dictator. Which is pretty much always the case. Dictators rarely agree to share power. However, I suppose it might occur on a rare occasion. Say when a dictator agrees to shares power with a spouse or offspring due to illness, or an impending death.

 

[Laika]

A totalitarian dictatorship is one in which all the power resides in a single dictator. Which is pretty much always the case. Dictators rarely agree to share power. However, I suppose it might occur on a rare occasion. Say when a dictator agrees to shares power with a spouse or offspring due to illness, or an impending death.

Then why support Democracy? Why give power to the people if they would be inevitably corrupted by it as an individual dictator would be? Would not the same principle mean that Democracy is "pretty much always" tyranny by majority because each person "rarely agree to share power"?

 

[PureX]

Then why support Democracy? Why give power to the people if they would be inevitably corrupted by it as an individual dictator would be? Would not the same principle mean that Democracy is "pretty much always" tyranny by majority because each person "rarely agree to share power"?

Yes, and this has been known for a long time: that democracy, by itself, is just a form of mob rule in which the majority will inevitably oppress and abuse the minority. Which is why no society of people of any size has tried to rule themselves by pure democracy since the days of Socrates, and even he understood that it had to be mitigated.

 

[PureX]

While I think there is definitely an argument against centralization of power, this is definitely not how it was in the USSR.

The old Soviet Union was basically fascism, described by wiki as "a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe." It's all basically still 'thug rule'. The thugs squabble amongst themselves, and change leaders, occasionally, but they never relinquish their absolute ownership and control of everything and everyone that matters.

 

[Lyndon]

kind of like the USA today!!

 

[Laika]

Yes, and this has been known for a long time: that democracy, by itself, is just a form of mob rule in which the majority will inevitably oppress and abuse the minority. Which is why no society of people of any size has tried to rule themselves by pure democracy since the days of Socrates, and even he understood that it had to be mitigated.

Are you an Anarchist then?

 

[PureX]

Are you an Anarchist then?

No, I think the only solution that can work is a limited constitutional representational democracy that is governed by clearly articulated and enforced social imperatives. Democratic capitalism is a total failure, as evidenced by Donald Trump and several houses of representatives that represent no one but themselves and their wealthy patrons. Our Constitution is mostly a load of confused and ineffective gibberish that couldn't possibly anticipate or mitigate the onslaught of greed, ignorance, and raw criminality that a nation of 350 million people could generate.

However, had an intelligent, articulate, elaborate and insightful Constitution been written, laying out the fundamental (socialist) principals that every successful society would need to adhere to for it's own peace, prosperity, and longevity, and had our politicians been forced to represent the well-being of the people that elected them, instead of themselves and their wealthy cronies, I think things would have turned out very differently for the U.S., and for the rest of the world. And not only differently, but far better for everyone involved.

 

[PureX]

I guess political labels don't mean anything anymore.

Labels are just more lies in this new age of spin and propaganda. We have to look through the labels and clever platitudes and consider the actual content.

 

[Laika]

No, I think the only solution that can work is a limited constitutional representational democracy that is governed by clearly articulated and enforced social imperatives. Democratic capitalism is a total failure, as evidenced by Donald Trump and several houses of representatives that represent no one but themselves and their wealthy patrons. Our Constitution is mostly a load of confused and ineffective gibberish that couldn't possibly anticipate or mitigate the onslaught of greed, ignorance, and raw criminality that a nation of 350 million people could generate.

However, had an intelligent, articulate, elaborate and insightful Constitution been written, laying out the fundamental (socialist) principals that every successful society would need to adhere to for it's own peace, prosperity, and longevity, and had our politicians been forced to represent the well-being of the people that elected them, instead of themselves and their wealthy cronies, I think things would have turned out very differently for the U.S., and for the rest of the world. And not only differently, but far better for everyone involved.

I think you will find that the Founding Fathers of the United States were some of the most highly educated members of their society and were taking exceptional risks with an experiment in Republican and Constitutional Government that was unparalleled in the world at the time. The only comparable one was the Corsican Republic (1755-1769) so it wasn't really certain they would succeed in creating a government, let alone one that would last more than two centuries.The Constitution was the second attempt to establish an American government (after the Articles of Confederation) and was discussed in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. It would be extremely difficult to call the US constitutions anything other than an "intelligent, articulate, elaborate and insightful" document based on the most advanced political principles of its day. We can comfortably criticise the endurance of slavery, the abuses of native Americans and the growth of socio-economic inequalities by the late 19th century with the benefit of hindsight, but that should not under-estimate the achievement of establishing a revolutionary government.

The case for Communism and Socialism relies on understanding that the principles of the US constitution have been (perhaps) superseded by a much greater understanding of the forces governing social evolution, in the case of Marxism. I think it is disingenuous to expect that the Founding Fathers could have applied Socialist principles to the American Republic when Socialism didn't even exist as a coherent doctrine until the 19th century, with its earliest stirrings in the French Revolution of 1789. Socialism simply didn't exist in 1776, nor for that matter did Capitalism as an ideology as Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations was only published in that year.

 

[PureX]

I think you will find that the Founding Fathers of the United States were some of the most highly educated members of their society and were taking exceptional risks with an experiment in Republican and Constitutional Government that was unparalleled in the world at the time. The only comparable one was the Corsican Republic (1755-1769) so it wasn't really certain they would succeed in creating a government, let alone one that would last more than two centuries.The Constitution was the second attempt to establish an American government (after the Articles of Confederation) and was discussed in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. It would be extremely difficult to call the US constitutions anything other than an "intelligent, articulate, elaborate and insightful" document based on the most advanced political principles of its day. We can comfortably criticise the endurance of slavery, the abuses of native Americans and the growth of socio-economic inequalities by the late 19th century with the benefit of hindsight, but that should not under-estimate the achievement of establishing a revolutionary government.

The case for Communism and Socialism relies on understanding that the principles of the US constitution have been (perhaps) superseded by a much greater understanding of the forces governing social evolution, in the case of Marxism. I think it is disingenuous to expect that the Founding Fathers could have applied Socialist principles to the American Republic when Socialism didn't even exist as a coherent doctrine until the 19th century, with its earliest stirrings in the French Revolution of 1789. Socialism simply didn't exist in 1776, nor for that matter did Capitalism as an ideology as Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations was only published in that year.

The U.S. Constitution completely failed to address the state's responsibility toward other nations. It completely failed to address the state's responsibility toward internal economic policy and oversight. It completely failed to address the state's obligations to it's own citizen's health and well-being. It completely failed to for-see the inevitable failure of capitalism and the inevitable and massive corruption that it would eventually generate. And it completely failed to provide a way for the people to amend it to resolve these kinds of problems without it being totally corrupted in the process.

So we ended up with a woefully inadequate document that we can't correct or amend without rendering it even less effective. And if all that wasn't bad enough, the very men who wrote it were incapable of living by the very principals they claimed they were trying to make the document embody: equal freedom, justice, and opportunity for all citizens. So the people of the nation have had to struggle and fight ever since, just to try and get the state to acknowledge and stand by those principals.

 

[Laika]

The U.S. Constitution completely failed to address the state's responsibility toward other nations. It completely failed to address the state's responsibility toward internal economic policy and oversight. It completely failed to address the state's obligations to it's own citizen's health and well-being. It completely failed to for-see the inevitable failure of capitalism and the inevitable and massive corruption that it would eventually generate. And it completely failed to provide a way for the people to amend it to resolve these kinds of problems without it being totally corrupted in the process.

So we ended up with a woefully inadequate document that we can't correct or amend without rendering it even less effective. And if all that wasn't bad enough, the very men who wrote it were incapable of living by the very principals they claimed they were trying to make the document embody: equal freedom, justice, and opportunity for all citizens. So the people of the nation have had to struggle and fight ever since, just to try and get the state to acknowledge and stand by those principals.

So, as there is no way to "correct or amend" the constitution, would you support revolution, civil war or secession to institute a new one?

 

[PureX]

So, as there is no way to "correct or amend" the constitution, would you support revolution, civil war or secession to institute a new one?

What I want is irrelevant. If the people of the United States don't act quickly, and unilaterally, to take back control of their own government from the wealthy plutocrats that are in control, now, it will be too late. And then the only recourse will be a bloody revolution, which will surely devolve into a civil war, since the plutocrats have been so successful at dividing us against each other. And in such a weakened and chaotic state, conquest from outside the U.S. would not be unexpected.

The future for us, is dismal.

 

[Laika]

What I want is irrelevant. If the people of the United States don't act quickly, and unilaterally, to take back control of their own government from the wealthy plutocrats that are in control, now, it will be too late. And then the only recourse will be a bloody revolution, which will surely devolve into a civil war, since the plutocrats have been so successful at dividing us against each other. And in such a weakened and chaotic state, conquest from outside the U.S. would not be unexpected.

The future for us, is dismal.

What you want matters. you are one of the people and if the people are to have power, so should you. If you want to change something you have to want the power to change it.

 

[PureX]

What you want matters. you are one of the people and if the people are to have power, so should you. If you want to change something you have to want the power to change it.

'People power' requires unity. Which is why the plutocrats are forever seeking to turn us against each other by increasing racial division, economic division, religious division, moral division, class division, ethnic division, and so one. All of this division coming from our corporate sponsored politicians and from our corporate sponsored media. And sadly, we seem to fall for it very time. So what I want as an individual really is of no consequence. It's what we want as a people that matters. And right now, all we seem to want to do is place the blame on each other.

 

[Laika]

'People power' requires unity. Which is why the plutocrats are forever seeking to turn us against each other by increasing racial division, economic division, religious division, moral division, class division, ethnic division, and so one. All of this division coming from our corporate sponsored politicians and from our corporate sponsored media. And sadly, we seem to fall for it very time. So what I want as an individual really is of no consequence. It's what we want as a people that matters. And right now, all we seem to want to do is place the blame on each other.

Unity must be created. People have to chose to be united and to act together to advance their interests. It is the wrong tactic to wait for the people to "spontaneously" become united. What you want as an individual is of great consequence because by your own efforts and motivations you can make a difference and make a contribution to building that unity necessary to defeat the plutocrats.

 

[PureX]

Unity must be created. People have to chose to be united and to act together to advance their interests. It is the wrong tactic to wait for the people to "spontaneously" become united. What you want as an individual is of great consequence because by your own efforts and motivations you can make a difference and make a contribution to building that unity necessary to defeat the plutocrats.

We have a media machine in this country that promotes blinding self-fulfillment 24-7, and has been doing so for 70 years. The population of this country is now 3 and 4 generations deep in a culture that glorifies greed, stupidity, and selfishness. And any one human being has very little power to change the nature of any other human being through the everyday course of events.

 

[Laika]

We have a media machine in this country that promotes blinding self-fulfillment 24-7, and has been doing so for 70 years. The population of this country is now 3 and 4 generations deep in a culture that glorifies greed, stupidity, and selfishness. And any one human being has very little power to change the nature of any other human being through the everyday course of events.

Well, you can't succeed if you don't try. The fact we could fail is not really an excuse for not trying is it? Just because its hard doesn't mean its impossible.

 

[PureX]

Well, you can't succeed if you don't try. The fact we could fail is not really an excuse for not trying is it? Just because its hard doesn't mean its impossible.

Try what? What do you suggest we try?