Jump to content

Were Mao and Stalin Actually Socialists? (No True Scotsman)


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You are missing my point.  If "most" people are satisfied by the existing equilibrium how can further change be prompted in a movement that claims to rely upon the consent of the governed before it will take action?  If the majority remains satisfied, based upon Rippounet's assertion that one of the defining characteristics of socialism is "Democratic Control", no further change should be implemented.  

Pragmatically, I would say "most" people are not in fact satisfied and the effort should be to provide more egalitarian means toward true republicanism.  Theoretically, if "most" people are satisfied, and the minority is not being oppressed in the interest of the majority's satisfaction, then you have achieved a desirable equilibrium.  I am not one to argue for a purely socialist, communal, or "utopian" state.

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't care for Fukuyama either and I certainly don't think history will ever "end".  But... if we take Democratic limitations on Government power to be a truism and an actual constraint upon government action how can further Socialist development, beyond the social safety net, ever be created?  

Those democratic constraints were created precisely to ensure government action did not go beyond the general will, right?  I am not interested in "further Socialist development" unless it maintains an individual's right to pursue her own role in society.  I'm not sure what policies are necessary to be created "beyond the social safety net" to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Pragmatically, I would say "most" people are not in fact satisfied and the effort should be to provide more egalitarian means toward true republicanism.  Theoretically, if "most" people are satisfied, and the minority is not being oppressed in the interest of the majority's satisfaction, then you have achieved a desirable equilibrium.  I am not one to argue for a purely socialist, communal, or "utopian" state.

Those democratic constraints were created precisely to ensure government action did not go beyond the general will, right?  I am not interested in "further Socialist development" unless it maintains an individual's right to pursue her own role in society.  I'm not sure what policies are necessary to be created "beyond the social safety net" to do so.

Aren't there some among the left who dislike the idea of the individual and the priority that the individual receives in most Western style democracies?  Clearly not all but isn't the idea of collectives supercedeing and taking priority over individuals and individual liberties something that is growing in some leftist circles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Aren't there some among the left who dislike the idea of the individual and the priority that the individual receives in most Western style democracies?  Clearly not all but isn't the idea of collectives supercedeing and taking priority over individuals and individual liberties something that is growing in some leftist circles?

Perhaps.  In terms of actual political influence the rise of the radical right is far more elucidated and of far more concern.  Albeit, in terms of academic circles you may be right, but frankly I am literally part of an academic circle and I'm presently not aware of any colleague I know of arguing for "the idea of collectives supercedeing and taking priority over individuals."  Anyway, their effect is minimal and I'm not really concerned.  Moreover, this is tangential to the original argument of the OP, which has to do with widespread misunderstanding in regards to the definition of socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Perhaps.  In terms of actual political influence the rise of the radical right is far more elucidated and of far more concern.  Albeit, in terms of academic circles you may be right, but frankly I am literally part of an academic circle and I'm presently not aware of any colleague I know of arguing for "the idea of collectives supercedeing and taking priority over individuals."  Anyway, their effect is minimal and I'm not really concerned.  Moreover, this is tangential to the original argument of the OP, which has to do with widespread misunderstanding in regards to the definition of socialism.

This, in my opinion, is a natural evolution of the existing discussion about the nature and purposes of Socialism and by extension Social Democracy.

If the individual were removed from the equation what would that do to socialism as an idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This, in my opinion, is a natural evolution of the existing discussion about the nature and purposes of Socialism and by extension Social Democracy.

Fair enough.  My political activism is much more focused towards achieving and maintaining the general social democrat model in the U.S.  How socialism can or should be extended beyond basic needs, encapsulated by the social safety net, is something I've given very little consideration.  But by all means do so.

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If the individual were removed from the equation what would that do to socialism as an idea?

 I can't even begin to answer that question.  Society is composed of individuals.  How can individuals, and their interests, be removed from the idea of socialism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one country that is "social democratic", namely Germany, the working classes own very little property after many decades of "social democracy" so I doubt that this is the main reason for the demise. Rather it made it possible through a system of socialized healthcare and pensions and (comparably) high wages to live comfortably even without owning substantial property, like a house. The downside is that this comfortable situation has been changing for some time and the wealth/property distribution is far more unequal than the income distribution.

But obviously, the considerable improvement of the living conditions of everyone in developed countries is one reason for the demise of socialism, together with the atrocities of some Eastern bloc regimes. But we basically exported the sweatshops and poisonous mines...

The point of socialist "collectivism" was to my knowledge never to "destroy" individualism on a personal, ontological, whatever level. To the contrary, it was mainly/only about getting rid of the huge power differences resulting from individuals rather than a collective controlling the means of production. And this stifled individualism in the sense of fulfilment of desires and personality development because most of the populace were simply burned up in brutal labor to make the rich richer.

It is of course true that the totalitarian character of actual communist regimes stifled personality development as well, dertainly to a larger extent than most Western social democracies although probably not than 19th century early capitalist states (that often had remnants of feudal or other illiberal structures in place)

(And one should note that e.g. the Soviet Union apparently achieved a considerably higher percentage of women in STEM and leading positions than the West does today)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

In one country that is "social democratic", namely Germany, the working classes own very little property after many decades of "social democracy" so I doubt that this is the main reason for the demise. Rather it made it possible through a system of socialized healthcare and pensions and (comparably) high wages to live comfortably even without owning substantial property, like a house. The downside is that this comfortable situation has been changing for some time and the wealth/property distribution is far more unequal than the income distribution.

But obviously, the considerable improvement of the living conditions of everyone in developed countries is one reason for the demise of socialism, together with the atrocities of some Eastern bloc regimes. But we basically exported the sweatshops and poisonous mines...

The point of socialist "collectivism" was to my knowledge never to "destroy" individualism on a personal, ontological, whatever level. To the contrary, it was mainly/only about getting rid of the huge power differences resulting from individuals rather than a collective controlling the means of production. And this stifled individualism in the sense of fulfilment of desires and personality development because most of the populace were simply burned up in brutal labor to make the rich richer.

It is of course true that the totalitarian character of actual communist regimes stifled personality development as well, dertainly to a larger extent than most Western social democracies although probably not than 19th century early capitalist states (that often had remnants of feudal or other illiberal structures in place)

(And one should note that e.g. the Soviet Union apparently achieved a considerably higher percentage of women in STEM and leading positions than the West does today)

 

1. I don't just mean property in the form of housing.  Germans tend to have substantial savings.

2. But, would anyone really prefer to be a woman in the Soviet Union to being a woman in a Western country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

The point of socialist "collectivism" was to my knowledge never to "destroy" individualism on a personal, ontological, whatever level. To the contrary, it was mainly/only about getting rid of the huge power differences resulting from individuals rather than a collective controlling the means of production. And this stifled individualism in the sense of fulfilment of desires and personality development because most of the populace were simply burned up in brutal labor to make the rich richer.

+1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Fair enough.  My political activism is much more focused towards achieving and maintaining the general social democrat model in the U.S.  How socialism can or should be extended beyond basic needs, encapsulated by the social safety net, is something I've given very little consideration.  But by all means do so.

 I can't even begin to answer that question.  Society is composed of individuals.  How can individuals, and their interests, be removed from the idea of socialism?

dmc,

What are "basic needs"?  Is that not necessarily a variable term?  The poor but housed in the US would be seen as middle class in other parts of the world.  Isn't what is considered a "basic need" necessarily dependent upon the society where it is coming from and as that society improves and becomes more egalitarian doesn't what is considered a "basic need" change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a fantastic fifth page guys. Really warms my heart to see people who've given this so much thought.

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You are missing my point.  If "most" people are satisfied by the existing equilibrium how can further change be prompted in a movement that claims to rely upon the consent of the governed before it will take action?  If the majority remains satisfied, based upon Rippounet's assertion that one of the defining characteristics of socialism is "Democratic Control", no further change should be implemented. 

I actually agree with you on this. From my own very personal point of view, some kind of statu quo would be rather desirable. What I mean by that is that the balance found in European countries is generally good both from the perspective of the people's wellbeing, and from the economic perspective.

The problem is that, as @Jo498 pointed out, the "other side" did not stop its class war, and that the statu quo is constantly threatened. Which, quite frankly, boggles my mind. I don't know whether it's some kind of "preventive" war to prevent the people from getting funny ideas, or whether it's an expression of the unlimited greed of the richest 1%. Probably a bit of both.
So because the struggle continues, socialists have had to redefine their creed. First, because Marxism-Leninism gave socialism a bad name, and second because it was necessary to propose something that was consensual enough to be accepted by -at least- the majority. Which is why instead of grand projects, socialists and socialist/labour parties have focused on consensual policies such as a higher minimum wage, free education, socialized healthcare... etc.
The problem today is that even this "watered down left" is facing unimaginable obstacles, because of the amount of money poured by capitalists into propaganda and lobbying. Thus the people are incited to vote against their own interest because they are made to believe that "the economy" is somehow more important than their immediate wellbeing while many politicians give in to some form of corruption.

I'm not sure the original socialism can have as much relevance in this 21st century as it once did. I'd say the left needs to regroup and establish long-term strategies, just like the capitalists did in the 20th century. Our main obstacle right now, beyond the capitalists' propaganda, is the structure of the global economic system, because it's what seems to limit welfare spending by governments.
To be clear, I think the current ceilings for budget deficit are too low. They've been set to 3% of GDP in the EU for example. Progresively doubling them throughout the EU (while restructuring the debt itself) should be enough to preserve our social democracies for good without breaking the entire economic system ; the euro would lose some of its value of course, and you want to watch out of inflation, but if I read history correctly it can be achieved with the right people at the helm. Once governments are free from the shackles of the current system, almost anything can be achieved. And it would only take one one of the biggest economies on earth to lead the way... I think this is the weakness of capitalism: it relies too much on arbitrary limits. Question those limits and you might get surprising results.
 

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The point is, the need for tax is because govt has fundamental things that need to be paid for because society is in a particular state of moral decay. In an utopian society there is no moral decay, therefore the need for the govt to waste pots of cash minimising the harm caused by moral decay is gone, so the tax burden is much smaller.

You do realize that in a truly utopian society there would be no money and no taxes, right? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that one way for the left to be relevant again is for large scale automation to strike hard against the working class. Which very well may happen in our lifetime.

Also, the idea that because stuff seems rather stable right now, they won't change, seems kind of odd, all things considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

dmc,

What are "basic needs"?  Is that not necessarily a variable term?  The poor but housed in the US would be seen as middle class in other parts of the world.  Isn't what is considered a "basic need" necessarily dependent upon the society where it is coming from and as that society improves and becomes more egalitarian doesn't what is considered a "basic need" change?

Of course it is a variable term.  But basic needs defined as a social safety net - which is precisely how I described it, has a very specific definition in post-WWII western democracies.  Again, I'm not interested in a post-modern debate on what "basic needs" means beyond materialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, SeanF said:

2. But, would anyone really prefer to be a woman in the Soviet Union to being a woman in a Western country?

That's beside the point as there is no SU anymore. But yes, I guess, ca. 1965-70 it might have been preferable to be a woman in the Soviet Union than in some Western countries. What about a black woman in the 1960s American South? What about 1960s rural Ireland, Southern Italy etc? I am not sure, i wasn't alive then and never lived in an Eastern bloc country but I think it is cherry picking to take upper/middle class from the richest countries in world as a valid comparison. Again, I am not sure about the exact data but for a certain time (I think in the 60s and 70s) the standard of living in some eastern bloc countries like Czechoslovakia or Eastern Germany was higher than of Portugal, Greece, Spain etc. Not even to mention Latin America which are also Western countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

That's beside the point as there is no SU anymore. But yes, I guess, ca. 1965-70 it might have been preferable to be a woman in the Soviet Union than in some Western countries. What about a black woman in the 1960s American South? What about 1960s rural Ireland, Southern Italy etc? I am not sure, i wasn't alive then and never lived in an Eastern bloc country but I think it is cherry picking to take upper/middle class from the richest countries in world as a valid comparison. Again, I am not sure about the exact data but for a certain time (I think in the 60s and 70s) the standard of living in some eastern bloc countries like Czechoslovakia or Eastern Germany was higher than of Portugal, Greece, Spain etc. Not even to mention Latin America which are also Western countries.

I was thinking of Western Europe and North America. 

Even if one just confines oneself to the working classes, the average woman in a Western European or North American country 1965-1970 would certainly have been better off (and have enjoyed much greater personal freedom) than her Soviet counterpart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Aren't there some among the left who dislike the idea of the individual and the priority that the individual receives in most Western style democracies?  Clearly not all but isn't the idea of collectives supercedeing and taking priority over individuals and individual liberties something that is growing in some leftist circles?

I think this is just propaganda. I do believe I know where it is coming from though...

Leftists tend to believe that capitalism has many negative consequences (possibly because of Marx's analyses among other things). They want to abolish monopolies or cartels, regulate the quality and safety of the goods and production, and -today- want to set strict environmental limits on any kind of production. Also, they want the profits of corporations to be at least in part redistributed to the workers (either directly by the corporation, or indirectly through taxation by the state), and give greater power to unions.
This is often described as hating individual liberty, when it is really about limiting the economic freedoms taken by capitalists (and then, mostly the wealthiest ones). This is completely different from fundamental civil rights such as defined as the US Bill of Rights (for instance).

Another possible origin is the fact that leftists tend to believe socialized systems (like socialized healthcare or education) are vastly superior to privatized systems seeking profit. So they don't believe the people should be given a choice in the matter. In the US this is very unpopular because many people feel they will be made to "pay for others." In Europe, far less so, because in many countries healthcare or education were never privatized to begin with so it's more about denying the capitlists the opportunity to make a profit out of new "markets."

I'll freely admit that I believe too much individual economic liberty is a plague on our societies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I think this is just propaganda. I do believe I know where it is coming from though...

Leftists tend to believe that capitalism has many negative consequences (possibly because of Marx's analyses among other things). They want to abolish monopolies or cartels, regulate the quality and safety of the goods and production, and -today- want to set strict environmental limits on any kind of production. Also, they want the profits of corporations to be at least in part redistributed to the workers (either directly by the corporation, or indirectly through taxation by the state), and give greater power to unions.
This is often described as hating individual liberty, when it is really about limiting the economic freedoms taken by capitalists (and then, mostly the wealthiest ones). This is completely different from fundamental civil rights such as defined as the US Bill of Rights (for instance).

Another possible origin is the fact that leftists tend to believe socialized systems (like socialized healthcare or education) are vastly superior to privatized systems seeking profit. So they don't believe the people should be given a choice in the matter. In the US this is very unpopular because many people feel they will be made to "pay for others." In Europe, far less so, because in many countries healthcare or education were never privatized to begin with so it's more about denying the capitlists the opportunity to make a profit out of new "markets."

I'll freely admit that I believe too much individual economic liberty is a plague on our societies.

Rippounet,

How can "people not be given a choice in the matter" and socialism remain a democratic philosophy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Rippounet,

How can "people not be given a choice in the matter" and socialism remain a democratic philosophy?

By saying that democracy does not absolve individuals of the duty to provide vital assistance to fellow humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

What if the people want a more privatised system?

Then they don't want socialism and socialism cannot be implemented.

Edit: to be clear, if people aren't even ready for a socialized healthcare system, socialism is obviously completely out of the question. If people don't even have enough basic empathy for their fellows to help the sick, you'll never have a collective management of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Then they don't want socialism and socialism cannot be implemented.

Edit: to be clear, if people aren't even ready for a socialized healthcare system, socialism is obviously completely out of the question. If people don't even have enough basic empathy for their fellows to help the sick, you'll never have a collective management of society.

You seem to be making a value judgment against people who prefer a privatized system.  Are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...