Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Martell Spy

Workable Socialism

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Oh, but they already did. They are called prisons.

SNAP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

I don't know about that.  Lenin and Trotsky may have been straight up communist, but they tried to implement a socialistic type of model.  Later Brezhnev and Gorbachev were pretty damn close.

Planning as we know it started with Stalin. Lenin realised state looting  War Communism wasn't working, and implemented the NEP, while trying to encourage Western capitalist investment in the Soviet Union (yes, really). Stalin's planning was itself a response to the Scissors Crisis. The cherry on top is that Bolshevism assumed that a world revolution would allow Russia to catch up via fraternal assistance... but the world revolution never happened, forcing Moscow to develop on its own, in an environment where (not without reason) it thought itself ringed by enemies.

It's basically a gigantic exercise in History screwing with the best-laid plans of Mice and Marx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

It's basically a gigantic exercise in History screwing with the best-laid plans of Mice and Marx.

Heh, that's a nice turn of phrase.  But to clarify, are you arguing Stalin's "planning" was socialist while the original ideas and agenda propagated by Lenin (and Trotsky, although that's obviously arguable) was not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

Heh, that's a nice turn of phrase.  But to clarify, are you arguing Stalin's "planning" was socialist while the original ideas and agenda propagated by Lenin (and Trotsky, although that's obviously arguable) was not?

I'm arguing that socialism doesn't inherently require planning (and that planning doesn't necessarily require socialism). I do actually categorise Stalin's Marxism-Leninism as socialist - it's just that I am fiercely opposed to the notion that it is the only type of socialist (or even the only type of Marxist).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Marquis de Leech said:

I'm arguing that socialism doesn't inherently require planning (and that planning doesn't necessarily require socialism). I do actually categorise Stalin's Marxism-Leninism as socialist - it's just that I am fiercely opposed to the notion that it is the only type of socialist (or even the only type of Marxist).

Gotcha.  Yeah I don't even define Stalin's regime as socialism.  It was totalitarianism.  Lenin, though, and what Trotsky wanted, you could argue that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Gotcha.  Yeah I don't even define Stalin's regime as socialism.  It was totalitarianism.  Lenin, though, and what Trotsky wanted, you could argue that.

It is a pretty common argument, and lamentation, that Stalin fucked up things for socialism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Oh, but they already did. They are called prisons.

OOOOOOOOHHHHHH THEY WASN'T READY!!!!!!

THEY WASN'T REAAAAAAADDDYYYYYY!!!!

1 hour ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

 

It's basically a gigantic exercise in History screwing with the best-laid plans of Mice and Marx.

 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Heh, that's a nice turn of phrase. 

That really was a fantastic turn of phrase, I felt the need to second.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Mao too.

Chiang Kai-shek may have been right all along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Liffguard said:

There's no way that any amount of work Bezos has done is proportional to his wealth. There is no contribution any one human can make to justify that much wealth in one person's hands.

Most of his wealth is valuation of his stock holdings, which is in a share price bubble imo. So its not like he has 100 plus billion hoarded in his checking account. The moment you start forcefully redistributing his wealth, capital flight will result and the stock price will crumble. 

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

................And when I grow old I'll be able to retire without worrying about my pension being lost through financial dealings because my pension is a state-guaranteed right.
Oh, and let's remember public housing means I can afford to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world without ruining myself in spite of a very humble salary.

So riddle me genius, why the fucking fuck would my self-interest make me a capitalist?
 

So which country? @Heartofice deduces you are French. I voiced the same curiosity twice in my Rand board and you declined to reveal in both of your answers (btw, I'm still trawling through the 2018 WID report). As you are obviously satisfied with what you have, then please tell us the country, so we may study the various details behind the programs you enjoy.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DMC said:

Mao too.

Speaking of Mao, I actually sat down and read the Little Red Book recently. It's interesting primarily because it offers an insight into where Mao went wrong. He basically thinks any problem can be solved with sufficient will-power and correct ideology... which means that if something is going wrong, it must be "try harder" or "fix your ideology."

It's also got some great pointers on running a meeting (yes, really - it should be required reading for management), and on the principles of guerrilla warfare (which Mao did excel at. Actual governing, less so).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DMC said:

Mao too.

Me: *head banging* Delillo in the House!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

He basically thinks any problem can be solved with sufficient will-power and correct ideology... which means that if something is going wrong, it must be "try harder" or "fix your ideology."

It's also got some great pointers on running a meeting (yes, really - it should be required reading for management), and on the principles of guerrilla warfare (which Mao did excel at. Actual governing, less so).

As someone who studies bureaucracy, I have great respect for Mao - in the regard of organization.  The rest of that little book though?  It's certainly interesting, but way too beholden to an ideology and method that, well, killed a lot of people.

13 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Me: *head banging* Delillo in the House!  

Heh, nice reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Speaking of Mao, I actually sat down and read the Little Red Book recently. It's interesting primarily because it offers an insight into where Mao went wrong. He basically thinks any problem can be solved with sufficient will-power and correct ideology... which means that if something is going wrong, it must be "try harder" or "fix your ideology."

It's also got some great pointers on running a meeting (yes, really - it should be required reading for management), and on the principles of guerrilla warfare (which Mao did excel at. Actual governing, less so).

Hey, where do we hear that from nowadays?

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

That's a fucking lie.

No, they were just naive. They didn’t want factions either, but they happened immediately.

14 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are we talking a graduated level where anything over X level automatically escheats to the State?

Yes. No one needs that much s***, Scot.

14 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

You want to tax it based on what society needs. Also enough to at least blunt the influence of money in politics.

Society needs to pay off it's huge debt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, they were just naive. They didn’t want factions either, but they happened immediately.

Yes. No one needs that much s***, Scot.

Society needs to pay off it's huge debt. 

I’m not claiming “need” I’m asking if we’re going to have all property owed by anyone escheat to the State upon their death?

I’m pointing out that with a unified Estate and Gift Tax such a system (everything belongs to the State when we die) would necessitate banning the giving of all gifts to be effective.  I seem to recall point this out before years ago.  

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m not claiming “need” I’m asking if we’re going to have all property owed by anyone escheat to the State upon their death?

I’m pointing out that with a unified Estate and Gift Tax such a system (everything belongs to the State when we die) would necessitate banning the giving of all gifts to be effective.  I seem to recall point this out before years ago.  

The UK already has limits on gift giving, I don't know how it works elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Heartofice said:

The UK already has limits on gift giving, I don't know how it works elsewhere.

We have the same here under the unified Estate and Gift Tax. 

Tywin,

That’s likely why your Dad gives you money in $10,000.00 chuncks.  Gifts valued up to that amount are exempt from the gift tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess its the same. I think you need to make sure you stay alive for 7 years after the gift otherwise it can be taxed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

socialism doesn't inherently require planning

i'm struggling to think of an economics for which 'planning' is either necessary or sufficient.  on the other hand, it does not seem to be a concept that assists in distinguishing economic systems from each other, as predictions about the future might reasonably be part of all economics. i would for instance be surprised to see a cappie megacorporation that does not make predictions about its operations into the foreseeable future. perhaps however successful market participants have come to embrace microtransactional financial models rooted in a hyperpresentist chaos theory that eschews all predictions and relies instead upon complete arbitrariness of the moment without regard to consequence other than realization of the most short term profitability. i doubt this practice would comply with smithian dictates in the theory of moral sentiments, but that text is not high on the bourgeois reading list any longer, if indeed such an alleged reading list exists.

the definitions that the thread needs must accordingly be sought elsewhere.

Edited by sologdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eschewing predictions and relying on arbitrariness is what I do when playing poker.

None percent of the time, it works every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×