Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, the Future of Online Leftism

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

You're speaking in extremes, and your fear is more of authoritarianism than communism. 

Except, it seems that most communist nations do end up in authoritarianism. Question is why and how do you fix that?

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I really don't see any serious alternative given the information (predictions) we have.
I personally don't think our living standards need to be lowered that much, however the longer we wait and the worse it will be.

It's the supreme irony I see in these discussions. We could have started to address climate change rather painlessly decades ago (all the way back to the 1970s). Because we didn't, our way of life is now unsustainable and we need to start asking ourselves some really difficult questions.
If we keep waiting though, we'll be risking a lot more than a few material comforts.

I guess what I'm saying is that if the governments of the world (whether they be local or national, democratic or not) can't take some unpleasant decisions in the next decades, we're screwed. So in a way the issue of popularity is moot for me.

It's moot for you, but it's not moot for many (most?) of our leaders who are old enough to not care much about what happens a few decades from now, let alone in 2100. It's the same idea as après moi, le déluge, but this time literally.

That said, while I agree that this would have been easier if we started earlier and that the longer we wait, the more disruptive the measures taken would need to be, I don't think the living standards would need to decrease at all. What we need to do is to switch every aspect of energy usage over to carbon-free sources and methods. This does not necessarily involve a decrease in living standards, but it does involve a massive redistribution of resources among the elites because oil wells, coal mines, natural gas plants and other assets in which a great deal of wealth has been invested become either completely worthless or at least worth a lot less than they were. The people who own these assets will fight you tooth and nail, but this has nothing to do with lowering the standard of living for the masses; it's just a matter of doing things differently.

The easy example is transportation. There are probably countries in which it is feasible to get rid of cars altogether, but in the US, prior to the virus, a little over 76% of all workers commuted alone to work and another 9% carpooled. As the virus has shown us, the number working from home (at least some of the time) can be dramatically higher than in 2019 which is an instantaneous fix. In the medium term, the remainder can also be addressed by making all of the cars electric (as some nations and US states have already required by various future dates). None of this requires a decrease in the standard of living of the masses -- if anything, people will be better off -- but it does require a massive redistribution of wealth among the rich (which is why it's taking so long).

[Fury Resurrected]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, seemingly enough, Marxist countries, whether they are in Europe, Latin America, or Asia do that. Maybe you need to explain the reason why?

I don’t need to explain why. There are way more indigenous nations. In fact, they represent a far greater number of peaceful, non authoritarian governments than any of the places you’ve talked about. You are just ignoring the successful and non authoritarian examples because they don’t reinforce your bias.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, seemingly enough, Marxist countries, whether they are in Europe, Latin America, or Asia do that. Maybe you need to explain the reason why?

Communism and libertarianism have a commonalty; they can work, but only in small, homogenized groups. Communism has a natural drift towards authoritarianism the larger the group is. But it's still the latter that's the core problem. 

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I don’t need to explain why. There are way more indigenous nations. In fact, they represent a far greater number of peaceful, non authoritarian governments than any of the places you’ve talked about. You are just ignoring the successful and non authoritarian examples because they don’t reinforce your bias.

So what are the institutional differences between indigenous nations that don't lead to authoritarianism and other communist nations that do lead to authoritarianism. I think you do need to explain that. Its a legitimate question that has nothing to do with bias

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I don’t need to explain why. There are way more indigenous nations. In fact, they represent a far greater number of peaceful, non authoritarian governments than any of the places you’ve talked about. You are just ignoring the successful and non authoritarian examples because they don’t reinforce your bias.

This is an example I often cite, and it's interesting that it seems to be true across many cultures and continents. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

So what are the institutional differences between indigenous nations that don't lead to authoritarianism and other communist nations that do lead to authoritarianism. I think you do need to explain that.

See above. 

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Communism and libertarianism have a commonalty; they can work, but only in small, homogenized groups. Communism has a natural drift towards authoritarianism the larger the group is. But it's still the latter that's the core problem. 

Okay, so indigenous nations are not a good point, since we are talking about nations that are much larger in population?

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

See above. 

Is the only issue size. Or are there other institutional differences?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Okay, so indigenous nations are not a good point, since we are talking about nations that are much larger in population?

No. You're talking about an economic and political system and whether or not it can work. It can, but it has conditions. Your complaint is about an externality of it, one that I agree is largely unavoidable in most cases. But it's not exactly the same as, say, fascism, which requires authoritarianism. And again, that is what you really seem to be troubled by. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Is the only issue size. Or are there other institutional differences?

Cultural homogeneity, as I said before. Communism, or something similar, has worked on small scales for millennia. 

[OldGimletEye]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No. You're talking about an economic and political system and whether or not it can work. It can, but it has conditions. Your complaint is about an externality of it, one that I agree is largely unavoidable in most cases. But it's not exactly the same as, say, fascism, which requires authoritarianism. And again, that is what you really seem to be troubled by. 

Well certainly I'm troubled by the tendency of communist states to fall into authoritarianism. And you seem to admit, they have tendency to do that.

If you are going to advocate for a communist system and say they don't necessarily have to fall into authoritarianism, then explain how that can be avoided. Its a legitimate and serious question that deserves discussion.

But, other than the issue of authoritarianism, which isn't a small issue, they do tend to produce poor economic growth. Again, maybe there is a way around it. But, that needs to be clearly explained and don't rely on the typical left wing retort, that I'd know how that would work if I just "educated myself". These are complicated matters.

[OldGimletEye]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Cultural homogeneity, as I said before. Communism, or something similar, has worked on small scales for millennia. 

Okay so maybe the difference is that it works on small scales, but not so well (at least as far as we know) for large nation states. Fine, but I thought we were generally talking about implementing for nation states.

[Rippounet]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, seemingly enough, Marxist countries, whether they are in Europe, Latin America, or Asia do that. Maybe you need to explain the reason why?

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Except, it seems that most communist nations do end up in authoritarianism. Question is why and how do you fix that?

I don't believe there's such a thing as a "Marxist country," because imho Marx's ideas were essentially descriptive rather than prescriptive.

It's not communism per se, it's a combination of proportional force and power vacuum.
To overthrow the socio-economic system of an entire country you need a force that's proportional to its strength. Most of the time this means some form of military force.
However, once the overthrow has been completed, you get a power vacuum at the top. Even if the "military" isn't itself interested in power, someone will be, and this is how you get dictators.
The phenomenon is absolutely not specific to communist movements.
The core of the problem is that communist regimes have often been implemented after violent movements overthrowing the previous regime which, quite often, was also oppressive on some level or the other.
As far as I know, pretty much no developed state has ever attempted a peaceful transition to communism. Therein lies the problem, rather than communism itself.

Quote

But, other than the issue of authoritarianism, which isn't a small, issue they do tend to produce poor economic growth.

That seems quite debatable to me.

But assuming that's true. Eh... isn't growth the issue right now? It's a bit ironic to count this as a negative.

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

What we need to do is to switch every aspect of energy usage over to carbon-free sources and methods.

That would be a start.

If we'd done that around the 1980s it would have worked I think. It's not enough anymore.

[OldGimletEye]

9 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It's not communism per se, it's a combination of proportional force and power vacuum.
To overthrow the socio-economic system of an entire country you need a force that's proportional to its strength. Most of the time this means some form of military force.
However, once the overthrow has been completed, you get a power vacuum at the top. Even if the "military" isn't itself interested in power, someone will be, and this is how you get dictators.
The phenomenon is absolutely not specific to communist movements.
The core of the problem is that communist regimes have often been implemented after violent movements overthrowing the previous regime which, quite often, was also oppressive on some level or the other.
As far as I know, pretty much no developed state has ever attempted a peaceful transition to communism. Therein lies the problem, rather than communism itself.

No its not specific to communist countries. But, it would seem communist countries remained authoritarian, long after the revolution was over.

9 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

That seems quite debatable to me.

But assuming that's true. Eh... isn't growth the issue right now? It's a bit ironic to count this as a negative.

No I don't think it is debatable.

Also, I think de-growthers are nuts. As I said, de-growthing is tantamount to telling people to stop learning, which the main driver behind economic growth. Also, if you accept, that fighting global climate change is going to require a large amount of borrowing by nations, then it is much easier to pay those debts off if there is economic growth. In fact without growth, your probably dooming many countries into sovereign debt defaults.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well certainly I'm troubled by the tendency of communist states to fall into authoritarianism. And you seem to admit, they have tendency to do that.

Yes, but again, depending on scale, and perhaps limitations on current and past societies.

Quote

If you are going to advocate for a communist system and say they don't necessarily have to fall into authoritarianism, then explain how that can be avoided. Its a legitimate and serious question that deserves discussion.

Flipping economics on its head, and building societies around abundance rather than scarcity. And it might fail, but its aspirations are more noble.

Quote

But, other than the issue of authoritarianism, which isn't a small issue, they do tend to produce poor economic growth. Again, maybe there is a way around it. But, that needs to be clearly explained and don't rely on the typical left wing retort, that I'd know how that would work if I just "educated myself". These are complicated matters.

First, it's not "no small issue." It's the crux, the heart, the core of the problem. 

Second, economic growth would be irrelevant if scarcity didn't run the world. The solution is actually rather simple. The implementation is basically impossible. 

15 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Okay so maybe the difference is that it works on small scales, but not so well (at least as far as we know) for large nation states. Fine, but I thought we were generally talking about implementing for nation states.

And what is that lovely cliché about the independence of states?  

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Flipping economics on its head, and building societies around abundance rather than scarcity. And it might fail, but its aspirations are more noble.

Well if you have discovered how to bring about this abundance. please let us know. Or is this one of those things where I'm going to be told to "Educate Yourself".

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And what is that lovely cliché about the independence of states?  

Don't have a clue to what this means.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well if you have discovered how to bring about this abundance. please let us know. Or is this one of those things where I'm going to be told to "Educate Yourself".

Did I say you need to "educate yourself"?

Anyways, start with the beginning. Water. Should water be something that can be bought and sold, or should it exist free for all?

Quote

Don't have a clue to what this means.

They're laboratories of democracy.

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Did I say you need to "educate yourself"?

I thought that was thing the thing to say these days when you don't want to explain your reasoning.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Anyways, start with the beginning. Water. Should water be something that can be bought and sold, or should it exist free for all?

Everyone should have access to clean drinking water. But, I'm not sure how this bring about "abundance". Abundance is brought about by increasing the productive capacity of an economic unit.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They're laboratories of democracy.

I'm still not sure what you are getting at here, unless you are suggesting that communism should be implemented at the state level, rather than the national level.

[Fury Resurrected]

54 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

So what are the institutional differences between indigenous nations that don't lead to authoritarianism and other communist nations that do lead to authoritarianism. I think you do need to explain that. Its a legitimate question that has nothing to do with bias

I disagree with your premise that communism and socialism lead to authoritarianism more often than capitalism does. Tribal nations are my example of tons of times it did not. I think the current climate is one where we can all see how capitalism doesn’t stave off authoritarianism.