Gregory's Server|
60 comments
@carolannie @graywolf @yogthos @jimray EU is very much a capitalistic society. Just one with stronger social safety nets than USA.  @yogthos @Janne_O @carolannie @jimray too bad we can only think to lessen social spending whenever there's a little budget crisis but never raise the taxes on the very wealthy π @Janne_O @graywolf @yogthos @jimray The EU is much more socialistic than the US, with a much more constrained capitalism. So the choice isn't capitalism vs "communism a la Pol Pot". It easily could be between pretty unconstrained capitalism such as we experience in the US or constrained and regulated capitalism with a good social structure. The note about Russian threats isn't relevant to this @carolannie @graywolf @yogthos @jimray Iβm in Europe, Finland to be exact. And what you are calling socialism is just capitalism with social services. Private business is still very much the cornerstone of the economy and society as a whole.  @Janne_O @carolannie @graywolf @yogthos @jimray Pretty big strikes at the moment right? And a right-wing government that doesn't like that π @Janne_O @carolannie @graywolf @yogthos @jimray This!  @carolannie the EU doesn't have socialism, they at best have social safety nets with a capitalism economy. Workers don't collectively own their work places, people aren't guaranteed home ownership, food still has to be bought by selling ones labor to someone else. Many EU countries have health care for everyone but that alone doesn't make it socialist.  The examples of communism-inspired evil totalitarian deeds are not difficult to come by, but there are some very important counter-examples as well. 1) The decolonization of Africa was made possible by communist support, 2) Cuba has historically and continues today to make available large quantities of medical professionals for poor countries, 3) the communist movements were hard-hitting pioneers in the struggle against overt western racism I think more generally though, with the collapse of properly communistic projects (China certainly isn't one), what the world today has lost is an alternative and stark comparison with which to challenge states to curtail the worst of capitalist's tendencies. The collapse of communist projects ushered in a new era where inequality has dramatically risen in western societies and social progress in education, health, and overall well-being has been slow and lagging. @graywolf @yogthos @jimray Of course, neoliberal brutal capitalism and totalitarian brutal communism are not the only options available. Capitalism is much more regulated in Europe than in the US. And there are much more socialist countries within Europe, like the Scandinavian ones. Of course, according to the neoliberal theorists, it must collapse in the next year, five years at most. They have been saying that for decades.   @graywolf state capitalists sometimes called red fascists are not communist despite what they want to call themselves. Communism even according to Marx(whose theories they claim to follow) is a classless, stateless, and moneyless society. Not a single one of those things are true in any country that calls itself communist, they do however have a rich ruling class, a state run by that rich ruling class, and market economy owned by the ruling class. ie state capitalism. @graywolf @yogthos @jimray But no, Stalin (which is whom it's usually about) was probably not 'worse than Hitler'  If you want to discuss political philosophy and history, do it in good faith 5,000-12,000 deaths is not βmore blood on their hands than even Hitlerβ http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat6.htm#Cuba59 Communism doesnβt mean just the bolsheviks, and Stalinβs totalitarian regime wasnβt even βworse than Hitlerβ either π€·πΌ @srchadfield @yogthos @graywolf @jimray There are libertarian versions of communism. In historical examples they were militarily overpowered by soviets and fascists during the Russian revolution and just before WW2, in today's world you don't have anything quite like it, but you have anarchist-inspired movements in Rojava and central America Some version of anarcho-communism is the only way imo. If you're curious about the ideas, you should read or listen to the first 3 chapters of Kropotkin's "The Conquest of Bread" You think too narrowly. Anarchism doesn't mean everyone decides everything, you only participate in decisions that concern yourself, or your environment. Whether anarchy means no written laws is a subject for debate, and it also depends on what constitutes a law. I've written a paper about this myself and I also think that anarchism shouldn't have any laws (written or otherwise), only rules of thumb that can be broken when reason so dictates. Another paper I've written discusses the role of technology in society, and argues that technology is inherently ideological, sitting on the axis of fascistic on the right end, and anarchistic on the other. An anarchist society can get rid of a lot of the structures of authoritarian society by innovating itself towards anarchistic solutions, that are none-discrimimatory, easy to make, easy to modify, low maintenance, etc. Solutions that don't rely on big industry "Why You Want Anarchy: No States, No Laws, Impermanent Organization" "Fascistic Technologies in Liberal Societies" No, not everything. There are basic principles in anarchism that you can't challenge without diverging from anarchism. It's like an unwritten constitution. One of these core principles is that everyone should be free, insofar as their freedom does not substantially disrupt other people's freedom. From this principle, other more specific principles follow like nobody can be the master of another, and you can't imprison someone although you can stop them from harming others "If citizens only engage on a self-chosen case-by-case basis or not at all" There are no citizens in anarchist society, only participants. You either participate in communal life, or you live as an outsider. You are expected to respect others and their freedom, and you consult them and let them have the say if your projects interfere with their lives. If it doesn't interfere with their lives, then it's none of their business to begin with "or it won't work and break apart at the first supply shortage the community inevitably encounters" You think like a liberal who does not know what it means to love your fellow human beings or be part of a community. An anarchist isn't a consumer in an economy, they are more like the members of a vast family of variably strong ties. They are in it together. If there is a lack of goods ppl are supposed to assume the responsibility for increasing availability Just like a family doesn't fall apart merely because it is poor (indeed, rich families seem to fall apart very easily regardless), a society doesn't fall apart because it lacks goods. It falls apart because ppl don't assume responsibility and take charge. In an anarchist society, you can hope that somebody else makes a surplus of useful things, but if you want something done, you organize to have it done - production is a grass roots activity. When there are no owners of the means of production, you will realize that there is a world of possibilities out there for you to do things, to live a life of meaning, in charge of your own existence. This is a part of human nature that has been oppressed by capitalism and societies of privilege and control. We all can master nature's challenges. What is needed for that to happen is for ppl to give up on self-restrictions, and to share skills, tools, and responsibility > you can't imprison someone although you can stop them from harming others How would this work in practice if, for example, someone is hell-bent on killing people (e.g. due to mental illness)? Would you just throw them out of the city every time accepting that from time to time they would succeed? Would you execute them instead of imprisonment? While this question might sound like a troll, it is not. I am honestly curious how situations like this would be handled. First of all this question much oversimplifies human beings. There is no such human as you describe it, that is a cartoonish hypothetical. There are ppl who have periods of violent psychosis, sure, and there may be someone who develop a strong psychopathic behavior with homicidal leanings. You can confine such ppl while they pose an active threat, but you cannot sentence them and forget about them. Their confinement is predicated on the threat being active. While they are an active threat to others, they can choose to undergo reform as a way to prove that they are no longer an active threat. The point of saying no to jail, is to emphasize that a person is fundamentally free, and that taking away their freedom must be the last resort and a temporary solution. In cases of active conflict, you can kill someone, but your aim isn't to kill, but to render the opponent incapable of harming, to contain their threat. In the same way, jailing / sentencing someone for being threatening, and confining them while they plot to murder someone, are two very different aims and comes from two very different worldviews and views about human beings He wasn't hellbent on killing ppl, he was a person who took up terrorism because he thought that murdering those children would be instrumental to achieving political aims. He wasn't born with an urge to kill others. He was radicalized over time to believe the ends justifies the means |
@graywolf @jimray seems pretty obvious that it's communism