Your digestive system is sturdier than you think, and able to leap tall buildings - no wait, that's something else. If not spoiled but merely freezer burned, cook it and serve it. And if asked its provenance, lie. After all, a bit of deception is part of the art of the chef in the kitchen - which Julia Childs made clear on multiple occasions. A good spaghetti sauce can disguise all sorts of horrors.

Or SW tex-mex cuisine must have a repertoire all its own for such things. Yummy!

Simply repeating "market mechanism" ad nauseam means absolutely nothing.
— Xtrix
And if you don't understand how socialism worked in Soviet Union or China... — ssu

I haven't made any claims about how "socialism" worked in either, because it's a ridiculous notion. Completely meaningless until we say what we mean by "socialism." Turns out what you mean by it is very strange indeed, at least for anyone who's familiar with the intellectual tradition, if you equate socialism with the USSR or China.

So (1) what is meant by "socialism," and (2) if socialism is "central planning," then where does socialism end and capitalism begin in China? (Likewise for the United States -- who are in many ways a socialist country as well -- but socialist for the wealthy. for multinational corporations, and for the finance sector.)

I have no idea what you're talking about here.
— Xtrix
Seems so. And that's why you use socialism and communism as synonyms. — ssu

No, it has nothing to do with either. A fatuous remark.

I have no idea what you're talking about because it's poorly written. If you wrote better, then I would understand what you mean. Unlike you, who apparently values feigning understanding for some reason, I will admit when I have no idea what you're saying. But I deeply suspect, given this interchange, that the fault is with you. I'm happy to be proven wrong. A comment like the above isn't leading me to lean that way.

What is this branch? Where can I get me some? Sounds successful and popular. — Jingo7

Actually too successful for many eager leftists.

You don't know them?


Have ruled Sweden forever, basically. Our prime minister here belongs to this movement. The parties of the rose.


Have you heard about AOC?

Those leftists.

Turns out what you mean by it is very strange indeed, at least for anyone who's familiar with the intellectual tradition, if you equate socialism with the USSR or China. — Xtrix

Wow.

Who would equate socialism with the USSR and Communist China (or Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea)? :roll:

Your posts on this are great, SSU. Keep it up.

Who would equate socialism with the USSR and Communist China (or Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea)? — ssu

As I said: those who know very little about the socialist tradition. Kind of like modern usage of “conservative”, or “libertarian.”

If socialism is central planning, then the US has major elements of that— look at the central bank, for example. (To say nothing of fiscal policy, which also interferes on a massive scale.)

China’s GDP growth is far more than ours. Yet your strategy is to either dismiss that or attribute it to capitalism (by which you apparently mean free markets).

This alone should tell you that your concepts aren’t serving you well. In my view, you’re yet another victim of years of indoctrination on this matter. So much so that it seems ludicrous to suggest the USSR and China aren’t in line with mainstream socialist thinking at all (which is true). National socialism had the word right in it— are we convinced that was socialism?

It helps to know the tradition and the varying strands that developed. First and foremost, of course, is to actually read Marx. But then Rocker, Bakunin, Luxemburg, etc. Otherwise — begging your pardon— your understanding of these matters is very superficial.

:lol:

In my view, you’re yet another victim of years of indoctrination on this matter. So much so that it seems ludicrous to suggest the USSR and China aren’t in line with mainstream socialist thinking at all (which is true). — Xtrix

I think you are living proof of how shallow and nonexistent historical knowledge is and how people pick just what they want to hear. Because I don't think you are trolling. Oh yes, USSR and Communist China weren't mainstream socialist thinking!

That is hilariously funny.

First and foremost, of course, is to actually read Marx. But then Rocker, Bakunin, Luxemburg, etc. — Xtrix

Let's do that!

Here's Rosa on the Soviet Revolution, Lenin and the Bolsheviks:

The Russian Revolution represents the most tremendous event to have occurred during the world war. Its outbreak, its unprecedented radicalism and the effect that it continues to exert give the lie to the rhetoric employed zealously by official German social democracy as an ideological cover for German imperialism’s campaign of conquest when this campaign was initiated—i.e. the rhetoric according to which it was the mission of German bayonets to overthrow Russian Czarism and to liberate its oppressed peoples. The revolution in Russia has assumed an enormous scale; its far-reaching effects have convulsed all class relations; it has enveloped all social and economic problems; and it has made consistent progress since the initial stage of the bourgeois republic, such that the overthrow of Czarism remains a mere brief episode and is virtually reduced to a trifling significance. All these circumstances clearly demonstrate that the liberation of Russia was not the work of the war and the military defeat of Czarism, that it was not to be credited to ‘German bayonets in German fists’—contrary to the pledge thus formulated in a leading article in Die Neue Zeit under Kautsky’s editorship. Instead they show that the liberation of Russia had deep roots in Russia itself, and that internally it was fully ripe. The military adventure of German imperialism under the ideological cover provided by German social democracy did not bring about the revolution in Russia—on the contrary, this military adventure initially interrupted the revolution for a period following the latter’s first storm surge in the years from 1911 to 1913, and served to create the most adverse, abnormal conditions for the revolution following its subsequent eruption.

* * *
Lenin’s party was thus the only one in Russia that had a grasp of the true interests of the revolution in this initial period—it was the element which drove the revolution forwards, being in this sense the only party to pursue a socialist politics.

This also explains how the Bolsheviks, who at the beginning of the revolution constituted a minority that was ostracized, slandered and hounded on all sides, were led within the briefest period of time to the forefront of the revolution and were able to rally under their banner all the genuinely popular masses—the urban proletariat, the army, the peasantry—alongside the revolutionary elements within democracy (i.e. the left wing of the Socialist Revolutionaries).

The actual situation in which the Russian Revolution found itself came down within a few months to the following alternative: victory of the counter-revolution or dictatorship of the proletariat—i.e. Kaledin or Lenin. Such was the objective situation which very soon arises in every revolution once the first intoxication has evaporated; in the Russian case, this situation resulted from those concrete, burning questions—the question of peace and that of land—for which no solution was to be found within the framework of the ‘bourgeois’ revolution.

Here the Russian Revolution has merely confirmed the basic lesson of every great revolution, whose vital law can be formulated as follows: the revolution must either press forward very rapidly and decisively, tearing down all obstacles with an iron hand and setting its goals ever further ahead, or else it will very soon be cast back behind its weaker starting point and crushed by the counter revolution. In revolution there can be no standing still, no running on the spot, no settling for the first goal that happens to be achieved. And those who attempt to apply the homespun wisdoms gleaned from the parliamentary battles of frogs and mice to revolutionary tactics merely demonstrate that the psychology of the revolution and its very vital law are utterly alien to them, and that all historical experience is to them a book with seven seals.

* * *
Lenin, Trotsky and their comrades have fully accomplished all that a party could possibly muster in the hour of revolution in the way of courage, forcefulness of action, revolutionary far-sightedness and consistency. The Bolsheviks evinced the revolutionary honor and cap acity for action that was so entirely lacking in western social democracy. Their October uprising not only actually rescued the Russian Revolution, it also salvaged the honor of international socialism.

Soo... tells us that USSR was "non-mainstream socialism" and we (or I) should read, among others, Rosa Luxembourg. Well, after reading that praise of Lenin and the bolsheviks above from Rosa Luxembourg herself, I think it's obvious that one of us doesn't know history, or what people actually wrote, and in this case it isn't me.

You can contradict this with her conclusion to the text if you like, but can't you just let the council communists have their venerable Rosa Luxembourg?

can't you just let the council communists have their venerable Rosa Luxembourg? — thewonder

I have no problem with that. Besides, people contradicting themselves isn't anything new.

Yet if people start saying that Marxism-Leninism wasn't socialism or mainstream socialism, then I oppose that argument. That is the worst kind of rewriting of history. The next phase would be to argue that the USSR was actually capitalist. And noboby, NOBODY, has tried to implement true Marxist theories into reality.

Of course, with mainstream socialism (in the West) one could argue to be talking about social democracy, not communism. That would have a point. But I don't think that people here are making that argument.

I think you are living proof of how shallow and nonexistent historical knowledge is and how people pick just what they want to hear. — ssu

Yeah, that's what I just said about you. Good response, Donald Trump.

To demonstrate how accurate my statement is:

Oh yes, USSR and Communist China weren't mainstream socialist thinking!

That is hilariously funny. — ssu

Right -- it's hilariously funny for those with a shallow understanding of the socialist tradition and who apparently have never read a word of Marx.

But Chomsky speaks about it more succinctly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsC0q3CO6lM

Soo...↪Xtrix tells us that USSR was "non-mainstream socialism" and we (or I) should read, among others, Rosa Luxembourg. — ssu

You should read Rosa Luxemburg. You haven't so far, and I urge you to.

Apparently you don't understand even what you quoted. You also fail to cite the source (relevant, given the very fluid circumstances of the revolution) -- which is from 1918. Not once is "mainstream socialism" (which is my wording) mentioned -- so that remark is irrelevant, but yes there is a spirit of solidarity -- of course. Lenin endorsed many aspects of mainstream socialism at first-- and that almost immediately changed. (Trump talked a populist game -- so what?)

Where, for example, is the mention of a "labor army" in Luxemburg? What happened to worker control over production? Luxemburg criticized Lenin for this, and the "opportunistic vanguardism" as Chomsky mentions above, and Lenin himself justified his policies as only "temporarily necessary" as a holding action until the real revolution happened in Germany.

But I'm sure you know all that, given your very nuanced views.

Well, after reading that praise of Lenin and the bolsheviks above from Rosa Luxembourg herself, I think it's obvious that one of us doesn't know history, or what people actually wrote, and in this case it isn't me. — ssu

No -- it's exactly that.

Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism, were not in the mainstream socialist tradition. The mainstream socialists/Marxists advocated for worker control over production. There's none of that in the above mentioned policies.

So I repeat: your view of socialism is a weird one. But very much in line with pop culture and average, mainstream opinion -- which is very superficial, and which is a result of indoctrination in the educational and media systems. Sorry! That's ultimately no real fault of your own, in my view.

Of course, with mainstream socialism (in the West) one could argue to be talking about social democracy, not communism. That would have a point. But I don't think that people here are making that argument. — ssu

No, I'm talking about 19th century socialist and Marxist thought, which advocated worker control. Not top-down state control, not socially beneficial state legislation, and certainly not autocratic rule. There were socialists that were statist and anti-statist, for example.

That workers control the factories they work in goes way back. Being their own board of directors. Basically eliminating "owners" and employers. That's the mainstream socialism in the 19th century. I didn't say that was mainstream today. If what's mainstream today is "democratic socialism," then that's a different story.

The core of socialism was understood to be workers control over production. That was the core. That's where you begin, and then you go on to other things. The beginning is control by the workers over production. That's where it begins.

What does this have to do with what the USSR and China? They can call themselves "socialist" or "communist," and maybe they represent some deviation of the mainstream thought, or maybe it's a pretense. But it doesn't matter much when you look at how they run their societies.

I hear what you're saying and have even authored a post on it myself, which also devolved unto a debate about Rosa Luxembourg, but you do as a certain disservice when you fail to recognize the distinctions between what I guess that I'll call the "authoritarian" and "libertarian" Left. There's a long and troubled political history of collaboration, persecution, betrayals, conversions, generalized avoidance, and animosity between us. Plenty of people within the libertarian Left have plenty of ideas as to what to do about them, but, I am of a rather exclusive position within the libertarian Left, which is often mistaken for so-called "sectarianism", a very serious problem within the Left that has little to nothing to do with being wholly unwilling to either collaborate or associate with Marxist-Leninists and the like.

Right -- it's hilariously funny for those with a shallow understanding of the socialist tradition and who apparently have never read a word of Marx. — Xtrix

Actually I was taught Marxist economics in the University. Along with mainstream economics, perhaps I should add.

But I guess you never did visited East Germany or the Soviet Union. I had opportunity to do so, even lived for a short time with a Russian family in Moscow during the Gorbachev era. Pretty interesting to compare that experience to the few years I was in the US as a child.

Be just in your fantasies about what "true socialism" is and rewrite history to what you want it to be.

Right -- it's hilariously funny for those with a shallow understanding of the socialist tradition and who apparently have never read a word of Marx.
— Xtrix
Actually I was taught Marxist economics in the University. Along with mainstream economics, perhaps I should add. — ssu

They had you read Marx in university? I know you're not in the US, but I can guarantee you didn't go to an American university. Glad to hear.

But I guess you never did visited East Germany or the Soviet Union. — ssu

I did not. I never visited the Moon, either. But I can still understand it.

I had opportunity to do so, even lived for a short time with a Russian family in Moscow during the Gorbachev era. Pretty interesting to compare that experience to the few years I was in the US as a child. — ssu

I'm sure Russia was a shithole and the US was much nicer. That would be my guess.

The fact that you think this proves something is exactly what I'm driving at when I mention your indoctrination. But again, indoctrination doesn't mean you're a bad human being, in my view. You're just mistaken. I would fault you for being unwilling to learn and listen, however.

you do as a certain disservice when you fail to recognize the distinctions between what I guess that I'll call the "authoritarian" and "libertarian" Left. — thewonder

Actually, there is a "libertarian" left. They are the social democrats, parties like the Labour party in the UK. And they have been very successful politically, opposed to the communists in Western democracies.

Perhaps it's one thing to have an academic or philosophical debate about socialism and then have the situation were people actually implement it in reality. Then the question really is, are they OK with any of the "Old" institutions, or is everything out and in with the new. If so, that everything old has to go, what then to do with those who oppose such reform. I think there goes the real divide: not in words, but in actions by with we should make the difference between "authoritarian" and "libertarian".

Be just in your fantasies about what "true socialism" is and rewrite history to what you want it to be. — ssu

Boring.

So you're unable to defend yourself, I take it.

They had you read Marx in university? I know you're not in the US, but I can guarantee you didn't go to an American university. Glad to hear. — Xtrix

Of course. Something as important as Marxism ought to be naturally taught in an university. And the assistant professor was a Marxist, actually. He made his best effort to teach just what Marx had in his mind. Far better than the brief introduction I got in philosophy at the gymnasium.

I'm sure Russia was a shithole and the US was much nicer. — Xtrix

It wasn't a shithole. Russians as people are really great and friendly. When they have a guest, they really treat you very well. Here people try to be "decent" and just give you something modest in order not to "show off". But they, the Russians, didn't believe at all in the system. I remember that I wanted to go a Lenin museum we walked by in the City Center. I remember the expression of the girl from the family and her reply: "Uuuhh...OK, let's go". Even if she was a pioneer (or something) and could then visit my country.

On the other hand, Seattle was nice in the start of the 1980's.

You're just mistaken. I would fault you for being unwilling to learn and listen, however. — Xtrix

Personally I'd hold such views to the math & logic section in PF. There it can be so.

Let's get back to the topic.

I understand that you have a preference for Social Democracy, which I think is just fine, but you are kind of dismissing distinctions that have been made throughout our political history.

In order to take over the International Workingman's Association, Karl Marx waged a slew of polemical diatribes against the anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin. Such partial demagogy became fully pronounced by one, Vladimir Lenin, in his various diatribes against more or less any of his political opponents, particularly, in this case, the left-wing communists. There was considerable initial support for the so-called "Russian Revolution" on the part of the libertarian Left, but they did, by and large, end up fighting against the Bolsheviks during the latter half of the Russian Civil War. That resulted in their near complete and total elimination from Soviet society during the early stages of the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin, as well as considerable condemnation from various factions of the libertarian Left abroad. There was the lengthy intellectual dispute, of which France was the center, beginning, perhaps, with Socialism ou Barbarie, a notably anti-Leninist and libertarian socialist organization, and subsuquent quote unquote third camp political philosophies to emerge, all of which contributed to the culmination of the protests in France in May of 1968. Within the former Czechslovakia, there was "Socialism with a Human Face" and Prague Spring. Within the United States, there's a clear history of Anarchist movements, most notably, perhaps, the International Workers of the World. A lot of Anarchists came out against Stalin from the immediate outset. It's not like every faction of the libertarian Left took the long course away from Marxism-Leninism like the French Communist Party.

There are plenty are critiques to make of the libertarian Left, a failure to cope with the history of Marxism-Leninism being one of them, of which the notion that the Soviet Union was "state capitalist" you have cited, but, to simply essentialize all of Anarchism, Socialism, and Communism as necessarily resulting in totalitarianism is fairly unfair. There was the Paris Commune, Republican Spain, and a few libertarian Left communities to have arisen throughout all of human history, and, so, we do kind of get of being perpetrators of humanitarian catastrophes purely by only ever having waged failed revolutions, but there is not a historical instance of humanitarian catastrophe that anywhere near approaches that of other political philosophies.

Let's get back to the topic. — ssu

I was still typing. I don't feel a need to keep debating this, but, that may or may not be possible as @Xtrix's solution to the ecological crisis, like mine, though I'm willing to exit this thread, as they have taken a disliking to me, may involve some sort of alternative to Liberal democracy.

I was still typing. — thewonder

I was indeed too!

If we want to continue, then I guess another thread may be more correct. Still climate change is worth a thread...even if one has said everything there is to say (at least by one's own thinking).

I'll guess I'll end my remarks with this:

Good summary. But notice that it follows a very distinct line. Because the line is about more like different groups among the communists and the anarchists. I'm not an ardent supporter of social democracy, but I think it has had more impact on our lives than Marxism. Why?

Because there are things like workers rights and the building of the welfare state, like with the government of Clement Attlee creating an extensive system of social welfare (including a National Health Service). Or the Fabian Society in UK. Or the SPD in Germany. Francois Miterrand in France.

That kind of socialism, the social democratic type and not the revolutionary type has had an effect in our own societies.

So, no change in the political climate at least.

Arguing about whose political system is more responsible, and what it should be called, and not even addressing the issue is a very clear demonstration of how all your politics have failed and all your philosophies likewise.

That's only because you fail to see how nonviolent gradualist Anarchism, blind faith in Noam Chomsky, or Social Democracy are all actual solutions to the ecological crisis.

Personally I'd hold such views to the math & logic section in PF. There it can be so. — ssu

I think it can extend to history and economics as well, but…

Let's get back to the topic. — ssu

Agreed.

I was still typing. I don't feel a need to keep debating this, but, that may or may not be possible as Xtrix's solution to the ecological crisis, like mine, though I'm willing to exit this thread, as they have taken a disliking to me, may involve some sort of alternative to Liberal democracy. — thewonder

It’s a disliking with your ideas, perhaps. No one knows each other here. We’re all using screen names after all.

Depends on what you mean by liberal democracy. I’ll be clear as to what I want: democracy though and though, including within corporate governance. As it stands now, we have very limited democracy in the political sphere (structurally and through legislation and court decisions— and continually right up to the present), and when it comes to how corporations are organized and run, literally zero.

I think this is related to climate change, but it’s several steps removed from the more immediate solutions available and so perhaps a stretch to argue it should continue on this thread.

Right, like, some form of economic democracy, probably somehow coupled with some form of participatory democracy, which it doesn't necessarily have to be, but probably is, all of which, I have no qualms with, but would be a solution beyond Liberal democracy, which is effectively representative democracy.

I think that only gradualist nonviolent Anarchism, a unanimous support the better of the green movements, or both can even completely resolve the ecological crisis. You, I suspect, have a similar postulate.

It's your thread, though, and there is plenty that can be done now, and, so, we don't have to continue to debate this, as it is kind of off-topic.

It's your thread, — thewonder

I agree with everything you said except this. I don’t consider it “mine” — someone had to start a thread on climate change and it happened to be me. But it’s a general repository for discussions.

Sure, everyone can participate in the thread however, but it is your prompt that everyone responds to. Most people probably just read your original post and then a few on the last few pages. Most of my threads usually devolve unto debates about Anarchism, which I generally agree to, but do kind of feel like people should stay somehow on topic. I'm pretty open to whatever discourse as well, though.

It's interesting to note that the cool and level headed Germans decided to abandon nuclear, while Japan followed suit.

France on the other hand doesn't have much to worry about and exports it's power to the EU.

Oil and gas effectively killed nuclear with hype and batshittery in the US with fear and paranoia.

I sure do hope molten salt new nuclear reactors or Thorium reactors make a comeback, because I don't see hydrogen replacing petroleum or solar satisfying demand in the near future.

Oh, yeah, fusion is always 50 years away, blah blah blah.