kowalskil Posted December 23, 2010 Report Share Posted December 23, 2010 "Socialist United States" was the title of the OpEdNews article I published yesterday at: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Socialist-United-States-by-Ludwik-Kowalski-101222-350.html Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted December 24, 2010 Report Share Posted December 24, 2010 "Socialist United States" was the title of the OpEdNews article I published yesterday at: http://www.opednews....101222-350.html Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) . Did you want to discuss the article? Best to start the discussion yourself, as the author. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowalskil Posted January 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Did you want to discuss the article? Best to start the discussion yourself, as the author. The essence what I already said (see the link) was that statements made by one of the leaders of SPUSA (Socialist Party of the USA) were far from clear. I asked for clarification. The party emblem contains "proletariat of the world, unite," while the proletariate dictatorship is not even mentioned. How can this be explained? That was the essence of my comments. The word "socialism" means different things to different people. Here is what I once wrote about this: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A) The term Marxist means different thing to different people. My tentative definition is shown below, Do you agree with it? How to distinguish a Marxist from a non-Marxist? Everyone who believes that proletarian dictatorship is needed, after the overthrow of capitalism, to improve social conditions, is a Marxist. The idea of proletarian dictatorship unites all kinds of communists: Stalinists, Trotskyites, Leninists, etc. Anarchists are not Marxists because they are against any form of state (capitalist or proletarian). But all communists are Marxists and all Marxists are communists. These social engineers, like Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, form parties that are said to be "the vanguards of proletariat." The failure of Bolsheviks, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, is a very powerful argument against Marx's idea of proletarian dictatorship. But some disagree, saying that the theory is good but was not applied properly. They blame an individual--Stalin. This implies that communist ideology is not falsifiable. Facts consistent with the theory are used to validate it while facts that are not consistent are attributed to something else. A theory that is not consistent with reality must be either revised or rejected. Marx, if he were alive, would not miss an opportunity to compare his theory of proletarian dictatorship with the results of its implementations. B) The term Socialism also means different things to different people. When I was young I was taught that Socialism is proletarian dictatorship. It was introduced to us (in Poland) as the transitional system between capitalism and communism. But that is not how the term is used in America today. My impression is that American Socialists reject Marx’s idea of proletarian dictatorship; they believe that social conditions can be improved via progressive reforms (not by revolution). In other words, they are not Marxists. Is this impression correct? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am also a socialist. But I do not want anyone to experience proletarian dictatorship. Ludwik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 The essence what I already said (see the link) was that statements made by one of the leaders of SPUSA (Socialist Party of the USA) were far from clear. I asked for clarification. The party emblem contains "proletariat of the world, unite," while the proletariate dictatorship is not even mentioned. How can this be explained? That was the essence of my comments. The word "socialism" means different things to different people. Here is what I once wrote about this: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A) The term Marxist means different thing to different people. My tentative definition is shown below, Do you agree with it? How to distinguish a Marxist from a non-Marxist? Everyone who believes that proletarian dictatorship is needed, after the overthrow of capitalism, to improve social conditions, is a Marxist. The idea of proletarian dictatorship unites all kinds of communists: Stalinists, Trotskyites, Leninists, etc. Anarchists are not Marxists because they are against any form of state (capitalist or proletarian). But all communists are Marxists and all Marxists are communists. These social engineers, like Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, form parties that are said to be "the vanguards of proletariat." The failure of Bolsheviks, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, is a very powerful argument against Marx's idea of proletarian dictatorship. But some disagree, saying that the theory is good but was not applied properly. They blame an individual--Stalin. This implies that communist ideology is not falsifiable. Facts consistent with the theory are used to validate it while facts that are not consistent are attributed to something else. A theory that is not consistent with reality must be either revised or rejected. Marx, if he were alive, would not miss an opportunity to compare his theory of proletarian dictatorship with the results of its implementations. B) The term Socialism also means different things to different people. When I was young I was taught that Socialism is proletarian dictatorship. It was introduced to us (in Poland) as the transitional system between capitalism and communism. But that is not how the term is used in America today. My impression is that American Socialists reject Marx’s idea of proletarian dictatorship; they believe that social conditions can be improved via progressive reforms (not by revolution). In other words, they are not Marxists. Is this impression correct? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am also a socialist. But I do not want anyone to experience proletarian dictatorship. Ludwik Are you familiar with the Political Compass? http://www.politicalcompass.org/index I think that looking at these issues would be aided by using this coordinate system. From the lower left quadrant. Economic Left/Right: -6.12Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Who's score is that Ken, yours? You're worse than me, you anarchist commie-rat! :lol: I only did -4.75 and -3.38!!!! :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Economic Left/Right: 5.50Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Who's score is that Ken, yours? You're worse than me, you anarchist commie-rat! :lol: I only did -4.75 and -3.38!!!! :hihi: :P I scored lower and to the left of Ghandi's estimated score. I blogged about this back in 2004. Libertarians come in two different models… TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Perhaps we need a new descriptor. Libertarians seem to fall into two distinct types — I call them Anarchic Libertarians and Civil Libertarians. The differences between these two are immense. Anarchic Libertarians seek to diminish government to as small a function as possible. They seem to give grudging consent to collective applications of force by government by accepting some need for a military and police. At their furthest extreme, however, they would do away with public education, public healthcare, consumer protection, and environmental regulation. In the U.S. they see abstract “market forces” as the means by which oppression and exploitation should, or could, be regulated. Civil Libertarians, on the other hand, welcome government regulation as a means to protect individuals from oppression and exploitation. The role of government is seen as one of liberating individuals and restricting monolithic institutions (including government, itself). The majority pay homage to nine of the ten Bill of Rights, excluding (or limiting) only the 18th Century concept of unregulated ownership of weapons. Civil Libertarians reject “market forces” as regulators of the body politic because they view them as too slow and too diffuse. The idea of market forces as protectors from oppression and exploitation is seen as naive, hopelessly optimistic, and confounded with a single economic philosophy. What brought these issues to mind for me was a visit to the website http://www.politicalcompass.org . The authors propose an expansion of the traditional left-right political definition to add a second axis or dimension — authoritarian-libertarian. Drawing this axis at right angles to the left-right axis creates four quadrants to define an individual’s political orientation. Using Cartesian coordinates gives mathematically negative values for left, positive for right and negative (lower) for libertarian and positive for authoritarian. The website makes use of a short forced-choice questionnaire to assign coordinates for the reader. Sharing scores with acquaintances has been an interesting experience, though one not without some confusion. The problem, it appears to me, is that the instrument fails to distinguish between my perceived models of libertarian philosophy. That problem, notwithstanding, I see value in the approach. –From the lower, left quadrant, Ken Economic Left/Right: -6.12Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 PC or politically correct is a down side of any form of government, which would have the most impact in a socialist state. It will define what is proper to read or say. It will use propaganda to set the ambiance for how one wishes the masses to think. It may also require a rod to beat people, less they deviate off the path. If we look at the words "political correctness". it defines correctness in terms of politics, which may or may not add up to the truth. Politics is more about half truth or spin to achieve an end. Politicians will skate around the truth or spin the truth so it make perception look better in one's favor. Political correctness is the art of doing this in the proper fashion, which works best within a socialist government, with full control. Back in the day, Soviet propaganda would project all is well, even during rationing and shortages, due to their version of PC. If you complain, out comes the rod. In free enterprise, each business may try to use its advertising propaganda to create its own free market version of PC; half truth and spin. But it has no rod to enforce that spin. In a socialist government, if the spin is a people car, it can take out the rod and enforce that. In the free market, someone else can check one version of free market PC, with a new add campaign. Or the government can be used to make sure this is not a lie. In a socialist environment, this freedom will not be allowed and the rod can be used for all forms of PC propaganda. Democrats appear to like the control of socialism, with the Constitution often in the way. That is why it was read out loud, with some PC censorship. Don't get me wrong. Business is not perfect either. For example, demand is down due to the recession yet many prices in depressed industries, like construction, are rising in spite of the laws of supply and demand. Low demand should mean more supply and prices dropping. Business can ignore these laws, when it suits their needs. So you need government to keep the system honest. The rise in gas prices in the US is more about speculation, which is an imaginary world of spin, which allows some to skim off the top, at the expense of others who are seeing hard times. I can see why some see the need of big government. But socialism and PC is much worse, unless one is able to become part of that government. This will allow one to rake benefits off the back of a controlled population. Most top socialist don't see themselves as a controlled grunt, but controlling the grunts. If you made the top socialist vow to become one of the grunts and forgo all power their song would change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 PC or politically correct is a down side of any form of government, which would have the most impact in a socialist state. It will define what is proper to read or say. It will use propaganda to set the ambiance for how one wishes the masses to think. It may also require a rod to beat people, less they deviate off the path. If we look at the words "political correctness". it defines correctness in terms of politics, which may or may not add up to the truth. Politics is more about half truth or spin to achieve an end. Politicians will skate around the truth or spin the truth so it make perception look better in one's favor. Political correctness is the art of doing this in the proper fashion, which works best within a socialist government, with full control. Back in the day, Soviet propaganda would project all is well, even during rationing and shortages, due to their version of PC. If you complain, out comes the rod. In free enterprise, each business may try to use its advertising propaganda to create its own free market version of PC; half truth and spin. But it has no rod to enforce that spin. In a socialist government, if the spin is a people car, it can take out the rod and enforce that. In the free market, someone else can check one version of free market PC, with a new add campaign. Or the government can be used to make sure this is not a lie. In a socialist environment, this freedom will not be allowed and the rod can be used for all forms of PC propaganda. Democrats appear to like the control of socialism, with the Constitution often in the way. That is why it was read out loud, with some PC censorship. Don't get me wrong. Business is not perfect either. For example, demand is down due to the recession yet many prices in depressed industries, like construction, are rising in spite of the laws of supply and demand. Low demand should mean more supply and prices dropping. Business can ignore these laws, when it suits their needs. So you need government to keep the system honest. The rise in gas prices in the US is more about speculation, which is an imaginary world of spin, which allows some to skim off the top, at the expense of others who are seeing hard times. I can see why some see the need of big government. But socialism and PC is much worse, unless one is able to become part of that government. This will allow one to rake benefits off the back of a controlled population. Most top socialist don't see themselves as a controlled grunt, but controlling the grunts. If you made the top socialist vow to become one of the grunts and forgo all power their song would change. Ummm.... :rolleyes: Your view of Socialism seems to me to be a bit....shall we say...naive. You seem to be setting two extreme positions against each other - Anarchic Libertarianism and some sort of hive-like Communism. Perhaps you should look at some relatively common definitions: Definitions of political correctness on the Web: •avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated againstwordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn •Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, handicap ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness •The concept that one has to shape their statements (if not their opinions) according to a certain political dogma, i.e. to be politically correct; The result or product of being politically correcten.wiktionary.org/wiki/political_correctness •A trend that wants to make everything fair, equal and just to all by suppressing thought, speech and practice in order to achieve that goal.www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html •Suppressing the expression of certain attitudes and the use of certain terms in the belief that they are too offensive or controversial.www.slp.duq.edu/rentschler/ETHIC/Vocabulary.htm I suppose you might focus on #4, but I believe the other definitions do it better justice. As far as Socialism as an economic or political movement, again some definitions in common use: Definitions of socialism on the Web: •a political theory advocating state ownership of industry •an economic system based on state ownership of capitalwordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn •Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.Newman, Michael. ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism •In Marxist theory, socialism refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that eventually supersede capitalism. ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism) •Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis is a book by Austrian School economist and libertarian thinker Ludwig von Mises, first published in German by Gustav Fischer Verlag in Jena in 1922 under the title Die Gemeinwirtschaft: Untersuchungen über den Sozialismus. ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(book) •Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists; The socialist political philosophies as a group, including Marxism, libertarian socialism ...en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialism •socialist - a political advocate of socialism•socialist - socialistic: advocating or following the socialist principles; "socialistic government"wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn •The Socialist is the weekly paper of the Socialist Party of England and Wales. It is edited and written by the members and supporters of the political party publishing it.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Socialist_(UK_newspaper) •The Italian Socialists (I Socialisti Italiani) was a minor social-democratic political party in Italy.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Socialists_(Italy) •The Socialist is the bimonthly national publication of the Socialist Party USA. As of Fall 2008, its editor is Billy Wharton, and its editorial board includes Mary-Alice Herbert, James Marra, Tina Phillips, Courtney Campbell, Steve Sears and Steve Rossignol.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Socialist_(US_newspaper) •socialistic - Of or relating to socialismen.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialistic •adherence to the theory social organization which believes the proprietorship and the authority of the means of production, capital, land, etc. should belong to the entire community. The Socialist Party in London's day was considered a respectable alternate political party. ...london.sonoma.edu/Essays/glossary.html •The view that the government should own and control major industrieswww.mcwdn.org/ECONOMICS/EcoGlossary.html •refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which the ownership of industry and the distribution of wealth are determined by the state or by agents of the state or the collective. ...www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Socialism There is often confusion about Socialism Vs Communism... some comments: From wiseGeek: Socialism and communism are ideological doctrines that have many similarities as well as many differences. It is difficult to discern the true differences between socialism and communism, as various societies have tried different types of both systems in myriad forms, and many ideologues with different agendas have defined both systems in biased terms. Some general points distinguishing the two concepts, however, can still be identified. One point that is frequently raised to distinguish socialism from communism is that socialism generally refers to an economic system, while communism generally refers to both an economic and a political system. As an economic system, socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control. Communism, however, seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively, and that control over the distribution of property is centralized in order to achieve both classlessness and statelessness. Both socialism and communism are similar in that they seek to prevent the ill effects that are sometimes produced by capitalism. Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization. Socialism asserts that the distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals' production efforts, however, while communism asserts that that goods and services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals' needs. Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists assert that both capitalism and private ownership of the means of production must be done away with as soon as possible in order to make sure a classless society, the communist ideal, is formed. Socialists, however, see capitalism as a possible part of the ideal state and believe that socialism can exist in a capitalist society. In fact, one of the ideas of socialism is that everyone within the society will benefit from capitalism as much as possible as long as the capitalism is controlled somehow by a centralized planning system. Another difference between socialism and communism is centered on who controls the structure of economy. Where socialism generally aims to have as many people as possible influence how the economy works, communism seeks to limit that number to a smaller group. My point is that there are any number of gradations of Socialism, sharing a basic notion that within a society certain productive resources belong to the group rather than individual entities. We generally allocate sources of water to municipal control and ownership; why not coal fields as sources of energy? ;) JMJones0424 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 I suppose you might focus on #4, but I believe the other definitions do it better justice. I agree and I think that's an important point because the term 'political correctness' is very loaded especially as it is used a couple posts up. Wikipedia remarks on the current definition as opposed to the way HB uses the word: Early usages of the phrase "politically correct" have been found in various contexts, which may not relate to the current terminology.[4][5] Examples of the term can be found as early as the 18th century. The previous meaning was 'in line with prevailing political thought or policy'. The term previously used 'correctness' in its literal sense and without any particular reference to language that might be considered offensive or discriminatory... Widespread use of the term politically correct and its derivatives began when it was adopted as a pejorative term by the political right in the 1990s... The most common usage here is as a pejorative term to refer to excessive deference to particular sensibilities at the expense of other considerations. The converse term "politically incorrect" came into use as an implicit term of self-praise, indicating that the user was not afraid to give offense[citation needed]. The central uses of the term relate to particular issues of race, gender, disability, ethnicity, sexual preference, culture and worldviews, and encompass both the language in which issues are discussed and the viewpoints that are expressed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaurieAG Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 I came out with Gandhi, between Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 :shrug: ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 The essence what I already said (see the link) was that statements made by one of the leaders of SPUSA (Socialist Party of the USA) were far from clear. ...B) The term Socialism also means different things to different people. When I was young I was taught that Socialism is proletarian dictatorship. It was introduced to us (in Poland) as the transitional system between capitalism and communism. But that is not how the term is used in America today. My impression is that American Socialists reject Marx’s idea of proletarian dictatorship; they believe that social conditions can be improved via progressive reforms (not by revolution). In other words, they are not Marxists. Is this impression correct? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am also a socialist. But I do not want anyone to experience proletarian dictatorship. Ludwik SPUSA doesn't make much press here in the US that i have ever seen. hardly more than anecdotal i know, but whatever internal party issues they have aren't really common knowledge. as to indtroduction to socialism in schools, it's little if ever covered in any detail save perhaps for high school classes. again, this is just my experience and your results may vary. wikipedia has a lengthy article on the subject: >> Socialist Party of America i mostly replied because i met a fella years ago who was raised in poland and he was quite the interesting character i must say. special talents for taking advantage of our freedoms to their maximums so to speak. ;) not sure if he was a socialist or not, but he taught me to identify & hunt boletes mushrooms. we cooked with some, but most he would string on threads to dry & then ship them to his mother who still lived in poland. it is still the only mushroom i will pick & eat without hesitation. anyway, all that we are is the result of what we have thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 A post scarcity-an perspectiveA belated welcome to hypography, Dr. Kowalski! :) I read your wikipedia page and some other biographical info on you, and feel honored by your joining our small (in membership and post volume), but I hope good (in quality and friendliness), science forum. The essence what I already said (see the link) was that statements made by one of the leaders of SPUSA (Socialist Party of the USA) were far from clear. I asked for clarification. The party emblem contains "proletariat of the world, unite," while the proletariate dictatorship is not even mentioned.With my modest education in social/economic/political theory, I was enough acquainted with Marxism to understand it’s most well known terms, such as bourgeois/capitalist and proletarian/laborer, and distill a personal sense of it’s key themes (which, from some commentary I can no longer reference, I termed “economic progression”), that being:human civilization’s long-term trend of increased productivity (production/labor) renders social systems obsolete, and that, as the bourgeois revolution had rendered the feudal system obsolete, the current dominant system, capitalism, was or would be rendered obsolete by a proletarian revolution.Until reading about them in response to your post, the terms “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie/proletariat” were unfamiliar to me. For my fellow hypographers and guests who are likewise unfamiliar, I’ll paraphrase briefly:According to classical Marxist theory, nearly all societies in the late 19th century were (and, by reasonable extension, still are) controlled by the bourgeoisie – people who employee and benefit from the labor of laborers. This state is called the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. “Dictatorship” in this context doesn’t imply brutality or corruption, simply practical control of society. However, no matter how benevolent, this inequality of control results in uneven distribution of societal resources, privileges, and duties, with the minority (the bourgeoisie, AKA “fat cats”) compensated too much while working too little, the majority (the proletariat, AKA “oppressed masses”) compensated too little while working too much. Because the bourgeoisie will not willing surrender their advantage, Marxism dictates that a proletarian revolution must depose them, leading to a period of dictatorship of the proletariat. This period, however, (I’m injecting a lot of my own interpretation here, and may be unconventional or wrong) will result in the bourgeoisie being absorbed into the proletariat, leading eventually to a classless and completely equitable society, which we could call “dictatorship by everybody”. How can this [Mimi Soltysik not mentioning the proletariat dictatorship in a 12/11/2010 interview by Michael Bonanno] be explained? That was the essence of my comments. Having no previous personal, professional, or academic acquaintance with any of these actors, I can only guess at an explanation. Perhaps Soltysik and Bonanno believe that proletarian dictatorship should be downplayed because it can too easily be used to rhetorically justify the dictatorship of a new ruling class, as many present day communists (and I) believe occurred in the USSR. They seem to take pains to distance the US Socialist party (SPUSA) and socialism in general from Stalinist USSR communism. A) The term Marxist means different thing to different people. My tentative definition is shown below, Do you agree with it? How to distinguish a Marxist from a non-Marxist? Everyone who believes that proletarian dictatorship is needed, after the overthrow of capitalism, to improve social conditions, is a Marxist. The idea of proletarian dictatorship unites all kinds of communists: Stalinists, Trotskyites, Leninists, etc. Anarchists are not Marxists because they are against any form of state (capitalist or proletarian). But all communists are Marxists and all Marxists are communists. These social engineers, like Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, form parties that are said to be "the vanguards of proletariat."Though I agree with your finding that support of proletarian dictatorship is a common characteristic among these various forms of communism, I don’t agree that it’s a sufficient condition for Marxism. The writings of Marx are arguably the most widely known and read on communism, and for many reasonably educated non-specialists, may be their only reading of work promoting it. As I do, these people may find some of Marx’s ideas, such as my distilled “economic progression” concept given above, useful and compelling, and term them “Marxist ideas”. Defining “being a Marxist” as believing one particular idea, such as the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, rather than another, such as the desirability of a classless society or the inevitability of economic progression, strikes me as confusing and confrontational. In general, I find applying labels like “Marxist” (or “Randian”, or practically any other label) to people thwarts communication and understanding more than it helps it, so try to avoid it. It’s better, I think, to state in reference to a specific conversation “I/you/he am/are/is expressing a Marxist idea” than “I/you/he am/are/is a Marxist.” I am also a socialist. But I do not want anyone to experience proletarian dictatorship. LudwikA question, Ludwik: is this proletarian dictatorship you wish no one to experience the class-erasing one imagined my Marx, or the “dictatorship of the new ruling class” critics of the USSR and other nominally communist states claim impersonates Marx’s idealistic vision? To quote the revolutionary commentary of Pete Townshend of The Who::note:"meet the new boss / same as the old boss":note: - Won’t Get Fooled Again (1971) I’m a post-scarcity-an libertarian (apologies for inventing the term as I write, but there’s a dearth of common ones for these ideas). I think I’ve experienced a mixture of bourgeois, “new ruling class” and proletarian dictatorship. As the “fat cats” of the first are more obviously offensive to my sight, than the “people for the people” of the last, I like it less, but would prefer to have neither. As a proponent of post-scarcity economics, I don’t see political revolution as necessary or sufficient to reach this desired society, but rather continued advances in technology, especially automated production and increasing per-capita power budget. Driven by technological progress, I believe that changes in government and economics will be inevitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 This is me, I was surprised! http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-5.12&soc=-4.46 why can't I post this image? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 I'm not sure about the pic, Moontanman. When i did mine, I did a screencap, cropped it, and uploaded it to photobucket. Why were you surprised at your results? What I find kind of interesting is that most of our reported results have a similar left/right value as the authoritarian/libertarian value: -5.12, -4.46-1.25, -3.03-6.12, -7.64 -4.75, -3.38 I guess C1ay's result: 5.50, -3.90, demonstrates that the political compass does need two axes :) ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 The ideal socialist state may have benefits. But there is no ideal socialist state, instead of the ideal, we would get the real. When you involve government, you create inefficiencies. The reason has to do with the contrast between power and money. Government can not be used by its members to create personal wealth. An elected official can't make money off their position, legally. What they can get instead is power. Because power is an acceptable goal (move up the ladder) efficiency is contrary to the goal of power. If you can inflate your position and double your resources, this will increase your position of power. With free enterprise, you can't directly gain power because of laws, but what you can make is money. One way to make more money is to increase the level of efficiency. If you want power, you either run for office or give a campaign contribution. To have have five guys stand around a hole, while one man digs is not efficient, but it does extend managerial power to the five guys standing around the hole. Their boss also has more power, since he controls five managers. If we had one guy standing around the hole while one man digs, this may be more efficient, but it downgrades power. To maintain the illusion for power, you may need to invent busy work that is not necessary for making a hole. One guy can count grains of sand and the other guy check the shovel for stress cracks. etc. The US government is debating raising the debt ceiling for $14T. This is with the efficiency of a large private sector. Relative to PC, language is a subjective thing and not an objective thing like energy. Energy follows objective laws that are consistent, but language follows subjective laws. You can use any sound to label anything, which is why there are so many languages and so many words for the same thing. Language is arbitrary. When you place language control, with an environment based on increasing power, subjective special effects can be used, to create social inefficiencies. This allows inflation that can increase power. If I can silence the opposition, using PC, I do not have to share the power with them. PC can also be used to alter objective reality into the light of any given subjectivity. For example, Mark Twain's books are being censored using PC standards. It reflects an account of history in the context of history. It is art as as it was. This is being subjectively modified so the objective context of history is altered. It tries to define the objective past in terms of modern subjectivities. One is suppose to lose objective context, in favor of an arbitrary subjective one. If we draw a line from the new subjective past to the present, you can not learn objectivity from that past. I would assume increasing power is involved here due to the inefficiency. If you teach that certain words are suppose to hurt, you indirectly assume there is an objective cause and effect, like adding energy will increase temperature. This is not the case with language, since sound is a noise and which sound is completely arbitrary. If you train people to think subjectivity is objective, you also teach them to lose touch with other aspect of objective reality. With socialism, the idea is to paint a pretty picture using the ideals of a subjective reality, that detaches from objective history. It is not like this has not been tried before, even if the ideal was never reached; reality will not be ideal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.