Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The problem is you and most contemporary leftist dont understand socialism is an economic theory not a sociological one. You do understand where socialism came from right? You do understand that it is the underpinning of communism correct? Communism is just the application of socialism with communism being the predicted outcome (that being a classless society and the abolishment of the state).
|
I have actually know quite a bit about this.
Socialism started with the utopian-socialists. The utopians split into anarchists and socialists (Karl Marx). The difference between the two, is the socialists believed in the dictatorship of the proletariat -- where the working classes rise and seize power, before the state could whither eventually. Anarchists believed you could somehow skip this step and go straight to no State (instead, "administration"). Chomsky has done a lot to make that ideology more coherent.
Marx started off as a humanitarian that was concerned with the poor. It didn't occur to him that it was the economic system at first -- but eventually that is what he determined. He wrote a small book (or pamphlet) about Communism more toward the end of his life and articulated the inevitability of the communist revolution.
Marx was very much an ivory tower kind of guy, who forcefully argued against any elite-planned revolutions while he was alive. He thought the revolution would happen without people like him helping -- and we need to just wait.
Marx died and Lenin decided he waited long enough. So he led the October revolution as a dictator more or less -- with faithful bureaucrats like Stalin at his side. He insisted that "trade unionism" (which is what was going on in Germany and a few other countries at the time) was just "better conditions for the slave" and would delay the revolution (that was inevitable remember) -- so he opposed them and eventually had many prominent opponents killed.
Lenin didn't stick with Marx economics that long -- but I've never been one to sit around and talk about "what Marx really wanted" -- who gives a shit? Communism as it was practiced in the world is what I'm referring to when I speak of Communism. And there is no denying that economics of communism are much different than capitalism. Resources are allocated by inevitably corrupt governments that are concerned about looking good to their party because that is the only way to make more money in that kind of system. Predictably the elite have disproportionate wealth -- even more so than most capitalist systems.
Communism, as it exists in the world, involves a single party system where every level of government is shadowed by the party- equivalent where the real power is. Power is concentrated in a small council that convenes every so often where all the decisions are made. Sometimes a particularly charismatic individual exercises most the power (Stalin) and forms a "Cult of Personality" around themselves. You get these images of Mao portrayed as the sun or Stalin as a wise benevolent grandfather etc. It replaces religion at times.
This is nothing like modern social-democracies -- which come from Trade Unionism....not Communism. North Korea = Communism. Sweden = Trade Unionism.
Trade unionism contends that Marx is compatible with democracy. And through votes we can obtain a more socialist vision. But there are key differences between this vision and the vision Lenin had.
No violent revolution, no Marxist economics, no dictatorship of the proletariat (as understood by lenin) or single party system.
Democratic-socialist think capitalism is better way of generating resources than communism. However, they don't agree that you have an absolute right to every dollar that happens to ever enter your bank account. So they don't have as big of hang ups about taxing wealthy and subsidizing the middle and lower classes.
Keep in mind this is all different than the German tradition (which started with Bismark and their own thinkers) which is not considered a democratic-socialist state.
In either case, you are ignoring the clear split between them and communist countries and conflated the two. Blaming Marx for Stalin is like blaming Jesus Christ for the war in Iraq because Bush said he influenced him. Ridiculous guilt by association argument.