Comments by "Andre Falksmen" (@andrefalksmen1264) on "VICE"
channel.
-
3
-
1
-
@la tulipe noire okay, so you have a very naive view of the world, and you are all so confusing political economy and economics, as well as various forms of political systems.
Let's start from the top, accountability is a myth. We are human beings in human societies, and all human societies have hierarchies, at the very top of the hierarchy we find the completion of authority and accountability, meaning, whether it is a group or an individual, at the top of the hierarchy of our society or societies, there is no further accountability. Humans possess the natural right of rebellion, but of course if you lose you forfeit your life and property.
As for the issues with Communism, traditional communism as opposed to Neo Marxism, the problem was the ability economic calculation under social circumstances as well as, toward the end, and inability to continue to accumulate capital. Understand unequivocally, the determining factor for the standard of living of a society is not a democracy or dictatorship, it is not Freedom or slavery, or any other political system, it is the amount of capital accumulated per person. That is why an industrial society of any economic orientation always beats a society which is not industrialize, thus Democratic capitalists Philippines and Democratic Socialist India, had a lower standard of living per capita than the Soviet Union or the entire Eastern Bloc.
I am not a Marxist, but I will not deny the accomplishments of the Soviet Union, or Stalin. Nor will I try to excuse away the obvious fact, the Eastern Bloc did have higher levels of industrialization, standards of living, and technological ability than free or unfree, Democratic or undemocratic, Societies in the third world. Once again, political ideologies are really not that important, and even economic regimes are important only to the degree in which capital is accumulated.
Next, you are confusing communism and fascism, which is generally bizarre. A fascist regime is one in which there is a single leader, or group of leaders, whose role is primarily focused on ethno-nationalist concerns of maintaining tradition in the society. This may involve a significant degree private ownership means of the means of production like Nazi Germany, or it might mean a very active policy of State ownership like Franco Spain. A communist regime generally is one which believes in significant changes to the society as part of its Vanguard ideas about a future Marxist Utopia, but most strikingly almost complete State ownership of the means of production. The most striking difference in the political ideology is a fascist regime looks backward and a Marxist regime attempts to look forward.
Lastly, you seem to be confusing the failures of Western political economy with a general failure of capitalism, when most of the ills that have Afflicted the west are a result of its political ideology. While capitalism is particularly noted by private ownership of the means of production, it also requires as all economic growth in any political system does, greater accumulation of capital, for which the West has been greatly slacking over the last 50 years being primarily focused on social spending, welfarism, and income inequality. These things are generally exacerbated by the breakdown a family, at aging population, and Rising economic challenges from East Asia, again all of these are socio-political issues, not something inherent to the system of capitalism.
You may have some bizarre utopian hope for the 21st century, but one cannot defeat human nature. No matter what system one envisions, you'll either have State ownership or private ownership of the means of production, or possibly some combination. Whatever the political Arrangement there will still be political and social hierarchy in the society.
The general problem with democracy is that in the system prone to paralysis too many factions of a say in government and no bold action can be taken even when the situation becomes critical. Moreover, democracy in the west has lent itself to a fetish for equality which has closed its citizens, particularly those in the dominant ethnic group in those societies, to believe that there are to be actual equality in government despite the significant differences in performance and standing. While the West Was generally able to reach wealth from the rest of the world via the legacy of colonialism and imperialism, think u.s. dollar Reserve status, as the economic playing field has evened out with the rise of Asia and this rent extraction has been greatly diminished oh, you will find that those who pay to support the state will become increasingly less willing to tolerate being outvoted by people who are mere consumers of tax revenue. Culturally democracy has a stronghold on the west, but the Practical problem of being outvoted by tax consumers over the taxpayers will eventually cause the system to implode.
1
-
1