Comments by "Bob" (@bobs_toys) on "David Pakman Show"
channel.
-
I'll just paste here, because left/right aren't tied to particular policies, but are tied to someone's attitude towards things that are new. Whether a policy is left or right purely depends on whether the environment you live in either has, or has had that before.
Someone who wants a state to become socialist is left wing.
Someone who's in a socialist state that wants it to remain socialist is right wing.
Someone who wants something new is left wing
Someone who likes the status quo is right wing (conservative)
Someone who wants to return to a previous status quo is right wing (reactionary)
This is the basic definition of that, dating back to 1789. We apply the label to Socialists, because in countries that aren't socialist, they are definitely left wing.
It's not being left wing or right wing that's the problem, it's supporting retarded ideas that don't work.
For Fascism, I'll use Hitler as an example:
Hitler was left when his power was increasing. He really wanted a lot of change, and as he didn't turn Germany over to the Kaiser, we can see he wasn't a reactionary.
When his power was at its height, the war was going well, etc, he was right. He didn't want things to change.
And after that, when things fell apart, he was still reactionary. At least, I assume he wanted to go back to when he was still succeeding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>>Wasn't this experiment actually some form of Communism (a primitive type) rather than Socialism?<<
I'd agree with this, actually. Fair point.
>>Personal property doesn't have to be shared.
A person who creates a means of production like a new type of factory would have it as personal property only if they don't employ others, and they could sell it to a worker cooperative who would make use of it. If that person plans on employing others with it, it becomes socially owned property but the workers would cover the cost of the factory. I don't see how there is a lack of incentive for creations to be shared.<<
As for personal property not being shared, you're going to get people who make better decisions than others. Gaps will be created. People will complain. There's always going to be a 1%
But business is more important.To take an extreme example:
If you were Bill Gates. You had an idea for a company that was going to be far bigger than yourself. You also knew that if it became bigger than you'd be able to personally handle, you'd be forced to sell it off long, long, long before it reached its potential value.
If you were given that choice, what would you do?
Would you cop it on the chin? Or would you leave?
Obviously lots of companies failed, but pretty much all successful ones were started by people who believed they could do it. There's probably exceptions, but it seems like going in with an attitude that says you won't get very far isn't what big businesses are made of.
>>Also innovations are largely made by people without much monetary incentive to innovate if at all. Innovations are usually made by people following their passions with typically communal intentions.<<
I'm interested in a source on that. Inventors of the products we take for granted typically took big risks. They are backed by people who are also taking big risks. They expect to be rewarded.
This isn't some simply hobbyist level stuff. This is stuff that requires real investment and a real chance of costly failure.
Are you in the habit of taking big risks with no possibility of a justifiably large reward?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cold Wave >>The extra knowledge wasn't applied in Venezuela, and Venezuela's problem was actually the result of bad social democracy rather than Socialism. The government would expropriate private businesses in mass and nationalize them, which is an economically dumb thing to do due to the creation of bad incentives that would cause economic ruin<<
Weird how the lessons are almost never applied, isn't it?
When they are, it's in places that basically literally need to be better than corrupt shitholes.
Also: I think you're confusing Socialism and Social Democracy here. When you talk about expropriation of private industry. Social Democracy is just fine with Capitalism. It is a Capitalist ideology. It's Socialism that's against private ownership.
>>The Nationalization of private businesses, and everything else that contributed to the problem, such as price controls, rent controls, etc. wasn't even Socialist in policy. An example of a Socialist policy would be the Marcora Law of Italy that contributes to the creation of worker cooperatives.
<<
Socialism is against private ownership. Those things are.
>>The extra knowledge has been applied to Rojava though (it practices Libertarian Municipalism, a new methodology developed by Murray Bookchin who deeply analyzed the cause of failure in previous socialist regimes)<<
Here's what'll happen when the Syrian war is over and the country stabilises. (This might not be for a while)
Rojava will turn Capitalist, because people like doing their own thing and profiting themselves. They also like to be able to build things that profit them. That'll be fine.
The problem will come up if the Rojavan govt attempts to prevent it.
Until then: It's a place that's doing better than a warzone.
>>which didn't lead to bad results in any way. It's not that "I'm hoping to know the problem", it's that there has already been successful applications of Socialist theory that we can follow, so we should already have a pretty good idea as to what causes the problem.<<
As long as people don't want to start building capitalist enterprises.
If they're not allowed to, those that are capable of it will simply leave.
>>I gave an example where the system works and stood the test of time, the MAREZ of Mexico, which you seem to have ignored for some reason? You can read more about it here:<<
You mentioned that for the first time (that I can find, apologies if you listed it earlier and I missed it) after my last post.
Anyway: A place that contains 300k people that's been able to be better than Mexico.
Great that they've managed it, how do you think it will go as the economy modernises? More than what appears to be a farming-based economy.
How is it that this paradise, after over 20 years, still only has 300k people? Why aren't more people trying to get into it? Plenty try to get into the Capitalist United States. Why didn't the most recent caravan go there?
The best examples are apparently only good compared with surrounding places that have massive, massive problems.
But genuine respect to both for being able to avoid going total totalitarian and epic collapse. They still need to be able to survive peace and prosperity, though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DemonofElru666 >>The state behaved almost exactly as a capitalist in a capitalist enterprise would. They paid the workers in wages and appropriated the product of the workers labor to sell back to the people or to export to other countries. The workers had little to no say in the management of the firms. Call it what name you want, but that is mostly capitalistic and not socialistic to any degree<<
It is socialist, by definition.
Sorry. That it doesn't fit your personal views on how it should be achieved is irrelevant.
You might have this idea that if you were in power, you'd have done it properly. Probably not. It's a system that requires everyone's participation to make it work (Because Capitalism does help the individual do what the individual is capable of. A capable individual probably won't want to share the products of his abilities). Ultimately you'd have been faced with a choice. First is to be nice and let them do it. Watch your idea collapse. Your second is to bring them into line by whatever means necessary. At that point, you could wave goodbye to any differences between you and any other socialist dictator.
And they're looking for a profit. Profit is the surplus between what you put in and what you get out.
If there's no profit, I don't care what economic system it's under, you will fail. Because it's taking more than it produces.
>>Catalonia was an attempt on Socialism that actually followed theory close to how it was envisioned by the socialist theorists of the 19th century, unlike most of the other experiments. It was short lived, but the ideal was reached and people generally lived better lives after collectivization than when it was capitalist.
<<
And then had an excuse before we could see its longevity.
Which, if the rest of the world is anything to go by, says it would not have lasted.
>>If it's always being done the wrong way then that is the fault of unaccountable politicians that are in power and not a fault in Socialism. Any power hungry politician(s) can get into power and claim to be for any ideal yet betray it and commit many atrocities. There were some clear methodologies on how to get to Socialism that were laid out by the theorists of the 19th century that were not followed in the large majority of these experiments. It was supposed to be a bottom up movement.
<<
If it's always being done the wrong way, whoever tries it, the consistent thing between them is the ideology.
If something never works, whatever other variables you change, then ultimately that one thing is probably the cause of failure. What the theory says is irrelevant. What the theory produces is everything. The theory produces dictatorial failure after dictatorial failure.
1
-
1
-
@DemonofElru666 >>By some definition that's divorced from the ideals for what the word was typically used for historically, probably.
<<
By the fundamental definition of the word.
The defining characteristic of what the word means.
>>If someone wouldn't want to share they would probably try and establish a capitalist enterprise, but a large, conscious socialist movement from the bottom up would establish Socialist institutions within our current system, and eventually drown out capitalist enterprises<<
The reverse is actually quite possible in our society. Notice how it hasn't happened?
>>People would be free to create capitalist enterprises, but they wouldn't last. The reason for that being that most workers wouldn't want to work in a capitalist enterprise if they can get the full value of their labor in a socialist enterprise and actually have a say in the management of the enterprise<<
Cooperatives are a thing now. If what you believed was true, they'd have been doing wonderfully.
I don't actually care if I get the full value of my labour. I care about the final amount that actually gets to me. If my boss is profiting from me, that's fantastic. It means I'm useful and am able to go to another company offering more based on that.
>>The only way this wouldn't happen would be if the movement was being destroyed through the use of force, which is what capitalists have done to socialist movements historically.
<<
Or if your ideas are simply wrong. If socialist enterprises simply can't muster up the big bucks.
Which brings us to your next bit:
>>Profit goes to the workers under Socialism.
<<
There's your problem. If everything goes to the workers. If there's nothing left over:
1. How does a company weather bad times?
2. How does a company invest in itself to expand more? (Remember you've paid over everything to the workers. As soon as you're saving money, or putting money into new, not-yet-profitable ventures, you're not paying the workers what they're contributing. Sure, you could borrow. But then the moment you're repaying that......)
>>There exists or existed no other similar comparison to the Socialism in Catalonia, so I don't see how you can really tell if it would have lasted from observing the Socialism of the rest of the world?<<
This highlights one of the biggest failures in Marx's prophecies (for want of a better word)
There was no revolution from the working classes. They weren't interested. He expected a worldwide revolution from the workers. They showed minimal signs of wanting it. This goes double for people in developed countries, where it was supposed to start. About the only people who want it are those who have nothing.
It's why violence has come in. It's why attempts to silence 'the right wing' have come in. Because an honest open dialogue simply isn't convincing people.
All you've really got are excuses and new states that will probably go down the same path.
>>So basically, fuck the theory or any rational assessment as to the cause of failure. The theory may have laid out some methods on how to achieve something, but since people who probably didn't even read anything about it or some power hungry politician who uses the ideology as an excuse to do terrible things decided to do things their own way, its the theory that somehow most likely produces it.
<<
There have been plenty of rational assessments for the cause of failure.
So far, all we've got is you believe you'd have done it differently. And one example for which you had an excuse.
This is vs the reality that every time it's tried, it ends badly. Tried by people who are probably true believers.
As far as keeping on trying goes.... 100 million dead with nothing to show for it. How many do you need before you figure it's probably not worth the continue effort?
1
-
1
-
1