Jump to content

What is Communism or Marxism or ... ?


Rick

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, lucklucky said:

There are many Socialism, for example in Israel you had the kibbutz where only people that wanted to be there went. It is a rare case of non oppressive Socialism.

 

Voluntary small scale where they can vote you off the island because you're a layabout is fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

From back in time about the Israeli Kibbuz

Israel’s collectivist kibbutzim were once one of the world’s most highly touted experiments in socialism. But, as the Financial Times reports they have increasing switched over to private property rights. Shlomo Getz, the director of the Institute for Research of the Kibbutz at Haifa University "Israeli society had always looked to the kibbutzniks as an elite group. But now they were regarded as a mere interest group that depended on money from the state,"

As Gary Becker puts it, “nowhere is the failure of socialism clearer than in the radical transformation of the Israeli kibbutz.” If a socialist experiment could ever succeed, it should have done so in this case. Most kibbutzim were founded by highly motivated volunteers strongly committed to socialist ideology. For many years, kibbutzim had great prestige in Israeli society, and many of the nation’s early leaders were kibbutz members. After Israel became an independent state in 1948, the kibbutzim also benefited from extensive government subsidies. Unlike other socialist experiments, the failure of the kibbutzim cannot be ascribed to lack of ideological fervor, inadequate resources, or hostility from the surrounding “capitalist” society. Despite these advantages, kibbutzim failed to achieve a high level of economic productivity, and even failed to retain the loyalty of many of their own members. Over time, many kibbutz residents became frustrated with the perverse incentives created by socialism, and many also yearned for the individual freedom and privacy created by private property rights

From a former kibbutz resident "Having lived on a Kibbutz for about a year, I can only testify to my own anecdotal evidence. However, the kibbutz I was on (Revivim, 30 km south of Beer-Sheva) was one of the more “flexible” kibbutzim, which was willing to compromise on more of its socialist principles in the name of pragmatism, and is thus one of the few remaining kibbutzim that was able, by compromising, to retain socialized systems that they felt were the most important, such as a fully communal laundry, kitchen, and vehicle system. The kibbutzim that were very rigid and “pure” in their socialism (mostly kibbutzim that were part of Hashomer Ha-Tzair) are the ones that are currently either fully privatized or on the way (for instance, Kibbutz Shamir in the upper Galil, now has an optical something or other company listed on NASDAQ)" However, even the people that live on the more moderate kibbutzim seem ideologically broken. Out of nearly 100 15–30 year olds that I met on the Kibbutz, not a single one stated their desire to permantly reside in the Kibbutz. They all had plans to move out to Beer-Sheva or Tel-Aviv. And every single person complained about everyone else for “not pulling their fair share of the load.” Free-riding was rampant, and there were very few people who took any pride in their work.

Alex Bensky "I once called myself a socialist, although to paraphrase the old Jewish joke, by a socialist I was probably no socialist. But whatever else my intellectual shortcomings, after a time I did realize that the reason it never worked, and in fact invariably resulted in less prosperity, less freedom, and almost always less help to the lower classes it purported to represent, is because it’s a bad idea. After umpteen times of insisting “that wasn’t real socialism; what we have is” anyone susceptible to rationality would have long since realized this."

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Strannik said:

The amount of pseudo intellectual garbage generated from the idiotic assumption that government intervention into economy == socialism and the even more idiotic conclusions from this  assumption is truly amazing.

Would you elaborate on your statement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick said:

Would you elaborate on your statement. 

There is no first world country that doesn't interfere in the free market.  This is not a single defining feature of socialism, it's more of a function of the key criteria: the ownership of the means of production (if ownership is collective then this collective should plan the production).

Repurposing or replacing the mainstream/classic definitions would of course technically allow charlatans  (including the ones that claim that "corporatism" is somehow alien to capitalism and therefore a thing in itself) to play their word games, but they still will remain just that -  sophistry peddlers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corporatism is at odds with free market capitalism. And where it asserts impingement of property rights then ceases to be capitalism to the degree of that impact. If one has no right to one’s own capitol OR property derived from such, then how is it capitalism at all? It just becomes corrupt oligarchy with a mercantilist tilt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Strannik said:

There is no first world country that doesn't interfere in the free market.  This is not a single defining feature of socialism, it's more of a function of the key criteria: the ownership of the means of production (if ownership is collective then this collective should plan the production).

Repurposing or replacing the mainstream/classic definitions would of course technically allow charlatans  (including the ones that claim that "corporatism" is somehow alien to capitalism and therefore a thing in itself) to play their word games, but they still will remain just that -  sophistry peddlers.

Corporatism is basicaly the assembly that represents interests groups to have discussions instead of the violence and genocide inherent in Communist class struggle.  

That is the reason a socialist like Mussolini rejected Communism. Corporatism is to make deals between classes and other interested parties, Communism instead wanted to commit genocide to all other classes except "workers". Corporatism is why Mussolini did not had to murder millions of Italians like Communists murdered Russians - and other Communists.

In Italy IRI took over 70% of economy after 1929  crash besides Fascist hierarchy encroaching in economy and who Mussolini put in to manage it? Alberto Beneduce a socialist that even had 2 daughters named  Idea Nuova Socialista and Vittoria Prolettaria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lucklucky said:

Corporatism is basicaly the assembly that represents interests groups to have discussions instead of the violence and genocide inherent in Communist class struggle.  

Congrats on making nit one, but two false claims in one sentence.

Corporation represents interest of "a group" or to be exact shareholders according to their share value.   Just like modern "democracy"  😂  And even then the game is rigged, but I suppose again like in an implementation of a democracy.

Whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Corporation represents interest of "a group" or to be exact shareholders according to their share value.  

You have no clue it seems, corporations means trades associations, industrialist associations (naval industry for exemple) separated or not closely by subject, unions, even can have ethnical and regional groups.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Strannik said:

The amount of pseudo intellectual garbage generated from the idiotic assumption that government intervention into economy == socialism and the even more idiotic conclusions from this  assumption is truly amazing.

Rare +1 from me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Boiler plate and much simplified in Wikipedia:

Quote

A fascist corporation can be defined as a governmental entity that facilitates the convergence of federations consisting of workers' and employers' syndicates affiliated with the same profession and sector, with the aim of overseeing production in a comprehensive manner.

 

Edited by lucklucky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2023 at 5:12 AM, Strannik said:

Congrats on making nit one, but two false claims in one sentence.

Corporation represents interest of "a group" or to be exact shareholders according to their share value.   

Corporation and corporatism isn’t the same thing. 

On 10/27/2023 at 5:12 AM, Strannik said:

Just like modern "democracy"  😂  And even then the game is rigged, but I suppose again like in an implementation of a democracy.

Since you want to define it for yourself. Heres a more rational definition. 
 

corporatism (or: corporativism)
The theory and practice of the *corpo- rate state as developed in *fascist Italy (and also, in more tempered form, in the Spain of General Franco). Inspired by aspects of Roman Catholic social doctrine, this attempted to justify the organization of the economic system into ‘corporations’ subordinate to the state, and also argued that such an economic system would render politi- cal *representation superfluous. The economy was divided into associations (called ‘syndicates’) of workers, employers and the professions; only one syndicate was allowed in each branch of industry, and all officials were either fascist politicians or else loyal to the fascist cause. According to law the syndicates were autonomous, but in fact they were run by the state. The ‘corporations’ united the syndicates in a given industry, but made no pretence at autonomy from the state. The theory held that, because the people are not politically articulate, their interests could be consulted only through institutions related directly to their occupations. A small ruling *élite of politically competent leaders would, if placed in charge of those institutions, both guide and be guided by the people.
The term ‘corporativism’ was also used by *Gramsci, partly in order to criticize the fascist theory of the corporate state, and partly in order to describe what he took to be a general feature of the development of capi- talist society, in which workers see their interest in terms of their place within a corporation, rather than in the universal terms required for political understanding. He defined the awakening of a class to *politics in terms of its ability to ‘go beyond corporativism’.

The tendency of modern democ- ractic governments to consult corpo- rate bodies representing defined interests within the state, such as the Trade Unions Congress in the UK, confederations of industry and other organised lobby groups has meant the emergence of a new kind of ‘bottom up’ corporatism, in distinction to the ‘top down’ approach of the fascists. Some writers distinguish the two as ‘liberal’ and ‘authoritarian’ corpo- ratism respectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2023 at 5:37 AM, Strannik said:

Corporation is a legal entity, separate from their owners.  Remember "corporations are people too".

But clowns like to play sociologists.

Let me help you out here Humpty Dumpty. 
 

corporation
1. In law: a group of individuals, or a series of holders of an *office, that is deemed to possess *corporate person- ality. Corporations must be distin- guished from unincorporated associations, in which no independent legal entity is created or deemed to exist In UK law corporations are of two kinds: aggregate, to which more than one individual may belong (e.g. a *company), and sole, in which one individual at a time holds an office that is passed to a successor (for example, the *Crown which is a distinct legal entity from the human being who wears it; or a minister).
2. More widely, any organization that acquires a corporate identity, whether or not it counts as a corpora- tion in law. For example, a trade union, which acts and suffers very much as a single entity. In this sense ‘corporation’ is used in the above definition of *corporate state, to denote any entity that has some control over its members and acts on their behalf (whether or not they also have control over it), and which is also an *autonomous or at any rate partly autonomous institution. Some think that all corporations in sense 2. ought to be corporations in sense 1., so that their actions should be wholly circum- scribed by law. But it is impossible in practice and difficult in theory to see how this might be done.

 

Businesses may be incorporated. So may be municipalities. See also private persons who form LLCs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the USSR trade unions were playing significant role as well. As long as they followed the CPSU lead.

I see pink unicorns admirers like copy pasting the wall of texts, but to what extent?   

My post re: the ownership of the means of production being the key test of socialism still stands.  Intereference in economy by governments is new normal for the last 125 yrs or so, varies widely and doesn't constitute socialism.  There is no laissez-faire capitalism anywhere.  All other non-sequitur supported by the copy pastes are moot points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Strannik said:

In the USSR trade unions were playing significant role as well. As long as they followed the CPSU lead.

I see pink unicorns admirers like copy pasting the wall of texts, but to what extent?   

My post re: the ownership of the means of production being the key test of socialism still stands.  Intereference in economy by governments is new normal for the last 125 yrs or so, varies widely and doesn't constitute socialism.  There is no laissez-faire capitalism anywhere.  All other non-sequitur supported by the copy pastes are moot points.

Definition of "ownership of the means of production" mean ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"ownership of the means of production"

So if a State that owns most o production  is controlled by a clique of  conservatives that is socialist. Even if the production result is given to said conservatives.

Instead a State that owns nothing but have power to control 80% of economy via taxes that is no socialism.

 

Fascist Italian governement owned about 70% of economy it was also a socialist government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Strannik said:

In the USSR trade unions were playing significant role as well. As long as they followed the CPSU lead.

The trade unions were still subservient to the party. 

23 hours ago, Strannik said:

I see pink unicorns admirers like copy pasting the wall of texts, but to what extent?   

Concrete definitions with nuance to cover the reasonable interpretations and still be grounded in fact and reality. 

23 hours ago, Strannik said:

My post re: the ownership of the means of production being the key test of socialism still stands. 
 

Right. Which is funny how the US left says socialism then what they implement is fascism. It matters not if you're Maxine Waters or AOC levels of sophistication.

23 hours ago, Strannik said:

Intereference in economy by governments is new normal for the last 125 yrs or so, varies widely and doesn't constitute socialism. 
 

So, you're an advocate for fascism? Legally the US government has a limit on what power the constitution grants. You could call it bronyism and some would still be illegal. 

The US constitution is not a non sequitur. Even if you are an AOC level sophisticate. 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, rmgill said:

The trade unions were still subservient to the party. 

Concrete definitions with nuance to cover the reasonable interpretations and still be grounded in fact and reality. 

Right. Which is funny how the US left says socialism then what they implement is fascism. It matters not if you're Maxine Waters or AOC levels of sophistication.

So you're and advocate for, fascism? Legally the Us government has a limit on what power the constitution grants. You could call it bronyism and some would still be illegal. 

The US constitution is not a non sequitur. Even id you are an AOC level sophisticate. 

This is gibberish.  Find yourself a worthy of it partner to discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...