Common Accusations against leftists

[benhur]

Comrades,

The common accusation against leftists (socialists/communists/anarchists) is that they explain the flaws in capitalism without giving an alternative in detail. The alternative is usually sketchy, like common ownership etc. without going into how it's done, or done by whom. For instance, let's say a socialist state is established, what happens to multinationals? their CEOs? Will the workers start managing them, or the state? What drives production, and what will replace profits, wages? etc. etc.

They say no real life example is given and explained in detail as to what might happen once socialism is established. Usually, it's just a general idea, such as workers will take control, or suchlike. No one concrete example is examined in detail, like imagining a hypothetical scenario where a corporation comes under workers control, and then where it goes from there.

Any insights on this?

[GPDP]

Really, now? In my experience, accusations against leftists rarely become that sophisticated. Right-wingers usually stop on more base arguments such as "it will never work because of human nature", and other such drivel.

You're, right, though. It's a problem.

[ontheleftneil]

The "theoretic" view that leftists are accused of will always be theoretic only because its never been put to practice, so no active proof = no way.

[redarmyfaction38]

Comrades,

The common accusation against leftists (socialists/communists/anarchists) is that they explain the flaws in capitalism without giving an alternative in detail. The alternative is usually sketchy, like common ownership etc. without going into how it's done, or done by whom. For instance, let's say a socialist state is established, what happens to multinationals? their CEOs? Will the workers start managing them, or the state? What drives production, and what will replace profits, wages? etc. etc.

They say no real life example is given and explained in detail as to what might happen once socialism is established. Usually, it's just a general idea, such as workers will take control, or suchlike. No one concrete example is examined in detail, like imagining a hypothetical scenario where a corporation comes under workers control, and then where it goes from there.

Any insights on this?
despite being a supposed racist, i have an "insight", the workers state will employ the former servants of capital (rather than the capitalists themselves) to help them run these enterprises on a socialist basis.
not actually my "insight", trotsky/lenin explained this.

[Charles Xavier]

Comrades,

The common accusation against leftists (socialists/communists/anarchists) is that they explain the flaws in capitalism without giving an alternative in detail. The alternative is usually sketchy, like common ownership etc. without going into how it's done, or done by whom. For instance, let's say a socialist state is established, what happens to multinationals? their CEOs? Will the workers start managing them, or the state? What drives production, and what will replace profits, wages? etc. etc.

They say no real life example is given and explained in detail as to what might happen once socialism is established. Usually, it's just a general idea, such as workers will take control, or suchlike. No one concrete example is examined in detail, like imagining a hypothetical scenario where a corporation comes under workers control, and then where it goes from there.

Any insights on this?

Tell them to look at the socialist countries, and not to be a dumbass and compare cuba to the us, compare Cuba to Haiti, Dominican republic, or El Salvador.

[mikelepore]

Someone who opposes the present system should strive to develop the details of the new system that they suggest replacing it with.

The critics are doing us a favor. There ARE some proposed models of socialism that would lack incentive, would be inefficient, etc. We have to identify the workable and the unworkable proposals. We have to show how certain other models of socialism would promote incentive and efficiency. To know the difference, we have to define a certain amount of detail.

Socialists say we want democratic processes. Well, a system can be democratic only if it has a democratic structure, so how exactly should it be structured?

What accounting system will ensure that the rate at which wealth is produced and the rate at which wealth is consumed are matched up accurately?

The problem goes back to Marx and Engels, who spent their whole careers criticizing the past and present, and never spent even five minutes suggesting an alternative system to replace it with.

Of course, I run into the opposite problem. I never receive the usual response from conservatives that my concept of socialism is vague. The conservative critics only have "it will never happen in our lifetimes" to throw back at me, but they are satisfied that I have been very specific.

Instead, I get bashed by other socialists for "trying to force your favorite blueprint on everybody."

[Charles Xavier]

Someone who opposes the present system should strive to develop the details of the new system that they suggest replacing it with.

The critics are doing us a favor. There ARE some proposed models of socialism that would lack incentive, would be inefficient, etc. We have to identify the workable and the unworkable proposals. We have to show how certain other models of socialism would promote incentive and efficiency. To know the difference, we have to define a certain amount of detail.

Socialists say we want democratic processes. Well, a system can be democratic only if it has a democratic structure, so how exactly should it be structured?

What accounting system will ensure that the rate at which wealth is produced and the rate at which wealth is consumed are matched up accurately?

The problem goes back to Marx and Engels, who spent their whole careers criticizing the past and present, and never spent even five minutes suggesting an alternative system to replace it with.

Of course, I run into the opposite problem. I never receive the usual response from conservatives that my concept of socialism is vague. The conservative critics only have "it will never happen in our lifetimes" to throw back at me, but they are satisfied that I have been very specific.

Instead, I get bashed by other socialists for "trying to force your favorite blueprint on everybody."
You have never read Marx or Engels to come to that conclusion, they were fiercely explaining socialism.

Lenin brought the science of socialism to a whole new level.

[mikelepore]

Such descriptions as "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" (Com. Manifesto), "labor which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases" (Marx, Capital, Chapter 48), "time for the full development of the individual" (Marx, Grundrisse), "anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organisation" (Engels, Anti-Duhring), "general co-operation of all members of society for the purpose of planned exploitation of the forces of production" (Engels, Principles of Com.), "appropriation of the means of production by society" (Engels, intro to Marx, The Class Str. in France) --- these are not descriptions that are specific enough so that someone can discern from them what kind of new system is being proposed.

[Mo212]

I don't see the left coming up with it because most people on the left are trapped in the system, and many on the left are bat shit stupid, and just as egoistical as their capitalist brethren.

Another real problem that the left brushes under the rug is "human nature", and "human stupidity", humans are still selfish animals with or without socialism, there is still biological issues the left can't effectively deal with in any attempt at socialism. You still have factions of people who subscribe to widely different personal perspectives and value systems within the left that will naturally fray any socio economic system... all economic and social transactions are political transactions, as I've come to learn over my many years.

Issues of natural prejudice and natural social strata that emerges out of like/dislike, from making friends. It's basically the school playground all over again. I really don't understand why the left doesn't take arguments like 'human nature' seriously when looking at the history of our species and the history of bullying and social ostracism in schools and the wider world at large. All people are incredibly egoistic and stupid, christianity, islam are the result of supernatural tendencies in man are proven to be a biologically emergent feature of how our mind works.

If I was on the left, I would use mass social investment --> temporarily focus the wealth of a large group of leftists into an account, let it earn interest, and use the interest to pay a small intelligent group to work these problems out.

I've often thought of the amazing stuff one could do with credit temporarily focused into an investment account by a large group of leftists.

[BobKKKindle$]

Another real problem that the left brushes under the rug is "human nature", and "human stupidity"

The idea that socialism would never be able to work because humans are "naturally" greedy is a common misconception, and is generally derived from the way that people behave when they inhabit a capitalist society - people see that those around them will often do anything just to go ahead, because in a capitalist society the only way to succeed is to not have compassion for anyone else but to just look after your own interests, even when doing so results in terrible suffering for others. From this people conclude that humans will always be greedy and so any attempt to construct an alternative system which emphasizes different values will fail. This ignores the fact that human behavior is primarily determined by our social environment and upbringing, and for a long period of time before class society came into existence humans lived in societies which exhibited a lack of class division and a relatively equal distribution of resources, which Engels described as "primitive communism" due to the similarities with a hypothetical communist society.

[BraneMatter]

The idea that socialism would never be able to work because humans are "naturally" greedy is a common misconception, and is generally derived from the way that people behave when they inhabit a capitalist society - people see that those around them will often do anything just to go ahead, because in a capitalist society the only way to succeed is to not have compassion for anyone else but to just look after your own interests, even when doing so results in terrible suffering for others. From this people conclude that humans will always be greedy and so any attempt to construct an alternative system which emphasizes different values will fail. This ignores the fact that human behavior is primarily determined by our social environment and upbringing, and for a long period of time before class society came into existence humans lived in societies which exhibited a lack of class division and a relatively equal distribution of resources, which Engels described as "primitive communism" due to the similarities with a hypothetical communist society.

It is interesting that you often hear the "it's human nature to be greedy and selfish" argument from the Christian fundamentalist types, the believers in "Original Sin" who are ardent supporters of capitalism and "individual responsibility." Somehow, the Parable of the Good Samaritan is overlooked altogether or forgotten, but what if everyone, all society, took on that same responsibility, instead of depending on just one good man's charity? Then you have a whole society of "Good Samaritans" who are their brother's keeper!

Somehow, I guess they missed that part of the bible about being your brother's keeper, and where many will say to Jesus, on judgement day, 'Lord, when did we see you thirsty, or naked, or hungry, or sick, or in prison?' And Jesus will answer, 'Whenever you turned away from the least of these, you did it to ME!'

I guess their longed for theocracy will have to be a socialist state, then, if it is to conform to god's laws and Jesus' commandments to his disciples... :D

If being your brother's keeper is so all fired impossible and against human nature, then I guess Jesus was just another dreamer... like John Lennon in "Imagine." How then, could Jesus judge anyone guilty of something they cannot control by nature? :laugh:

[cyu]

For instance, let's say a socialist state is established, what happens to multinationals? their CEOs?


Whatever parts of the multinational is in your nation are taken over by the corporation's employees: office buildings, equipment, etc. If the CEO doesn't live in your country, then obviously the employees will ignore him. If the CEO does live in your country, then it's up to the employees whether they want to keep listening to him or not.

If they don't like him, then they vote on a new representative to carry out their policy. (If they don't like representative democracy, then they vote on policies directly.) What happens to the CEO when he loses control? It's up to him. If he's in it only to get rich, then he'll probably leave the company. If he's in it because he wants to see the company succeed, then he'll probably stay on as an employee and offer his own opinions as to the best direction of the company - though he won't have any more power than any other employee.



Will the workers start managing them, or the state?


Personally, I would rather have the employees manage them, but I can see how other leftists may prefer elected government officials manage them.



What drives production, and what will replace profits, wages?


After a leftist "revolution" I wouldn't imagine a one-party state. I would prefer to see many leftist parties, each with their own ideas.

More market oriented leftists may not change much at all. Prices and supply would still be determined by market forces, but wages would be determined by democratic vote by the employees of each company.

Less market oriented parties may push for more government involvement, such as collecting taxes and then using those taxes to fund various projects that the voters want.

[Mo212]

The idea that socialism would never be able to work because humans are "naturally" greedy is a common misconception, and is generally derived from the way that people behave when they inhabit a capitalist society - people see that those around them will often do anything just to go ahead, because in a capitalist society the only way to succeed is to not have compassion for anyone else but to just look after your own interests, even when doing so results in terrible suffering for others. From this people conclude that humans will always be greedy and so any attempt to construct an alternative system which emphasizes different values will fail. This ignores the fact that human behavior is primarily determined by our social environment and upbringing, and for a long period of time before class society came into existence humans lived in societies which exhibited a lack of class division and a relatively equal distribution of resources, which Engels described as "primitive communism" due to the similarities with a hypothetical communist society.

No it's not a common misconception, it's a fact of life. We just got rid of slavery not a mere 150 or so years ago, many vaunted "civilizations" slavery was the norm. Sometimes I wonder if the left pays any attention to history at all, the prejudice against blacks, martin luther king... etc. These people had to suffer against enormous amounts of prejudice of people who were invested in the previous system.

Perhaps you were not paying attention to the massive bailout of the financial system... that was unchecked greed on a massive scale. Saying humans don't have the capacity for greed and it's simply all a result of social environment IGNORES the fact we have the ability to deny those impulses, even despite living in the system. To naively think it's all brainwashing, the media and the school system denies the war, banditry and barbary that has occured throughout history in all places and all times.

I'm not saying socialism can never work, I'm saying that current generations of people, are too primitive for a socialist system. It would require people of high intelligence and good character, which is extremely lacking in most people. Most people are too easily manipulated and care more about maintaining their life then changing the world, the only time when people change is when the conditions of their life get bad enough.

If the left is to do anything, it should keep causing crisis's in the financial system, or funding groups of people to tackle the issues. People rightly point to the USSR and other failed socialist states as evidence that human beings have a severe problem with being decent to one another.

I fail to see how their objections have no validity considering the evidence.

[ZeroNowhere]

I once had a 'liberal' tell me that socialism is impossible because, "People will not work for the benefit of others, and a system based on that would always fall like Soviet Russia, as people would have to be forced to do it." :laugh:

[politics student]

I once had a 'liberal' tell me that socialism is impossible because, "People will not work for the benefit of others, and a system based on that would always fall like Soviet Russia, as people would have to be forced to do it." :laugh:

I often enjoy explaining how a single party system is more efficient and democratic than multi party systems.

[Black Sheep]

current generations of people, are too primitive for a socialist system. It would require people of high intelligence and good character, which is extremely lacking in most people. Most people are too easily manipulated and care more about maintaining their life then changing the world, the only time when people change is when the conditions of their life get bad enough.
Are you talking about their upbringing, or they are immature, in , like , a genetic way,and we will have to wait for evolution to do its trick?:blink:
Since you obviously mean the first,then it is all about the subjective factor for the revolution.And one's ideas implanted on him/her from his/her childhood doesn't mean that they cannot be erased or altered.

However your great post raises an issue on 'when will the revolution be possible',and on the socialism in one country thing.

[Mindtoaster]

I often enjoy explaining how a single party system is more efficient and democratic than multi party systems.

How is it more democratic?

[ZeroNowhere]

How is it more democratic?
Y'know, if you had a beak, would you rather have two beaks spouting pro-beak propaganda, or one beak spouting untruthful anti-beak propaganda? Exactly, the latter. Thus, it is more democratic. :)

[wasteman]

agreed

[mikelepore]

I look at the human nature debate differently from most other socialists. If it's true that "human nature is greedy", that's additional evidence for why adopting socialism is necessary. It would mean that opportunities for some to exploit others needs to be restricted more deliberately, that you don't want knowingly to have "the fox guarding the henhouse", etc. Socialism would place cooperative behavior into the formal procedures and modes of organization, so that it wouldn't be necessary to hope that the cooperative behavior will be in anyone's "nature."

[ZeroNowhere]

I look at the human nature debate differently from most other socialists. If it's true that "human nature is greedy", that's additional evidence for why adopting socialism is necessary. It would mean that opportunities for some to exploit others needs to be restricted more deliberately, that you don't want knowingly to have "the fox guarding the henhouse", etc. Socialism would place cooperative behavior into the formal procedures and modes of organization, so that it wouldn't be necessary to hope that the cooperative behavior will be in anyone's "nature."
If it's true that human nature is greedy, surely a system in which somebody gets the fruit of their labour, rather than working for somebody else's profits, is more natural?