Results 61 to 80 of 111
Thats circular reasoning, it happened, thus it HAD to happen.
Why not? Why would authoritarianism provide better? THey had the army, there was no reason to destroy rights.
THey did'nt mean to???? Except they DID, neither you nor I know what their intentions were, but we do know what they did.
The revolution degenerated? What does that mean? What happened was the soviet power was destroyed, sepcifically by the bolshevik leaders.
It was authoritarianism that destroyed proletarian democracy.
Who forced them?
THe soviets never provided themselves useful??? Says who? This is all conjecture.
I don't think they were evil, I think they did'nt trust democracy (as you don't), nor did they trust socialism, they simply did'nt believe in it.
They did it on purpose because they thought they were the enlightened leaders and they did'nt trust the masses to rule themselves.
No ... its not an isolated semi feudal country ... But how does that get rid of the analogy.Is the fucking United States an isolated, semi Feudal country, with no structural organization constantly being under siege by all imperialist powers, including a counter revolution?
More importantly your post has no fucking class character once so ever.
You could, on the other hand, say that the U.S. government, as a puppet of the bourgeoisie, was forced to instil Neoliberalism to repel the power of labor (Women's rights, black rights, etc.). But no, gacky the fucking idiot decides to throw in 9/11
You hav'nt provided ANY evidence that an authoritarian structure was necessary, and if you did actually believe that, your basically saying democracy, and thus socialism DOES'NT WORK, basically you don't blieve in democracy.
Class character? I use class semantics appropraitely, you throw it around as if class is an objective truth, class is an analytical tool.
Main difference ... THe bolsheviks had the backing of much the Russian military, they were not relying on civilian militias like the Spanish Anarchists, having an army and not having one is a big difference.
Its failure to adjust itself to the word market is what caused the eventual collapse of it in the 80s and 90s, NOT the authoritarianism and the disintigration of any form of democracy.
Your not making any connections, there is NO reason to believe that authoritarianism was in anyway the only way to go unless you have a world revolution.
Basically according to you they should have just given up with the revolution alltogether, because authoritarianism was the only answer.
There is NO reason authoritarianism was the only answer, the fact is the Lenin model failed to bring about a workers democracy.
They did'nt HAVE to do anything, Lenin though he had to because he did'nt trust democracy, he did'nt actually believe in it.
Its unsupported in the sense that we have NO idea what would have happened, or if such revolutions were even possible, or if the RUssian revolution actually destroyed chances of revolution elsewhere, we don't know what the nature of those revolutions would have been, nor can we be sure that the Bolsheviks would'nt have created an authoritarian state either way.
It is unsupported speculation.
YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT.
A: I'm not talking about the socalled utopian socialists
B: Many of the anarchists WERE economists
C: You are speaking out of ignorance.
Read all the Ricardian socialists, there are a lot of them, then you have the institutional economist tradition (such as Thorstein Veblen), then you have other classicals such as Ferdinant Lassalle, then you have the Parecon economists, then you have the market socialsits like Oskar Lange. You have Bakunin and other Anarchists.
Also with Keynsians, you have post-Keynsians that don't follow the mainstream keynsianism at all.
The destruction happened because there was a war, but the specific destruction of democracy and repression of any sort of basis of democracy were not inevitable at all.
I am not against using violence in war (no shit), but the fact remains that Lenin DID NOT BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY, when it came right down it it, as obviously you don't either.
I've liven in many big cities, shit I spent most of my life in LA. I've also lived in Mexico (not exactly the most peaceful place).
I don'nt think Somalias problems will be resolved by democracy, nor will they be resovled by authoritarianism, the problem ther is'nt that they hav'ng figured out the best political philosophy.
You mention Donkeys being raised in an Eagles nest being incapable of developing characteristics unique to Eagles rather than Donkeys- this is quite true; we agree with that, of course, as materialists.
However, this analogy is heavily flawed when applied to your argument; while it is physically impossible for a donkey to grow wings and fly off, it is possible- and not unheard of, by far- for human beings to act in an altruistic way. Communal behaviour is not supernatural to humans, as demonstrated by the existence of communists, socialists, and many tribal societies like the ones mentioned by maskerade, as well as- to a certain extent- charities. Just because something is widespread doesn't mean it's inherent- if many people began eating sheep burgers, it wouldn't mean that that was was part of "human nature", if such an entity does indeed exist.
Da Fok?
This is not true.
In the start of the revolution,the Bolshevik party organized the Red Guards,Красная Гвардия in Russian,paramilitary units composing the majority of the urban population where Bolsheviks had the strongest support,the enlistment was voluntary,and the main core of the Red Guards and later the Red Army were volunteers.(Mostly people with little experience with fighting.
The Red Guards were needed,but their core was not professional.Lenin said:
“As Marx and Engels have frequently insisted, the first commandment for those who would carry out a successful revolution is to bring about the destruction and disintegration of the old army and its replacement by a new one. A new class of society, taking over the reins of government for the first time, can never obtain power and consolidate it without the disintegration (or, as reactionaries and cowardly philistines call it, the ‘disorganization’) of the old army, without enduring of necessity a difficult and painful transition stage without any army at all, and without gradually constructing, in the course of a bitter civil war, a new military organization as the defence force of the new class.”
However,the Tzarist army did not lose its power,it still had a huge number of men able to fight.
On the eve of the October Revolution, i.e. in September 1917, a report by General Dukhonin, the Commander-in-Chief during the last days of the Kerensky régime,said the number of deserters was about 2.000.000 while the casualty list included 1,800,000 KIA (and starvation), 5,000,000 wounded and 2,000,000 captured. Dukhonin estimated the remaining effective strength at about 10,000,000.
The victory of the Bolsheviks did not come because of a bigger number of soldiers,it was not achieved by the sheer mass of soldiers,like you suggested,it was won becuase of the commisars,of the bolsheviks,of the politician commanders of the Bolsheviks who were better leader than the Tzarist generals who didnt know how to attract the population to fight for their side,and didnt have any real arguments to reenforce their believes,and backward ideas.
Not only proffesional soldiers served with the Bolsheviks,but guerilla fighters,especially in the Siberian provinces of the empire.
In the course of the war,the numbers changed,but here are some from the early parts of the war:
It shows that the numbers were not always on the side of the Bolsheviks.
And a huge number of interventionalist forces were in the conflict:
The interventionist forces in February 1919 reached a total of 300,000 fighting men. 50,000 men composed the northern army, 20.000 French and Greek troops,with 7000 Americans.77.000 men in the North.64 thousand Poles,and The Czeh Legion,some 31.000 Germans and a couple of Japaniese divisions.And lets not forget the number of the sailors in the British and French fleets.
Last edited by Omsk; 24th December 2011 at 19:40.
No, but this is something that is unique to the Bolshevik situation. Not everything that happens has to happen, but the steps the bolsheviks took 1917-1922 were of absolute necessity, just as wiping your ass is a necessity (as you did yesterday) in order for you not to get shit stains on your clothing.
It's quick, it's efficient, and it's easy. They didn't destroy rights, they merely removed supreme exectuve power from the Soviets and put limits on free speech, etc. They had to. They weren't assholes for no reason.
Gacky you're twisting my words again. If someone intentionallly decides they are staying in Florida for a week, but then is forced to stay because the airport was fucked up, they had to stay for three.
"THEY DIDN'T MEAN TO????? EXCEPT THEY DID, NIETHER YOU OR I KNOW THEIR INTENTIONS, BUT WE KNOW WHAT THEY DID".
We are arguing why they did that, not if they did it.
No, it's more than that. The Soviet Union began a path to degeneration back to Bourgeois society. I.e., a full blown restoration of capitalism. (not that Russia ever even surpassed the capitalist mode of production, even when the workers had power!)
You're being a prick, gacky. Men and women make history, but not as they please. Look into what that means.
Nice refution bro, just state the opposite of what I said. Even in the early 1930's there was a proletarian "democracy" in the work place, etc. It's ahistorical to say otherwise.
You mean what forced them, you fucking idiot, and it was the Material conditions manifested by the civil war.
You're a perfect Idealist. You say "Who forced them" "says who?" you fucking idiot, it was a fact, regardless of the consent of any individual, okay?
The bolsheviks had a reason for taking power from the Soviets. Otherwise they wouldn't have given power to the Soviets until 1918, and would have told everyone to go fuck themselves from day 1.
Democracy does not prode itself useful in fighting 17 of the world's most powerful nations. You cannot hold votes on decisions that had to be made quickly or else your enemies would succeed.
Ahistorical, simplistic, Idealist, and complete bullshit. I think every sensible person who has studied the history of the Bolshevik party would never consider to come to such a bizzare and obscure position.
Well, Gacky the fucking asshole, maybe it's because An isolated semi feudal country has to take desperate measures to defend itself from more powerful powers, unlike the most powerful country on earth, which can take it's time on making decisions and mobilizing itself?
I don't need to. Common sense.
Democracy does not contradict authoritarianism. You are coming to shit conclusions and assuming too much. I'm done talking to you, as a matter of fact, because of it.
"YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE, WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE BOLSHEVIKS HAD TO TAKE AUTHORITARIAN MEASURES TO SECURE A REVOLUTION, THAT MEANS YOU HATE DEMOCRACY, THUS MEANING YOU HATE MAJORITY RULE, AND THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN AFRICA ARE BLACK, THUS YOU ARE A RACIST WHO HATES BLACKS" is worth more than what you just said.
Because there is a class character to almost everything, including every descision the U.S. government makes.
Another user pointed out you're full of shit. And hell, the Russian military was nothing, any way, in comparision to the counter revolution. They were war torn and shit stained.
when did I disagree. This is presciently ther eason why authoritarianism was irrelevant and a response to Russia being a barrack against the world market.
I am guessing you have no experience. Think for a minute, go outside, or just sit down and think. Take a walk if you like. Eventually, when you get your head out of your ideologically soaked ass, you will see where I'm coming from.
Were there any fortune tellers in the Bolshevik party? Authoritarianism is the only answer, world revolution or none. The jacobin method is an absolute necessity.
The Leninist model was the only successful one to bring about a proletarian democracy, it failed because it didn't spread, even more pathetic, it was the Germans who didn't apply the leninist model, contributing to the reason of their revolutionary failure.
Yes, they had to, just like you have to wipe your ass or else you get shit stained.
as for the rest of your post, blah blah blah didn't believe in democracy idealist bullshit.
You think historical outcomes, as massive as what happened in Russia, are determined as to whether a man believes in something or not? Get your head out of your ass and then talk to me.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Gacky your posts are so fucking redundant I don't see why anyone would bother quoting them.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Humans are capable of evil only. If at all they're capable of doing good, it's only out of necessity. Therefore, if the necessity disappears, so will the good deed. For instance, if individuals feel that competition will destroy them, they start cooperating out of sheer necessity. If the necessity disappears - say, the other party becomes too weak - then the very same individuals who waxed lyrical on cooperation will abandon all ideas of cooperation. In short, doing evil is natural to humans; doing good is a necessity, something imposed from outside.
Removed ANY real power from the soviets, and they put limits on speach.
Also WHY DID THEY HAVE TOO???? How does taking away power from the soviets and removing free speach help a war effort?
They wern't assholes for no reasons, they had a reason, they wanted to be the undisputed leadership of the revolution.
I don't know what your trying to say here, are you talking about the NEP?? Are you talking about giving the land to the peasents and private plots? The Soviet Union after the revolution IMPLIMENTED a capitalist mode of production using the state as the capitalist, there is no reason this was necessary.
How? Did they workers in the factory directly decide what they produce, how they produce and what to do with the surplus?
Thats not an answer, you have to make the actual connection, not just A happened, which means you must to B, no you have to say WHY A necessarily entails B.
No I'm not an idealist, I don't believe consciousness is all there is, I do believe reality is made of matter.
You can't say "they were forced" without saying HOW they were forced and HOW those facts necessarily forced them to take those steps.
NO shit they had a reason for taking power from the Soviets, the question is are those reasons valid.
Also I don't believe they were evil or anything like that, I just believe that as the revolution unfolded they basically did'nt believe in democracy.
No one is arguing that armies need generals, no one was calling for the total democratization of the military.
You think every sensible person that has studied the history? Except your wrong, a lot of people agree with the idea that the bolsheviks took away power because they thought they were saving the revolution, i.e. they did'nt trust democracy to make the right decision.
ALso what the hell does "idealistic" mean?
Its amazing how personal your taking this.
Again, if how does necessitating a quick military responce necessarily mean that the political sphere has to be authoritarian??? THERE IS NO CONNECTION AT ALL, historical or otherwise.
Yes you do and no its not.
Yes it does, if democracy can be given and taken away be a higher political authority its not democracy at all.
Your age just bleeds out from your posts.
Yes, but that does'nt mean you can just apply it arbitrarily.
.... So the whole revolution was a waste of time???
I have plenty of experience in actual class struggle, plenty.
You can make every excuse you want, the Lenin model has been tried all over the place, and guess what, the outcome predicted by libertarian socialists was the correct prediction, and the Leninist prediction ... well .... look around.
According to what? If Authoritarianism is the ONLY answer, your basically saying socialism is impossible, but your claim is absolutely arbitrary and baseless.
WHere .... Where was teh rpoletarian democracy??? So the reason they failed was because the Germans did'nt ahve one ??? So in only the germans had a revolution the USSR would be a democracy .... Common now, if your asserting that make the connection.
Well, we don't only have RUssia, we have RUssia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, Eastern Europe, parts of AFrica, tons of different examples with many different material conditions but one thing in common ... the Leninist model.
Also its not idealism to require someone to believe in Democracy, if your not a democrat (small d) you cannot be a socialist.
ALso Raqif, will you just admit, for once, that you were wrong about the economists part.
This is a huge over-simplification.
Those countries did not follow the Leninist line,they each had their own version of Leninism which was an abomination and created by a revolutionary leader who created his own ideological line for his own needs.
One of the the main principle of Leninism is democratic centralism,the "Freedom in Disscussion" - the operating theory line implemented in the CCCP during the period after the revolution,when the Bolshevik party made decisions by voting.Lenin had a tough opposition in the party,even when the huge majority of the party agreed with him,there were some exceptions.
The other important principle was the DOPT: As Lenin said,:.
. . the dictatorship of the proletariat — i.e. the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of crushing the oppressors. . . . An immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the rich: . . . and suppression by force, i.e. exclusion from democracy, for the exploiters and oppressors of the people — this is the change which democracy undergoes during the ‘transition’ from capitalism to communism.
The DOPT was abandoned after his death.
Another note - the countries you are talking about followed not Leninism,but Marxism Leninism (and some revisionist forms) (although in the end they all abandoned Marxism-Leninism),as after the death of Lenin,the main political theories in the CCCP were Stalinism and Trotskyism,which both claimed to have their roots in Leninism and that their descent is Leninist. (They really were far from Leninism)
So the idea of the countries you mentioned being Leninist or built on Leninist principles simply doesent hold.
Last edited by Omsk; 26th December 2011 at 13:09.
Gacky those were NOT industrialized, they were third world countries.
You should expect a full response by tommarow night.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
I don't want a full response, I want an actual connection, i.e. why A necessitates B.
To say they ripped all power is ahistorical.
This will most likely sound more along the lines of what a "crazy stalinist would say" but there is evidence to say that there were several propaganda methods used by the counter revolution and the "Allies", using Newspaper and the likes. For example, Anti-Communist propaganda would be broadcasted in almost every third world country leaning toward the side of the Soviets. Actually, to add, I recall anticommunist propaganda being printed in Lebanon by the Americans, during the 50's and 60's, from what my elders tell me.
I don't see why they wouldn't have done the same thing in Russia, and it was difficult to keep track so banning this absolutist free speech was of course necessary, for a period of time.
No, they didn't. The positions they were in were not easy. I am sure they would have been better off taking all of the money they robbed from banks and instead investing it in arms and the likes for the country, changed their identity and moved to West palm beach.
They did their best to protect a proletarian revolution in a country with a minority of people being proletarians. Like the Jacobins before them, they had to face certain situations in which certain measures would be the only way.
Now you sound like a fucking idiot.
The war torn economy caused famine and the economy was more shit then ever before, even before the Tzar. Although the capitalist mode of production existed before the NEP, even when the soviets were in power, the NEP was necessary in stimulating production, as building socialism in one country wasn't going to work, for Lenin. And, the NEP did prove itself quite efficient, and if you like you can look at economic data stretching from 1913 to 1928, to see the difference.
Yes, welfare state-intervention capitalism is more efficient in one country than socialism.
Those are the three bourgeois economic questions, which are meaningless and only found in classical liberalist shit.
In a genuine "communist" utopia that you strive for, I can promise that each factory will have to be given orders as to what to produce and how to distribute it. Otherwise each factory would just keep the recources for themselves, especially in places where those recources are only found in certain areas. "But nozz da communizt spirit wont allowz that".
The workers did decide how to run their factories, but only an idiot would suggest that they themselves would decide who gets it and who doesn't.
Now if you had a small community with only one factory, that's a different story, however those are uncommon.
You are fooling yourself. You're a genuine Utopian, you believe material conditions are just going to morph themselves into the favor of your ideological views. It's not going to happen.
Oh, I didn't know you were that stupid and needed an actual answer.
During the civil war, gacky, the white army took form and with it the allies invading. Now these were baad, gacky, baad. They were also 10 times more powerful in numbers and in equipment. Now the civil war wasn't just the Reds vs. The Counter revolution, as you probably believe. It was between several, dozens of different factions fighting each other. Things were chaotic. The bolsheviks had to make a quick move. So, they rounded up their best military strategist for commander, along with their best mastor of conspiritorial action for intelligence, and others. Now they needed to mobilize the masses, and fast. The Soviets, with their being many, were not strong enough to make those kinds of descisions. There was no time for discussion. This is why they took those kinds of actions, and they were successful.
Now, had the revolution spread to the industrialized countries, Russia would not have had to make friends with Bourgeois-States, such as Turkey. Russia would have been able join form an "International Communist Bloc" or whatever. This way, it wouldn't have to adopt market reform to adjust itself to the world market, and have to trade with capitalist countries, or allow foreign buisness to exploit the proletariat in Russia. But that never happened.
This is your problem. You don't understand what Idealism is. Believing reality is made of matter is not qualifications for not being an Idealist. An Idealist believes thought is before matter, (we are born corrupted, etc.) and an Idealist believes that beliefs and thought are what drives history, and creates the mode of production. An Idealist believes imagination moves mountains, and can build buildings. However a materialist understands material conditions always dominate the thought process, thoughts, being reflections of those conditions themselves to begin with. A materialist realizes humans act as a consequence of those conditions, and do not cause the conditions themselves. I can go on.No I'm not an idealist, I don't believe consciousness is all there is
Study materialism and idealism, and no, that doesn't mean wikipdia is enough.
Study materialism.
Your "question" makes no sense () but I assume you mean "Necessary". Yes, they were necessary. Study history more to find out why. Or read above. Either or.
Is democracy some kind of magical entity or some kind of belief fuelled power that unlocks to the chest to all of their problems? This is idealism.
If they didn't think democracy was any good, why did they give power to the soviets in the first place?
The bolsheviks never hated the idea. They just knew it was unrealistic as a system to mobilize an entire country against 17 of th world's most poweful countries. And they were right. Think about it. Do you think the soviets could make every descision, ever descicive move? How about taking a shit, would they decide when we could do that too?
There is no such thing as "Believing in Democracy". You either find it useful or not.
And where does the military get it's weapons and food from? Factories. The military was tied down to the economy 100%.
Again, democracy is not a concious being or a thought filled power. It is a mode of organization that takes many different forms.
The bolsheviks knew they were saving the revolution, though little did they know they would have to destroy it to adjust russia to the world market, to make it a world power, to defend it against it's enemies.
The descisions they made in the civil war was not the destruction of the revolution. They failure of the proletariat to overthrow it's masters abroad was.
Study. I studied them both and it was quite useful.
Of course there is a connection. Authoritarianism is needed. Don't you know how authoritarian the anarchist Makhno was to provide quick military responses?
When you don't, you end up with Spain, militarily crushed, all because you let your ideological views get in the way with the insurrection.
The proletariat was a minority in Russia. They were the political authority.
You cannot have a genuine rule by the masses when the country isn't industrialized and is still living in the remnants of Feudalism. This is pointed out by Marx and Engels.
Good one.
To a certain extent, in capitalist countries, yes you can.
No, mistakes were made by the proletariat in the industrialized countries. They will learn from history, though.
With your head up your ass 100% of the time.
Ah but the predictions made by marxists are 100% more accurate.
You're such an Idealist, you are blaming the downfall of whole nations on.... Leninism?
You wanna know a secret? None of those nations were industrialized by the time. They were all constantly under siege by the Americans and their friends. Plus, a lot of them served as puppets states for Russia.
I know this for a fact. Yes, I am going to blame the failure of the third world "leninist" models on Imperialism. If you knew how the U.S. runs their foreign policy, you'd know why I do such a thing.
The problem was not "Leninism"(an Idea). The problem was the material conditions those countries were in.
Socialism and Authoritarianism can exist side by side.
If it spread to Germany, it would spread to Britian. If it spread to britian, it spreads to the U.S.
Every revolution spreads. every single one. Even reactionary ones like in Iran spread like wildfire.
It is not about democracy. But the Soviet Union would have surpassed the capitalist mode of production and the proletariat would have been emancipated.
All of which were not Industrialized, just like Russia. Notice how they had to morph "Leninism" to the material conditions they were in. You end up with things like Juche in North Korea, and "capitalism with chinese values" in China. All of these countries, by the way, were just a result of the soviet experience. The Soviet Union experienced the only proletarian revolution in history. What happened afterwords does not destroy this fact.
That's your opinion. I'm going to go ahead and side with Bordiga, Democracy is not sacred.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
You still have yet to prove how the Non Marxist Socialist economists are not economists on the basis of Moralism or Ideological opportunism.
Marxism is not rooted in ethics or morals. Marxism is 100% amoral, just scientific, no bullshit, no emotions, no romantics. This is why Marxism gets in academic circles while everyone pisses on Bakunin and Kropotkin.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Marxism is RIFE with moralism (i.e. ethical judgements), Marx claims some outcomes are more desireable, and some are less desirable ... That is Moralism.
To do economics at all you need some sort of metaethics to know what the goal of an economy should be.
To prove that all non-marxian economic criticism of capitalism is ideological would require
A: You to have an understanding of said economic criticisms (which you don't)
B: you to make a claim of said economic criticisms (which you have, but not specifically)
C: You to back up such claims with actual examples (which you hav'nt, and cannot because its obvious you can't).
Just as much people piss on Marxism as they do on Bakunin and Kropotkin, and your totally ignoring the Ricardian criticism, the institutionalist criticisms, the post-keynsian (which is totally different from the traditional keynsian we see generally), the neo-classical and classical criticisms, and so on.
What your doing is just making a claim about something of which you have no concept of and asking someone that does to prove otherwise, which is rediculous.
More desirable in the sense that it would create a more efficient economic situation. That has nothing to do with ethics. Someone could want a more desirible situation for selfish reasons, for asserting one's own class interest. So you're wrong.
You don't "Do" economics. You understand it. There is no such of a thing as "Socialist economics" as there is nothing socialist to analyse about any economy.
The goal of an economy is obvious.
I have yet to find a non marxist socialist criticism that is scientific. Please link me one if you can.
That's not true at all. Marx is at least respected and taken seriously by academics who don't like him. Everyone just pisses on Bakunin and Kropotkin.
these are not Socialist, though. I said Non Marxist Socialist criticisms of capitalism.
No one needs your consent to prove that I'm right. I give fuck all if you believe me, I know it for a fact.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Human nature is the same as any other ape's nature. Please, don't fuse human sciences with biology. When it happens, shit happens.
Another view of Stalin, by Ludo Martens (RIP)
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Ludo%20Martens/
Trotskyism, Counter-Revolution In Disguise, by Moissaye J. Olgin
http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgi...yism/index.htm
The Red Comrades Documentation Project
http://redcomrades.byethost5.com/red.../articles.html
Desire for efficiency is an ethical judgement, the whole class interest concept is based on certain ethical assumptions.
No the goal of economics is NOT obvious, the goal of positive economics is only analysis, the goal of normative econmoics is analysis and solutions, Karl Marx does both.
Even under pure positive economics (which almost no one does), you are still making ethical judgements about value and so on.
What non-Marxist criticisms have you read?
No he's not, infact a lot of universities don't even have a Marxian economics section and just leave him to philosophy, I mean what your saying is A: just not true, and B: not backed up at all.
, how the hell do you know whether or not these are socialist, many ricardians are socialists, the same with institutionalists, the same goes with evolutionary or developmental economics, there are even neo-classical socialist economists.
Your speaking out of ignorance here.
Ok .... BUt your not right, and if you want anyone to take you seriously you better be able to back up your claims.
A: Hagel called himiself an idealist
B
If so show me where these economists are "idealistic" and in what sense they are "idealistic," and where that "idealism" is applied unjustly.
No, it's not an ethical judgement, nor is class interest altruistic or ethical. I could say I, as a worker, want my interests put forward, as my interests are shared with the others.
Karl Marx never offered any kind of normative economics. He didn't create a blueprint for socialism. He only analyzed, and never offered his own solution, rather he supported the Communist movement, as he believed they represented the interests of the proletariat, and the proletariat to him, was the only class capable of doing away with capitalism and it's flaws.
Marx doesn't. Link me if he does.
Books by Kropotkin and Bakunin. None are scientific.
But they're more likely to teach Marx in economics than any Anarchist.
But the root base of their theory is not socialist.
You're not even paying attention to what I'm writing.
What would you like me to back it up with? Tell me, because I need specifics.
No, no no gacky, read the part about Materialism and Idealism. Also:A: Hagel called himiself an idealist
B
http://marxists.org/glossary/frame.htm
Search Idealism.
Well I wouldn't call "Socialist economists" Idealist because they're not economists at all, they are Idealists though. I linked you that to give you a brief introduction to materialism and idealism, which obviously you have no clue about. Blueprint economics is idealist in the sense that they reject drastic material conditions will change, they believe that material conditions will adjust itself to their blueprint. (Kind of how Anarchists think worker's are just going to work because of morality or "revolutionary spirit" or how Free Marketters think monopolies won't form because of "The good morals of an entrepenuer".)
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
