I think what you wrote is fine (and they could be thought of on the same spectrum); it's just that neither is actually Marxist. There are lots of types of socialism--Marx's theories are just the most famous.
Why we shouldn't refer to Harris and Walz as communists
- Thread starter BradStevens
- Start date
From Britannica (every Marxist I've ever had as a prof was an orthodox one and would have bristled at calling a revisionist a Marxist):
Revisionism
After Engels’s death in 1895, Marx’s followers split into two main camps: “revisionist” Marxists, who favoured a gradual and peaceful transition to socialism, and revolutionary Marxists, among them the leaders of the communist Russian Revolution of 1917. The foremost revisionist was Eduard Bernstein, a leader of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, who fled his homeland in 1881 to avoid arrest and imprisonment under the antisocialist laws of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Bernstein spent most of his exile in Britain, where he befriended Engels and later served as executor of his will. Bernstein’s experiences there (including his association with the gradualist Fabian Society) led him to conclude that a peaceful parliamentary transition to socialism was possible in that country—a conclusion he defended and extended beyond Britain in his Evolutionary Socialism (1899).Bernstein revised Marxian theory in four interrelated respects. First, he added an ethical dimension that had been largely lacking in Marx’s thought; specifically, he held, following the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, that human beings should be treated as ends in themselves and never as means or instruments, whether by capitalists (who used workers as human machines) or by communists (who were prepared to use them as cannon fodder in the future revolution). Second, he argued that the emergence of trade unions and working-class political parties in late 19th-century Europe presented opportunities that required revisions in Marx’s theory and therefore in Marxian political practice. Third, Bernstein noted that rising wages and better working conditions meant that—contrary to Marx’s prediction of the immiseration of the proletariat—the lives of workers in advanced capitalist countries were actually improving. This trend he traced not to the kindness of capitalists but to the growing power of unions and working-class political parties. Fourth, however, he also warned of the danger of a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, which was likely to become a dictatorship of “club orators and writers.” On the basis of these four revisions, then, Bernstein advocated gradual, piecemeal, and peaceful reform—“evolutionary” socialism—rather than violent proletarian revolution.
Orthodox Marxists branded Bernstein a bourgeois and a counterrevolutionary traitor to the cause. Chief among his communist critics was Lenin, who had devoted his life to the revolutionary transformation of Russia.
The problem is that it's never enough -- especially considering that (a) the problems typically persist, and (b) the top motivation of all politicians isn't so much solving them as it is getting and staying in power. As such, it seems likely that accomplishing B, in light of A, the pols are going to tell voters "Keep electing us, we'll keep doing more and finally slay these dragons"....even if it's probably the case that they were actually feeding the dragons. Relying on them, even.
Would you agree that a couple of recent real world examples who represent this distinction would be Chavez/Maduro in Venezuela (actual socialists) and the Peronist/Kirchnerists in Argentina (social democrats)? Granted, the latter didn't go in and expropriate farms, oil/gas assets, etc. as the former did. They still generally respected private property rights far more than Chavez and Maduro did. And I'm sure that the distinctions between them didn't end there.
But both countries still ended up in deep shit, nevertheless. It's probably true that Chavez/Maduro melted down Venezuela faster than the Kirchnerists did Argentina. But, at end of the day, deep shit is still deep shit.
Last edited:
Another way of saying the first to believe society should be organized by bureaucrats and "experts".
It is your opinion. We can just disagree. trump is a fascist, a wannabe Hitler. He wants to be a king or dictator. He quotes Hitler in his speech.
History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States
I'm using this wiki even though it's a ******y source because my wife won't stop bitching about me getting off my phone and starting dinner.
Get off your phone and get cookin on dinner or you’ll one day experience a form of economic socialism - trust me
The truth is Karl Marx, prominent socialists, and John Keynes are all f#cking idiots who got off on controlling humans. They’re all f#cking *****. The future is sound money and decentralization. Bitcoin is the technology that finally allows it to happen. Hopefully, they allow me to write the foreword in the history book😁
Last edited:
OT: @BradStevens I went out to dinner and had several drinks. Solid dinner with some good friends. They are all very successful and not one of them own Bitcoin. I told them they’re idiots of course. The only one who is bullish is my buddies wife who is a former FBI. My buddy disclosed he’s having another baby. 40s and about to have his third. People hate to pull out. Babies are cute. I’d should have started earlier and popped out 6 or 7 if I could redo it.
Anyhoo, the biggest problem with socialism/communism and governments in general is that 95% of people are dishonest. At this point I don’t even think they mean to be dishonest, they just are that way. It’s fascinating watching Trumpers and Liberals justify their terrible positions. You’re an honest person and assume that humanity one day will catch up, but that will never happen.
Anyhoo, the biggest problem with socialism/communism and governments in general is that 95% of people are dishonest. At this point I don’t even think they mean to be dishonest, they just are that way. It’s fascinating watching Trumpers and Liberals justify their terrible positions. You’re an honest person and assume that humanity one day will catch up, but that will never happen.
Last edited:
The best lesson this board teaches is that many on the left and right genuinely dislike each other. That’s why politics are best left off the table with friends
You need new friends.
People are dishonest. But I think the bigger knock is that people are selfish by nature and the free-rider problems that develop. For it to work, Marx and a lot of socialists missed a key aspect: you have to develop an amazingly strong culture that instills a work ethic and pride (ironically, the one that got labeled the Protestant work ethic but much stronger) throughout the society so that people don't shirk. I'm not sure that's doable in an advanced capitalist society that is producing a lot of people with nothing to do along with all this entertainment and these tech distractions.
Professing equality of outcomes in economic terms is simply communism in another name. Forcing some to pay more and some to pay less to arrive at the same net means is part of the ideology.
Harris has used this example many times (see the clips). If outcomes are predetermined, there is no incentive to work hard, meaning private enterprise would cease to exist in the long run.
Not sure I would refer to it as living high on the hog on tax payer money (he's earned his pensions through sacrifice and CBA's), but I agree with your points. Plus his wife has been a teacher for almost 30 years. He doesn't strike me as a guy who is into the finer things in life- and his service record throughout his working life seems to support that.
Public sector CBA’s should be illegal. Especially when those unions turn around and make massive donations to the same politicians who will be bargaining with them on their next CBA. It is the most corrupt bargain in American politics.
As somebody who lives near New Harmony - Robert Owen’s first failed shot at a utopian society - I would say it’s not doable in any society of human beings.
But we’ll likely keep on trying it over and over again.
Utopia= Lots of boobs, cash galore, no wives and 1 guy for every 10 women.
Are the women muzzled? If not they ain’t utopia on any planet
There will never be equality of outcome because there will always be inequality of output.
Socialist/Communist types are using these ideologies. Anything that destabilizes society is useful for their plans.
Thx for the thoughts. Harris has said she would have, "a mandatory buy back gun program" if elected. So she is coming for people's guns. That seems fascist to me. The 2nd Amendment is for us to protect ourselves from all enemies foreign and domestic. I heard a discussion on how when the 2nd Amendment first came to be some of the farmers etc were asking if this also pertained to canons. They were told that they could have canons because of the 2nd Amendment.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
No one is coming for your guns. Maybe use common sense before believing everything you hear from your propaganda.
Even if Harris wants to spend 4 years trying to ensure every single American has the same amount of wealth or income (and she doesn't), that still wouldn't be communism. It'd be something else, with one of the goals of communism (not exactly, though), and it would be bad.
But, of course, she won't spend her time doing that. More likely, in her ideal vision of her presidency, she'd move us on a spectrum, like @crazed_hoosier2 (who in the hell is "crazed_hoosier?") mentioned in another thread, towards less income inequality and less educational outcome inequality based on race. How far she'll push that, though, will be highly circumscribed by public opinion and her desire to be reelected--she's a career opportunist with a particular idealogical bent.
Of course, I'm saying all this and have zero interviews, deep policy proscriptions, or debates to base it off of since her 2020 run.
crazed_hoosier was my first username, many years ago. I've long since forgotten why I created the 2nd one -- but it probably had to do with some kind of blocking or suspension.
Also, I go out to Southern California fairly often -- probably 4 or 5 times in the past couple years. And whenever I'm there, I have to marvel at what "less income inequality" looks like after years of high taxes and social spending to achieve this.
I'm kidding, of course. It's among the major epicenters of income inequality. We always seem to get so confused between intentions and results, don't we?
Sounds much like the failed experiment, New Harmony Indiana.
I'd love to see some more detailed information about how programs initiated by the state of California over the past couple of years that you've been visiting have changed, what the estimated impact has been of those programs over the past couple of years that you've been visiting, and what estimates suggest the situation would be absent such programs in the time since they were first initiated.
Orange Jesus and Orange Turd and all that, along with your Lord, your Savior, etc. are ones I wish people would quit using. I don't find them offensive, just juvenile and lame. Offensive can even be a good thing, but juvenile and lame never are.
When you have all the opportunities and can determine the outcomes, it sounds like communism.
I would rather have a .308 Lapua to the base of my skull than have 2 women, let alone ten. The GD Vietcong didn't know how to torcher like one woman. Absolute EVIL on earth, is what Women are. If I was gay, at least I would have had a buddy, but noooo I can't even stomach that either. The biggest trick God pulled, was his total design flaws of that model called woman. Sombitch should have been shitcanned at the apple event. Zero Question ! EVIL and worthless.
That you allow those insults but won’t allow heels up Harris shows your bias.
Just because your propaganda denies or downplays it doesn't mean she didn't say it. She was all for a mandatory buyback in the primaries leading up to 2020.
If they could come for them, they would. In an interview after the passage of the ban I. '94, Dianne Feinstein said if it was up to her we'd be turning them all in.
My parents were convinced FDR was taking us down the road to socialism with programs such as Social Security.
Avowed socialist Michael Harrington called programs such as Social Security as being capitalist welfare programs designed to take the rough edges off of capitalism and thus preventing socialism from taking root.
Interesting how different people see communism, socialism, and capitalism differently depending on how they define them along with their own political ideology.
That you think those are comparable shows yours.
These guys won't be satisfied until I ban you, Hickory, and Bowl.
Similar threads
