dessalines comments on Lazy moochers

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml [S] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Exactly. Georgism could be studied as an interesting historical curiosity, but it never took off, and was a historical failure, whereas Marxism especially in the USSR and China abolished land-owning rent-seeking, and the massive economic drain that caused.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Narauko@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I know I'm going to get downvoted for this, but since the USSR was a historical failure and Marxists claim China isn't actually Communist but Capitalist, can't we say the same for Marxism? An interesting historical curiosity, but it was never actually implemented and thus can't be said to have ever taken off.

Both Georgists and Marxists get to complain about how things would be so much better if someone would actually just do it the right way for once. I say this as a left leaning Georgist Libertarian, to my heart in the right place Marxist cousins.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Narauko@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago

The vast and rapid modernization and industrialization of Russia at the start was a success, but my opinion is that Marxist-Leninism stopped in the USSR when Stalin seized the country and turned it into a crony dictatorship. I don't believe that lasted long enough to be truly called a success, as it immediately fell to the authoritarianism it overthrew from the monarchy.

If you don't think that Stalinism was the death of Marxist-Leninism in the USSR then the bread lines, famines, forced labor and relocation, imperial expansionism, etc. as broadly reported by those that lived there and lived through it are a product of socialism. I also believe that would count as failures of socialism and not proof of success.

I agree with you that the PRC is still nominally socialist, but believe they also went Stalinist instead of Marxist-Leninist. I would call them Stalinist Communist rather than socialist. I also do not think the juice was worth the squeeze with the number of dead in the revolution and aftermath, but there is no telling what an alternative would have looked like so that is just, like, my opinion man. I personally don't consider China as a socialist success story, but instead another warning example for how easily Communism can be corrupted/captured from within.

I totally give you that Marxist-Leninism was the defining ideology of the 20th century, but I'd call it the fuse that lead to "Communism" the failed authoritarian ideology. Like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand is to WWI. That is a hell of a lot more than Georgism ever got, to be sure, but would still say there has never been a successful Marxist country because they never remain Marxist for long.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml [S] 6 points 1 year ago

since the USSR was a historical failure and Marxists claim China isn’t actually Communist but Capitalist

Both of those claims are false.

This short video on obstacles to the China path in Latin America gets into exactly what we're talking about, the abolition of the rent-seeking parasitic sector of the economy that the Chinese revolution abolished.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[+] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] Narauko@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago

Rome lasted between 400 and 1500

I don't think the timeframe is any good at identifying the failure. I'm not sure that Rome has seen as many historical events as the USSR: two world wars, television, nukes, space, computers to name a few. The correct answer here is that we can learn from experiments such as Rome, Paris Commune, and the USSR. We can't learn from Putin though, assuming we both don't want to build a relatively stable authoritarian proto fascist regime.

Stalin never stood in a bread line

Realistically, how do you imagine that? Because I can't: you've built an authoritarian state with one party on the top, the country is not in the best condition. right now. There is no place for martyrdom here, you are obliged to rule the state while the things are as they are. I do not agree to shit on Stalin/Castro/Mao for exercising more lavish lifestyle than the common people. I can agree to shit on them for creating the system where they are the center of the country though.

On a side note, do you know the story of Vasily Stalin? He was Stalin's son and he did not have such privileges.

There seems to be an inherent vulnerability to revolutionary political actions to co-option by charismatic strongmen.

Historical irony here is that Lenin himself discusses this in "What is to be done?", giving the example of Napoleon if I'm not mistaken. He's all for democracy though.

staying out of everyone's personal life

The first thing Bolsheviks did, was cancelling the persecution by political reasons (being gay included) and legitimizing abortions.

Overall I see that although you identify as a right winger, we don't have that different world view and how the world should be. I very much appreciate you being honest. Such threads make me love humanity more