U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-10-2013, 02:53 PM
 
18,314 posts, read 15,376,318 times
Reputation: 8040

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
What went wrong in between the theory and the practice of Marxism was the discovery that that coercion is continuously required to produce that "for the good of the collective" mentality. The theory assumed this would be self generating.

The bumper sticker summary would be..."In Government, the Honor System Doesn't Work."
Socialist ideas seem to be much older than modern states; originally I think they prevail in third world countries and they were definitely not a stranger to Russians LONG before the Soviet revolution.

mir, former Russian peasant community | Infoplease.com

These ideas ( originally) don't seem to require any kind of coercion, but when applied in the context of modern states, then it becomes a different story. So the only conclusion I can make is it's the the right concept but applied at wrong time.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2013, 03:33 PM
 
995 posts, read 876,595 times
Reputation: 1383
Don't forget that Communism and Socialism are still different things. It can be argued that Scandinavia is heavily Socialist at the present time, but certainly not Communist. Confusing the two, and ignoring the dictatorship/fascistic part, has led to a lot of trouble and misunderstanding.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2013, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Columbia, California
6,663 posts, read 27,561,201 times
Reputation: 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
Ok, so we all know the tragedies of the US's overreaction to the communist/USSR threat during the cold war: Vietnam, Shah in Iran, Cuba, push for interstate system/suburban sprawl... all in the name of defense. But did the US have to do this? ,,,
It was all about the defense budget. When people were afraid of the red menace they were happy to pay it out.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2013, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,025 posts, read 20,216,444 times
Reputation: 20662
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Socialist ideas seem to be much older than modern states; originally I think they prevail in third world countries and they were definitely not a stranger to Russians LONG before the Soviet revolution.

mir, former Russian peasant community | Infoplease.com

These ideas ( originally) don't seem to require any kind of coercion, but when applied in the context of modern states, then it becomes a different story. So the only conclusion I can make is it's the the right concept but applied at wrong time.
From the linked article which you provided as your evidence of well functioning socialism:
Quote:
With the abolition of serfdom in 1861 (see Emancipation, Edict of) land was allotted, not to individual peasants, but to the mir. The amount of land allotted, however, was insufficient to support the number of people on the land. Also, retention of the mir perpetuated archaic agricultural methods.
Guess this was another one of those right ideas at the wrong time?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2013, 08:22 PM
 
18,314 posts, read 15,376,318 times
Reputation: 8040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
From the linked article which you provided as your evidence of well functioning socialism:

Quote:
With the abolition of serfdom in 1861 (see Emancipation, Edict of) land was allotted, not to individual peasants, but to the mir. The amount of land allotted, however, was insufficient to support the number of people on the land. Also, retention of the mir perpetuated archaic agricultural methods.
Guess this was another one of those right ideas at the wrong time?
Err.. no, this is the reason that the allotted land ( after the mentioned above reforms) was insufficient;

"Impressive though these freedoms first looked, it soon became apparent that they had come at a heavy price for the peasants. It was not they, but the landlords, who were the beneficiaries. This should not surprise us: after, it had been the dvoriane who had drafted the emancipation proposals. The compensation that the landowners received was far in advance of the market value of their property. They were also entitled to decide which part of their holdings they would give up. Unsurprisingly, they kept the best land for themselves. The serfs got the leftovers. The data shows that the landlords retained two-thirds of the land while the peasants received only one-third. So limited was the supply of affordable quality land to the peasants that they were reduced to buying narrow strips that proved difficult to maintain and which yielded little food or profit."

The Emancipation of the Russian Serfs, 1861: A Charter of Freedom or an Act of Betrayal? | History Today

I mean there was a reason why the slogan of the Socialist revolution in Russia "Bread for workers, land for peasants" was so popular.

As for the retention of "archaic agricultural methods" - the way I see it, it looks like all the nations in the wolrd that practiced the "socialist approach" - be that Africans, native Americans, Jews, PART of Russians and what's not, became suppressed ( or scattered) or became colonized by nations that professed different philosophy - the philosophy of individualism and commercialism. So we can't tell how those original socialist ideas were supposed to play out in the long run, really.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2013, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,025 posts, read 20,216,444 times
Reputation: 20662
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Err.. no, this is the reason that the allotted land ( after the mentioned above reforms) was insufficient;
Now you are arguing against the quote you previously were using as support for your argument.

If you wish to support the point that socialism worked well in other settings before the first Communist government, you should provide examples of it working. What you have presented so far is a saga of dysfunction...for assorted reasons...but dysfunction, not success.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2013, 09:05 PM
 
18,314 posts, read 15,376,318 times
Reputation: 8040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Now you are arguing against the quote you previously were using as support for your argument.
No, I am not arguing against the quote, I am simply adding to it; the first article was very concise.

Quote:
If you wish to support the point that socialism worked well in other settings before the first Communist government, you should provide examples of it working.
I am not sure what "worked well" exactly means. Take for example Native Americans - did their society "work well" or not?

Quote:
What you have presented so far is a saga of dysfunction...for assorted reasons...but dysfunction, not success.
Here I have to ask what "success" is?
I mean how do we measure what complete success is? Not partial, not temporal, but what the complete success is?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2013, 10:27 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,661 posts, read 77,698,159 times
Reputation: 36291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach View Post
The individual is sacred- if the rights of the single person are trampled on the whole "collective" degrades and rots. There is no such thing as the common good...there is just the common good of the individual. We are not a swarm of insects.
Please stop with the black and white absolutism. We are also not bears or porcupines or owls that are capable of flourishing on our own, fending for ourselves as single individuals without the aid of a community effort. We are somewhere between that and social insects. Different from insects largely with respect to our ability for each individual to learn to perform several functions, as needed, within a community effort. Very, very few humans have survived even one year without being pre-equipped with the support gear and/or ongoing supply from cooperative community industry somewhere.

But thanks for your input, be sure to tell the "trampled" part to the Florida Elections Board, you might just save the republic from degradation and rot.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2013, 11:27 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,025 posts, read 20,216,444 times
Reputation: 20662
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post

I am not sure what "worked well" exactly means. Take for example Native Americans - did their society "work well" or not?

Here I have to ask what "success" is?
I mean how do we measure what complete success is? Not partial, not temporal, but what the complete success is?
Your original statement:
Quote:
the only conclusion I can make is it's the the right concept but applied at wrong time.

When was that right time?

Marxism, the foundation of the communist governments which came into being, was a doctrine designed for reordering the social and economic structure of industrialized societies, so Native Americans or 1960's commune hippies aren't going to be examples of it working well or poorly.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 03:52 AM
 
1,203 posts, read 1,108,011 times
Reputation: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
Ok, so we all know the tragedies of the US's overreaction to the communist/USSR threat during the cold war: Vietnam, Shah in Iran, Cuba, push for interstate system/suburban sprawl... all in the name of defense. But did the US have to do this? Did it have to be so aggressive to preserve the free world we have today? How much of a margin of error did the US have in the Cold War?
The mere fact that this ridiculous question is even being asked more than likely implies you weren't alive during that era.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top