Why Don't U.S. Socialists Understand That Total Government Power & Total Authoritarian Control Cannot Coexist With Freedom ?

[Slartibartfast]

It's actually pretty interesting. The basic idea is that the material conditions, the conditions under which people live their live, is what shapes society. This gives rise to social conflict between classes which eventually leads to shifts in how society is structured and different material conditions. For example, Marx used this lens of analysis greats when looking at the shift from Feudalism to Mercantilism in a historical context.

The fact that available resources shape society, philosophy, and ideology is quite obvious to anyone who pays attention. However, I am not sure I see evidence for it inevitably leading to class conflict. It does seem to sometimes though. At other times, if that society can be unified under an external threat, then that is what gets the attention. In yet other times, things maintain somewhat peaceably in situations where a certain social order is just the way it is without counter examples that the citizenry can look to.

 

[Ginger Ale]

LOL, why do Trumpers always believe what people on FB say? Oh well, at least you aren't pumping dewormer for Covid.

There's never been a true socialist government in the world, never. It's an idea. Americans wanting social programs and a free market only means they might become as dangerous as England or France.........eeeewwwwww, ooooohhhh noooooo!
Not a better quality of life for it's people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[RaleBulgarian]

History is proof the authoritarianism is a drug stronger than heroin to the human nature .
Once begun it never requires less authoritarianism . the driving need is always for more & more control .
To suggest that history shows the opposite is to show that you are not historically very bright .

Trump is not a Socialist. The only “freedoms” he approved of during his term were those that benefitted him, personally. All other “freedoms” he consistently attacked and attempted to end.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It continues to sadden me that the term "liberal" has been co-opted to describe left-wingers.

They are not the same animal.

There is a huge difference.

Unfortunately, many who call themselves liberals are anything but liberal.

 

[Craig234]

"Socialists" = ideologue posting nonsense.

 

[Craig234]

It continues to sadden me that the term "liberal" has been co-opted to describe left-wingers.

They are not the same animal.

There is a huge difference.

Unfortunately, many who call themselves liberals are anything but liberal.

Right-wing delusional definitions. Now if you want to talk about how "conservatives" are right-wingers who aren't conservatives, we can talk.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

The fact that available resources shape society, philosophy, and ideology is quite obvious to anyone who pays attention.

I summarized a lot, that's not exactly what he was saying. He was saying that material conditions are the main cause of these large social shifts. For example, why did England develop a Mercantilist/proto-capitalist structure while, say, the Ottoman Empire didn't. Marx would say it's because the material conditions were right in England.

However, I am not sure I see evidence for it inevitably leading to class conflict.

Class conflict from a Marxist perspective isn't literally conflict/armed uprising (though obviously it can be). Class conflict refers to the competing interests between classes, which leads to what Marx called "contradictions." So in Feudalism, there was class conflict between the peasantry and the nobles, and the nobles and the king, for example. Not that they were always fighting, just that they had competing interests.

In yet other times, things maintain somewhat peaceably in situations where a certain social order is just the way it is without counter examples that the citizenry can look to.

Obviously, Feudalism was an incredibly stable system. It was around orders of magnitude longer than our current system has been. Marx's analysis was that the material conditions weren't right for change. He pointed to the inventions of early industry that broke up the feudalistic system.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Socialism is like football. To Americans it means one thing, and to the rest of the world it means something entirely different.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I summarized a lot, that's not exactly what he was saying. He was saying that material conditions are the main cause of these large social shifts. For example, why did England develop a Mercantilist/proto-capitalist structure while, say, the Ottoman Empire didn't. Marx would say it's because the material conditions were right in England.

I completely agree. Culture tends to result from resources and their availability.

Class conflict from a Marxist perspective isn't literally conflict/armed uprising (though obviously it can be). Class conflict refers to the competing interests between classes, which leads to what Marx called "contradictions." So in Feudalism, there was class conflict between the peasantry and the nobles, and the nobles and the king, for example. Not that they were always fighting, just that they had competing interests.

Yes and no. I can think of example where competing interests within a class may also drive these things as well.

Obviously, Feudalism was an incredibly stable system. It was around orders of magnitude longer than our current system has been. Marx's analysis was that the material conditions weren't right for change. He pointed to the inventions of early industry that broke up the feudalistic system.

I would agree with this conclusion. It wasn't until technology had reached a certain point and after a plague that society began to change.

 

[Kurmugeon]

Why don't U.S. Socialists understand that they can use the propaganda claims that all American White People are privileged, but when you try to seize millions of dollars from each white household, so you can pay Blacks $151M each, they can't collect, because while there are few wealthy whites, MOST White people, 99.99% of them, do NOT have any privilege, and are living paycheck to paycheck, if they are not already homeless?!

Why do they believe their own Racial Propaganda, instead of realizing that it is all a propaganda LIE used to attempt to manipulate public sentiment, and most whites don't have any significant amount of money that can be "Harvested"?

The answer to the question in the OP, is the same as the answer to the questions posed in this post!

-

 

[Kurmugeon]

You can't get blood from a turnip, it ain't got none!

You can't draw millions from White household bank accounts, to give to Blacks, those accounts don't have Millions of dollars.

Mayors back reparations that could cost $6.2 quadrillion, or $151M per descendant

The nation’s mayors on Monday backed a national call for reparations to 41 million black people, a program that could cost taxpayers $6.2 quadrillion. The U.S. Conference of Mayors released a letter backing a Democratic plan to form a reparations commission to come up with a payment for slavery...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

(This plan would demand that each white household pays $19 Million Dollars)

The U.S. Socialists have absurd expectations, because they usually believe their own propaganda LIES.

-

 

[Eatomus]

But they love trump, love trump's relationship with putin and overlook everything putin has done.

This era is so dumb.

Get your facts straight & educate yourself of exactly which U.S. political persuasion has the well established history of loving & beholding, with great yearning. the brutal total domination of the populace through murder /imprisonment /torture .
Just having a grand ole recreational time with murderous dictators .
Watching baseball players who could be executed tomorrow for expressing a desire to get out of country .
Socialist thugs /two peas in a pod .
Your historical ignorance is fully on display .
" Oh if only we democrats could have the Cuban / Russian / Taliban model to work with !"
You are going to learn today , CaughtinThe .

 

[Eatomus]

It's actually pretty interesting. The basic idea is that the material conditions, the conditions under which people live their live, is what shapes society. This gives rise to social conflict between classes which eventually leads to shifts in how society is structured and different material conditions. For example, Marx used this lens of analysis when looking at the shift from Feudalism to Mercantilism in a historical context.

Here it is nomad , the beloved . much longed for brutal and total control of the populace .
Smiling at slaves running around a baseball diamond under threat of death / imprisonment .
Thugs & soul mates in great admiration of each other , having a grand old time .
One wishing he could have only seen the dream of total mandated population control a reality .

 

[Eatomus]

Authoritarian control is the thrust of Trump and his loyalists. The Trumpers are destroying democracy to become your authoritarian leaders. The Dems can't even finish off infrastructure week, how on earth can they become an authoritarian regime?

Educate yourself and try to be so uninformed as to who loves and adores the enslavement of the people .

 

[Eatomus]

Socialism is like football. To Americans it means one thing, and to the rest of the world it means something entirely different.

here it is.
see how happy all the people are not to be in prison , being reeducated , tortured , executed .
see how our socialist president is loving him some total unquestioned brutal rule ?
this socialism .

 

[HikerGuy83]

Right-wing delusional definitions. Now if you want to talk about how "conservatives" are right-wingers who aren't conservatives, we can talk.

You are correct:

Right Wing <> Conservative.

At the same time:

Liberal <> Left wing

How is that delusional.

I love liberal thinkers.

The left wing is generally not something I respect.

 

[Questerr]

History is proof the authoritarianism is a drug stronger than heroin to the human nature .
Once begun it never requires less authoritarianism . the driving need is always for more & more control .
To suggest that history shows the opposite is to show that you are not historically very bright .

The Scandinavian countries are both far less authoritarian and far more socialist than the US. Your premise presents a false dichotomy.

 

[Questerr]

Marxism is technically is a real thing. It just has more to do with sociology and philosophy than strictly economics. You can use Marxian dialectics to examine all sorts of systems. It's....VERY academic...

Marxism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nomad, these people don’t even know what Marxism is. Trying to explain the difference between “Marxist” and “Marxian” to them will just make their brains BSOD.

 

[Eatomus]

LOL, why do Trumpers always believe what people on FB say? Oh well, at least you aren't pumping dewormer for Covid.

There's never been a true socialist government in the world, never. It's an idea. Americans wanting social programs and a free market only means they might become as dangerous as England or France.........eeeewwwwww, ooooohhhh noooooo!
Not a better quality of life for it's people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone to have their every need looked after by government , OR ELSE !
Really ?
Well they are all just smiling and waving , aren't they ?
Our U.S. democrats will give lap dances to their socialist hero's !

 

[Questerr]

Everyone to have their every need looked after by government , OR ELSE !
Really ?
Well they are all just smiling and waving , aren't they ?
Our U.S. democrats will give lap dances to their socialist hero's !
View attachment 67359990

You do get that actual socialists in America ****ing hate the Neo-Liberal Capitalist King of Drones, yes?

 

[ecofarm]

History is proof the authoritarianism is a drug stronger than heroin to the human nature .
Once begun it never requires less authoritarianism . the driving need is always for more & more control .
To suggest that history shows the opposite is to show that you are not historically very bright .

That's my nomination for most pathetic post of the week.

History shows a movement away from authoritarianism and towards representation. A few hundred years ago, there were no free countries. Now there are many and more each generation.

 

[Eatomus]

The Scandinavian countries are both far less authoritarian and far more socialist than the US. Your premise presents a false dichotomy.

educate yourself & get the facts please .
You would have to get nearly a third of Americans currenting sitting around on their butts doing drugs. & recreating on the government dole back to working a job to even approach the work force participation rates in most " Scandinavian " countries .
We are below 60% and getting lower everyday , the recent influx of tens of millions of the world's poorest & uneducated ought to really help that don't you think ?
Most of them are over 78% and growing.

 

[Questerr]

educate yourself & get the facts please .
You would have to get nearly a third of Americans currenting sitting around on their butts doing drugs. & recreating on the government dole back to working a job to even approach the work force participation rates in most " Scandinavian " countries .
We are below 60% and getting lower everyday , the recent influx of tens of millions of the world's poorest & uneducated ought to really help that don't you think ?
Most of them are over 78% and growing.

The number one reason cited by American workers for why they don’t participate is because our shitty working environments. Maybe if American capitalists weren’t garbage at running workplaces, setting work schedules, providing decent pay and benefits, etc, our worker participation rate would be higher.

But they only care about maximized short term profits.

 

[TearItAllDown]

For the most part, we don't? Looks like it is yet again time to introduce another person to the concept of libertarian socialism.

Hey there Nomad! I feel bad for you, as the overwhelming majority of the US population couldn't handle the concepts of Libertarian Socialism. It doesn't distill down very well to a blue vs. red debate. It involves leaving the matrix. But most of all, the ginormous governmental apparatus would never, ever let anything even close to it be considered in an academic study, much less real life.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Nomad, these people don’t even know what Marxism is. Trying to explain the difference between “Marxist” and “Marxian” to them will just make their brains BSOD.

Well, while not everyone is going to be interested in the intricate academic differences between those things, I feel like I can certainly get across the point to some people about what those things aren't.