Was Trotsky right?

[manolo]

Folks,

Trotsky believed that socialism will not succeed in undeveloped countries because of the problem of substitution.

He warned that the party will substitute itself for the people, then an individual will substitute for the party, and we end up with dictatorship. In a country without strong dissenting voices, an active intelligentsia, this would likely happen.

However, in a developed country, with a working democracy and well represented dissent, socialism could thrive. I think he may be right. When we look at the success of socialism across the democracies, including the USA, it is hard to fault his insight.

Anyone disagree?

Alex.

[Mr. Perfect]

Socialist countries are going bankrupt around the world. Socialism fails in every category. Do you follow the news?

Did Trotsky describe why some countries develop (c-p-t-l-sm)?

[manolo]

Socialist countries are going bankrupt around the world. Socialism fails in every category. Do you follow the news?

Did Trotsky describe why some countries develop (c-p-t-l-sm)?

Mr P,

My point is that every Western democracy is insinuated with socialism. The US is no exception with a host of socialist programmes such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.

If you can find me a US Republican who does not think that Obamacare is socialism I will gladly eat my party badge.

Alex.

PS - I haven't really got a party badge.

[Mr. Perfect]

I agree socialism has infiltrated America, no doubt, although Tinker will argue strenuosuly with that point.

I may have not taken your meaning, when you said "successful" i thought you meant something like "beneficial to humanity" or something like that. Personally I do not think run away poverty and the bankruptcy of nations to be "successful".

[Endovelico]

Although socialism historically involved a lot of state intervention, socialism is not the same thing as state meddling. To call socialist any country where the state is seen meddling in people's lives is a gross mistake. Socialism is first of all a state of mind, a desire to further solidarity and a recognition that there are essential rights that must be guaranteed to all people. Socialism strives to achieve as much liberty and equality as possible, within the framework of solidarity, without unduly affecting people's right to decide by themselves what they should do. Socialism recognizes that the community is more important than the individual, but, at the same time, that community exists for the benefit of each of its members. Socialism absolutely rejects any manifestation of social Darwinism. In all this the state is only an instrument, not an end in itself. And it can never be more than the expression of the community's will, freely expressed.

[Enki]

Mr. P.

What are the top ten countries without socialist economic policy that are not going bankrupt?

[Mr. Perfect]

I love the goal post shifting. Socialism is now a state of mind, nothing to do with government, and unless all socialist countries are going bankrupt socialism works fine. Keep 'em coming.

[Ibrahim]

Folks,

Trotsky believed that socialism will not succeed in undeveloped countries because of the problem of substitution.

He warned that the party will substitute itself for the people, then an individual will substitute for the party, and we end up with dictatorship. In a country without strong dissenting voices, an active intelligentsia, this would likely happen.

However, in a developed country, with a working democracy and well represented dissent, socialism could thrive. I think he may be right. When we look at the success of socialism across the democracies, including the USA, it is hard to fault his insight.

Anyone disagree?

Alex.

Socialism is a reaction to industrialization. It doesn't really have any application in a pre-industrialized society, it just becomes another identity in the game of identity politics. In fact identity politics is the only successful Western political import into underdeveloped countries and traditional societies.


Maoism is an adaptation of Marxist socialism for less developed peoples, but its success is also very debatable and that's another subject.

[Enki]

I love the goal post shifting. Socialism is now a state of mind, nothing to do with government, and unless all socialist countries are going bankrupt socialism works fine. Keep 'em coming.

You love goalpost shifting indeed!

[Mr. Perfect]

Socialism is a reaction to industrialization. It doesn't really have any application in a pre-industrialized society,

I wonder why so many leftists insist Jesus was a socialist, hmm any ideas?

[Mr. Perfect]

Maoism is an adaptation of Marxist socialism for less developed peoples, but its success is also very debatable and that's another subject.

It was successful at killing off tens of millions of people. It was successful at that.

[noddy]

Was Trotsky right?

nar, im pretty sure he was a lefty.

[monster_gardener]

Was Trotsky right?

nar, im pretty sure he was a lefty.

Thank You VERY Much for your post, noddy.

Good One!



Another problem he had was he didn't keep trotting

Can cost you your life to be stalling South of the Border when Big Brother has Mexican Commie Artists and other ASSassins on your tail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Alfa ... tic_career

[monster_gardener]

Maoism is an adaptation of Marxist socialism for less developed peoples, but its success is also very debatable and that's another subject.

It was successful at killing off tens of millions of people. It was successful at that.

Thank You VERY Much for your post, Mr. Perfect.

Quite Right.

[Endovelico]

Although socialism historically involved a lot of state intervention, socialism is not the same thing as state meddling. To call socialist any country where the state is seen meddling in people's lives is a gross mistake. Socialism is first of all a state of mind, a desire to further solidarity and a recognition that there are essential rights that must be guaranteed to all people. Socialism strives to achieve as much liberty and equality as possible, within the framework of solidarity, without unduly affecting people's right to decide by themselves what they should do. Socialism recognizes that the community is more important than the individual, but, at the same time, that community exists for the benefit of each of its members. Socialism absolutely rejects any manifestation of social Darwinism. In all this the state is only an instrument, not an end in itself. And it can never be more than the expression of the community's will, freely expressed.

I'm a bit disappointed that nobody - except for Mr. P's crude goalpost shifting attempt - felt this doctrinary attempt of mine was worth commenting...

[manolo]

I agree socialism has infiltrated America, no doubt, although Tinker will argue strenuosuly with that point.

I may have not taken your meaning, when you said "successful" i thought you meant something like "beneficial to humanity" or something like that. Personally I do not think run away poverty and the bankruptcy of nations to be "successful".

Mr P,

I meant successful in infiltrating Western democracies (I think I used the word 'insinuating').

Alex.

[manolo]

Although socialism historically involved a lot of state intervention, socialism is not the same thing as state meddling. To call socialist any country where the state is seen meddling in people's lives is a gross mistake. Socialism is first of all a state of mind, a desire to further solidarity and a recognition that there are essential rights that must be guaranteed to all people. Socialism strives to achieve as much liberty and equality as possible, within the framework of solidarity, without unduly affecting people's right to decide by themselves what they should do. Socialism recognizes that the community is more important than the individual, but, at the same time, that community exists for the benefit of each of its members. Socialism absolutely rejects any manifestation of social Darwinism. In all this the state is only an instrument, not an end in itself. And it can never be more than the expression of the community's will, freely expressed.

Endovelico,

Good post. While I am a moderate socialist, I have strong libertarian tendencies and believe that liberty lies at the heart of any social democracy. My only disagreement is with the 'social Darwinism'. In a social democracy the will of the many can discomfort the will of the few, as we see in those Teapot survivalists in the US. There is some social Darwinism in this exercise of power.

Alex.

[monster_gardener]

Although socialism historically involved a lot of state intervention, socialism is not the same thing as state meddling. To call socialist any country where the state is seen meddling in people's lives is a gross mistake. Socialism is first of all a state of mind, a desire to further solidarity and a recognition that there are essential rights that must be guaranteed to all people. Socialism strives to achieve as much liberty and equality as possible, within the framework of solidarity, without unduly affecting people's right to decide by themselves what they should do. Socialism recognizes that the community is more important than the individual, but, at the same time, that community exists for the benefit of each of its members. Socialism absolutely rejects any manifestation of social Darwinism. In all this the state is only an instrument, not an end in itself. And it can never be more than the expression of the community's will, freely expressed.

I'm a bit disappointed that nobody - except for Mr. P's crude goalpost shifting attempt - felt this doctrinary attempt of mine was worth commenting...

Thank You VERY Much for your post, Endo.

OK........... Since you asked for it .........

IMHO, we humans including me tend to be such Depraved, Sinful, Egotistical Chaos Monkeys in Our Own Peculiar Ways that Socialism usually needs G_d or a credible external threat to make it work.....

Remembering all the problems the Early Church in Jerusalm had when it tried Socialism as seen in the Book of Acts.... The Opossoms oops I mean Apostles were Driven to Distraction and had to appoint Deacons to try to manage it. St. Peter himself pronounced the Death Penalty on a man and his wife, Ananias & Sapphira, over fraud/lying to the Holy Spirit & concealing assets........ With perhaps Azrael executing the sentence if She didn't do it Herself........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananias_and_Sapphira

AIUI Monasteries and Convents are long lasting socialist societies but here there is selection for especially dedicated individuals who historically have submitted to strict discipline

Another example is the Hutterites....... And again you have G_d involved........ And even then it was dicey.......

Hutterites (German: Hutterer) are a communal branch of Anabaptists who, like the Amish and Mennonites, trace their roots to the Radical Reformation of the 16th century. Since the death of their namesake Jakob Hutter in 1536, the beliefs of the Hutterites, especially living in a community of goods and absolute pacifism, have resulted in hundreds of years of odyssey through many countries. Nearly extinct by the 18th and 19th centuries, the Hutterites found a new home in North America. Over 125 years their population grew from 400 to around 42,000.

For that matter, IMVHO your explication of Socialism appears to be VERY much like a religion....... *

Recalling a claim that Bolshevik Communism was an atheistic "Christian" heresy that tried to produce Heaven on Earth without G_d.......

Finally IMO Socialism can also work when there is an external threat which inspires most members to work together to survive.........

Armies are sometimes socialist institutions........

Sometimes even democratic socialists as some pirates were......... Electing their Captains with near equal division of the loot with the Captain getting only twice the normal share rather than the 50 shares the Captain of a Privateer got....

*Not necessarily a completely bad thing......... At least the Socialists tended to allow alcohol....... Especially Vodka
Better than the Islamic Control Freak Creeps............

[Parodite]

Although socialism historically involved a lot of state intervention, socialism is not the same thing as state meddling. To call socialist any country where the state is seen meddling in people's lives is a gross mistake. Socialism is first of all a state of mind, a desire to further solidarity and a recognition that there are essential rights that must be guaranteed to all people. Socialism strives to achieve as much liberty and equality as possible, within the framework of solidarity, without unduly affecting people's right to decide by themselves what they should do. Socialism recognizes that the community is more important than the individual, but, at the same time, that community exists for the benefit of each of its members. Socialism absolutely rejects any manifestation of social Darwinism. In all this the state is only an instrument, not an end in itself. And it can never be more than the expression of the community's will, freely expressed.

It is well said. To me what you say also very well fits "social democracy". Or even something like "social capitalism".

[noddy]

Although socialism historically involved a lot of state intervention, socialism is not the same thing as state meddling. To call socialist any country where the state is seen meddling in people's lives is a gross mistake. Socialism is first of all a state of mind, a desire to further solidarity and a recognition that there are essential rights that must be guaranteed to all people. Socialism strives to achieve as much liberty and equality as possible, within the framework of solidarity, without unduly affecting people's right to decide by themselves what they should do. Socialism recognizes that the community is more important than the individual, but, at the same time, that community exists for the benefit of each of its members. Socialism absolutely rejects any manifestation of social Darwinism. In all this the state is only an instrument, not an end in itself. And it can never be more than the expression of the community's will, freely expressed.

It is well said. To me what you say also very well fits "social democracy". Or even something like "social capitalism".

reads like a mission statement from a multinational corporation to me.

Socialism is first of all a state of mind

yikes you take your perception of my state of mind seriously, i start walking backwards.

Socialism strives to achieve as much liberty and equality as possible, within the framework of solidarity, without unduly affecting people's right to decide by themselves what they should do.

orly, by whos preferences and perceptions do we start drawing a line on "as possible" and "framework of solidarity" .. silly ole me thought these lines where drawn by modern democracy and this is actually what we have currently - you have completely ignored the reality of the fact we dont actually agree on these lines and they are constantly moving.

Socialism recognizes that the community is more important than the individual

yep, thats why we have prism and propoganda and authoritarian punishments for boundary pushing weirdos.

Socialism absolutely rejects any manifestation of social Darwinism

social darwinism is also the word for individual responsibility and the allowance for difference..you are allowed to fail, you are allowed to be different, the downside is you might fail.

[Mr. Perfect]

Although socialism historically involved a lot of state intervention, socialism is not the same thing as state meddling. To call socialist any country where the state is seen meddling in people's lives is a gross mistake. Socialism is first of all a state of mind, a desire to further solidarity and a recognition that there are essential rights that must be guaranteed to all people. Socialism strives to achieve as much liberty and equality as possible, within the framework of solidarity, without unduly affecting people's right to decide by themselves what they should do. Socialism recognizes that the community is more important than the individual, but, at the same time, that community exists for the benefit of each of its members. Socialism absolutely rejects any manifestation of social Darwinism. In all this the state is only an instrument, not an end in itself. And it can never be more than the expression of the community's will, freely expressed.

It is well said. To me what you say also very well fits "social democracy". Or even something like "social capitalism".

The stuff that creates bubbles and in bankrupting the world.

[noddy]

Folks,

Trotsky believed that socialism will not succeed in undeveloped countries because of the problem of substitution.

He warned that the party will substitute itself for the people, then an individual will substitute for the party, and we end up with dictatorship. In a country without strong dissenting voices, an active intelligentsia, this would likely happen.

However, in a developed country, with a working democracy and well represented dissent, socialism could thrive. I think he may be right. When we look at the success of socialism across the democracies, including the USA, it is hard to fault his insight.

Anyone disagree?

Alex.

yep - i reject the entire premise as its based on a view of nation states and the cosy post genocidal slaughter producing conformity of last century.

the current pressures of both globalisation and internal fragmentation into sub cultural identities is going to make a mockery of this viewpoint over the next few decades.

[manolo]

... the cosy post genocidal slaughter producing conformity of last century.

noddy,

So that's the reason I get free dental?

Alex.

[monster_gardener]

... the cosy post genocidal slaughter producing conformity of last century.

noddy,

So that's the reason I get free dental?

Alex.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Alex Manolo.

So that's the reason I get free dental?

Do you pay taxes to the government that ultimately pays the dentist?...............

Even if YOU don't, somebody does............

TANSTAAFL is largely true when Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkey are the actors.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL

[manolo]

So that's the reason I get free dental?

Do you pay taxes to the government that ultimately pays the dentist?...............

Even if YOU don't, somebody does............

monster,

I'm sorry to break this to you, but there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Alex.