Saturday, July 22, 2006

Wow, I feel so directed now.

I have Friedrich Engels to tell me how Utopian Socialism was developed. A Marxist priest writes the history of socialism in the 1880s and we should all just accept his words and ideology as the origin and direction of socialism.
Why should I question anything?
It's all just laid out there.

The narrative of the hijacking of socialism is told here:

When it is put that way, perhaps the terms "democratic socialist," "libertarian socialist," and "anarchist socialist" may not seem so strange. Is there something about a classless society that requires the existence of a government? The only balanced answer is "maybe." All of these socialist ideas have been controversial from the beginning, and have been critical of one another. For example, the libertarian and democratic socialists often argued that a dictatorship could not co-exist with socialism, since the bureaucracy and political groups surrounding the dictator would eventually form a new exploiting class, and re-establish capitalism with themselves as the capitalists.[2] This is probably what Lewis had in mind when he included democracy in his definition of socialism.

The socialists felt that a capitalist society is unavoidably divided between the capitalist employer class and the working class of employees, so a classless society would have a non-capitalist economic system. But this does not tell us just what the non-capitalist economic system would be. There have always been several schools of thought on this, among socialists. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the major theorists of socialism in the 1800's, were careful not to describe a "socialist economic system" (though they clearly had their own opinions of what it was likely to be). Instead, their position was that the economic system of a socialist society should be decided democratically by the workers themselves. end quote.

Now here's a bit of manipulation. This author wants us to believe that communism and Marxist socialism are different. They are not. They are two aspects of the same ideology. Communism is the brainchild of Marx & Engels, and this attempt to separate their names from it is particularly deceptive. The economic system decided democratically? Well that sure as hell didn't happen in Russia, did it? I think this is just a cosmetic measure, something to make the reality look good before lowering the boom. And the boom of course, is communism.

Quote: Another element in this mix was communism. Originally separate from socialism, the communism saw competition as the root of all evils. In the communist society, the economic rule would be "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need." But that rule could not be applied in a capitalist society, because of the defective human character capitalism produces. Communists believed that human character is formed by the environment. A competitive environment would cause people to grow up greedy and aggressive. But, in turn, a population of greedy, aggressive people would create a highly competitive society, so that their children, too, would be greedy and aggressive. Thus, the communists saw the social evils of aggression and competition as the result of a vicious circle. To break the vicious circle, the communists felt that the small, intelligent minority who understood this truth should take power as a dictatorship, an "educational dictatorship," and ruthlessly suppress competition, and direct the allocation of resources "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need." Thus, over a few generations, a new virtuous circle might be set in motion, in which sharing and action on behalf of the whole population would replace greed and aggression as the basis of society and human character.[3]

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?