HOME | DD
BluePhoenixx — Che Meme
Published: 2012-07-10 01:42:57 +0000 UTC; Views: 7838; Favourites: 75; Downloads: 609
Redirect to original
Description
This is the prime example of liberal ignorance.Related content
Comments: 343
Way to generalize an entire political mentality.
I'm left-leaning, and I have NEVER run into an intellectual liberal (or even half-intelligent) that has even thought to consider Che as a symbol of freedom or hope. He was a murderer and a revolutionary that wasn't even close to being a realist in regards to political ideology.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
How about you quit crying for a second and tell me why he is on shirts and bumper stickers everywhere you or I go. For the most part, in every political discussion I have had with liberals, if the subject of Che comes up, I have never heard anything but praise and excuses for his actions. You are literally the first person (assuming you are a liberal) I've come across who actually has their head on straight. I'm not trying to be belligerent here, but you need to face the music, man. And maybe I've only run into all of the morons that share your ideology.. But I can honestly say in good conscience that this isn't a misleading representation.
You're probably concocting the argument about conservatives and racists. To which I would say of course there are racists within the conservative ranks, there are just as many in the liberal ranks. There will always be idiots like that. The difference is, you don't see racist shirts, bumper stickers, flags, and etc. even half as much as you see Che Guevara paraphernalia... And I live in a pretty conservative state, not to mention my stay in parts of the south such as Texas and Louisiana for a number of years.
I'll reiterate, I'm truly glad that you have your head on straight, but in my experience, you are the minority.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not to distract from our primary conversation, but I would like to point out that I've seen plenty of "Conservative" symbols of bigotry and racism, personally.
Chiefly in the marketing (much like Che)of the Confederate flag. Hell, there's even a fellow around my locality that drives a big pickup truck with an equally big Rebel flag mounted on a pole in the bed of said pickup. And I'm soundly a Northerner, as I live in Wisconsin. For better or worse, the Stars and Bars has become a popular symbol of Conservatism.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The difference with Che and the Confederate flag is that Che is widely accepted within the ranks of liberals, certainly far more than the Confederate flag is with conservatives. A more accurate symbol that you would find within the conservative pool of influence is the Gadsden "Don't Tread On Me" flag. The Confederate flag is looked down on with just as much distain by conservatives as liberals. When you see a Confederate flag, you think conservative because that's what liberals have been telling people for years.
I would argue that the Confederate flag is a racist flag supported by bigots and racists from all political ideologies, not conservatives. I could elaborate for hours, but to be short, the racist stereotype is one perpetuated by the left to slander and to smear conservatives. If you notice, most liberals prefer to call names rather than argue facts. I was born and raised in California and moved through a number of very conservative states (Missouri, Utah, and Texas) for about as long as I lived in CA, I saw far more racism within the liberal communities than I have ever seen in conservative communities.
The subject of racism is very interesting to me and I have written a number of papers on it, so when I say I can go on for hours, I mean it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I've seen enough 'Neo-Confederates' and 'Southron' nationalists argue to say that it's a symbol of regionalism. AQfter all, that flag is still prominently displayed in regions of the US after all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I would still argue that no conservative worth his or her salt would fly a confederate flag. Racists are everywhere, ask John Kerry's dad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Frankly, racism to me is an abominable stain on humanity. There is no other way to describe it.
I was, oddly, going to use the Gadsden flag originally, but as I do not know the full connotations attached with it, I selected an example I am more familiar with.
I presume you speak of the modern Left, which is largely comprised of the New Left and neo-Liberals. While I have overlapping goals with them, I do not have much respect for the actual substance of the New Left...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Frankly, racism to me is an abominable stain on humanity. There is no other way to describe it."
I can't argue with that. My main point was that racism is a human thing, not a political thing like the left (yes I'm referring to the "new left" and "neo-libs" as they are the dominant voice for the Democrats) wants us all to believe.
"I do not have much respect for the actual substance of the New Left"
I'm glad we can agree on this point.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Even though there are many points one can be critical on about my particular flavor of Old Left, I at least like to believe there is an amount of sensibility and rationality to it compared with the New Left as a whole.
Yes, racism is not entirely a political problem, but a social one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I can definitely agree with you on the responsibility front. That is certainly not a forte of the new left. Not by a long shot.
"Yes, racism is not entirely a political problem, but a social one."
I'm glad we can agree on that point. I'm tired of people wrongfully labeling conservatives as racists.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Do a search on che on this site, and see what a lot of people think of him. I believe you'll find a lot of them think he was the bees' knees. Of course I agree that doesn't say much for their intelligence, but many of them talk like they were intelligent...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
One of Che's quotes that I'll never forget is this, and he said this after the revolution in Bolivia, where he was ironically executed in later:
"We are going to do for the Black what he has done for the revolution, by which I mean: nothing."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I guess I need to learn more about him. More ammo and all that...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
...odd how he's also become a mass marketing tool for all those silly Capitalists. Seriously, companies have made a (pun intended) killing off those t-shirts.
I hate it when Capitalists steal our symbols...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Haha nice. Although I definitely disagree with your ideology and the people that communists look up to, that was pretty good.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The thing most Communists will tell you is that we respect our past comrades, but we never worship them. The whole Che fad, t-shirts and all, is largely a Capitalist creation outside of Cuba. In Cuba, he is seen as a martyr for the cause and little more.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think it's more of a money maker right now as well. However, I believe the roots are in propaganda and the reason why Che has turned into such a sensation here is because it is fueled by the ignorance of liberals who either just like the design or really have no idea what Che was really about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Whenever we speak of the Left, and thus Liberals, I always like to make a clear distinction between the Old Left and the New Left.
It is an important one. For example, most any Old Leftists will acknowledge what Che was all about, but never romanticize the man. The New Left, in it's infinite "wisdom", will gloss over the bad and definitely romanticize him. Most any of the Old Left (myself included) acknowledge that Ernesto was a mere man, not always a heroic figure, and that there were genuine flaws about him. Even during that final effort in Bolivia, his hubris likely blinded him to an untenable situation that was rapidly turning against him. Not that he could have known the CIA had been involved, but even with what he did know, he let his passion blind him.
Such is one thing to learn: Passion, while a valued asset for anyone devoted to anything, can hurt us if we ignore hard fact.
Che's courage, even when he realized too late his peril, is something to be commended. To keep fighting even when you know you will fail (and likely die) is not something that all people have in them. His determination was astounding. His bigotry, on the other hand, was disgraceful and certainly not a trait befitting of any Marxist. But, he was who he was.
I respect comrade Che, but I'm also not so stupid as to be blind to his faults. Ditto that for Stalin, and yes, even Lenin. All of these people were just that. People. Not some mythic, heroic demi-gods to be idolized. Yet, popular media and the New Left's habits of squirming at unpleasant realities has done exactly that.
I apologize if I'm ranting a bit, I just rather dislike the fact that many people refuse to see things from multiple angles. On either side of the political spectrum, there are far too often those who choose to see the world in absolutes. Many of my own comrades, past and present, do so as well. This is neither scientific or even rationale.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The thing is, I really do know where you are coming from and I do know why people respect even the most terrible among us such as hitler or even Kim Jong Il... They are despicable people and deserve whatever hell they are burning in right now. But I can understand the respect for them.
Unfortunately, as you pointed out, Che has been romanticized by liberals which, from my experience, is mostly made up of these "New Leftists" as you call them. He deserves no such romanticization and if the majority of Che flag wavers, if you will, actually know what he was all about and knew about the atrocities he committed, the romanticizing would turn into loathing. Goes to show how well propaganda works.
I understand very well that people are people and they make mistakes. I have certainly made my fair share of mistakes... not on par with Che and Stalin, of course, but you get the picture... the thing I don't understand about those who share the same ideologies as those people is, why would you look at that Marxist and/or Communist mentality and think that it is a good idea when it so often leads to massive amounts of suffering, death, and corruption? You and I were having this discussion a while back, I believe, but I accidentally deleted your response and could never remember what thread it was that we were talking on so I didn't get back to you and I have forgotten what you said.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
re. Stalin, the thing is his social and economic policies were better than well....what came before it (re: ethnic policies; Stalin came up with the 'each ethnic group gets their own republic' policy. Remember Tsarist Russia suppressed non-russian cultures and languages).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That still doesn't justify the atrocities he has committed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Give me a bit to turn my brain on that last part. Ask me again in a day, or I'll note you. Whichever comes first.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The fact of the matter is simple, really. We follow the mentality, as you say, because we look not at the "idols" so much as the ideal itself. We study what the "idols" have done, yes. We, as I've stated, learn from their examples both good and bad. BUT, we keep the ideal itself, the true meaning and concepts of Marxism itself as the most important guide. Regardless of what has been, most Communists (not all, sadly) will be willing to point out where the ideal and the reality failed to match. We are aware of the very human faults, many of us do not wish to repeat them.
In some sense, we must also take our historical path in it's own context. It is all fine and dandy to look back and say what was wrong or bad. But if we look at the conditions of the time in which these things happened, we gain an understanding of the why rather than just the end result. In many ways, we must remember that bad calls were made and wrong avenues taken due to pressures (internal and external) on these societies combined with the fact that the USSR was attempting something which there was no guide, no true reference in doing. It's mistakes were, to a great extent emulated and repeated, due to the fact that the USSR was the only example of how to construct the Socialist society.
In great study and retrospect, many of us Communists today know better, and see the "idols" of the past as mere men. Men who had flaws and made errors of (in horrific fashion) great proportions. We focus on what they did right, but we are critical of their departures from the ideal they aimed to follow. We understand why things happened and the context that allowed these things to happen, yet we strive to move beyond that and avoid the perils of our past.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Regardless of what has been, most Communists (not all, sadly) will be willing to point out where the ideal and the reality failed to match. We are aware of the very human faults, many of us do not wish to repeat them."
I believe that people who support communism and marxism don't have the same murderous intentions and thoughts that those ideologies (for better or for worse) have produced in its leaders. But that's just the thing, there seems to be a major error in the ideology if so many of its leaders turn out to be arguably some of, if not the worst people this world has ever seen. Maybe it's the type of people that it attracts? Maybe it's the only people that get to the top? I donno what the deal is. Obviously not all who agree with that philosophy are that way, as you seem to have a level head on your shoulders, but it is certainly something that I just can't wrap my head around right now.
"In great study and retrospect, many of us Communists today know better, and see the 'idols' of the past as mere men."
This seems to sum up the rest of your reply, so I will respond to this general idea. I have a great deal of respect for those who can look to the past and see what works, what hasn't, and what should be repeated. If this is the general mentality of communists, then I think we have at least this in common. Liberals tend to point that out as a negative and try to make conservatives look like a bunch of old grandpa's reminiscing about the golden years. The truth is, they could stand to take a page out of that book. After talking with a number of liberals, I have come to the conclusion that the real difference in our ideologies is that conservatives tend to favor proven and tested paths while liberals prefer theory and the popular fads of the day (Che symbol: point and case).
So, I guess my next question is, I have my perceptions of what communism and marxism is all about, but what is it to you? How do you see the world working in an ideal society?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My conception of an "ideal" society?
Well, there will be the things that Marxism does have in common with the New Left, such as equal rights and civil/social views. Legal and financial equality between men and women, equality of hetero- and homo-sexual individuals, equality of all races and ethnic groups. Etc. etc. etc.
A progressive income tax, which is something most countries happen to have. But in my scenario, many of the problems that plague the tax code (in my case, America's) would be closed. Nationalization of all private business, with possible exception to business that would employ under (let's say) five hundred persons. I'm taking that little bit of inspiration from Lenin's NEP. In said nationalized businesses and industries, operation would and decision making would be based on the cooperative model where all workers at all levels have a legitimate voice and vote.
A national healthcare and education program, paid for through a small percentage of each individual's paychecks. Kind of like how Social Security is treated, but broader in scope. The abolition of private properties, with property on a to-rent basis. To assure reason, a cap or limit would be set by law on how much rent could be for any particular property. Of course, the ridding of private property should not be confused with personal property. People could still genuinely own their own belongings such as cars, furniture, etc.
Open borders.
An official policy of separation of Church and State with an extremely secular view of organized religion. Personally, I'd wish for a world where no actual places of worship existed, and people held faith individually alone. However, I doubt that is even humanely possible, so I will settle for the example of the Paris Commune and say that while services are not held, all places of worship would be open for community purposes unrelated to worship.
In regards to agriculture, I have always been critical of collectivization. Smaller, self-managed farms (where individual farmers can have autonomy) are a safer idea and give some incentive for good production.
In the realm of financial equality (and this is the one where people always get uptight), a standard living wage would be paid. To create a drive for actual incentive and innovation, I will take a page from some European examples and say that if performance is shown to be above average, a bonus of sorts would be rewarded for actual productivity. As for the "everyone will become lazy" argument, layoffs would be given out. It may sound harsh, but Engels had stated if one does not contribute to society they should not expect to receive the rewards of society. I feel having one's pay and health coverage suspended would be good enough motivation for most individuals not to slack much. I'll admit, it's perhaps a bit Draconian...
Of course, the ultimate aim of Communism is to rid ourselves of a monetary system altogether. Marx himself was never clear on how this would be achieved, nor do I entirely have any idea on how society could do it. Another ultimate goal of Communism is the withering away of the State itself, however such a cooperative management of society is likely a very far off goal, and would require all nations to reach the same level of development as one another first. Otherwise I don't the State, much less nations, being capable of dissolution.
My views tend to be strongly Marxist, but there is likely some broader "traditional" Socialism mixed in. Leninist in regards to government structures, though. The Communist Party would be the guide of society, and the only Party. In contrast to the rigid policies of the past, I feel the Party itself would not censor constructive criticisms or freedoms of speech and expression. The amount of cadres or bureaucracy would be strictly limited by law so as to keep "bloat" down. I also follow Lenin's notion of Democratic Centralism, where freedom of discussion is allowed and given sufficient time to make decisions. Once decisions are made, all would have to abide by them with exception of a two thirds vote for reconsideration. Open elections would be held for offices, with strict term limits for all offices (with exception to judiciary posts). Wages for all government positions would be the standard living wage plus five percent, with law enforcing that no raises may be given beyond that amount.
And there you have my vision of a Socialist society, with the aims of Communism as defined by Marx.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry it took so long to get back, I wanted to give it the attention it deserves so I have been writing responses and rebuttals as I had time to get to them and give them thought.
Ok. So within this ideal Socialist society, I can only really agree and get behind your first point. Equality for every individual no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender. I would say that goes with the majority of conservatives, even with homosexuals. The problem with that issue is the fear of the state overstepping their boundaries by forcing churches to marry against their beliefs and further blurring the line between church and state. Personally, I don't care as long as the end goal isn't to tare down religion like many liberal policies do.
"A progressive income tax, which is something most countries happen to have."
What constitutes a fair income tax in your mind? I do agree that the tax loopholes need to be closed.
"Nationalization of all private business, with possible exception to business that would employ under (let's say) five hundred persons."
Given the fact that businesses run by the government (i.e. USPS, DMV, public schools, etc...) are run poorly and inefficiently at best, why would you want every other company to be run by the government? Any company run by the government dies and is no longer a good use of time. The only reason why they are still running is because of tax dollars brought in by private companies. Of course this is possibly an oversimplification of the situation, but the truth of it remains. Government kills innovation, kills efficiency, and wastes money like there's no tomorrow. Look at our national debt... If this country was run the way private companies are run, we would have a surplus of money and China would be borrowing from us. The fact of the matter is, politicians aren't businessmen, they are glorified lawyers full of their own self interest and that will never change no matter what ideology prevails and that's one of the reasons why government will never work and why government needs to be as small as possible.
"In said nationalized businesses and industries, operation would and decision making would be based on the cooperative model where all workers at all levels have a legitimate voice and vote."
The problem is, in business, not all people's voices are equal. I have worked with people who are badly qualified to drive a car, let alone have a say in a major business. In short, although I believe in equality as far as treatment is concerned, not all people actually are equal. Look at it like the Olympics or any other sports team for that matter. You can't just walk on to the US Olympic swim team and think that you are just as qualified as Michael Phelps. I can't just go to a Lakers game, bench Kobe Bryant, and think I can do as good of a job as he can. This is the problem with the "everybody is equal and everybody is special" mentality fully equipped with participation trophies and a "nobody is a loser, we're all winners" attitude. No, in the real world, there are winners and there are losers and I don't want a loser having an equal say in the way that a business is run. This is what's going on in politics, a bunch of losers having a say in things that they have no business saying anything about.
"A national healthcare and education program..."
In short, see the above replies. To put it a little longer, why do you think our healthcare is the best in the world right now? Why do people come to us from around the world especially from places with socialized healthcare to get work done? Why do you think that everybody in congress has opted themselves out of the new Obamacare? There is a major flaw in everything socialized. Our insurance system isn't perfect, that's for sure, but it needs to be fixed, not taken over by the government.
"The abolition of private properties, with property on a to-rent basis. To assure reason, a cap or limit would be set by law on how much rent could be for any particular property."
I don't understand why anyone would want this or what the reason for this would be other than the hopes of providing affordable housing for everyone. But we have seen with our economy the consequences of the government getting involved in the housing market. Something that a lot of people don't realize or want to talk about is that the basic reason why the housing bubble was even created is because of people like Barney Frank telling banks that they had to loan to anyone that wanted a home under penalty of the law. This economy isn't Bush's fault, per se, he is taking responsibility for it because he was the president that let it happen. The blame rests squarely on the liberals in congress who pushed all of those ridiculous, business killing, policies on to banks.
"People could still genuinely own their own belongings such as cars, furniture, etc."
So why stop at housing and allow people the right to personal property? Is it the land issue? I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the reasoning behind this whole idea.
"Open borders."
Wouldn't this defeat the taxes that fund everything since people are coming in and taking money out of the economy?
"...an extremely secular view of organized religion."
What view would that be?
"Personally, I'd wish for a world where no actual places of worship existed, and people held faith individually alone."
Does this tie into the whole issue of there being no personal property and the separation of church and state?
"Smaller, self-managed farms (where individual farmers can have autonomy) are a safer idea and give some incentive for good production."
This seems to be the opposite of everything else Communism and Marxism stands for. I understand your skepticism of collectivization because it's the same reason why I disagree with the notion of government ruling all things. This just seems to contradict the socialized policy you support. Also, if the government owns everything, how will someone have their own autonomy? Would they have to give a portion of their yield to the government? Do they actually have autonomy?
"In the realm of financial equality (and this is the one where people always get uptight), a standard living wage would be paid."
Ok so later in the paragraph you mentioned the laziness and incentive factors and I understand your reasoning behind them. You mentioned that the layoffs and the idea that people who don't produce don't deserve the rewards might be a bit draconian... I don't think so at all. I 100% believe that we shouldn't receive what we haven't earned if we are capable of doing so. I have no problem with charity, in fact, I run one that is attached to my business, but I don't think that the lazy should be helped and enabled by rewarding their laziness with any form of compensation. But if we were to go deeper into the financial and business aspect of your utopian society of communism (I'm not trying to be facetious) where would innovation come into play? What happens to entrepreneurial endeavors? If it wasn't for people seeking greater pay, we would still be in the stone ages. Would people be free to make their own small companies? If there was a limit to the size of their companies until it became property of the government (referring to the 500 employees topic), what would make them want to grow and become a company worth having? Why would they even want to start a company worth having if the government is just going to take it away from them anyways? When they start that company, would the government control the amount of money that the owner can retain? Since he is starting his company outside of the government, does he get cut off from his minimum wages? In all circumstances, I see innovation and creative thought being squashed and a society being thrown into stagnation.
"Of course, the ultimate aim of Communism is to rid ourselves of a monetary system altogether."
Why? I understand that you're not sure how this can happen, but why wold you even want it? I would assume that the answer to the question of how to create a society without money would be to look at the origins of money and figure out why money became a necessity in the first place. I'm not entirely versed on that subject, but I believe it has to do with world commerse and not being able to trade something you have for something you need.
"Another ultimate goal of Communism is the withering away of the State itself..."
So then then what happens with everything the government owns? All of the land and all of the businesses it has taken over? What happens with the people in power? i doubt they will be willing to give it up.
"In contrast to the rigid policies of the past, I feel the Party itself would not censor constructive criticisms or freedoms of speech and expression"
If the government is the end all be all in everyone's lives, constructive criticism will eventually, if not immediately be looked at as dissent or even treason. Look at a family, even if the child is right about the poor parenting techniques of the parents, chances are, the child will be punished for talking back or disagreeing with them. This is a human flaw based in pride and arrogance and the reason why a single party system will eventually and always crush people's freedom of speech and expression.
"Wages for all government positions would be the standard living wage plus five percent, with law enforcing that no raises may be given beyond that amount."
I would actually love to see this in action in our country. There's no reason why they should be paid so much money when they do so little. Don't confuse that with business owners making a ton of money, they took all of the risk and they made that money through their own talents and hard work. Government officials didn't do anything to earn their pay, they just take it from the tax payers and keep other government job pay down such as teachers, firefighters, police, and etc.
Thank you for explaining all of that, and I again apologize for taking so long to get back to you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
None of your responses are very surprising to me. They demonstrate a classical individualist mindset, and I cannot blame you for it. You've been told that is the proper way of thinking.
Cooperative structures where all employees have a say is just that. Yes, bosses and managers may have a better idea of the macroscopic functions. But the hourly employees know everything about the micro functions. The input from those at the bottom could add greatly to the overall structure. Holding votes on decisions and policy will give the average person a feeling of ownership and actual stake in the success or failure of the workplace. It will provide many opinions and many points of action. In the traditional hierarchical structure, those at the bottom don't bother to speak up, most of the time. I've seen it in the business I work in often. Most who do come up with an idea of some sort are told that it doesn't matter, because those in charge already have a plan. So, in that sense, internal ambition and innovation stagnates the farther down you go. The cooperative structure allows for better over-all knowledge on all levels on how the business is doing, what it's goals are, and addresses all issues in a democratic and inclusive fashion.
Nationalization has had stellar successes in the past, actually. Maybe not in America, but elsewhere very much so. As for your caveat about national healthcare and education, I will yet again point out that such things should never be viewed as for profit on moral grounds alone. But, as morality is not the topic of our discussion, I will say this: You say America's healthcare system is the best in the world. That everyone flocks to America for treatment, yes? Not true. America's healthcare system is not the best, merely the best equipped in most cases. Now, a country that has some of the genuinely best doctors in all the world? Cuba. True story. They also put a greater emphasis on preventative medicine (Europe does too).
The abolition of private property issue seems to have you confused. You also seemed to miss the point of a distinction between privately held and personal properties. Private ownership of property continues to put up barriers between people in the social realm. Private property, as in land or real estate, is something we are all told to strive for. Why? Homes can be rented, stores rented, etc. Why does one need to own? Those are the questions I want answers for. Why do we need continuously own buildings or land? What point is there in it? For the value? While I believe you to be very different, I am not a man motivated by the monetary worth of things.
Our borders today are fairly closed, and people are still coming in and taking money out. In some cases, business persons are making profit only to shunt it into overseas accounts, thus taking it out of the country as well. Open borders would allow for a greater ease of transportation and travel, more opportunity for commerce, not less. In the past, protectionism and tariffs have proven more a liability than advantage. That is also why our modern politicians have been loath to implement such things again.
I define an "extremely secular view" as personal faith, with religious buildings being used for non-religious purposes when services are not in session. Some such religious institutions still do that, actually. But a good many are simply locked up between services serving no real purposes otherwise. It is a waste of community resources that could be being used.
My thoughts on allowing for small scale businesses to be somewhat private, as stated, comes from Lenin's New Economic Policy, which had been proven to be relatively successful. I think it stands on it's own, and the results of the NEP had been advantageous to the Soviet economy of the time. As for the semi-autonomy of agriculture, you've misunderstood my meaning. Organization of farming would be on a decentralized level of individual farms with the farmers being capable of self-management. However, regional (say, over a number of counties) coordination would be handled by a central cooperative all farmers would meet with. In other words:
Twenty farmers have their allocated land. They get to decide how to manage that land, what to grow. Their individual efforts are coordinated on a regional level to help plan and forecast harvests yearly. The government would purchase sixty percent of their harvest at a set price. Forty percent (yet again, I'm thinking along the lines of the NEP) would be sold at a farmer's market for local consumption and livestock feeding purposes.
This is, as I see it, a middle ground between collectivization and independent owner/operators.
To touch on the further questions you have (as a business owner, no doubt), I shall do my best to answer from the hypothetical position of an official being asked such questions:
Yes, people would be free to make their own small companies.
Once a company would become large enough for nationalization, all employees of the company would retain their positions. It's not like you'd be in charge one day, get nationalized, and have someone take your job as company manager/leader. If you've been operating the business, and it's grown to such an extent, why should you not continue to operate it under nationalization? Nationalization would entail the government taking up all costs of the business and getting a major stake in it's profit. As one would be starting a small business outside the government, as you say, one would not be cut off from minimum wages. Minimum wages (as a living wage) would be mandatory for all business at all levels. Loans from the government would be given to help with start-up costs. Would a limit be placed on how much profit the owner of a small business could retain? Yes. It would be four times the living wage (perhaps more, this is only hypothetical). All other profit would, by law, be required to be distributed amongst employees and to cover research and development costs for innovative ventures. Success is no excuse for excessive living. I don't care how much someone feels they deserve X amount of money for their work, there is just a point where such things become obscene. But that would be my personal view again. Getting back on topic, the premise is that individual effort will be the foundation for collective success once a certain point is reached. Small business will be incorporated into the national framework only if it succeeds, after all. The only real monopoly would the that of the state, and if one wanted to shop at a small business versus the government store (for any number of reasons), one could. The allowance for such small business would help in setting price figures for the modestly centrally planned economy of the nation as well. Providing a "benchmark" of sorts, really. While this is a bit outside the norms of Socialist economics, it is within keeping with the early Soviet approach. While having a slower result than Stalin's Five Year Plans, it was also less disruptive.
The notion of abolishing monetary systems is one of Marx's vaguer concepts. As I said, I'd be hard pressed to figure out how it would be implemented outside of some manner of barter system, but that obviously has it's own problems. With both the abolition of money and the state, I was stating the End Stage Communism described by Marx. As he had focused primarily on the social relations of classes, the theories of Socialist economics, and the socio-political aspects of his time, he had been rather sketchy on how to achieve this end stage. It is something that I've turned my mind on for years, but have come to no concrete answers on myself.
I think you also display a cynical attitude in regards to constructive criticism within Socialist society. We do not, sadly, have an example of how it would function or look like as current and past Socialist nations have been staunchly censored and controlled in the areas of speech and expression. In some ways, we can even say constructive criticism has proven futile in the American model of democracy, as anyone can say anything (largely) with little real attention given to any of it by our authorities, be they local, State, or Federal. It is a sad reality that those with deeper pockets tend to speak loudest, no?
I believe my response has suffered from being a bit jumbled, going back and forth on certain topics. But it was interesting to note that we share a similar view on social issues and in our regards to the pay of politicians. I do believe that public workers should be paid better if they provide essential services such as teaching, firefighting, etc. These are the people that keep us safe, educate our children, generally keep the foundations of society stable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The image has become iconic however. Its possible that reproducing it does more to spread it's message than just letting it die out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's true. I think that at the end of the day, it will probably fizzle out because it's based on a lie. However, while it's in the mind of our society, I think informing the ignorant is worth the effort.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very nice! And totally true sadly...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is a case study of how liberals just follow the crowd and does whatever is popular at the time without really knowing what they hell they're supporting.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Exactly. Like the protesters on wall street? They don't know what they're protesting about, they just follow along and see if it can get them anywhere... =_=
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bingo. Whatever makes them seem cool and compassionate they gravitate to.. The key word there is "seem"... There's a reason why conservatives have been proven to be more charitable than liberals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah exactly. And the liberals call us (I'm a conservative, just assuming you are as well) insane? What? Just because we know how this country is suppose to be ran? And we want to keep it that way and not letting crazy hippies running around...? It's unbelievable what people do and say these days. Where's the patriotism?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's the thing... The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals favor theory (unproven and disproven), rhetoric, and feel goods while conservatives do what has been proven to work, logic, and reason. Because of that, liberals paint conservatives as heartless and selfish because that's really all they have, baseless insults.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I couldn't agree more.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Haha hopefully I'll see you more in other political rantings.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh trust me, I can go on and on about stupid liberals. xD I'm only 17 (18 in a few days) and I'm pretty sure I know a lot more than some adults when It come to politics. Because either they don't care, or they have no idea what's going on in their country. Haha.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's exactly right. There's no original thought in the liberal ranks and all it takes is a bit of homework and a bit of study and you'll break right through the bubble of lies and stereotypes. Ironically, the self proclaimed "party of the intellectual" discourages any kind of thinking outside of what they have been told. Ironically, the self proclaimed "party of open-mindedness" has no desire to be open minded about anything and only want you to have an open mind about them while theirs is sealed shut. When it comes down to it, liberalism is the actually the party of hypocrisy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |