We Shall Now Begin Ethics - Vol. 3 Ch. 14 - In Search of an Ideology

[Nanji]

I think it would've been less of a problem if she just said she wanted to leave the group because she didn't enjoy it. It was just rude to just leave like that.

 

[Nessen]

I feel that under communism, if one actor becomes bad, it's like a switch that turns the whole room dark. Under capitalism, an actor and their effects become more localized, whether they are really bad or good.

 

[crochetcocoking]

what he's describing isn't socialism, it's communism...

 

[joey_ramone_52]

@crochetcocoking nope, it's socialism, read the chapter again carefully keeping in mind the differences between communism and socialism, they surely are similar, but there still are some big differences

 

[crochetcocoking]

@joey_ramone_52 "In socialism the country owns all means of production. All companies and factories belong to the country and its people. It's an ideology where everyone's making shoes" that's what he says, but that's not socialism, that's communism. Socialism is half way between communism & capitalism according to Lenin. Contrary to what he says, in Socialism, the state can own the means of production but doesn't have to own all it's in communism where the state owns all.

 

[joey_ramone_52]

@crochetcocoking this depending on what meaning you give to country, which can mean both state or territory/people (which would make it kinda more similar to what socialism is), this is only a personal opinion of course, but I feel like he would have used the actual word for state if he meant that, I guess that's why in the last sentence you used state instead of country too, it makes more sense in communism and gives an exact idea about what it is, unlike country. other than this it could be a mistranslation or something similar (or maybe I'm looking too much into it, the author just got confused and I'm actually wrong, just in case if I'm wrong make it look like I'm not)

 

[Tori1937374738]

best girl

 

[nicklablue]

great chapter. this seems like it falls under 'sociology' instead of 'ethics'

 

[Unicornzz22]

damn i feel the same way abt all my class group chats...

 

[Thbdragon]

What the actual fuck!! This makes me want to concentrate at my classes more!! I learned So much about ideologis without any bias.....

 

[Empiur]

based-sensei
personally im in individualist gang

 

[NotablyBAKA]

I believe that what makes these socialist countries closed and eventually corrupted dictatorships is the fact that capitalist countries ostracize them or just don't like that their corporations can't freely violate them for monetary gains. Thus they try every means to oust or assassinate the dictators to get rid of socialism in these countries. CIA has a long history of doing that. Not saying that perfect socialism is the key either, but there definitely should be some safeguards in place to keep corporations from running rampant just for the sake of short-term profit.

the CAI? overthrowing democratic elections in countries electing communist and socialist parties? bah impossible

whats next the FBI killing civil rights leaders.... yes actualy both of those thing are well documented.

 

[NotablyBAKA]

His definition of socialism is off. Socialism is about workplace democracy, the workers should be in control of the means of production. The idea also precedes Marx. Marx was famous for pointing out that the economical system forms the humans therein and the existence of class struggle. He also pointed out that the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, would not give up power peacefully. Just as the royalty before did not. His historical example was the end of the Paris Commune to point out that the bourgeoisie would stop at nothing to crush any socialist project, hence the name "Communism".
Thus he called the system in which the workers (proletariat) would be in overall control and the ruling class and everyones needs would be met - Communism. The dicature of bourgeoisie would become the dictature of the proletariat.

Also is pointing out that the Soviet Union "did not work well" is... reductionary to say the least. When the SU was established, all Empires of its time immidiately invaded it and fueled a brutal civil war. Its very existence was a thread to them. Which is also the reason only heavily militarized socialist states survived longer than a few months.
Economically it worked damn well. Russia before 1917 was a poor feudal agrarian state. Under the SU live expectancy grew by leaps and bounds, literacy rose from 20% to 100% to name a few things.
Other socialist states had likewise developments and often did even better.
Cuba under the most crushing embargo of history achieved a lower child mortaly rate and higher life expectancy than the country embargoing it, regulary sending medical help to countries in need (In the Ebola crisis, they were the first to help, and with the most doctors and supplies).
China went from looted by western empires, to looted by Japan, to having its entire gold reserves stolen by the Republic, to food security, near 100% literacy, live expectancy almost as high as in europe, and being the second biggest economic power on earth.
Vietnam went from colonial subject to kicking out its overlords; to kicking out their overlord when it set up a puppet regime in the south; to surviving a chinese invasion; to crushing the red khmer despite US and chinese support of them, thus ending the mass murders in cambodia; to food security and all the other stuff.

As for his example of ostratication: There's a reason the defining slogan of communism is "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs".

thank god someone here actualy read marx. seeing mfs pull out the big black book like it actually means literally anything.

 

[JohnJRenns]

Wow, I've come back to this chapter after 4 years (you can still see my original comment) and while I still like this chapter, it's a little frustrating to read as well.

Yeah that is not the definition of socialism and also that is not why the Soviet Union failed. The USSR had an unprecedented, historical growth in economics and standards of living, still never seen in history to this day. The USSR was also not a socialist economy, but its planned hybrid economy was objectively an economically prosperous one for several decades.

 

[bahamutmybitch]

@kazaddum
You might have left out a few things; such as the over hundred million that died as a direct result of implementing those policies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
Of course, millions died as a direct result of the clash between the USSR and USA and their proxy states; something the book glosses over. Here’s a great documentary about a man who was considered a hero for killing anyone related to communism and the toll it took on his psyche:

people on the internet who are head over heels for socialism/communism usually skim through the positive points on Wikipedia or something and establish those as the only facts.

Just look at the death counts under Stalin and Mao against their own people ffs. Granted, the collective aggression from other countries did play a major role in all of it, but it is safe to say that it is a flawed idea.

I'm not saying Capitalism is great and socialism is bad. If Socialism, in its purest kind without any capitalist elements, needs to work out, the human race itself should change its core values and ascend, which is just impossible, individuality as a concept will be tied to us until the end. The best we can do is adopt and mix core values from multiple ideologies and try them out.