Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lenin sold out his revolution to Wall Street in exchange for food."Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.Not at all.. But you prove conclusively you are not a legend in anyone's mind by quoting people who lean socialist to justify your personal attraction to socialism. My only call to fame is, I don't address areas about which I am not personally aware. Economics and economic systems are my forte. It appears you don't have any forte at all but making stupid statements and calling on people to support you who are no more an expert in the field than you are. You are totally economics challenged. Chomsky LIKES socialism, he doesn't understand the ramifications of the system.
In fact the conversation was about Chomsky NOT KNOWING MUCH ABOUT SOCIALISM. What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?
But why not answer a couple of questions:
Who owned the principle production and distribution systems in the USSR?
What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?
Who received most of what prosperity there was in the USSR?
"As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, 'this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie,' but can only be 'realized by the workers themselves being master over production.'
"Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances.
"But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.
"The Leninist intelligentsia have a different agenda.
"They fit Marx's description of the 'conspirators' who 'pre-empt the developing revolutionary process' and distort it to their ends of domination; 'Hence their deepest disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their class interests,' which include the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy and the creation of mechanisms of democratic control over production and social life.
"For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline 'will become superfluous' as the freely associated producers 'work for their own accord' (Marx).
"Libertarian socialism, furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in every aspect of social and personal life, an unending struggle, since progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional practice and consciousness.
"The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start.
"In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential.
"Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood.
"Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to 'vigilant control from above,' so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest."
The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
That's propaganda. Chomsky is just making excuses for the failure of socialism by claiming it wasn't real socialism. There isn't a single fact in that diatribe. so what is it that Chomsky "knows" about socialism that's actually true?
It's a shame you can't remember the subject of this conversation involves what Chomsky knows about socialism, remember? He knows more about that subject, and many others, than you, Sowell, and Sutton COMBINED. You are really a legend in your own mind, aren't you?
Bwahahahaha - that may have been what some theorist WANTED but it is an impossible tenet."Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.
Another impossible "THEORY!""As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, 'this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie,' but can only be 'realized by the workers themselves being master over production.'
Hogwash!"Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances.
A formula for TOTAL DISASTER."But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.
Of course they did. They knew positively up front that no socialist system could exist without an autocratic/dictatorial government CONTROLLING THE PEOPLE. Socialism is a dream and won't work in the real world."The Leninist intelligentsia have a different agenda.
WHY? Because the leaders of the revolution knew as a matter of fact that without that dictatorship the, "to each according to his need and from each according to his ability" was unworkable in an uncontrolled world. The high achievers will leave if not controlled."They fit Marx's description of the 'conspirators' who 'pre-empt the developing revolutionary process' and distort it to their ends of domination; 'Hence their deepest disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their class interests,' which include the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy and the creation of mechanisms of democratic control over production and social life.
One more stupid statement by an idiot who does not understand that LENIN WAS RIGHT, THE PEOPLE MUST BE DISCIPLINED."Libertarian socialism, furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in every aspect of social and personal life, an unending struggle, since progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional practice and consciousness.
Lenin knew what he was doing. He let the theorist create people who wanted what they were selling but was smart enough to know that once the revolution took control all would be lost since socialism cannot survive without dictatorial government."The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start.
There was never any real potential because the leaders of the revolution knew from the beginning that as soon as they had control of the country dictatorship was needed."In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential.
Of course they did, how else was "socialism" to "succeed?""Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood.
Like I said in earlier posts, CHOMSKY knew nothing about true socialism. He liked theoretical socialism but such a status can never be realized and Chomsky was not smart enough to recognize that theoretical socialism was impossible and the only possible socialism was statist socialism where there was a dictatorial government. Chomsky was an ignorant theorist, he was that part of the intelligentsia who dreamed but could not accept the facts."Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to 'vigilant control from above,' so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest."
The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
The idiocy of Chomsky's diatribe is, Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin knew what Chomsky did not, SOCIALISM CANNOT SUCCEED WITHOUT STRONG AUTOCRATIC/DICTATORIAL GOVERMENT.Lenin sold out his revolution to Wall Street in exchange for food."Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.
"As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, 'this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie,' but can only be 'realized by the workers themselves being master over production.'
"Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances.
"But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.
"The Leninist intelligentsia have a different agenda.
"They fit Marx's description of the 'conspirators' who 'pre-empt the developing revolutionary process' and distort it to their ends of domination; 'Hence their deepest disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their class interests,' which include the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy and the creation of mechanisms of democratic control over production and social life.
"For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline 'will become superfluous' as the freely associated producers 'work for their own accord' (Marx).
"Libertarian socialism, furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in every aspect of social and personal life, an unending struggle, since progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional practice and consciousness.
"The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start.
"In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential.
"Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood.
"Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to 'vigilant control from above,' so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest."
The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
That's propaganda. Chomsky is just making excuses for the failure of socialism by claiming it wasn't real socialism. There isn't a single fact in that diatribe. so what is it that Chomsky "knows" about socialism that's actually true?
Western capitalists received lucrative asbestos concessions and half-a-million acres of prime Siberian timber. Chomsky knows how Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin did away with the democratic control by producers over production by doing away with the revolutionary Soviets and factory committees. Can you provide any intelligent evidence to the contrary?
Socialism cannot exist with 2bThe idiocy of Chomsky's diatribe is, Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin knew what Chomsky did not, SOCIALISM CANNOT SUCCEED WITHOUT STRONG AUTOCRATIC/DICTATORIAL GOVERMENT.Lenin sold out his revolution to Wall Street in exchange for food.That's propaganda. Chomsky is just making excuses for the failure of socialism by claiming it wasn't real socialism. There isn't a single fact in that diatribe. so what is it that Chomsky "knows" about socialism that's actually true?
Western capitalists received lucrative asbestos concessions and half-a-million acres of prime Siberian timber. Chomsky knows how Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin did away with the democratic control by producers over production by doing away with the revolutionary Soviets and factory committees. Can you provide any intelligent evidence to the contrary?
The definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster will tell most of the story:
Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Socialism cannot work without 2 b:
Socialism cannot exist with 2bThe idiocy of Chomsky's diatribe is, Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin knew what Chomsky did not, SOCIALISM CANNOT SUCCEED WITHOUT STRONG AUTOCRATIC/DICTATORIAL GOVERMENT.Lenin sold out his revolution to Wall Street in exchange for food.
Western capitalists received lucrative asbestos concessions and half-a-million acres of prime Siberian timber. Chomsky knows how Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin did away with the democratic control by producers over production by doing away with the revolutionary Soviets and factory committees. Can you provide any intelligent evidence to the contrary?
The definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster will tell most of the story:
Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Socialism cannot work without 2 b:
Socialism can ONLY EXIST WITH 2 b:There is good reason for that, which you socialist theorists don't understand. When production is owned and controlled collectively such that there is the "from all according to his ability and to all according to his needs" is an element of social control, THERE MUST BE A DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENT TO KEEP THE HIGH ACHIEVERS FROM LEAVING. Ultimately only the leaders/commissars will achieve any kind of prosperity.Socialism cannot exist with 2bThe idiocy of Chomsky's diatribe is, Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin knew what Chomsky did not, SOCIALISM CANNOT SUCCEED WITHOUT STRONG AUTOCRATIC/DICTATORIAL GOVERMENT.Lenin sold out his revolution to Wall Street in exchange for food.
Western capitalists received lucrative asbestos concessions and half-a-million acres of prime Siberian timber. Chomsky knows how Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin did away with the democratic control by producers over production by doing away with the revolutionary Soviets and factory committees. Can you provide any intelligent evidence to the contrary?
The definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster will tell most of the story:
Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Socialism cannot work without 2 b:
"Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.
Republicans are against unions and the minimum wage.
Republican hate working people.
Republicans are against unions and the minimum wage.
Republican hate working people.
That is not true.
But the federal government is supposed to be NEUTRAL.
How much a worker makes should be CONTRACTUALLY determine by the employer-employee relationship.
Lenin understood socialism better than the rest of the theorists, proved by his, "THE MASSES MUST BE STRICTLY DISCIPLINED," comment.One more stupid statement by an idiot who does not understand that LENIN WAS RIGHT, THE PEOPLE MUST BE DISCIPLINED.Lenin knew what he was doing. He let the theorist create people who wanted what they were selling but was smart enough to know that once the revolution took control all would be lost since socialism cannot survive without dictatorial government.It's a shame you can't remember the subject of this conversation involves what Chomsky knows about socialism, remember? He knows more about that subject, and many others, than you, Sowell, and Sutton COMBINED. You are really a legend in your own mind, aren't you?
Not at all.. But you prove conclusively you are not a legend in anyone's mind by quoting people who lean socialist to justify your personal attraction to socialism. My only call to fame is, I don't address areas about which I am not personally aware. Economics and economic systems are my forte. It appears you don't have any forte at all but making stupid statements and calling on people to support you who are no more an expert in the field than you are. You are totally economics challenged. Chomsky LIKES socialism, he doesn't understand the ramifications of the system.
In fact the conversation was about Chomsky NOT KNOWING MUCH ABOUT SOCIALISM. What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?
But why not answer a couple of questions:
Who owned the principle production and distribution systems in the USSR?
What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?
Who received most of what prosperity there was in the USSR?Bwahahahaha - that may have been what some theorist WANTED but it is an impossible tenet.Another impossible "THEORY!"Hogwash! A formula for TOTAL DISASTER. Of course they did. They knew positively up front that no socialist system could exist without an autocratic/dictatorial government CONTROLLING THE PEOPLE. Socialism is a dream and won't work in the real world.WHY? Because the leaders of the revolution knew as a matter of fact that without that dictatorship the, "to each according to his need and from each according to his ability" was unworkable in an uncontrolled world. The high achievers will leave if not controlled."Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.
"For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline 'will become superfluous' as the freely associated producers 'work for their own accord' (Marx).
There was never any real potential because the leaders of the revolution knew from the beginning that as soon as they had control of the country dictatorship was needed."In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential.
Of course they did, how else was "socialism" to "succeed?""Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood.
Like I said in earlier posts, CHOMSKY knew nothing about true socialism. He liked theoretical socialism but such a status can never be realized and Chomsky was not smart enough to recognize that theoretical socialism was impossible and the only possible socialism was statist socialism where there was a dictatorial government. Chomsky was an ignorant theorist, he was that part of the intelligentsia who dreamed but could not accept the facts."Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to 'vigilant control from above,' so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest."
The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
Step into 21st Century Socialism:Socialism can ONLY EXIST WITH 2 b:There is good reason for that, which you socialist theorists don't understand. When production is owned and controlled collectively such that there is the "from all according to his ability and to all according to his needs" is an element of social control, THERE MUST BE A DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENT TO KEEP THE HIGH ACHIEVERS FROM LEAVING. Ultimately only the leaders/commissars will achieve any kind of prosperity.Socialism cannot exist with 2bThe idiocy of Chomsky's diatribe is, Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin knew what Chomsky did not, SOCIALISM CANNOT SUCCEED WITHOUT STRONG AUTOCRATIC/DICTATORIAL GOVERMENT.
The definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster will tell most of the story:
Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Socialism cannot work without 2 b:
How many capitalists were done in by the Great Depression and human nature?There have been many experiments of socialism. There has never been a success. Even in the US we have had experiments of socialism. In Louisiana, not far from my home of birth, there was a 7,000+ area purchased as a place for a socialist community to function. The result of failure, which could be expected from the beginning, and after a few years of mismanagement by the COLLECTIVE it ceased to exist. As is further to be expected, the land was mostly sold off for the benefit of the LEADERS of the group. The experiment ended in 1939, just 22 years after its inception."New Llano continued to function as a socialist commune with citizens pooling and sharing resources and wealth until 1939, when, the historians tell us "human nature" and the Great Depression finally did it in."If you read more about the history of the colony you will note that while socialism may be successful for a short time, but in the end human behavior takes over, and since it could not by its nature, New LLano could not be dictatorial so it fell apart. In addition, the deep pockets which bought the 7,000 acres took final control and the colony dissolved into nothing.
How about checking democracy at the work place door?"Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.
Really?
What is exploitation?
Is working for a living exploitation?
If so, then who is supposed to support you?
.
Lenin understood socialism better than the rest of the theorists, proved by his, "THE MASSES MUST BE STRICTLY DISCIPLINED," comment.One more stupid statement by an idiot who does not understand that LENIN WAS RIGHT, THE PEOPLE MUST BE DISCIPLINED.Lenin knew what he was doing. He let the theorist create people who wanted what they were selling but was smart enough to know that once the revolution took control all would be lost since socialism cannot survive without dictatorial government.There was never any real potential because the leaders of the revolution knew from the beginning that as soon as they had control of the country dictatorship was needed.It's a shame you can't remember the subject of this conversation involves what Chomsky knows about socialism, remember? He knows more about that subject, and many others, than you, Sowell, and Sutton COMBINED. You are really a legend in your own mind, aren't you?
Not at all.. But you prove conclusively you are not a legend in anyone's mind by quoting people who lean socialist to justify your personal attraction to socialism. My only call to fame is, I don't address areas about which I am not personally aware. Economics and economic systems are my forte. It appears you don't have any forte at all but making stupid statements and calling on people to support you who are no more an expert in the field than you are. You are totally economics challenged. Chomsky LIKES socialism, he doesn't understand the ramifications of the system.
In fact the conversation was about Chomsky NOT KNOWING MUCH ABOUT SOCIALISM. What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?
But why not answer a couple of questions:
Who owned the principle production and distribution systems in the USSR?
What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?
Who received most of what prosperity there was in the USSR? Bwahahahaha - that may have been what some theorist WANTED but it is an impossible tenet.Another impossible "THEORY!"Hogwash! A formula for TOTAL DISASTER. Of course they did. They knew positively up front that no socialist system could exist without an autocratic/dictatorial government CONTROLLING THE PEOPLE. Socialism is a dream and won't work in the real world.WHY? Because the leaders of the revolution knew as a matter of fact that without that dictatorship the, "to each according to his need and from each according to his ability" was unworkable in an uncontrolled world. The high achievers will leave if not controlled.
"For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline 'will become superfluous' as the freely associated producers 'work for their own accord' (Marx).Of course they did, how else was "socialism" to "succeed?""Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood.Like I said in earlier posts, CHOMSKY knew nothing about true socialism. He liked theoretical socialism but such a status can never be realized and Chomsky was not smart enough to recognize that theoretical socialism was impossible and the only possible socialism was statist socialism where there was a dictatorial government. Chomsky was an ignorant theorist, he was that part of the intelligentsia who dreamed but could not accept the facts."Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to 'vigilant control from above,' so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest."
The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
Thank you for posting all of those comments from the book. They prove my point conclusively.
People who believe socialism will work as theorized are abject fools.
The fact is, I DO KNOW WHAT SOCIALISM IS THEORETICALLY AND IN REAL LIFE.All your tripe would be more impressive if you knew what socialism meant.
You don't.
The fact is, I am a liberal who knows what socialism is, and I also know you have swallowed the theoretical socialism hook line, sinker and dingy, and have not got the slightest idea how socialism will fail miserably every time it is tried.You're a senile, business school educated hack who swallowed capitalism hook. line, sinker, and dingy.
The absolute fact is, even in a Kibutz, there must be STRONG AUTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT for it to survive. You are totally ignorant of economics, and your minor exposure to a semi-socialist unit in an ever larger CAPITALIST ECONOMY has done nothing to improve your understanding of what true socialism is. The KIBBUTZ would/will fail miserably without the strong government protecting them and buying their product. Collective farming or small industry communes do not socialism make. I HAVE lived in a socialist union in which the government helped the "colony" get started by clearing jungle, building strip housing, digging a communal well, and furnishing a tractor for all to own collectively, farm the land, and share in the process. As any such program will, it failed over time. Some managed to get higher yield than others, the disillusioned sold out their "interest" or "share" to the more successful, and now the high achievers own it all and the low achievers when no longer cared for by the high achievers went on to their anticipated poverty.The fact you're arrogant enough to believe you know more about socialism than someone who lived it in a Palestine kibbutz tells me all I need to know about your hubris and stupidity.
How about checking democracy at the work place door?"Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.
Really?
What is exploitation?
Is working for a living exploitation?
If so, then who is supposed to support you?
.
Does that strike you as exploitative?
"Democracy at Work is a project, begun in 2010, that aims to build a social movement. The movements goal is transition to a new society whose productive enterprises (offices, factories, and stores) will mostly be WSDEs,(worker self-directed enterprises) a true economic democracy.
Amazing isn't it? Every time you come up with some new "proof" that socialism can work, there I am, having spent 3 years in Spain helping the Spanish government build a high speed communication system. Mondragon is no more socialist that the City of New York is. It is a corporation sponsored attempt to make workers more integrated into Management of their own fate, and it has elevated the prosperity of the people involved only a little bit. That being explained by the fact that the good Padre had them organized as individual small businesses tied together in an over all production effort. I further not that you chose a socialist propaganda site to which your link refers.Step into 21st Century Socialism:Socialism can ONLY EXIST WITH 2 b:There is good reason for that, which you socialist theorists don't understand. When production is owned and controlled collectively such that there is the "from all according to his ability and to all according to his needs" is an element of social control, THERE MUST BE A DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENT TO KEEP THE HIGH ACHIEVERS FROM LEAVING. Ultimately only the leaders/commissars will achieve any kind of prosperity.Socialism cannot exist with 2b
"Something important for both socialist theory and working-class alternatives has been steadily growing in Spains Basque country over the past 50 years, and is now spreading slowly across Spain, Europe and the rest of the globe.
"Its an experiment, at once radical and practical, in how the working-class can become the masters of their workplaces and surrounding communities, growing steadily and successfully competing with the capitalism of the old order and laying the foundations of something newits known as the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation (MCC).
"Just what that something new adds up to is often contested. Some see the experiment as a major new advance in a centuries-old cooperative tradition, while a few go further and see it as a contribution to a new socialism for our time.
"A few others see it both as clever refinement of capitalism and as a reformist diversion likely to fail. Still others see it as a third way full of utopian promise simply to be replicated anywhere in whatever way makes sense to those concerned."
Mondragon as a Bridge to a New Socialism | SolidarityEconomy.net
It is the nature of capitalism that failure can occur. But the overall concept of capitalism is alive and well and is the only system which produces sufficient prosperity to the most people and still cares for the less fortunate.How many capitalists were done in by the Great Depression and human nature?There have been many experiments of socialism. There has never been a success. Even in the US we have had experiments of socialism. In Louisiana, not far from my home of birth, there was a 7,000+ area purchased as a place for a socialist community to function. The result of failure, which could be expected from the beginning, and after a few years of mismanagement by the COLLECTIVE it ceased to exist. As is further to be expected, the land was mostly sold off for the benefit of the LEADERS of the group. The experiment ended in 1939, just 22 years after its inception."New Llano continued to function as a socialist commune with citizens pooling and sharing resources and wealth until 1939, when, the historians tell us "human nature" and the Great Depression finally did it in."If you read more about the history of the colony you will note that while socialism may be successful for a short time, but in the end human behavior takes over, and since it could not by its nature, New LLano could not be dictatorial so it fell apart. In addition, the deep pockets which bought the 7,000 acres took final control and the colony dissolved into nothing.
