I think this has gotten way off track. Let's go back to square one for just a moment. You responded to this video which was regarding anarchism and it went into details about tactics. Your criticism was that what was offered was a bureaucratic state which offers nothing to the workers. That is a strawman argument unless you can demonstrate when and where the finnishbolshevik advocates for such a thing. Regardless of that though, it's kind of beside the point. The state is something that arises naturally given our current material conditions in this stage of history, and that entails bureacracy in some form or another whether or not you like it. I absolutely welcome people to discuss how that should be managed in the future in order to …show more content…
Clearly, you're contradicting and deviating from your original argument that no rights (social or political) were had by the soviet people. If you believed your original argument was sufficient enough you would have stuck to your guns and not changed your tune. And it is a fact that before the USSR, Russia was a backward country in which most of its citizens couldn't even read. Within a few decades it became a super power on par with the United States. That is quite a feat, and did all of that while providing the things I mentioned. You did, and your original point should be tossed out because it is an indefensible one. A piece of advice: In the future, it would demonstrate more intellectual honesty not to use hyperbole to sell a narrative. That might make you look good to those who already hang on your every word and follow your every lead, but it's not actually conducive to good argumentative practices. "I think there is a difference between bureacratic tasks which are a part of any complex organization and the monopoly of political power by a strata which performs those tasks." Firstly, I don't know about you, but I consider a debate a cooperative process even in the case that two people who are ideologically opposed, and in that spirit I think a certain degree of transparency should be a given. I prefaced that the question I posed previously was a yes or no question and to
If the larger nation becomes despotic or ignorant of the needs of an area in particular, then that area has a duty to throw off the chains of that larger government which bind them so as to provide the area with a more respectable government for its people."
The overall conclusion to this statement is that the classes are divided with different opportunities and even though not as much as the government officials in the book, the upper classes still have more freedom to excel and do as they please.
'The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is ruling the material force of society, is at the same time it's ruling intellectual force.'
Nations have debated on which economic direction their country will direct its footsteps since the creation of societies. The United States, being one of the most stereotypical capitalistic nations, began as a Laissez-faire nation, but throughout the centuries America’s economic standpoint has shifted more into Socialism rather than Laissez-faire. The second largest economy in the world, China, is widely understood as being a socialist country, however, for the past years they have been inclined towards a more capitalist nation, but are still officially socialist. Socialism and Laissez-faire both have fatal flaws, but both concepts can be blended and pragmatic to the new millennium while having a positive future.
“Political power is a special sort of good. First, it is like other things men and women make, value exchange and share. Second, it is unlike other goods because power is the regulatory agency for other social goods.”
Could you ever imagine living in a country where as a citizen you have no power in the government or a say in your own business? This is how the citizens lived for many years under the rule of many different leaders. The Soviet Union is a prime example of a society where your rights are taken away. The creation of the Soviet Union, also known as The Union of Soviet Socialists Republics, began shortly after the overthrow the Russian tsar in 1917. Soon after its creation, problems arose within the new form of government affecting the lives of two hundred and ninety three million civilians. Decades after the revolution, Mikhail Gorbachev came into power proposing new laws in order to lead the Soviet Union out of economic catastrophe. These changes
He goes on to explain that the economy of a nation is extremely too complicated to be controlled and directed by a government. There are too many minute details that make up the economy as a whole to be effectively and consciously planned. This is how competition is the better alternative. Individuals of a society, left to their own designs, can each be a small director of the economy. Never having enough power to take over another citizen’s life, but each playing a small part in making such a sophisticated system work.
A known socialist, Franz Kafka was especially taken with Karl Marx’s theory of alienation. The theory states that people lose their humanity as a consequence of living in divided social classes. The worker needs the labor to live, and misses out on intrinsic human needs; the worker is a worker first, a human being second (Fay). This concept is what frames The Metamorphosis: A man loses his humanity through unfulfilling work, and while losing his ability to perform the unfulfilling work, he withers away into nothingness.
My answer is this. No. They don’t. Since 2000 and Vladimir Putin’s election Russia has become more authoritarian, he has gotten away with this through massive economic growth, increased living standards and a much better lifestyle. The Russian government these days openly rigs elections (2011), seizes oligarchs property and assets (Mikhail Khodorkovsky), assassinated journalists (Anna Politkovskaya) and defectors (Alexander Litvinenko) and has passed laws banning homosexual propaganda. Every one of these actions has gone against what I fought for in the Soviet Union. However there are even more violations against what I stood for; today all of Russia’s major companies are state owned and the Russian government is taking over all sectors of the economy, notably agriculture and technology companies, which is completely against economic liberalisation, an idea that I believe is pivotal to a country and its people as it closes the gap of wealth inequality. Modern day Russia is a perfect example of economic inequality, with 110 individuals (Oligarchs) owning 35% of Russia’s wealth. This is worse than Soviet days and I have always pushed for wealth distribution. Furthermore, the Russian government has taken it upon itself to ban women from certain jobs (that are for men) and also it has become more prominent than ever the assassination and silencing of thousands of activists across Russia. However, the recurring theme here is that government is the one continually interfering in the day to day lives of ordinary citizens. It is also very simple why. So that it retains its power and its control of power. So, therefore the biggest opposition and threat to human rights in Russia and as a matter of fact for the whole world is governments. Governments that are corrupt and take and do not
Founded on democracy and freedom, the United States’ very roots are being attacked. Although the transition is passive and nearly undetectable, America’s fundamental beliefs in the freedom of the individual are gradually being modified. As government intervention continues to burgeon, American citizens’ rights are beginning to diminish. It is noticeable through the implementation of federal health care, known as the Affordable Care Act, and the overall increase of government involvement in regards to the lives of the people. This results in a reduced ability for laissez faire capitalism; literally “leave alone” in French, it is the economic theory for the economy to be run without the government’s involvement. While no longer possible as a
Summary: This video discusses the topic of socialism and how it is already in America. They start with some news outlets ensuing fear of socialism into the hearts of Americans, but are they right? Are there absurd claims true about big bad ‘socialism’? The video states that the purpose of these scare tactics is to and I quote, “It’s logged at presidents to try and tear them down and used by outsiders to set them apart.” (AJ+ 1). After that, they then give 5 perfect examples of ‘socialism’, the first being the weekends! That is right; the weekend was fought for and won in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1938, congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, in which established the 40-hour workweek, minimum wage, and even eliminated child labor. The video then goes in to some detail of who was a socialist. Some examples of socialists are Mark Twain, Ernest Hemingway, Jack London, Cesar Chavez, Helen Keller, and even Harry Houdini., but now we have Bernie Sanders. Other amazing examples Francesca used of socialism
With it being an election year there have been many questions being raised about politics and the policies that go with each candidate, especially about socialism and what it all entails. While there are many people that would like to have a Socialistic Government, these are the people that do not fully understand what it means. In this paper I will show you why socialism will be the death to America and why we need to keep our current system of capitalism. There is a quote by Alexis De Tocqueville to help prove my point, “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude” (brainyquote.com, n.d.). To fully understand what socialism is one must first know how and when it came about and finally what it actually means. For a person to comprehend why a socialistic system would be so terrible for the United States, we have to understand our current system of capitalism. Next, I will put socialism and capitalism head to head and point out the biggest differences. I will then dig deeper into the socialistic belief system and everything that will change and the possibility of if evolving to the communistic system. Finally, I will show that socialism was once tried already in America and why it failed then for the same reason it would today.
This basically states that an elite class of people who vote will eventually vote themselves into an oligarchy. He stresses the importance of communicating ideas and voting to make the best decision for the collective
There are to forms of economic systems that will be explained in the paper. Both of the topics will be about the origins of each form of economic system, what each hopes to achieve, and the pros and cons. The first is going to talk about socialism and the second is capitalism.
Quintessentially, we need to join all forces “socialists, liberals, deep greens, trade unionists, feminists, indigenous activists” (Angus, p. 221) everyone who is willing to demand decisive actions to stop greenhouse gas emissions protecting nature and ecological balance.