The 34th richest man on Earth to donate $32bn to charity, inspired by the Gates Foundation
68 replies, posted
There are many ideas I would like to explore if I were a multi billionaire. I wouldn't donate away all of it in a whim though.
[QUOTE=ProtoMob;48098358]This is the kind of thing nearly every rich person should do in my opinion.
What the hell for do you need one billion dollars, let alone thirty-two anyway?[/QUOTE]
3,200,000,000,000 Blackjacks.
[QUOTE=Llamalord;48099997]Socialism is literally the only way to encourage innovation and competition while still dispersing and sharing portions of our income to the pour.[/QUOTE]
since when does socialism encourage innovation and competition? it's explicitly made to get rid of the latter, and in almost all cases gets rid of the former. as for income redistribution, the ability of it to redistribute wealth is dubious at best
At least he can't be as damaging as the Gates Foundation. It's not like there's anything to destroy in Saudi women's education to begin with.
[QUOTE=ProtoMob;48098358]This is the kind of thing nearly every rich person should do in my opinion.
What the hell for do you need one billion dollars, let alone thirty-two anyway?[/QUOTE]
Oh I could find some great uses for a billion dollars. :v:
In a few decades things will get interesting once all these billionaires who pledged to give away their riches start dying off.
[QUOTE=rilez;48099355]Being too liquid is dangerous when you're wealthy. Scrooge McDuck is an awful role model for the youths[/QUOTE]
So many broken bones because people think it is a good idea to jump in a pool filled with pennies.
[QUOTE=Llamalord;48098441]The fact that one man can amass a fortune of $34,000,000,000 and I'm slated to make a $70,000 salary mid career as a software engineer is the reason why this entire global economic system is completely broken.
If I worked until I was 65 years old, I would have only made 3,150,000 dollars in my entire life.
I would have to work 485,714 years to make that kind of money. What the fuck? 70,000 is pretty good considering the average income in America is 30,000ish.[/QUOTE]
It's like those guys in MMOs that figure out how to game a market and end up with game-breaking amounts of dosh in the first week of the gaming going live.
[QUOTE=Llamalord;48099997]Socialism is literally the only way to encourage innovation and competition while still dispersing and sharing portions of our income to the pour.[/QUOTE]
You just gave a thought experiment in which you lament how you'll never get rich because you'll stay lock-step in your assigned job for the rest of your life rather than try to compete in the market, then you say that socialism is the better alternative to encourage innovation and competition? How does that work?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48102224]since when does socialism encourage innovation and competition? it's explicitly made to get rid of the latter, and in almost all cases gets rid of the former. as for income redistribution, the ability of it to redistribute wealth is dubious at best[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929310.200-state-of-innovation-busting-the-privatesector-myth.html#.VZVFh0ab-Ul]The public (that is, state) sector is responsible for a significant number of major innovations in tech[/url], the idea that profit is the best driver of innovation is largely a fabrication. Most of the BIG scientific firms like NASA or the various institutions of the EU aren't for-profit institutions, either. Open source software in computing is often on-par with or even exceeds its for-profit counterparts. [I]Stuff[/I] was invented before the idea of profit was invented.
Also, Sputnik, Vostok, [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salim-lamrani/cubas-health-care-system-_b_5649968.html]this stuff[/url], etc
Add. articles:
[url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/the-entrepreneurial-state-appl/[/url]
[url]http://blog.ted.com/qa-mariana-mazzucato-governments-often-fuel-innovation/[/url]
Additionally, a lot of innovations are buried by profit, like a lot of medicines get cut down if they're cheaper alternatives to what's already on the market (the fact that medicine to help people [I]not die[/I] is sold disgusts me but that is besides the point)
[QUOTE=AntonioR;48101504]Why would an average person even want to be wealthy as this guy ? Why do you need 12 million dollars by the age of 65, what's your point ?[/QUOTE]
What a strange argument.
[editline]2nd July 2015[/editline]
Are you arguing for or against accumulation of wealth? Should it mostly belong to only a few? Should people not aspire to improve their financial standing?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48102224]since when does socialism encourage innovation and competition? it's explicitly made to get rid of the latter, and in almost all cases gets rid of the former. as for income redistribution, the ability of it to redistribute wealth is dubious at best[/QUOTE]
Between the fact the state is often involved in technological advancements and that intellectual property/copyright is stifling of innovation (not to mention competition, and it's also ironically state-enforced), it's not so black and white.
[QUOTE=Chrille;48103214]What a strange argument.
[editline]2nd July 2015[/editline]
Are you arguing for or against accumulation of wealth? Should it mostly belong to only a few? Should people not aspire to improve their financial standing?[/QUOTE]
I think his point is that after you are a millionaire its pointless to get richer as you don't have much use for the money, outside of making more money
[QUOTE=ProtoMob;48098358]This is the kind of thing nearly every rich person should do in my opinion.
What the hell for do you need one billion dollars, let alone thirty-two anyway?[/QUOTE]
When people come onto a lot of money, they tend to get a 'more the merrier' mentality that drives them to make investments and financial decisions that, while resulting in the acquisition of more money, also make their current funds a very important paperweight of sorts to stabilize their growing costs. People who get more money tend to want more money. People who want more money take bigger risks and have bigger expenses. The more money people like this make, the more of it is on the line.
All of that being said, giving away the vast majority of your personal wealth out of sheer will to do the right thing and make the world a better place is all the more amazing, courageous, and admirable. Someone in his position is certainly under a lot of pressure concerning where to place the money at their disposal, and selecting to give most ALL of it to charity could never have been an easy decision, and is certainly a rare on in the world of multimillion-dollar possession. Some ultra-rich people are so heavily invested that giving even one billion dollars of their own money to any cause would be difficult and risky. Thirty two billion? It takes nothing less than a magnitude of care for the entire world's sake to do something so generous. And on that note, this is probably one of the most generous things ever done, no matter who made the choice to do it.
[QUOTE=Shibbey;48102936][url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929310.200-state-of-innovation-busting-the-privatesector-myth.html#.VZVFh0ab-Ul]The public (that is, state) sector is responsible for a significant number of major innovations in tech[/url], the idea that profit is the best driver of innovation is largely a fabrication. Most of the BIG scientific firms like NASA or the various institutions of the EU aren't for-profit institutions, either. Open source software in computing is often on-par with or even exceeds its for-profit counterparts. [I]Stuff[/I] was invented before the idea of profit was invented.
Also, Sputnik, Vostok, [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salim-lamrani/cubas-health-care-system-_b_5649968.html]this stuff[/url], etc
Add. articles:
[url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/the-entrepreneurial-state-appl/[/url]
[url]http://blog.ted.com/qa-mariana-mazzucato-governments-often-fuel-innovation/[/url]
Additionally, a lot of innovations are buried by profit, like a lot of medicines get cut down if they're cheaper alternatives to what's already on the market (the fact that medicine to help people [I]not die[/I] is sold disgusts me but that is besides the point)[/QUOTE]
Except there's obviously a point where state intervention takes us past the point where innovation is maximized and it begins to harm it. Notice that the articles you linked about innovation are in states with healthy capitalist economies. In fact, the Newscientist one talks specifically about the state, and there isn't a mention of the word socialism anywhere. Notice that I was talking about /socialism/ and not state intervention (state intervention is usually required to keep a capitalist economy running smoothly). For the most part, socialist economies are horribly mismanaged and corrupt things that misallocate resources and suffer from poor growth and ineffective policies. While the Soviet Union managed to launch a satellite into orbit, millions of Soviet citizens struggled to find any sugar or meat in the shops.
When we consider who really won in the end, the capitalist USA managed to both put a man on the moon and consistently improve living standards for its people (especially after social reform in the 60s and 70s). The USSR by contrast, not just failed to put a man on the moon, but also failed to even the maintain living standards of its population anywhere close to what it was in the west. The ultimate result was the collapse of the USSR.
[QUOTE=Conscript;48103331]Between the fact the state is often involved in technological advancements and that intellectual property/copyright is stifling of innovation (not to mention competition, and it's also ironically state-enforced), it's not so black and white.[/QUOTE]
Of course, but I was referring specifically to socialism. Countries which are socialist aren't really the best for innovation. Examples include pre-1980 China, Cuba, the USSR, North Korea, the eastern European soviet puppets, etc (with there being generally more innovation the more open the country was to outside influences, their proximity to the western nations, or how much economic control the state had).
[QUOTE=Chrille;48103214]What a strange argument.
[editline]2nd July 2015[/editline]
Are you arguing for or against accumulation of wealth? Should it mostly belong to only a few? Should people not aspire to improve their financial standing?[/QUOTE]
It's not really an argument, I was just asking the guy a question, because he seemed pretty upset he can't become a millionaire with his 70 000$ a year and claims the economy is broken because of it. That is a hell of a broken economy with that kind of salaries.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48103857]Except there's obviously a point where state intervention takes us past the point where innovation is maximized and it begins to harm it. Notice that the articles you linked about innovation are in states with healthy capitalist economies. In fact, the Newscientist one talks specifically about the state, and there isn't a mention of the word socialism anywhere. Notice that I was talking about /socialism/ and not state intervention (state intervention is usually required to keep a capitalist economy running smoothly). For the most part, socialist economies are horribly mismanaged and corrupt things that misallocate resources and suffer from poor growth and ineffective policies. While the Soviet Union managed to launch a satellite into orbit, millions of Soviet citizens struggled to find any sugar or meat in the shops.
When we consider who really won in the end, the capitalist USA managed to both put a man on the moon and consistently improve living standards for its people (especially after social reform in the 60s and 70s). The USSR by contrast, not just failed to put a man on the moon, but also failed to even the maintain living standards of its population anywhere close to what it was in the west. The ultimate result was the collapse of the USSR.
Of course, but I was referring specifically to socialism. Countries which are socialist aren't really the best for innovation. Examples include pre-1980 China, Cuba, the USSR, North Korea, the eastern European soviet puppets, etc (with there being generally more innovation the more open the country was to outside influences, their proximity to the western nations, or how much economic control the state had).[/QUOTE]
My point was about competition being unnecessary for innovation to occur, I didn't mention anything about socialism either?
Additionally, the USSR stopped being socialist after the 30s, NK is a nationalist dictatorship, and China is state-capitalist. Socialism is democratic control over productive forces, not "anything I don't like"
[QUOTE=Shibbey;48104240]My point was about competition being unnecessary for innovation to occur, I didn't mention anything about socialism either?[/quote]
Except in my original post I was explicitly talking about Socialism. Nowhere did I say that competition was necessary for innovation. Nowhere did I say that the public sector is necessarily a bad thing for innovation. The person I was replying to at the start was talking explicitly about Socialism. The post I made referred explicitly to Socialism. You then went off on an irrelevant tangent about how the public sector can be responsible for a lot of innovation, which isn't what the discussion was about. It's about whenever or not socialism can be responsible for innovation or not.
[quote]Additionally, the USSR stopped being socialist after the 30s, NK is a nationalist dictatorship, and China is state-capitalist. Socialism is democratic control over productive forces, not "anything I don't like"[/QUOTE]
The USSR, North Korea, and China were all Socialist until the 1980s when their systems either collapsed or were reformed.
Additionally "Socialism is democratic control over productive forces" is not the definition. There are a lot of different kinds of Socialism, and while it's usually seen as a cooperative or common ownership of the means of production (labour, land, capital goods, etc), it does not necessarily have to be democratic or even require a state.
The only apparent difference I can tell between what you call socialism, sobotnik, and just regular state involvement/direction in the capitalist economy is the red flag. Ironically i think the right and the libertarians would agree with me on this.
Also, perhaps the correlation isn't between innovation and socialism per se, but innovation lagging where an international revolution has been defeated and isolated in a backwards, agrarian nation full of illiterate peasants.
Btw, are you a social democrat?
[QUOTE=Conscript;48104537]The only apparent difference I can tell between what you call socialism, sobotnik, and just regular state involvement/direction in the capitalist economy is the red flag. Ironically i think the right and the libertarians would agree with me on this.
Also, perhaps the correlation isn't between innovation and socialism per se, but innovation lagging where an international revolution has been defeated and isolated in a backwards, agrarian nation full of illiterate peasants.[/quote]
I pretty much see a place as Socialist if it's run by some group or party that both explicitly views itself as Socialist, and is able to largely introduce policies that go in that general direction. This includes the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, 70s Chile, the Eastern Bloc, Maoist China, the Khmer Rogue, 60s Egypt, etc.
I remember that even Marx remarked on the capitalist nations having very high rates of innovation, with the idea being that after a revolution only a very few new inventions or scientific discoveries would be really required.
[quote]Btw, are you a social democrat?[/QUOTE]
Somewhere there. Left enough that I've been called a hardcore liberal or a socialist. Right enough that I've been called a reactionary or a conservative.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48104428]
The USSR, North Korea, and China were all Socialist until the 1980s when their systems either collapsed or were reformed.
[/QUOTE]
Wat? None of these countries were ever examples of socialism at any point of their histories, perhaps with the exception of some regions of Russia during the civil war where production was coordinated by elected worker's councils.
All those countries, especially the USSR under Lenin, worked to destroy socialism whenever they were confronted with it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48104428]Additionally "Socialism is democratic control over productive forces" is not the definition. There are a lot of different kinds of Socialism, and while it's usually seen as a cooperative or common ownership of the means of production (labour, land, capital goods, etc), it does not necessarily have to be democratic or even require a state.[/QUOTE]
Socialism is the control of the means of production by the people who actually use the means of production. Socialism without democracy is a meaningless idea, as worker control necessarily implies democratic bodies that workers exercise control through. Socialism with the state is equally meaningless - the state won't just voluntarily give up its power to workers, and state capitalism results.
[QUOTE=daschnek;48104845]Wat? None of these countries were ever examples of socialism at any point of their histories, perhaps with the exception of some regions of Russia during the civil war where production was coordinated by elected worker's councils.
All those countries, especially the USSR under Lenin, worked to destroy socialism whenever they were confronted with it.[/quote]
They were Socialist. Most economists, historians, and academics are in universal agreement that these countries (especially the USSR) are a reflection of Socialist policies put into real life practice.
Some people like to think of it as a grand social experiment that says "can we create this new society?" and then tried to do it. Considering that Socialism has been both forcefully and willingly tried in a diverse host of countries, the ultimate result of a century of experimentation by Socialist groups and parties had led to the conclusion that it's bound to result either in failure, or Social democracy.
[quote]Socialism is the control of the means of production by the people who actually use the means of production. Socialism without democracy is a meaningless idea, as worker control necessarily implies democratic bodies that workers exercise control through. Socialism with the state is equally meaningless - the state won't just voluntarily give up its power to workers, and state capitalism results.[/QUOTE]
Except does a stateless society require democratic institutions to operate? In a stateless soviet, pretty much everybody should be in some kind of mutual agreement about what to do, making democracy rather pointless to engage in. If there is disagreement, this could be obviously resolved through democratic means. The problem is that unless this decision is enforced, then democracy will not function. In order to enforce it, you require some kind of body that has the power to enforce decisions (something which may resemble a state in practice).
I always wondered
Why the fuck would you DONATE money? I mean, there are more % of that money being embezzled if you donate it rather than you managing hospitals or schools or something like that.
I mean, with 32bn is not like you can ONLY open 10 schools in Africa, build 5 wells and call it a day...
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48104949]They were Socialist. Most economists, historians, and academics are in universal agreement that these countries (especially the USSR) are a reflection of Socialist policies put into real life practice.[/QUOTE]
They're only socialist if we're willing to bend the definition of socialism to the exact opposite of what the term has always meant when used by people who are a part of the socialist movement. The most basic requirement is worker's control, which all the "socialist" states you've mentioned actively tried to destroy. Their parties using socialist rhetoric or claiming to represent workers doesn't make them socialist if the actual organs of worker's control (decentralized and democratic management of production) aren't there.
[video=youtube;WsC0q3CO6lM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsC0q3CO6lM[/video]
Chomsky perhaps explains my point better than I can.
[editline]2nd July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48104949]Except does a stateless society require democratic institutions to operate? In a stateless soviet, pretty much everybody should be in some kind of mutual agreement about what to do, making democracy rather pointless to engage in. If there is disagreement, this could be obviously resolved through democratic means. The problem is that unless this decision is enforced, then democracy will not function. In order to enforce it, you require some kind of body that has the power to enforce decisions (something which may resemble a state in practice).[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what your point is here - reaching mutual agreement and compromising on issues is democracy, so it can't make democracy pointless to engage in. This is because the ideal of democracy in a socialist society isn't as much people voting on issues, but rather people coming to an agreement on what the issues actually are and creating solutions to those issues organically. It's a different type of democracy than the one we live in, where those with political and economic power can use their influence to steer popular discussion into a fairly narrow range of positions.
[QUOTE=daschnek;48105322]They're only socialist if we're willing to bend the definition of socialism to the exact opposite of what the term has always meant when used by people who are a part of the socialist movement.[/quote]
This is basically just "no true scotsman" fallacy. The point is that all of these countries tried something that is de facto socialism in practice.
What's happened now is that socialism worldwide has gone into a terminal decline since the 1980s. Sure you have stuff like occupy wall street, but the influence of the ideology is nothing like it was 20 or 50 years ago. Socialist parties have either shifted to the middle ground or faced electoral backlash in the past 20 or so years. Here in Britain, the socialist movement is on its last legs.
[quote]The most basic requirement is worker's control, which all the "socialist" states you've mentioned actively tried to destroy. Their parties using socialist rhetoric or claiming to represent workers doesn't make them socialist if the actual organs of worker's control (decentralized and democratic management of production) aren't there.[/quote]
These were largely attempted by all of the countries in question (at least nominally), especially moreso at the start of their experiments with it. After a few months or years of trying it out, the system usually broke down or implicitly recognized that their attempts to create socialism were in vain.
[quote]I'm not sure what your point is here - reaching mutual agreement and compromising on issues is democracy, so it can't make democracy pointless to engage in. This is because the ideal of democracy in a socialist society isn't as much people voting on issues, but rather people coming to an agreement on what the issues actually are and creating solutions to those issues organically. It's a different type of democracy than the one we live in, where those with political and economic power can use their influence to steer popular discussion into a fairly narrow range of positions.[/QUOTE]
If so, why is it that people in most democracies overwhelming reject Socialist parties?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48105534]This is basically just "no true scotsman" fallacy. The point is that all of these countries tried something that is de facto socialism in practice.
[/QUOTE]
"No true scotsman" doesn't work here, as that fallacy usually deals with terms that have very vague or not well agreed upon definitions. Being a "true socialist" is far more clear cut than say a "true Muslim" or "true American." Either a country has worker's control, and is socialist, or it lacks worker's control, at which point another term can be used for it. Revolutionary Catalonia had worker's control. Venezuela, Cuba, and China do not. It's that simple.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48105534]If so, why is it that people in most democracies overwhelming reject Socialist parties?
[/QUOTE]
People in most democracies have never even been exposed to the idea, or when they are, it's equated to totalitarian states. It's a no-brainer that people in democracies will be hostile to the idea of a totalitarian state.
[QUOTE=daschnek;48105642]"No true scotsman" doesn't work here, as that fallacy usually deals with terms that have very vague or not well agreed upon definitions. Being a "true socialist" is far more clear cut than say a "true Muslim" or "true American." Either a country has worker's control, and is socialist, or it lacks worker's control, at which point another term can be used for it. Revolutionary Catalonia had worker's control. Venezuela, Cuba, and China do not. It's that simple.[/quote]
Except the definition of socialism beyond "workers control of the means of production" is very vague in itself.
If the definition of socialism was clear and universally agreed upon, then why are there thousands of competing sub-groups that can claim "the others are not really socialist, we are the real deal". Through this it becomes impossible to even criticize Socialism.
What does it even mean for the public to own the means of production? Is the state involved or not? Can markets exist? How will this society operate in practice? How will it come about? Should it be allowed to passively come into existence or be encouraged to? Does it have to be Marxist? Why do people not support it?
[quote]People in most democracies have never even been exposed to the idea, or when they are, it's equated to totalitarian states. It's a no-brainer that people in democracies will be hostile to the idea of a totalitarian state.[/QUOTE]
I've certainly been exposed to it, to the point where I've read Marxs works, I understand the contributions of various Socialists who aren't Marxist (like Owens and New Lanark). I know the preceding versions or influences on it (from Levellers to Christian socialists and the Young Hegelians).
I do fully well understand Socialism. My view is that it consistently fails to deliver what it hopes to achieve.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48105842]Except the definition of socialism beyond "workers control of the means of production" is very vague in itself.
If the definition of socialism was clear and universally agreed upon, then why are there thousands of competing sub-groups that can claim "the others are not really socialist, we are the real deal". Through this it becomes impossible to even criticize Socialism.
What does it even mean for the public to own the means of production? Is the state involved or not? Can markets exist? How will this society operate in practice? How will it come about? Should it be allowed to passively come into existence or be encouraged to? Does it have to be Marxist? Why do people not support it?
I've certainly been exposed to it, to the point where I've read Marxs works, I understand the contributions of various Socialists who aren't Marxist (like Owens and New Lanark). I know the preceding versions or influences on it (from Levellers to Christian socialists and the Young Hegelians).
I do fully well understand Socialism. My view is that it consistently fails to deliver what it hopes to achieve.[/QUOTE]
I suspect it was designed never to work as promised to begin with. Similar in how fashion magazines
portray a body image that is impossible to achieve, and for the same reason. If it were possible to achieve, people would never chase it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48105842]Except the definition of socialism beyond "workers control of the means of production" is very vague in itself.
If the definition of socialism was clear and universally agreed upon, then why are there thousands of competing sub-groups that can claim "the others are not really socialist, we are the real deal". Through this it becomes impossible to even criticize Socialism.
[/QUOTE]
Worker's control isn't all that vague. The concept is simple - there aren't bosses or owners, the people who do the work make the decisions of how the work is done. Every other tradition that's a part of socialism uses that as the base, as Chomsky mentioned in the video above. The differences that arise are over how it ought to be implemented (revolution? Should we seize control of the state?) and smaller details of what socialism will look like after it's implemented.
[QUOTE]What does it even mean for the public to own the means of production?[/QUOTE]
See above. Instead of top-down management systems that we see in capitalism, workers collectively decide how the means of production are used.
[QUOTE]Is the state involved or not?[/QUOTE]
I'd argue that socialism requires the absence of the state, for the reasons I've already discussed.
[QUOTE]Can markets exist?[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_market_anarchism"]Yes.[/URL] It's obviously not a requirement, and markets are just one difference of implementation that doesn't contradict with the idea of worker's self-management.
[QUOTE]How will this society operate in practice?[/QUOTE]
It can operate however people would like - the idea is that people will be able to control their own destinies and be truly free to pursue the outcomes they's like, collectively and individually.
[QUOTE]How will it come about?[/QUOTE]
A source of contention among socialists, but I think the best bet would be [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism"]anarcho-syndicalism.[/URL]
[QUOTE]Should it be allowed to passively come into existence or be encouraged to? [/QUOTE]
See above.
[QUOTE] Does it have to be Marxist?[/QUOTE]
No.
[QUOTE]Why do people not support it?[/QUOTE]
Again, most people aren't very well acquainted with it. While you may be a counterexample, most people think Socialism is China or the USSR and their knowledge stops there. But it's not just that - socialism has been repressed by the state through propaganda [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids"]or more[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO"]violent means[/URL] since its inception (my examples are just from socialism in the U.S, obviously far more exist from elsewhere).
[quote]This is basically just "no true scotsman" fallacy. [/quote]
It isn't really when Marx gave a clear defined what socialism is: a classless, moneyless, stateless society where there is no commodity production or law of value, and the lands and factories are held in common. It's necessarily an international system.
Whether it's possible I guess is another story. But it is clear that is what they defined it as, and Stalin explicitly turned around and said classes and the law of value exist in socialism. I'm not sure if it's fair to say that's suddenly 'real socialism', seems like a self-serving argument.
[quote]These were largely attempted by all of the countries in question (at least nominally), especially moreso at the start of their experiments with it. After a few months or years of trying it out, the system usually broke down or implicitly recognized that their attempts to create socialism were in vain.[/quote]
What he's saying is true though, the soviets were basically immediately overpowered by the Bolsheviks who threw out all the other socialist parties. Then Kronstadt happened. Elsewhere, like China, there was never any concept of soviets or workers' control, but things like the bloc of four classes and state capitalism.
In my view there's no point in claiming this or that about socialism vs capitalism once the German revolution was defeated and Russia was isolated. I like William Blum's (a guy who wrote a book about CIA interventions) little essay about this. [url]http://williamblum.org/essays/read/will-humans-ever-fly-smashing-socialism-in-the-20th-century[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.