▲ 20 points
back
12 comments
For context here is a pastebin of a comment on the situation from the Current Affairs editor in chief who fired these people. He disputes the motives behind the firings.
This was originally posted on his Facebook. I'm posting the plain text because I think Facebook requires an account to see it, but you can see the post by searching for his Facebook account "Nathan J. Robinson" and finding his most recent post there.
If I was inclined to be charitable to our socialist friend, I would say that he has perhaps accidentally developed a greater fluency, a more intimate understanding of the inherent drawbacks of socialism than most of its critics today.
If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. <= Emma Goldman
Isn't one of the key tenants of socialism that almost all power is consolidated into the hands of the few and they make decisions for everyone else? Seems like this guy nailed it lol!
> Isn't one of the key tenants of socialism that almost all power is consolidated into the hands of the few
No, oligarchy is not a key tenet of socialism. You may be thinking of Stalinism.
Pure socialism would tend toward extreme democracy, where the government controls all things, but all workers have equal say in what the government does.
The editor[1] of Current Affairs describes himself as a libertarian socialist[2] -- someone who strongly opposes centralized rule by a small number of people (or single person).
No
You might be saying no because the comment is facetious, but the transition state being capitalism and communist bliss (communal ownership and no state) is in fact the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is fully centralized authority. The real trouble with communism (and arguably socialism generally) is that reducing centralized control has proven difficult in practice… similar to what happened here.
The DoTP isn't necessarily supposed to be centralized state authority. Marx based his DoTP off the Paris Commune, which was the furthest thing from authoritarian.
> the Paris Commune, which was the furthest thing from authoritarian.
For the two months it ran, there was an organized government [0] (conseil de la Commune) which made decrees, there was an army of ~200,000 soldier [1] and there was a Jacobine police which assassinated many people (including other "Communards") without trials [2].
This radicalization in a very short time (two months) was denounced by many other "Communards" and people like Victor Hugo [3]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_Council_(Paris)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune#National_Guard_t...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Rigault
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Hugo#Political_life_and...
Citation:
Victor Hugo was harshly critical of the atrocities committed on both sides. On 9 April, he wrote in his diary, "In short, this Commune is as idiotic as the National Assembly is ferocious. From both sides, folly."
Yet he made a point of offering his support to members of the Commune subjected to brutal repression.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Ann%C3%A9e_terrible
Only according to Marx. Tons of socialists strongly disagree with Marx.
But even if they agree, the proletariat is not a few people.
Not on paper, at least. But socialism is very attractive for hypocrites who want to tell others how to live. In pretty much every country descended into socialism, the founding members were comically frugal on public, but lived a lavish capitalist lifestyles in private. This includes the icon of socialism Lenin.
If it's socialism in name only, then it isn't socialism. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.