Sorry for le meme pic, but I was wondering about the historical accuracy of this depiction. Is it really fair to say that socialist ideologies have only ever failed due to external interference?
I can only talk about Allende, but I can say he is a myth more than anything. He was weak and incompetent and caused his own ruin. He didn't had enough authority to stop the radical communist movements from terrorizing the common people, and that bited him in the ass at the end. Did you know that by the end of his goverment the food shortage was so bad there were the so called "Committees of Supply and Prices", that prioritized the members of the party over the rest of the people?
Now I'm not telling you that Pinochet was a godlike figure, but at least he saved the country from starvation.
>not betrayed and murdered by the Soviets
Guess whoever made that pic thought it'd look too bad if there was yet another entry showing gommies fucking up their touted gommie projects.
>Syrian regime trying to stop ypg
What the fuck, the baathist party is itself socialist you spesh. They fought together against IS in hasakah, and against ahrar al sham in Nubl. Even pre-war Assad allowed the PKK to launch attacks from the northern mountains against turkey. This image is retarded and misleading.
Lukacs was an incompetent government lacky in the 20s. For a more mature Lukacs read the Wictor Woroshilsky (IIRC) article in Outlook (NLA has copies) on 1956.
Makhnovishchina had some VERY negative features, including the murder of germanic rural bourgeois religious minorities.
Durruti is only heroic because he died before he betrayed the revolution. The CNT/FAI betrayed the revolution in 1937 by conniving with the destruction of the POUM.
Tito was an out and out cunt, read Ðilas for fucks sake.
Nagy was lead by the nose by the proletariat, if you want to read more, read stuff by the Castoriadis tendency and Bill Lomax's histories and source books.
Dubcek, again, was a figure head, I don't have my source book to hand but it was the rank and file who drove him there.
Allende was too chicken shit to arm the workers, and we got thrown out of helicopters.
Zapatismo has set up limited areas of petits bourgeois peasantry.
Try fucking reading.
I assume that you've read Zizek and know what you're actually talking about here and can immediately tell me that instead of the "ought" of ideology what the contradistinctive product of social action is? I'll even give you a clue. It starts with p and is six letters long.
I'm turkish, here is the background:
>we start a massive project of dams on rivers eurphates and tigris.
>Syria and Iraq happens to get most of their water from those waters
>Political strife was just ended after the 1080 coup
>turkish intelligence uses some guy to kill off other kurdish groups
>every powerhouse under the sun starts to support that particular group
>greeks, serbs, Iran, Syria, America, Israel, even the russians and the chinese
>insurgents hide in Syria after terror acts
>leader of PKK hides in Syria
>we first start major offensive operations against PKK
>we can (and did) threaten Syria with war to get the leader because russia is kill
>leader (Abdullah "Apo" Öcalan) makes a run for it
>greek intelligence takes him to Roma
>kurds start massive aping in Rome so Italians want him out
>He's taken to Mogadishu by greeks
>Israelis try their luck at getting him - no success
>our spec-ops got him
>his first words after we captured him are recorded, video is in youtube (turkish)
"I love my country (referring to Turkey), If there is anything I can do, I'm at the service of my state (turkish state). My mother was Turkish, too."
Typing that shit felt really good. I forgot how based we can be. Fuck you Erdoğan.
I keep seeing this posted, I don't know why /pol/acks think it's such a put down; the message is "The Soviet Union sucked, trust me, I'm Russian." Like, yeah, I know the Soviet Union sucked, but that hardly refutes an entire political ideology considering there's been Socialist, and even Marxist, criticism of the Soviet Union since fucking 1917.
Marxist economic models didn't predict or factor the changes that came with Keynesian economics. If you're trying to understand the modern age through Marxism, then you won't understand a thing. At the moment, you're in the gutter of political philosophy, but that's alright; it's a process. Try getting along to the poststructuralists now.
I keep seeing this posted, I don't know why reddit think it's such a put down; the message is "the holocaust sucked, trust me, I'm jewish." Like, yeah, I know the holocaust sucked, but that hardly refutes an entire political ideology considering there's been german, and even national socialist, criticism of nazi germany since fucking 1939.
>Marxist economic models didn't predict or factor the changes that came with Keynesian economics.
So you skipped the section where Marx talks about the degradation of luxury consumption goods into consumption goods for workers?
>If you're trying to understand the modern age through Marxism, then you won't understand a thing.
Mandel "Late Capitalism".
For that matter "Lenin in England" and "The Fragment on Machines"
Try actually reading Marxism instead of making up pathetic strawmen.
>Peer-reviewed literatures has shown the price mechanism as better at distributing resources efficiently than any form of socialism.
This all depends on how you define and think about "efficiency" and if you're not distinguishing between "effective demand" and real "demand". Modern economists don't deal with empirical reality but are engaging in mere logical games, they use "what if" logical constructions that are worked through until they are thought to be perfectly consistent and harmonious.
I presume you're referring to the whole calculation debate issue, which has been deconstructed pretty good. Modern IT technology and AI techniques can handle the level of mathematical complexity involved in distribution issues fine. Read this: http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/hayek.htm
No actually historically existing socialist state attempted to abolished price as a method to control production and distribution [except pol pot's cambodia but that was a shit show of a whole different level].
>the best you have on describing the modern age is a trotskyite's PHD thesis from 1972, an article from 1964, and a passage from the grundrisse
wow we don't even need strawmen, you're already made of straw
I've actually read every work you've just cited, but just for you, I'll re-scan the fragment on machines for the prediction that economic crises might someday be resolved, non-revolutionarily, by expansive investment.
And what I'm doing is not a strawman; if it's anything, it's ad hominem - because I've never put forward a political argument (I came in at >>32440) and all I care about is insulting you.
>Marxist economic models didn't predict or factor the changes that came with Keynesian economics.
You mean state intervention to manage the ebbs and flows of the business cycle? Marx would have had a lot to say on that. A lot of the issues with Keynesianism stem from marginalism dropping the distinction between productive and unproductive labour of classical political economy and the distinction between use-value and exchange-value.
Paul Mattick 1974 "Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory" is a great attack on Keynesian economics:
Here we go. I've ctrl+f'd the fragment for 'invest' - no results - then 'expan' - no results again - and then 'grow', which got me this, ie, it got me a passage in which Marx - conversely to what I think you wanted to accomplish? - more or less predicts the impossibility of the occurrence of Keynesian economics:
>Circulating capital – presupposing that it really passes through its different phases – brings about the decrease or increase, the brevity or length of circulation time, the easier or more troublesome completion of the different stages of circulation, a decrease of the surplus value which could be created in a given period of time without these interruptions – either because the number of reproductions grows smaller, or because the quantity of capital continuously engaged in the production process is reduced.
One reason he may have felt the need to do this is - the now-historical fact of Keynesian economics would be (and now is (ie, reality now is)) at odds with his models.
I don't think this will be particularly productive because of your construal of what Keynsianism is, as if 1972 never happened. Your reading of Marxism is tendential, and, in particular your opinion of Mandel's well received work which in particular deals with state investment is at best obtuse and at worst a deliberate misreading.
I anticipate that on other topics I'll enjoy your attempts to infuriate.
It's fair to criticise Keynesianism morally (to criticise its overall efficacy, I mean), but all I mean is: the alternative crisis-solution it gives us dampens the revolutionary risk (to put it from the state's perspective) to near-extinguishment.
It's bullshit because the ones that succeeded turn into bullshit like Mao and Stalin. We don't know how these would've worked out, but chances are millions of people alive today exist because they were stopped.
And of course, wow, it must've been pretty shitty of they couldn't
A. Couldn't unite the people together, like good commies should
B. Simply be too weak, like many other non-Marxist movements
And I bet if I looked hard, some of the cunts in your picture would've already started the political murder.
I like these additions but where's Hugo-sempai/others??
I think you made the opposite point you wanted to make here. The holocaust itself is the main criticism against nazi gemany. Everything else up to the expulsion of jews would not be judged so harshly today considering every other country did the same. If it wasn't for the holocaust Nazi Germany would be given treatment very much similar to the way historians today judge Imperial Germany. As in they were in the right, did nothing wrong, etc.
But I mean the holocaust did happen, and Mengele was a fucked up dude, and the mass-exterminations involved more than just jews; it's right to characterise Nazism by their whole 'kill the unlikeables' policy.