Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
bhaa haa haa okay i shouldn't be asking this kind of questions in this shithole of all places, but since there are a few self-declared Communists/Marxists here i thought i'd ask anyway and see what happens.
I've been reading a book on economics, written from a free-market / libertarian perspective. It makes very good arguments about the appalling inefficiencies of centrally controlled economies and why free markets are able to generate more prosperity for all (in a nutshell: local control of supply and demand is much more efficient than centralized planning). The problem is, I'm lacking any counterarguments for this guy's apparently brilliant demonstrations, and I always like to hear the other side.
My question is for those who repudiate monstrosities like the old dead Soviet Union, and yet remain Communist or Marxist in their ideology (Porks, etc.)-- how do you run an economy under your proposed system? No, believe it or not, this isn't trollbait.
|
Not all reds repudiate the Soviets - Zizek, for instance, is notoriously supportive of
elements of Stalinism.
I'm not that far into the red, and I'm critical of the free market/ neo-liberalism, but I think it's important to differentiate between 'the red in general' and 'specific forms of communism'. I'm part of a few socialist/ communitarian/ anarchist groups (and still a Catholic, before you ask). If we had more commies on here (most here are wet liberals or indifferent) you'd get Maoists arguing with Gramscians with orthodox Hegelian-Engelsians arguing with egalitarian Marxists [etc etc].
So the question for me isn't so much about repudiating the facts of Marxism in history - which is a different, historical-critical question - so much as asking what you understand by Marxism, who you've read, which Marxism(s) in history you're interested in.
I realise this is a bit of a case of refuting the question through complexification (negatum ad sophistum?) but I'm kind of more interested in the epistemological impasses than I am in making a general statement on things as they are, were, may have been or have been interpreted to be.
inb4 Glice is being a cunt.