7 ms·

McCarthyism was about class struggle. Persecuting all communists, socialists and trade unionists made it less likely the working class would rise up against the

by lucian1900 5y ago

McCarthyism was about class struggle. Persecuting all communists, socialists and trade unionists made it less likely the working class would rise up against the capitalist ruling class. It worked for the Nazis, after all. You seem to have internalised this logic, since you're assuming all communists are spies for another nation.

MadSudaca 5y ago
> made it less likely the working class would rise up against the capitalist ruling class It would make it less likely for the country to shoot itself in the foot and radically lower the standards of living of its citizens, like happened and, unfortunately, still happens, in every country that adopted communist ideas in their government.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  I don't think “communist ideas” is well-defined. Could you explain what you mean by the phrase?
  - retrac 5y ago
    Not OP but it seemed unambiguous to me given "countries that have adopted". The countries that proclaimed themselves communist at some point -- the Soviet Union, China, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Angola, etc. (Most no longer exist, only Cuba, Vietnam, China and Laos are governed by self-described communist parties today.)
    - p_l 5y ago
      And a lot of those countries had standard of living sharply rise during communist era. People really, really under appreciate how bad conditions were in many of those countries for those who weren't creme de la creme of society, or how much for example interwar Poland history is kept silent about the squalor and poverty of huge portion of the society. Yes, for various reasons economic systems in many of them failed (or in few cases, it was nationalistic strife that dealt the blow), but others learnt lessons from it (for example, about badly defining and strictly adhering to plans, or too high concentration in one company, etc.)
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      What about countries that only adopted two “communist ideas”? What if a country adopted hundreds of them, but didn't call itself communist? What if No True Communist Society does XYZ thing that all of the countries on your list have done? You can't talk effectively about something until everybody agrees on what the words mean.
- lucian1900 5y ago
  You mean countries that started off much poorer than the US, yet the standard of living drastically improved during the socialist period? Then drastically dropped after 89, when the imperialists won the Cold War? Just because poor countries become socialist doesn't mean socialism makes them poor. Consider that they were kept poor and socialism is the way out.
  - MadSudaca 5y ago
    Socialism makes countries poor. In countries with corrupt governments, poverty is reached markedly faster. If socialist countries don’t become totally destitute, it’s because they manage not to mess up capitalism completely.
    - chasd00 5y ago
      "If socialist countries don’t become totally destitute, it’s because they manage not to mess up capitalism completely." or lucky enough to have a goose laying golden eggs. i.e. the North Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil
FredPret 5y ago
You, on the other hand, seem to have internalized a class-based worldview. I'm not sure that's healthy either
- lucian1900 5y ago
  Class struggle is the engine of history. Whether that fact is healthy for myself personally or not has no bearing on its truth. The company I work for keeps more of the value I create than they pay me. Whether I like it or not, I'm working class and in direct opposition to capitalists.
  - Gormo 5y ago
    All exchange is predicated upon each party gaining more utility from what they get than by retaining what they give up. The company you work for retains the goods/services you sold them and enjoys a net increase in utility, and you retain the compensation they provided in exchange, and enjoy your own net increase in utility as a result. On top of that, the ultimate consumption utility enjoyed at the terminus of the entire chain of production is not something you are individually responsible for; you aren't creating the final value, only offering your own marginal contribution of value by selling your own goods and services to your own particular customer. The concept of "class" does not factor into the reality of any of this.
    - DenisM 5y ago
      I was with you until the last sentence. Per Marx, there is the class of people who work for a living *, and the class of people who don't because others do. This has been true since 10,000 years ago and the distinction remains relevant today. The actual classes change, but the division remains. * Managers and executives are still workers, only their job is to drive other workers on behalf of the owners.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    1) I doubt you're actually working class, even if you're working for money 2) Capitalism is a decentralized system of allocating resources. By working and investing (even if just owning a retirement plan), you are taking part in it all. You may now collect your monocle and top hat. 3) Getting paid some fraction between 0 and 1 of the value you create is a fact of nature for all actors in the system. The company has to create more value for its customers than they pay for it, otherwise nobody would bother buying. 4) The system itself creates vast amounts of wealth and progress, for the entire society. You wouldn't have a good job and a good computer if it wasn't for all that extra value. 5) Don't confuse capitalists with capitalism. The people may behave badly, but the system is resilient - that's why it's been working well for centuries, through thick and thin.

MadSudaca 5y ago

> made it less likely the working class would rise up against the capitalist ruling class It would make it less likely for the country to shoot itself in the foot and radically lower the standards of living of its citizens, like happened and, unfortunately, still happens, in every country that adopted communist ideas in their government.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
I don't think “communist ideas” is well-defined. Could you explain what you mean by the phrase?
- retrac 5y ago
  Not OP but it seemed unambiguous to me given "countries that have adopted". The countries that proclaimed themselves communist at some point -- the Soviet Union, China, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Angola, etc. (Most no longer exist, only Cuba, Vietnam, China and Laos are governed by self-described communist parties today.)
  - p_l 5y ago
    And a lot of those countries had standard of living sharply rise during communist era. People really, really under appreciate how bad conditions were in many of those countries for those who weren't creme de la creme of society, or how much for example interwar Poland history is kept silent about the squalor and poverty of huge portion of the society. Yes, for various reasons economic systems in many of them failed (or in few cases, it was nationalistic strife that dealt the blow), but others learnt lessons from it (for example, about badly defining and strictly adhering to plans, or too high concentration in one company, etc.)
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    What about countries that only adopted two “communist ideas”? What if a country adopted hundreds of them, but didn't call itself communist? What if No True Communist Society does XYZ thing that all of the countries on your list have done? You can't talk effectively about something until everybody agrees on what the words mean.
lucian1900 5y ago
You mean countries that started off much poorer than the US, yet the standard of living drastically improved during the socialist period? Then drastically dropped after 89, when the imperialists won the Cold War? Just because poor countries become socialist doesn't mean socialism makes them poor. Consider that they were kept poor and socialism is the way out.
- MadSudaca 5y ago
  Socialism makes countries poor. In countries with corrupt governments, poverty is reached markedly faster. If socialist countries don’t become totally destitute, it’s because they manage not to mess up capitalism completely.
  - chasd00 5y ago
    "If socialist countries don’t become totally destitute, it’s because they manage not to mess up capitalism completely." or lucky enough to have a goose laying golden eggs. i.e. the North Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil

FredPret 5y ago

You, on the other hand, seem to have internalized a class-based worldview. I'm not sure that's healthy either

lucian1900 5y ago
Class struggle is the engine of history. Whether that fact is healthy for myself personally or not has no bearing on its truth. The company I work for keeps more of the value I create than they pay me. Whether I like it or not, I'm working class and in direct opposition to capitalists.
- Gormo 5y ago
  All exchange is predicated upon each party gaining more utility from what they get than by retaining what they give up. The company you work for retains the goods/services you sold them and enjoys a net increase in utility, and you retain the compensation they provided in exchange, and enjoy your own net increase in utility as a result. On top of that, the ultimate consumption utility enjoyed at the terminus of the entire chain of production is not something you are individually responsible for; you aren't creating the final value, only offering your own marginal contribution of value by selling your own goods and services to your own particular customer. The concept of "class" does not factor into the reality of any of this.
  - DenisM 5y ago
    I was with you until the last sentence. Per Marx, there is the class of people who work for a living *, and the class of people who don't because others do. This has been true since 10,000 years ago and the distinction remains relevant today. The actual classes change, but the division remains. * Managers and executives are still workers, only their job is to drive other workers on behalf of the owners.
- FredPret 5y ago
  1) I doubt you're actually working class, even if you're working for money 2) Capitalism is a decentralized system of allocating resources. By working and investing (even if just owning a retirement plan), you are taking part in it all. You may now collect your monocle and top hat. 3) Getting paid some fraction between 0 and 1 of the value you create is a fact of nature for all actors in the system. The company has to create more value for its customers than they pay for it, otherwise nobody would bother buying. 4) The system itself creates vast amounts of wealth and progress, for the entire society. You wouldn't have a good job and a good computer if it wasn't for all that extra value. 5) Don't confuse capitalists with capitalism. The people may behave badly, but the system is resilient - that's why it's been working well for centuries, through thick and thin.