Yes, he espoused evil beliefs intentionally
No, he was just misguided, and possibly loony
No, he was right
Last edited by a351; 08-07-12 at 05:57 PM.
I don't know his personal life, so I can't say if he was a bad person or not. However, I would say that he was misguided and probably loony in a political sense.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
But, it is important to remember that socialism does not necessarily require a powerful central government. All it requires is worker control of the means of production. There are many ways to accomplish that. One, which was tried, is to have the elected government represent the workers in controlling the means of production. In retrospect, that doesn't work out that well, at least not when done to such a heavy handed degree as was done in the USSR. But, then again, look at what it replaced- tyranny. Under the tsars the people had no rights at all and he didn't even pretend to take their needs into consideration at all. The communist revolution was undeniably a massive step towards freedom in the USSR even if communism didn't turn out to be the ideal solution.
But, there are other ways to achieve socialism. For example, employee owned companies, having company decisions made by workers councils instead of boards elected only by investors, cooperatives, etc. are all options for ways socialism could be implemented. IMO there are still some untried options in there that hold the possibility of being much more free from both the corporations and the government at the same time.
That form of slavery was replaced by what has been dubbed wage-slavery, which we still effectively have -- those who must labor to feed themselves (i.e., those who are not independently wealth)
are limited in their freedom by the availability of employment,
are limited in their self-determination by the availability of employment and/or their ability to educate themselves, and
benefit only partially from thier achievements -- the employer benefits as well (as profit on their labor).
In classic socialism, there is no employer, so the workers realize the entire benefit of their achievements.
In classic socialism, individuals are free to determine what they want to do (in Marx's ultimate scenario, people would naturally desire to educate themselves to the extent of their abilities; this would also count as a self-deterministic achievement).
In classic socialism, individuals are free from any government or any employer or any capitalist controlling their freedom.
You quite simply have it backwards.