Communism (and indeed, Socialism) makes everyone poorer?

[AK]

There is a common sentiment among reactionaries (and most of the working class) that any socialist planned economy would make everyone poorer. I understand that socialist states haven't been established in any of the richer countries but only poorer ones, but is there any hint of truth to this?

[Axle]

If socialism were implemented in America, where the richest 20% of the population control 85% of the wealth, the vast majority of Americans would certainly enjoy a higher standard of living than they currently do.

It's incorrect to see things in terms of "rich" and "poor" when it comes to socialism, though. The whole point of it is to create a classless society. The needs of the population will be met and the excess money from the rich will be used publicly rather than the idea reactionaries claim that socialism would give their money away to people.

It's also probably worth mentioning that after the collapse of socialism in Europe and implementation of capitalist market economies, most citizens of those former socialist states were thrown into dire poverty, so arguably even the incorrect way to look at this issue is also completely debunked.

[Nolan]

The problem is that reactionaries don't understand what "class" means in Marxism. To them, class is determined simply by one's income. But in Marxism, class is one's relationship to the means of production. Its goal is not to make everyone perfectly equal. In Socialism, you actually could earn (actually earn, not exploit) more than others if you work harder, longer, etc. and contribute more. You keep the fruit of your own labor.

[Left-Reasoning]

There is a common sentiment among reactionaries (and most of the working class) that any socialist planned economy would make everyone poorer.

Though many would be better off under a socialist planned economy than under the capitalist one. There is much truth to their contention. A centrally planned economy is ineffective and unnecessary.

"There are two Socialisms...
One says:
The land to the State.
The mine to the State.
The tool to the State.
The product to the State.
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other. " - Benjamin Tucker

[AK]

The needs of the population will be met and the excess money from the rich will be used publicly rather than the idea reactionaries claim that socialism would give their money away to people.
Hmm, I thought excess wealth from the bourgeoisie would also be redistributed to individuals.


It's also probably worth mentioning that after the collapse of socialism in Europe and implementation of capitalist market economies, most citizens of those former socialist states were thrown into dire poverty, so arguably even the incorrect way to look at this issue is also completely debunked.
I'm talking about during socialism, not after. But good point as well, it's another thing reactionaries keep trying to use against us. Although now that I think about it there's a strong chance they were only using data from immediately after the collapse of "socialism".

[AK]

Though many would be better off under a socialist planned economy than under the capitalist one. There is much truth to their contention. A centrally planned economy is ineffective and unnecessary.

"There are two Socialisms...
One says:
The land to the State.
The mine to the State.
The tool to the State.
The product to the State.
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other. " - Benjamin Tucker

Would I be correct to assume you're stressing the centrally part? And another thing, would ownership of the MoP pass directly into the hands of the workers or the state following the revolution? Stupid question, I know, but I'm still confused when it comes to the socialist period itself.

[Axle]

Hmm, I thought excess wealth from the bourgeoisie would also be redistributed to individuals.

That will happen in socialism's first stages, but I think its much more likely and useful if most of the excess wealth would be invested directly into society rather than writing checks to millions of people. Doing so would probably create a much more even rise in the standard of living for the general population.

But who knows? There are many very poor people in this country. I wouldn't be opposed to giving them a leg up like that.

[AK]

That could very well happen in socialism's first stages, but I think its much more likely and useful if most of the excess wealth would be invested directly into society rather than writing checks to millions of people. Doing so would probably create a much more even rise in the standard of living for the general population.

But who knows? There are many very poor people in this country. I wouldn't be opposed to giving them a leg up like that.

And sometimes you have to look at individual cases, to see just how much an individual needs.

[mikelepore]

Much of that impression has been created by the way capitalism was brought to the U.S. Capitalism was literally brought over on ships and abruptly deposited, taking away 10 million square kilometers of land by force from the pre-industrial native people. The confiscated land was timber-covered and fertile. Minerals near the surface were not yet mined. Unusual geographical advantages for transportation and fishing included two large seacoasts, the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River, and the Gulf of Mexico. Half of the country was built with slave labor until the 1860s. These unrepeatable factors gave the growth of U.S. capitalism a one-time "shot of vitamins." It created the illusion in many people's minds that the capitalist system is always going to be associated with rapid economic development, and the absense of a "free market" associated with underdevelopment and poverty.

[robbo203]

There is a common sentiment among reactionaries (and most of the working class) that any socialist planned economy would make everyone poorer. I understand that socialist states haven't been established in any of the richer countries but only poorer ones, but is there any hint of truth to this?

None whatsoever because socialism/communism has not been established anywhere. Period.

[AK]

None whatsoever because socialism/communism has not been established anywhere. Period.
Cuba? If it hasn't been established there then I'd like to hear what you think of it.

[revolution inaction]

Cuba? If it hasn't been established there then I'd like to hear what you think of it.

cuba is state capitalist, with elements of private capitalism.
What is it the makes you think it is socialist?

[Sasha]

intresting to note that research found absolutly no corralation between hapiness and personal wealth/possesion.
as long as people have enough to eat for themselfs and their loved ones (so if basic stuff is provided for) the hapiness and content are linked to having statisfying social contacts not to wealth.
thats sommething for the cappies to think about. :lol:

(source: age of empathy by frans de waal)

[ZeroNowhere]

intresting to note that research found absolutly no corralation between hapiness and personal wealth/possesion.
Research has also found that you can measure personal wealth far more accurately than you can happiness.


There is a common sentiment among reactionaries (and most of the working class) that any socialist planned economy would make everyone poorer. I understand that socialist states haven't been established in any of the richer countries but only poorer ones, but is there any hint of truth to this?Well, on the one hand it's based on the history of states that have called themselves 'socialist', which are generally represented as having great amounts of poverty and such, sometimes qualified with the fact that the USSR was a superpower. On the other hand, it comes from the view of socialism as redistributing wealth from one person to another, so that people who live well will have to live fairly bad lives in order to prop up the people who currently live very shitty lives, and so on. That's the kind of thing I'm more used to, rather than saying it makes everybody poorer, in which case it probably has to do with the view that government bureaucrats will take the wealth for themselves.

[AK]

What is it the makes you think it is socialist?
Probably me just taking what's presented to me :(

[Luisrah]

cuba is state capitalist, with elements of private capitalism.
What is it the makes you think it is socialist?

The fact that the communist party truly serves the interests of the people (examples are:0% subnutrition, close to 0% illiteracy), that land reform was made, all or most private property was abolished, there was an actual revolution of the people, the USA has a blockade on it and wishes Castro's death everyday?

I guess these can make anyone think it's socialist, that is, if they know what socialism is.

[mikelepore]

intresting to note that research found absolutly no corralation between hapiness and personal wealth/possesion.
as long as people have enough to eat for themselfs and their loved ones (so if basic stuff is provided for) the hapiness and content are linked to having statisfying social contacts not to wealth.

As long as people have enough to eat? As a home owner with a mortgage and town taxes, about ninety percent of our family income goes to putting the roof over our heads, and ten percent of our family income goes to everything else combined.

The entire source of my depression and worry is about the day when the bank will send the sheriff to take our house away, which, according to my calculations, will probably occur when we are in our 60s. There is nothing else at all that causes me any unhappiness.

[Tablo]

The fact that the communist party truly serves the interests of the people (examples are:0% subnutrition, close to 0% illiteracy), that land reform was made, all or most private property was abolished, there was an actual revolution of the people, the USA has a blockade on it and wishes Castro's death everyday?

I guess these can make anyone think it's socialist, that is, if they know what socialism is.
Even if the government acts for the good of the people it is not Socialism unless the workplace and economy are run democratically by workers and for the workers.

[Luisrah]

Even if the government acts for the good of the people it is not Socialism unless the workplace and economy are run democratically by workers and for the workers.

The government is made up of people as common as everyone else. People discuss in their factories how much should they recieve, and anyone can run an election without having to spend money.

Perhaps it is time to realize that what we are going to have will never be 100% as we think it will. The country has more than enough characteristics to be considered socialist. The whole island is even proud of calling itself socialist.
Idealism will never get us anywhere

[Tablo]

The government is made up of people as common as everyone else. People discuss in their factories how much should they recieve, and anyone can run an election without having to spend money.

Perhaps it is time to realize that what we are going to have will never be 100% as we think it will. The country has more than enough characteristics to be considered socialist. The whole island is even proud of calling itself socialist.
Idealism will never get us anywhere
I see your point, but it is important to remain critical and focus on continually improving our perspective and means of organizing to allow the most free and equal existence we can achieve.

[Robocommie]

There's an old anti-Communist joke, "Everyone is equal in Communism: equally poor."

But that's pretty hard to swallow if you look at where Cuba is now and compare it to how Cuba was in the 1950s.

[Luisrah]

I see your point, but it is important to remain critical and focus on continually improving our perspective and means of organizing to allow the most free and equal existence we can achieve.

And I agree with you too, Cuba may not be 100% socialist, or it may not be pure socialism. I just get mad when someone says ''Cuba isn't socialist, it's state capitalist, where did you get that from?'' because in the left, it's no different from ''Cuba is a dictatorship and no one can leave the island bla bla bla''

[RadioRaheem84]

There is a common sentiment among reactionaries (and most of the working class) that any socialist planned economy would make everyone poorer. I understand that socialist states haven't been established in any of the richer countries but only poorer ones, but is there any hint of truth to this?

I've always heard them say that a socialist economy would make everyone equally poor and some poorer (i.e. the rich). It's another ideological sleight of hand trick they use. The rich would be barred from concentrating all the wealth, making them poorer and then no one would be able to "make it" to the top; become wealthy. Everyone is thus "poor".

Free market introductions into once state planned economies has a worse effect of people than anything else. Sure it helped spur some middle class people to the top but it also suppressed thousands more into the lower ranks than they were before. Remember that reactionaries (whether rich or working class) always argue from the pov of the owner. If 300 people out of a 1000 are able to acquire wealth but leave the rest poor or worst off then before, then it's all worth it to them.

[revolution inaction]

The fact that the communist party truly serves the interests of the people

i don't believe this, and i don't believe you can produce any evidnece for this that is not from the cuban state.
But even if this is true it doesn't make cuba socialist, for that the workers need to be in control of the means of production/society.



(examples are:0% subnutrition, close to 0% illiteracy), that land reform was made,

this is not evidnece of socialism




all or most private property was abolished,

so the state owns most stuff, and? what has this to do with socialism?




there was an actual revolution of the people,


what do you mean here?

[/quote]
the USA has a blockade on it and wishes Castro's death everyday?
[/quote]
the usa had a blockade on iraq, was sadam husain a socilaist hero?




I guess these can make anyone think it's socialist, that is, if they know what socialism is.
you mean if they don't know what socialism is, the only way someone is going to think cuba is socialist is if they still believe the bourgeois propaganda that socialist is state ownership of the economy.