Single country socialism

[Rainsborough]

I’m putting this post in opposing ideologies because it’s a contentious issue, and here it might get discussed.
I spend quite a lot of time talking socialism to people, most of whom have no real understanding of it. One question that comes up time after time is about socialism in one country. Now, I know that it is not possible, for various economic reasons, but trying to explain to those who cannot grasp ‘Internationalism’ is, to say the least, difficult.
So what I would like us to do is consider the idea of socialism in one country and instead of coming up with a myriad of reasons against, think how it might work. After all a single country socialism might appeal more to those who are targeted by the far right.

[Revolution starts with U]

It is my humble opinion that socialism, in its truest sense, without internationalism is nearly impossible. What one country builds based on need, no matter how beneficial to them, would not be judged on how it indirectly impacts workers of another area. It is akin to how US living standards, workplace safety, welfare states, and environmental protection are supported only through the exploitation of the 3rd world.
For it to work, imho, it would require a market/democratic socialist framework; a transitionary capitalism with democratic workplaces and protection of people's basic rights to live.

[mikelepore]

My own take on the subject ... not necessarily the customary answer ....

It's not that it's impossible, but rather the point that "socialism" isn't the right term for an environment that requires trade for simple existence. Countries have to trade to acquire what they don't have. For example, industrial processes require tin, and Japan has no tin in the ground, so the country has to trade for it. If trade exists, then the conditions of exchange are usually based on a concept of exchange value that allows the more fortunate country to take advantage of the less fortunate country. The socialist principle of administering everything according to a rational plan isn't being implemented.

It's also non-socialist to divide people up according to arbitrary categories. Suppose I were to describe socialism as a system in which people whose names begin with A through M do one thing, and people whose names begin with N through Z do something else -- you would say that's very stupid -- why invent meaningless compartments? But national boundaries are precisely that, meaningless lines that were usually drawn on maps by kings or army generals hundreds of years ago. Why should a future generation's idea of "ownership by the people" take its definition of what constitutes "the people" from meaningless scribbles on ancient rulers' maps? Who is the master of life -- the logical human mind, or the ancient map?

[ComradeMan]

I think it would be possible in theory given the right circumstances: primarily a country that was self-sufficient in food and resources. Does that country exist though? It might be possible too if one were prepared to take a step down in sophistication of lifestyle- but again would that be possible?

I think the Soviets had a great chance and they did fuck a lot of things up too.

[trivas7]

I’m putting this post in opposing ideologies because it’s a contentious issue, and here it might get discussed.
I spend quite a lot of time talking socialism to people, most of whom have no real understanding of it. One question that comes up time after time is about socialism in one country. Now, I know that it is not possible, for various economic reasons, but trying to explain to those who cannot grasp ‘Internationalism’ is, to say the least, difficult.
So what I would like us to do is consider the idea of socialism in one country and instead of coming up with a myriad of reasons against, think how it might work. After all a single country socialism might appeal more to those who are targeted by the far right.
Socialism in any country is impossible, as it is the destruction of any social values whatsoever. (http://mises.org/daily/4819)

[Rainsborough]

Socialism in any country is impossible, as it is the destruction of any social values whatsoever. (http://mises.org/daily/4819)

Okay, although I asked for ways it might be made to work, could you please explain?

[Baseball]

Its a fair enough question for socialists to be asked, and to answer. Unless there is to be a simultaneous, successful worldwide revolt, the socialist HAS to consider that a socialist community will exist side by side with a capitalist one. Saying such a political situation is impossible, or that backers of such a socialist community are not "real" socialists scarcely seem a serious answer.

After all, such a situation is not unprecedented. The Bolsheviks faced this problem, and there has no end of debate as to their actions and its impact upon socialism.

[Revolution starts with U]

THat's why I said, it would;
1. have to develop from an established industrial society
2. be democratic; politically and economically

One of the biggest problems I found previous "socialist" regimes have had is that they had to industrialize. And relatively quickly compared to the rest of the industrialized world (we're talkin decades compared to centuries). This means it required someone to grab a firm reign on the country and mobilize it... and that's almost always bloody.
I would like to compare the per capita death toll attributed to Jackson compared to Stalin. Or the monarchs of england. I wonder what South Africa would say about capitalism's pacifist (sic) nature.
Idk, I think if China can esplore democracy, they have the capability of something resembling socialism in one country. It is rich, meaning it can remain a creditor, rather than a debtor nation. It is populous, supplying a vast labor force. It has a long history of scientific passion (even if not the scientific method). A real people's struggle in China could, in my view, possibly, bring about something resembling transitionary socialism.
If this also supports a 3rd world uprising, well idk.. now you're talking some real progress :tt1:

[ComradeMan]

THat's why I said, it would;
1. have to develop from an established industrial society
2. be democratic; politically and economically

One of the biggest problems I found previous "socialist" regimes have had is that they had to industrialize. And relatively quickly compared to the rest of the industrialized world (we're talkin decades compared to centuries). This means it required someone to grab a firm reign on the country and mobilize it... and that's almost always bloody.
I would like to compare the per capita death toll attributed to Jackson compared to Stalin. Or the monarchs of england. I wonder what South Africa would say about capitalism's pacifist (sic) nature.
Idk, I think if China can esplore democracy, they have the capability of something resembling socialism in one country. It is rich, meaning it can remain a creditor, rather than a debtor nation. It is populous, supplying a vast labor force. It has a long history of scientific passion (even if not the scientific method). A real people's struggle in China could, in my view, possibly, bring about something resembling transitionary socialism.
If this also supports a 3rd world uprising, well idk.. now you're talking some real progress :tt1:

The "English" monarchs were not bourgeois capitalists in the end they were overthrown in a bourgeois revolution, weren't they?

Comparing numbers of deaths is rather futile though. Even if someone else had murdered/purged/or through incompetence killed more than Stalin, it would still not justify Stalin either. I think it's a silly argument that people raise when they start writing things like the "Black Book of......" or the "Shocking Truth about......". Stating that X "killed" n-amount of people is one thing but seeking to justify it by saying however y-killed n+-amount of people is schoolyard reasoning.

1. have to develop from an established industrial society-

Ironically the most successful revolutions have not been in the stereotypical societies with an industrialised proletariat.

2. be democratic; politically and economically

If they were fully democratic, politically and economically they would be communist societies.

[Revolution starts with U]

The "English" monarchs were not bourgeois capitalists in the end they were overthrown in a bourgeois revolution, weren't they?

Comparing numbers of deaths is rather futile though. Even if someone else had murdered/purged/or through incompetence killed more than Stalin, it would still not justify Stalin either. I think it's a silly argument that people raise when they start writing things like the "Black Book of......" or the "Shocking Truth about......". Stating that X "killed" n-amount of people is one thing but seeking to justify it by saying however y-killed n+-amount of people is schoolyard reasoning.


I don't care for Stalin at all (anarchist, hello). But I would just like to see the comparisons to see how they match up. If they're gona demonize our guy (sic) we should have just as much right to demonize theirs.


1. have to develop from an established industrial society-

Ironically the most successful revolutions have not been in the stereotypical societies with an industrialised proletariat.

It's a shame isn't it. I still have hope tho. The problem with it coming from a pre-industrial society is you have to industrialize tho.


2. be democratic; politically and economically

If they were fully democratic, politically and economically they would be communist societies.
Their ideology would have to be, contrary to other attempts. It would have to be a call for self-determination.

[ComradeMan]

I don't care for Stalin at all (anarchist, hello). But I would just like to see the comparisons to see how they match up. If they're gona demonize our guy (sic) we should have just as much right to demonize theirs.

It's a shame isn't it. I still have hope tho. The problem with it coming from a pre-industrial society is you have to industrialize tho.

Their ideology would have to be, contrary to other attempts. It would have to be a call for self-determination.

If they're gona demonize our guy (sic) we should have just as much right to demonize theirs.

Matching their stupidity with stupidity is not the right way.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;1924183]THat's why I said, it would;
1. have to develop from an established industrial society
2. be democratic; politically and economically

The historical evidence of socialist revolts indicate it arises from poor, agrarian countries.
As far as "democratic" as long as th majority rules the minority, then democracy has succeeded.


One of the biggest problems I found previous "socialist" regimes have had is that they had to industrialize.

Denying the historical record does not help the cause. And since MOST of the world remains unindustrialised, this causes a problem for a world wide socialist revolt.


And relatively quickly compared to the rest of the industrialized world (we're talkin decades compared to centuries). This means it required someone to grab a firm reign on the country and mobilize it... and that's almost always bloody.

But since socialism calls for the mobilization of the workers in advanced industrial countries, why would such mobilisation be any less bloody there?

[Revolution starts with U]

The historical evidence of socialist revolts indicate it arises from poor, agrarian countries.
As far as "democratic" as long as th majority rules the minority, then democracy has succeeded.

1st, a little revolution here ~> a little reform there.
2nd, that's a horrible understanding of democracy ("people power").
3rd, how can the majority rule the minority in capitalist system with a large concentration of wealth?
THe point is that the revolutionary society cannot have to play catch up w the rest of the world. The amount of opposition it will have from the ruling class will be tremendous. It needs to start on relatively firm footing to withstand the sabbateours.
Nobody said it would be easy.




Denying the historical record does not help the cause. And since MOST of the world remains unindustrialised, this causes a problem for a world wide socialist revolt.

If it's a world wide revolution it no longer needs the industrialized aspect up front, for it no longer needs the even footing to protect itself from other capitalist nations, merely the capitalists themselves.




But since socialism calls for the mobilization of the workers in advanced industrial countries, why would such mobilisation be any less bloody there

The revolution will most likely be bloody. That wasn't my point. The point is that the leadership will have to bring bloody repression to mobilize the country; just like our societies do in (real) wars.
A revolution in an industrialized society would have more freedom to be democratic.

[RGacky3]

Yes it is possible, socialism is a broad term which means the economy run for the public benefit rather than for profit, i.e. democratically. Its possible to do that in one country, or even in one area of a country.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes it is possible, socialism is a broad term which means the economy run for the public benefit rather than for profit, i.e. democratically. Its possible to do that in one country, or even in one area of a country.

I agree--but it has to be a pretty rural and self sufficient place I think. Once you ha ve manufacturing it starts to get complicated--the complicated trade makes things difficult.

Those EZLN do make it look EZ. :D

[RGacky3]

Not really, parts of Argentina where the workers took over are mainly manufacturing and more complicated industries.

[Bud Struggle]

Not really, parts of Argentina where the workers took over are mainly manufacturing and more complicated industries.

Well it seems that Cuba is having trouble maintaing a Socialist society and has been converting parts of the economy to Capitalism--running an entire nation is much different than running an occasional curiousity.

[RGacky3]

Cuba is having problems because its a centrally run economy, really the government of Cuba is like a really really nice corporation that listens to its workers, but might have to make cuts evenetually, btw, the isolation it faces is'nt helping.

You can't have a centrally run EVERYTHING economy.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes it is possible, socialism is a broad term which means the economy run for the public benefit rather than for profit, i.e. democratically. Its possible to do that in one country, or even in one area of a country.

No, "socialism" does not mean the economy run for the public benefit.
If we conceded that this "definition" is right, we would also have to concede that social democratic governments of Western Europe have ushered in socialism at one point in time.
Clearly, this position is stupid and has no arguments whatsoever in its favour.

[ComradeMan]

No, "socialism" does not mean the economy run for the public benefit.

Well then for whose benefit? Or are you being ironic?

[Thirsty Crow]

Well then for whose benefit? Or are you being ironic?

I'm not being ironic, I am just criticizing the totally wrong direction in which a definition like that is headed.
It is not a question of who will benefit from the economy, but it is a question of who will actually run the economy, who will rise to political power. As I've stated, capitalism can be run, more or less successfully, for a given period of time and workers may benefit from it. But that is not my goal - my goal is socialism, that is, social revolution and the overthrow of the ruling class. We don't need a sympathetic government or sympathetic capitalists - we need to get rid of these as classes (and I should emphasize, since this is OI, that I do not advocate violence directed to individual capital owners).

[RGacky3]

No, "socialism" does not mean the economy run for the public benefit.
If we conceded that this "definition" is right, we would also have to concede that social democratic governments of Western Europe have ushered in socialism at one point in time.
Clearly, this position is stupid and has no arguments whatsoever in its favour.

Thats what people mean when they say socialism, and yeah, social democratic gtovernments have had some aspects of sociailsm, i.e. some of their economy was somewhat socialist.

[Thirsty Crow]

Thats what people mean when they say socialism, and yeah, social democratic gtovernments have had some aspects of sociailsm, i.e. some of their economy was somewhat socialist.
Cut the bullshit, please. Your just perpetuating the gross misinformation that enables idiotic Tea Party folk to claim Obama is a socialist.
A mixed economy is not socialism. You cannot have half capitalism half socialism.

[ComradeMan]

What about Venezuela?

[Thirsty Crow]

What about Venezuela?
Capitalist country (generalized commodity production!!!) which seems to be on a road towards the construction of a socialist society (nationalizations, the beinning of workers' control over the MoP). Economically, Venezuelan production corresponds to the capitalist mode of production, but politically, Venezuelan system exhibits a tendency towards the abolition of such conditions.
But their fate is dependant on the developments first in the entire South America and second in the capitalist world as a whole.

[ComradeMan]

Capitalist country (generalized commodity production!!!) which seems to be on a road towards the construction of a socialist society (nationalizations, the beinning of workers' control over the MoP). Economically, Venezuelan production corresponds to the capitalist mode of production, but politically, Venezuelan system exhibits a tendency towards the abolition of such conditions.
But their fate is dependant on the developments first in the entire South America and second in the capitalist world as a whole.

Revolutions don't necessarily need to happen overnight. Perhaps the slow Venezuelan revolution is the best way to go.

[Thirsty Crow]

Revolutions don't necessarily need to happen overnight. Perhaps the slow Venezuelan revolution is the best way to go.
Have I indicated anywhere that I think there is only one correct plan for a successful revolution, and that Venezuela deviates from it? No, I have not, and if your statement refers to my opinions brought up in previous posts - then your constructing a huge straw man.

I've only stated that Gacky's definition of socialism, and implicitly capitalism, is extremely faulty and misinformed.

[RGacky3]

Cut the bullshit, please. Your just perpetuating the gross misinformation that enables idiotic Tea Party folk to claim Obama is a socialist.
A mixed economy is not socialism. You cannot have half capitalism half socialism.

A mixed economy, is a mixed economy, which means part of it are capitalistic part are socialistic.

The Tea party calling Obama a socialist is rediculous under my standars and yours, because he has'nt really one anything socialist at all.


Capitalist country (generalized commodity production!!!) which seems to be on a road towards the construction of a socialist society (nationalizations, the beinning of workers' control over the MoP). Economically, Venezuelan production corresponds to the capitalist mode of production, but politically, Venezuelan system exhibits a tendency towards the abolition of such conditions.
But their fate is dependant on the developments first in the entire South America and second in the capitalist world as a whole.

Nationalizations? Workers control? So unless the ENTIRE ECONOMY is nationalized and/or worker controlled its not socialist? At all? What is it, (Its not capitalist).


I've only stated that Gacky's definition of socialism, and implicitly capitalism, is extremely faulty and misinformed.

My definition of socialism and capitalism is the one that is generally accepted, yours is some pie in the sky dogma.

[Commie77]

ok guys nice debate and all but the question of this thread is still not answered :P

[ComradeMan]

ok guys nice debate and all but the question of this thread is still not answered :P

Well we arrived at a critical response of "yes depending on circumstances" :crying:

[Commie77]

Well we arrived at a critical response of "yes depending on circumstances" :crying:
o .... my bad ... :)

[LeftSideDown]

Socialism can only work, for some amount of time, if it exists in one (or multiple really, but it doesn't really matter) country. Since there is exchange going on in the rest of the world, Socialists can see prices and make semi-economic decisions off of them. However, given different costs in different countries and different comparative advantages, any "economic calculation" is going to be inaccurate, at least to some degree.

[Rainsborough]

Originally Posted by ComradeMan http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1927409#post1927409)
Well we arrived at a critical response of "yes depending on circumstances"

Okay. But in my OP, I was hoping for a little more like how it might work.

[red cat]

Yes it is possible, socialism is a broad term which means the economy run for the public benefit rather than for profit, i.e. democratically. Its possible to do that in one country, or even in one area of a country.

Agreed. Socialism can be defined in more than one way, each definition being derivable from any other. I will include that socialism can be constructed in an area depending on its capability to maintain itself and fight back both internal and external capitalist attacks.

[Apoi_Viitor]

— 19 —
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[ComradeMan]

— 19 —
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm


Well done for copying and pasting something that was written in 1914. :thumbup1:

Barring some natural disaster or global meltdown the chances or a spontaneous worldwide revolution are, I would say.... none.

[red cat]

Well done for copying and pasting something that was written in 1914. :thumbup1:

Barring some natural disaster or global meltdown the chances or a spontaneous worldwide revolution are, I would say.... none.

Not 1914. :lol:

[Apoi_Viitor]

Well done for copying and pasting something that was written in 1914. :thumbup1:

:laugh:

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who has read Marx and Engels.

And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who hasn't read Marx or Engels.

[ComradeMan]

:laugh:

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who has read Marx and Engels.

And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who hasn't read Marx or Engels.

Look, Pol Pot put be in a bad mood tonight, so sorry if it came over as a bit brusk.

But those quotes are rather simplistic too. Ever heard of non-doctrinaire communism? Marx himself would probably tell you the same. Quoting material about a prospective future revolution that largely didn't happen and that was printed in 1914 does not mean the people who wrote were wrong, or idiots, it just means it not really much help in a debate in 2010.

[Apoi_Viitor]

But those quotes are rather simplistic too. Ever heard of non-doctrinaire communism? Marx himself would probably tell you the same.

It's a joke on a quote Ronald Reagan made...


Quoting material about a prospective future revolution that largely didn't happen *YET*


and that was printed in 1914 does not mean the people who wrote were wrong, or idiots, it just means it not really much help in a debate in 2010.

Why?

[ComradeMan]

It's a joke on a quote Ronald Reagan made...

:lol::thumbup1:

LOL!! So I was spot on with the analysis!!!

Why?


I understand their historical validity but the world is a very different place almost a century later.... I just don't think we can use a lot of stuff like that. For example, they mention England. In 1914 England was a country that ruled 1/3 of the world directly or indirectly and was a leading industrial national with a huge industrial proletariat... England of 2010 is a country trying to save its ass from bankrupcy etc etc....

[Revolution starts with U]

9 of 10 people to whom Marx is a boogeyman would love it if they knew it. It's like Emmanuel Goldstein.

[Baseball]

Agreed. Socialism can be defined in more than one way, each definition being derivable from any other. I will include that socialism can be constructed in an area depending on its capability to maintain itself and fight back both internal and external capitalist attacks.

IOW, socialism can exist as long as it's able to defeat capitalism. Considering that for the past century socialists have defined socialism in "more than one way" and that "each definition" has failed, one would think a little more thought and explanation is warranted to the problem of a socialist community existing side by side to a capitalist one.

[#FF0000]

IOW, socialism can exist as long as it's able to defeat capitalism. Considering that for the past century socialists have defined socialism in "more than one way" and that "each definition" has failed, one would think a little more thought and explanation is warranted to the problem of a socialist community existing side by side to a capitalist one.

Because capitalism need access to new and exciting markets all the time and that means that eventually it'll come down to cracking heads to make that socialist country play ball.

That simple, folks.

[red cat]

IOW, socialism can exist as long as it's able to defeat capitalism. Considering that for the past century socialists have defined socialism in "more than one way" and that "each definition" has failed, one would think a little more thought and explanation is warranted to the problem of a socialist community existing side by side to a capitalist one.

Definitions have not failed. Implementations of methods of class-struggle have failed. But the failures are being overcome bit by bit. The history of proletarian revolutions shows that each revolution was stronger than its predecessors. The problem is not the issue of socialism existing side by side to capitalism, but how the working class should prevent capitalist restoration.

[Revolution starts with U]

IOW, socialism can exist as long as it's able to defeat capitalism. Considering that for the past century socialists have defined socialism in "more than one way" and that "each definition" has failed, one would think a little more thought and explanation is warranted to the problem of a socialist community existing side by side to a capitalist one.

Define failed. Cuba? Venezuela? China?
Then define socialism. Were any of these "socialist?"

[Thirsty Crow]

A mixed economy, is a mixed economy, which means part of it are capitalistic part are socialistic.No, a mixed economy means that parts of the MoP are owned by the bourgeois state and other parts are privately owned, in the form of corporations or businesses whose owner is a sole individual.
You absolutely cannot have "socialistic parts" since socialism signifies a different socioeconomic formation. It goes beyond nationalization, which can still reinforce and protect the capitalist mode of production. Consider Fascist Italy...were industries and businesses that were nationalized in fact "socialistic"?


The Tea party calling Obama a socialist is rediculous under my standars and yours, because he has'nt really one anything socialist at all.No, by your standards and by your definition of "socialism" ("socialistic parts of the economy") one could really conclude that any wishy-washy reformist is an actual socialist.




Nationalizations? Workers control? So unless the ENTIRE ECONOMY is nationalized and/or worker controlled its not socialist? At all? What is it, (Its not capitalist).No, unless there is no more commodity production, on the global scale, a given country wll never achieve socialism. Nationalizations are the transfer of capital ownership. They do not abolish capital. The only way to do so is through a coordinated global effort (again, the seizure of power on behalf f the working class need not take place simultaneously in the whole of the world).
A country is capitalist as long as the dominant economic model works in order that fruits of production take the form of commodities. As I've said, Venezuela is a capitalist country, with a political superstructure different from your average capitalist nation-state.




My definition of socialism and capitalism is the one that is generally accepted, yours is some pie in the sky dogma.
And which would that be? Capitalism is when you have private property?
And again, nice try, anti-dogmatism of the last resort. It seems that confused leftists love this kind of a cop out when all the arguments have vanished.

The problem is not the issue of socialism existing side by side to capitalism, but how the working class should prevent capitalist restoration.
No, I suppose that it is not even slightly problematic that there was, and will be in future according to folks like you, a bloc wholly hostile towards the world wide construction of socialism, and I suppose that this bloc will not hinder the "socialist" one in no way whatsoever, considering little things like capital flight, wars, fierce economic competition which disables the implementation of proletarian democracy....oh wait, I suppose that this already happened!

The issue isn't the problem, since the issue is bogus and false, the problem are the people who would advocate "peaceful coexistence" or anything short of global revolution (of course, this need not happen in a short timespan).

[Thirsty Crow]

Define failed. Cuba? Venezuela? China?
Then define socialism. Were any of these "socialist?"
There are basically two ways of defining socialism.

1) a separate socio-economic formation that functions completey differently from the capitalist one. This would imply that capital has been abolished as a social force, as well as the generalized commodity production (production for sale, exchange value over use value). This also implies a different political superstructure

2) historical definition: socialism amounts to abolition of private property, and ownership is effectively transposed to the State. However, historically, "real existing socialism" has, by no stretch of imagination, not seen the abolition of production in which the fruits of labour take the form of commodities. And that is a defining characteristic of capitalism.

As far as the rhetoric of "failed revolutions" is concerned...I'd say that the revolutions you mention failed in...:

1) Cuba - spreading through the South American continent, which led to Cuban dependence on USSR and economic isolation which produced the effects which are being felt poignantly nowadays

2) China - indeed, Red Cat is right, the failure of the revolution amounts to capitalist restoration. But it also testifies to the lack in importance and power of participation on behalf of the workers and peasants on the grassroots level

3) Venezuela - hasn't failed.

[red cat]

No, I suppose that it is not even slightly problematic that there was, and will be in future according to folks like you, a bloc wholly hostile towards the world wide construction of socialism, and I suppose that this bloc will not hinder the "socialist" one in no way whatsoever, considering little things like capital flight, wars, fierce economic competition which disables the implementation of proletarian democracy....oh wait, I suppose that this already happened!

The issue isn't the problem, since the issue is bogus and false, the problem are the people who would advocate "peaceful coexistence" or anything short of global revolution (of course, this need not happen in a short timespan).

Those who advocate socialism in one country are the biggest supporters of the world-wide construction of socialism. Support to the idea of socialism in one country encourages the working class to establish socialism in whichever pockets of the world possible, and then expand it to world-wide socialism and then finally to communism.

Socialism in one country is not equivalent to peaceful coexistence. It refers to the continuous struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. In the course of the global revolutionary war, the international proletariat can establish local bases, agree to temporary ceasefires in order to reorganize itself and find out efficient ways to politicize the masses. This in no way amounts to the liquidation of class struggle.

[Thirsty Crow]

Those who advocate socialism in one country are the biggest supporters of the world-wide construction of socialism. Support to the idea of socialism in one country encourages the working class to establish socialism in whichever pockets of the world possible, and then expand it to world-wide socialism and then finally to communism.

Well, Stalin for one hasn't, and the evidence is the Spanish Revolution. You know what the Stalinised Comintern line on workers' revolution in Spain was?

Furthermore, the idea of "peaceful coexistence" came about after WW II, and guess who have been its proponents? Yeah, those same guys who argued that socialism has been achieved successfully. Moreover, if we consider the idea that socialist relations of production are strong and stable, another idea, that of peaceful coexistence, along with it the belief that capitalism will implode and collapse of itself, is the logical consequence.

Really, this theory is just a bundle of false assumptions, revisionism and dangerous potential for idiotic outcomes such as "peaceful coexstence".

[red cat]

Well, Stalin for one hasn't, and the evidence is the Spanish Revolution. You know what the Stalinised Comintern line on workers' revolution in Spain was?

No, I don't know that. But the fact that Stalin had supported the revolutionary movements in India and China are enough to counter your claim.


Furthermore, the idea of "peaceful coexistence" came about after WW II, and guess who have been its proponents? Yeah, those same guys who argued that socialism has been achieved successfully. Moreover, if we consider the idea that socialist relations of production are strong and stable, another idea, that of peaceful coexistence, along with it the belief that capitalism will implode and collapse of itself, is the logical consequence.The line of peaceful coexistence was never implemented during Stalin's lifetime. The socialist bloc always remained in conflict with capitalism and militarily helped the masses of countries such as Tibet to seize power.



Really, this theory is just a bundle of false assumptions, revisionism and dangerous potential for idiotic outcomes such as "peaceful coexstence".Socialism in one country is the most practical line for establishing communism. Every theory that is put into practice has the potential to be distorted by reactionaries who can then derive whatever they like from it. Can you explain how it is based on false assumptions and revisionism ?

[RGacky3]

No, a mixed economy means that parts of the MoP are owned by the bourgeois state and other parts are privately owned, in the form of corporations or businesses whose owner is a sole individual.
You absolutely cannot have "socialistic parts" since socialism signifies a different socioeconomic formation. It goes beyond nationalization, which can still reinforce and protect the capitalist mode of production. Consider Fascist Italy...were industries and businesses that were nationalized in fact "socialistic"?


So as long as there is a slight trace of capitalism, its ALL capitalism?


No, by your standards and by your definition of "socialism" ("socialistic parts of the economy") one could really conclude that any wishy-washy reformist is an actual socialist.


YOur a socialist if you think socialism is a better system then Capitalism.


No, unless there is no more commodity production, on the global scale, a given country wll never achieve socialism. Nationalizations are the transfer of capital ownership. They do not abolish capital. The only way to do so is through a coordinated global effort (again, the seizure of power on behalf f the working class need not take place simultaneously in the whole of the world).
A country is capitalist as long as the dominant economic model works in order that fruits of production take the form of commodities. As I've said, Venezuela is a capitalist country, with a political superstructure different from your average capitalist nation-state.


No more commodity production? So no more making commodities? Like cell phones? Or Candles?

Also abolishing capital? DO you know what Capital means? Its things like tractors, and machinery.

Venezuela is a capitalist country that has made large parts of the economy public, which is not capitalism, and state supported cooperatives.


And which would that be? Capitalism is when you have private property?
And again, nice try, anti-dogmatism of the last resort. It seems that confused leftists love this kind of a cop out when all the arguments have vanished.


Socialism is braodly an economy organized around the public good a democratic economy, whereas Capitalism is an economy organized for profit, with private property and markets.

Many economies have parts that are socialistic, i.e. non profit and democratic, but mostly capitalistic. Its not all black and white.


No, I suppose that it is not even slightly problematic that there was, and will be in future according to folks like you, a bloc wholly hostile towards the world wide construction of socialism, and I suppose that this bloc will not hinder the "socialist" one in no way whatsoever, considering little things like capital flight, wars, fierce economic competition which disables the implementation of proletarian democracy....oh wait, I suppose that this already happened!

The issue isn't the problem, since the issue is bogus and false, the problem are the people who would advocate "peaceful coexistence" or anything short of global revolution (of course, this need not happen in a short timespan).

What you mentioned happens and that has be fought.

What your saying is essencially ALL or Nothing, if your not saying that, then I don't get what your saying.

[Thirsty Crow]

No, I don't know that. But the fact that Stalin had supported the revolutionary movements in India and China are enough to counter your claim.
The line of peaceful coexistence was never implemented during Stalin's lifetime. The socialist bloc always remained in conflict with capitalism and militarily helped the masses of countries such as Tibet to seize power.

You don't know much about the history of economical development of USSR, you don't know much about the history of the Comintern in its relation to the Spanish civil war/revolution...ok, that is rather telling.

You know what Stalin did? That is, the Comintern, which was under his direct control, and consequently, under control by the Soviet bureaucracy...This political institution suppressed, in direct or indirect ways, workers' revolution in Spain (the fact is that almost in every revolutionary area the official CP was occupying a marginal position). Instead, the Comintern, the long arm of the Soviet bureaucracy, decided to support the bourgeois revolution which, according to them, wasn't carried out, as well as that kind of social transformation being an absolute necessity for a proletarian revolution which, they thought, was supposed to happen in indefinite future.
They decided to support the bourgeois revolution.
Of course, this perversion logically ties in with the notion and practice of the Popular Front, which was itself a disastrous abandonment of any kind of working class politics.

Back to Spain. The actual, concrete consequences of the before mentioned attitudes was the character of Soviet support, especially when it comes to military equipment. The result was twofold: groups advocating (and implementing) social revolution were forced into a corner due to lack in necessary equipment, while the Fascists were being supplied well enough by their allies. The second result was the catasrophic phenomenon of direct violent attacks against the revolutionary organizations as well as revolutionary communities (especially in rural areas where collectivized farming communities were destroyed).
And for what?
For the bourgeois revolution and "anti-fascism".
And "peaceful coexistence" of bourgeois forces and communists was pretty much implemented within the context of this historical episode.

Now, considering your involvement in this debate, I'd say that you either seriously lack in knowledge regarding actual history, and thus cling to a line which cannot be supported by reference to facts, one hand, or on the other hand, you may know your history and still uphold the line (which amounts to treacherous advocacy of wiping out any revlutionary group which does not conform to the current offical Communist position, be they anarchist, left communist or trotskyist).

Either way, I'd suggest that you reexamine your opinions. To say the least.

[Thirsty Crow]

Can you explain how it is based on false assumptions and revisionism ?
First and the most important false assumption: the defining characteristic of capitalism is private property

Revisionism: the falsification of theory of capitalist mode of production as a system of generalized commodity production; also revision of the concept of socialism as a completely separate socio-economic formation.

[red cat]

You don't know much about the history of economical development of USSR, you don't know much about the history of the Comintern in its relation to the Spanish civil war/revolution...ok, that is rather telling.

I am curious to know what it tells.



You know what Stalin did? That is, the Comintern, which was under his direct control, and consequently, under control by the Soviet bureaucracy...This political institution suppressed, in direct or indirect ways, workers' revolution in Spain (the fact is that almost in every revolutionary area the official CP was occupying a marginal position). Instead, the Comintern, the long arm of the Soviet bureaucracy, decided to support the bourgeois revolution which, according to them, wasn't carried out, as well as that kind of social transformation being an absolute necessity for a proletarian revolution which, they thought, was supposed to happen in indefinite future.
They decided to support the bourgeois revolution.
Of course, this perversion logically ties in with the notion and practice of the Popular Front, which was itself a disastrous abandonment of any kind of working class politics.

Back to Spain. The actual, concrete consequences of the before mentioned attitudes was the character of Soviet support, especially when it comes to military equipment. The result was twofold: groups advocating (and implementing) social revolution were forced into a corner due to lack in necessary equipment, while the Fascists were being supplied well enough by their allies. The second result was the catasrophic phenomenon of direct violent attacks against the revolutionary organizations as well as revolutionary communities (especially in rural areas where collectivized farming communities were destroyed).
And for what?
For the bourgeois revolution and "anti-fascism".
And "peaceful coexistence" of bourgeois forces and communists was pretty much implemented within the context of this historical episode.

Now, considering your involvement in this debate, I'd say that you either seriously lack in knowledge regarding actual history, and thus cling to a line which cannot be supported by reference to facts, one hand, or on the other hand, you may know your history and still uphold the line (which amounts to treacherous advocacy of wiping out any revlutionary group which does not conform to the current offical Communist position, be they anarchist, left communist or trotskyist).

Either way, I'd suggest that you reexamine your opinions. To say the least.Assuming your version of history to be true, I still don't understand how Stalin's lack of support ( or even opposition ) of the revolution in Spain overshadows his line on India and China. We don't claim that his line was totally correct; what we claim is that it was mostly correct.

And talking of the "non-official communist" lines, their achievements up till now, along with their position on the current ongoing revolutions tells a lot about them. Yet whenever some of their organizations have grasped even a partially correct revolutionary line, they have been upheld by Maoists, be they the movement of Trotskyites in Sri Lanka or Anarchists in Greece. No other leftist tendency follows this revolutionary principle.

[red cat]

First and the most important false assumption: the defining characteristic of capitalism is private property

How did the idea of socialism in one country historically follow from this ?


Revisionism: the falsification of theory of capitalist mode of production as a system of generalized commodity production; also revision of the concept of socialism as a completely separate socio-economic formation.

Separate from what ? With what characteristics ?

[Thirsty Crow]

Assuming your version of history to be true, I still don't understand how Stalin's lack of support ( or even opposition ) of the revolution in Spain overshadows his line on India and China. We don't claim that his line was totally correct; what we claim is that it was mostly correct.

No, in fact, it is Dolores Ibaurruti's, the watchdog of the official CP, version - that the anarchists and trotskyists conspired with Franco and Hitler and decided to shut down all vital infrastructure in Barcelona, if we were to consider Barcelona May Days - that is more grounded in reality and fact.

Moreover, you stated that "the line of peaceful coexistence was never implemented during Stalin's lifetime". Unfortunately for you, I've demonstrated that this is an utter falsehood. In fact, not only that this line was in implemented, but it was also advanced to the level of active cooperation with the bourgeoisie.

And if you want sources, wikipedia is an usual starting point. I can provide you with an article written by Fernando Claudin, "The Untimely Revolution", if you wish to learn something.

[Baseball]

Because capitalism need access to new and exciting markets all the time and that means that eventually it'll come down to cracking heads to make that socialist country play ball.

That simple, folks.

That merely suggests how a capitalist community might exist side by side a socialist one. It doesn't describe how a socialist one might exist side by side to a capitalist one.

[Baseball]

Define failed. Cuba? Venezuela? China?
Then define socialism. Were any of these "socialist?"


Defined failed?-- Well, socialist revolts have occurred in the LAST place the theory said it would, for starters.

[Baseball]

Those who advocate socialism in one country are the biggest supporters of the world-wide construction of socialism. Support to the idea of socialism in one country encourages the working class to establish socialism in whichever pockets of the world possible, and then expand it to world-wide socialism and then finally to communism.

Socialism in one country is not equivalent to peaceful coexistence. It refers to the continuous struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. In the course of the global revolutionary war, the international proletariat can establish local bases, agree to temporary ceasefires in order to reorganize itself and find out efficient ways to politicize the masses. This in no way amounts to the liquidation of class struggle.

Yep. This is what the USSR did.

And where is the USSR these days???

[trivas7]

Defined failed?-- Well, socialist revolts have occurred in the LAST place the theory said it would, for starters.
Indeed; revolutionary theory according to Marx's predictions was clearly wrong.

[Thirsty Crow]

That merely suggests how a capitalist community might exist side by side a socialist one. It doesn't describe how a socialist one might exist side by side to a capitalist one.They might exist side by side, but for how long?
There is good amount of evidence which suggests that they cannot do so forever since capitalism is, after all, an inherently expansive system.


So as long as there is a slight trace of capitalism, its ALL capitalism?You keep on rambling as if capitalism was a chemical substance which can be found in traces. But it is not.
As I've stated, generalized commodity production, meaning that the most dominant mode of production is used in order to produce products that are exchangeable in the market, is a defining characteristic of capitalism as a mode of production separate from feudalism, for example. By similar logic, we cannot conclude that the formation in which the ruling class is forced to retain this "model" is entirely different from capitalism.




YOur a socialist if you think socialism is a better system then Capitalism.Have you ever read the "Communist Manifesto" or even observed the world around you?
In CM, Marx talks about bourgeois, petite bourgeois, even feudal socialists...and nowadays we can also witness similar phenomena. Many people will proclaim that they are in fact socialists, but their vision of what exactly "socialism" means may not entail a classless society.
In other words, there will always be benevolent people who, regretably, do not understand every facet of class formation - and if they cannot clearly perceive the bases for this formation, their propositions could as well fall short of the successful means for an establishment of classless societies.
One example would be the so called market socialists or mutualists.



No more commodity production? So no more making commodities? Like cell phones? Or Candles?So you do not know what does "commodity" mean, in a Marxian discourse.
Cell phones and candles are produced in the commodity form nowadays, and that means that they are meant to be exchanged for tthe "universal commodity" - money. But candles could be produced not in order to be sold (thus eliminating the appropriation of surplus value - that is profit), but rather to be consumed, and the renumeration could
take the form of labour vouchers as a sign of the amount /time) of labour performed.
But renumeration is still a debated issue.


Also abolishing capital? DO you know what Capital means? Its things like tractors, and machinery.Again, you do not know what capital is.
While machinery can be used in order to make a profit, within capitalism the base social relation is that of capital, meaining that capital already contains the relations of social subjugation.
To simplify: when reinvesting capital, a capitalist also jumpstarts a new cycle of exploitation - exploitation occurs by means of capital (and capital in turn empowers its owner in order that he/she may take up a specific position in the process of production - the one which extracts surplus value).

There are a lost of misinformation in your post. I'll address the remaining ones later. But just to make myself more clear:




What your saying is essencially ALL or Nothing, if your not saying that, then I don't get what your saying.Of course that is what I'm saying. It is not enough to nationalize every single industry in the country, and remain within the confines of the global capitalist system.

[Thirsty Crow]

Indeed; revolutionary theory according to Marx's predictions was clearly wrong.
Germany? Hungary? Spain?

[Bud Struggle]

Germany? Hungary? Spain?

Well industrial Proletarian countries like Britain, Germany and the USA haven't had revolutions--they always seem to occur in Peasent strongholds like China or Russia or Nepal.

[RGacky3]

You keep on rambling as if capitalism was a chemical substance which can be found in traces. But it is not.
As I've stated, generalized commodity production, meaning that the most dominant mode of production is used in order to produce products that are exchangeable in the market, is a defining characteristic of capitalism as a mode of production separate from feudalism, for example. By similar logic, we cannot conclude that the formation in which the ruling class is forced to retain this "model" is entirely different from capitalism.


ALL PRODUCTS ARE EXCHANGABLE ON A MARKET, even products made in a fully socialist country.

What differentiates it is how its organized, whether its socialized? I.e. for public good, democratically, run by the workers, or whether its profit based, with private property.

These 2 "modes for production" can exist in one society to different degress.


Have you ever read the "Communist Manifesto" or even observed the world around you?


I've ready the communsit manifesto, and its just a book, its not the bible.


In other words, there will always be benevolent people who, regretably, do not understand every facet of class formation - and if they cannot clearly perceive the bases for this formation, their propositions could as well fall short of the successful means for an establishment of classless societies.
One example would be the so called market socialists or mutualists.



SO unless your a Marxist your not a socialist? Really? So for you socialism, marxism and communism are interchangable???


So you do not know what does "commodity" mean, in a Marxian discourse.
Cell phones and candles are produced in the commodity form nowadays, and that means that they are meant to be exchanged for tthe "universal commodity" - money. But candles could be produced not in order to be sold (thus eliminating the appropriation of surplus value - that is profit), but rather to be consumed, and the renumeration could
take the form of labour vouchers as a sign of the amount /time) of labour performed.
But renumeration is still a debated issue.


I know waht community means, and Marxism is not the only socialism, hell, its not socialism, its a form of analysis.

Both cell phones AND candles can be produced to not be sold.

BTW, labour vouchers could very well untail a class society considering it inplies a central authority that sets value to labor.

Anyway thats not the point, the point is your acting as if the only acceptable definition of Socialism is an extremely strick marxist one.


Again, you do not know what capital is.
While machinery can be used in order to make a profit, within capitalism the base social relation is that of capital, meaining that capital already contains the relations of social subjugation.
To simplify: when reinvesting capital, a capitalist also jumpstarts a new cycle of exploitation - exploitation occurs by means of capital (and capital in turn empowers its owner in order that he/she may take up a specific position in the process of production - the one which extracts surplus value).

There are a lost of misinformation in your post. I'll address the remaining ones later. But just to make myself more clear:


CAPITAL IS DEFINED AS THE NON LABOR NON-RESROUCE ASPECTS OF PRODUCTION. THats the definition, your juts explaining how capital is used. Machinery is capital, so is money, so are computers, so is a drill. Your just describing some Marxian explination of how it works, which is fine.


Of course that is what I'm saying. It is not enough to nationalize every single industry in the country, and remain within the confines of the global capitalist system.

I'm not saying that, but when you impliment a significant amount of socialist changes, your strick orthodox way of looking at it disallows you to call it socialist, which is fine, but don't ***** when other people have a more realistic and usefull definition.

Socialism is a broad term that was not invented by Marx, and overall, the common thread in ALL THE DEFINITIONS, is public control over the means of production (generally by the workers), and production for social use rather than profit. Those 2 tings are the overall common thread in everything called socialism. And sure I'm sure you have some Anal pinpoint definition of what it must be exactly, but I prefer to use the common definition that is actually usefull in dealing with the world rather than just academic discussions.

[red cat]

Well industrial Proletarian countries like Britain, Germany and the USA haven't had revolutions--they always seem to occur in Peasent strongholds like China or Russia or Nepal.

One exception is France. But that was before the labour aristocracy strengthened.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1932441]ALL PRODUCTS ARE EXCHANGABLE ON A MARKET, even products made in a fully socialist country.

What differentiates it is how its organized, whether its socialized? I.e. for public good, democratically, run by the workers, or whether its profit based, with private property.


If goods are produced for the "public good" to what extent will there be a market? It would seem that this would tend to preclude a functioning market, or at least make it somewhat different than a market which is based upon private profit.

[RGacky3]

There won't be a market, but that does'nt mean the products can be exchanged on a market.

Cuban products are sold in European Markets all the time.

[Baseball]

There won't be a market, but that does'nt mean the products can be exchanged on a market.

Cuban products are sold in European Markets all the time.

Yes. Selling their products in a capitalist market.

[Bud Struggle]

One exception is France. But that was before the labour aristocracy strengthened.

So the Labor Aristocracy opposes Revolutions? (Or at least they impede them?)

[Thirsty Crow]

Well industrial Proletarian countries like Britain, Germany and the USA haven't had revolutions--they always seem to occur in Peasent strongholds like China or Russia or Nepal.
I don't think you got your history correct.
The workers movement behind the Bolshevik's rise to power was most prominently strong in Russian industrial centres.
And Germany in fact did have a revolution "of its own", that is, a series of events which could have culminated in the overthrow of bourgeois ruling class - one that was strangled in blood by the SPD government.

@RGacky: you're making no sense whatsoever. And if you wish to regurgitate that pro-capitalist shit like "CAPITAL IS DEFINED AS THE NON LABOR NON-RESROUCE ASPECTS OF PRODUCTION", then go right ahead. Just to illustrate, you seem to be suggesting that there cannot be any profit if private property does not exist, which is a preposterous and idiotic statement.
And you know what, come to think of it, no, I don't accept bourgeois bullshit trying to pass for socialism, and I dont think anyone who wishes to see a working class revolution should do so. But I do not wish to propose that one has to be a self proclaimed Marxist in order to be a socialist. For instance, I consider anarcho-syndicalists' and anarcho-communists' political line as a genuine pro working class position.
And just one thing: you disregarded one of my questions...Was Fascist Italy socialist to an extent?


There won't be a market, but that does'nt mean the products can be exchanged on a market.


What do you exactly mean by this?
That there won't be a market, but still products will be exchanged - on a market?
The conjunction "but" is extremely confusing in this sentence of yours.

[red cat]

So the Labor Aristocracy opposes Revolutions? (Or at least they impede them?)

The labour aristocracy is created for the purpose of opposing revolutions. It is particularly strong in imperialist countries.

[RGacky3]

Yes. Selling their products in a capitalist market.

What do you exactly mean by this?
That there won't be a market, but still products will be exchanged - on a market?
The conjunction "but" is extremely confusing in this sentence of yours.

My point is that a socialist society that has no market internally, could pausibally also participate in a wider global market in some cases.

[red cat]

No, in fact, it is Dolores Ibaurruti's, the watchdog of the official CP, version - that the anarchists and trotskyists conspired with Franco and Hitler and decided to shut down all vital infrastructure in Barcelona, if we were to consider Barcelona May Days - that is more grounded in reality and fact.

Moreover, you stated that "the line of peaceful coexistence was never implemented during Stalin's lifetime". Unfortunately for you, I've demonstrated that this is an utter falsehood. In fact, not only that this line was in implemented, but it was also advanced to the level of active cooperation with the bourgeoisie.

And if you want sources, wikipedia is an usual starting point. I can provide you with an article written by Fernando Claudin, "The Untimely Revolution", if you wish to learn something.

I don't trust wikipedia on political topics. And the line of the official CP cannot be blamed on the USSR. Many more incidences of revisionists claiming to be supporters of genuine revolutionaries but backstabbing revolutions in practice have happened.

Anyways, this topic requires a more in-depth discussion. I have started this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-line-spanish-t145357/index.html?t=145357)thread for the same purpose.

[RGacky3]

So the Labor Aristocracy opposes Revolutions? (Or at least they impede them?)

There is no such thing as the labor aristocracy, its a maoist myth.

[Bud Struggle]

There is no such thing as the labor aristocracy, its a maoist myth.

And people wonder why I'm confused by Communism. :D

[RGacky3]

juts ignore maoists and you'll be fine.

[red cat]

Actually the existence of the labour aristocracy is a Leninist theory.

[ComradeMan]

Karl Kautsky invented the term in 1901.

For a discussion:-

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1110

[dearest chuck]

Actually the existence of the labour aristocracy is a Leninist theory.
no, actually it can be traced back to marx & engels.

[Thirsty Crow]

no, actually it can be traced back to marx & engels.

Then demonstrate this allegation with plenty of quotes and comments.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=Menocchio;1932427]They might exist side by side, but for how long?
There is good amount of evidence which suggests that they cannot do so forever since capitalism is, after all, an inherently expansive system.

The evidence tends to indicate that the lack of socialist staying power has to do with the flaws of socialism.

[Thirsty Crow]

[

The evidence tends to indicate that the lack of socialist staying power has to do with the flaws of socialism.

Then present these evidence.

@RGacky: still dodging the question, eh?

[RGacky3]

Whats the question?

If its this


What do you exactly mean by this?
That there won't be a market, but still products will be exchanged - on a market?


Then I answered it allready, its the difference between macro and micro economics. An internally socialist or mostly socialist society can deal with a global capitalist market externally. Macro and Micro.

[ComradeMan]

Whats the question?

If its this



Then I answered it allready, its the difference between macro and micro economics. An internally socialist or mostly socialist society can deal with a global capitalist market externally. Macro and Micro.

For example?

What do you mean by "mostly socialist"?

What does deal with mean in this context? Do business? Survive? Develop?

[Thirsty Crow]

Whats the question?

No, the question is this: did Fascist Italy (or NS Germany) have "socialist parts" with respect to their economy?

[Lt. Ferret]

they had syndicalist parts of their economy . if were defining socialism in the sense that Marxism is included, no, but if were talking socialism as in a collectivist economic sense, then yes.

[RGacky3]

For example?

What do you mean by "mostly socialist"?

What does deal with mean in this context? Do business? Survive? Develop?

Mostly socialist or all socialist, I mean mostly democratic, most of the economy is run democratically.


No, the question is this: did Fascist Italy (or NS Germany) have "socialist parts" with respect to their economy?

No not really, I don't know what part of the economy was democratic.


but if were talking socialism as in a collectivist economic sense, then yes.

"collectivist" requires democratic, just because you call something collectivist does'nt mean it is, unless its actually collective.

[ComradeMan]

Mostly socialist or all socialist, I mean mostly democratic, most of the economy is run democratically.

Can you name a few names?

Because unless there is state control of the entire economic system by a "democratic" government, then I don't see how you can really talk about the economy being run democratically. Governments don't run the economy, business and commerce run the economy, and in many cases the government! Who's more powerful? The "democratically" elected US government or the Big Wall Street financial houses? Think about it. Governments present a facade to the people that they run the economy, they do have the final say on labour laws and taxation, but these are just rhetorical veneer in my opinion.

Are the boards of directors of big, big companies democratically elected?
Do the people have a direct say in the policies of the said companies?
Do these companies act in the interests of the "people"- or the interests of making profits for their shareholders?

[RGacky3]

Can you name a few names?


Jack, Maria, Nancy, those are some names.


Because unless there is state control of the entire economic system by a "democratic" government, then I don't see how you can really talk about the economy being run democratically. Governments don't run the economy, business and commerce run the economy, and in many cases the government! Who's more powerful? The "democatically" elected US government or the Big Wall Street financial houses? Think about it. Governments present a facade to the people that they run the economy, they do have the final say on labour laws and taxation, but these are just rhetorical veneer in my opinion.


Yeah, your right, big buisiness runs the economy. There arn't that many examples

We are talking here about a hypothetical situation.

But I'll give you an example, Norway, is not socialist, however, oil is socialized, under public control, so is a large part of the banking system and telecomunications, so are other sections of the economy. WHich means that part of the economy is democratically controlled, other corporations in Norway arn't powerful enough to really influence the state. So you could say that part of Norwegian economy is socialist.

The same is with Venezuela and Bolivia.

You could have a situation where most of the economy is public but there are a lot of privately owned stores and the such. Its not all or nothing like your claiming.


Are the boards of directors of big, big companies democratically elected?
Do the people have a direct say in the policies of the said companies?
Do these companies act in the interests of the "people"- or the interests of making profits for their shareholders?

No,
Nom
ANd the sahreholders (actaully not really, they act in the interests primarily of the executives).

BUt I never made those arguments, so I don't knwo who your arguing against :P.

Your whole post was kind of pointless, I don't know what your arguing against, I never claimed any of the things your arguing against.