Have you been to a socialist country?

[reality check]

Having been in a socialist country once (East Germany), I can tell you, it was like being in a bad dream. If you tried to screw a country up that bad, you could not do it. Socialism, oddly, made people more ego-centric. I think that is one of the real ironies of socialism: it set out to create the man who only thinks of others. And in every socialist country, people were more ego-centric than in the U.S. I remember too, the piles of rubble on the streets of East Berlin in 1986 (I can't make this up). And East Berlin was considered the "Showcase of Socialism". Imagine what Irkutsk, or Bucharest, or Smolensk looked like.

[Anti-Traditional]

The 'socialist' countries of the 20th century were not 'socialist' but state capitalist. Money still existed, and people had to work for a wage under the supervision of unelected bureaucrats who held all the power and ruthlessly suppressed worker dissent. This class of bureaucrats were the Capitalists, although most private capitalists had been abolished, Capitalism was merely centralised within the state. State control is not socialism.

Socialism is a worldwide Stateless and Classless society. It is based upon the rule of democratic workers councils in the communities and workplaces. Money, wage labour, markets, the division of labour all cease to exist. Production is geared towards satisfying human needs rather than profit.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Not that I doubt east Germany was a shithole, but was that your sole experience in the outside world or something? Garbage strewn all over the place and people acting like selfish pricks is pretty standard for human activity in every country. Try visting NYC or LA sometime.

[Per Levy]

Have you been to a socialist country?

interestingly enough i was even born in one. well the gdr wasnt socialist though but it is what you mean.


Socialism, oddly, made people more ego-centric.

everyone i ever talked to said that prety much everyone was more social and community minded back in the days and lament that most are egocentric and only caring for themselfs these days, funny that.


reality check

reality check? why do i have the feeling troll check would be more acurate?

[Loony Le Fist]

Having been in a socialist country once (East Germany), I can tell you, it was like being in a bad dream. If you tried to screw a country up that bad, you could not do it.


You were in a totalitarian police state, not a socialist one.



Socialism, oddly, made people more ego-centric. I think that is one of the real ironies of socialism: it set out to create the man who only thinks of others. And in every socialist country, people were more ego-centric than in the U.S. I remember too, the piles of rubble on the streets of East Berlin in 1986 (I can't make this up). And East Berlin was considered the "Showcase of Socialism". Imagine what Irkutsk, or Bucharest, or Smolensk looked like.

Even if I grant your position that East Germany was a "socialist" country, you are making a generalization to all possible socialist states. We unfortunately don't know what a highly democratic, decentralized, socialist country looks like, since it's never been done before. And whoever called East Germany a "Showcase of Socialism" wasn't thinking clearly. It is the worst example. Spain in the 1930's (before being crushed by imperialist and fascist forces) is probably a better example.

Just a tip. Next time you troll, try to pick a less obvious name. :laugh:

[DOOM]

My parents come from Yugoslavia. They are talking about it, like if it was heaven on earth.
I believe this is just a product of nostalgia, yugoslav nationalism and seeing that today's situation is indeed shittier than it was in Yugoslavia.
However, those real-socialist countries sure had their good things, like pretty good health care services and a nice educational system.
But yeah, they were far away from achieving total egalitarianism and proper social justice.

[Rosa Partizan]

My parents come from Yugoslavia. They are talking about it, like if it was heaven on earth.
I believe this is just a product of nostalgia, yugoslav nationalism and seeing that today's situation is indeed shittier than it was in Yugoslavia.
However, those real-socialist countries sure had their good things, like pretty good health care services and a nice educational system.
But yeah, they were far away from achieving total egalitarianism and proper social justice.


n00b.

I had the privilege of being born in Yugoslavia :wub:
But I was 5 when we escaped to Germany because of the war and apart from some situations and scenes I hardly remember anything.

[Krasnyy]

I've been to Canada and Sweden on multiple occasions.

[BIXX]

I've been to Canada and Sweden on multiple occasions.


Neither of these are socialist.

[Sinister Intents]

I've been to Canada and Sweden on multiple occasions.

Lol seriously? At college there is a kid who is claiming the USA is socialist...

[DOOM]

Lol seriously? At college there is a kid who is claiming the USA is socialist...

And Ron Paul is the nation's saviour?
God dammit, I hate liberals

[Bala Perdida]

Neither of these are socialist.
How dare you insult the the great Socialist Republic of Canada. We have struggled to bring emancipation to the working class, under the menacing shadow of the Yanqui imperialist.

Jajaja. Just kidding, but seriously all the states that claim to be socialist due so to in order to gain public support. This only works in impoverished nations, where the people are too poor to mindlessly dismiss socialism as a totalitarian destructive ideology. If only they where actually given socialism, instead of the regime they probably live under.
Since the Soviet Union made it seem that socialism doesn't require democracy, it's easier for dictators to take advantage of. Neo-liberal imperialists claim democracy, but I'm not exactly sure if bourgeois democracy is necessary or gives an advantage to neo-liberal regimes.

[Per Levy]

I've been to Canada and Sweden on multiple occasions.

oh shut up sickle, you are so boring and uncreative, go get yourself banned a 6th time or whatever. well you'll have the record in bans soon, dethroning trotskistmarxs record, its a achievment i guess.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I am really starting to get annoyed by the knee-jerk reaction many people have to mention of "really existing socialist" (well, they were really existing, so it's not a case of "three words, three lies" like the names of most "socialist" groups, sorry, "parties") states. I mean, surely there is a lot of criticize about the GDR or Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union, but platitudes like "police state" (ha, because the Bonn regime was so incredibly nice to its population), "totalitarianism", and so on 1) won't help us provide a Marxist analysis of these states, and 2) are fundamentally bourgeois - any Tory or U.S. Democrat (or "Democratic Socialist" of the SPUSA kind) could say the same.

Anyway, as it happens I live in a former "socialist" state. I highly dislike the nostalgia many people feel for the SRFY period, but at the same time this nostalgia is grounded in concrete economic fact. The standard of living was much higher then - of course, if SFRY was a capitalist state (and whether it was is what's interesting from a Marxist perspective), none of that matters, communists are not the Society for the Ethical Treatment of Wage-Slaves. But at the same time, to pretend that Eastern Bloc states were somehow specially oppressive or backward is ridiculous. By the way, if you want to see trash, visit Eastern Europe today. As for people being more "ego-centered", I really can't say, or care. I think it's good that the workers are a bit ego-centered, instead of selflessly sacrificing themselves for God, Country, King and Boss.

[Rosa Partizan]

@ Criminalize

I guess Croatia is the most anti-YU-country of all the former YU-republics, huh? Do you experience nostalgia among Croatian citizens?

[Krasnyy]

oh shut up sickle, you are so boring and uncreative, go get yourself banned a 6th time or whatever. well you'll have the record in bans soon, dethroning trotskistmarxs record, its a achievment i guess.
*An achievement


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sinister Intents]

oh shut up sickle, you are so boring and uncreative, go get yourself banned a 6th time or whatever. well you'll have the record in bans soon, dethroning trotskistmarxs record, its a achievment i guess.

I'm seriously getting pissed off with the drama over an individual who keeps creating sock accounts. I don't give a rat's ass he keeps coming back, the more he comes here and debates the more he'll learn, so lighten up people and just leave him alone. He'll probably get banned again, and then he'll come back. In stead of being jerks to him we should be arguing against the things he says so he'll learn.

Simply put Canada and Sweden are not socialist countries, and socialism cannot exist in one nation or a few nations, socialism must be a global system Krasnyy. I'll PM you that essay I wrote, it'll help give you a better understanding of a few things.

[DOOM]

@ Criminalize

I guess Croatia is the most anti-YU-country of all the former YU-republics, huh? Do you experience nostalgia among Croatian citizens?

http://balkanportal.info/MyBB/images/smilies/frog.png

[Goblin]

I have never been to one, but my father visited East Germany back in the 80s. Apparently you could bribe cops with western comic books over there.

[Loony Le Fist]

...
but platitudes like "police state" (ha, because the Bonn regime was so incredibly nice to its population), "totalitarianism", and so on 1) won't help us provide a Marxist analysis of these states, and 2) are fundamentally bourgeois - any Tory or U.S. Democrat (or "Democratic Socialist" of the SPUSA kind) could say the same.


I hear you. The US, UK, and Australia are the top model police states today. But lets call a spade a spade. The GDR was a police state. But they learned from the best. The FBI was doing stuff to dissidents in the 1960's that put the GDR to shame in some respects. In the US, the FBI invented Zersetzung.



Anyway, as it happens I live in a former "socialist" state. I highly dislike the nostalgia many people feel for the SRFY period, but at the same time this nostalgia is grounded in concrete economic fact. The standard of living was much higher then - of course, if SFRY was a capitalist state (and whether it was is what's interesting from a Marxist perspective), none of that matters, communists are not the Society for the Ethical Treatment of Wage-Slaves. But at the same time, to pretend that Eastern Bloc states were somehow specially oppressive or backward is ridiculous. By the way, if you want to see trash, visit Eastern Europe today. As for people being more "ego-centered", I really can't say, or care. I think it's good that the workers are a bit ego-centered, instead of selflessly sacrificing themselves for God, Country, King and Boss.

Hey I couldn't agree more. There's tons of countries that were better off under more totalitarian (but collectivist) systems. But I'm going to call a spade a spade. If a state is a police state or totalitarian, I'm going to call it how I see it. I'm for socialism, not for totalitarian authoritarian dictatorships and centralized bureaucracy.

[Lokomotive293]

Having been in a socialist country once (East Germany), I can tell you, it was like being in a bad dream. If you tried to screw a country up that bad, you could not do it. Socialism, oddly, made people more ego-centric. I think that is one of the real ironies of socialism: it set out to create the man who only thinks of others. And in every socialist country, people were more ego-centric than in the U.S. I remember too, the piles of rubble on the streets of East Berlin in 1986 (I can't make this up). And East Berlin was considered the "Showcase of Socialism". Imagine what Irkutsk, or Bucharest, or Smolensk looked like.

Have you seen all the homeless in the streets of Berlin as well, the lines at the employment agency in Dresden, at the food bank in Leipzig, or the Nazi hordes who control whole counties and burn down the homes of immigrants while the police is watching and doing nothing?

I wonder.

[Marxaveli]

socialist country

Oxymoron. No such thing.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

@ Criminalize

I guess Croatia is the most anti-YU-country of all the former YU-republics, huh? Do you experience nostalgia among Croatian citizens?

A lot of it - even among the "softer" nationalists. Some time ago one of our "student leaders" created a very touching fusion of Titoist economics and anti-Serb chauvinism. Generally, excepting the open Ustaše of course, the feeling seems to be that Things Were Better in Yugoslavia, although "the Serbs" were too powerful, thank you very much. What things being better means depends on the people in question - like I said, most people are nostalgic about an era of affordable housing, little starvation, and affordable healthcare. Others are nostalgic about far more sinister things (the LCY not being particularly known as a bastion of social progress).

As for me - I'm old enough to remember the old Surrealist Top List sketch about miners beating cops, and what that was based on.


I hear you. The US, UK, and Australia are the top model police states today. But lets call a spade a spade. The GDR was a police state.

Why? Because they had a police? Because they sometimes monitored people? All states are police states, by those criteria, so I really don't see what new information is imparted by calling GDR a "police state".

Actually the GDR should be applauded, albeit from a critical standpoint, for doing away with most Nazi legislation, which the Bonn regime never did. Nazi legislation continues to inform the present German legal system. How is that for a "police state"?


Hey I couldn't agree more. There's tons of countries that were better off under more totalitarian (but collectivist) systems. But I'm going to call a spade a spade. If a state is a police state or totalitarian, I'm going to call it how I see it. I'm for socialism, not for totalitarian authoritarian dictatorships and centralized bureaucracy.

What does "totalitarian" mean?

Why is centralization even a bad thing?

[Sinister Intents]

Oxymoron. No such thing.

If he comes back, we'll probably have to elaborate on this. Anti-communists always show themselves to be rather daft.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I've lived in the u.s. Which according to most talk radio is socialist. You're right, people act terrible here and things don't function well for lots of people and the government spies on you and will shoot you with metal canisters if you try and protest or with real bullets if you are black.

[Loony Le Fist]

Why? Because they had a police? Because they sometimes monitored people? All states are police states, by those criteria, so I really don't see what new information is imparted by calling GDR a "police state".[


There is a massive difference between a state that has police and a police state or more precisely a surveillance state. One word: Zersetzung. It's the same techniques used by the NSA in the US of today. Infiltration of networks of individuals holding dissedent views, putting out false information about them to discredit them, and even invovling their families in it. That's a police state. It doesn't simply mean they had police. It means they had police who were unaccountable to the people they were charged to protect.

There is a difference between monitoring people after going through the checks and balances of democratic power and simply bypassing all of this. This is precisely what the US does today, but that doesn't make it right. No matter who does it.



Actually the GDR should be applauded, albeit from a critical standpoint, for doing away with most Nazi legislation, which the Bonn regime never did. Nazi legislation continues to inform the present German legal system. How is that for a "police state"?


I don't know how much Nazi legislation informs the current German legal system. I do know that it's illegal to publicly deny the crimes of the holocaust and the Third Reich.



What does "totalitarian" mean?


It means an effective dictatorship. A state where dissidents are thrown in jail for simply having a contrary opinion. A state where you are afraid to speak your mind because you can be sent to rehabilitation.



Why is centralization even a bad thing?

It's not that it's a bad thing. It's that it's very hard to manage production in a centralized way. Efficient production requires decentralization. You can have centralization, but it will be plagued by the inability to keep up with the needs of the people. Economic systems have to respond rapidly to changes. It's hard for those things to propagate up layers of bureaucracy. Decentralization allows economies to be flexible. This is not antithetical to socialism.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

There is a massive difference between a state that has police and a police state or more precisely a surveillance state. One word: Zersetzung. It's the same techniques used by the NSA in the US of today. Infiltration of networks of individuals holding dissedent views, putting out false information about them to discredit them, and even invovling their families in it. That's a police state. It doesn't simply mean they had police. It means they had police who were unaccountable to the people they were charged to protect.

Alright - so can you name one state that has not done such things? Police unaccountability isn't some defect in modern democracies, it is a reflection of their nature as class dictatorships. Calling GDR a police state, particularly in the context formed by decades of Cold War propaganda, suggests that it was worse than certain bourgeois state. What states are those? All of them routinely engaged in the behavior you describe.


There is a difference between monitoring people after going through the checks and balances of democratic power and simply bypassing all of this. This is precisely what the US does today, but that doesn't make it right. No matter who does it.

It's what the US has always done, and it can't do anything else. That's pretty much the point of socialist politics: unlike liberals, we don't say that this or that president is bad and that the system should be reformed so that the changes due to Bush or whoever should be undone - we say that the system is rotten and needs to go.


I don't know how much Nazi legislation informs the current German legal system. I do know that it's illegal to publicly deny the crimes of the holocaust and the Third Reich.

The old Bonn law criminalizing homosexuality was copied word for word from the Nazi one, and went further than even contemporary law in Saudi Arabia or Iran by explicitly criminalizing homosexual desire. Likewise the laws against incest (which are enforced even today because the Volk need to be protected from those sinister brother-fuckers). The German law concerning murder is also from the Nazi period, and the wording means that a husband who kills his wife by abusing her will likely escape a murder charge while an abused wife who kills her abuser will be charged with murder. Etc. etc.


It means an effective dictatorship. A state where dissidents are thrown in jail for simply having a contrary opinion. A state where you are afraid to speak your mind because you can be sent to rehabilitation.

So basically, it means every state that has ever existed.


It's not that it's a bad thing. It's that it's very hard to manage production in a centralized way. Efficient production requires decentralization. You can have centralization, but it will be plagued by the inability to keep up with the needs of the people. Economic systems have to respond rapidly to changes. It's hard for those things to propagate up layers of bureaucracy. Decentralization allows economies to be flexible. This is not antithetical to socialism.

Well, the economies of the Eastern Bloc certainly seemed to ignore all the scholastic arguments about centralization and preformed adequately if not exactly admirably. The thing about decentralization is that is results in a market, whether the decentralizers like that or not. As soon as there are autonomous units that can decide what to produce and in what quantities, and if these units are not autarchic - and they can't be, we live in the 21st century - they will have to negotiate and haggle among themselves, forming a market.

[Lokomotive293]

It's not that it's a bad thing. It's that it's very hard to manage production in a centralized way. Efficient production requires decentralization. You can have centralization, but it will be plagued by the inability to keep up with the needs of the people. Economic systems have to respond rapidly to changes. It's hard for those things to propagate up layers of bureaucracy. Decentralization allows economies to be flexible. This is not antithetical to socialism.

I really have a question. Production of many important goods and services is highly centralized nowadays. Think of cars, busses, cellphones, computers, trains, airplanes, public transport - all of those are produced/provided by a few small monopolies, or even one single huge state controlled one. And even services like restaurants, hairdressers or the bakery next door tend to be part of a chain more and more. Or your local supermarket. Or, whatever.

Centralization happens all by itself, and is in no way ineffective. It's actually more effective than having multiple small producers at the same time, who know nothing of each other.

The fear of centralization is nothing but the fear of the petty-bourgeois to loose their own business, piece of land, etc.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The fear of centralization is nothing but the fear of the petty-bourgeois to loose their own business, piece of land, etc.

Or the expression of the desire of the intellectual or labor bureaucrat or aristocrat to rise to the petite bourgeoisie himself - which is why so many "socialists" seem to imagine socialism as an immense accumulation of petty craftsmen.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The fear of centralization is nothing but the fear of the petty-bourgeois to loose their own business, piece of land, etc.well yes and no. I think centralization isn't a thing in of itself... Centralization of what by whom, how?

I think people fear unaccountable and unresponsive centralization and I don't think that's an unreasonable fear given real life examples of corporations or totalitarian centralization.

In terms of production most manufacturing is less labor and potentially resource costing than duplicated efforts by many autonomous small producers. With services, local and decentralized organization may be better because there would be more diversity of needs and so on.

[Red Commissar]

Lol seriously? At college there is a kid who is claiming the USA is socialist...

You mean it isn't? Shit I got to have a talk with that teabagger at city hall. I've been mislead!

[Loony Le Fist]

Alright - so can you name one state that has not done such things?


Sadly there are none in modern times. Perhaps Spain during a brief period in the 1930's.



Police unaccountability isn't some defect in modern democracies, it is a reflection of their nature as class dictatorships.


Agreed.



Calling GDR a police state, particularly in the context formed by decades of Cold War propaganda, suggests that it was worse than certain bourgeois state.


No, because I specifically called out bourgeois states for this behaviour. Just because bourgeois states do this, doesn't excuse other states from doing it. If you like the term better, I'll call them surveillance states, if that offends you less.

The comment I made about the GDR being a police state, was made in context to talking about the GDR. It wasn't made in a context comparing the behaviour of all states. If you wish we can take up in another thread where we can get into the minutiae of which states I consider to fit this category. Believe me, it's a long list that includes a whole lot of countries of differing economic systems. The US, UK, Germany (modern & unified), and Australia happen to top my list at this time.



What states are those? All of them routinely engaged in the behavior you describe.


I think it's possible to assign a sorting order on which states have taken an excessively pro-active stance towards policing and surveillance state tactics.



It's what the US has always done, and it can't do anything else. That's pretty much the point of socialist politics: unlike liberals, we don't say that this or that president is bad and that the system should be reformed so that the changes due to Bush or whoever should be undone - we say that the system is rotten and needs to go.


Agreed.



The old Bonn law criminalizing homosexuality was copied word for word from the Nazi one, and went further than even contemporary law in Saudi Arabia or Iran by explicitly criminalizing homosexual desire. Likewise the laws against incest (which are enforced even today because the Volk need to be protected from those sinister brother-fuckers). The German law concerning murder is also from the Nazi period, and the wording means that a husband who kills his wife due to abuse will likely escape a murder charge while an abused wife who kills her abuser will be charged with murder. Etc. etc.


Very informative. Any state that would criminalize homosexuality is absolutely backward and reactionary.



So basically, it means every state that has ever existed.


I think we can get past the simple binary definition of whether a state takes actions like this and see it as a matter of differing degrees. I think there is some order in we can place states that use more aggressive tactics in this regard to differing degrees.



Well, the economies of the Eastern Bloc certainly seemed to ignore all the scholastic arguments about centralization and preformed adequately if not exactly admirably. The thing about decentralization is that is results in a market, whether the decentralizers like that or not. As soon as there are autonomous units that can decide what to produce and in what quantities, and if these units are not autarchic - and they can't be, we live in the 21st century - they will have to negotiate and haggle among themselves, forming a market.

My own view of socialism is an attempt to extend democracy to all parts of life and decision making. I don't really have an absolutist view about the abolition of markets, though I think that's certainly an end goal. However there has to be a transition between a capitalist and fully socialist system. I'm just trying to bridge that gap. I happen to think decentralization is the way to go, and hey if you feel centralization is the way to go, you are free to have that opinion. We'll just agree to disagree. :grin:

[Loony Le Fist]

I really have a question. Production of many important goods and services is highly centralized nowadays. Think of cars, busses, cellphones, computers, trains, airplanes, public transport - all of those are produced/provided by a few small monopolies, or even one single huge state controlled one.


I agree. Some things tend toward natural monopolies. Desiring decentralization doesn't necessarily mean I want everything decentralized.




And even services like restaurants, hairdressers or the bakery next door tend to be part of a chain more and more. Or your local supermarket. Or, whatever.


That is true. But I feel like workers in those businesses should probably be deciding what is good for their own workplaces with democratic coordination between them.



Centralization happens all by itself, and is in no way ineffective. It's actually more effective than having multiple small producers at the same time, who know nothing of each other.


For some things like large goods, and common services this is true. I was simply talking about the general principle.



The fear of centralization is nothing but the fear of the petty-bourgeois to loose their own business, piece of land, etc.

Well it's not losing business that I fear. It's about people losing autonomy about their means of production. Just because I want workers to own the means of production doesn't mean I want some external bureaucracy deciding things for them. I want those workers in that plant to decide what they want to do collectively. That doesn't mean there can't be any coordination between different factories, offices, or whatever.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I was gonna say "inb4 someone says l0l there's no socialist countries stupid", but….

Anyway, I have not been to a socialist country. While this is an obvious troll post… well, actually I wouldn't say trolling because trolling tries to bait people without making known your actual beliefs. And you, OP, are obviously anti socialist, so I guess you're trying to understand how we can support such shithole places, right?

First off, I think the general consensus on this site is that the GDR was not socialist. It had many many aspects that describe a socialist society, but it was still quite far off. Class struggle existed, as did clear state organs which were inorganic. Meaning, the state was a defined, separate entity from the people.

Second of all, even if it was a socialist country, lets see how people feel about socialism in Europe. Surveys taken shows that about two thirds of the populace thought that Eastern Europe and Russia was better off under the so-called "communist" regimes. Hell, people even have nostalgia for Ceausescu, and he was absolutely nuts! Far from socialism.

You are wanting to compare areas with socialist-leaning reforms to the bourgeois classes in capitalist nations. Think of how these "socialist" areas were before the regimes anyway. Backwards, semi feudal societies. I'd say they at least made progress, as many of them saw land distribution to people who had none and were forced to work on someone else's land for the bare minimum for centuries. It also saw, contrary to popular belief, much less starvation. Nobody blames starvation on capitalist policies when it happens in capitalist nations.

Anyway, I'm rambling now, sorry. Also, to Krasny, how did you enjoy the peoples' republics of Canada and Sweden, lol.

[Derendscools]

Also, to Krasny, how did you enjoy the peoples' republics of Canada and Sweden, lol.
Wouldn't it be the Peoples Kingdoms?

[Art Vandelay]

Wouldn't it be the Peoples Kingdoms?

Yes, technically Canada is a constitutional monarchy.

[boiler]

I was never in a country with a socialist government but Id love to visit Cuba and also Venezuela. A friend was in both places a few times he told me good things. The same friend was in North Korea, he told me lots of bad things about the place. My friend is a staunch Marxist-Leninist so he wouldn't have made what he told me up. He could only go different places with a guide. He visited a school and said what he seen was clearly put on as a show to impress him and the others that were there.

[Mrcapitalist]

Look kids a troll.

[rylasasin]

Neither of these are socialist.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090819180839/uncyclopedia/images/1/13/Thats_the_joke.jpg

[liberlict]

Lol seriously? At college there is a kid who is claiming the USA is socialist...

People have started using the word 'socialist' to mean 'bleeding heart liberal'. It's happened where I am too. I guess they want to capitalise on the bad connotations attached to socialism.

Socialists do it at well. You'll hurl the word Nazi or Fascist at anyone who is in the slightest bit nationalist.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I was technically on paper born in the SU. Then again it went belly up 2 seconds later but yeah. Planning a pilgrimage to Best Korea tho.

[Derendscools]

People have started using the word 'socialist' to mean 'bleeding heart liberal'. It's happened where I am too. I guess they want to capitalise on the bad connotations attached to socialism.

Its thanks to them that the word socialist is less and less a bad word, its becoming cliché.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

People have started using the word 'socialist' to mean 'bleeding heart liberal'. It's happened where I am too. I guess they want to capitalise on the bad connotations attached to socialism.

Socialists do it at well. You'll hurl the word Nazi or Fascist at anyone who is in the slightest bit nationalist.

re: the first point i think it might also be related to the pushing of some old-school social-democratic measures by a lot of leftwardly-mobile liberals operating under the misconception that socialism means nationalising everything, although i agree that it's a convenient slur for the right to hurl at anyone who thinks there should be a slipper rather than a jackboot on the neck of the working class, since as you mention the word can still produce a kneejerk negative reaction in a lot of people.

In regards to thes econd point - yeah, that ticks me off too. It's not always the particularly nationalist parties either (although I'd be very hard pressed to find a major political party anywhere that doesn't use explicitly nationalistic rhetoric at some point) and speaking politically and historically i've always thought it rather cheapens the term.

[liberlict]

re: the first point i think it might also be related to the pushing of some old-school social-democratic measures by a lot of leftwardly-mobile liberals operating under the misconception that socialism means nationalising everything, although i agree that it's a convenient slur for the right to hurl at anyone who thinks there should be a slipper rather than a jackboot on the neck of the working class, since as you mention the word can still produce a kneejerk negative reaction in a lot of people.



Very true, very true. Also a lot of the left parties in birpartisan politics, like the Australian Labor Party and the Labour Party UK, began as socialistic labor movements before moving to the right, the 'Third Way' bal bla, so maybe the term has some kind historical application even if it's way off nowadays.

[Ares1214]

I always see communists claim "USSR/China/Cuba....." weren't real communist, they were state capitalist or Stalinist or whatever alternative name they come up with. But then I think, if a man tries to fly by himself, unassisted, of course it isn't called flying, it's called falling. What I'm getting at is if communism has been tried so many times, and I agree it's never been done to the textbook definition, perhaps the textbook definition is impossible. Technically textbook capitalism has never really been done either, but I also accept that textbook capitalism is essentially impossible. Communists don't seem to accept that there will NEVER be a global, moneyless, egalitarian society. So when there are so many examples of communism being tried and failed, I think it's much more valuable to see why it failed, see that communism requires too much of a strong central government to initiate, and then realize that the government will never give up power. The USSR, China, Cuba, so on aren't examples of Communism failing, they are examples of how the path to communism always leads to totalitarian governments and command economies.

[Sinister Intents]

I always see communists claim "USSR/China/Cuba....." weren't real communist, they were state capitalist or Stalinist or whatever alternative name they come up with. But then I think, if a man tries to fly by himself, unassisted, of course it isn't called flying, it's called falling. What I'm getting at is if communism has been tried so many times, and I agree it's never been done to the textbook definition, perhaps the textbook definition is impossible. Technically textbook capitalism has never really been done either, but I also accept that textbook capitalism is essentially impossible. Communists don't seem to accept that there will NEVER be a global, moneyless, egalitarian society. So when there are so many examples of communism being tried and failed, I think it's much more valuable to see why it failed, see that communism requires too much of a strong central government to initiate, and then realize that the government will never give up power. The USSR, China, Cuba, so on aren't examples of Communism failing, they are examples of how the path to communism always leads to totalitarian governments and command economies.

You seem like an anti communist troll. I'm reporting you.

[Derendscools]

The USSR, China, Cuba, so on aren't examples of Communism failing, they are examples of how the path to communism always leads to totalitarian governments and command economies.

Didn't they lead to capitalism then?

[Sinister Intents]

Didn't they lead to capitalism then?

Emma Goldman: There is No Communism In Russia. (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia)
This sums up why the USSR wasn't communist, and why it's state capitalist, and also the other failed so called socialist nations were state capitalist, and often very much anti socialist, for they suppressed the real socialists. Class rule did not leave these societies, they were very hierarchal, and not to mention you cannot have a communist country, for that is an oxymoron. Also socialism is not utopian, and it is not a pipe dream. It's a very real achievable thing, and we need to raise people's class consciousness as well as their understanding of what socialism really is.

[Ares1214]

You seem like an anti communist troll. I'm reporting you.

Considering I'm on the opposing ideology forum and have been very respectful, you would only being showing your close-mindedness, but do as you please.


Didn't they lead to capitalism then?

I'm talking about early USSR and early China. Lenin was diehard communist and even he realized that they were moving too fast and their economy was doomed if they moved away from capitalism too quickly. So some basic rights to private ownership were given back in the 1930's I believe, nothing major though. They didn't become capitalist, not even CLOSE to capitalist. Not until 50 years later at least.


This sums up why the USSR wasn't communist, and why it's state capitalist, and also the other failed so called socialist nations were state capitalist, and often very much anti socialist, for they suppressed the real socialists. Class rule did not leave these societies, they were very hierarchal, and not to mention you cannot have a communist country, for that is an oxymoron. Also socialism is not utopian, and it is not a pipe dream. It's a very real achievable thing, and we need to raise people's class consciousness as well as their understanding of what socialism really is

I agree with you, the USSR wasn't communist. But that is because communism is an unattainable goal. It will never be world wide, a modern economy will falter without a means of exchange, and people will never be equal across the globe. If you want to move towards those lofty goals, that's one thing, but then you need to accept that these men tried to do the same thing and look how it worked out. It's not the fact that every "communist" country has failed, communism has never really be fully implemented, it's the fact that the closest countries could get was failing command economies with highly centralized and abusive dictatorships.

That doesn't mean that you should stop fighting for more equality and workers rights, but people need to stop denying the failures of the USSR and China, just because they weren't communist doesn't mean they didn't try to be and experience failure. Technically the US isn't pure capitalist either, and yet all charges against the US are blamed on capitalism. Seems like quite the double standard...

[o well this is ok I guess]

I'm talking about early USSR and early China. Lenin was diehard communist and even he realized that they were moving too fast and their economy was doomed if they moved away from capitalism too quickly. So some basic rights to private ownership were given back in the 1930's I believe, nothing major though. They didn't become capitalist, not even CLOSE to capitalist. Not until 50 years later at least.um
lenin was dead in the 30's. Do you mean the 20's?

[Baseball]

Emma Goldman: There is No Communism In Russia. (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia)
This sums up why the USSR wasn't communist, and why it's state capitalist, and also the other failed so called socialist nations were state capitalist, and often very much anti socialist, for they suppressed the real socialists. Class rule did not leave these societies, they were very hierarchal, and not to mention you cannot have a communist country, for that is an oxymoron. Also socialism is not utopian, and it is not a pipe dream. It's a very real achievable thing, and we need to raise people's class consciousness as well as their understanding of what socialism really is.

She concedes that industrial planning is absolutely vital for the betterment of communities. Her objection is in how the USSR went about it. While that is a valid critique, it scarcely makes the USSR "state capitalist." It simply means she proposes to make the same mistakes by using other means.

What she fails to understand is that planning of industry means planning of people, that is to say to direct the actions of industry is to direct the actions of people.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It's truly a wonder how you've been here long enough to post 1200 times and you're still able come up with stupid shit to say.

[Ares1214]

um
lenin was dead in the 30's. Do you mean the 20's?

Oh yeah sorry, misclick, I meant early 20's with the NEP. That still doesn't change that even he saw it economically unviable to have 0 private property at that time.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Sadly there are none in modern times. Perhaps Spain during a brief period in the 1930's.

Well it must have been very brief, so brief in fact the Popular Front never got the memo when they suppressed workers and, more understandably, fascists (by the way - the term "dissident" has acquired a connotation of near saintliness in the West, particularly due to the efforts of Cold Warriors to promote Soviet dissidents like Solzhenitsyn - most of who turned out to be fascists but such is life - but strictly speaking it is neutral; Purishkevich and Dubrovin were also dissidents, and if the Soviet government actually did disappear them, good for the Soviet government).


No, because I specifically called out bourgeois states for this behaviour. Just because bourgeois states do this, doesn't excuse other states from doing it. If you like the term better, I'll call them surveillance states, if that offends you less.

It's not a matter of being offended. It's just that, if every state that has existed fulfills your criteria for a "police state" - and they do, as least as you have stated them - then calling the GDR a "police state" doesn't convey any new information.


I think it's possible to assign a sorting order on which states have taken an excessively pro-active stance towards policing and surveillance state tactics.

So where are the boundaries between "normal" and "excessive" policing in this context? The term seems hopelessly fuzzy.


My own view of socialism is an attempt to extend democracy to all parts of life and decision making.

Well, that's not what socialism means - socialism is the abolishment of class society, which precludes any sort of market mechanism of distribution.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

So, the former Socialist states were pretty alright guys. Further, the semantic debate in this thread is pretty silly. Anyone else from East Bloc?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I always see communists claim "USSR/China/Cuba....." weren't real communist, they were state capitalist or Stalinist or whatever alternative name they come up with. But then I think, if a man tries to fly by himself, unassisted, of course it isn't called flying, it's called falling. What I'm getting at is if communism has been tried so many times, and I agree it's never been done to the textbook definition, perhaps the textbook definition is impossible.

The point is that the "really existing socialist" states never claimed to be building communism - at most they claimed that they were dictatorships of the proletariat, and in "Stalinist" theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat is socialism.

Of course, merely stating that these states were not building communism over and over, as if it were a magical incantation to ward off anti-communist spirits, is not serious analysis. Nor should the communist simply accept every bit of Cold War propaganda about Eastern Bloc states, although to be honest most people here seem to do so.


Technically textbook capitalism has never really been done either, but I also accept that textbook capitalism is essentially impossible.

"Texbook" capitalism, the law of value, private property etc., hasn't just been tried, it's ubiquitous. What doesn't exist is some sort of "absolutely free market", but not even bourgeois economists pretend something so blatantly impossible is a prerequisite of capitalism.


Communists don't seem to accept that there will NEVER be a global, moneyless, egalitarian society. So when there are so many examples of communism being tried and failed, I think it's much more valuable to see why it failed, see that communism requires too much of a strong central government to initiate, and then realize that the government will never give up power. The USSR, China, Cuba, so on aren't examples of Communism failing, they are examples of how the path to communism always leads to totalitarian governments and command economies.

"Totalitarian" is a nonsense term, and yes, communism would be a command economy. Social planning implies a command economy; any "plan" where a small group of workers can refuse to go along is not a plan but a suggestion.


I'm talking about early USSR and early China. Lenin was diehard communist and even he realized that they were moving too fast and their economy was doomed if they moved away from capitalism too quickly. So some basic rights to private ownership were given back in the 1930's I believe, nothing major though.

Russia wasn't "moving away from" capitalism, but towards developed capitalism at best. At the end of the Civil War, what remained of the economy was mostly petty commodity production and some large-scale industrial enterprise, which remained in state hands. The NEP, as drawn-out as it was, was simply an attempt to return the economic situation to the prewar levels.

[Ares1214]

The point is that the "really existing socialist" states never claimed to be building communism - at most they claimed that they were dictatorships of the proletariat, and in "Stalinist" theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat is socialism.

Of course, merely stating that these states were not building communism over and over, as if it were a magical incantation to ward off anti-communist spirits, is not serious analysis. Nor should the communist simply accept every bit of Cold War propaganda about Eastern Bloc states, although to be honest most people here seem to do so.

The USSR and China never claimed to be communist? Pretty sure that they did, and they also likely hit most if not all the 10 "planks" of communism. I will however completely cede that they were not in line with what communism was meant to be, the whole classless, moneyless, stateless global society for equality. And I also am glad that you agree, people who simply dismiss the USSR and China as "not communist" is turning a blind eye to history and forfeiting the best real word experiments in communism for any sort of analysis. I always love when people say that the Paris commune is such a better example, yet it lasted for 2 months and really did very little in a very small area. Just because the Paris commune was a more idealistic communist community doesn't make it a good example.


"Texbook" capitalism, the law of value, private property etc., hasn't just been tried, it's ubiquitous. What doesn't exist is some sort of "absolutely free market", but not even bourgeois economists pretend something so blatantly impossible is a prerequisite of capitalism.

So whenever there's a problem in the US, specifically relating to corporate "greed" or wealth inequality, libertarians blame it on government intervention, citing how we aren't really even close to a capitalist/laissez faire economy. How is that any different than people claiming communism failed wherever it has been tried, and communists saying how "oh it wasn't REALLY communism". The point in both situations is that textbook laissez faire is impossible, textbook communism is impossible, and just because countries fail to reach those utopian ideals doesn't mean that you can disregard them completely. It's inevitable that the government will interfere in capitalist economies, and it's inevitable that a fully centralized government will never just give up power for the "dictatorship of the proletariat". There's a reason that there has never really been a textbook example of either system, because no matter how close Hong Kong is to laissez faire or the USSR was to communism, both ideals are impossible.


"Totalitarian" is a nonsense term, and yes, communism would be a command economy. Social planning implies a command economy; any "plan" where a small group of workers can refuse to go along is not a plan but a suggestion.

Stalin and Mao and Castro weren't totalitarian?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The USSR and China never claimed to be communist?

Not really. See, e.g., Stalin's "On the Final Victory..." (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm) and note that, in Marxist-Leninist theory, communism is a higher phase of social development than socialism, which M-Ls equate with the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Pretty sure that they did, and they also likely hit most if not all the 10 "planks" of communism.

The "planks" are an outdated list of demands, arising in a different context, and dating from a time when Marx was still influenced by his previous liberalism.


So whenever there's a problem in the US, specifically relating to corporate "greed" or wealth inequality, libertarians blame it on government intervention, citing how we aren't really even close to a capitalist/laissez faire economy. How is that any different than people claiming communism failed wherever it has been tried, and communists saying how "oh it wasn't REALLY communism". The point in both situations is that textbook laissez faire is impossible, textbook communism is impossible, and just because countries fail to reach those utopian ideals doesn't mean that you can disregard them completely. It's inevitable that the government will interfere in capitalist economies, and it's inevitable that a fully centralized government will never just give up power for the "dictatorship of the proletariat". There's a reason that there has never really been a textbook example of either system, because no matter how close Hong Kong is to laissez faire or the USSR was to communism, both ideals are impossible.

Capitalism, however, is not laissez faire, and laissez faire itself doesn't mean "no government intervention" (obviously without government intervention the market would not be possible). Capitalism means private ownership of the means of production, law of value, and generalized commodity production. All of those things exist in the modern world. And capitalism is a distinct mode of production, not a point on some kind of scale; it doesn't make sense for a region to be 12% capitalist, 80% feudal and 8% Asiatic mode of production.


Stalin and Mao and Castro weren't totalitarian?

Not really. The term - except as Bordiga uses it, but that's another thing entirely - doesn't make any sort of sense.

[Tim Cornelis]

I always see communists claim "USSR/China/Cuba....." weren't real communist, they were state capitalist or Stalinist or whatever alternative name they come up with. But then I think, if a man tries to fly by himself, unassisted, of course it isn't called flying, it's called falling. What I'm getting at is if communism has been tried so many times, and I agree it's never been done to the textbook definition, perhaps the textbook definition is impossible. Technically textbook capitalism has never really been done either, but I also accept that textbook capitalism is essentially impossible. Communists don't seem to accept that there will NEVER be a global, moneyless, egalitarian society. So when there are so many examples of communism being tried and failed, I think it's much more valuable to see why it failed, see that communism requires too much of a strong central government to initiate, and then realize that the government will never give up power. The USSR, China, Cuba, so on aren't examples of Communism failing, they are examples of how the path to communism always leads to totalitarian governments and command economies.

The "textbook definition" is not one of abstract philosophical considerations but is embedded in a materialist understanding of social development and social dynamics. Evidently we don't accept there will never be communism otherwise we wouldn't be communists. In my view, the Russian revolution was a proletarian revolution that degenerated and spawned Stalinism, an ideology that was a leading one in the Chinese and Cuban revolutions -- which I do not consider to have been proletarian revolutions. Therefore the times communism has been attempted and tried, or full-scale proletarian revolutions are quite slim (Paris Commune, Spain -- crushed -- Russia -- degenerated). The first bourgeois revolution also degenerated into Bonapartism.


The USSR and China never claimed to be communist? Pretty sure that they did

They didn't.


and they also likely hit most if not all the 10 "planks" of communism.

The 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto, not communism, were applicable in the liberal revolutions of 1848, for the proletariat to advance within capitalism to accelerate class struggle and eventuate in the conquest of political power by the proletariat.


How is that any different than people claiming communism failed wherever it has been tried, and communists saying how "oh it wasn't REALLY communism".

We don't say it's not "really communism", we say it's not communism period. We base this on a materialist understanding of society, not idealist and abstract notions, in which we can define ideologies and societies in whichever way we please. We begin our analysis with the real world, not an abstract morality and then work our way back to the real world as do right-libertarians.


The point in both situations is that textbook laissez faire is impossible, textbook communism is impossible, and just because countries fail to reach those utopian ideals doesn't mean that you can disregard them completely. It's inevitable that the government will interfere in capitalist economies, and it's inevitable that a fully centralized government will never just give up power for the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

That's not a dictatorship of the proletariat though.


You seem like an anti communist troll. I'm reporting you.

You're an idiot.

P.S. Holy shit. I love this Opera browser. My laptop turned off but it saved this text/post... Wow.

[Ares1214]

The "textbook definition" is not one of abstract philosophical considerations but is embedded in a materialist understanding of social development and social dynamics. Evidently we don't accept there will never be communism otherwise we wouldn't be communists. In my view, the Russian revolution was a proletarian revolution that degenerated and spawned Stalinism, an ideology that was a leading one in the Chinese and Cuban revolutions -- whom I do not consider to have been proletarian revolutions. Therefore the times communism has been attempted and tried, or full-scale proletarian revolutions are quite slim (Paris Commune, Spain -- crushed -- Russia -- degenerated). The first bourgeois revolution also degenerated into Bonapartism.



They didn't.



The 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto, not communism, were applicable in the liberal revolutions of 1848, for the proletariat to advance within capitalism to accelerate class struggle and eventuate in the conquest of political power by the proletariat.



We don't say it's not "really communism", we say it's not communism period. We base this on a materialist understanding of society, not idealist and abstract notions, in which we can define ideologies and societies in whichever way we please. We begin our analysis with the real world, not an abstract morality and then work our way back to the real world as do right-libertarians.



That's not a dictatorship of the proletariat though.



You're an idiot.

P.S. Holy shit. I love this Opera browser. My laptop turned off but it saved this text/post... Wow.

I'm not going to respond to most of this simply because it will spiral into semantics, but you gave substantive answers so I have two honest questions for you.

1. Why is profit so frowned upon for communists?
2. Do you think that a highly centralized government can ever be completely controlled by the proletariat, they won't elevate themselves, and then the government will just dissolve away?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

God damnt stop ignoring me

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm not going to respond to most of this simply because it will spiral into semantics, but you gave substantive answers so I have two honest questions for you.

I think it's more than just semantics, it's analysis and paradigm.


1. Why is profit so frowned upon for communists?
2. Do you think that a highly centralized government can ever be completely controlled by the proletariat, they won't elevate themselves, and then the government will just dissolve away?

1. If production is motivated by attaining a profit and mediated by markets it means that production for profits takes precedent over production for human needs. So although we may now possess, due to advances in the productive forces under capitalism, the potential to satisfy, at least, everyone's basic needs, markets, with its profit-motive forgoes on doing so because providing housing, healthcare, or even foodstuffs and sanitation to large segments of the world's population is not profitable. It's not, however, merely profits. Its the entirety of the system associated with it, it creates a system with unemployment, poverty, malnourishment and even wars.

2. This is an important internal debate within the revolutionary left movement, with each sect or ideology having a (slightly) different answer. Stalinists, Leninists, and Bordigists advocate centralism; anarchists federalism. What I propose is a structure or model similar to the Landless Workers' Movement organisational structure where decisions are made at the bottom and executed at the top (both within the party-movement and the workers' state). So a workers' state, in my view, is based on organs of workers' power (workers' associations that assume control over workplaces and economic affairs, and workers' councils that assume control over political affairs, and organs within the party-movement). These organs of workers' power possess coercive power that will disappear once the revolution is over. What's then left are the producers' associations and popular assemblies, freely associated cooperative bodies and organs of equals. The workers' state is a semi-state in that it's more akin to a stateless society than a conventional state as we know them today.

[Ares1214]

1. If production is motivated by attaining a profit and mediated by markets it means that production for profits takes precedent over production for human needs. So although we may now possess, due to advances in the productive forces under capitalism, the potential to satisfy, at least, everyone's basic needs, markets, with its profit-motive forgoes on doing so because providing housing, healthcare, or even foodstuffs and sanitation to large segments of the world's population is not profitable. It's not, however, merely profits. Its the entirety of the system associated with it, it creates a system with unemployment, poverty, malnourishment and even wars.

2. This is an important internal debate within the revolutionary left movement, with each sect or ideology having a (slightly) different answer. Stalinists, Leninists, and Bordigists advocate centralism; anarchists federalism. What I propose is a structure or model similar to the Landless Workers' Movement organisational structure where decisions are made at the bottom and executed at the top (both within the party-movement and the workers' state). So a workers' state, in my view, is based on organs of workers' power (workers' associations that assume control over workplaces and economic affairs, and workers' councils that assume control over political affairs, and organs within the party-movement). These organs of workers' power possess coercive power that will disappear once the revolution is over. What's then left are the producers' associations and popular assemblies, freely associated cooperative bodies and organs of equals. The workers' state is a semi-state in that it's more akin to a stateless society than a conventional state as we know them today.

Thank you for humoring me, hopefully I won't get banned for sharing my opinion. :unsure:

1. I generally get the response more around the LTV, and I have a harder time understanding that then what you said, could you also explain that? To what you said, I see where you are coming from, but I simply disagree. The US government alone could probably feed the entire population of the US and Africa is we wanted to, easily no less. My problem comes from the fact that it relies on a much more efficient government and much less selfish population than I think can ever exist. Currently, the US government spends enough money on welfare to basically give every house under the poverty line $60,000 a year. Truthfully, the math behind that is actually quite accurate, but let's say that it's probably a high ball estimate, maybe it's actually $50,000. In other words, the US spends enough money "helping" improverished families annually to raise all of their household income to the median household income of the US currently. So how would a highly centralized communist government do any better? How would a dictatorship of the proletariat do any better? How would whatever comes after that, centralism, federalism, you name it do better. The world could eliminate hunger, homelessness, you name it, but how could a system so global and far reaching not be plagued by inefficiency to the point where it crumbles under its own weight?

I'd also like to explain why I find profit so important. Profit is so many things to the modern economy, an indicator, incentive, reward for risk, measure of efficiency, and so on. I'll give you an example. I sell things online, and I mean a LOT of things. I also have a lot of competitors as a result. Now, I'm a very greedy person, I want as much money as possible, as much success, and I mean who doesn't? Seems pretty natural to want a better life than you currently have. Regardless, because of this, I constantly undercut my competitors, not because I feel sympathy for my customers, but because I want to either gobble up as much market share as possible, or drive my competitors out of business. As a result of my "greed" and "profit", customers now have lower prices. I get rewarded with more profit, because I was able to drive my prices lower, because I was able to be more efficient or work harder or do whatever to get lower prices than my competition. To me, profit, the allocation of wealth, money, whatever you want to call it, is vital to the economy, but not only vital, it has to be uneven. It's like possessions in a sport. You want your star player to get the ball as much as possible, he has proven he is the best with it in the past, and despite other players not getting the ball as much, the whole team wins. People with money, generally speaking (yes I know, inheritance, government intervention go against this to some degree), have proven that they are good at making money, they have proven that they are capable of doing things that people are willing to pay them for. So wouldn't you want those who can create the most success with money continue to get the most money? It might sound harsh, but a $50,000 loan to Steve Jobs in the 70's might have changed the world and made him a disgusting amount of profit, a $50,000 loan to a homeless family could have brought them out of poverty, but its a band aid, not a solution to the structural problem that people are born with different skills and potential.

2. What happens when one council of workers wants one thing, and another council of workers wants something completely different, how would the central government execute a plan under your example?

[sanpal]

VoX p°PuŁï:


So, the former Socialist states were pretty alright guys. Further, the semantic debate in this thread is pretty silly. Anyone else from East Bloc?

Me (40 years under socialism and 20 years under capitalism). What would you like to ask? ,
__________________
,

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Thank you for humoring me, hopefully I won't get banned for sharing my opinion. :unsure:

1. I generally get the response more around the LTV, and I have a harder time understanding that then what you said, could you also explain that? To what you said, I see where you are coming from, but I simply disagree. The US government alone could probably feed the entire population of the US and Africa is we wanted to, easily no less. My problem comes from the fact that it relies on a much more efficient government and much less selfish population than I think can ever exist. Currently, the US government spends enough money on welfare to basically give every house under the poverty line $60,000 a year. Truthfully, the math behind that is actually quite accurate, but let's say that it's probably a high ball estimate, maybe it's actually $50,000. In other words, the US spends enough money "helping" improverished families annually to raise all of their household income to the median household income of the US currently. So how would a highly centralized communist government do any better? How would a dictatorship of the proletariat do any better? How would whatever comes after that, centralism, federalism, you name it do better. The world could eliminate hunger, homelessness, you name it, but how could a system so global and far reaching not be plagued by inefficiency to the point where it crumbles under its own weight?

I'd also like to explain why I find profit so important. Profit is so many things to the modern economy, an indicator, incentive, reward for risk, measure of efficiency, and so on. I'll give you an example. I sell things online, and I mean a LOT of things. I also have a lot of competitors as a result. Now, I'm a very greedy person, I want as much money as possible, as much success, and I mean who doesn't? Seems pretty natural to want a better life than you currently have. Regardless, because of this, I constantly undercut my competitors, not because I feel sympathy for my customers, but because I want to either gobble up as much market share as possible, or drive my competitors out of business. As a result of my "greed" and "profit", customers now have lower prices. I get rewarded with more profit, because I was able to drive my prices lower, because I was able to be more efficient or work harder or do whatever to get lower prices than my competition. To me, profit, the allocation of wealth, money, whatever you want to call it, is vital to the economy, but not only vital, it has to be uneven. It's like possessions in a sport. You want your star player to get the ball as much as possible, he has proven he is the best with it in the past, and despite other players not getting the ball as much, the whole team wins. People with money, generally speaking (yes I know, inheritance, government intervention go against this to some degree), have proven that they are good at making money, they have proven that they are capable of doing things that people are willing to pay them for. So wouldn't you want those who can create the most success with money continue to get the most money? It might sound harsh, but a $50,000 loan to Steve Jobs in the 70's might have changed the world and made him a disgusting amount of profit, a $50,000 loan to a homeless family could have brought them out of poverty, but its a band aid, not a solution to the structural problem that people are born with different skills and potential.

2. What happens when one council of workers wants one thing, and another council of workers wants something completely different, how would the central government execute a plan under your example?

Sorry for jumping in,but I have a question.Do you just let the homeless family in their own fate in the unlikely event that Steve jobs or any steve jobs for that matter do something incredible?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

VoX p°PuŁï:



Me (40 years under socialism and 20 years under capitalism). What would you like to ask? ,
__________________
,

Assuming you're telling the truth, what country? What was it like?

[sanpal]

Assuming you're telling the truth, what country? What was it like?
The USSR, now Russia

[Ares1214]

Sorry for jumping in,but I have a question.Do you just let the homeless family in their own fate in the unlikely event that Steve jobs or any steve jobs for that matter do something incredible?

Well first off, you would be ignoring the contribution that capitalist made to society, including the homeless family. Perhaps their cost of living has gone down, maybe the quality of living has gone up. Some people couldn't even live without their iPhones these days, but that might not be the most relevant example to a homeless family.

Secondly, you ask "do you just let the homeless family in their own fate", but I find this statement highly odd. First off, I believe some people might have an easier time of successful than others, perhaps they are smarter, faster, stronger, luckier. But don't all people have a propensity for greatness? The homeless family in this scenario is not "fated" to be poor. It's also not the government's job to stop them from becoming poor, so they really aren't "letting" anything happen.

What should be done is structure the economy in such a way that there is as much income mobility as possible, not income equality. If that poor family can rise out of poverty through hard work or intelligence, then that is vastly preferable to taking money from others to give it to them. Once again, that is a band aid, and it clearly isn't working considering how much the US government already does that. The protectionist mentality of the government is breeding an entitlement society where there is less and less income mobility, and just as much income inequality.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

The USSR, now Russia

Seeing as how you weren't there in the 30's or 40's, it wasn't socialist. But I'm sure that's annoying for you to hear, people constantly saying that wasn't socialism.

That's interesting though, never meet anyone who grew up in the USSR.

[Tim Cornelis]

Thank you for humoring me, hopefully I won't get banned for sharing my opinion. :unsure:

1. I generally get the response more around the LTV, and I have a harder time understanding that then what you said, could you also explain that? To what you said, I see where you are coming from, but I simply disagree. The US government alone could probably feed the entire population of the US and Africa is we wanted to, easily no less. My problem comes from the fact that it relies on a much more efficient government and much less selfish population than I think can ever exist

I think the way you frame the argument is due to your bourgeois paradigm. It's not a matter of altruism or policy. I will try to elaborate a bit with the example you provided.


Currently, the US government spends enough money on welfare to basically give every house under the poverty line $60,000 a year. Truthfully, the math behind that is actually quite accurate, but let's say that it's probably a high ball estimate, maybe it's actually $50,000. In other words, the US spends enough money "helping" improverished families annually to raise all of their household income to the median household income of the US currently. So how would a highly centralized communist government do any better? How would a dictatorship of the proletariat do any better? How would whatever comes after that, centralism, federalism, you name it do better. The world could eliminate hunger, homelessness, you name it, but how could a system so global and far reaching not be plagued by inefficiency to the point where it crumbles under its own weight?

We wouldn't deploy policies countering poverty. We will not tax or use state enterprises' revenue and direct it toward the supplying of healthcare and education, etc., that is free at the point of use. We will not combat these symptoms we will abolish the system that gives rise to them. Economic resources will be redirected from the pursuit of profits, toward the satisfaction of human needs. By eliminating private property, markets, and wage-labour in favour common property, planning, and associated labour unemployment disappears, production is for use and so food, sanitation, etc., their production, cultivation, and distribution will not be impaired by the profit motive.


I'd also like to explain why I find profit so important. Profit is so many things to the modern economy, an indicator, incentive, reward for risk, measure of efficiency, and so on. I'll give you an example.
A flawed indicator (due to contingencies in market fluctuations and demand backed by purchasing power, not needs an sich.
A flawed and perverse incentive
An exorbitant reward for unnecessary risk
Efficiency in a narrow sense



I sell things online, and I mean a LOT of things. I also have a lot of competitors as a result. Now, I'm a very greedy person, I want as much money as possible, as much success, and I mean who doesn't? Seems pretty natural to want a better life than you currently have. Regardless, because of this, I constantly undercut my competitors, not because I feel sympathy for my customers, but because I want to either gobble up as much market share as possible, or drive my competitors out of business. As a result of my "greed" and "profit", customers now have lower prices. I get rewarded with more profit, because I was able to drive my prices lower, because I was able to be more efficient or work harder or do whatever to get lower prices than my competition. To me, profit, the allocation of wealth, money, whatever you want to call it, is vital to the economy, but not only vital, it has to be uneven. It's like possessions in a sport. You want your star player to get the ball as much as possible, he has proven he is the best with it in the past, and despite other players not getting the ball as much, the whole team wins. People with money, generally speaking (yes I know, inheritance, government intervention go against this to some degree), have proven that they are good at making money, they have proven that they are capable of doing things that people are willing to pay them for. So wouldn't you want those who can create the most success with money continue to get the most money? It might sound harsh, but a $50,000 loan to Steve Jobs in the 70's might have changed the world and made him a disgusting amount of profit, a $50,000 loan to a homeless family could have brought them out of poverty, but its a band aid, not a solution to the structural problem that people are born with different skills and potential.

This entire text is written within your bourgeois paradigm: as if you perceive of the alternatives or options as exclusively within bourgeois society, and deem my (imagined) alternative to be far less efficient and effective in managing capital. It's difficult to make this explicit, I'll try anyway. I don't think any of this is relevant. You essentially describe why you think competitive markets are advantageous, but not why socialism would not work without them, or the profit-motive. The entire scenario cannot even apply to socialism so I don't have any way to explain how socialism would offer an alternative. All I can say is, none of that is necessary for an advanced society or economy to function.

An indicator: consumers communicate their needs to the planners/producers.
An incentive: the producers derive satisfaction from their labour or receive work points
Risk: investments are decided collectively by the community, and product that does not perform well will be scaled back or discontinued, with wasted resources as consequence.
Efficiency: calculation in kind and labour-time accounting


2. What happens when one council of workers wants one thing, and another council of workers wants something completely different, how would the central government execute a plan under your example?

There'd be no central government. I don't see what you mean by "one [workers' council" wants something [and another another thing]". If both opt for different directions it comes down to a majority vote.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Well first off, you would be ignoring the contribution that capitalist made to society, including the homeless family. Perhaps their cost of living has gone down, maybe the quality of living has gone up. Some people couldn't even live without their iPhones these days, but that might not be the most relevant example to a homeless family.

Secondly, you ask "do you just let the homeless family in their own fate", but I find this statement highly odd. First off, I believe some people might have an easier time of successful than others, perhaps they are smarter, faster, stronger, luckier. But don't all people have a propensity for greatness? The homeless family in this scenario is not "fated" to be poor. It's also not the government's job to stop them from becoming poor, so they really aren't "letting" anything happen.

What should be done is structure the economy in such a way that there is as much income mobility as possible, not income equality. If that poor family can rise out of poverty through hard work or intelligence, then that is vastly preferable to taking money from others to give it to them. Once again, that is a band aid, and it clearly isn't working considering how much the US government already does that. The protectionist mentality of the government is breeding an entitlement society where there is less and less income mobility, and just as much income inequality.

You somehow have the illussion that if you are poor and you work hard you rise out of poverty.Of course there are some exceptions but few none the less.Second,they are poor probably because of unemployment so it is the govt's fault for that so they are entitled for help.

[Ares1214]

You somehow have the illussion that if you are poor and you work hard you rise out of poverty.Of course there are some exceptions but few none the less.Second,they are poor probably because of unemployment so it is the govt's fault for that so they are entitled for help.

No actually I specifically don't have that illusion, I think that the whole concept of hard work bringing someone out of poverty is going away, which is why I said that more needs to be done to promote income mobility, not equality. And to say a "few" is a bit of an understatement, the rags to riches story is uncommon, but raising yourself out of poverty to the 2nd or 3rd quintiles is a very frequent occurence. Also, it's the governments fault that they are unemployed due to intervention, so you would propose they intervene more?

[ArisVelouxiotis]

No actually I specifically don't have that illusion, I think that the whole concept of hard work bringing someone out of poverty is going away, which is why I said that more needs to be done to promote income mobility, not equality. And to say a "few" is a bit of an understatement, the rags to riches story is uncommon, but raising yourself out of poverty to the 2nd or 3rd quintiles is a very frequent occurence. Also, it's the governments fault that they are unemployed due to intervention, so you would propose they intervene more?

But the second one would be a positive intervention wouldn't it?

[Ares1214]

But the second one would be a positive intervention wouldn't it?

Well like I said, the US government spends $60,000 per household in poverty, that should be a positive intervention, yet it accomplishes very little. Perhaps the best intervention would be less intervention? If, for example, government intervention kills jobs, which it does, then wouldn't less government intervention allow for more jobs to be created, and therefore less structural unemployment, ie less poverty?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

VoX p°PuŁï:



Me (40 years under socialism and 20 years under capitalism). What would you like to ask? ,
__________________
,

I didn't have any questions but I think that's cool as shit and I'm surprised I haven't seen you round here yet!!

[sanpal]

Originally Posted by VoX p°PuŁï

... I'm surprised I haven't seen you round here yet!!

I've never been here in the OI forum because I'm not interested in opposite ideologies. Just by case on title of thread

[sanpal]

Seeing as how you weren't there in the 30's or 40's, it wasn't socialist. But I'm sure that's annoying for you to hear, people constantly saying that wasn't socialism.


I don't care that people constantly say that it wasn't socialism, they never lived in the USSR and people don't consider that the term "socialism" is broader concept, than they imagine.
It was socialism, but it had the wrong political-economic theoretical base in it.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't care that people constantly say that it wasn't socialism, they never lived in the USSR and people don't consider that the term "socialism" is broader concept, than they imagine.
It was socialism, but it had the wrong political-economic theoretical base in it.

Living in a particular place does not make them qualified to describe the social character of that place. Socialism is indeed a "broad concept" and there are Dutch people that think the Netherlands is socialist, and we should take their word over yours since they live here.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

I don't care that people constantly say that it wasn't socialism, they never lived in the USSR and people don't consider that the term "socialism" is broader concept, than they imagine.
It was socialism, but it had the wrong political-economic theoretical base in it.

Are there a lot of socialisms?I mean you say it was socialism but they had the wrong political-economical base.Can you elaborate on that please?

[sanpal]

Living in a particular place does not make them qualified to describe the social character of that place. Socialism is indeed a "broad concept" and there are Dutch people that think the Netherlands is socialist, and we should take their word over yours since they live here.

If Dutch people think so, it means indeed.;)
There is no threshold level in nationalization of means of production, social security of society, etc. after which we have the right to claim that capitalism is any more not capitalism but a socialism in some degree.
If we add some types of various political systems or regimes, thus, we will receive "broad concept" of socialism.
Other thing in determining the term "communism". There is narrower framework in interpretation of this term because of more certain political and economic mechanisms of society of this kind: it is self-management, moneyless marketless economy on the basis of the plan, communist ideology, etc. In some sense communism is one of the versions of socialism

[sanpal]

Are there a lot of socialisms?I mean you say it was socialism but they had the wrong political-economical base.Can you elaborate on that please?

Yes, the political-economical system in the f. USSR
was formed under leadership of Stalin identically to theoretical model of socialism which was offered by communist Eugeny Duhring. This model of socialism was criticized by Marx&Engels in Engels' book "Anti-Duhring" as utopian and unscientific which would lead such "communist" society to the collapse. The falling of the USSR and block of east socialist
countries proved correctness of a prediction made by Marx and Engels. Stalin (and Co) was a bad marxist