Saving Capitalism?

[Oh-Dae-Su]

do you guys remember the contract? between people and state in the ex USSR, basically we give you free health care, education, and other services and you shut up and do what we say, well this kept everyone in the middle. People were the same, no one was very poor no one was very rich, but they had no rights and democracy. Now as we have seen with the introduction of capitalism, people in Russia have the rights (theoretically in the semi/super presidential government they live in) but many have gone extremely poor and others have gone extremely rich........im just wondering if this contract can be mixed with capitalism? and if it could, would it be like market socialism like in China?

i like the Chinese system, but i don't like the way people are restricted by government, because in a sense the government is still "communist" , so what do you guys think?

[LoneRed]

1. Russia and China have NEVER been socialist, let alone communist.
2. The term "communist" in reference to china, is in name only, it is a more so state capitalist society, more free trade is coming in, but it is not communist. it is so, in name only

[Oh-Dae-Su]

yeah your right, of course it is not true communism. But to say it is not socialist is wrong as well, the government of China has many many restrictions on the economy and its people (they essential still own it, they own all major industries i would presume) so it is not really capitalism either, well of course pure capitalism like communism has never been attempted, but in China it is not like here in America. The governmnet over there has more control of the economy itself and people.

so my question is, can we eliminate these "control", eliminate the socialist part, and although it would be pretty much capitalist like America, can the contract still be in place?

for example, how does Canada work? they get free health care, yet they enjoy the riches of capitalism.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 6 2006, 08:32 PM
for example, how does Canada work? they get free health care, yet they enjoy the riches of capitalism.
They have taxes, and the government's fiscal policy grants ceratin benifits.

Canada, like just about anywhere, is a mixed economy. How far left or right it is depends on who you ask. Ask a capitalist and they will say it is socialist, ask a communist and they will say it is like everywhere else.

[LoneRed]

well for one, we have to differentiate between govt control and socialism. you are right to say that there is more control in socialism, but control by whom. In socialism the working class "controls" the economy, run the means of production. Having an elite group in China controlling the economy doesnt make them socialist. Also The US has different priorities than Canada. They both are capitalist and favor the profit motive, but Canadians seem to care more about their people than here in America, which is more of a free market capitalist. Whereas China is more of a state capitalist society. as in, the state owns the industries, not the private companies.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

yeah, i thought about that, the taxes. I don't understand, we should do that here in America. Well we have more problems than Canada, and of course we have medicare, but medicare doesn't apply to everyone, and not every doctor takes it. Also you can't say that the medical service in Canada (althogh respectable) can compare to the US, i don't think so. If that was the case than everyone would be going to Canada lol.

Well i think that part of the reason why the US doesn't do what Canada does, in which it takes the taxes and benefits it's citizens with free healthcare is because of the following:

They don't have almost 300 million citizens
They don't spend billions upon billions on military budget (frankly why would Canada do that? lol, who is going to invade Canada?)
They don't have border, immigration problems

So we are benefited with the best army in the world, and now hopefully more protection here at home lol

so yeah LoneRed, the control in Socialism is by the government , who else? the people? yeah right, lol, the communist party of china is the one who owns for example Sinopec, which is the major oil company in China, and of course the government owns all the rail systems, public transportation, and im sure it owns the airlines as well. No matter what you say Lone Red, China is market socialism, people can have their own shops or whatever, but they are restricted by government, for example if you want to open a shop which sells anti-communist propaganda or somethin, ohh boy im more than positive you won't be allowed.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

"the control in Socialism is by the government"

Is it? Would people who are on the left, accept this? Or do you think its more likely that, you accept what your government and/or media wants to tell you.

Socialism, is actually about workers controlling everything via direct democracy.

China and USSR were/are not socialist.

Under Socialism, a government is used by the workers during the transition to communism.

"They don't spend billions upon billions on military budget (frankly why would Canada do that? lol, who is going to invade Canada?)" - Oh-Dae-Su

Frankly why would the U$A do that? lol, who is going to invade America?

Oh thats right, the U$ does the invading. And Canada doesn't. maybe thats why they don't have such a large expenditure on the military forces.


"So we are benefited with the best army in the world, and now hopefully more protection here at home lol"

Yeah great army. The American army has been totally fucked over in Iraq, despite hugely outnumbering the resistance. Also, some terrorists made imperial America look very fragile in September of 2001, there was jack that the U$ could do about that.

"i like the Chinese system" - haha nice one. All those sweat shops make you envious do they?

[Zingu]

yeah your right, of course it is not true communism. But to say it is not socialist is wrong as well, the government of China has many many restrictions on the economy and its people (they essential still own it, they own all major industries i would presume) so it is not really capitalism either, well of course pure capitalism like communism has never been attempted, but in China it is not like here in America. The governmnet over there has more control of the economy itself and people.


In Marxist terms, defining a socio-economic systems is by the structure of property relations and classes, not government programs...the USSR and China are/were as capitalist as the USA or any nation in Western Europe in these terms.

Under your definition, the European powers were "socialist/communist" during the First World War when those nations mobilized for total war and took over more controls from private interests...such as economic planning...whether or not you have more or less statism...its still capitalism as long as the fundamental class structure remains the same. Same goes with the welfare states as well as the "Marxist"-Leninist states of the 20th century.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Bloody capitalis sham, calm down. You sure are a feisty one lol.

you are right, in socialism it is controlled rather by society, but in China the most important and the major companies that actually run the country are runned and controlled by the government. What would you call that? capitalism? listen because Shang has his pirated DVD joint, and he gets all the revenues it doesnt mean China is capitalist, in a sence it is, but its not like America, or are you meaning to tell me that the Chinese economic and govermental systems are the same as Americas?



Frankly why would the U$A do that? lol, who is going to invade America?

when i refered to Canada the connotation i meant to take was , who would invade it for what reason? when was the last time people ever fought for a piece of tundra? lol and also you are right who is going to invade America? not because they wouldn't want to , but because it is virtually impossible.

and you are also right, the official count is like 3000 i believe now in Iraq , of our dead soldiers, but almost half of these came from non-combat situations, so how can we be getting our asses kicked? they don't even engage us, they just leave roadside bombs that detonate and kill maybe 5 soldiers, is that what you call the major ass whooping? but i have to say that it sure is becoming a nightmare, Iraq is a lost case in my opinion, the people of Iraq don't even know what they want. We have tried our best, we have really gone into Iraq with a good will, although for our own interests, but anyone who debates against this is a fool, because interests is what has driven humanity to write every chapter of history. So what i have to say to those who say, "its because of oil", oh please get over it, if your country had the military/economic/political power that we had they would be doing the same.

Zingu, i believe you are guiding yourself with an almost Marxism-Leninism kind of principle, and if so, your defenitions are meaningless.

[Zingu]

Zingu, i believe you are guiding yourself with an almost Marxism-Leninism kind of principle, and if so, your defenitions are meaningless.


:lol: WHAT?

Do you even understand what I said? Or even read it? I'm a Left Communist, not a Leninist....the Leninists would viciously contest what I just said, claiming that the USSR was Socialist, or "building" socialism.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

ok sorry, so you are left communist, which school? italian or dutch-german? lol

you are the lost childs, well, the fact of the matter is that communism is like christianity, there are the Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses and the list can go on, and the Catholics. All say to be different, which is true, but the similarity, well i don't have to say, i think you are intelligent enough to grasp the usage of my comparation.

but i don't want to discuss, whether USSR was or was not "really" communist lol. What would you label the current Chinese system? in my opinion it is an obvious market socialism, no matter what you say, and i say this only because of the role the communist party of China plays in the system. But yeah, as time passes, the people will demand change, and it will be inevitable that China will change into a capitalist system which resembles ours.

[Zingu]

ok sorry, so you are left communist, which school? italian or dutch-german? lol

you are the lost childs, well, the fact of the matter is that communism is like christianity, there are the Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses and the list can go on, and the Catholics. All say to be different, which is true, but the similarity, well i don't have to say, i think you are intelligent enough to grasp the usage of my comparation.

You only demonstrate your own lack of understanding of what Marxism actually is.

Communism is not a belief, its a concrete material system. Marxism is the social and political theory which has analyzed human history and come to the conclusion that communism is the end of result of human development.


but i don't want to discuss, whether USSR was or was not "really" communist lol.

my explanation from my earlier post not only answers this, but this as well:


What would you label the current Chinese system?

Capitalist, as it has been since the Chinese Revolution. RedStar2000 can happily tell you more on this, but thats basically what it was if you look it under the lense of Marxist theory, and anyone who tells you otherwise...is probably some Maoist nutball or dogmatic Leninist.

If anything can compare to your religion analogy...its Leninism :lol:


in my opinion it is an obvious market socialism, no matter what you say, and i say this only because of the role the communist party of China plays in the system.

Why are you debating us if you refuse to consider our views? "no matter what you say". Ironically, that is what the Chinese "Communist" Party also calls its system.



But yeah, as time passes, the people will demand change, and it will be inevitable that China will change into a capitalist system which resembles ours.

Not all capitalism looks like the USA. The USSR was capitalist before and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, no? Look who controls the wealth, it was the Communist Party before, and now the former members of the Communist Party who looted the country in its last days.

You can label the ruling class anything you like...but its still capitalist, as so is the Chinese Communist Party, do you know how many buisness men are in that party? And they'll still be making money with or without the party...and always be on top as long as capitalism exists.

Capitalism can be organized in many ways. as long as its basic structure remains the same...property owning class controlling the means of production over the exploited class of wage laborers...it makes no difference if that is by parliamentary "democracy" or authoritarian police states. No matter how pretty the red flag is, its still capitalism.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Not all capitalism looks like the USA. The USSR was capitalist before and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, no? Look who controls the wealth, it was the Communist Party before, and now the former members of the Communist Party who looted the country in its last days

so what you are meaning to tell me is that the USSR was capitalist under the Marxism-Leninism and Stalinists regimes which controlled it after the Bolshevik revolution? :o

im done talking with you :(

you think that because it was not "LEFT" communism the only possible other denomination was capitalist because the walthy were Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Stalin and company? so than i guess capitalism has existed probably existed since pre-history

im sorry, but i just find that an absurd thing to say, i think if you were right, than lets start re-writting every encyclopedia, every book in a univeristy, i mean just turn every source of information around.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Oh-Dae-Su

"you are right, in socialism it is controlled rather by society, but in China the most important and the major companies that actually run the country are runned and controlled by the government."

Well i personally, believe that China now has a Keynesian economy, or it is at least attempting to create that. This is what Britain had from the end of WWII to the late 1970's. It is essentially capitalism, where the government holds ownership over the main industry, so basically what china has.

"lol and also you are right who is going to invade America? not because they wouldn't want to , but because it is virtually impossible."

I agree, an invasion is extremely unlikely to succeed. Unfortunately, for the American proletariat there is a slim chance of terrorists using nuclear weapons or other WMD's. I know it sounds like scare mongering, but prior to 2001, i wouldn't have thought taking out the World trade center was possible.

"they don't even engage us, they just leave roadside bombs that detonate and kill maybe 5 soldiers, is that what you call the major ass whooping?"

Well, the U$A populace is certainly more and more against the war, the Anti-war movement is growing, every time a U$ soldier dies, more opposition Bush faces.

I call it a major "ass whooping" because, I doubt Iraq will be stable even after the Invasion. An invasion that has projected costs of two trillion dollars. How much do you think it costs the resistance fighters to drive a car full of explosives into some troops? Almost nothing, at least in comparison.


"We have tried our best, we have really gone into Iraq with a good will, although for our own interests, but anyone who debates against this is a fool, because interests is what has driven humanity to write every chapter of history. So what i have to say to those who say, "its because of oil", oh please get over it"

I heard and read as much media coverage as you have about the decision to go to war. Only one of us however has decided to accept that bull.

I would not say it was directly because of Oil, more likely the U$ wants to maintain U$ hegemony for the next century, domination over the middle east is vital to that.

"if your country had the military/economic/political power that we had they would be doing the same."

I live in Britain, so my country also joined in the crusade. I wonder though, who will win this war? Looking at history, i would say the Iraqi resistance will be in In Iraq much longer than the U$. they may even elect their own 'Hamas' and you will have to invade again in 2013!

[ColinH]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 6 2006, 10:30 PM
so what you are meaning to tell me is that the USSR was capitalist under the Marxism-Leninism and Stalinists regimes which controlled it after the Bolshevik revolution? :o

im done talking with you :(
Afraid of a little truth are we? Russia was coming straight out of a feudal era when Lenin & Co. took over. According to Marxist theory, capitalism comes before socialism, and develops to point where socialism is possible. But Russia had never passed through the capitalist stage, so Lenin's idea was to use state-capitalism and industrialize Russia much faster so that socialism could be possible sooner. He mentions it on several occasions. It was a terrible idea.


you think that because it was not "LEFT" communism the only possible other denomination was capitalist because the walthy were Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Stalin and company? so than i guess capitalism has existed probably existed since pre-history

No, it's not communism because it wasn't a classless, stateless society. And it wasn't socialism because the proletariat (workers) did not control the means of production.


im sorry, but i just find that an absurd thing to say, i think if you were right, than lets start re-writting every encyclopedia, every book in a univeristy, i mean just turn every source of information around.

Some sources of information can be incorrect you know. How many of us have been taught that Columbus was told by the Spanish that he should not try find a western route to India because they thought he would fall off the edge of the Earth? That myth has been propagated for so long, yet it is completely untrue. The Spanish were well aware that the Earth was round. Catch my drift?

[Zingu]

so what you are meaning to tell me is that the USSR was capitalist under the Marxism-Leninism and Stalinists regimes which controlled it after the Bolshevik revolution? ohmy.gif

im done talking with you sad.gif

you think that because it was not "LEFT" communism the only possible other denomination was capitalist because the walthy were Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Stalin and company? so than i guess capitalism has existed probably existed since pre-history


No.

I only use the term "Left Communist" when I need to differiate myself from Marxist-Leninists. Other than that, I call myself a Marxist.

And, as I said before, no matter how pretty the red flag is...its capitalism. Looking at it economically, it was, so stop trying to enforce your pretty little ideological image of what capitalism is. Unlike the flawful ideology you hold, Marxism is a science, which is unbiased and looks at society in a comprehensive world view.

The Bolsheviks took power as the new burgeoisie, who subjecated the Russian people as the new proletariat...we see a more brutal form of collectivization occur in Russia, similar to the conslidation of small farms into large estates during the Agricultural Revolution in Britain in the 1800s, during the years of 1924-1939 we saw basically a super-charged, more extreme version in Russia of what basically Western nations go through in the late 1800s. The state simply invested ALL capital back in its own industry. (key word: CAPITAL, know what that is?)

I mean, come on, its common sense, if the Soviet Union was not capitalist, please tell me what the fuck was the NEP?

Answer that.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

I agree, an invasion is extremely unlikely to succeed. Unfortunately, for the American proletariat there is a slim chance of terrorists using nuclear weapons or other WMD's. I know it sounds like scare mongering, but prior to 2001, i wouldn't have thought taking out the World trade center was possible.

why would it be scare mongering? anything is possible in life, heck i wouldn't even be surprised if there was an alien invasion of this planet, you can call me whatever you like, but i actually believe that alien life does exist.



I call it a major "ass whooping" because, I doubt Iraq will be stable even after the Invasion. An invasion that has projected costs of two trillion dollars. How much do you think it costs the resistance fighters to drive a car full of explosives into some troops? Almost nothing, at least in comparison.

i thought we alredy invaded Iraq, and that it is already unstable? of what you said, the major ass whoopin is to us here who are budgeting the war. Thats true.



I heard and read as much media coverage as you have about the decision to go to war. Only one of us however has decided to accept that bull.

I would not say it was directly because of Oil, more likely the U$ wants to maintain U$ hegemony for the next century, domination over the middle east is vital to that.


well the bullshit is what Bush says, but what the soldiers speak is bullshit too? so you don't think the soldiers came with a mindset of "bringing peace" and in a goodwill manner? it's ok if you are refering to the politicians in Washington, for them it was pure interest no matter the cost, but to compare them to the service men and woman mindset is a whole different ball game. Plus the hegemony your talking about is well, for oil, lmao. What else does the middle east have? The middle east is nothing, probably all of these caliphs would be living as nomads in the damn desert drinking goat milk and fighting eachother like Lawrence of Arabia. Thanks to oil they have been able to at least survive.



live in Britain, so my country also joined in the crusade. I wonder though, who will win this war? Looking at history, i would say the Iraqi resistance will be in In Iraq much longer than the U$. they may even elect their own 'Hamas' and you will have to invade again in 2013!

who will win the war, well, thats the million dollar question, i ask you this, which war? who are we fighting? because really we are fighting a ghost. This frankly is a war already won, like you said history has showned specially to us, what the guerrilla tactics can do. This is turning into another Vietnam, i think we might probably withdraw from Iraq with the next elections. As for you Brits, well Blair is up to our desposition. Its the truth sorry, whether you want to accept it or not. Well this was why he almost got his ass "impeached" (not sure thats the word used in England), removed from parliament.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

THE NEP!! :lol: hahahahaha even better tell me how long did it last? lmao

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 7 2006, 03:47 AM
THE NEP!! :lol: hahahahaha even better tell me how long did it last? lmao
Ah, but if it was Socialism, there would be no need and impossible to implement the NEP!


So, answer the question, not how long it lasted, but what was the NEP if the Soviet Union was not capitalist?

[Oh-Dae-Su]

what are you talking about? the NEP could be implemented in North Korea if they wanted to right now, its simply what it stand for, New Economic Policy. Fidel might step out of his chair and pass this law. Do you know what NEP replaced? it was called War Communism, and in fact what it did was "give back" private ownership, in that sense this brief period was sure i give it to you an almost capitlasit system, but i would compare it to China, although less capitalist than China at the moment, but it was like market socialism. Dude this only listed for what? 5 years or something? lol

anyways, do you believe that the czarist rule, the british, the spanish, mongol empires all the way back to roman and ancient greek empires , these societies were capitalist?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

"i thought we alredy invaded Iraq, and that it is already unstable? of what you said, the major ass whoopin is to us here who are budgeting the war. Thats true."

Aye, i mean to say " After the end of the invasion, and the U$ has left." Sorry i was not very clear.

"it's ok if you are refering to the politicians in Washington, for them it was pure interest no matter the cost, but to compare them to the service men and woman mindset is a whole different ball game"

To a large extent i agree with you. Politicians can not be trusted, especially in this instance. The problem is, with regards to the intentions of the invading soldiers, they are soldiers who are trained to take orders. As a soldier, they do not think 'what should i do?' but 'how can i complete, what i have been told to do'.

My opinion however, is that the soldiers probably do want to make Iraq a better place, they are proletarians who have lost their grip on reality.

"As for you Brits, well Blair is up to our desposition. Its the truth sorry, whether you want to accept it or not. Well this was why he almost got his ass "impeached" (not sure thats the word used in England), removed from parliament."

Indeed. you will likely not be surprised, but i hate Blair, almost as much as Bush. Blair sold the British people out, he has usurped our already weak "democracy" and handed over the British people "allegiance" to Bush.

I was proud however, when a million Brits went to London to protest Bush.

"Plus the hegemony your talking about is well, for oil, lmao."

Was it? maybe it was for oil. seems plausible. But the U$ can buy oil. Maybe, it was to stop OPEC from taking Saddam lead and changing the currency used to the exchange oil in, from the US dollar to the Euro. American hegemony, is not based on military, political or resources but rests on the dollar, as the Global exchange currency.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

well i dont think i hate Bush, or Blair, lol hate is a powerful word. Listen i support Bush on what he has done up to Iraq, Afghanistan was necessary, that , you can't complain about if you do, well the American people backed it up 100% so you don't matter. About Iraq, well we bought his "Nukular Weapons" theory lmao :lol: , so in that we all feel betrayed, and he has led this country into a shithole economically compared to how Clinton left it in 2000. Blair, i admire the guy, because if you think about it, did he really have a choice to say to Bush, "FUCK YOU", the French are the French, and the Brits own a lot to us, we are like brothers, c'mon. At the time you know that the Brits were buying it to, so i don't think that Blair really had a choice, if he would of done the opposite, things would be very different. Relations between our 2 countries would have deteriorated, and frankly neither you nor us can afford that, because we depend on eachother a lot, we are bound together UK and us. The fact is that i do believe that Saddamn had to be dealt with, but ok yeah not the way it happened (well that was the only way) but it just happened to fast, and the fact that we got lied, Bush might as well have said, we are going in there to take Saddam out of his position; and also its not a fair move, if your new policy is to take out evil regimes , why not take one out that is less than 90 miles from our shores!!??? ohh but yeah, Cuba doesn't have oil i forget. hehehehe

[Oh-Dae-Su]

and the Brits own a lot to us

sorry meant to say owe, you know what i mean