Capitalism: Compatible in a Socialist Society?

[Ranger]

I am new to the forum, so please go easy on my discussion! I am eager to become part of the Revolutionary Left.com experience. Hello all!

Capitalism - this ideology has been the plague of traditional socialists since the mid-20th century. In my opinion, socialism and Marxism are not the same, and this value is necessary to understand the point I am trying to make.

Marx hated capitalism, and believed it went completely against a revolutionary proletarian revolution, however he did agree it was a necessary step to move into a capitalist stage from feudalism, and them to a communist stage from capitalism. However, when one considers a socialist revolution not in the form of a bloody workers struggle but in the form of the ballot box, then I believe it is arguable that capitalism is compatible in a socialist nation.

Capitalism is adaptable. Take a look at Britain under Clement Atlee, Harold Wilson and James Callaghan. There was a large industrial fabric to Britain, much of the British economy was nationalised throughout many points in these eras, from Thomas Cook tourism to British Aerospace. However, despite these times when the Labour Party adopted largely socialist principles, Britain was identified as a capitalist nation, that there was still a society of haves and have nots.

It is my belief that capitalism is very much entrenched in our lives in the 21st century, it does not matter how far we try to hide from it, how many times the marxists and extreme leftists denounce it, capitalism is here to stay, the imprint of the selfish Thatcher and Reagon years remaining within us. So, if capitalism is here to stay, we should not ignore it, merely adapt it. Why can't we have a country with nationalised industries and state planning without having employees and employers at each others throats? Why can't we possess a strong welfare system that greatly subsidises those disadvantaged few and still have money in our pocket to buy into consumer products?

I raise these questions to see what you at the forum think about employing right of centre fundamentals into a predominately left-wing ideology?

[luxemburg89]

Take a look at Britain under Clement Atlee, Harold Wilson and James Callaghan.

I see what you're trying to say, but there's one thing to remember about this. Capitalism is a product of liberal democracy (that is the kind of democracy Britain and America have at the moment). The nature of liberal democracy is that it goes round in circles - for the last 80 years it's been labour, tories, labour, tories, labour, tories etc. That way the 'socialism' imposed by figures such as Atlee is only temporary - whereas, by eliminating capitalism and the liberal democracy that goes with it we hope for something far more permanent.

I hope that makes sense. :)

Lux

P.S. Welcome to the site

[Ranger]

I see what you're saying also, thanks for the welcome! :-)

However, I must ask, if one is to be a socialist, must one be anti-democratic also?

My primary belief as a socialist is that of democratic socialism - my revolutionary left movement would be a revolutionary left victory in an election - not easy under our current electoral system I accept. However, as I'm sure is herecy to the most Revolutionary Left, I do not feel allegiance to Marxism, and therefore ignore it's anti-democratic elements.

This is my reasoning behind my belief in mixing capitalism with socialism.


whereas, by eliminating capitalism and the liberal democracy that goes with it we hope for something far more permanent
By this, would I be right in assuming you are proposing a workers revolution such as the October Revolution in Russia?

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:12 pm
However, I must ask, if one is to be a socialist, must one be anti-democratic also?
No! One cannot be socialist and antio-democratic, it is for that reason that we oppose liberal-democracy, that is the "democracy" of the bougreois (those who own an exclusive monopoly of property in capitalism), as politics and economics are not seperate, rather the economy determines the status in which everyone lives, and hence the political agendas. As long asthe capitalists control the economy they control "democracy" and so we live under thjeir "liberal" dictatorship.


My primary belief as a socialist is that of democratic socialism - my revolutionary left movement would be a revolutionary left victory in an election - not easy under our current electoral system I accept.

Not a coincidence, I can assure you. There is a reason no elected government has ever truly ushured in an age of socialism, or even remotly reflected the will of the people.


However, as I'm sure is herecy to the most Revolutionary Left, I do not feel allegiance to Marxism, and therefore ignore it's anti-democratic elements.

Marxism has no anti-democratic elements. We advocate complete democracy, a democracy which controls the economy (which is what truly decides "power" and "rule") not just a few token public bodies. If there is not a democracy there is not socialism or communism.


This is my reasoning behind my belief in mixing capitalism with socialism.

Its a noble enough concept to seek out a compromise, to be willing to be the "bigger man", or to reject what you may view as ideological dogma, but in the end the two systems cannot be mixed. You live in socialism or capitalism, not both, either the capitalists control the property and capital, or the workers do, it cannot be both, by definition.

I'd be happy to discuss this further with you. You may find that marxism is not quite what you've heard it to be.

[Janus]

However, when one considers a socialist revolution not in the form of a bloody workers struggle but in the form of the ballot box, then I believe it is arguable that capitalism is compatible in a socialist nation.
Yeah, that would be democratic socialism. You'll find few supporters of that on here though.


it does not matter how far we try to hide from it, how many times the marxists and extreme leftists denounce it, capitalism is here to stay
Currently, but the situation can't remain stable like this forever due to the very nature of capitalism itself. And when economic problems start occuring, then political and social issues start coming to the forefront as well.


Why can't we have a country with nationalised industries and state planning without having employees and employers at each others throats? Why can't we possess a strong welfare system that greatly subsidises those disadvantaged few and still have money in our pocket to buy into consumer products?
It depends on what the composition of this state. Once you remove worker's self-democracy and management then you remove the core of socialism itself.


However, I must ask, if one is to be a socialist, must one be anti-democratic also?
Socialism is an ultra-democratic paradigm.


By this, would I be right in assuming you are proposing a workers revolution such as the October Revolution in Russia?
No, we don't want another USSR or PRC, we want a new society in which control is actually in the hands of the workers rather than some bureaucratic elite who professes to speak for the masses.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Janus
No, we don't want another USSR or PRC, we want a new society in which control is actually in the hands of the workers rather than some bureaucratic elite who professes to speak for the masses.

"We"?

[Janus]

"We"?
Yes, with a few exceptions, I'm fairly certain that most people here don't want to repeat the same mistakes.

[*mac_capital*]

socialism starts in the community. when one municipality after another decide to run a business in the community to the bennefit of the entire community we will start to see competion between socialist and capitalist business.

both a form of socialism is need so that everyone in the community is an owner and bennefits from the profits but an indepenent form of capitalism is needed to run in competition with the socialist businesses so that both business are run to the best of their abilities in quality and efficiency.

but the start of this community socialism is democratic elections, this will be communities standing up to own what rightfully belongs to the people of the community be it a grocery store or a water bottling company ect. it will be through community election socialism will take its form and grow from there.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:12 pm
However, I must ask, if one is to be a socialist, must one be anti-democratic also?

My primary belief as a socialist is that of democratic socialism - my revolutionary left movement would be a revolutionary left victory in an election - not easy under our current electoral system I accept. However, as I'm sure is herecy to the most Revolutionary Left, I do not feel allegiance to Marxism, and therefore ignore it's anti-democratic elements.

This is my reasoning behind my belief in mixing capitalism with socialism.
First of all, welcome. :)

Now, as to your questions, there is a difference between the view that we should use democratic elections to achieve socialism and the idea that we must have democracy within socialism, once socialism has been achieved.

All socialists believe that socialism must involve some kind of democracy after it has been established. However, not all socialists believe that we should be using the tools of capitalist democracy to achieve socialism in the first place.

Typically, most revolutionary leftists believe that present capitalist governments should be overthrown and disbanded, and that different institutions - democratic, but different in some way, depending on who you ask - should be set up.

In other words, we support socialist democracy, but most of us believe that capitalist "democracy" is a sham.


Capitalism is adaptable. Take a look at Britain under Clement Atlee, Harold Wilson and James Callaghan. There was a large industrial fabric to Britain, much of the British economy was nationalised throughout many points in these eras, from Thomas Cook tourism to British Aerospace. However, despite these times when the Labour Party adopted largely socialist principles, Britain was identified as a capitalist nation, that there was still a society of haves and have nots.
And then what happened in the 1980s? Thatcher came along. If we could go back to Atlee today, another Thatcher would come along in 30 years and destroy everything we worked to achieve. What you propose is unsustainable (and you have already pointed out that capitalism persisted under those conditions, along with all its problems).


It is my belief that capitalism is very much entrenched in our lives in the 21st century, it does not matter how far we try to hide from it, how many times the marxists and extreme leftists denounce it, capitalism is here to stay, the imprint of the selfish Thatcher and Reagon years remaining within us. So, if capitalism is here to stay, we should not ignore it, merely adapt it.
You have to look at the bigger picture. How entrenched was feudalism a few centuries ago? Most people believed it was the will of the gods themselves! And now, it is nothing but a memory.

No, the revolution will not come tomorrow. But 50 years from now, who knows? We must endure, and not compromise our principles just because we're going through bad times.


Why can't we possess a strong welfare system that greatly subsidises those disadvantaged few and still have money in our pocket to buy into consumer products?
Two reasons. First, we are not dealing with the disadvantaged few. Under capitalism, the vast majority is disadvantaged. Second, the capitalists will simply not allow the system you propose for very long. It was only the Cold War and fear of communism that drove capitalists to make concessions in the 50s and 60s.

[bezdomni]

Capitalism is no more compatible with socialism than feudalism is compatible with capitalism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 12:10 am

"We"?
Yes, with a few exceptions, I'm fairly certain that most people here don't want to repeat the same mistakes.
too bad you don't understand those societies then

[La Comédie Noire]

Well first it should be pointed out the dictatorship of the proliteriate would be capitalist. The workers would just get to decide what was done with the flow of capital and what their working conditions where. this is of course only a step in many on the road to an egalitarian society.

So I guess you could say Capitalism is compatible on the road to Socialism. However, Capitalism will begin to wither away as jobs become less specialized and more of an abundance is produced.

Finally, let us see what Lenin had to say on the topic of Bourgeois democracy.


In capitalist society, providing it develops under the most favourable conditions, we have a more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always hemmed in by the narrow limits set by capitalist exploitation, and consequently always remains, in effect, a democracy for the minority, only for the propertied classes, only for the rich. Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners. Owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation, the modern wage slaves are so crushed by want and poverty that "they cannot be bothered with democracy", "cannot be bothered with politics"; in the ordinary, peaceful course of events, the majority of the population is debarred from participation in public and political life.

Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich - that is the democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we see everywhere, in the "petty" - supposedly petty - details of the suffrage (residential qualifications, exclusion of women, etc.), in the technique of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for "paupers"!), in the purely capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc., - we see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been inclose contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine out of 10, if not 99 out of 100, bourgeois publicists and politicians come under this category); but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and squeeze out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy.

If someone is going to shoot you and your family in the head and you get to vote on the ammunition they use is that freedom?

[Ranger]

I'd be happy to discuss this further with you. You may find that marxism is not quite what you've heard it to be.
I accept, there are still myths of marxism that are perpetuated. That is why I am here, to learn.

[Vargha Poralli]

Marx hated capitalism, and believed it went completely against a revolutionary proletarian revolution,

I think you have misunderstood Marx. Marx critic of Capitalism is really based after understanding how the system works what use it is for workers and what it actually does for the Capitalists.


however he did agree it was a necessary step to move into a capitalist stage from feudalism, and them to a communist stage from capitalism.

Yes and he also considered that the communist stage form capitalism cannot be achived without a revolution. And it is because every epoch in the history has been transformed only by violent revolutions.


However, when one considers a socialist revolution not in the form of a bloody workers struggle but in the form of the ballot box, then I believe it is arguable that capitalism is compatible in a socialist nation.

But ballot box is not an end all solution. It is just one method. And that method had never worked. Even the self labelled communist party in India cannot do a shit and has proved that once it got to power it is totally against the workers.


Capitalism is adaptable. Take a look at Britain under Clement Atlee, Harold Wilson and James Callaghan. There was a large industrial fabric to Britain, much of the British economy was nationalised throughout many points in these eras, from Thomas Cook tourism to British Aerospace. However, despite these times when the Labour Party adopted largely socialist principles, Britain was identified as a capitalist nation, that there was still a society of haves and have nots.

Do you really think all the workers have the benefits that they enjoy in the era of Labour-Socialism. Does the position was same under Thatcher,Major and Blair ?


My primary belief as a socialist is that of democratic socialism - my revolutionary left movement would be a revolutionary left victory in an election - not easy under our current electoral system I accept.


Sorry but you have put too much hope on Democracy. Democracy in todays world is just like the democarcy in Athens. Freedom for Slave Owners.It is farcial in Nature.


However, as I'm sure is herecy to the most Revolutionary Left, I do not feel allegiance to Marxism, and therefore ignore it's anti-democratic elements.

I think yopu don't know much about Marxism then . Marxism is not anti democratic.


By this, would I be right in assuming you are proposing a workers revolution such as the October Revolution in Russia?

A workers revolution in like the October revolution is the only thing that could lead us in to the stage of Communism. This is really a fact.


I accept, there are still myths of marxism that are perpetuated. That is why I am here, to learn.

Then I would suggest this (http://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm) good place to start with.

To sum up what is really communism is

Originally posted by Frederick [email protected] Communists and Karl Heinzen
Communism is not a doctrine but a movement; it proceeds not from principles but from facts. The Communists do not base themselves on this or that philosophy as their point of departure but on the whole course of previous history and specifically its actual results in the civilised countries at the present time. Communism has followed from large-scale industry and its consequences, from the establishment of the world market, of the concomitant uninhibited competition, ever more violent and more universal trade crises, which have already become fully fledged crises of the world market, from the creation of the proletariat and the concentration of capital, from the ensuing class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie. Communism, insofar as it is a theory, is the theoretical expression of the position of the proletariat in this struggle and the theoretical summation of the conditions for the liberation of the proletariat.

[Eleftherios]

First of all, welcome to the site

Can capitalism be compatible in a socialist society?
To answer your question, no, it cannot be by its very definition. In a capitalist society, the bourgeoisie rule society. In a socialist society there will be a true democracy of the working people and "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" (Communist Manifesto).

Furthermore, capitalism by is very nature is anti-democratic in the way the bourgeoisie dominate the workplace and in the way the way the bourgeoisie use the state as an instrument to uphold their power and interests. Socialism by its very nature is democratic because in a socialist society the workers will democratically run the workplace and the bourgeoisie state we now have will have been replaced by true democracy.

I suggest you read the Communist Manifesto. It could be found on the internet if you do not want to buy the book.

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/184...festo/index.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm)

[Janus]

too bad you don't understand those societies then
That's really enlightening. I suppose this is the part where you tell me that the PRC and the USSR were just one small step away from communism before the "revisionists" allowed capitalism back?

[bezdomni]

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

It was the capitalist roaders, not the revisionists!

:P