how many chances does socialism/communism need? [Archive]

Kwisatz Haderach

16th November 2007, 19:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:19 pm
we keep on hearing the argument that the governments in tanzania, cambodia, ethiopia, russia, poland, china etc weren't/aren't true forms of socialism.
Look, it is absurd to say that any country (or any person) who calls itself socialist should have its claims taken at face value, just as we don't consider North Korea democratic just because it calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

We must first establish what me mean by "socialism" - for example by drawing up a list of conditions that a country must achieve in order to be considered "socialist" - and then we can begin evaluating the historical performance of socialism.

To answer your original question, however, what matters is not the number of chances but the quality of chances. In other words, one chance is more than enough if that chance allows socialism to establish itself in a place where it can be expected to flourish and which can serve as a base for a world revolution. A chance in, say, Brazil is not the same as a chance in Burundi.

pusher robot

16th November 2007, 19:25

Look if one were to look disppasionately on the various revolutions of the twentieth century that went wrong, you could have told at the time, how and why they failed, simply by using a Marxist analysis of the situation.

Then I must ask why society ought to believe Marxists who proclaim the feasibility of communist revolution now any more than Marxists who proclaimed the feasibility of communist revolution then.

Essentially, you're arguing that all the communists responsible for previous revolutions were either lying or mistaken. What reason is there to conclude that has changed?

Kwisatz Haderach

16th November 2007, 19:39

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 09:25 pm

Look if one were to look disppasionately on the various revolutions of the twentieth century that went wrong, you could have told at the time, how and why they failed, simply by using a Marxist analysis of the situation.

Then I must ask why society ought to believe Marxists who proclaim the feasibility of communist revolution now any more than Marxists who proclaimed the feasibility of communist revolution then.

Essentially, you're arguing that all the communists responsible for previous revolutions were either lying or mistaken. What reason is there to conclude that has changed?
First of all I disagree with the assertion that Marxist revolutions "failed." The only revolutions that truly failed were the ones who were defeated by capitalist military forces. All the revolutions that managed to take control of the state were successful revolutions.

Now, obviously, all of those successful revolutions had a great number of unforseen consequences, some of which turned out to be bad (e.g. Stalinism). The question is not about the "feasibility of communist revolution" - the 20th century proved that it is possible for communists to gain power and keep it - but about avoiding some of the negative consequences of previous revolutions. In other words, the problem is not that we failed in the past and want to succeed in the future; the problem is that our past successes did not perform as well as we thought they should, and we must find ways to improve our performance in the future.

As for why you should expect us to improve our performance in the future, that is because we (or at least those of us in whose name I speak) have analyzed the problems of the past and came up with ways to do things a bit differently in the future. No one advocates a carbon copy of the Bolshevik revolution and Soviet experience; in fact I don't think there's anyone who seriously believes it would even by possible to replicate history like that.

black magick hustla

16th November 2007, 19:47

pusher robot

16th November 2007, 20:08

First of all I disagree with the assertion that Marxist revolutions "failed."

Good grief. You were the one who said they failed!

you could have told at the time, how and why they failed

Would you make up your mind please?

As for why you should expect us to improve our performance in the future, that is because we (or at least those of us in whose name I speak) have analyzed the problems of the past and came up with ways to do things a bit differently in the future.

That statement has very little credibility, because it's the exact same thing every proponent of every previous failed revolution has said. That's why the OP is asking how many times we have to go through this "fail, tweak, repeat" cycle before the entire theory can be considered infeasible.

This statement has even less credibility when one considers that just about every reasonable question posed about precisely how a post-revolution society would operate - you know, actual details of implementation and not theoretical abstractions - is answered with hand-waving and assurances that it will work "somehow" because "people" will "figure it out." Well, that sure is a bit different all right!

Not exactly a big confidence-booster that you've actually analyzed anything at all.

Schrödinger's Cat

16th November 2007, 20:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:19 pm
we keep on hearing the argument that the governments in tanzania, cambodia, ethiopia, russia, poland, china etc weren't/aren't true forms of socialism. my question is how much chances should marxism get to be implement itself before it is deemed idealist and not practical at all. does it take a century to implement a political idea. if capitalism is so evil and imperial why haven't we abandoned it yet?? are leftists using this argument as a cop-out.

speak on it.
How many chances do you think liberalism received in Europe and Latin America?

Notice how none of these countries actually apply what Marx said? Isn't that remarkable? Could it be -- gasp -- that dictators use the promise of socialism to abuse their power. You know, the thing despots did with republicanism before they disregarded the constitution and went in reactionary conservative mode.

Give me a break.

Schrödinger's Cat

16th November 2007, 20:23

Originally posted by Tupac-[email protected] 16, 2007 03:50 pm
Leftists are just douche bags who can't admit that they are wrong!
40 million people die each year from poverty-related causes. Keep telling yourself you're better.

Schrödinger's Cat

16th November 2007, 20:25

Dr Mindbender

16th November 2007, 21:17

how many chances does capitalism need in latin america, africa and south east asia?

Demogorgon

16th November 2007, 22:08

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 07:25 pm

Look if one were to look disppasionately on the various revolutions of the twentieth century that went wrong, you could have told at the time, how and why they failed, simply by using a Marxist analysis of the situation.

Then I must ask why society ought to believe Marxists who proclaim the feasibility of communist revolution now any more than Marxists who proclaimed the feasibility of communist revolution then.

Essentially, you're arguing that all the communists responsible for previous revolutions were either lying or mistaken. What reason is there to conclude that has changed?
Well one might say things would have succeeded then as well had tings been gone about the right way, one might also say that it was hardly a complete failure, in different historical situations you can see elements of success and elements of failure. One must identify the cause of success and the cause of failure and work from there.

The reason Communism went wrong in the Soviet Union, was admitted to by Lenin himself. Russia and the other countries involved simply did not have the level of industrial poer to handle a change in society.

Would it have been possible in Britain or the United States at the time however? It is pretty pointless to speculate on that now.

Is it possible now? Perhaps. If it is well and good. If it isn't, it can come in the future, but these days we have several hopeful signs of the feasibility side of things. One quite simply is that we have the internet. That allows for a level of sharing information and easy way to vote on a multitude of matters that we certainly lacked before. We can certainly make a better stab at Communism now, than we could last time.

And of course we also have the advantage now of knowing what went wrong (and what went right for that matter) last time, so we can adapt accordingly.

Not that I imagine for a inute simply repeating what was tried in Russia or China or whatever would have a success rate higher than zero. Obviously we have to work with what our present conditions are, trying to achieve our goals through radically different methods tha before.

Dr Mindbender

16th November 2007, 22:11

theres 2 other factors which led to the USSR's downfall which the cappies conveniently forget-

1- firstly their involvement in WW1 which decimated economy and its male working population.

2-the imperialist invasions by foreign counter-revolutionaries which did their economy no favours either.

Demogorgon

16th November 2007, 22:22

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 08:08 pm

First of all I disagree with the assertion that Marxist revolutions "failed."

Good grief. You were the one who said they failed!

you could have told at the time, how and why they failed

Would you make up your mind please?

Me and Edric O are not the same person.

It sems that needed to be pointed out.

RedArmyFaction

16th November 2007, 22:31

Well you can't skip the capitalist stage. This means you can't go into socialism if your country is in early stages of capitalism.

A country with a well established economy such as USA or UK would be perfect to go into socialism. However, a country with a poor economy with little or no industrialization is not ripe for socialism. This is exactly what happened to Lenin and the USSR and is why the famine happened. This is why Lenin introduced the NEP.

The lesson is, according to Marx...............capitalism must be established. I wonder what would have been the outcome if the soviets stuck with capitalism for about 30 years and then went into socialism...............it would have been a totally different Russia than as we know it.

Robert

17th November 2007, 01:34

Why do so many leftists fall back on "according to Marx" as though it is an irrefutable axiom that Marx's vision was right in the first place? Was he a god? Why not consider the possibility that the problem in China, Vietnam, USSR, Poland, East Germany, Cuba and Cambodia was not the implementation of the theory, but the theory itself?

That isn't even a possibility?

Demogorgon

17th November 2007, 01:43

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 17, 2007 01:34 am
Why do so many leftists fall back on "according to Marx" as though it is an irrefutable axiom that Marx's vision was right in the first place? Was he a god? Why not consider the possibility that the problem in China, Vietnam, USSR, Poland, East Germany, Cuba and Cambodia was not the implementation of the theory, but the theory itself?

That isn't even a possibility?
Well it is obvious that those examples can not be considered failures of the theory itself, because if you actually read the theory, it has precious little to do with what happened there. You have to remember that Marx's writing is about historical development, economics and discussions of social institutions, there is litle in the way of a political programme and nothing at all in the form of discussion of what a Government should do. So saying that x Government acted on Marx's ideas is wrong because Marx's ideas offer little clue as to what a Government should do.

I agree with you that simply saying "according to Marx" is not a decent argument, and besides Marx gets heavily misquoted and misunderstood all the time. But he was an incredible writer because of his ability to draw together different threads so to speak. When you read his work you keep geting hit with "ah of course" and "I never thought of it like that" moments. fThat is why I find him such a valuable writer. His works are not a Bible, but they remain a pretty definitive source for working towards understanding politics.

Robert

17th November 2007, 02:03

"Understanding politics"? Do you mean "governance," or politics in the sense of how to obtain and keep power?

Now I'll make this confession as a "cappie," I think I am called: If I landed on a planet in space ruled by monarchist monkeys and had a vision of capitalist utopia to offer, I confess I would be hard pressed to convince them to give up their kings based on my word, or the visions of Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, or the XIIIth century Venetian bankers commonly accredited as the earliest capitalists. "How do we know capitalism won't bring us misery? Can you promise it won't?"

No, I can't.

I do salute communist youth at least for trying so hard. I think you're wasting your time, but it's a free country. And will remain so until the strongest among you takes over.

Then ... look out below!

Demogorgon

17th November 2007, 02:08

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 17, 2007 02:03 am
"Understanding politics"? Do you mean "governance," or politics in the sense of how to obtain and keep power?

Now I'll make this confession as a "cappie," I think I am called: If I landed on a planet in space ruled by monarchist monkeys and had a vision of capitalist utopia to offer, I confess I would be hard pressed to convince them to give up their kings based on my word, or the visions of Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, or the XIIIth century Venetian bankers commonly accredited as the earliest capitalists. "How do we know capitalism won't bring us misery? Can you promise it won't?"

No, I can't.

I do salute communist youth at least for trying so hard. I think you're wasting your time, but it's a free country. And will remain so until the strongest among you takes over.

Then ... look out below!
By politics I mean the broadest possible sense. Essentially the human element of how society functions. If you want to know what he wrote, read him, he is quite readable and generally easy to follow. You will be surprised.

Incidentally if there is one thing his work absolutely has nothing to do with, it is trying to convince peopel to adopt a new society. A Marxist understanding of history holds that that is at best pointless.

Robert

17th November 2007, 02:10

2 other factors which led to the USSR's downfall which the cappies conveniently forget-

1- firstly their involvement in WW1 which decimated economy and its male working population.

Curtis LeMay firebombed 30-odd cities in Japan, including Tokyo. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were extras.

Look at Japan now.

Bilan

17th November 2007, 02:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:19 am
we keep on hearing the argument that the governments in tanzania, cambodia, ethiopia, russia, poland, china etc weren't/aren't true forms of socialism. my question is how much chances should marxism get to be implement itself before it is deemed idealist and not practical at all. does it take a century to implement a political idea. if capitalism is so evil and imperial why haven't we abandoned it yet?? are leftists using this argument as a cop-out.

speak on it.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever read any communist theory, or articles on these issues?

Indeed, many of these nations did fail, and the reasons behind their ultimate destruction lie in many places - dogmatism (I'd definitely say is one), invasions from capitalist nations (e.g. Bay of Pigs, Russia got invaded, too), isolation - via trade, transport, etc, and the material conditions surrounding these revolutions.
Indeed, look at Russia's economic state before the revolution! For anything to succeed there without many hiccups and problems would have to be a fucking miracle!

Schrödinger's Cat

17th November 2007, 03:29

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 17, 2007 02:10 am

2 other factors which led to the USSR's downfall which the cappies conveniently forget-

1- firstly their involvement in WW1 which decimated economy and its male working population.

Curtis LeMay firebombed 30-odd cities in Japan, including Tokyo. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were extras.

Look at Japan now.
Japan was occupied by the American Empire and had billions of dollars pumped into its economy to ensure Leftist sentiment wouldn't grow to become a problem like it did in South Korea, where the Americans had to resort to murdering innocent Leftists. In addition, Japan was one of the few Asians powers to have already industrialized.

That's a rather poor comparison.

Robert

17th November 2007, 04:44

You want to credit Japan's spectacular post-war success to the "American Empire", and not to the Japanese people, that's okay with me. You're wrong, but it's still okay with me.

Kwisatz Haderach

17th November 2007, 07:09

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 17, 2007 06:44 am
You want to credit Japan's spectacular post-war success to the "American Empire", and not to the Japanese people, that's okay with me. You're wrong, but it's still okay with me.
If you can say that "the nature of the Japanese people" or some other such mystical crap is responsible for Japan's economic success, can we get away with saying that "the nature of the Russian people" or some other such equally mystical crap was responsible for the faults of the Soviet Union?

I thought not.

Kwisatz Haderach

17th November 2007, 07:18

Originally posted by pusher robot+November 16, 2007 10:08 pm--> (pusher robot @ November 16, 2007 10:08 pm) That statement has very little credibility, because it's the exact same thing every proponent of every previous failed revolution has said. [/b]
Really? They did? Show me quotes please.

The fact is that previous revolutionaries saw no need to improve on the original Bolshevik model, because its faults were not clearly exposed until 1989. Your assertion is an outright lie, whether intentional or not.

pusher robot
This statement has even less credibility when one considers that just about every reasonable question posed about precisely how a post-revolution society would operate - you know, actual details of implementation and not theoretical abstractions - is answered with hand-waving and assurances that it will work "somehow" because "people" will "figure it out." Well, that sure is a bit different all right!
As Demogorgon pointed out, you seem to be suffering under the impression that everyone on Revleft is part of one giant uniform mass. Obviously some people have given inadequate answers to your questions or tried to hand-wave their way out of important questions. However, I have not, and there are many other people on this forum who are likewise interested in the problems of a revolutionary society and have put forward various proposals to improve on the Bolshevik model.

But perhaps we should move out of the abstract and into the realm of the concrete. Please point out specific problems with past revolutions and I will tell you my proposed ways of addressing them.

Robert

17th November 2007, 12:15

If you can say that "the nature of the Japanese people"

Sorry, my friend, but you missed by a mile. Try again. I have confidence in you.

Demogorgon

17th November 2007, 12:34

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 17, 2007 04:44 am
You want to credit Japan's spectacular post-war success to the "American Empire", and not to the Japanese people, that's okay with me. You're wrong, but it's still okay with me.
Both would be silly though.

The fact is the "Japanese Miracle" began with the Meiji restoration. Betweent he wars, Japan was one of the world's five great powers and out of all the capitalist economies coped with the depression the best.

The fact is after the war, all the economic ingredients were there to simply continue their success. There was incredible physical damage of course, but that was rebuilt fairly quickly.

At any rate talk of the Japanese suddenly having great success after the war is very silly indeed.

Cmde. Slavyanski

17th November 2007, 12:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:19 pm
we keep on hearing the argument that the governments in tanzania, cambodia, ethiopia, russia, poland, china etc weren't/aren't true forms of socialism. my question is how much chances should marxism get to be implement itself before it is deemed idealist and not practical at all. does it take a century to implement a political idea. if capitalism is so evil and imperial why haven't we abandoned it yet?? are leftists using this argument as a cop-out.

speak on it.
Trotskyites take note: For those that claim all the socialist revolutions of the 20th century were not "real" or whatever- this guys question is entirely legitimate.

For those of us in the real world; we can say that in reality, socialism accomplished virtual miracles for millions around the world, even those that didn't live under socialist governments(the threat of socialism forced a lot of governments to make compromises with the working class on a number of issues).

What I suggest is look at the amount of progress between the Paris Commune, and the October Revolution, and then imagine what we could build with over 100 years of experience and information. Of course this will only be successful if criticisms of the past are based on an accurate understanding of real-world socialism's existence.

FriendorFoe

17th November 2007, 17:56

It has already been deemed idealist and impractical. Pure communism is an impossibility, it goes against human nature. capitalism is based on greed and is efficient so we utilize it to move society forward. No government is perfect, as Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government - besides all the rest". And to quote James Madison "If men were angels no government would be necessary".

People will never be happy being equal to the next guy. We are in a constant struggle to define ourselves as superior always comparing ourselves - as such capitalism works, communism has inherent flaws.

Marsella

17th November 2007, 18:03

The good sir Jazzratt has organised a thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71964), with the help of others, to answer your criticisms.

They are also answered here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25500&st=0)

Forward Union

17th November 2007, 18:04

You need to understand that there are two types of Communism. Libertarian Communistm and Authorotarian communism.

As a Libertarian communist, I would argue the model for revolution utalised by communists over the last 90 years, or more specifically the existance of a vanguard party as a key feature of that model, is inherantly flawed.

Communist revolutions have failed to destroy capitalism due to inherant ideological and practical flaws within Authorotarian communism.

The failures of authorotarian communist revolutions were actually prediced decades before the Russian revolution when Communist/Anarchist thinker Bakunin said "Even if you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power. Within a year he would be as murderous as the Tzar himself" - this statement has of course been absolved.

Forward Union

17th November 2007, 18:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:56 pm
It has already been deemed idealist and impractical. Pure communism is an impossibility, it goes against human nature.
Actually if humans inherantly want stuff, and capitalism is a system that sees the concerntration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, surely capitalism is against human nature?

and is efficient

Tons of corn is dumped in the sea every year to make remaining stocks more valuable. Food is deliebratly underproduced for the same reason. Whilst millions starve. That doesn't sound very efficient to me.

Marsella

17th November 2007, 18:16

Originally posted by William [email protected] 18, 2007 03:34 am
You need to understand that there are two types of Communism. Libertarian Communistm and Authorotarian communism.

As a Libertarian communist, I would argue the model for revolution utalised by communists over the last 90 years, or more specifically the existance of a vanguard party as a key feature of that model, is inherantly flawed.

Communist revolutions have failed to destroy capitalism due to inherant ideological and practical flaws within Authorotarian communism.

The failures of authorotarian communist revolutions were actually prediced decades before the Russian revolution when Communist/Anarchist thinker Bakunin said "Even if you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power. Within a year he would be as murderous as the Tzar himself" - this statement has of course been absolved.
I agree Edward but I also think that the failure of past revolutions had much to do with the conditions in which they were made. Elitist organisation is not the only thing at fault. That said, the conditions are largely right today, depending on which country, thus the authoritarian model is defeated two fold.

17th November 2007, 19:17

lol what an absurd question, it would be like asking in 1817 "how many chances does liberalism need?? The Liberal republics in Europe all collapsed, turned into monarchies and were reabsorbed by the monarchies, and the liberal republic in America is built by slave labour, treats women as property, is waging a war of genocidal extermination on the native population, has invaded its neighbours and is run as an oligarchy where less than 10% are eligible to vote! Clearly Paine and Locke got it wrong!"

Schrödinger's Cat

17th November 2007, 19:20

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 17, 2007 04:44 am
You want to credit Japan's spectacular post-war success to the "American Empire", and not to the Japanese people, that's okay with me. You're wrong, but it's still okay with me.
If you want to go there, Japan's economy, although still structured around a market, exhibited many instances of cooperation between different entities, the government, and the workers. So yes, many kudos to the Japanese people for realizing that cooperation outperforms competition. Thank you for pointing that out. I'm confident it wasn't what you wanted to hear, though.

Schrödinger's Cat

17th November 2007, 19:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:56 pm
It has already been deemed idealist and impractical. Pure communism is an impossibility, it goes against human nature. capitalism is based on greed and is efficient so we utilize it to move society forward. No government is perfect, as Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government - besides all the rest". And to quote James Madison "If men were angels no government would be necessary".

People will never be happy being equal to the next guy. We are in a constant struggle to define ourselves as superior always comparing ourselves - as such capitalism works, communism has inherent flaws.
You appear completely ignorant on the subject by posing these elementary questions. There have been countless threads made to discredit such capitalist nonsense. Look them up using the search function.

Let me ask you two things: at the time of posting this trash, did you know communism doesn't wish to rid the world of all government? Did you know communism thrives on the want to be recognized by society more than your neighbor? No, you didn't, because you choose to be ignorant on the subject just to feel as if you're right. We can instantly tell that you haven't devoted any time to researching the subject.

FriendorFoe

17th November 2007, 22:23

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+November 17, 2007 02:24 am--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ November 17, 2007 02:24 am)
[email protected] 17, 2007 01:19 am
we keep on hearing the argument that the governments in tanzania, cambodia, ethiopia, russia, poland, china etc weren't/aren't true forms of socialism. my question is how much chances should marxism get to be implement itself before it is deemed idealist and not practical at all. does it take a century to implement a political idea. if capitalism is so evil and imperial why haven't we abandoned it yet?? are leftists using this argument as a cop-out.

speak on it.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever read any communist theory, or articles on these issues?

Indeed, many of these nations did fail, and the reasons behind their ultimate destruction lie in many places - dogmatism (I'd definitely say is one), invasions from capitalist nations (e.g. Bay of Pigs, Russia got invaded, too), isolation - via trade, transport, etc, and the material conditions surrounding these revolutions.
Indeed, look at Russia's economic state before the revolution! For anything to succeed there without many hiccups and problems would have to be a fucking miracle! [/b]

if youve ever read communist theory then you know its dogmatic by nature. only a couple of the theorists like otto neurath actually tried to show how it would work practically speaking. the invasions to cuba and the USSR happened very early on, i dont see why they would matter much. isolation shouldnt be a problem, why should you be allowed to freely trade with other countries when free trade isnt allowed inside your own country? look at any of the asian tigers economic state 40 years ago, with the right policies they have succeeded without mass death and destitution

FriendorFoe

17th November 2007, 22:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 07:17 pm
lol what an absurd question, it would be like asking in 1817 "how many chances does liberalism need?? The Liberal republics in Europe all collapsed, turned into monarchies and were reabsorbed by the monarchies, and the liberal republic in America is built by slave labour, treats women as property, is waging a war of genocidal extermination on the native population, has invaded its neighbours and is run as an oligarchy where less than 10% are eligible to vote! Clearly Paine and Locke got it wrong!"

the difference of course is that liberal democratic capitalism actually works in theory as long as the political and institutional conditions are right. and those conditions are realistic - we've gotten most of them right (rule of law, property rights, stable regime, etc) over the decades. there is no scenario where socialism, especially on a large scale, can work in theory, unless your goal is poverty and stagnation

FriendorFoe

17th November 2007, 22:25

Originally posted by William Everard+November 17, 2007 06:11 pm--> (William Everard @ November 17, 2007 06:11 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 05:56 pm
It has already been deemed idealist and impractical. Pure communism is an impossibility, it goes against human nature.
Actually if humans inherantly want stuff, and capitalism is a system that sees the concerntration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, surely capitalism is against human nature?

and is efficient

Tons of corn is dumped in the sea every year to make remaining stocks more valuable. Food is deliebratly underproduced for the same reason. Whilst millions starve. That doesn't sound very efficient to me. [/b]
i dont think any free market advocate supports that. those farm programs intended to keep farmers wealthy. they were mostly introduced during the new deal when this country was closest to a socialist or a fascist takeover

Demogorgon

17th November 2007, 22:57

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 17, 2007 04:44 am
You want to credit Japan's spectacular post-war success to the "American Empire", and not to the Japanese people, that's okay with me. You're wrong, but it's still okay with me.
Oh and another point. If anybody is labouring under the delusion that the Japanese economic boom was down to "free market" capitalism let me disabuse them.

The Japanese economy in fact works very differently to that of countries like America because the government takes control over development of infrastructure to amuch greater degree and because far from there being a particularly competitive market, the economy is the crowning example of Oligopoly with the huge conglomerates not exactly being examples of competitive efficiency and the smaller companies locked into hierarchical relationships with the bigger companies and each other.

Growth has come through the government taking an extremely active role in the economy and essentially centrally deciding control of funding to firms. It has paid for this both through high taxes and high borowing.

Such a system comes at a very large price, as those with an interest in Japan will know, but it does provide very high growth for a while which is why Japan thrived for several decades.

Qwerty Dvorak

17th November 2007, 23:30

i dont think any free market advocate supports that. those farm programs intended to keep farmers wealthy. they were mostly introduced during the new deal when this country was closest to a socialist or a fascist takeover
New Deal, so you're talking about America? (Sorry, I just came in on the thread). Had you studied history you'd know that the US was never ever anywhere near a socialist or fascist takeover, especially with the existence of the Soviet Union. First of all, very few capitalists support a completely laissez-faire system; that would be foolish, most half-intelligent capitalists at least support some governmental regulation, per Keynes. Secondly, the dumping of the corn is a direct result of the greed-based nature of capitalism in conjunction with the supply-v-demand nature of the free market.

I think what WE is getting at is that, under capitalism, production and trade is most cost-effective where there is scarcity; thus it is more in the interests of the owners of the means of production to produce less than is enough for everyone. So not only is the free market inefficient in this regard, it is downright incapable of taking care of society as a whole.

Robert

18th November 2007, 04:07

I'm confident it wasn't what you wanted to hear, though.

Mean Gene, your confidence is misplaced, and you're cynicism heartbreaking.
I hoped only for you to recognize what you do in your last post. If all you want in your own country, whatever that is, are "many instances of cooperation between [among] different entities, the government, and the workers," then we got a deal.

That's a lot more accurate (and fair-minded) than insinuating as you did earlier that modern Japan would be nothing without the USA having thrown some cash at it to keep the Commies down (as an aside, would that we could do as much with American domestic problems by throwing money at them).

And I now know you would never over-simplify it to that extent in your own mind.

Cmde. Slavyanski

18th November 2007, 18:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:56 pm
It has already been deemed idealist and impractical. Pure communism is an impossibility, it goes against human nature. capitalism is based on greed and is efficient so we utilize it to move society forward. No government is perfect, as Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government - besides all the rest". And to quote James Madison "If men were angels no government would be necessary".

People will never be happy being equal to the next guy. We are in a constant struggle to define ourselves as superior always comparing ourselves - as such capitalism works, communism has inherent flaws.
Sadly for you, there is no such thing as "human nature" in an eternal sense. After all, if capitalism were supposedly in line with "human nature", we might ask why it took so long to come about; despite technological issues. Your reasoning is basically that this system works because it is in line with the "human nature" that this system brought about. Thus you have given us a tautology.

Lastly, whether or not "liberal democracy"/capitalism "works" has a lot to do with your relation to it. It doesn't "work" too well for someone in Iraq for example.

synthesis

18th November 2007, 20:34

From a modern perspective, the Leninist revolutions of the 20th century did not "fail" by any measure except those standards to which the capitalists and outdated socialists hold it.

For the most part, Leninism, which is Marxism adapted to under-industrialized conditions, has done exactly what it is supposed to do: bring former colonies and exploited nations into a state of industrialization and political autonomy.

Real communism is not going to work if the technology to support it does not exist globally.

Schrödinger's Cat

18th November 2007, 20:50

Originally posted by FriendorFoe+November 17, 2007 10:25 pm--> (FriendorFoe @ November 17, 2007 10:25 pm)
Originally posted by William [email protected] 17, 2007 06:11 pm

[email protected] 17, 2007 05:56 pm
It has already been deemed idealist and impractical. Pure communism is an impossibility, it goes against human nature.
Actually if humans inherantly want stuff, and capitalism is a system that sees the concerntration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, surely capitalism is against human nature?

and is efficient

Tons of corn is dumped in the sea every year to make remaining stocks more valuable. Food is deliebratly underproduced for the same reason. Whilst millions starve. That doesn't sound very efficient to me.
i dont think any free market advocate supports that. those farm programs intended to keep farmers wealthy. they were mostly introduced during the new deal when this country was closest to a socialist or a fascist takeover [/b]
Yes, they're intended to stabilize our own agricultural sector.

Robert

18th November 2007, 22:30

I have to admit that this corn-dumping business disgusts me. Can someone provide a link?

Thanks.

pusher robot

18th November 2007, 22:42

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 18, 2007 10:30 pm
I have to admit that this corn-dumping business disgusts me. Can someone provide a link?

Thanks.
I doubt that is likely. Corn is far too valuable right now for it to be wasted.

Usually, such wastage occurs only when (1) government purchases a lot of food that it doesn't use or (2) the price falls below the actual cost of distribution (this is very rare unless government subsidies are underwriting the low price.)

This point was raised once before and I responded by pointing out that even WITH any of this fabled wastage, the U.S. provides more charitable food aid than every other country in the world combined, and amazingly enough, the famine it relieves only ever seems to occur in non-liberal, non-capitalist areas.

davidbrooke

18th November 2007, 22:45

Is it really human nature to preside over immense wealth whilst acknowledging that billions of people across the planet are suffering over poverty?
For me, it's a natural instinct to lend people money if they're short - and the idea of greed is bred out of material conditions that they live in.

We've hundreds of years under a system that has promoted greed over co-operation - it's why human nature being greedy is such a flawed argument.

Yes post-revolutions have gone wrong, but we can learn from this and carry the struggle forward. History won't stop, socialism won't go away as long as injustice exists.

Besides how many chances does capitilism need? One revolution in one of the more advanced capitalist countires would cause economic recession on a global scale, and this system couldn't exist solely in one country either.

Schrödinger's Cat

18th November 2007, 23:01

Originally posted by pusher robot+November 18, 2007 10:42 pm--> (pusher robot @ November 18, 2007 10:42 pm)
Robert the [email protected] 18, 2007 10:30 pm
I have to admit that this corn-dumping business disgusts me. Can someone provide a link?

Thanks.
I doubt that is likely. Corn is far too valuable right now for it to be wasted.

Usually, such wastage occurs only when (1) government purchases a lot of food that it doesn't use or (2) the price falls below the actual cost of distribution (this is very rare unless government subsidies are underwriting the low price.)

This point was raised once before and I responded by pointing out that even WITH any of this fabled wastage, the U.S. provides more charitable food aid than every other country in the world combined, and amazingly enough, the famine it relieves only ever seems to occur in non-liberal, non-capitalist areas. [/b]
That couldn't be because the United States has the third largest population and land mass in the world? The closest, working economy is Japan and we can assume by sheer geography their production of food isn't anything near ours.

Food competition is a double-edged sword. Without subsidies the farmers living in developed countries would drive farmers living in unindustrialized countries right out of business with their cheaper goods. This causes more poverty because it destabilizes the domestic agriculture sector. That country is having to rely more on outside help. And with subsidies -- well, we've been debating that already so I'll just leave off there.

Robert

18th November 2007, 23:08

I doubt that is likely. Corn is far too valuable right now for it to be wasted.

I share your skepticism. Do you know how expensive it would be to put corn from Iowa on rail cars, haul it to a seaport in Houston, transfer the contents to a ship, sail to sea, pay the deck hands to dump the corn, and steam back? All to prop up the price of corn which is cheap anyway?

You don't suppose they are confusing "dumping" with "dumping" do you?

What say ye, comrades? Is ADM actually dumping real ears of corn into the sea?

Thank you.

Robert

18th November 2007, 23:14

Without subsidies the farmers living in developed countries would drive farmers living in unindustrialized countries right out of business with their cheaper goods. This causes more poverty because it destabilizes the domestic agriculture sector.

I beg your pardon?

Robert

18th November 2007, 23:23

We've hundreds of years under a system that has promoted greed over co-operation - it's why human nature being greedy is such a flawed argument.

Your heart is in the right place, but you've got it backwards IMO. It's innate materialism that has produced the system. People want more and more stuff because they are either bored with their current toys or afraid that they won't have enough food stored up to sustain them when hard times come. I suffer from this fear myself, I admit, and I don't like it.

I'll grant you this ... if I lived on a tranquil island in the Pacific with only 2000 other naked tribesmen (and naked girls ... yea, baby!) and had plenty of fish and coconuts to eat, and I had never heard of the Great Depression or the Khmer Rouge, I might relax a little. But I have heard of both, and so I can't. And I won't. Do I have more than I need at the moment. Yes. Do I have more than I will ever need should another depression come? Probably, but I'm not sure.

How about my island vision? You like?

pusher robot

18th November 2007, 23:24

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 18, 2007 11:14 pm

Without subsidies the farmers living in developed countries would drive farmers living in unindustrialized countries right out of business with their cheaper goods. This causes more poverty because it destabilizes the domestic agriculture sector.

I beg your pardon?
Yes, he has it exactly backwards.

Subsidies depress prices and exist in first-world countries solely to benefit first-world farmers at the expense of third-world farmers. It's a form of protectionism almost universally opposed by third-world countries.

Robert

18th November 2007, 23:35

I understand everything you say except that "subsidies depress prices." How does this work? If I have a field of corn and need to sell it for $50,000 to break even, I can sell it for only $40,000 on the market if I get $10k from the government?

I think the purpose of the subsidy is to keep the farmer in business, not to depress the price, but I guess that's the inevitable result.

Qwerty Dvorak

18th November 2007, 23:43

Originally posted by pusher robot+November 18, 2007 10:42 pm--> (pusher robot @ November 18, 2007 10:42 pm)
Robert the [email protected] 18, 2007 10:30 pm
I have to admit that this corn-dumping business disgusts me. Can someone provide a link?

Thanks.
I doubt that is likely. Corn is far too valuable right now for it to be wasted.

Usually, such wastage occurs only when (1) government purchases a lot of food that it doesn't use or (2) the price falls below the actual cost of distribution (this is very rare unless government subsidies are underwriting the low price.)

This point was raised once before and I responded by pointing out that even WITH any of this fabled wastage, the U.S. provides more charitable food aid than every other country in the world combined, and amazingly enough, the famine it relieves only ever seems to occur in non-liberal, non-capitalist areas. [/b]
The corn dumping, I believe, is not happening today but happened during the depression between the wars. I don't have a link. I also heard from my girlfriend a while back (who learnt in business studies class) that the EU did something similar a few decades ago as part of the CAP. I didn't see anything about this on its Wiki page though.

Qwerty Dvorak

18th November 2007, 23:46

synthesis

19th November 2007, 00:06

I think "corn dumping" may have been confused with the practice of "dumping" excess corn into the Mexican market as a result of NAFTA and so on, to the detriment of the rural farmers.

Demogorgon

19th November 2007, 00:13

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 18, 2007 10:42 pm
and amazingly enough, the famine it relieves only ever seems to occur in non-liberal, non-capitalist areas.
What's that song you like to sing about cause and correlation?

Mind you I am inclined to believe that only areas that do not suffer famine have the stability to produce western style capitalism, or COmmunism for that matter.

Demogorgon

19th November 2007, 00:19

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 18, 2007 11:35 pm
I understand everything you say except that "subsidies depress prices." How does this work? If I have a field of corn and need to sell it for $50,000 to break even, I can sell it for only $40,000 on the market if I get $10k from the government?

I think the purpose of the subsidy is to keep the farmer in business, not to depress the price, but I guess that's the inevitable result.
It is done for both purposes.

It is worth noting incidentally, that the levels of farming subsidies existing in the United States are dwarfed by what happens in the European Union. And there the amount of surplus foods that are destroyed in order to kep prices at a fixed level is amazing. More outrageously they sometimes allow this surplus food to flood third world markets at very low prices driving local farmers out of business and of course the EU uses its considerable financial muscle to prevent these countries raising tariffs against European goods while raising heavy tariffs against third world goods preventing them from competing on our market either.

Nice institution.

Robert

19th November 2007, 00:55

surplus foods that are destroyed in order to kep prices at a fixed level

Source?

Qwerty Dvorak

19th November 2007, 01:09

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 19, 2007 12:55 am

surplus foods that are destroyed in order to kep prices at a fixed level

Source?
In Canada:
http://cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/E/pub/cm/d7-2-3/d7-2-3-e.html

In the US:
http://books.google.com/books?id=BW9CEBIsl...gM2AgY#PPA16,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=BW9CEBIslSQC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=surplus+foods+destroyed&source=web&ots=6Fy43xps9K&sig=g5EkdEkvhCm2eNUG3_FnggM2AgY#PPA16,M1)

Also, a interesting article:
http://www.mindfully.org/WTO/2005/G8-Summit-Sharma5jul05.htm

Demogorgon

19th November 2007, 01:19

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 19, 2007 12:55 am

surplus foods that are destroyed in order to kep prices at a fixed level

Source?
I take it you are not European? Because it is pretty common knowledge here. It is actually a reasonably popular policy in some parts of Europe, particularly France, which enjoys huge benefits from the policy. Indeed part of the reason it will continue indefinetely is the French will definitely veto any attempt to change it.

Anyway you can find the details straight fromt he horses mouth if you want, it will be in here

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/index_en.htm

MT5678

19th November 2007, 01:45

Your heart is in the right place, but you've got it backwards IMO. It's innate materialism that has produced the system. People want more and more stuff because they are either bored with their current toys or afraid that they won't have enough food stored up to sustain them when hard times come. I suffer from this fear myself, I admit, and I don't like it.

I'll grant you this ... if I lived on a tranquil island in the Pacific with only 2000 other naked tribesmen (and naked girls ... yea, baby!) and had plenty of fish and coconuts to eat, and I had never heard of the Great Depression or the Khmer Rouge, I might relax a little. But I have heard of both, and so I can't. And I won't. Do I have more than I need at the moment. Yes. Do I have more than I will ever need should another depression come? Probably, but I'm not sure.

How about my island vision? You like?

Your analysis is faulty. It is common knowledge that capitalism creates instrinsic conditions of instability...unlike feudalism or slavery or whatever. This instability might be the reason why people save up, as you put it. Of course, i would rather prefer socialism over feudalism, as would many.

PigmerikanMao

19th November 2007, 02:20

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 16, 2007 09:17 pm
how many chances does capitalism need in latin america, africa and south east asia?
best... argument... ever! :mellow:

FriendorFoe

19th November 2007, 14:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:29 pm

i dont think any free market advocate supports that. those farm programs intended to keep farmers wealthy. they were mostly introduced during the new deal when this country was closest to a socialist or a fascist takeover
New Deal, so you're talking about America? (Sorry, I just came in on the thread). Had you studied history you'd know that the US was never ever anywhere near a socialist or fascist takeover, especially with the existence of the Soviet Union. First of all, very few capitalists support a completely laissez-faire system; that would be foolish, most half-intelligent capitalists at least support some governmental regulation, per Keynes. Secondly, the dumping of the corn is a direct result of the greed-based nature of capitalism in conjunction with the supply-v-demand nature of the free market.

I think what WE is getting at is that, under capitalism, production and trade is most cost-effective where there is scarcity; thus it is more in the interests of the owners of the means of production to produce less than is enough for everyone. So not only is the free market inefficient in this regard, it is downright incapable of taking care of society as a whole.
well i dont know any capitalists who support the farm-subsidy programs we've had for decades. capitalists support government intervention in places where markets don't work efficiently. that's certainly not the case in agriculture. find me one free-market supporter who thinks the AAA during the new deal, or any other program made to enrich farmers, is a good idea.

the second thing you said makes no sense to me. corn dumping or crop destruction due to government subsidy means that markets dont clear and supply and demand arent equal to each other. how do you call that the result of free markets? farm subsidies are a textbook example of not letting markets work. dumping isnt profitable unless the entire industry is getting some kind of support for it from the state

Green Dragon

19th November 2007, 14:38

Originally posted by Demogorgon+November 17, 2007 12:33 pm--> (Demogorgon @ November 17, 2007 12:33 pm)
Robert the [email protected] 17, 2007 04:44 am
You want to credit Japan's spectacular post-war success to the "American Empire", and not to the Japanese people, that's okay with me. You're wrong, but it's still okay with me.
Both would be silly though.

The fact is the "Japanese Miracle" began with the Meiji restoration. Betweent he wars, Japan was one of the world's five great powers and out of all the capitalist economies coped with the depression the best.

The fact is after the war, all the economic ingredients were there to simply continue their success. There was incredible physical damage of course, but that was rebuilt fairly quickly.

At any rate talk of the Japanese suddenly having great success after the war is very silly indeed. [/b]
I think the point was that Japan responded to the devastaion and stuck with capitalism. Russia was "devastated" (Ulster's words) from '14-'20, thus its collapse seventy years later was understandable. I think maybe Russia collapsed because it tried to make Bolshevism "work" as opposed to simply trying to make it work incorrectly (which seems to be the argument developing).

Green Dragon

19th November 2007, 14:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 07:16 pm
lol what an absurd question, it would be like asking in 1817 "how many chances does liberalism need?? The Liberal republics in Europe all collapsed, turned into monarchies and were reabsorbed by the monarchies, and the liberal republic in America is built by slave labour, treats women as property, is waging a war of genocidal extermination on the native population, has invaded its neighbours and is run as an oligarchy where less than 10% are eligible to vote! Clearly Paine and Locke got it wrong!"
The analogy is incorrect: The reestablished monarchies were for the most part themselves liberal in action. You are trying to combine the question of "Who rules" with the the question of "How rules."

Demogorgon

19th November 2007, 14:47

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 19, 2007 02:37 pm--> (Green Dragon @ November 19, 2007 02:37 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:33 pm

Robert the [email protected] 17, 2007 04:44 am
You want to credit Japan's spectacular post-war success to the "American Empire", and not to the Japanese people, that's okay with me. You're wrong, but it's still okay with me.
Both would be silly though.

The fact is the "Japanese Miracle" began with the Meiji restoration. Betweent he wars, Japan was one of the world's five great powers and out of all the capitalist economies coped with the depression the best.

The fact is after the war, all the economic ingredients were there to simply continue their success. There was incredible physical damage of course, but that was rebuilt fairly quickly.

At any rate talk of the Japanese suddenly having great success after the war is very silly indeed.
I think the point was that Japan responded to the devastaion and stuck with capitalism. Russia was "devastated" (Ulster's words) from '14-'20, thus its collapse seventy years later was understandable. I think maybe Russia collapsed because it tried to make Bolshevism "work" as opposed to simply trying to make it work incorrectly (which seems to be the argument developing). [/b]
But the point is very valid. Japna simply continued what it ws already doing, and once it had rebuilt was already in a good position to simply keep going. The Soviet Union did not have that advantage. It had a devasted agrarian economy, which is a lot harder to move forward with than a damaged industrial economy.

Demogorgon

19th November 2007, 14:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:17 pm
well i dont know any capitalists who support the farm-subsidy programs we've had for decades
Come on that is just plain fucking silly. It is a capitalist government that created and maintains the subsidies. By definition at least some capitalists support it.

Green Dragon

19th November 2007, 14:51

Originally posted by GeneCosta+November 18, 2007 11:00 pm--> (GeneCosta @ November 18, 2007 11:00 pm)
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 18, 2007 10:42 pm

Robert the [email protected] 18, 2007 10:30 pm
I have to admit that this corn-dumping business disgusts me. Can someone provide a link?

Thanks.
I doubt that is likely. Corn is far too valuable right now for it to be wasted.

Usually, such wastage occurs only when (1) government purchases a lot of food that it doesn't use or (2) the price falls below the actual cost of distribution (this is very rare unless government subsidies are underwriting the low price.)

This point was raised once before and I responded by pointing out that even WITH any of this fabled wastage, the U.S. provides more charitable food aid than every other country in the world combined, and amazingly enough, the famine it relieves only ever seems to occur in non-liberal, non-capitalist areas.
That couldn't be because the United States has the third largest population and land mass in the world? The closest, working economy is Japan and we can assume by sheer geography their production of food isn't anything near ours.

Food competition is a double-edged sword. Without subsidies the farmers living in developed countries would drive farmers living in unindustrialized countries right out of business with their cheaper goods. This causes more poverty because it destabilizes the domestic agriculture sector. That country is having to rely more on outside help. And with subsidies -- well, we've been debating that already so I'll just leave off there. [/b]
This would only be true if being developed automatically bestows adantages in all aspects of production. So for example, American sugar producers cannot compete against their competitors from the carribean, who can ship sugar across thjat sea and to the American nmarket cheaper than what American sugar producers can produce. The subsidies that American sugar industry receives is the source of anger in that region of the world. In other words, it is subsidies which is keeping the American sugar industry afloat, not down as your post suggestst.

Green Dragon

19th November 2007, 14:54

Originally posted by Demogorgon+November 19, 2007 02:46 pm--> (Demogorgon @ November 19, 2007 02:46 pm)
Originally posted by Green [email protected] 19, 2007 02:37 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:33 pm

Robert the [email protected] 17, 2007 04:44 am
You want to credit Japan's spectacular post-war success to the "American Empire", and not to the Japanese people, that's okay with me. You're wrong, but it's still okay with me.
Both would be silly though.

The fact is the "Japanese Miracle" began with the Meiji restoration. Betweent he wars, Japan was one of the world's five great powers and out of all the capitalist economies coped with the depression the best.

The fact is after the war, all the economic ingredients were there to simply continue their success. There was incredible physical damage of course, but that was rebuilt fairly quickly.

At any rate talk of the Japanese suddenly having great success after the war is very silly indeed.
I think the point was that Japan responded to the devastaion and stuck with capitalism. Russia was "devastated" (Ulster's words) from '14-'20, thus its collapse seventy years later was understandable. I think maybe Russia collapsed because it tried to make Bolshevism "work" as opposed to simply trying to make it work incorrectly (which seems to be the argument developing).
But the point is very valid. Japna simply continued what it ws already doing, and once it had rebuilt was already in a good position to simply keep going. The Soviet Union did not have that advantage. It had a devasted agrarian economy, which is a lot harder to move forward with than a damaged industrial economy. [/b]
The question at this point is whether attempts to build a socialist community harmed or hindered that rebuild effort. The defenders of the USSR like to point out the tremendous industrialition and progress which occurred in the USSR under Stalin.

Demogorgon

19th November 2007, 14:57

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 19, 2007 02:53 pm
The question at this point is whether attempts to build a socialist community harmed or hindered that rebuild effort. The defenders of the USSR like to point out the tremendous industrialition and progress which occurred in the USSR under Stalin.
Well sure, but The Soviet Union was in no position to even think about COmmunism until after industrialisation and by that time the power of state interests was far toop deeply entrenched to allow for it. Clearly the central planning and working people almost until they dropped allowed the Soviet Union to move forward at unprecedented rates. But that is not exactly relevant to the question of COmmunism now.

FriendorFoe

19th November 2007, 15:08

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+November 17, 2007 02:23 am--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ November 17, 2007 02:23 am)
[email protected] 17, 2007 01:19 am
we keep on hearing the argument that the governments in tanzania, cambodia, ethiopia, russia, poland, china etc weren't/aren't true forms of socialism. my question is how much chances should marxism get to be implement itself before it is deemed idealist and not practical at all. does it take a century to implement a political idea. if capitalism is so evil and imperial why haven't we abandoned it yet?? are leftists using this argument as a cop-out.

speak on it.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever read any communist theory, or articles on these issues?

Indeed, many of these nations did fail, and the reasons behind their ultimate destruction lie in many places - dogmatism (I'd definitely say is one), invasions from capitalist nations (e.g. Bay of Pigs, Russia got invaded, too), isolation - via trade, transport, etc, and the material conditions surrounding these revolutions.
Indeed, look at Russia's economic state before the revolution! For anything to succeed there without many hiccups and problems would have to be a fucking miracle! [/b]
so did any country invade tanzania or zimbabwe? it's funny how china had to transition to a capitalist economy before experiencing some sort of economic growth. how did the cultural revolution do in china?? blaming outside intervention on the collapse of communist or socialist state is a cop out. what did u think about the agrarian reforms in cuba. did it solve anythign??

FYI-the bay of pigs failed and russia was invaded for reasons beyond ideology.

Green Dragon

19th November 2007, 15:13

Originally posted by Demogorgon+November 19, 2007 02:56 pm--> (Demogorgon @ November 19, 2007 02:56 pm)
Green [email protected] 19, 2007 02:53 pm
The question at this point is whether attempts to build a socialist community harmed or hindered that rebuild effort. The defenders of the USSR like to point out the tremendous industrialition and progress which occurred in the USSR under Stalin.
Well sure, but The Soviet Union was in no position to even think about COmmunism until after industrialisation and by that time the power of state interests was far toop deeply entrenched to allow for it. Clearly the central planning and working people almost until they dropped allowed the Soviet Union to move forward at unprecedented rates. But that is not exactly relevant to the question of COmmunism now. [/b]
But it is-

Earlier in this thread, you equivocated as to whether the USA or UK was ready, right now, for a communist society. If one is unsure about today, then there is no doubt about yesterday- all those socialists whp planned and startegised for a socialist/communist community in their lifetime were wrong. The United States of 1917 was no more ready for a Bolshevik revolution than was 1917 Russia. The German Spartacists, Paris Communards, the Spanish Republicans, all were wrong and those successes which many on this board like to cite must be considered unsustainable. Because they were all far more industrially primitive than today.

lvleph

19th November 2007, 16:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 10:07 am
so did any country invade tanzania or zimbabwe? it's funny how china had to transition to a capitalist economy before experiencing some sort of economic growth. how did the cultural revolution do in china?? blaming outside intervention on the collapse of communist or socialist state is a cop out. what did u think about the agrarian reforms in cuba. did it solve anythign??

FYI-the bay of pigs failed and russia was invaded for reasons beyond ideology.
First, Zimbabwe is neither socialist nor communist. Second, Zimbabwe is lead by an idiot that didn't think things through very well. When one takes farms away from those that know how to grow and give them to those that don't know how to grow, you end up with shortages.

Now that China is more capitalist, you should see the conditions the workers live under. It is very typical of a burgeoning capitalist society. There are huge inequalities and very many humanitarian issues. The USA had the same issues under laissez faire capitalism. Many industries in China are working in similar situations to that of the USA during the turn of the last century. How any one could claim that capitalism is a good thing when it has inherently built into it these types of exploitation, I cannot understand.

The issues with Cuba stem mainly from the embargo. If Cuba was not subject to a trade embargo they would be doing very well.

Demogorgon

19th November 2007, 16:26

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 19, 2007 03:12 pm

But it is-

Earlier in this thread, you equivocated as to whether the USA or UK was ready, right now, for a communist society. If one is unsure about today, then there is no doubt about yesterday- all those socialists whp planned and startegised for a socialist/communist community in their lifetime were wrong. The United States of 1917 was no more ready for a Bolshevik revolution than was 1917 Russia. The German Spartacists, Paris Communards, the Spanish Republicans, all were wrong and those successes which many on this board like to cite must be considered unsustainable. Because they were all far more industrially primitive than today.
What I said was that you could be sure that Russia in 1917 was not ready for revolution, and that current society may or may not be. If it is then you can not know at what point it did become ready, and at any rate it does not matter any more.

However the successes cited from this revolution or that revolution in the past do not directly relate to this, quite clearly they did achieve certain things. THe whole point is that they achieved their goals. A society might be so primitive that can achieve nothing a socialist can point to as success or it may be so advanced that it can achieve everything, but it can also sit somewhere in between on the scale. Russia in 1917 was far from the position where it could achieve a true Communist society, but it certainly achhieved [i]something. It's attempts at Communism deteriorated quickly into capitalism but even simply attempting it gave them a higher level of growth than they would otherwise have achieved.

Similarly places like Catalonia during the civil war did not achieve a perfect society by any means, but they did achieve a lot they could point to and say "look, this is a good plan indeed". Don't look at the world in black and white, all or nothing terms.

FriendorFoe

19th November 2007, 17:30

Originally posted by Demogorgon+November 19, 2007 02:48 pm--> (Demogorgon @ November 19, 2007 02:48 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 02:17 pm
well i dont know any capitalists who support the farm-subsidy programs we've had for decades
Come on that is just plain fucking silly. It is a capitalist government that created and maintains the subsidies. By definition at least some capitalists support it. [/b]
America isn't a true Capitalist society. It is mixed with socialism and capitalism.

This is an act of principle by the socializing governments, who believe that they know what's best for the people over whom they rule.

FriendorFoe

19th November 2007, 17:40

@lvleph

First, Zimbabwe is neither socialist nor communist.

but mugabe was influenced by marxists, isn't tight government control of the economy an hallmark of socialism. didn't mugabe distribute the land to the "poor". agrarian reforms??

Now that China is more capitalist, you should see the conditions the workers live under.

the GDP of chinese people is better than that during the cultural revolution. lots of chinese people are just experiencing new things such as buying their first car. goodluck getting more than a bicycle during the 80's.

There are huge inequalities and very many humanitarian issues.

those humanitarian issues were worse under communist rule with forced labor camps and collective policies.

Many industries in China are working in similar situations to that of the USA during the turn of the last century

hasn't the US progressed to be a state with protective labor laws and powerful decentralized unions??

The issues with Cuba stem mainly from the embargo. If Cuba was not subject to a trade embargo they would be doing very well.

pls don't ignore the questions, how well did the agrarian reforms and numerous construction projects work in cuba. what about collective farming in tanzania. u seem to ignore that cuba got huge subsidies from the soviet union during the embargo. what happened to all that aid from the soviet union. did capitalist nations steal that aid 2??

manic expression

19th November 2007, 17:40

Originally posted by FriendorFoe+November 19, 2007 05:29 pm--> (FriendorFoe @ November 19, 2007 05:29 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:48 pm

F[email protected] 19, 2007 02:17 pm
well i dont know any capitalists who support the farm-subsidy programs we've had for decades
Come on that is just plain fucking silly. It is a capitalist government that created and maintains the subsidies. By definition at least some capitalists support it.
America isn't a true Capitalist society. It is mixed with socialism and capitalism.

This is an act of principle by the socializing governments, who believe that they know what's best for the people over whom they rule. [/b]
That's incorrect. Capitalism is, in short, a society that has private ownership of the means of production. The existence of regulations (or what little of them are left or enforced today) does nothing to make capitalism "mixed", it is still capitalism due to the status of the means of production.

To say that America "isn't 'truly' capitalist" and that it is "capitalism mixed with socialism" demonstrates a flagrant misunderstanding of the terms.

lvleph

19th November 2007, 17:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:39 pm
@lvleph

First, Zimbabwe is neither socialist nor communist.

but mugabe was influenced by marxists, isn't tight government control of the economy an hallmark of socialism. didn't mugabe distribute the land to the "poor". agrarian reforms??

Now that China is more capitalist, you should see the conditions the workers live under.

the GDP of chinese people is better than that during the cultural revolution. lots of chinese people are just experiencing new things such as buying their first car. goodluck getting more than a bicycle during the 80's.

There are huge inequalities and very many humanitarian issues.

those humanitarian issues were worse under communist rule with forced labor camps and collective policies.

Many industries in China are working in similar situations to that of the USA during the turn of the last century

hasn't the US progressed to be a state with protective labor laws and powerful decentralized unions??

The issues with Cuba stem mainly from the embargo. If Cuba was not subject to a trade embargo they would be doing very well.

pls don't ignore the questions, how well did the agrarian reforms and numerous construction projects work in cuba. what about collective farming in tanzania. u seem to ignore that cuba got huge subsidies from the soviet union during the embargo. what happened to all that aid from the soviet union. did capitalist nations steal that aid 2??
The US has control over the economy. Maybe not as tight as others, but you wouldn't consider the US to be Socialist. I don't think you understand the definition of socialism or communism.

And so some individuals being able to buy a car is a justification for the conditions people work in?

As a state worker it is both illegal for me to be in a union or strike. Looks like we have some ways to go. Not to mention there are sweat factories in the US.

Cuba seems to be doing pretty well considering the embargo. So I would say a lot of the reforms seem to have worked well.

FriendorFoe

19th November 2007, 18:01

Originally posted by manic expression+November 19, 2007 05:39 pm--> (manic expression @ November 19, 2007 05:39 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:29 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:48 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 02:17 pm
well i dont know any capitalists who support the farm-subsidy programs we've had for decades
Come on that is just plain fucking silly. It is a capitalist government that created and maintains the subsidies. By definition at least some capitalists support it.
America isn't a true Capitalist society. It is mixed with socialism and capitalism.

This is an act of principle by the socializing governments, who believe that they know what's best for the people over whom they rule.
That's incorrect. Capitalism is, in short, a society that has private ownership of the means of production. The existence of regulations (or what little of them are left or enforced today) does nothing to make capitalism "mixed", it is still capitalism due to the status of the means of production.

To say that America "isn't 'truly' capitalist" and that it is "capitalism mixed with socialism" demonstrates a flagrant misunderstanding of the terms. [/b]
Not all means of production are privately owned. Roads, highways, water supply are all owned, for the most part, by the government.

FriendorFoe

19th November 2007, 18:05

Originally posted by lvleph+November 19, 2007 05:46 pm--> (lvleph @ November 19, 2007 05:46 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 12:39 pm
@lvleph

First, Zimbabwe is neither socialist nor communist.

but mugabe was influenced by marxists, isn't tight government control of the economy an hallmark of socialism. didn't mugabe distribute the land to the "poor". agrarian reforms??

Now that China is more capitalist, you should see the conditions the workers live under.

the GDP of chinese people is better than that during the cultural revolution. lots of chinese people are just experiencing new things such as buying their first car. goodluck getting more than a bicycle during the 80's.

There are huge inequalities and very many humanitarian issues.

those humanitarian issues were worse under communist rule with forced labor camps and collective policies.

Many industries in China are working in similar situations to that of the USA during the turn of the last century

hasn't the US progressed to be a state with protective labor laws and powerful decentralized unions??

The issues with Cuba stem mainly from the embargo. If Cuba was not subject to a trade embargo they would be doing very well.

pls don't ignore the questions, how well did the agrarian reforms and numerous construction projects work in cuba. what about collective farming in tanzania. u seem to ignore that cuba got huge subsidies from the soviet union during the embargo. what happened to all that aid from the soviet union. did capitalist nations steal that aid 2??
The US has control over the economy. Maybe not as tight as others, but you wouldn't consider the US to be Socialist. I don't think you understand the definition of socialism or communism.

And so some individuals being able to buy a car is a justification for the conditions people work in?

As a state worker it is both illegal for me to be in a union or strike. Looks like we have some ways to go. Not to mention there are sweat factories in the US.

Cuba seems to be doing pretty well considering the embargo. So I would say a lot of the reforms seem to have worked well. [/b]
but the official goverment policies of the US aren't socialist. why are u denying the marxist influence on mugabe.

they couldn't do such things a couple of decades ago, why ignore the rising GDP per capita. the conditions they work in is much better than before. y ignore that.

hmm no, lots of government employees like city prosecutors or garbage workers have staged strikes before. government employees have unions in the US.

are u sure u know what the agrarian reforms did to the sugar harvests and the other failed projects by castro?? why didn't cuba do anything significant with the soviet subsidies

lvleph

19th November 2007, 18:19

I live in the US. My state does not allow workers to strike or form a union.

Just because a leader has influences by Marx does not make them a Socialist and it certainly doesn't make their nation a a socialist nation.

Demogorgon

19th November 2007, 18:28

Originally posted by FriendorFoe+November 19, 2007 05:29 pm--> (FriendorFoe @ November 19, 2007 05:29 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:48 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 02:17 pm
well i dont know any capitalists who support the farm-subsidy programs we've had for decades
Come on that is just plain fucking silly. It is a capitalist government that created and maintains the subsidies. By definition at least some capitalists support it.
America isn't a true Capitalist society. It is mixed with socialism and capitalism.

This is an act of principle by the socializing governments, who believe that they know what's best for the people over whom they rule. [/b]
Oh God help us, we are not going to have to put up with yet another idiot spouting this shit are we?

Socialism is about worker control of the means of production, it is not about the presence of Government regulation (or lack of it). Similarly Capitalism is about a system where wealth and power and concentrated in the class if people who predominantly direct the means of production. It is not about the lack of Government intervention (or presence of it).

If you want to bore us stupid with stories of a "completely free market" then go elsewhere because it doesn't exist, never has existed and never will exist. Nor will a completely planned system. All economies are mixed economies. And mixed economy means there is both a private sector and a public sector, not a mixture of capitalism and socialism (which is essentially impossible, yiu can't simultaneously have a society based on social classes and a society that is classless).

If you insist on trying to claim America is part socialist or whatever because a public sector exists you are simply going to alert nearly everyone here, including most restricted members, that you haven't got the faintest clue what you are talking about and that your opinion doesn't matter one iota.

Demogorgon

19th November 2007, 18:30

Originally posted by FriendorFoe+November 19, 2007 06:00 pm--> (FriendorFoe @ November 19, 2007 06:00 pm)
Originally posted by manic [email protected] 19, 2007 05:39 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:29 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:48 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 02:17 pm
well i dont know any capitalists who support the farm-subsidy programs we've had for decades
Come on that is just plain fucking silly. It is a capitalist government that created and maintains the subsidies. By definition at least some capitalists support it.
America isn't a true Capitalist society. It is mixed with socialism and capitalism.

This is an act of principle by the socializing governments, who believe that they know what's best for the people over whom they rule.
That's incorrect. Capitalism is, in short, a society that has private ownership of the means of production. The existence of regulations (or what little of them are left or enforced today) does nothing to make capitalism "mixed", it is still capitalism due to the status of the means of production.

To say that America "isn't 'truly' capitalist" and that it is "capitalism mixed with socialism" demonstrates a flagrant misunderstanding of the terms.
Not all means of production are privately owned. Roads, highways, water supply are all owned, for the most part, by the government. [/b]
Just another form of private ownership though, The Government is just another economic actor amongst many, albeit a powerful one.

FriendorFoe

19th November 2007, 18:39

Originally posted by Demogorgon+November 19, 2007 06:29 pm--> (Demogorgon @ November 19, 2007 06:29 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:00 pm

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 19, 2007 05:39 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:29 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:48 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 02:17 pm
well i dont know any capitalists who support the farm-subsidy programs we've had for decades
Come on that is just plain fucking silly. It is a capitalist government that created and maintains the subsidies. By definition at least some capitalists support it.
America isn't a true Capitalist society. It is mixed with socialism and capitalism.

This is an act of principle by the socializing governments, who believe that they know what's best for the people over whom they rule.
That's incorrect. Capitalism is, in short, a society that has private ownership of the means of production. The existence of regulations (or what little of them are left or enforced today) does nothing to make capitalism "mixed", it is still capitalism due to the status of the means of production.

To say that America "isn't 'truly' capitalist" and that it is "capitalism mixed with socialism" demonstrates a flagrant misunderstanding of the terms.
Not all means of production are privately owned. Roads, highways, water supply are all owned, for the most part, by the government.
Just another form of private ownership though, The Government is just another economic actor amongst many, albeit a powerful one. [/b]
But it is the actor of all the people, thus it is a public not a private entity.

lvleph

19th November 2007, 18:40

Originally posted by Demogorgon+November 19, 2007 01:27 pm--> (Demogorgon @ November 19, 2007 01:27 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:29 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:48 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 02:17 pm
well i dont know any capitalists who support the farm-subsidy programs we've had for decades
Come on that is just plain fucking silly. It is a capitalist government that created and maintains the subsidies. By definition at least some capitalists support it.
America isn't a true Capitalist society. It is mixed with socialism and capitalism.

This is an act of principle by the socializing governments, who believe that they know what's best for the people over whom they rule.
Oh God help us, we are not going to have to put up with yet another idiot spouting this shit are we?

Socialism is about worker control of the means of production, it is not about the presence of Government regulation (or lack of it). Similarly Capitalism is about a system where wealth and power and concentrated in the class if people who predominantly direct the means of production. It is not about the lack of Government intervention (or presence of it).

If you want to bore us stupid with stories of a "completely free market" then go elsewhere because it doesn't exist, never has existed and never will exist. Nor will a completely planned system. All economies are mixed economies. And mixed economy means there is both a private sector and a public sector, not a mixture of capitalism and socialism (which is essentially impossible, yiu can't simultaneously have a society based on social classes and a society that is classless).

If you insist on trying to claim America is part socialist or whatever because a public sector exists you are simply going to alert nearly everyone here, including most restricted members, that you haven't got the faintest clue what you are talking about and that your opinion doesn't matter one iota. [/b]
Which is why I told FriendorFoe that they didn't understand what Socialism is. However, I am not as eloquent as I would like when it comes to explaining these things. I am working on it though.

manic expression

19th November 2007, 19:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:39 pm
but mugabe was influenced by marxists, isn't tight government control of the economy an hallmark of socialism. didn't mugabe distribute the land to the "poor". agrarian reforms??
You'll need to prove he was influenced by marxists. More importantly, you'll have to show how his policies were marxist in the first place. Agrarian reform is NOT necessarily a marxist measure (although common misconceptions might lead one to believe so); many various movements encouraged agrarian reforms as well. The Southern Society of Decembrists weren't too big on marxism, which didn't exist at the time, and yet they demanded agrarian reform all the same.

Tight government control of the economy is the hallmark of any society that has a viable government. Capitalist countries control the economy to make it a market economy; socialist countries control the economy to make it a socialist country. Don't be so narrow-minded to apply the label so subjectively.

the GDP of chinese people is better than that during the cultural revolution. lots of chinese people are just experiencing new things such as buying their first car. goodluck getting more than a bicycle during the 80's.

The GDP may be better, but in this lies the shallowness of your argument. The INEQUITY of material wealth is precisely the problem. A society can produce all it will, but if the distribution of the fruit of that production lies almost exclusively in a small sector of society (which is what China is heading towards), boasts of production only demonstrate naked exploitation of the majority. Such is China's present road.

those humanitarian issues were worse under communist rule with forced labor camps and collective policies.

Make a specific claim, don't hide behind vague points. Collective policies in Russia, for example, increased the material wealth of most of its participants. With the Bolsheviks, stuff like education, healthcare, housing and other quality-of-life indicators went up exponentially. With the re-establishment of capitalism in the early 1990's, those same indicators plummeted.

hasn't the US progressed to be a state with protective labor laws and powerful decentralized unions??

That's rich. Tell that to the union factory workers in the US...when they're collecting their unemployment check. Face it: American workers have been getting the shaft since the New Deal ended. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

pls don't ignore the questions, how well did the agrarian reforms and numerous construction projects work in cuba. what about collective farming in tanzania. u seem to ignore that cuba got huge subsidies from the soviet union during the embargo. what happened to all that aid from the soviet union. did capitalist nations steal that aid 2??

They worked very well in Cuba. Any serious history will let you know that much. Half a century on, Cubans find themselves with rates that compete with, if not surpass, American standards in healthcare, literacy, gender equality, racial integration, relative luxury and more.

To ignore the embargo (or blockade, to be more accurate) is the height of intellectual dishonesty, if one is to be gracious enough to call it "intellectual" in the first place.

manic expression

19th November 2007, 19:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:00 pm
Not all means of production are privately owned. Roads, highways, water supply are all owned, for the most part, by the government.
A road or a water supply is owned by the state because it is more economically efficient for the capitalist class for it to be so. In the words of bourgeois economists, it is a "public good" and a "natural monopoly" (look it up). Since it is seen as a "natural monopoly", and thus is seen as something best run by a monopoly, the capitalist class makes it a monopoly; competition in water supply is basically impossible.

Moot point. Try again.

Green Dragon

19th November 2007, 19:34

Originally posted by Demogorgon+November 19, 2007 04:25 pm--> (Demogorgon @ November 19, 2007 04:25 pm)
Green [email protected] 19, 2007 03:12 pm

But it is-

Earlier in this thread, you equivocated as to whether the USA or UK was ready, right now, for a communist society. If one is unsure about today, then there is no doubt about yesterday- all those socialists whp planned and startegised for a socialist/communist community in their lifetime were wrong. The United States of 1917 was no more ready for a Bolshevik revolution than was 1917 Russia. The German Spartacists, Paris Communards, the Spanish Republicans, all were wrong and those successes which many on this board like to cite must be considered unsustainable. Because they were all far more industrially primitive than today.
What I said was that you could be sure that Russia in 1917 was not ready for revolution, and that current society may or may not be. If it is then you can not know at what point it did become ready, and at any rate it does not matter any more.

However the successes cited from this revolution or that revolution in the past do not directly relate to this, quite clearly they did achieve certain things. THe whole point is that they achieved their goals. A society might be so primitive that can achieve nothing a socialist can point to as success or it may be so advanced that it can achieve everything, but it can also sit somewhere in between on the scale. Russia in 1917 was far from the position where it could achieve a true Communist society, but it certainly achhieved [i]something. It's attempts at Communism deteriorated quickly into capitalism but even simply attempting it gave them a higher level of growth than they would otherwise have achieved.

Similarly places like Catalonia during the civil war did not achieve a perfect society by any means, but they did achieve a lot they could point to and say "look, this is a good plan indeed". Don't look at the world in black and white, all or nothing terms. [/b]
The socialists on this board never seem to had an issue with seing the world in black and white terms- when the topic is whether a given country was a socialist community or moving that direction.

But it seems you are making an effort to give socialism credit for the good stuff (or at least that which you would argue was good), while denying the bad was the result of socialism.

manic expression

19th November 2007, 19:39

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 19, 2007 07:33 pm
The socialists on this board never seem to had an issue with seing the world in black and white terms- when the topic is whether a given country was a socialist community or moving that direction.

But it seems you are making an effort to give socialism credit for the good stuff (or at least that which you would argue was good), while denying the bad was the result of socialism.
Really? Give an example of each claim (black-and-white views, socialism's "bad stuff").

For your information, Marxists look at capitalism from a distinctly NOT black-and-white perspective. If you ever seriously talked with a Marxist, you'd know this. Capitalism was a great step in the progress of humanity and has been a progressive force in history. However, although it has been progressive in the past, it is now reactionary given the material conditions of society, and a new step in history must be taken. Yes, Marxists think precisely that. Are they thinking in terms of black-and-white when they say this? Not really.

Nuanced views and informed analyses are different from cherry-picking. I trust you can percieve the distinction.

Comrade Rage

19th November 2007, 19:40

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 19, 2007 02:33 pm--> (Green Dragon @ November 19, 2007 02:33 pm) The socialists on this board never seem to had an issue with seing the world in black and white terms- when the topic is whether a given country was a socialist community or moving that direction.

But it seems you are making an effort to give socialism credit for the good stuff (or at least that which you would argue was good), while denying the bad was the result of socialism. [/b]
That's because most of the 'bad' stuff the bourgeosie come up with is or has to do with their loss of power, profit and property.

So we see 'em as babies who can't see the forest for the trees.

Not all situations are like this however.

Manic Expression
For your information, Marxists look at capitalism from a distinctly NOT black-and-white perspective. If you ever seriously talked with a Marxist, you'd know this. Capitalism was a great step in the progress of humanity and has been a progressive force in history.
OWNED, Manic Expression
When cappies like Green Dragon talk about us, to us they think we are incapable on contextual thinking.
WRONGO!! :P

Green Dragon

19th November 2007, 20:02

Originally posted by manic expression+November 19, 2007 07:38 pm--> (manic expression @ November 19, 2007 07:38 pm)
Green [email protected] 19, 2007 07:33 pm
The socialists on this board never seem to had an issue with seing the world in black and white terms- when the topic is whether a given country was a socialist community or moving that direction.

But it seems you are making an effort to give socialism credit for the good stuff (or at least that which you would argue was good), while denying the bad was the result of socialism.
Really? Give an example of each claim (black-and-white views, socialism's "bad stuff").

For your information, Marxists look at capitalism from a distinctly NOT black-and-white perspective. If you ever seriously talked with a Marxist, you'd know this. Capitalism was a great step in the progress of humanity and has been a progressive force in history. However, although it has been progressive in the past, it is now reactionary given the material conditions of society, and a new step in history must be taken. Yes, Marxists think precisely that. Are they thinking in terms of black-and-white when they say this? Not really.

Nuanced views and informed analyses are different from cherry-picking. I trust you can percieve the distinction. [/b]
Sure. But I was refering to socialists views of socialism, not capitalism. I am quite aware that socialists argue that a community has to be an "advanced" capitalist community in order to progress safely into socialism and then capitalism (except when it occurs in 1871 or 1917, then apparently the socialist community can take positive steps in the right direction toward socialism, while remaining in a rather backward capitalist state).

Demogorgon

19th November 2007, 20:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:38 pm
But it is the actor of all the people, thus it is a public not a private entity.
Not really, governments as they exist now do not act for or of "all the people, if they did we would ahrdly oppose them. Rather they are part of and act in the interests of societies dominant class.

Green Dragon

19th November 2007, 20:15

Originally posted by lvleph+November 19, 2007 04:20 pm--> (lvleph @ November 19, 2007 04:20 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 10:07 am
so did any country invade tanzania or zimbabwe? it's funny how china had to transition to a capitalist economy before experiencing some sort of economic growth. how did the cultural revolution do in china?? blaming outside intervention on the collapse of communist or socialist state is a cop out. what did u think about the agrarian reforms in cuba. did it solve anythign??

FYI-the bay of pigs failed and russia was invaded for reasons beyond ideology.
First, Zimbabwe is neither socialist nor communist. Second, Zimbabwe is lead by an idiot that didn't think things through very well. When one takes farms away from those that know how to grow and give them to those that don't know how to grow, you end up with shortages.

Now that China is more capitalist, you should see the conditions the workers live under. It is very typical of a burgeoning capitalist society. There are huge inequalities and very many humanitarian issues. The USA had the same issues under laissez faire capitalism. Many industries in China are working in similar situations to that of the USA during the turn of the last century. How any one could claim that capitalism is a good thing when it has inherently built into it these types of exploitation, I cannot understand.

The issues with Cuba stem mainly from the embargo. If Cuba was not subject to a trade embargo they would be doing very well. [/b]
Its very typical of ANY BURGEONING industrial society. Like was not a bed of mild and honey in the USSR of the 30s; workers there worked long hours.

Another comment:
Do you wish to argue that because Mugabe has failed he is therefore not a socialist?

It should also be pointed out that it is very true that when you get rid of the people who know how to produce, one has production problems (in other words, its a warning shot for the Revlefters who airily dismiss the importance of the capitalist in production). Its why the fascists broke off from the socialists, as they deemed it madnes to appropriate the property of the people who knew how to produce. They proposed to pt the cappies under their thumb.

Demogorgon

19th November 2007, 20:22

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 19, 2007 07:33 pm

The socialists on this board never seem to had an issue with seing the world in black and white terms- when the topic is whether a given country was a socialist community or moving that direction.

But it seems you are making an effort to give socialism credit for the good stuff (or at least that which you would argue was good), while denying the bad was the result of socialism.
No I am not. What happened in the Soviet Union was the result of trying a certain set of policies in a certain set of conditions. Repeat exactly the same factors a hundred times over and you can be sure you will get the same results every time. But you will note that no one here is advocating simply what happened in the Soviet Union, and even if they were, the circumstances under which such policies were implemented would be different anyway. So there is no point in getting too caught up in what the Soviet Union did and talking as if "socialism" was a single homogeneous entity.

However you should examine the Soviet Union, see what worked and what didn't and identify the causes of the successes and failures. The policies there were an imperfect version of socialism under imperfect conditions, of course the results were going to be a mixed bag

Robert

19th November 2007, 20:32

Cuba seems to be doing pretty well considering the embargo.

Exactly. Which is why everyone is standing in line to immigrate there and no one wants to leave.

manic expression

19th November 2007, 21:07

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 19, 2007 08:01 pm
Sure. But I was refering to socialists views of socialism, not capitalism. I am quite aware that socialists argue that a community has to be an "advanced" capitalist community in order to progress safely into socialism and then capitalism (except when it occurs in 1871 or 1917, then apparently the socialist community can take positive steps in the right direction toward socialism, while remaining in a rather backward capitalist state).
My first impression, from an objective standpoint, is that if there was anything socialists would be "black-and-white" about, it would probably be the thing they want to abolish. Nevertheless, we don't think socialism is heaven, and we KNOW that at least 1/10 of the population has a vested interest in resisting it. We are objective: we recognize that many people will never want to pursue socialism, because it will mean their own material loss; this fact, that not everyone wants what we want, lies at the basis of our analysis. When we say "class conflict", we don't mean "everyone will hold hands and do what we think is best". In my estimation, the latter would be "black-and-white", while the former isn't.

Some socialists argue that a society must be in an advanced capitalist stage for socialism to be feasible, but I disagree, along with a great number of other socialists. Actually, this was the big controversey that reared its head at the end of the Second International and the Zimmerwald Conference (among other events).

Here's what Lenin has to say, it's not too long and he outlines what his opponents think:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm

It just goes to show that socialism is full of disagreements and differences. Truly, it is far from "black-and-white".

It should also be pointed out that it is very true that when you get rid of the people who know how to produce, one has production problems (in other words, its a warning shot for the Revlefters who airily dismiss the importance of the capitalist in production). Its why the fascists broke off from the socialists, as they deemed it madnes to appropriate the property of the people who knew how to produce. They proposed to pt the cappies under their thumb.

There's a difference between clumsily evicting farmers and replacing them with people who don't know how to do what is needed of them and eliminating the capitalist and replacing his authority with the people who do the actual work in the factory he (formerly) owned. The first can backfire really badly; the second is just a matter of changing ownership from the exploiter to the people who actually make stuff. The only importance the capitalist has in production is making a profit for himself and forcing others to work harder and longer for that goal. We reject this in favor of worker control, and if that means the workers want to work 5 hours a day (for themselves) instead of 10 plus overtime (for a capitalist), then that is precisely what we want, too.

Exactly. Which is why everyone is standing in line to immigrate there and no one wants to leave.

The US provides 20,000 visas to Cuban immigrants a year. That is more than any other country on Earth. Furthermore, the wet-foot-dry-foot policy is among the most lenient amnesty policies in place. Yet who predominately emigrates to the US? Not Cubans, but people from heavily exploited capitalist countries throughout Latin America who face the prospect of deportation (something Cubans wouldn't have to worry about once on US land). In fact, when the Cuban government opened its borders and facilitated immigration during the Mariel Boatlift, the US backtracked and quickly worked out an agreement to stop the emigration.

Furthermore, many people to emigrate to Cuba. There is a very popular Creole radio station in Havana, an indication of the Haitian community there.

Green Dragon

19th November 2007, 21:17

Originally posted by Demogorgon+November 19, 2007 08:21 pm--> (Demogorgon @ November 19, 2007 08:21 pm)
Green [email protected] 19, 2007 07:33 pm

The socialists on this board never seem to had an issue with seing the world in black and white terms- when the topic is whether a given country was a socialist community or moving that direction.

But it seems you are making an effort to give socialism credit for the good stuff (or at least that which you would argue was good), while denying the bad was the result of socialism.
No I am not. What happened in the Soviet Union was the result of trying a certain set of policies in a certain set of conditions. Repeat exactly the same factors a hundred times over and you can be sure you will get the same results every time. But you will note that no one here is advocating simply what happened in the Soviet Union, and even if they were, the circumstances under which such policies were implemented would be different anyway. So there is no point in getting too caught up in what the Soviet Union did and talking as if "socialism" was a single homogeneous entity.

However you should examine the Soviet Union, see what worked and what didn't and identify the causes of the successes and failures. The policies there were an imperfect version of socialism under imperfect conditions, of course the results were going to be a mixed bag [/b]
I am well aware- as are the "cappies" hereabout I would add- that socialism is not "homogenous" by nature. But when "cappies" point out the failure of Socialist Regime A or Socialist Regime B, the usuall rejoinder is that those regimes were never really socialist anyhow, or that such and such person claiming to be a socialist never really was. Check my posts- I fully accept socialism has differing views, manifestations, opinions (which of course includes fascism).

But if you are striving for the "perfect" condition for a socialist revolution, then you will forever be dissapointed, I fear. Because first of all, "perfection" will never exist because people are not perfect. But if you dissagree with me on that, then "perfection" is in the "eye of the beholder" which means your "imperfection" is not the same as some other socialist, who might see "perfection" given the lack of homogenity in the socialist world. And then we are right back to the disasters, and the denials that regime A was ever a socialist community and that such and such person was never really a socialist.

manic expression

19th November 2007, 21:33

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 19, 2007 09:16 pm
I am well aware- as are the "cappies" hereabout I would add- that socialism is not "homogenous" by nature. But when "cappies" point out the failure of Socialist Regime A or Socialist Regime B, the usuall rejoinder is that those regimes were never really socialist anyhow, or that such and such person claiming to be a socialist never really was. Check my posts- I fully accept socialism has differing views, manifestations, opinions (which of course includes fascism).

But if you are striving for the "perfect" condition for a socialist revolution, then you will forever be dissapointed, I fear. Because first of all, "perfection" will never exist because people are not perfect. But if you dissagree with me on that, then "perfection" is in the "eye of the beholder" which means your "imperfection" is not the same as some other socialist, who might see "perfection" given the lack of homogenity in the socialist world. And then we are right back to the disasters, and the denials that regime A was ever a socialist community and that such and such person was never really a socialist.

Allow me to jump in here for a second. I see the USSR as socialist under Stalin and Khruschev and Breznev and Gorbechev, regardless of how much I object to its course at those points. Why was it socialist? I argue about this all the time on other threads here, but basically they still had socialist property relations and a dearth of capitalist relations; therefore, they were socialist.

To the leftists who just dismiss the USSR and other states as "not socialist", I disagree with them as much as anyone. Check out the threads in History, Theory and Politics, we've had some venemous arguments over that precise question.

On "perfection", that's just the thing: I don't look for perfection, I work for socialism. Although there may be arguments among socialists about what it means and what was and wasn't socialism, it has been achieved before, and it will be achieved again. So really, it's not about perfection to me.

Green Dragon

19th November 2007, 21:42

Originally posted by manic expression+November 19, 2007 09:06 pm--> (manic expression @ November 19, 2007 09:06 pm)
Green [email protected] 19, 2007 08:01 pm
Sure. But I was refering to socialists views of socialism, not capitalism. I am quite aware that socialists argue that a community has to be an "advanced" capitalist community in order to progress safely into socialism and then capitalism (except when it occurs in 1871 or 1917, then apparently the socialist community can take positive steps in the right direction toward socialism, while remaining in a rather backward capitalist state).
My first impression, from an objective standpoint, is that if there was anything socialists would be "black-and-white" about, it would probably be the thing they want to abolish. Nevertheless, we don't think socialism is heaven, and we KNOW that at least 1/10 of the population has a vested interest in resisting it. We are objective: we recognize that many people will never want to pursue socialism, because it will mean their own material loss; this fact, that not everyone wants what we want, lies at the basis of our analysis. When we say "class conflict", we don't mean "everyone will hold hands and do what we think is best". In my estimation, the latter would be "black-and-white", while the former isn't.

Some socialists argue that a society must be in an advanced capitalist stage for socialism to be feasible, but I disagree, along with a great number of other socialists. Actually, this was the big controversey that reared its head at the end of the Second International and the Zimmerwald Conference (among other events).

Here's what Lenin has to say, it's not too long and he outlines what his opponents think:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm

It just goes to show that socialism is full of disagreements and differences. Truly, it is far from "black-and-white".

It should also be pointed out that it is very true that when you get rid of the people who know how to produce, one has production problems (in other words, its a warning shot for the Revlefters who airily dismiss the importance of the capitalist in production). Its why the fascists broke off from the socialists, as they deemed it madnes to appropriate the property of the people who knew how to produce. They proposed to pt the cappies under their thumb.

There's a difference between clumsily evicting farmers and replacing them with people who don't know how to do what is needed of them and eliminating the capitalist and replacing his authority with the people who do the actual work in the factory he (formerly) owned. The first can backfire really badly; the second is just a matter of changing ownership from the exploiter to the people who actually make stuff. The only importance the capitalist has in production is making a profit for himself and forcing others to work harder and longer for that goal. We reject this in favor of worker control, and if that means the workers want to work 5 hours a day (for themselves) instead of 10 plus overtime (for a capitalist), then that is precisely what we want, too.

Exactly. Which is why everyone is standing in line to immigrate there and no one wants to leave.

The US provides 20,000 visas to Cuban immigrants a year. That is more than any other country on Earth. Furthermore, the wet-foot-dry-foot policy is among the most lenient amnesty policies in place. Yet who predominately emigrates to the US? Not Cubans, but people from heavily exploited capitalist countries throughout Latin America who face the prospect of deportation (something Cubans wouldn't have to worry about once on US land). In fact, when the Cuban government opened its borders and facilitated immigration during the Mariel Boatlift, the US backtracked and quickly worked out an agreement to stop the emigration.

Furthermore, many people to emigrate to Cuba. There is a very popular Creole radio station in Havana, an indication of the Haitian community there. [/b]
I understand socialism has many diferent facets (should I say tentacles). If the debate in the socialist world is switching to an acceptence that socialist revolts can occur in less advanced capitalist states, so be it (based upon the history of the 20th Century, it would seem to be a strong argument). But the problem is not this arm of socilaism or that arm of socialism, its the whole body of it. And the variations of it doesn't matter.

In Zimbabwe, the people who replaced the farmers were farmers themselves, farmers who had previously toiled in the poorer lands of Zimbabwe. It wasn't that they did not know how to sow wheat. Its that they also had to assume the role of the capitalist, which they DID NOT know how to do. It was assumed that the capitalist simply gave orders, expropriated a piece of the profit, and drank martinis in on the front porch. The Zimbabweans are suffering for their lack of knowledge.

lvleph

19th November 2007, 21:49

The USSR existed for 70 yrs, not too bad for a failure. There are other nations that have not lasted near as long. I find the oppressive nature of the soviet union to be the real reason why it failed, but maybe that shows my ignorance. However, I know plenty of people including myself that would be very hesitant in saying the USA will last much longer (and yes I am a US citizen living in the US). The US economy is a house of cards waiting to tumble and the cards seem to be getting tugged on.

Green Dragon

19th November 2007, 21:52

Originally posted by manic expression+November 19, 2007 09:32 pm--> (manic expression @ November 19, 2007 09:32 pm)
Green [email protected] 19, 2007 09:16 pm
I am well aware- as are the "cappies" hereabout I would add- that socialism is not "homogenous" by nature. But when "cappies" point out the failure of Socialist Regime A or Socialist Regime B, the usuall rejoinder is that those regimes were never really socialist anyhow, or that such and such person claiming to be a socialist never really was. Check my posts- I fully accept socialism has differing views, manifestations, opinions (which of course includes fascism).

But if you are striving for the "perfect" condition for a socialist revolution, then you will forever be dissapointed, I fear. Because first of all, "perfection" will never exist because people are not perfect. But if you dissagree with me on that, then "perfection" is in the "eye of the beholder" which means your "imperfection" is not the same as some other socialist, who might see "perfection" given the lack of homogenity in the socialist world. And then we are right back to the disasters, and the denials that regime A was ever a socialist community and that such and such person was never really a socialist.

Allow me to jump in here for a second. I see the USSR as socialist under Stalin and Khruschev and Breznev and Gorbechev, regardless of how much I object to its course at those points. Why was it socialist? I argue about this all the time on other threads here, but basically they still had socialist property relations and a dearth of capitalist relations; therefore, they were socialist.

To the leftists who just dismiss the USSR and other states as "not socialist", I disagree with them as much as anyone. Check out the threads in History, Theory and Politics, we've had some venemous arguments over that precise question.

On "perfection", that's just the thing: I don't look for perfection, I work for socialism. Although there may be arguments among socialists about what it means and what was and wasn't socialism, it has been achieved before, and it will be achieved again. So really, it's not about perfection to me. [/b]
But that is fine. Not all socialists interpret socialism the same way.

Nor are they all utopian.

So, since people are all not perfect, the system they create ought to work as perfectly as possible, as that would benefit people more so than a system that works less perfectly.

The trick is now to demonstrate that one pasrticular socilaist version of socialism will work the best, over capitalism and other forms of socialism. The latter I don't care about. The former, I don't think they can do.

manic expression

19th November 2007, 21:55

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 19, 2007 09:41 pm
I understand socialism has many diferent facets (should I say tentacles). If the debate in the socialist world is switching to an acceptence that socialist revolts can occur in less advanced capitalist states, so be it (based upon the history of the 20th Century, it would seem to be a strong argument). But the problem is not this arm of socilaism or that arm of socialism, its the whole body of it. And the variations of it doesn't matter.

In Zimbabwe, the people who replaced the farmers were farmers themselves, farmers who had previously toiled in the poorer lands of Zimbabwe. It wasn't that they did not know how to sow wheat. Its that they also had to assume the role of the capitalist, which they DID NOT know how to do. It was assumed that the capitalist simply gave orders, expropriated a piece of the profit, and drank martinis in on the front porch. The Zimbabweans are suffering for their lack of knowledge.
Variations do matter. If you look at what became of the different factions when the Second International split, they became totally different ideologies. Lenin and his supporters became what are now called communists, and his opponents became social democrats. So no, it does matter quite a bit.

Secondly, Zimbabwe was not as you say at all. The blacks who were given the land (land that was taken from white farmers) didn't know how to use it properly, because the white government never taught them how. Therefore, production went down, because it was a sloppy case of a sloppy reform. What you're saying is that the new black landowners didn't know how to assume the role of the capitalist, but the fact is that they weren't even replacing capitalists! They were replacing white farmers, not capitalists. I'm sure you can understand the difference between a capitalist and a farmer.

And in the end, was Zimbabwe ever led by Marxists? No.

manic expression

19th November 2007, 22:01

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 19, 2007 09:51 pm
The trick is now to demonstrate that one pasrticular socilaist version of socialism will work the best, over capitalism and other forms of socialism. The latter I don't care about. The former, I don't think they can do.
I find capitalism to work in an excellent manner. I don't think socialism works better than capitalism, I think it depends upon where you stand.

If you're a capitalist, capitalism works better. If you're a worker, socialism works better.

If you understand that, then you understand the struggle between the two.

Green Dragon

19th November 2007, 22:06

Originally posted by manic expression+November 19, 2007 09:54 pm--> (manic expression @ November 19, 2007 09:54 pm)
Green [email protected] 19, 2007 09:41 pm
I understand socialism has many diferent facets (should I say tentacles). If the debate in the socialist world is switching to an acceptence that socialist revolts can occur in less advanced capitalist states, so be it (based upon the history of the 20th Century, it would seem to be a strong argument). But the problem is not this arm of socilaism or that arm of socialism, its the whole body of it. And the variations of it doesn't matter.

In Zimbabwe, the people who replaced the farmers were farmers themselves, farmers who had previously toiled in the poorer lands of Zimbabwe. It wasn't that they did not know how to sow wheat. Its that they also had to assume the role of the capitalist, which they DID NOT know how to do. It was assumed that the capitalist simply gave orders, expropriated a piece of the profit, and drank martinis in on the front porch. The Zimbabweans are suffering for their lack of knowledge.
Variations do matter. If you look at what became of the different factions when the Second International split, they became totally different ideologies. Lenin and his supporters became what are now called communists, and his opponents became social democrats. So no, it does matter quite a bit.

Secondly, Zimbabwe was not as you say at all. The blacks who were given the land (land that was taken from white farmers) didn't know how to use it properly, because the white government never taught them how. Therefore, production went down, because it was a sloppy case of a sloppy reform. What you're saying is that the new black landowners didn't know how to assume the role of the capitalist, but the fact is that they weren't even replacing capitalists! They were replacing white farmers, not capitalists. I'm sure you can understand the difference between a capitalist and a farmer.

And in the end, was Zimbabwe ever led by Marxists? No. [/b]
Lenin was a Social Democrat. The only difference between the two is how to get there (socialism) from here (capitalism).
But the problem isn't the road; it's the direction.

As an aside, Zimbabwe has not had a white government since about 1979. And the white farmers had to produce and distribute the food, a role which the black laborers on the farms had not had to worry about. Now they do. But it was never understood what that role entailed.

I understand socialism is not homogenous and there are many different variations. But it seems that "failure" is never one of those variations. A failed socialist community was of an entirely different creature all together. No relation.

Green Dragon

19th November 2007, 22:08

Originally posted by manic expression+November 19, 2007 10:00 pm--> (manic expression @ November 19, 2007 10:00 pm)
Green [email protected] 19, 2007 09:51 pm
The trick is now to demonstrate that one pasrticular socilaist version of socialism will work the best, over capitalism and other forms of socialism. The latter I don't care about. The former, I don't think they can do.
I find capitalism to work in an excellent manner. I don't think socialism works better than capitalism, I think it depends upon where you stand.

If you're a capitalist, capitalism works better. If you're a worker, socialism works better.

If you understand that, then you understand the struggle between the two. [/b]
If you are a capitalist, capitalism might work better (but not neccessarily) for you. .

If you are a worker, capitalism absolutely works better for you.

manic expression

19th November 2007, 22:14

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 19, 2007 10:05 pm
Lenin was a Social Democrat. The only difference between the two is how to get there (socialism) from here (capitalism).
But the problem isn't the road; it's the direction.

As an aside, Zimbabwe has not had a white government since about 1979. And the white farmers had to produce and distribute the food, a role which the black laborers on the farms had not had to worry about. Now they do. But it was never understood what that role entailed.

I understand socialism is not homogenous and there are many different variations. But it seems that "failure" is never one of those variations. A failed socialist community was of an entirely different creature all together. No relation.
Lenin hated the social democrats. Read the link I gave upthread. He calls them bourgeois agents within the working class movement.

On Zimbabwe, it takes a few generations to learn how to do farmwork, something the Mugabe government had no interest in promoting. The blacks who worked on the farms in Zimbabwe did the menial labor, they weren't fully trained in the proper skills of farmwork. That became apparent after the reforms went through and the effects started to set in: the new farmers weren't good at farming because no one, neither the white government nor Mugabe's government, had bothered to teach them.

The white farmers were farmers. They weren't factory owners or investment bankers. Don't misapply the label of capitalist.

And SOME leftists try to disassociate themselves with what they see as "failed" revolutions. I do not. If you want to talk about the DPRK or Stalin's Russia, I'll defend both without blinking.

If you are a capitalist, capitalism might work better (but not neccessarily) for you. .

If you are a worker, capitalism absolutely works better for you.

This is on edit to concentrate our responses.

Workers get exploited by capitalism. Their work is used for profit by the vast minority. Wages gradually drop with competition, as does the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands. This pattern is apparent across any long term view of capitalist society. For the majority, capitalism is nothing but exploitation and deprivation.

For the capitalist, however, that concentration of wealth is to his benefit.

It comes down to interests. Bourgeoisie vs proletariat. Here's the catch: the foundations upon which the bourgeoisie stands is continually undermined by its own activities.

Robert

19th November 2007, 23:37

For the majority, capitalism is nothing but exploitation and deprivation.

Deprivation of what? A chalet in the Swiss Alps? The majority in my country has enough dough to keep a comfortable air conditioned house, a car, entertainment, and a bunch of electronic toys. He goes to sports events and the movies. He doesn't save enough for his retirement, but that's his fault, not Warren Buffet's (a very rich American insurance executive and investor).

Maybe Amerikkka is different form your countries.

Green Dragon

19th November 2007, 23:43

Originally posted by manic expression+November 19, 2007 10:13 pm--> (manic expression @ November 19, 2007 10:13 pm)
Green [email protected] 19, 2007 10:05 pm
Lenin was a Social Democrat. The only difference between the two is how to get there (socialism) from here (capitalism).
But the problem isn't the road; it's the direction.

As an aside, Zimbabwe has not had a white government since about 1979. And the white farmers had to produce and distribute the food, a role which the black laborers on the farms had not had to worry about. Now they do. But it was never understood what that role entailed.

I understand socialism is not homogenous and there are many different variations. But it seems that "failure" is never one of those variations. A failed socialist community was of an entirely different creature all together. No relation.
Lenin hated the social democrats. Read the link I gave upthread. He calls them bourgeois agents within the working class movement.

On Zimbabwe, it takes a few generations to learn how to do farmwork, something the Mugabe government had no interest in promoting. The blacks who worked on the farms in Zimbabwe did the menial labor, they weren't fully trained in the proper skills of farmwork. That became apparent after the reforms went through and the effects started to set in: the new farmers weren't good at farming because no one, neither the white government nor Mugabe's government, had bothered to teach them.

The white farmers were farmers. They weren't factory owners or investment bankers. Don't misapply the label of capitalist.

And SOME leftists try to disassociate themselves with what they see as "failed" revolutions. I do not. If you want to talk about the DPRK or Stalin's Russia, I'll defend both without blinking.

If you are a capitalist, capitalism might work better (but not neccessarily) for you. .

If you are a worker, capitalism absolutely works better for you.

This is on edit to concentrate our responses.

Workers get exploited by capitalism. Their work is used for profit by the vast minority. Wages gradually drop with competition, as does the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands. This pattern is apparent across any long term view of capitalist society. For the majority, capitalism is nothing but exploitation and deprivation.

For the capitalist, however, that concentration of wealth is to his benefit.

It comes down to interests. Bourgeoisie vs proletariat. Here's the catch: the foundations upon which the bourgeoisie stands is continually undermined by its own activities. [/b]
Yes, yes: The Communists hated the Social Democrats; the Social Democrats returned the favor; the anarchists disliked the two of them and all three loathed the National Socialists. Its a long, sad story...

Demogorgon

20th November 2007, 00:05

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 19, 2007 09:16 pm

I am well aware- as are the "cappies" hereabout I would add- that socialism is not "homogenous" by nature. But when "cappies" point out the failure of Socialist Regime A or Socialist Regime B, the usuall rejoinder is that those regimes were never really socialist anyhow, or that such and such person claiming to be a socialist never really was. Check my posts- I fully accept socialism has differing views, manifestations, opinions (which of course includes fascism).

But if you are striving for the "perfect" condition for a socialist revolution, then you will forever be dissapointed, I fear. Because first of all, "perfection" will never exist because people are not perfect. But if you dissagree with me on that, then "perfection" is in the "eye of the beholder" which means your "imperfection" is not the same as some other socialist, who might see "perfection" given the lack of homogenity in the socialist world. And then we are right back to the disasters, and the denials that regime A was ever a socialist community and that such and such person was never really a socialist.
I am sorry, but if you are going to contend that fascism is part of socialism, we are going to get no further. Socialism is about abolishing the class sytem, fascism says it works to everyone's advantage and must be maitained. They are plar opposites.

Further I am not looking for perfect conditions. I am simply pointing out that the better the conditions (and the better the policy) the better the results. To get perfect results you need perfect conditions and perfect policy, but I will be happy with merely good results.

manic expression

20th November 2007, 00:46

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 19, 2007 11:36 pm
Deprivation of what? A chalet in the Swiss Alps? The majority in my country has enough dough to keep a comfortable air conditioned house, a car, entertainment, and a bunch of electronic toys. He goes to sports events and the movies. He doesn't save enough for his retirement, but that's his fault, not Warren Buffet's (a very rich American insurance executive and investor).

Maybe Amerikkka is different form your countries.
If you were paying attention for the past few decades, you would have noticed that the American worker has been getting the shaft in a big way. Well-paid, unionized jobs? Going or gone. Long-term job stability? Yeah right. Affordable housing? Good one. The American working class has lost just about all of its gains, and all the while the capitalist class is seeing ever increasing profits.

Just check the stats on income equity (and that might not even include investment, which is how most capitalists make the lion's share of their profits!), it'll tell you all you need to know: the American worker is presently on the losing end of class conflict.

Roman Plebians went to sports events. It's not exactly a good measure of not being deprived when Ancient Rome can live up to your expectations (not to mention extremely impoverished countries). In fact, it's simply indicative of your myopic mindset: the "rabble" get to see a baseball game, therefore they have everything they deserve. Pathetic.

Robert

20th November 2007, 01:24

Your commie pal above said the workers were "deprived." You bleat in "reply" that there is "inequity" (I call it disparity) in income as proof that the workers are "deprived." I claim that the average worker in the USA has decent housing, surplus for electronic toys they don't need, and baseball games. Yes, there are homeless people too. Happy?

Speaking of which, you could use a little entertainment yourself, comrade. Your post is far too grim. You can't foster revolution if you're pissed off all the time. Send me your P.O. Box and I'll mail you a ticket to a good movie or hockey game. You probably like violent games. Violence is simmering just below your tightly wound surface.

Relax!!!!

Better?

Ah!!!!!

Don't thank me, comrade, my advice is free.

Qwerty Dvorak

20th November 2007, 01:25

the second thing you said makes no sense to me. corn dumping or crop destruction due to government subsidy means that markets dont clear and supply and demand arent equal to each other. how do you call that the result of free markets? farm subsidies are a textbook example of not letting markets work. dumping isnt profitable unless the entire industry is getting some kind of support for it from the state
How does it make no sense? In a free market economy the primary method of determination of selling price of goods is supply v demand. Were the producers to produce enough goods for everybody, the price of said goods would drop sharply, significantly harming the profits of the producers. So in order to sustain profits producers will not--indeed, can not--produce enough goods for all of society. Thus capitalism and the free market is an extremely inefficient form of resource distribution, as what is in the interests of the producers of goods goes directly against the interests of society as a whole.

manic expression

20th November 2007, 04:25

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 20, 2007 01:23 am
Your commie pal above said the workers were "deprived." You bleat in "reply" that there is "inequity" (I call it disparity) in income as proof that the workers are "deprived." I claim that the average worker in the USA has decent housing, surplus for electronic toys they don't need, and baseball games. Yes, there are homeless people too. Happy?

Speaking of which, you could use a little entertainment yourself, comrade. Your post is far too grim. You can't foster revolution if you're pissed off all the time. Send me your P.O. Box and I'll mail you a ticket to a good movie or hockey game. You probably like violent games. Violence is simmering just below your tightly wound surface.

Relax!!!!

Better?

Ah!!!!!

Don't thank me, comrade, my advice is free.
I see you have no interest in making a serious response.

Nevertheless, it is true that the workers are deprived in all countries, with America being no exception. Being able to afford "decent housing" (barely, nowadays, if that), a few toys and a baseball game now and again is a TERRIBLE argument for people not being deprived. As I said, Roman Plebians had access to many of your examples, illustrating the fact that they do nothing to disprove the notion that workers are deprived.

More importantly (and more tellingly), you showed no ability to answer my previous claims. Well-paying, unionized jobs are a thing of the past; affordable living went out the window decades ago. Again, if you were paying attention, you'd see the fact that the American working class is being ever more deprived.

My post may seem "grim" to you, but most of us (people who can think about things) would call it "serious" and "lucid". Send me your PO Box and I'll mail you some maturity.

letsgetfree

20th November 2007, 06:04

delete

Robert

20th November 2007, 06:09

affordable living went out the window decades ago.

No. It didn't. Yes, real wages have been in gradual decline since the 60's, and many things have gotten more expensive. Like oil. Many other things have gotten cheaper. Many have the delusion that there was cheap and affordable health insurance for all in the glory decades you describe. There wasn't. I'm not sure any family had health insurance where I grew up. I am sure they didn't have computers, color TV's, air conditioned cars -- hell, A.C.'d houses for that matter -- or 2500 sq. foot houses. No one ate out. More than once a week anyway. We're in the middle of a painful technological revolution, yes, but not a depression, the overwhelming majority of people are LOVING IT, and it's the result of capitalist innovation, not re-education in the rice fields. You want to demolish that system and tell the people what's good for them? You can't even get a watery socialist like Nader or Kucinich elected, never mind the god-knows-which hard left messiah you would prefer.

You feel the world owes you a living because Marx or some other dreamer told you so. Wake up and smell the coffee, comrade, because it doesn't. The worker's paradise is in the toilet everywhere it's been tried. It's a bad joke. The people don't want it. Nobody wants it. Not even you. Because you know from the lessons of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Castro and Great Leader and Dear Leader and Chavez and so many other tyrannical frauds, that the only way they can get the people to swallow your faux-egalitarian bullshit is to force feed it like a French goose in Perigord. And send them to gulags if they protest. Mr. Chavez has some interesting constitutional "reforms" afoot, you'll note.

Obviously if you or your family is hungry and/or homeless, I extend my sincere and deepest sympathies. But since you're wealthy enough to have a nice computer and a modem and an internet service provider, I sense that you are not. (Hungry or homeless.) So "affordable living" has not gone out the window as you carelessly charge, at least for me and you. Correct?

synthesis

20th November 2007, 07:47

Because you know from the lessons of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Castro and Great Leader and Dear Leader and Chavez and so many other tyrannical frauds, that the only way they can get the people to swallow your faux-egalitarian bullshit is to force feed it like a French goose in Perigord. And send them to gulags if they protest. Mr. Chavez has some interesting constitutional "reforms" afoot, you'll note.

You miss the point; these types of things happen under all sorts of governments in societies with revolutionary conditions and people like you have the ability to dismiss anything these governments do as "socialist" because governments do them, as if governments did not exist before the dichotomy of socialism and capitalism.

Reality is not quite so simple. History is not predicated upon ideas, it is concerned with material conditions; this is the one aspect of Marxist teaching that has been absorbed into all levels of academia, not just political science, sociology and so forth. Communism as predicted by Marx is the result of technology making workers obsolete and their subsequent revolution and control of that technology, whether or not his predictions were correct.

When technology to replace labor does not exist, you must have a vanguard which becomes a state that maintains "order" at all costs, much like any other state that originates from revolutionary conditions. This is Leninism or Stalinism or Maoism or whatever and historically they serve one purpose: to bring non-industrial countries into industrialization and create independently powerful political entities.

You talk about how bad socialism is; I can show you many places that are far worse for the lack of it.

redrogue

20th November 2007, 09:12

Originally posted by Tupac-[email protected] 16, 2007 03:49 pm
Leftists are just douche bags who can't admit that they are wrong!
GTF off this forum then!

RedAnarchist

20th November 2007, 09:15

Originally posted by redrogue+November 20, 2007 09:11 am--> (redrogue @ November 20, 2007 09:11 am)
Tupac-[email protected] 16, 2007 03:49 pm
Leftists are just douche bags who can't admit that they are wrong!
GTF off this forum then! [/b]
1. You're a restricted member, which means that you hold some view incompatible with revolutionary leftism, so why don't you "GTF off this forum"?

2. This is the OI subforum, in which non-revolutionary leftists are allowed to debate.

redrogue

20th November 2007, 09:18

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+November 20, 2007 09:14 am--> (Red_Anarchist @ November 20, 2007 09:14 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:11 am

Tupac-[email protected] 16, 2007 03:49 pm
Leftists are just douche bags who can't admit that they are wrong!
GTF off this forum then!
1. You're a restricted member, which means that you hold some view incompatible with revolutionary leftism, so why don't you "GTF off this forum"?

2. This is the OI subforum, in which non-revolutionary leftists are allowed to debate. [/b]
I am not against revolutionary leftism!

Some fucktard restricted me because of my views on John Lennon!

RedAnarchist

20th November 2007, 09:26

Originally posted by redrogue+November 20, 2007 09:17 am--> (redrogue @ November 20, 2007 09:17 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:14 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:11 am

Tupac-[email protected] 16, 2007 03:49 pm
Leftists are just douche bags who can't admit that they are wrong!
GTF off this forum then!
1. You're a restricted member, which means that you hold some view incompatible with revolutionary leftism, so why don't you "GTF off this forum"?

2. This is the OI subforum, in which non-revolutionary leftists are allowed to debate.
I am not against revolutionary leftism!

Some fucktard restricted me because of my views on John Lennon! [/b]
I said you hold "some view" incompatible with revleftism, not that you were against it.

Why on earth would you be restricted for your views about Lennon?

RedAnarchist

20th November 2007, 09:30

I've just looked at your restriction thread in the CC and it looks like you were restricted for thinking the Black Panthers were terrorists, that revolution is impossible and that we should just accept the current system and the Lennon thing was after you were restricted.

redrogue

20th November 2007, 10:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:29 am
I've just looked at your restriction thread in the CC and it looks like you were restricted for thinking the Black Panthers were terrorists, that revolution is impossible and that we should just accept the current system and the Lennon thing was after you were restricted.
I would love to have revolution, but I believe it is very unlikely. I believe that the right sort of rulers would make the right sort of changes to society!

I am well aware of the history of equal rights organisations. My parents were active in both the Anti Nazi League and Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice since the late 1970's. I am well read on many historical topics thank you very much, including the Black Panthers and their unsavoury methods.

Assumption on your part doesn't warrant accusations of stupidity on mine.

RedAnarchist

20th November 2007, 10:55

Originally posted by redrogue+November 20, 2007 10:44 am--> (redrogue @ November 20, 2007 10:44 am)
[email protected] 20, 2007 09:29 am
I've just looked at your restriction thread in the CC and it looks like you were restricted for thinking the Black Panthers were terrorists, that revolution is impossible and that we should just accept the current system and the Lennon thing was after you were restricted.
I would love to have revolution, but I believe it is very unlikely. I believe that the right sort of rulers would make the right sort of changes to society!

[/b]
Rulers? So I assume that Nihilist in your custom title is not accurate, then?

redrogue

20th November 2007, 11:00

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+November 20, 2007 10:54 am--> (Red_Anarchist @ November 20, 2007 10:54 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:44 am

[email protected] 20, 2007 09:29 am
I've just looked at your restriction thread in the CC and it looks like you were restricted for thinking the Black Panthers were terrorists, that revolution is impossible and that we should just accept the current system and the Lennon thing was after you were restricted.
I would love to have revolution, but I believe it is very unlikely. I believe that the right sort of rulers would make the right sort of changes to society!

Rulers? So I assume that Nihilist in your custom title is not accurate, then? [/b]
The Nihilist movement was an 1860s Russian cultural movement which rejected existing authorities and values. It is derived from the Latin word "nihil", which means "nothing". After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, the Nihilists were known throughout Europe as proponents of the use of violence as a tool for political change.

The Nihilist political philosophy saw existing religions, political institutions, and morality as opposed to Freedom. Unlike Anarchists, the Nihilists did not reject the State; they believed that the right sort of rulers would make the right sort of changes to society. The Nihilists did not advocate belief in nothing, they believed in liberating human beings from existing creeds and practices via an appeal to objective values. Although this critique is accompanied by an endorsement of the findings of modern science, it is also (somewhat inconsistently) accompanied by attacks upon the assumption that we can discover truths about the universe.

pusher robot

20th November 2007, 16:14

I'm sure you can understand the difference between a capitalist and a farmer.

I don't, please explain it to me.

A farmer invests in ownership of the land and the tools to farm it. These are means of production. Via these means he produces crops, which he sells at a profit.

How is a farmer NOT the textbook definition of a capitalist, i.e., owner of the means of production?

Jazzratt

20th November 2007, 16:20

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 20, 2007 04:13 pm

I'm sure you can understand the difference between a capitalist and a farmer.

I don't, please explain it to me.

A farmer invests in ownership of the land and the tools to farm it. These are means of production. Via these means he produces crops, which he sells at a profit.

How is a farmer NOT the textbook definition of a capitalist, i.e., owner of the means of production?
Most farmers do not buy other's labour power and exploit them on a large scale. Also a lot of farmers do not, strictly, own the land they use and so on. The most accurate class definition would be petit-bourgeois.

manic expression

20th November 2007, 16:25

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 20, 2007 06:08 am

affordable living went out the window decades ago.

No. It didn't. Yes, real wages have been in gradual decline since the 60's, and many things have gotten more expensive. Like oil. Many other things have gotten cheaper. Many have the delusion that there was cheap and affordable health insurance for all in the glory decades you describe. There wasn't. I'm not sure any family had health insurance where I grew up. I am sure they didn't have computers, color TV's, air conditioned cars -- hell, A.C.'d houses for that matter -- or 2500 sq. foot houses. No one ate out. More than once a week anyway. We're in the middle of a painful technological revolution, yes, but not a depression, the overwhelming majority of people are LOVING IT, and it's the result of capitalist innovation, not re-education in the rice fields. You want to demolish that system and tell the people what's good for them? You can't even get a watery socialist like Nader or Kucinich elected, never mind the god-knows-which hard left messiah you would prefer.

You feel the world owes you a living because Marx or some other dreamer told you so. Wake up and smell the coffee, comrade, because it doesn't. The worker's paradise is in the toilet everywhere it's been tried. It's a bad joke. The people don't want it. Nobody wants it. Not even you. Because you know from the lessons of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Castro and Great Leader and Dear Leader and Chavez and so many other tyrannical frauds, that the only way they can get the people to swallow your faux-egalitarian bullshit is to force feed it like a French goose in Perigord. And send them to gulags if they protest. Mr. Chavez has some interesting constitutional "reforms" afoot, you'll note.

Obviously if you or your family is hungry and/or homeless, I extend my sincere and deepest sympathies. But since you're wealthy enough to have a nice computer and a modem and an internet service provider, I sense that you are not. (Hungry or homeless.) So "affordable living" has not gone out the window as you carelessly charge, at least for me and you. Correct?
As I suspected, you are incapable of making a serious, thoughtful response.

By your own admission, living has gotten more expensive and more difficult for the working class over the past few decades. You, being too delusional to see the root causes for this, miss the fact that capitalist competition is the culprit for this very acute process of deprivation. Yes, deprivation.

I do not suppose the 70's to be "golden years" or anything like that. However, I am smart enough to see that the working class had far more gains made through unionization. Those gains have been rolled back, and with it deprivation has increased. Such is capitalism: the bourgeoisie always pursue greater exploitation of the workers. The same is true in the UK.

Yet you remain naive enough to think that the working classes get along fine. Some are able to manage, but the number of those who cannot do so adequately increases every day.

Oh, and on your little capitalist in the pursuit of happyness sob story: get over yourself. Great, you grew up somewhere. You just proved nothing. As usual. That's not even a moot point, it wasn't one to begin with.

Are you really stupid enough to think that the average American is satisfied with the present system? That defies logic. The vast majority of Americans are furious with the economic situation today. More importantly, the vast majority of American workers hate their bosses and their wage cuts and their decreasing benefits. Class interests are at work here, much to your dismay.

Don't put words in my mouth and try to pass it off as an argument, because you've been unable to mount one so far. It's not about someone "owing" me a living, it's about the workers controlling society; it's about throwing the capitalists out of power, where they belong. They are parasites, they produce nothing but exploitation. Seeing as you can't even grasp the most elementary notion of class confict when it's sitting right in front of you, I doubt you'll connect the dots here.

Worker states worked and worked well. Don't slander socialist countries, you hardly know anything about them (other than what a proven propaganda agent, Robert Conquest, told you). The Soviet Union raised the living standards of its workers exponentially; China improved in all sorts of ways during the Mao years; Cuba outpaces the US in standards in healthcare, literacy, gender equality, racial integration, housing and more. Oh, and notice this little fun fact: when the USSR fell, housing standards (as in homelessness), literacy, education, public transportation, life expectancy and practically EVERY OTHER indicator of living standards FELL. That's right: capitalism made life WORSE for the workers of the Soviet Union.

Chavez will be interesting to watch. If he drives the final blow through capitalism's cold heart, like he should, it will be even more interesting. I can understand your frustration that workers actually want to run their own lives, but unfortunately for you, you'll have to deal with it.

Pol Pot a Marxist? Ignorance itself, it seems, is your last refuge.

And with that ignorance comes your final point. So if I have the internet, the working classes are not deprived? Great logic. Next, you should posit that since I can drink soda, American family farmers are doing well for themselves. Like the rest of your inexplicably incorrect points, this argument is pathetically wrong.

lvleph

20th November 2007, 16:37

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] November 20, 2007 06:08 am

No. It didn't. Yes, real wages have been in gradual decline since the 60's, and many things have gotten more expensive. Like oil. Many other things have gotten cheaper. Many have the delusion that there was cheap and affordable health insurance for all in the glory decades you describe. There wasn't. I'm not sure any family had health insurance where I grew up. I am sure they didn't have computers, color TV's, air conditioned cars -- hell, A.C.'d houses for that matter -- or 2500 sq. foot houses. No one ate out. More than once a week anyway. We're in the middle of a painful technological revolution, yes, but not a depression, the overwhelming majority of people are LOVING IT, and it's the result of capitalist innovation, not re-education in the rice fields. You want to demolish that system and tell the people what's good for them? You can't even get a watery socialist like Nader or Kucinich elected, never mind the god-knows-which hard left messiah you would prefer.

You feel the world owes you a living because Marx or some other dreamer told you so. Wake up and smell the coffee, comrade, because it doesn't. The worker's paradise is in the toilet everywhere it's been tried. It's a bad joke. The people don't want it. Nobody wants it. Not even you. Because you know from the lessons of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Castro and Great Leader and Dear Leader and Chavez and so many other tyrannical frauds, that the only way they can get the people to swallow your faux-egalitarian bullshit is to force feed it like a French goose in Perigord. And send them to gulags if they protest. Mr. Chavez has some interesting constitutional "reforms" afoot, you'll note.

Obviously if you or your family is hungry and/or homeless, I extend my sincere and deepest sympathies. But since you're wealthy enough to have a nice computer and a modem and an internet service provider, I sense that you are not. (Hungry or homeless.) So "affordable living" has not gone out the window as you carelessly charge, at least for me and you. Correct?

Pol Pot knew barely anything about Marxism and even admitted it himself. He took that ignorance and used it in his own backwards interpretation of Maoist theory. But of course you as an ignorant person would try to use his failure as an example of how Socialism is evil.

Oh and by the way, libraries have computers and internet.

Also, where do you get that Chavez is a totalitarian leader? He was elected by the people. He was then ousted by a US lead coup, that failed due to his massive support. You really need to educate yourself. I also, don't see Chavez invading other countries under false pretenses. Maybe you didn't realize but Chavez has actually provided subsidized heating oil to poor families in the US. It is funny how the US government didn't even supply that.

How could you possibly call Nader or Kucinich watery Socialist? You clearly have no understanding of Socialism. Both Nader and Kucinich are capitalists. They do not support the means of production being in anyones hands except private individuals. Socialism is not big government; Socialism is not state run programs; Socialism is a system in which the workers own/control the means of production. I don't think you would find a socialist that believes someone owes them a living wage. Socialist believe that the Capitalist system is inherently exploitative, and only benefits the bourgeoisie. It is this exploitative nature that a socialist wishes to abolish. The way to do that is to get rid of the bourgeoisie (and no I don't mean kill them).

Green Dragon

20th November 2007, 18:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:24 am

the second thing you said makes no sense to me. corn dumping or crop destruction due to government subsidy means that markets dont clear and supply and demand arent equal to each other. how do you call that the result of free markets? farm subsidies are a textbook example of not letting markets work. dumping isnt profitable unless the entire industry is getting some kind of support for it from the state
How does it make no sense? In a free market economy the primary method of determination of selling price of goods is supply v demand. Were the producers to produce enough goods for everybody, the price of said goods would drop sharply, significantly harming the profits of the producers. So in order to sustain profits producers will not--indeed, can not--produce enough goods for all of society. Thus capitalism and the free market is an extremely inefficient form of resource distribution, as what is in the interests of the producers of goods goes directly against the interests of society as a whole.

There are only 24 hrs per day, seven days per week; there is only X amount of workers available to work (and the worker cannot work 24/7). There is also only X amount of other resources available to the worker to produce his product during any given time.

That is the reality of life, and it will not change in a socialist community. So the mantra that "were the producers able to produce enough for anybody" is mindless utopianism because the socialist community cannot do it either. Just like the capitalist, it will have to figure where and what and upon what basis production occurs. It will have to decide whether the production of corn ought to be increased (or decreased), and how to juggle those issues with the related decisions.

The issue is whether the socialist community is better at producing those goods which people want first, over those goods they want second, (and using the fewest resources in doing so as possible at the same time) than is the capitalist community in doing so. Thats what has to be shown by the socialist,

pusher robot

20th November 2007, 19:13

Originally posted by Jazzratt+November 20, 2007 04:19 pm--> (Jazzratt @ November 20, 2007 04:19 pm)
pusher [email protected] 20, 2007 04:13 pm

I'm sure you can understand the difference between a capitalist and a farmer.

I don't, please explain it to me.

A farmer invests in ownership of the land and the tools to farm it. These are means of production. Via these means he produces crops, which he sells at a profit.

How is a farmer NOT the textbook definition of a capitalist, i.e., owner of the means of production?
Most farmers do not buy other's labour power and exploit them on a large scale. Also a lot of farmers do not, strictly, own the land they use and so on. The most accurate class definition would be petit-bourgeois. [/b]
Actually, many farmers own their own land, as it is often passed down from early homestead claims and the like. Does that make a difference?

Does it make a difference whether the farmer does most of the work himself or whether he employs lots of laborers to do it for him? Under a collectivist society, his crops would be community property either way, wouldn't they?

Robert

21st November 2007, 00:24

It is this exploitative nature that a socialist wishes to abolish. The way to do that is to get rid of the bourgeoisie (and no I don't mean kill them).

Unlike you, I am fair-minded and will concede reasonable points. So I concede everything you say in those two sentences.

You remind me nonetheless of Steve Martin and his old joke about how to earn a million dollars tax free: "First, you get a million dollars." You want to abolish exploitation by "getting rid" of the bourgeoisie. Like Mr. Martin, you're spare with the details. Unlike Mr. Martin, you can't see the absurdity of it.

I believe, at least hope, that you do not personally want to kill anyone. But you'll never get rid of "the bourgeoisie" until you have the stomach to do it yourself (you don't) or elect/anoint someone to do it for you (you appear to). Don't say you'll democratically vote them into oblivion; you can't. This is the relevance of the Kucinich and Nader campaigns: okay, they're capitalists, but they come as close to any serious politician in the USA who laud your progressive goals, and no one will vote them into office. If the people don't even want them, you think they want you? You do care what the people want, do you not?

And so we keep coming back to Stalin, Castro and your buddy Pol Pot, no matter how far you claim they drifted from the original plan. Pol Pot, don't you see, did an excellent and thorough job of getting rid of the bourgeoisie. Since he accomplished precisely what you want, aren't you just a little impressed? You want change or don't you?

Led Zeppelin

21st November 2007, 00:27

Capitalism needed more than one chance, a lot more, and it took the bourgeoisie about two centuries to get state-power.

So stop whining about past failures.

Dr Mindbender

21st November 2007, 00:35

capitalism continues to fail the 3rd world yet you dont hear anyone from the western neo-con or liberal lobby *****ing about that.

MT5678

21st November 2007, 22:34

Totally.
But this distinction is important: capitalism continues to fail because of its intrinsic nature, not because of conditions or anything. Think about it: the bourgeois have had the world as their oyster for over a century and a half or so (time depends on your definition).

The capital-imperialists repeatedly support and have supported corrupt monstrosities such as Suharto, Pinochet, Somoza, Musharraf, Pahlavi, et al. This is because capital-imperialists prize profit over people, and they will happily kill and subjugate to advance their positions. Leopold II made Pol Pot look like a humanitarian in comparison: he reduced the population of the Congo from 20 million to under 10: for the sake of rubber and ivory profit.

The capital-imperialists always claim that wealth will "trickle down". This has not been proven to happen...sure, standards of living have improved over time in First World Countries, but the phenomenon is restricted to those countries only. And let us observe the Reagan-Bush years: deregulation resulted in a huge wealth disparity, and real wages have been stagnant. Increasing costs of living are dramatically exacerbating the plight of working class people.

And let's not even get into the case of the guys that make our clothes...oooh: they get paid 35 cents an hour instead of 25...oh wait, that's just inflation.

Today, millions die from preventable poverty related causes while we in the U.S. and Europe get to live with dignity.

In contrast to the way in which capitalism utterly fails, bolshevist-statist regimes have "failed" (in reality, even state capitalism did far more for the Russians than the Tsar or Gorbachev or whatever have done) due to conditions and policy errors, as Demogorgon stated earlier. The better the conditions and policy, the better the chance of a pure communist society. Well, policy is far more important in my opinion. We can work wonders with the right policy in an agrarian state than with the wrong policy in an industrial state. The trouble is, bolshevist-statist regimes have only got to work in agrarian de facto colonies.

Robert

21st November 2007, 23:53

because of its intrinsic nature

You haven't made the case. Maybe you can, but you haven't. Congo is obviously a hideous example (I wonder about your numbers -- no more than 10 survived? -- but I wasn't there and can't prove it either). But that's slavery in the service of colonialism, not capitalism, and it was rightfully condemned by the European community when discovered and publicized. There are many wonderful modern companies who are motivated, yes, by profit , but who do not enslave or mutilate their employees.

Cmde. Slavyanski

22nd November 2007, 04:29

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 21, 2007 11:52 pm

because of its intrinsic nature

You haven't made the case. Maybe you can, but you haven't. Congo is obviously a hideous example (I wonder about your numbers -- no more than 10 survived? -- but I wasn't there and can't prove it either). But that's slavery in the service of colonialism, not capitalism, and it was rightfully condemned by the European community when discovered and publicized. There are many wonderful modern companies who are motivated, yes, by profit , but who do not enslave or mutilate their employees.
Sorry but colonialism is a part of capitalism. Try again.

MT5678

22nd November 2007, 05:28

You haven't made the case. Maybe you can, but you haven't. Congo is obviously a hideous example (I wonder about your numbers -- no more than 10 survived? -- but I wasn't there and can't prove it either). But that's slavery in the service of colonialism, not capitalism, and it was rightfully condemned by the European community when discovered and publicized. There are many wonderful modern companies who are motivated, yes, by profit , but who do not enslave or mutilate their employees.

My numbers come from King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa by Adam Hochschild.
I meant 10 million, BTW. But there were less than 10 Congolese college grads by the time it was all over.

Anyways, think about it: capitalism is about getting profit to get more capital, which is used to get more profit and to get more capital. Everything the bourgeois do is to this end. Colonialism was an investment made to make more profit, which was then used to develop industrial complexes to make more profit. And today, the US and Europe don't need to physically own land to make a killing. All they need are puppet democrats that will prostitute their people to the IMF.

The guys who make our clothes work for dimes anyways. The funny thing is, companies like the GAP and Levis would still make ludicrous profits if the peope were paid 75 cents on the hour. But they won't: it means less profit, which is anathema to capitalism (if the workers were paid more, they might be able to be buy the corn that gets dumped :) .

RevSkeptic

25th November 2007, 08:52

My numbers come from King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa by Adam Hochschild.
I meant 10 million, BTW. But there were less than 10 Congolese college grads by the time it was all over.

Here's the news story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3516965.stm)

And today, the US and Europe don't need to physically own land to make a killing. All they need are puppet democrats that will prostitute their people to the IMF.

But, you're assuming the domestic workers with their labour protection laws would mind working for the full cost of their commodities which they won't because it'll cost them at the shop in dollar amounts.

The guys who make our clothes work for dimes anyways. The funny thing is, companies like the GAP and Levis would still make ludicrous profits if the peope were paid 75 cents on the hour. But they won't: it means less profit, which is anathema to capitalism (if the workers were paid more, they might be able to be buy the corn that gets dumped

And if they're fed more they'll have bigger families which leads to more people needing to be paid more which will lead to more resources being used up which will lead to..... :o

Unless they all are paid well enough to be educated westernized middle classes which will lead to them valuing their satisfying careers more than having kids which will lead to few or no kids being borned which will lead to..... :o