beauty of socialism - Why us capitalists can be "dumb"

[lukecrouch]

The good news for us capitalists is that we don't need to study socialism in depth to refute it. Because very intelligent people in other countries have already done so and brought about the death of socialism on their own - because even all these scholars put together couldn't create a viable working model of it.

If you disagree...I would not only like to know on what grounds, but I'd also like to hear your credibility on the issue. I've found in most of my dealings with socialists that many have read the manifesto once or twice, and a bunch of Hegel essays. I hope that you are ready to show evidence that your knowledge and understanding is superior to those that formed the Soviet Union and the Peoples' Republic of China.

If you do not have the evidence readily available, you may need to go spend many years studying economics and sociology, or run the risk of being an arrogant moron.

Please keep in mind that I do not want explanations of the faults of the Soviet and Chinese implementations of socialism, as I am sure there are many. [Just as there are faults in the implementation of our American capitalistic system (specifically, the lack of a "personal-monopoly" law)]

What I'm looking for is the evidence to support the claims of socialists that insist they know more about implementing Socialism than the people who DID implement it....any takers?

As a final note, I do agree that socialism in its purest and ideal form is superior to capitalism. (Look at Star Trek!) But I think the challenges of implementing the system are too much for mere humans to over-come.

[Pete]

Read the archives! They will answer your questions more then any rehash I can offer.

[synthesis]

What I'm looking for is the evidence to support the claims of socialists that insist they know more about implementing Socialism than the people who DID implement it....We aren't saying that we know more about Marxism than they did, or have read more into Das Kapital than they have. We're suggesting that we plan on learning from their mistakes.


As a final note, I do agree that socialism in its purest and ideal form is superior to capitalism. (Look at Star Trek!) But I think the challenges of implementing the system are too much for mere humans to over-come.I think, comrades, that more capitalists resemble this guy deep inside than they would admit.

[peaccenicked]

I am sorry I cant be bothered either, try here for the basic socialist position. http://www.trotsky.net/revolution_betrayed.html

[lukecrouch]

I'm sorry Pete....maybe I've been mis-understood....

If someone supports Socialism in light of its failures in history, they are in direct conflict with history itself. They are, in effect, refuting history and objective truth. Which I suppose does not exist...since truth must be dictated to society according to its needs?

While socialists like to point out the faults and flaws in the implementations of socialism in the past and in other parts of the world, they are often not so quick to take on the reasons behind these faults, and how they are more qualified to avoid these faults than their predecessors who implemented faulty systems of socialism and destroyed their society...

Or should we just implement socialism over and over again, finding new faults all the time, while we destroy society after society?

[lukecrouch]

We aren't saying that we know more about Marxism than they did, or have read more into Das Kapital than they have. We're suggesting that we plan on learning from their mistakes.

While learning from their mistakes, are you not considering that you are making mistakes of your own...? Even if you are as knowledgeable in Marxism as they are, were they not the most knowledgeable of their time? And you are now the most knowledgeable of our time? How are you positive that your implementation of socialism is the true ideal until it's been tested? And the only way, as I understand, for socialism to be enacted is if EVERYONE cooperates - a revolution. So you are willing to destroy our society on a hunch?


I think, comrades, that more capitalists resemble this guy deep inside than they would admit.


Most of my capitalist friends think the same way I do. That is, free-thinking capitalists who have actually thought about the issues and are minorly versed in the concepts of socialism. Everyone must admit that some people in every issue have their beliefs for no reason, though...and that these people are irrelevant in intellectual debate as their arguments are empty.

[peaccenicked]

The reason I am still a socialist is because society is being destroyed. Magret Thatcher even said ''There is no such thing as society". Pro capitalists are simply blind to the destructive nature of capitalism and have not a clue about Marxian Socialism. Most of their notions come from George Orwell or derivatives of his criticism of Stalinism,who actually considered himself a genuine socialist.

[Pete]

The best comtemporary example is the Zapitistas in Chiapas Mexico. We want to learn from past mistakes and try not to make mistakes our selves, but we are human and there is that mistake. The works of Che are valuable to see what worked and what didn't, as they are in most cases a picture of what did and did not work. Cut out and in simple terms. But it is late. My brain has thoughts of Hell (just revied Dante's Inferno). Good night Luke, welcome to the board, and awaken after you sleep!

[synthesis]

While learning from their mistakes, are you not considering that you are making mistakes of your own...?

Of course. We're humans.

Even if you are as knowledgeable in Marxism as they are, were they not the most knowledgeable of their time?

Doubtfully. Pol Pot said that ownership of a toothbrush was a bourgeois, criminal act, or something to that effect. Marx wouldn't have approved of that.

And you are now the most knowledgeable of our time?

I'd like to think so, but probably not.

How are you positive that your implementation of socialism is the true ideal until it's been tested?

I don't believe in a "true ideal." It's my ideal, and it ends there.

And the only way, as I understand, for socialism to be enacted is if EVERYONE cooperates - a revolution. So you are willing to destroy our society on a hunch?

I'm a Menchevik, a democratic socialist, so I wouldn't say that you're right.

Everyone must admit that some people in every issue have their beliefs for no reason, though...and that these people are irrelevant in intellectual debate as their arguments are empty.

Yeah, we've got a couple of the latter here in OI :biggrin:

[El Che]

-Reject ideological puritanism (which is actualy implicit in the terms of your own questions)

-Try and build Socialism within a democratic framework thereby allying Socialism with other Leftist principals, such as Democracy, equality of rights, secular society, fundamental human rights, etc, achiving a complete whole. Leftism is a state of mind more than anything else, a very board ideological edifice with many components.

You asked for a personal position, there it is. The fact that you recognize Socialism as a legitimate ideal is significante. You belong on this side of the fence. Its easy to abstractly define how society should function but very difficult to make it happen, I dont think anyone will argue with you there but this is no excuse to abstain from fighting for what you think is right. Why settle for less? Because it`s easier? I`d rather fail.

[lukecrouch]

Thanks for returning to the debate at hand.

However, I'm not completely satisfied with "we are human and there is that mistake" as a re-assurance that we should implement socialism.

I mean, is there more you can offer to those of us that are skeptical of the revolution's justification and validity.

Peace, not all pro-capitalists are as you depict them. Some of us are aware of the faults and failures of Capitalism...and thankfully we in America have have enacted legislation attempting to make up for these faults...admittedly not all of it is sufficient.

Some of us merely think that the faults of capitalism are more apparent and easy to address than the faults (present and future) of socialism.

[lukecrouch]

Quote: from El Che on 11:31 pm on Mar. 27, 2003
Why settle for less? Because it`s easier? I`d rather fail.


Settling for less? Or living in the real, imperfect, world?

[El Che]

You`re putting words in my mouth and avoiding the real issue. A bad sign to be sure. It`s not a question of achiving perfection but of the ideals that guide your political action.

[synthesis]

However, I'm not completely satisfied with "we are human and there is that mistake" as a re-assurance that we should implement socialism. Oh, no, I'm not trying to say that excuses such as that can be made to justify our mistakes, I'm merely trying to say that assuming that no matter how magnificent an ideology sounds on paper, it will be implemented by humans, and therefore will not be perfect.

(Edited by DyerMaker at 6:26 am on Mar. 28, 2003)

[peaccenicked]

I have no evidence that capitalists are not as I depicted them. Capitalism is not an imperfect system, it is destructive intrinsically. There is no socialism present, though we might gain a sane, sound society based on a rational democratic plan for production based on human need.
Capitalism is deeply insane, it is in effect the rule of blind and agressive greed.


(Edited by peaccenicked at 6:02 am on Mar. 28, 2003)

[englandsgay]

What capitalists fear is that you want to make the decisions for them. its YOUR hunch, not theirs.

[Chiak47]

All in the name to protect the children none the less.

Don't smoke in your back yard-For the children.
Don't buy a gun-for the children
DO NOT have a loaded gun in your house-for the children
Do not spank-for the children
Do not swear-for the children


Just do not make it a nanny state-for the men

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from lukecrouch on 4:51 am on Mar. 28, 2003
The good news for us capitalists is that we don't need to study socialism in depth to refute it. Because very intelligent people in other countries have already done so and brought about the death of socialism on their own - because even all these scholars put together couldn't create a viable working model of it.

Did you bring a barf bag? I believe you beat me to the punch regarding this tread. Welcome aboard.



If you disagree...I would not only like to know on what grounds, but I'd also like to hear your credibility on the issue. I've found in most of my dealings with socialists that many have read the manifesto once or twice, and a bunch of Hegel essays. I hope that you are ready to show evidence that your knowledge and understanding is superior to those that formed the Soviet Union and the Peoples' Republic of China.

If you do not have the evidence readily available, you may need to go spend many years studying economics and sociology, or run the risk of being an arrogant moron.

Please keep in mind that I do not want explanations of the faults of the Soviet and Chinese implementations of socialism, as I am sure there are many. [Just as there are faults in the implementation of our American capitalistic system (specifically, the lack of a "personal-monopoly" law)]

What I'm looking for is the evidence to support the claims of socialists that insist they know more about implementing Socialism than the people who DID implement it....any takers?

As a final note, I do agree that socialism in its purest and ideal form is superior to capitalism. (Look at Star Trek!) But I think the challenges of implementing the system are too much for mere humans to over-come.

[Pete]

Welcome back Kelvin

What the hell are you talking about Chiak? Are you bitter about some Liberals messing with your fun? Those blue grits wearing you out?

[von Mises]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 5:59 am on Mar. 28, 2003
I have no evidence that capitalists are not as I depicted them. Capitalism is not an imperfect system, it is destructive intrinsically. There is no socialism present, though we might gain a sane, sound society based on a rational democratic plan for production based on human need.
Capitalism is deeply insane, it is in effect the rule of blind and agressive greed.


(Edited by peaccenicked at 6:02 am on Mar. 28, 2003)


So, how are we going to do this as we already know that a planned economy will result in chaos?

How do we know what people demand?

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Perhaps lukecrouch, you're right and socialism will never be perfectly implemented. Perhaps we will never achieve complete equality. However, I believe in trying to get as close to it as possible. Socialist does help bring equality, even if not complete, and having everyone almost equal is better than the present situation.

[Disgustipated]

The question I would ask in regards to a succesful socialist state/country is that, is there a real example anywhere that has ever been allowed to flourish with no outside interference?

It seems that it is especially hard to implement when foreign governments regard it as inherently evil or destructive, and work to overthrow the socialist government either overtly or covertly, militarily or economically. There are volumes about peoples popular revolutions that have been quashed by capitalist country/governments.

I believe that given the chance, socialism unmolested would grow and flourish and completely fulfill itself.

[peaccenicked]

[/quote]


So, how are we going to do this as we already know that a planned economy will result in chaos?

How do we know what people demand?

The planned economy in the Stalinist countries are not good yard stick. Marxists knew that isolated revolutions would fail and lead to the restoration of capitalism. Yet even so the former USSR took its countries status up to that of superpower. Before the revolution Russia and India were roughly equivalent.

The way to know what people want is by asking them.
It is that simple.

[von Mises]

The way to know what people want is by asking them.
It is that simple.

Lesson 1 in marketing, demand and expectations of people are heterogeneous. The easy thing to do of course is that if people demand clothing you give them all the same stuff. So know they are both equal and equally looking.

Do you honestly think that a planned economy can give people all the things we can see now on the market?

The USSR was only a superpower because they had nuclear bombs.

[lukecrouch]

Uhuru, perhaps our disagreement is centered on your belief that everyone should be equal, and my belief that everyone should have equal opportunity - and the differences.

Equal opportunity is getting better and better in America. Not, I believe, because of the legislation imposing pseudo-morals onto society...but because the more generations we are removed from the atrocities of the past, the more we can get beyond those problems and be productive with one another.

But that is straying from the point....the point is that history has shown us that brilliant and capable authorities have attempted to "get as close to it as possible" and have erred from doing what is right.

Of course we should all strive to do what is right. It is right for me to turn sand into farmable land. That doesn't mean it's possible.

And even if technology or machinery is created that could perform such a feat...humans are not machines. Socialism will always be unattainable because of human nature.

Personally, I believe socialism is only applicable by God Himself...when Christ returns. Only then will the Authorities of socialism be free of human nature.

I do not want to start a religious debate, but only wanted to illustrate the perspective of many capitalists who believe that socialism is impossible to implement.

[Larissa]

"Do you honestly think that a planned economy can give people all the things we can see now on the market? "

Yes...Yet, I wonder who might be so interested in getting ALL the things we see on the market? I dn't actually give a damn about the material stuff we see on the market. Most important things in life are not material.

[lukecrouch]

Quote: from Disgustipated on 6:59 am on Mar. 28, 2003
The question I would ask in regards to a succesful socialist state/country is that, is there a real example anywhere that has ever been allowed to flourish with no outside interference?


This issue only expands the revolution needed to bring about socialism to a global revolution.

So, all at once, people will need to overthrow their capitalist suppressors to implement socialism on the entire planet? Think about how successful the world has been at putting aside their differences in the past.

But let's live in the dreamworld for a little bit...ieveryone on the planet universally agrees that socialism is the ideal utopian fantasy and enacts it.

The first impossibility is claiming that we have a flawless system of socialism to handle the world. And if you claim to have one, you are in the same place as historical socialistic authorities that have failed.

But, continuing with the dream, let's say a perfect system is implemented globally. Everything is going fine for a while...

Then human nature kicks in and some people get this insane desire to want to own their own property and do with it as they please, not as others' needs dictate...and they must be re-educated.

Are you committed enough to an historical failure that you are willing to sacrifice all individualism to "have another go" at it?

And think carefully....if this system IS implemented globally as required, and without the interference you so vehemently oppose, there will be no-one there to pull our asses out of the fire when the system suffers another flaw.

[lukecrouch]

Quote: from Larissa on 11:21 am on Mar. 28, 2003
"Do you honestly think that a planned economy can give people all the things we can see now on the market? "

Yes...Yet, I wonder who might be so interested in getting ALL the things we see on the market? I dn't actually give a damn about the material stuff we see on the market. Most important things in life are not material.


This is straying from the subject. The debate at hand is not the pros and cons of socialism or capitalism, but rather the issue of implementing socialism and the inherit, historical failures in doing so.

[peaccenicked]

Can we produce what people want without the market.
Socialism which is not bureaucratic goes beyond market research and provides the basic needs for all, all ''bog standard'' luxuries will also be produced using the tools we have appropiated from the capitalists.
What is custom-made will be part of our production package bring goods that only go to a minority go to all who want them.
Not everyone will want specialised goods such as nuclear magnetic resonance equipment.
However the doctors and scientists who want them will get them.
Socialism which is not bureaucratic prioritises the spiritual to put the economy on a sane and sound basis
and not in the hands of a ruthless greedy few.

[redstar2000]

"Socialism will always be unattainable because of human nature." -- lukecrouch

Luke, did you think of this objection all by yourself or have you read it in the pages of several thousand anti-communist polemics?

Are you under the impression that anyone has a credible scientific definition of what "human nature" is?

Or if there even is such a "thing"?

Of course, Aristotle thought it was part of "human nature" for some people to be masters and other people to be slaves...they were just "born that way". :cheesy:

And I'm sure you must be familiar with the extensive literature produced during the 18-20th centuries consisting of stinging critiques of capitalism from the aristocratic/feudal point of view.

Thus you know that capitalism was once regarded as contrary to human nature.

A funny old bird is this "human nature"...seems to be able to change its colors over a few centuries. "Turbo-evolution", perhaps? :cheesy:

As to your original question, I will repeat something that was over the head of kelvin90701; perhaps you are more intelligent and can grasp it.

Think of the USSR, China, etc. as prototypes -- similar to the Wright brothers' first "airplane". They didn't really work very well...the important thing is that they worked at all. And they did work, of course...after a fashion.

Is there some special reason--apart from the second coming of "Christ"--that mere human reason cannot improve on the design of a prototype? I know of none.

Indeed, I expect future communist societies to be as far beyond the USSR as a Boeing 747 is beyond the frail craft that got maybe 10 feet off the ground and stayed in the air a couple of minutes.

That such improvements may seem "far-fetched" to you is understandable; the willingness to imagine alternatives to the present does not appear to be an equally-distributed attribute. Had there been an internet in 1600, I would be arguing for the future of capitalism and you (perhaps) the necessity of improving feudalism. That's the way things go.

But if Marx was right, capitalism will become more and more barbarous in its daily reality and less and less able to "deliver the goods"...and most sensible people will see the necessity of revolutionary change whether they like it or not.

After all, how long are people prepared to wait for a procrastinating "divine saviour" before they decide to take matters into their own hands?

:cool:

[thursday night]

Why focus on the negative when looking at past and present implementations of socialism? One only needs to look at Cuba to see an excellent socialist system which has worked amazingly well, and it could also be said that Vietnam and North Korea are socialist states that serve their working-classes far better than capitalism and imperialism ever would.

Furthermore, whatever the final outcome two things must be kept in mind when looking at the former USSR: a) the Soviet economic model was more ethical than the capitalist one and B) the average working man had a better life in the Soviet Union and the Socialist Bloc. than the wild waters of capitalism have.

[peaccenicked]

Because the negative was so barbaric and nationalistic that it insults the inteligence of the vast majority of socialists

[lukecrouch]

"Luke, did you think of this objection all by yourself or have you read it in the pages of several thousand anti-communist polemics?"

Several million people have thought this same way. Are you chiding me for expressing something that has been expressed before?

"Are you under the impression that anyone has a credible scientific definition of what "human nature" is?"

Do we need a credible scientific definition of something for it to exist? Do you deny that human nature exists? If so, I'm afraid you may have over-intellectualized yourself. There are something that exist that cannot be proven.

"Thus you know that capitalism was once regarded as contrary to human nature.

A funny old bird is this "human nature"...seems to be able to change its colors over a few centuries. "Turbo-evolution", perhaps?"

Human nature has not changed. Our perception, understanding, and reaction to it have changed.

"Think of the USSR, China, etc. as prototypes -- similar to the Wright brothers' first "airplane". They didn't really work very well...the important thing is that they worked at all. And they did work, of course...after a fashion.

Is there some special reason--apart from the second coming of "Christ"--that mere human reason cannot improve on the design of a prototype? I know of none.

Indeed, I expect future communist societies to be as far beyond the USSR as a Boeing 747 is beyond the frail craft that got maybe 10 feet off the ground and stayed in the air a couple of minutes."

Except that inventors and experimentors risk only themselves in their adventures. For socialism to truly work, as I understand from many socialists, the entire world must be socialist.

Let's load the whole world up on a prototype space-ship and crash it into the sun, eh? But that's okay, because the next, uh....oh, I guess there won't be any more prototypes because you just managed to RUIN THE LIVES OF EVERYONE ON THE PLANET!

I just wonder how many times socialists will attribute failed socialist systems to the preliminary failures Marx predicted before you realize that final perfect model is never going to happen.

But if you'll never acknowledge the reasons behind the failures (human nature), I guess you'll always be in the dark waiting for the revolution that isn't coming.

[redstar2000]

"There are some things that exist that cannot be proven."

And so, as we always do, we find ourselves in the land of intellectual bankruptcy...the defenders of capitalism ask us to take their assertions on faith.

"Human nature has not changed." Why? Because I said so. Brilliant! :cheesy:

I personally think the clearest evidence of the decadence of modern capitalist "thought" is found precisely in the appeal to "faith". Reaction is a "faith-based" enterprise.

Luke thinks that we communists risk smashing up the planet in world revolution. Thus, he ignores the evening news and the class identity of those who are smashing up the planet right now.

A final curiousity: if all the pro-capitalists on this board actually believed that socialism/communism are "demonstrated failures" -- why would they want to argue with us at all?

I mean, I don't go to religious message boards and try to tell those poor suckers that they've been conned by a bunch of bible-thumping hustlers. There's no point in arguing with people who are hopelessly fucked up, completely clueless, out of touch with reality.

And yet we have an endless parade of cappies showing up here...not to actually learn something about communism, but to repeat the same dreary anti-communist messages that even Marx probably heard in 1850. "It won't work! It's against human nature! God forbids it! And it failed in Russia!" Only the last sentence is relatively new...all the rest are practically fossilized.

The only "reason" that I can think of for the cappies to come here is that, somehow, they sense that "final victory over communism" has eluded them. There's a whole new generation of socialists/communists/anarchists and people just generally pissed off with capitalism...and there are millions of them!

Our pro-capitalists must feel like they're living in one of those teen-age horror movies; the "monster of communism" won't stay dead. Why come here, if not to slay it in its lair (one of them)?

To no avail.

:cool: