I hate it when people say..

[ev]

It annoys me when people say that communism has failed and use the USSR, North Korea and China as examples and remain ignorant to

1) the failings of capitalism
2) the good things that 'communism' did for these countries
3) the fact that it was rather a pseudo-communism that existed in these states and they were really planned market capitalist states etc. w/e

Anyway, I'm trying to think of how I can reply to idiots that say this and refer them to how capitalism has failed society with the current economic situation in the United States among other things.

Your responses would be appreciated.

[Black Sheep]

This reminds me of another thread,that said

Communism has to always BE RIGHT.At every single convo,communism has to prove itself over and over again, and flawlessly in order to be accepted (reluctantly)

Capitalism is the status quo,it automatically gets a head start whenever a (radically) different system comes into debate.


how capitalism has failed societyIt "failed society" as soon as production was concentrated enough for a FAR better economic system to be possible.(:hammersickle:)

And in order to stay alive,it rears its true head, even fuglier than the previous one,but always with a thick layer of make-up.

Edited.

[Bilan]

Capitalism hasn't failed?
It's not a point of success or failure in these terms.
Capitalism has succeeded in becoming the dominant global economic system; it succeeded in over throwing Feudalist societies almost everywhere; it succeeded in raising the general standards of living of the world.
That's just fact.

But we want to take the positives further by socialising the economic system.

Judging it on whether it failes negates the historical role of capitalism...

[Black Sheep]

Well i would say that a system "fails" when it is no longer relevant, according to the material conditions and the potential to which production can rise,and to the level that system can satisfy human needs (according to the production potential again).

[mikelepore]

Socialism is in the same category of words as progress, democracy, freedom, justice, and the republic. Every miserable totalitarian government can be expected to adopt any or all of these words to flatter itself. When it does so, this is no refection on any of the things in the list.

[Bilan]

Well i would say that a system "fails" when it is no longer relevant, according to the material conditions and the potential to which production can rise,and to the level that system can satisfy human needs (according to the production potential again).

I don't think that constitutes failure

[Potemkin]

Syndicalisme ou Barbarie: The points you make about capitalism are true, of course. What I don't like about the "taking these positives further" argument is that it seems to be saying that capitalism was inevitable and had to come about. I don't really have a rational reason for my opposition to this, I just feel that it is disempowering. None of this was preventable? I know the origins of this are probably in Marx's historical determinism. By that token, we should all just wait around for the revolution, if everything is predetermined. I know this opens up a huge philosophical can of worms, so I'll stop with that.

It does seem, though, that the same justification is used when countries with planned economies switch to the "free market." I'm not a Marxist, so I don't know for sure, but don't the Chinese, for instance, justify this because Marx thought that revolutions would first occur in the industrialized nations, therefore socialism needs a capitalist phase? Aren't the Chinese just trying to take their country through an artificially created capitalist phase to arrive eventually at communism?

This is another thing with the determinist stance. Socialism needs capitalism before we can reach the revolutionary society. This seems sucky to me. It might be how things actually are, but I would rather capitalism be something I am directly opposed to, not the soil out of which socialism grows.

Ivan: For your more reasonable opponents, you might agree with them on the negatives of China, the USSR, etc., and work with them from there. I think it always helps your case to start from a point of agreement. This can backfire, especially with the more belligerant, so employ it selectively.

[Bilan]

Syndicalisme ou Barbarie: The points you make about capitalism are true, of course. What I don't like about the "taking these positives further" argument is that it seems to be saying that capitalism was inevitable and had to come about.

That is correct, its inevitability is due to the development of production.



I don't really have a rational reason for my opposition to this, I just feel that it is disempowering.

Why? Capitalism, comparatively, is extremely revolutionary compared to its predecessor, feudalism.


None of this was preventable?

Perhaps if industrialization was always crushed - but I think that would be negative, not positive.



I know the origins of this are probably in Marx's historical determinism. By that token, we should all just wait around for the revolution, if everything is predetermined. I know this opens up a huge philosophical can of worms, so I'll stop with that.

It's not predetermined. I think people who believe that have done rubbish reading of Marx. The revolution is inevitable, in the sense that it must occur.
I think Luxemburgs idea of, Socialism or Barbarism embodied this.



It does seem, though, that the same justification is used when countries with planned economies switch to the "free market." I'm not a Marxist, so I don't know for sure, but don't the Chinese, for instance, justify this because Marx thought that revolutions would first occur in the industrialized nations, therefore socialism needs a capitalist phase? Aren't the Chinese just trying to take their country through an artificially created capitalist phase to arrive eventually at communism?

I think that's debatable. I don't think it was entirely choice which turned the Chinese economy into a free market economy.
Simply, the Chinese economy was, much like Russias, and near every other 'socialist' state, majorly undeveloped - the bureaucracy which emerged was a by product of factors which effect every revolution.
1. Internal factors
2. External factors
3. International situation

First, the revolution, regardless of where it takes place must spread or it doomed to degenerate. If the revolution does not, if it is isolated, it will do what it has always done - whither away into a State Capitalist monster, and nothing short of it.

Second, the internal factors concern the nature of the structure within the country - this being the manifestation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or whatever you want to call it. In many of these revolutionary countries, the internal structures manifested as a dictatorship of the party, rather than the people (though they'll argue that it was the peoples party, but this is really just word play - the party is not a substitute for genuine class power: nothing is), and this too affected the nature of the state and society.
(however, it should be noted, that the pace of its degeneration was related to external factors, as well - none of it can really be separated, it's interrelated)

In my honest opinion, alot of the failures relating to the internal factors is due to a warped understanding of what the dictatorship of the proletariat really is. It is not a party, it is not a union, or an organization seizing power: it is the collective seizing of power by the working class, and it manifests through organs which exercise its strength - Syndicates, Soviets, Workers Councils, etc. These are organs of workers power.
It can be nothing else.
No one man, nothing. IT is class power, or it is nothing.



This is another thing with the determinist stance. Socialism needs capitalism before we can reach the revolutionary society. This seems sucky to me. It might be how things actually are, but I would rather capitalism be something I am directly opposed to, not the soil out of which socialism grows.

The world can be a sucky place. But I'd rather workers in <insert country here> lived under a capitalist system than feudalist any day. Bourgeois freedom is better than none at all.
But its certainly no substitute for true freedom. :thumbup1:

[Potemkin]

Thanks for the reply. Very thoughtful. I understand what you say. It seems I don't know enough about feudalism though to really understand the position. It seems that capitalism's power to exploit on the global scale is unprecedented, but you would argue that feudalism was still worse?

Is the situation such that, perhaps less people were exploited under feudalism, but their exploitation was greater or more severe, whereas more people are exploited under capitalism to a lesser extent? Or am I off the mark here, and it's just that the number of exploited under both systems is about the same, but people are better off under capitalism? Or are there both less people exploited and the extent of their exploitation less under capitalism?

It just seems like the production practices in the third world, the environmental destruction, etc. is so much greater with global capitalism. Of course, we've come a long way technologically since feudalism, perhaps feudalism would have eventually become globalized? In that case, it's better that capitalism displaced it?

Thanks for bearing with me on this.

[MarxSchmarx]

It seems I don't know enough about feudalism though to really understand the position.

I wouldn't bother. Feudalism is something of a red herring, because it was only practiced on a massive scale for a long period of time in a few parts of the world prior to the rise of capitalism (Europe, India and Japan). Indeed, the only reason we get so hung up about it are:
(1) Although feudalism created the conditions for capitalism to develop, it can't be seen as the default pre-capitalist society.
and (2) the left is still VERY Euro-centric and the feudal past is integral to understanding European institutions beyond capitalism which socialism must deal with.

But anywho:



Is the situation such that, perhaps less people were exploited under feudalism, but their exploitation was greater or more severe, whereas more people are exploited under capitalism to a lesser extent? Or am I off the mark here, and it's just that the number of exploited under both systems is about the same, but people are better off under capitalism? Or are there both less people exploited and the extent of their exploitation less under capitalism?


Part of the problem is that the nature of exploitation itself is different. In feudalism, the worker was never autonomous. In capitalism, nominally free workers are deprived of the full product of their labor.



It just seems like the production practices in the third world, the environmental destruction, etc. is so much greater with global capitalism. Of course, we've come a long way technologically since feudalism, perhaps feudalism would have eventually become globalized? In that case, it's better that capitalism displaced it?

The kind of general technological improvement facilitated by capitalism would be impossible under feudalism. There is little incentive to improve production when your economy is designed to satisfy the whims of the lord and fight wars. Military technology might improve sporadically, but even then it won't nearly be as advanced as under capitalism.

Similarly, the reason a global feudal order could not exist is that that feudalism is not expansive. Capitalism requires ever larger markets, but feudalism does not. As such, there is no reason for a lord to expand. Although some times the head honcho might want to reward new lands to nobles (as happened in Czarist Siberia), this isn't strictly necessary for feudalism to survive (e.g. Japan).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, I know I don't like to add too many wrinkles to recurring discussions, but the "Asiatic" mode of production was quite expansive (though someone else pointed out heavy taxation's inhibiting effects on development).

[MarxSchmarx]

Comrade, I know I don't like to add too many wrinkles to recurring discussions, but the "Asiatic" mode of production was quite expansive (though someone else pointed out heavy taxation's inhibiting effects on development).

Sure, although there are three caveats.

First, my reading of the literature is that the asiatic mode of production predates feudalism and quite possibly slavery.

Second, the expansiveness could also be due not to the conscious activity of the elite in a society practicing the Asiatic mode of production, but by neighboring communities adopting this mode out of expediency. Consider classical cases of the "Asiatic mode". The spread of agriculture in the middle east or the periphery of East Asia (e.g. Japan and Vietnam), as well as in the Americas, probably had more to do with the relative stability and predictability agriculture provided over a hunting-gathering society.

Finally, it is far from obvious as to what precisely the "Asiatic mode of production" refers to, and how to distinguish when a society was in this mode of production as opposed to any other. This is in contrast to feudalism, capitalism, slavery or mercantalism, where a clear legal framework established how that mode of production should work. A basic commonality in the legal frameworks of these societies establishes them as distinct modes of production. Corvee labor comes close, but this was hardly the foundation of these society's economies. Indeed, no such reliable basis for the "asiatic mode of production" exists.

[ev]

Capitalism may have been an inevitable part of the development of human society, however it is a flawed and inferior to communism. I should have rephrased

1) The failings of capitalism to the inferiority of capitalism as a socioeconomic structure, I just wanted to simplify my ramblings so that when I try to explain this to someone less educated that I, they understand. I hope this clarifies things.

[BlackCapital]

Like somebody mentioned above, it is frustrating for me also that I can't realistically be completely opposed to capitalism, however much I would like to.

Progression theory is something I have been struggling with quite a bit. If capitalism is the necessary first stage, how does the state that sponsors it not become adversely effected by it? Of course the ruling class that will inevitably exist will not willingly give up their wealth and control of production, and they ultimately control the state.

[spice756]

Like somebody mentioned above, it is frustrating for me also that I can't realistically be completely opposed to capitalism, however much I would like to.


I suggest you work on it.Well capitalism is evile system very evile.I will say the US and more so in Canada it is evile but you more privilege.

So you feel stable and better off.

But other parts of the world are not privilege and do not feel stable or better off.

Because the root of capitalism is base on greed ,profit motive,rich and poor ,exploitation and unjust society.

[Killfacer]

Capitalism may have been an inevitable part of the development of human society, however it is a flawed and inferior to communism. I should have rephrased

1) The failings of capitalism to the inferiority of capitalism as a socioeconomic structure, I just wanted to simplify my ramblings so that when I try to explain this to someone less educated that I, they understand. I hope this clarifies things.


You can't just say it's worse than communism. Everytime communism has been attempted it's devolved into disaster. Although i beleive that socialism is certainly superior to capitalism, the evidence that we currently have would suggest that communism is nigh on impossible to impliment succesfully.

Obviously there are theories, which could prove correct, that true communism can only occur in a strong, capitalist nation but history is against you on this one.

[BlackCapital]

I suggest you work on it.Well capitalism is evile system very evile.I will say the US and more so in Canada it is evile but you more privilege.

So you feel stable and better off.

But other parts of the world are not privilege and do not feel stable or better off.

Because the root of capitalism is base on greed ,profit motive,rich and poor ,exploitation and unjust society.

I completely understand and agree that its based off greed and exploitation, and is indeed responsible largely for unjust society. But, as mentioned before, it is a fact that it has developed the west into the power it is today and has raised the standard of living there, at least.

The question I posed was about progression theory, stating capitalism is the road to socialism, and the end goal of socialism is obviously communism.

But I see many issues with this. How can the power structure put in place by capitalism be overcome? The ruling class owns production and the state which it uses to protect itself and further its agenda. At what cost and with what ferocity will the bourgeois cling to its position? They do own the military and police, which makes conditions substantially more difficult for a revolution to succeed.

[spice756]

The high standard of living is do to labor unions and revolution in the 60 , 70, and 80.

They up the standard of living to stop labor unions and revolution that was feared.

And made a middle class to divide people and be counter- revolution

[ev]

You can't just say it's worse than communism. Everytime communism has been attempted it's devolved into disaster. Although i beleive that socialism is certainly superior to capitalism, the evidence that we currently have would suggest that communism is nigh on impossible to impliment succesfully.

Obviously there are theories, which could prove correct, that true communism can only occur in a strong, capitalist nation but history is against you on this one.

History is invalid, I'm a visionary, an idealist if you will... I'll make history..

Seriously though, no evidence currently exists and your claim is invalid therefore I win by default. I'll make history, leave it to me ;)