The Intelligent Persons' Guide to Socialism and Capitalism

[peterbound]

I wouldn't say that all communist revolutions ended in dictatorships that have been worse than what went before. I wouldn't say that because it's absolutist, probably untrue, and really unprovable. And adding the single word 'frequently' in there to ameliorate your entire statement just doesn't cut it.

Each situation is different for each country at each moment in time, with different mixtures of what has worked well for the population and rulers and what hasn't, and how relationships with other countries have affected events, all based on what we have gleaned second-hand from this or that historian, all of whom have their own biases.

Honestly, I think this is an interesting topic and important, but it is likely to get short shrift on this messageboard (any messageboard really) simply due to the space and attention span concerns. I applaud the effort, though.

I think you're selling this place short.

Also, I think the onus is on you (with that statement) to prove otherwise in terms of communist outcomes. Name a place that hasn't, please.

And OP, can you stop saying vis a vis? Your quota for that statement has been filled.

[thecryptile]

Forget the death count argument for a minute, Capitalism is better because it doesn't infringe on personal liberty to the same extent and it increases economic production.

Material shortages and repression are hall-marks of the Communist system. Material abundance and political shouting matches are the hallmarks of the Western Democratic version of Capitalism. North Korea starves millions while maintaining a nuclear arsenal, in the US poor people struggle with obesity (and our arsenal is much larger and better quality). China builds its "Great Firewall" while the Capitalist West encourages the exchange of ideas over the Internet. Venezuela has a shortage of toilet paper due to Socialist price-controls, in the US we have plenty.

[Jon Snow eats wild beaver]

OK, sure. That's a good point. How about China? They don't have a small cadre of people who are totally unaccountable to the people they govern and I think the recent scandals and party washouts are a pretty good proof of that. China does have issues, but the governors are susceptible to the social and political pressures within the state (which unfortunately I would have to say that particular litmus test for totalitarian states doesn't hold much water, because I believe, only my opinion, that there are almost no despotic states that aren't). They also don't have a line of rulers that are from a single set of families.

Vietnam? I can't think of a more nationalist government. Even when they went commie, they were still just nationalist wrapped up in commie worker blues. In fact, after the American war, they went to war with Cambodia to depose Pol Pot, the crazed dictator next door. I think its safe to say they were not on the dictator bandwagon at that point, and their great leader Uncle Ho was dead by then.

Any state that isn't really communist, but had at least one communist ruler at some point? France? Sweden?

So when people are thinking of communism mostly, its Soviet, right? And these people are thinking of Stalin as the dictator, right? But Stalin dies, and the head job doesn't pass into his family. And the Soviet system isn't disbanded. There are a succession of different rulers, and each deposes the one before in turn, and for the most part, jails or incapacitates his predecessor somehow. Was the Soviet union immune to social pressures within its borders? I don't think so, and neither does my Russian wife, who had to live through the unmitigated disaster of Perestroika. And now, they still have something similar, since Putin displaced Yeltsin and arrested most of his mafia buds and incapacitated Yeltsin until his death. And they call it wild capitalism, not communism.

And even Stalin, one of the more vile humans to have run around on planet earth, that murderer drove, Drove with blood and sweat, the Soviet union through an industrial revolution in twenty years. A friend of mine says they did not successfully navigate the transition, and that's a good argument. But, ask yourself this: would there have been a Soviet Union in 1946 if they had not made that transition? Poland went out to meet the Krauts on horseback and then there was no Poland until the Soviets liberated it, and re-established it as a state, right?

And this is discounting the fact that the communist movements didn't all end in total capitulation of the capitalist swine, so did they fail? Or did they have lesser successes that led to reforms within some existing governance? And that goes to each individual leader, and if they identified as communist, or socialist, or whatever.

I mean, I guess I'm trying to say, it's complicated, man. Complicated.

EDIT: oh, and the last point, which is name a place where communism replaced what went before and the place was better for it: that would be the afforementioned Soviet Union, where the Czar lost the Great war, and yet the red army won the Great Patriotic war. Was Nicholas that great of a leader? Looking back, there's not much evidence that he was better than the Soviets.

[Knez Snow]

Forget the death count argument for a minute, Capitalism is better because it doesn't infringe on personal liberty to the same extent and it increases economic production.

Actually, it does infringe on personal liberty.

If one group of people owns all the food, resorces and means of production, than other poeple cannot even eat, or make thair own food. You cannot work and earn a living in vacuum, you need acces to means of production and resorces.

A tought experiment.

10 people live. All that exists is river with fish and some vegetation.

2 People own everything an have a muscle to enforce thair ownership. This is what happens to other eight people:

2 of them they hate and let them die of starvation or lack of water. (infringes on right to live)

6 of them they make thair wage slaves to work for them and exploit them in order to get food. (infringes on liberty)

So, private ownership over means of production and resorces of one group or individual infringes other peoples right to life liberty and property.

[Knez Snow]

So in capitalism you are free to die or free to abandon your freedom and become a wage slave.

[thecryptile]

What didn't you understand about "to the same extent"?

The starvation argument doesn't hold water, who is starving in the West? There are private charities as well as government programs like food stamps.

"Slave wages" is bullshit- Capitalists now pay their workers so they can buy more consumer goods and keep the system afloat.

Working for a living doesn't make you a slave. Being held in a labor camp like your hero Mao built, does. Under Capitalism, if you don't like your job, you can quit and do something else.

You didn't even try to deny that Capitalism increases economic production.

[Horza]

China makes a lot more sense if one thinks of communism not as an economic system but a means of organising the state.

Oh and yeah, Vietnam. Which went to war with Pol Pot whose Democratic Kampuchean regime the US and China ran interference for at the UN for the length of the 80s because the USSR backed Vietnam (the DK's UN office was a timeshare with Norodom Sihanouk but still). The invasion itself was partially because of the KR slaughtering ethnic Vietnamese (and Chinese, but no one confused Deng Xiaoping with a sentimental person) to make way for the restoration of a racially pure agrarian Khmer state. Quite the palingenetic ultranationalist idea, that.

Not to mention the small matter of the Defensive Counterattack Against Vietnam (as a matter of CCPspeak, China is never the aggressor). Kinda hard to reconcile that with a non-nationalist reading of Chinese or Vietnamese communism.

[Knez Snow]

What didn't you understand about "to the same extent"?

The starvation argument doesn't hold water, who is starving in the West? There are private charities as well as government programs like food stamps.

"Slave wages" is bullshit- Capitalists now pay their workers so they can buy more consumer goods and keep the system afloat.

Working for a living doesn't make you a slave. Being held in a labor camp like your hero Mao built, does. Under Capitalism, if you don't like your job, you can quit and do something else.

You didn't even try to deny that Capitalism increases economic production.

Western capitalism has it's influence in other parts of the world, via imperialism and people are starving.

No one said that working for a living is making you a wage slave. If you own your own means of production and work for a living you are not a wage slave.

Mao is not my hero.

Problem is not how big economic production is if it all goes to upper classes and if bulshit golden toilets are made intead of usefull things.

ETA: and if working class is exploited

[thecryptile]

Western capitalism has it's influence in other parts of the world, via imperialism and people are starving.

No one said that working for a living is making you a wage slave. If you own your own means of production and work for a living you are not a wage slave.

Does this mean that only self-employed individuals are free, and anyone who works at a business they don't own is a slave?

Mao is not my hero.

Ok, retracted and stricken.

Problem is not how big economic production is if it all goes to upper classes and if bulshit golden toilets are made intead of usefull things.

ETA: and if working class is exploited

Would you say that the working class isn't exploited in China, Vietnam and North Korea?

Capitalists make all sorts of useful things like the device you use to access this site.

[Free Northman]

Basically, humans are lazy at heart. If I didn't have to work in order to feed my family I sure as hell wouldn't.

Hence, any system that destroys the link between work and survival will inevitably fail.

Why work harder than the next guy if your salaries are all the same and determined by a central komintern in any case?

Competition with the guy in the next cubicle is what fuels progress.

[Knez Snow]

Does this mean that only self-employed individuals are free, and anyone who works at a business they don't own is a slave?

Ok, retracted and stricken. Would you say that the working class isn't exploited in China, Vietnam and North Korea?

Capitalists make all sorts of useful things like the device you use to access this site.

China is no longer communist, it's capitalist. Vietnam and North Korea - they might be exploited, or not. I am not in favor of Vietnam or North Korean model anyway. I am not even a communist but socialist. There are a lot of different models in socialism and communism and some are better than others.

Working class makes stuff, capitalists profit from exploiting working class.

ETA: quotes

[Knez Snow]

Basically, humans are lazy at heart. If I didn't have to work in order to feed my family I sure as hell wouldn't.

Hence, any system that destroys the link between work and survival will inevitably fail.

Why work harder than the next guy if your salaries are all the same and determined by a central komintern in any case?

Competition with the guy in the next cubicle is what fuels progress.

Working for survival can be part of socialism. That is good and is not a problem. problem is exploatation.

Lenin said 'he who does not work neither shall he eat'

Check out my first post in this topic.

[Kolantero]

Mao, Stalin et al were communists and what they did were examples of communism in practice, which is what matters anyway. Comparison with Jesus is a false analogy since no one (or almost no one) blames Marx himself for the results of communism (personally from the few things I read from Marx, i think that a lot of his ideas were correct and even when I disagree, I can see why he would believe them during the era he lived).

Comparing Christianity is again false imo since religions don't need to control, don't need to enforce themselves or be in a position of power in a society to function (even if they often are). It is perfectly achievable to have a society with different religions in it, you can't have communism in a society unless communists are in power and no member of a communist country can live "outside" the communist system (unless he leaves the country). Therefore religions, unlike communism, don't have to "end up" in crusades since they can survive without being in control of the society (e.g. most modern Western Societies).

Any sane person would admit that communism is the better system in theory, therefore it's common sense that anyone who is ideologically (and not because of personal interests/indifference) opposed to communism believes that communism cannot happen in practice as it is envisioned in theory. Then when communism fails over and over and over again, communists decide that "it's not communism anymore" (although there are still many fans of Stalin's and probably Mao's who would disagree). Well, that's the whole point of the disagreement between a non-communist and a communist: That there will always be a "Stalin" a "Mao" or at best a "Castro".

In other words the fact that non-communists were correct in their predictions is somehow twisted and used in favor of communism. Evidence (or at least indications) that non-communists are correct are actually used somehow to enhance the communist position. This practice of "disowning" communists when their attempts turn (inevitably according to non-communists) to destruction allows communists to be in a constant state of judging others (or other ideologies) but being immune to judgement themselves. Any single criticism against communism can be deflected by "it wasn't real communism" since criticisms against communism are about the difficulty of implementing the ideology in practice and theoretically communism is the best system.

It is the equivalent of a Fan of Team A who says that his team is the best. Then, when his team loses fifteen matches in a row, not only does he come up with various excuses about why his team doesn't suck but he actually tries to use the losses as an argument to support that his team is the best.

[Born Yesterday]

these people enacted leftwing policies. it's not like they adopted some leftwing slogans simply to get elected and then took a hard right into medievalism, like the NSDAP. mao and stalin were bona fide marxists. the way to handle this is not to deny the killings or to kindly escort them out of the lefty camp, but to acknowledge their leftyism and politely disagree regarding policy.

First, let me say that it's been a long time since I delved in the relevant literature, and even back then I forgot names and dates (the topic is HUGE). I also recognize the possibility of some confirmation bias on my part. I'm only human. With that in mind...

No. Just no. While Stalin belonged decidedly in the left (as opposed to the right...), saying that he only diverged from Marxism in matters of "policy" is absurd. The Soviet Union was meant to be a union of soviets. A bottom-to-top organization, where the Party would be accountable to the local councils, not the other way round.

Leninism aimed for a state that would wither and die along the way, having turned itself obsolete. No one (much less Lenin) expected that to happen in a fortnight, and it would admittedly make zero sense to abolish central administration without having something solid in place to replace it.

It would take a long, difficult, grueling process, with many backs and forths, especially in a land so vast and with a population so big and diverse (and mostly uneducated), not to mention that foreign powers attacked the revolution with any means at their disposal, including armies. But it was supposed to be a process.

Stalin killed that process. By the thirties, it was the Party that controlled the soviets, top-to-bottom, and a new class of party bureaucrats had predictably emerged and hogged all the power. And in 1935, Stalin claimed that all this, far from being "unfortunate but necessary at the time" or "temporary measure" or whatever, was in fact the goal. The apex. Socialism itself. (As decided by the supreme authority that is the Party Convention. Dissenters will be reeducated immediately.)

REALLY?

Authoritarian left is still left, I'll give you that. But deciding that the entire goal (not the policy, the endgame!) is to boost the state on steroids, instead of at least trying to reduce it, why, that's neither Marxist nor Leninist.

To define socialism as egalitarianism or equality seems to me like a thing only liberals would do, or misguided commies, socialist and anarchists who have been influanced by liberal ideas. Here is an article on that from anarchist perspective: http://attackthesyst...ral-influences/

(I'm socialist, not anarchists, but there are good points in that article about liberalism.)

Socialism is not equality, it is classless society. There is a difference between equality(egalitarianism) and classless society, some people on the left don't realise that. On the right as well.

First, lemme just say that all the anarchists I know would point and laugh at the text you linked, so I wouldn't swear it represents the "anarchist perspective".

Second, I agree with the class/classless system distinction, but I believe you discard egalitarianism too easily. What's the point of striving for a classless society if not for equality? Who benefits, if not all human beings? Egalitarianism has been featured in socialist propaganda since its inception, it's the drive behind it all. If anything, socialism claims that "equality before the law" is NOT ENOUGH - not when the fundamental inequality that's derived from a class system still exists.

The left will be egalitarian or it will be bullshit.

[thecryptile]

China is no longer communist, it's capitalist. Vietnam and North Korea - they might be exploited, or not. I am not in favor of Vietnam or North Korean model anyway. I am not even a communist but socialist. There are a lot of different models in socialism and communism and some are better than others.

Do some research on North Korea and Vietnam. The workers are exploited. A model of socialism that was never tried in the real world is invalid for the purposes of this discussion.

Working class makes stuff, capitalists profit from exploiting working class.

Capitalists had the original ideas for products and gave the workers jobs making products. Not the same as "exploiting".

You didn't answer: Does this mean that only self-employed individuals are free, and anyone who works at a business they don't own is a slave?

Second, I agree with the class/classless system distinction, but I believe you discard egalitarianism too easily. What's the point of striving for a classless society if not for equality? Who benefits, if not all human beings? Egalitarianism has been featured in socialist propaganda since its inception, it's the drive behind it all. If anything, socialism claims that "equality before the law" is NOT ENOUGH - not when the fundamental inequality that's derived from a class system still exists.

In practice, Communism just replaces the old ruling class with a "New Class"-- the elite inner circles of the Communist Party. I read an interesting book ("The New Class") on the subject by Milovan Djilas, a former Communist official and refugee from Tito's Yugoslavia. The classless society has been a lie, so far.

[sologdin]

Stalin killed that process. By the thirties, it was the Party that controlled the soviets, top-to-bottom, and a new class of party bureaucrats had predictably emerged and hogged all the power. And in 1935, Stalin claimed that all this, far from being "unfortunate but necessary at the time" or "temporary measure" or whatever, was in fact the goal. The apex. Socialism itself. (As decided by the supreme authority that is the Party Convention. Dissenters will be reeducated immediately.)

oh, i understand, and think that this is a relevant and useful point. for me, i suppose, the political form of the government is incidental to marxism, rather than intrinsic. stalin's revisionism is not sufficient for me to kick him out, as he is still ostensibly a dialectical materialist whose actions are undertaken on behalf of the international proletariat. if there's policy out there that removes him from that category, and i can think of a few things, well, maybe i'm convinceable on the point.

interesting that this thread has attracted a few folks whom i recognize as interested in left ideas, but also people i suspect of fascistic leanings. (scot is of course sui generis.). so the thread should descend into a street brawl soon.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Knez Snow,

Working for survival can be part of socialism. That is good and is not a problem. problem is exploatation.

Lenin said 'he who does not work neither shall he eat'

Check out my first post in this topic.

What if someone is working but doing Art or Literature the State has determined is of little or no value? My problem with Lenin's statement is that he and his croney's in the Soviet State would have had all the power to determine what qualified as "work". At the end of the day they were no different from the aristocracy they had overthrown.

My ideal would be a society that is made up primarily of employee owned businesses. Those businesses would then compete against each other for dollars on an open market. But each business uses its own moral code to determine how they go about that competition.

I've said (got the phrase from my wife) capitalism is not immoral it is amoral. The individuals and groups within the system can and do choose which morals they will impose upon their businesses.

[thecryptile]

interesting that this thread has attracted a few folks whom i recognize as interested in left ideas, but also people i suspect of fascistic leanings. (scot is of course sui generis.). so the thread should descend into a street brawl soon.

I suspect I'm in the group you suspect of fascist leanings, but I promise to play nice. No ad hominem attacks, I'll keep it like Joe Friday--"just the facts ma'am". It's just that the hammer & sickle "makes me see red" (pun intended).

my position is that left must own stalin and mao, even while reserving the right to disagree with them in any number of particulars.

these people enacted leftwing policies. it's not like they adopted some leftwing slogans simply to get elected and then took a hard right into medievalism, like the NSDAP. mao and stalin were bona fide marxists.

Also, I've got to give you props for this. Most leftists try and morph all Dictators into right-wingers as if tyranny automatically equals "right wing".

[Knez Snow]

First, lemme just say that all the anarchists I know would point and laugh at the text you linked, so I wouldn't swear it represents the "anarchist perspective".

Second, I agree with the class/classless system distinction, but I believe you discard egalitarianism too easily. What's the point of striving for a classless society if not for equality? Who benefits, if not all human beings? Egalitarianism has been featured in socialist propaganda since its inception, it's the drive behind it all. If anything, socialism claims that "equality before the law" is NOT ENOUGH - not when the fundamental inequality that's derived from a class system still exists.

The left will be egalitarian or it will be bullshit.

It is perspective of some anarchist anyway.

Because in classless society there is no exploatation by upper classes.

People are not equal, and never will be and should not. I think my maxim is enough. I still did not reject egalitarianism completly. My point is that it is not essence of socialism, and that it is complicated. I acceot some "improved" form of it, like what i wrote in my first post. "All people should be equal under the law in all those situations in which differences between them are irrelevant". You cannot have any other equality but that under the law.

And to do away with any potentional suspitions, i can give more examples. Race is irrelevant, so people should be equal on that bases. Nationality as well. Religion, to be tolerated as long as they don't cause problems for others. Sex is irrelevant in most situations but not all. That is another, very complicated topic. My point is just to do away with simplistic view of equality as intrinsicly good.

Do some research on North Korea and Vietnam. The workers are exploited. A model of socialism that was never tried in the real world is invalid for the purposes of this discussion.

Capitalists had the original ideas for products and gave the workers jobs making products. Not the same as "exploiting".

You didn't answer: Does this mean that only self-employed individuals are free, and anyone who works at a business they don't own is a slave?In practice, Communism just replaces the old ruling class with a "New Class"-- the elite inner circles of the Communist Party. I read an interesting book ("The New Class") on the subject by Milovan Djilas, a former Communist official and refugee from Tito's Yugoslavia. The classless society has been a lie, so far.

Yes, even systems that have not been tryed as of now are relevant since we are discussing politics.

Tesla was not a capitalist, and his ideas are being produced. Inventors invent; woking class works, and capitalists exploit all.

Other way would be if means of productions are collective ownership and you have free acces to them.

Yes, it is true that vanguard party has a potential to turn into oligarchy (iron law of oligarchy) and it did happen in USSR and Yugoslavia as well. That is why perhaps other systems should be used.

George Orwell made that point in the animal farm, but people often forget that he WAS a socialist.

Anyway, those have been tries by communists, and with vanguard party. It can be improved upon or other model can be chosen.

Knez Snow,

What if someone is working but doing Art or Literature the State has determined is of little or no value? My problem with Lenin's statement is that he and his croney's in the Soviet State would have had all the power to determine what qualified as "work". At the end of the day they were no different from the aristocracy they had overthrown.

My ideal would be a society that is made up primarily of employee owned businesses. And those businesses compete against each other for dollars on an open market. But each business uses its own moral code to determine how they go about that competition.

I've said (got the phrase from my wife) capitalism is not immoral it is amoral. The individuals and groups within the system can and do choose which morals they will impose upon their businesses.

I did not quote Lenin to agree with him but to make a point that socialism is not neceserily about equal income for everyone regardless of anything.

Again, there are other models of socialism in which state does not control absolutley everything.

Your idea is right wing libertarian utopia. What would be a difference between a buisness and a criminal gang, or small state?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Knez Snow,

Well, the State determines what is "criminal" if what is sold (drugs, alcohol, etc.) is not the deciding factor but the manner of sale (force, strong-arm tactics, etc.) then the State's purpose is to protect people from coersion not to prevent them from buying what they want. Those "street-gangs" would be legitimate businesses. Prohibition and the current "war on drugs" show how poorly attempting to "protect" people from their desire to purchase "illegal" substances can go. Instead use the State to protect people's ability to choose something or not from coercive tactics like "protection" rackets.

Idealistic, yes, but no more so than the belief that socialism imposed by the Stats can erase all social classes.