Communism and Socialism

[dannyt1251]

It's getting dangerously close to my A-Level History exam and i'm still unsure about the difference between socalism and communism. Can anyone help me out?

[humph42]

I believe Socialism in Marxist terms is the stage of transformation between capitalism and communism, althought they can essentially mean the same thing. Depends where your coming from. I'm sure Danish will be able to shed more light though.

[Damrod]

Two links that might help with background info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Always remember, Wiki is your friend :thumb:

[coheneran]

I think the difference is that communism is when the state has absolute authoritarian control over the economy, and socialism is when the economy is controlled and kept equal by the masses, but I'm probably wrong.

[Dave de Sylvia]

The term 'socialism' existed before Marx came along. It's an umbrella term for various forms of non-capitalistic notions of social and economic exchange, the most famous of which is Marx's theory on the gradual reduction of the state as a result of the abolition of capitalism.

Marx redefined socialism as the form of exchange where a state still exists but instead of being controlled by capitalist interests the so-called workers oversee the mechanisms of state.

Communism is the end product of the abolition of capitalism, where the end of government-controlled trade and private ownership have rendered the existence of government obselete and we're left with a utopia of some sort where everything runs fine because capital is the source of all villainy.

[coheneran]

Well, money is the root cause of almost every crime nowadays, from the petty shoplifter to the corporate crook.

[Dave de Sylvia]

So? Wealth and resources would still exist in communism and there'd still be people capable of subjugating others for them.

[coheneran]

So? Wealth and resources would still exist in communism and there'd still be people capable of subjugating others for them.

But when everyone has enough, what more does one person need? Capitalism creates unnecessary greed (under the pretense of "competition") which causes poverty and private wealth, whose contrasting effects demand more greed.

[Dave de Sylvia]

You're confusing the creation of greed with the intensification of greed, and missing the fact that competing interests frequently have beneficial effects to all concerned.

[coheneran]

You're confusing the creation of greed with the intensification of greed, and missing the fact that competing interests frequently have beneficial effects to all concerned.

Competition between companies is fine for the companies, who utilise different methods to make a profit higher than their competitors, like robotics, and then what you get is workers being laid off. Overall, capitalism benefits those who already have power, and does nothing for the worker.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I want money.
My employer wants money.
I provide services to my employer, so my employer can make money.
My employer provides me with the means to provide my service and passes money on to me.

Regardless of unequal distribution, that's basically a mutually beneficial relationship.

[Iskandar]

Socialism is, as SOP said, an umbrella term for alternatives to capitalism. Socialism is a broad term, but can generally be applied to economic systems based on the principles of fiscal equality, justice and communalizm.

and we're left with a utopia of some sort where everything runs fine because capital is the source of all villainy.
The emphasis is more on the abolition of class systems. The 'utopian' aspects arise from the lack of class struggle and vindication of the worker.

Marx did theorize that a truly communism society would not need capital; however, he envisioned that as occuring only in the final stage of true communism.
communism is when the state has absolute authoritarian control over the economy
That was what happened in the USSR, but it was never Marx's intention.

You have defined the term "command economy" very well though, which is a concept that occurs in some (authoritarian) forms of socialism.

[coheneran]

Dropper cleared it all up!

[-1up!-]

The difference between socialism and communism is Tway hates the latter more.

Many critics of communism claim it has never worked in reality. Much of them ignore that Marxist communism has never been applied anywhere, and use Stalinist as the model for how "communism can never work".

[Dave de Sylvia]

More frequently they use the "Marxist communism has never been applied anywhere" bit as the model for how "communism can never work".

[coheneran]

It's a black swan situation.

[-1up!-]

More frequently they use the "Marxist communism has never been applied anywhere" bit as the model for how "communism can never work".
Which is worse. How could one logically claim that something can "never work" if it hasn't even been tried? :lol:

[pikester]

It really depends what you mean by "work". Under Stalin, the Industrial production in the Soviet Union greatly increased (except for during WWII). See the quote from Wikipedia for a basic idea. The standard of living for those who managed to not be purged by Stalin also improved. Through Collectivization, agricultural production largely increased (although they never really did manage to grow enough.) They had the military power to repel Nazi Germany (although at great cost).

Really, the only area that Stalinist Communism didn't "work" that I can think of is in the area of Civil Liberties and Freedoms and the like.

So, it really depends what you mean by "worked".

The mobilization of resources by state planning augmented the country's industrial base. From 1928 to 1932, pig iron output, necessary for development of nonexistent industrial infrastructure rose from 3.3 million to 10 million tons per year. Coal, the integral product fueling modern economies and Stalinist industrialization, successfully rose from 35.4 million to 75 million tons, and output of iron ore rose from 5.7 million to 19 million tons. A number of industrial complexes such as Magnitogorsk and Kuznetsk, the Moscow and Gorky automobile plants, the Urals and Kramatorsk heavy machinery plants, and Kharkov, Stalingrad and Cheliabinsk tractor plants had been built or were under construction.

Based largely on these figures the Five Year Industrial Production Plan had been fulfilled by 93.7 percent in only four years, while parts devoted to heavy-industry part were fulfilled by 108%. Stalin in December 1932 declared the plan a success to the Central Committee, since increases in the output of coal and iron would fuel future development.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Which is worse. How could one logically claim that something can "never work" if it hasn't even been tried? :lol:
Induction.

[Atomic Rain]

Which is worse. How could one logically claim that something can "never work" if it hasn't even been tried? :lol:

clearly it must be unnattainable.

[Jharaski]

The problems with communism lie within humanity's imperfections. Same thing with capitalism. However, when capitalism goes wrong, a few people starve or don't have a place to sleep. But when communism goes wrong, half the country dies.

[Iskandar]

However, when capitalism goes wrong, a few people starve or don't have a place to sleep.
Far worse things have happened when capitalism has gone wrong.

[-1up!-]

I see a link from capitalism to colonization. And Africa's a political ****hole mainly because of it.

[dislocated214]

In the Marxist sense:

Socialism - The stage after workers fight their bosses (the bourgeois) and redistribute wealth. Theoretically, workers are in power in this stage...however from a Leninist viewpoint the Communist Party would be acting as the vanguard for the workers, and in a Luxembourg/neo-Trotskyite it would be the workers themselves.

Most anarchists reject the socialist state and want to jump right ahead to the following stages:

Communism - The future state after socialism in which there are no social classes and no state. Workers control the means of production (things which you use to produce/work).

[dislocated214]

I think the difference is that communism is when the state has absolute authoritarian control over the economy, and socialism is when the economy is controlled and kept equal by the masses, but I'm probably wrong.
No, socialism (in the Marxist sense) is an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism.

Socialism (in the capitalist sense) is probably defined as a less-harsh form of communism in which the upper-class still has the majority of wealth/political power however they try to help the lower classes out (Chavez, Morales, Zapatero types).

[Reaganista]

the difference is one is a horrible idea and the other is the worst idea ever

[Futue te Ipsum]

Which is worse. How could one logically claim that something can "never work" if it hasn't even been tried? :lol:by using our brain.

[dislocated214]

The problems with communism lie within humanity's imperfections. Same thing with capitalism. However, when capitalism goes wrong, a few people starve or don't have a place to sleep. But when communism goes wrong, half the country dies.
Come on, get off it.

We have third world countries because of capitalism. We have poverty all over the world because of capitalism. We have children dying of diseases like the common cold because of capitalism.

I got 99 problems but a biatch ain't one.

Bad capitalism is not better than bad communism.

[Reaganista]

it hasn't never been tried, it's never worked.

there's been a lot of marxist revolutions. they all suck.

[Reaganista]

We have third world countries because of capitalism.
um actually the 'third world' evolved as a result of the cold war

dammit

[Futue te Ipsum]

Come on, get off it.

We have third world countries because of capitalism. We have poverty all over the world because of capitalism. We have children dying of diseases like the common cold because of capitalism.

I got 99 problems but a biatch ain't one.It's nice how you blame problems that were around before a system came about on the system they are currently under. It's a really fair, open-minded way of doing things.

[Iskandar]

it hasn't never been tried, it's never worked.

there's been a lot of marxist revolutions. they all suck.
That would be because there were people like Pol Pot and Mao behind them.

The Soviet Union would very likely have turned out better had Trotsky assumed leadership after Lenin's death.

We have third world countries because of capitalism. We have poverty all over the world because of capitalism. We have children dying of diseases like the common cold because of capitalism.
Technically, imperialism is responsible for the condition of the Third World. Capitalism paradoxically allows an opportunity for some nations to improve their lot (at the expense of others) and hampers others in developing.

[Reaganista]

That would be because there were people like Pol Pot and Mao behind them.

I agree, communists are really bad people and ****ty leaders who should never be given power over anything.


The Soviet Union would very likely have turned out better had Trotsky assumed leadership after Lenin's death.

No they still would've lost.

[DBoons Ghost]

It's nice how you blame problems that were around before a system came about on the system they are currently under. It's a really fair, open-minded way of doing things.


They blame Capitalism for every one of the world's problems.

Africa was dying long before capitalism. The Belgians should have left them to their tribal ways before they meddled first.

Actually, who the hell knows how long other countries been meddling with Africa.

But it's ok to blame America and captialsm. May as well.

[Atomic Rain]

however, if the whole world was communist, we'd essentially all be third world countries. The tertiary sector collapses when there is no money to manage, and i doubt the third world countries would be that much better off anyway.

[dislocated214]

That would be because there were people like Pol Pot and Mao behind them.

The Soviet Union would very likely have turned out better had Trotsky assumed leadership after Lenin's death.


Technically, imperialism is responsible for the condition of the Third World. Capitalism paradoxically allows an opportunity for some nations to improve their lot (at the expense of others) and hampers others in developing.
I put capitalism and imperialism hand in hand. I also put capitalism and a drive for profit as hand in hand too, however the drive for profit also existed in feudalism.

I was just saying that the Jester stated when capitalism goes wrong only a few starve, while that is not the case. When communism goes wrong, it is true Stalinist regimes are terrible, however they are not always better under bad capitalism either.


Basically what I am saying is that imperialism and conquest in Africa/Middle East/Latin America set these civilizations off from social evolution. Their destiny was altered by the drive for profit, and they may never recover because of the lack of resources and because of their altered paths.

[DBoons Ghost]

I put capitalism and imperialism hand in hand. I also put capitalism and a drive for profit as hand in hand too, however the drive for profit also existed in feudalism.

I was just saying that the Jester stated when capitalism goes wrong only a few starve, while that is not the case. When communism goes wrong, it is true Stalinist regimes are terrible, however they are not always better under bad capitalism either.


He's right though. If at least one smart unselfish person was in power in Africa, you'd not have these problems. How can you give a free market to a people who have such awesome traditional tribal ways a means to make money, if only everyone did what they were supposed to do? It really is that simple you know..

You put some indiginous wacko in charge, and add fools like Bob Geldof to the mix, and you have Live Aid buying AK-47s on the free market, and food to feed troops while they let their own people starve.

Just like they sold their own people into slavery. Or is that too far off topic? You can learn a lot about a people by looking into their history.

[dislocated214]

They blame Capitalism for every one of the world's problems.

Africa was dying long before capitalism. The Belgians should have left them to their tribal ways before they meddled first.

Actually, who the hell knows how long other countries been meddling with Africa.

But it's ok to blame America and captialsm. May as well.
So why do you and others blame communism for why Cuba/China/Soviet Union turned out "so bad"?

[dislocated214]

however, if the whole world was communist, we'd essentially all be third world countries. The tertiary sector collapses when there is no money to manage, and i doubt the third world countries would be that much better off anyway.
Marxist theory is that under communism we would all be first world, or better yet no-world because there would be nothing to compare it to...except maybe the past.


Just like they sold their own people into slavery. Or is that too far off topic? You can learn a lot about a people by looking into their history.

You can say the same about Europe, as well. Europe was haunting for almost two or three centuries of internal religious disputes and thousands or millions of people died. Does that mean Europeans deserved to be in that condition? No. Do Africans deserve to be in the condition they are in for formerly selling slaves hundreds of years ago?
No.

Basically what my opinion is, under capitalism there will always be poverty, there will always be greed, etc. Under the present socio-economic situation there will always be third-world countries as well, unless something is done with this system and this situation and it is changed. My $0.02

[DBoons Ghost]

So why do you and others blame communism for why Cuba/China/Soviet Union turned out "so bad"?


You'll never find me saying that. I think.. I might have in the past..

I have never said that. China turned out ok for those that chose to remain. However, I work with a lot of Chinese folks who got their whole lives torn apart so they could share all they slaved over for generations to people who didn't earn it. Now? Maybe it's working out. BUt most of the hard workers fled for America to start over. Plus, the majority of palaces and mansions in China were given to the higher echolons of Government, just like Russia. Yay corruption!

As far Russia, it would have worked if they had something to sell. I mean, there's only so long you force people into making tanks and military machines before you either have to invade another country to make the economy work, or give up and let people be free. Why were they so corrupt? Why was it ok for the government to have all the good stuff but they let the people have crap? Sure, the people were on an even scale, all poor and miserable. Guess you had to know the right people. Sounds like a fun system to me.

Give them a better idea of industry the likes of which a free market does, and maybe... oh wait.. that's not possible with Communism.

I don't know a lot about Cuba, so I avoid most if not all discussion on it.

I love the idea of both systems, but mankind will never allow it. If it happens before I die, it will truly be an amazing day.

Blaming all the worlds problems on Captialism is so asinine and ignorant I can barely read half this crap.

If Capitalism didn't work, America would be just another Europe. However, people flocked here because they believe every man is NOT created equal. Because, they aren't.

We all know this now.

[Iskandar]

I agree, communists are really bad people and ****ty leaders who should never be given power over anything.


No they still would've lost.
See, you fail because you refuse to recognize the obvious distinctions between Communist leaders.

Communist leaders can be judged by their adherence to Marx. Trotsky was an orthodox Marxist whose ambition was to create a society exactly as set out in the Manifesto. Stalin's ambition was to go apeshit and centralize all power to himself.

[DBoons Ghost]

You know, I just wanna say one thing.

This is silly. We can only argue this subject so many times.

We all know Socialism and Communism are fantastic systems, if humanity would just bend.

I support Capitalism because it works for me, and anyone who's argued with me knows I'm a selfish prick. It's not worth even going back and forth.

[Iskandar]

You know, I just wanna say one thing.

This is silly. We can only argue this subject so many times.

We all know Socialism and Communism are fantastic systems, if humanity would just bend.

I support Capitalism because it works for me, and anyone who's argued with me knows I'm a selfish prick. It's not worth even going back and forth.
You are right. If Tway makes more than a couple of consecutive inane posts in a row (and he often does), I drop any argument with him.

[Jharaski]

We have third world countries because of capitalism. We have poverty all over the world because of capitalism. We have children dying of diseases like the common cold because of capitalism.


No we don't. Nike paying children 7 cents a day to make shoes isn't responsible for their horrible conditions, rather it's more than they would be making without their "job."

Tell me how with communism there would be no third world countries. Because as I recall, Zimbabwe, a communistic country, is in horrible condition. Maybe just because Mugabe is an idiot.

[DBoons Ghost]

You are right. If Tway makes more than a couple of consecutive inane posts in a row (and he often does), I drop any argument with him.


Dude, I can't even argue with Tway.

I dunno how you guys do it sometimes..

:thumb:

[Reaganista]

See, you fail because you refuse to recognize the obvious distinctions between Communist leaders.

Communist leaders can be judged by their adherence to Marx. Trotsky was an orthodox Marxist whose ambition was to create a society exactly as set out in the Manifesto. Stalin's ambition was to go ape**** and centralize all power to himself.
trotsky only pretended that he wanted to adhere to marx because he was out of power. once he got in power he would've invariably used his unchecked power to his own advantage. machiavelli went over all this like an eternity ago

[Jharaski]

Dude, I can't even argue with Tway.

I dunno how you guys do it sometimes..

:thumb:

It is tough arguing with him, but fortunately for me, we don't often disagree.

[DBoons Ghost]

It is tough arguing with him, but fortunately for me, we don't often disagree.


Yeah likewise.

However, anyone who don't like Pavement should have their heads checked.. But that my friends.. is another forum.

[Iskandar]

No we don't. Nike paying children 7 cents a day to make shoes isn't responsible for their horrible conditions, rather it's more than they would be making without their "job."
At that point we have to ask, Why do children feel the need to seek jobs in these horrible factories? The answer is that families from undeveloped Eastern nations desire expensive Western goods that they don't really need.
Tell me how with communism there would be no third world countries.
The end goal of communism is worldwide economic equality including a good standard of living for all.

It is precisely because Mugabe is an idiot, by the way.
Dude, I can't even argue with Tway.

I dunno how you guys do it sometimes..
I can't. It's talking to a rock.

Usually I start ignoring his quotes of my posts after a few of them.

trotsky only pretended that he wanted to adhere to marx because he was out of power. once he got in power he would've invariably used his unchecked power to his own advantage. machiavelli went over all this like an eternity ago
Er then why did he adhere to Marx while he was in power, and then when he was out of power with no hope of ever regaining it?

[dislocated214]

I have never said that. China turned out ok for those that chose to remain. However, I work with a lot of Chinese folks who got their whole lives torn apart so they could share all they slaved over for generations to people who didn't earn it. Now? Maybe it's working out. BUt most of the hard workers fled for America to start over. Plus, the majority of palaces and mansions in China were given to the higher echolons of Government, just like Russia. Yay corruption!

As far Russia, it would have worked if they had something to sell. I mean, there's only so long you force people into making tanks and military machines before you either have to invade another country to make the economy work, or give up and let people be free. Why were they so corrupt? Why was it ok for the government to have all the good stuff but they let the people have crap? Sure, the people were on an even scale, all poor and miserable. Guess you had to know the right people. Sounds like a fun system to me.

Give them a better idea of industry the likes of which a free market does, and maybe... oh wait.. that's not possible with Communism.


I love the idea of both systems, but mankind will never allow it. If it happens before I die, it will truly be an amazing day.

Blaming all the worlds problems on Captialism is so asinine and ignorant I can barely read half this crap.

If Capitalism didn't work, America would be just another Europe. However, people flocked here because they believe every man is NOT created equal. Because, they aren't.

We all know this now.
I agree with the second paragraph a lot. I disagree with every almost every aspect of the Soviet, Chinese, and Cuban bureacracy. I think its horrible. You won't find me making an argument for it either, however you will find me pointing out on numerous occasions that it is not communism, socialism, or even Marxism.

I don't even know whether socialism will happen in my lifetime or not, nobody does. But it is what I think is the best system to benefit mankind equally and has the least amount of suffering involved (IMO).

You have your opinions about society and economics and I have mine. Let's agree to disagree...for now. ;)

[Jharaski]

At that point we have to ask, Why do children feel the need to seek jobs in these horrible factories? The answer is that families from undeveloped Eastern nations desire expensive Western goods that they don't really need.

The end goal of communism is worldwide economic equality including a good standard of living for all.

It is precisely because Mugabe is an idiot, by the way.


Children are often forced into it, sadly. It's the only way their family can eat. I'm talking about the really poor areas, ones that barely have basic necessities, nevermind expensive goods. I don't see how communism could really help them, unless it spread over THERE with a good leader. America has enough money to feed them. If the US became communist I wouldn't expect any more aid than we give already.

It is sad, though. Communism is the perfect form of government - on paper. But idiots and madmen get into power and it goes haywire. I see capitalism as the safer choice.

[Iskandar]

Children are often forced into it, sadly. It's the only way their family can eat. I'm talking about the really poor areas, ones that barely have basic necessities, nevermind expensive goods.
Sometimes, but don't forget that often it's because of a desire to attain a Western lifestyle that simply isn't possible at their stage of development.
I don't see how communism could really help them, unless it spread over THERE with a good leader.
It could, but unfortunately it seems even more prone to failure in poor nations.

What is most likely to help them is syndicalism - a strong pro-union sentiment.
It is sad, though. Communism is the perfect form of government - on paper. But idiots and madmen get into power and it goes haywire. I see capitalism as the safer choice.
That's why more modern forms of socialism formed, which try to avoid the pitfalls of Communism.

Don't forget that socialism is relatively new. It took capitalism a while to become palatial.

[Jharaski]

Sometimes, but don't forget that often it's because of a desire to attain a Western lifestyle that simply isn't possible at their stage of development.

It could, but unfortunately it seems even more prone to failure in poor nations.

Then let me be a jerk and say their fault, they should learn to eat before getting a Benz. :)


What is most likely to help them is syndicalism - a strong pro-union sentiment.


Hopefully.


That's why more modern forms of socialism formed, which try to avoid the pitfalls of Communism.

Don't forget that socialism is relatively new. It took capitalism a while to become palatial.

I used to be socialist, actually. But the whole janitor making the same as a doctor thing... didn't seem too possible to me. Though I certainly support anything that gives the power to the common people. Just because I scored like a 7 on the political compass, it doesn't mean I'm a nutjob completely-free market, screw the people who don't make it on their own, advocate. I support capitalism but the people should have a ton of control. I think there's less opportunity for things to go wrong.

[dislocated214]

No we don't. Nike paying children 7 cents a day to make shoes isn't responsible for their horrible conditions, rather it's more than they would be making without their "job."

Tell me how with communism there would be no third world countries. Because as I recall, Zimbabwe, a communistic country, is in horrible condition. Maybe just because Mugabe is an idiot.
Just ask yourself this question...are there social classes in Zimbabwe, Cuba, China? Yes, there are. So therefore the first basis of communism does not even exist. Stating these countries are communist is like saying that 15th century Spain was true Christianity at its best.

[Iskandar]

Then let me be a jerk and say their fault, they should learn to eat before getting a Benz. :)
It's more like cell phones and sneakers. Beh.
I used to be socialist, actually. But the whole janitor making the same as a doctor thing... didn't seem too possible to me.
That's not socialism, that's egalitarianism gone nuts.

Equality is a classless society. It is not everyone making exactly the same salary.

[Jharaski]

Just ask yourself this question...are there social classes in Zimbabwe, Cuba, China? Yes, there are. So therefore the first basis of communism does not even exist. Stating these countries are communist is like saying that 15th century Spain was true Christianity at its best.

And name me one modern true communist nation. My point is that it won't happen, and rulers like Mugabe are about as close as we'll get, sadly. Excuse me for my pessimism...

[Jharaski]

It's more like cell phones and sneakers. Beh.

That's not socialism, that's egalitarianism gone nuts.

Equality is a classless society. It is not everyone making exactly the same salary.


Still you get the point. :p When people get flashy things before food, it's their fault that they starve.

And then I guess I am still kind of socialist.

[Iskandar]

And name me one modern true communist nation. My point is that it won't happen, and rulers like Mugabe are about as close as we'll get, sadly. Excuse me for my pessimism...
Nah. Some nations were more successful than others at it (pre-Stalin USSR vs. Cambodia, for example). I have reason to believe there will be a successful, free, democratic socialist nation with a strong economy before the century is out.

Already it's improving. Venezuala isn't great; but it's definitely a shot better than the Cultural Revolution.

[Jharaski]

Nah. Some nations were more successful than others at it (pre-Stalin USSR vs. Cambodia, for example). I have reason to believe there will be a successful, free, democratic socialist nation with a strong economy before the century is out.

Already it's improving. Venezuala isn't great; but it's definitely a shot better than the Cultural Revolution.

Even though Chez is a terrible murderer, but hey, if it works..

[dislocated214]

And name me one modern true communist nation. My point is that it won't happen, and rulers like Mugabe are about as close as we'll get, sadly. Excuse me for my pessimism...
There are none, Dropper kinda hit it on the head.

[Iskandar]

Even though Chez is a terrible murderer, but hey, if it works..
I have misgivings about him but so far I can't find sufficient evidence of that.

Most efforts to indict him are quite juvenile.

[dislocated214]

Even though Chez is a terrible murderer, but hey, if it works..
Did you see "This Revolution Will Not Be Televised". It's biased toward Chavez of course, but it is an interesting watch.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=the+revolution+chavez

[Jharaski]

Did you see "This Revolution Will Not Be Televised". It's biased toward Chavez of course, but it is an interesting watch.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=the+revolution+chavez

Nah. I mean, I don't think he's the worst leader in power right now, but he's not the greatest guy in the world. (yeah, I do acknowledge that neither is Bush) I might look at it sometime. But I tend to avoid bias, even if it is bias in my favor.

[dislocated214]

Well, part of the movie is about media bias in Venezuela and in the United States.

[coheneran]

Bolivia is doing pretty well for itself as a socialist country.

[Matt?]

socalism lol

[coheneran]

Shut up spellcheck boy.

People talk about Chavez like he's a stone cold killer, and even though I don't think politicians are that nice a bunch of people, I've yet to see any sources on him murdering political opponents.

[guitrguy]

Shut up spellcheck boy.

People talk about Chavez like he's a stone cold killer, and even though I don't think politicians are that nice a bunch of people, I've yet to see any sources on him murdering political opponents.
Did you hear about Chavez pledging support for the Peruvian incumbent. Once that happened his support plummented and Garcia took the election.

[coheneran]

Did you hear about Chavez pledging support for the Peruvian incumbent. Once that happened his support plummented and Garcia took the election.

I'm afraid you'll have to tell me the whole story, my friend.

[guitrguy]

I'll link it you

EDIT: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0606/p01s03-woam.html
There you go.

[Iscariot]

I look at it the same way Stalin did:

Socialism is the period of Proletariat dictatorship that will teach the bourgeoise to live a life free of greed, and once that's established the dictatorship is removed and you're left with communism.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I look at it the same way Stalin did:
Nice philosophy >_>

[coheneran]

I look at it the same way Stalin did:

Socialism is the period of Proletariat dictatorship that will teach the bourgeoise to live a life free of greed, and once that's established the dictatorship is removed and you're left with communism.

That's where Stalin made a mistake. He let himself see the bourgeoise not as people, but as a whole other race that needs to be taught to be nice. The bourgeiose are the rich and powerful, and by creating a dictatorship Stalin created a bourgeios class of people.

[Iscariot]

That's where Stalin made a mistake. He let himself see the bourgeoise not as people, but as a whole other race that needs to be taught to be nice. The bourgeiose are the rich and powerful, and by creating a dictatorship Stalin created a bourgeios class of people.

You have to have someone to shape the state into the proper condition to transition comfortably to communism. If the state and the people in it are unprepared, they can never move to that level of the system. That's where the proletariat dictatorship comes in handy. Plus, even Marx made several references to a socialist dictatorship in his later years of study.

[coheneran]

I'll link it you

EDIT: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0606/p01s03-woam.html
There you go.

HOLY SHITTING GOD IN HIGH HEAVEN, DANIEL ORTEGA'S RUNNING FOR NICARAGUAN PRESIDENCY!

Back to Chavez, I can see why he didn't support Garcia:

"García's come-from-behind victory in the runoff caps a long road to political rehabilitation that began when he left office in 1990 with only 7 percent support after presiding over what was by all accounts one of the worst administrations in modern Peruvian history.

During García's first presidency, economic collapse spawned political violence at the hands of two guerrilla groups and fueled a drug-trafficking boom.

He spent most of the 1990s out of the country, living in political exile in Colombia and France after his successor, Alberto Fujimori, tried to have him arrested on corruption charges. He returned to Peru in 2001, narrowly losing the presidency then to Alejandro Toledo."

And lol, this article is from a Christian Science website.

So, exactly what makes Chavez so evil?

[coheneran]

You have to have someone to shape the state into the proper condition to transition comfortably to communism. If the state and the people in it are unprepared, they can never move to that level of the system. That's where the proletariat dictatorship comes in handy. Plus, even Marx made several references to a socialist dictatorship in his later years of study.

Yes, but Marx also had peaceful means to Communism. I think it's easier if we think of Communism as the final utopian product of the production line that is socialism. Stalin tried to force Communism onto Russia, when what was needed was a long process in which society slowly changed. Communism can work, I know it, but not under these circumstances. How can Cuba ever have real elections when our governments are so intent on meddling with their internal politics? Same for South and Central America.

[guitrguy]

And lol, this article is from a Christian Science website.

So, exactly what makes Chavez so evil?
Funny thing is its an independent paper. They have article Titled Empire builders and its about neo-cons.

[dislocated214]

You have to have someone to shape the state into the proper condition to transition comfortably to communism. If the state and the people in it are unprepared, they can never move to that level of the system. That's where the proletariat dictatorship comes in handy. Plus, even Marx made several references to a socialist dictatorship in his later years of study.
What he meant by dictatorship is one class. Capitalism, in Marxist perspective, is the dictatorship of the bourgeois (or capitalists). Socialism, on the other hand, would be dictatorship of the proleteriat (or working class). This would be a dictatorship by the CLASS, just like capitalism is. Except instead of operating for the bourgeois, as in capitalism, it would operate for workers and by workers.

Get it? Uh-huh.

[Reaganista]

And lol, this article is from a Christian Science website.

you mean the 7-time pulitzer prize winning international paper widely known for it's attention to detail and factual accuracy in foreign affairs?

[coheneran]

you mean the 7-time pulitzer prize winning international paper widely known for it's attention to detail and factual accuracy in foreign affairs?

I don't know, do I?

[Reaganista]

hahahaha you think you count?

lol

when I say widely known for foreign affairs coverage I mean among foreign affairs professionals, not internet hobos

[coheneran]

I still think Christian Science is a cop-out.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

What he meant by dictatorship is one class. Capitalism, in Marxist perspective, is the dictatorship of the bourgeois (or capitalists). Socialism, on the other hand, would be dictatorship of the proleteriat (or working class). This would be a dictatorship by the CLASS, just like capitalism is. Except instead of operating for the bourgeois, as in capitalism, it would operate for workers and by workers.
wow that Marx guy was pretty ****ing stupid

[coheneran]

Let me guess, you're one of the people who thinks Einstein was just good at adding sums and that Shakespeare should have stuck to limerics?

[-1up!-]

wow that Marx guy was pretty ****ing stupid
Fill us in on your genius!

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Let me guess, you're one of the people who thinks Einstein was just good at adding sums and that Shakespeare should have stuck to limerics?yeah that follows

[Damrod]

Let me guess: Your friends call you "a retard"? :rolleyes:

Care for giving an explanation for your views? Otherwise, please do us a favor and leave this thread be

[SalientArbiter]

holy ****, come back to these forums after a year hiatus and the first thing that I see is one of these threads again.

Why don't people know how to use the search function? I can distinctly remember at least 4 of these threads, and with real discussion as well.

[Reaganista]

I still think Christian Science is a cop-out.
um
the paper's not about christian science and it's news reporting division has no affiliation with any religion

and christian science is nearer a cult than a cop-out. you seem to have no idea of what you're talking about

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Let me guess: Your friends call you "a retard"?
Language difficulties?

[!aaa!]

Communism is like a scotch pancake. There's a good side and a not so nice side. I suppose you could also say that everybody gets a piece.

[Atomic Rain]

Communism is like a scotch pancake. There's a good side and a not so nice side. I suppose you could also say that everybody gets a piece.

morelike, a scotch pancake with cyanide instead of butter

Everybody gets to east some, but chances are some of you won't live to enjoy it

[coheneran]

and christian science is nearer a cult than a cop-out. you seem to have no idea of what you're talking about

I know, but I didn't want to seem weak by admitting I was wrong at criticising something I know nothing about (ie. the paper).

But Christian Science is a cop-out. It's basically admitting that God could exist, but also that logic has a point. Like agnosticism.

[Der Übermensch]

Chrisitan Science isn't about logic!! Its saying God will save you if you are meant to be saved, so don't bother treating even the most easily curable diseases...

But anyways, Socialism + Communism
Socialism is the same thing as communism - they both are general terms for a closed market economic system, although socialism is often used when meant in a softer implication, such as the Scandinavian countries like Sweden.
Communism is a socialist/communist economic system implemented in a country run by an authoratarian/totalitarian governmental model.

[coheneran]

Chrisitan Science isn't about logic!! Its saying God will save you if you are meant to be saved, so don't bother treating even the most easily curable diseases...

I'm digging myself a hole...

That's the last time I comment on a subject without researching it first.:(

[Reaganista]

Yeah christian science is about avoiding modern medicine at all costs

[Der Übermensch]

Christian Scientists die of things like Chicken Pox, TB, Pneumonia, and other things that, while deadly if unchecked, can be easily treated or prevented with modern medicine...

[dustindow]

Christian Scientists die of things like Chicken Pox, TB, Pneumonia, and other things that, while deadly if unchecked, can be easily treated or prevented with modern medicine...

Same logic as the guy who appeared on some major news show and said the homosexuals that died in Iraq deserve to die, some people...

[coheneran]

Was he talking about the fag US soldiers or the fag civilians?

[Der Übermensch]

I assume he's talking about Fred Phelps, who says soldiers are dying because our country loves Fags, or something like that. He and his followers go to protest at soldiers funerals.

His website is www.godhatesfags.com seriously the most disgusting page ever put onto the internet.

[coheneran]

I assume he's talking about Fred Phelps, who says soldiers are dying because our country loves Fags, or something like that. He and his followers go to protest at soldiers funerals.

His website is www.godhatesfags.com seriously the most disgusting page ever put onto the internet.

Oh, haha! Is he that guy that makes rainbow coloured placards that say AIDS Cures Gays and he has like fifty grandkids?

Link is broken.

[Der Übermensch]

link should work fine... does for me...
make sure ur browser isn't inserting http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/ before it.

[pooble]

man.. threads on this topic have really gone down hill from what i remember.

[coheneran]

link should work fine... does for me...
make sure ur browser isn't inserting http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/ before it.

Ah, now it works, thanks.

Oh, the site's icon is an upside down American flag. Isn't that an anti-US thing?

Lol, this guy's such a dickass scumsucker:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/feb2006/20060225_typical-fag-soldiers.pdf

[Reaganista]

of course it's an anti-US thing

that's their whole reason for existing

[coheneran]

I thought that guy was a "jesus is an American" kind of scumsucker.

[Reaganista]

no you should probably stop coming to conclusion based on 0 information

[coheneran]

True. But I remember seeing some pics of an old guy in a cowboy hat holding a placard that said God Hates Fags, and I immediately assumed it was him.

[guitrguy]

True. But I remember seeing some pics of an old guy in a cowboy hat holding a placard that said God Hates Fags, and I immediately assumed it was him.
Phelps is a god damned retard.

[Iskandar]

Oh, the site's icon is an upside down American flag. Isn't that an anti-US thing?
Nah, it's often misinterpreted. An upside-down flag is an international sign of a nation in distress, like S.O.S. for ships.

[coheneran]

Nah, it's often misinterpreted. An upside-down flag is an international sign of a nation in distress, like S.O.S. for ships.

:angry:I checked, "gullible" is in the dictionary, your lies won't work on me!

[Iskandar]

:angry:I checked, "gullible" is in the dictionary, your lies won't work on me!
:p It's true, actually. An upside-down flag is a symbol that a nation is in distress. The thing is that it's been misinterpreted so much in America that they think it's an anti-American symbol.

[Reaganista]

it is. pro-american people don't think america is in distress

[I Am a Hat]

communism is bad because black people deserve equal rights but thats also why socialism is good because i think its good for people to be social you could learn alot from people

[Reaganista]

haha being a ****ing idiot on the internet is funny

[I Am a Hat]

i'm cool aren't i

[Ghostfire3]

Does anyone else wish America would become Socialist? I know The Tway does.

[Reaganista]

If American socialism included them withdrawing from world affairs and becoming more nationalistic, I'd be opposed.
I think a proletariat united against one enemy, the US, is more likely to become conscious than a proletarian with dozens of different enemies.

[Ghostfire3]

If American socialism included them withdrawing from world affairs and becoming more nationalistic, I'd be opposed.
I think a proletariat united against one enemy, the US, is more likely to become conscious than a proletarian with dozens of different enemies.

Yeah, America is already nationalistic enough as it is. And why would America becoming socialist make it more nationalistic? Also, I thought you were pretty nationalistic yourself, so why would you be opposed to that?

[coheneran]

:p It's true, actually. An upside-down flag is a symbol that a nation is in distress. The thing is that it's been misinterpreted so much in America that they think it's an anti-American symbol.

Those tricksy Englanders. The Union Jack looks the same upside down! As does the Israeli one.

[Atomic Rain]

Those tricksy Englanders. The Union Jack looks the same upside down! As does the Israeli one.

It doesn't quite. Putting it up the wrong way up is usually interpreted as cultural ignorace now.

It's half mast when someone dies, isn't it? Not upside down?

[Reaganista]

Yeah, America is already nationalistic enough as it is. And why would America becoming socialist make it more nationalistic? Also, I thought you were pretty nationalistic yourself, so why would you be opposed to that?
Amerika is hardly nationalistic. it promotes 'free trade' almost everywhere

and I would be opposed to it because amerikan nationalism would ruin the planet

[Ghostfire3]

Amerika is hardly nationalistic. it promotes 'free trade' almost everywhere

and I would be opposed to it because amerikan nationalism would ruin the planet

First of all, please stop replacing your c's with k's. For example: "kkkapitalism" and "Amerika."

Second of all, American nationalism already is ruining the planet. Too late for that.

Also, America becoming socialist wouldn't make it more nationalistic anyway.

[RNR]

It would be hard to feel nationalistic when half of the country are ethnic minorities. Many of whom refuse to assimilate or take any interest in their country at all.

That's not a bad thing, though.

[coheneran]

First of all, please stop replacing your c's with k's. For example: "kkkapitalism" and "Amerika."

Lol, you know it's true though, Amerika is killing Afrika with it's careless kkkapitalism. What that has to do with Ku Klux, I don't know.

[Ghostfire3]

Lol, you know it's true though, Amerika is killing Afrika with it's careless kkkapitalism. What that has to do with Ku Klux, I don't know.

Ha ha, don't you mean kareless kkkapitalism ?

[DBoons Ghost]

Lol, you know it's true though, Amerika is killing Afrika with it's careless kkkapitalism. What that has to do with Ku Klux, I don't know.


Elaborate upon this for me, so that I might finally understand how Capitalism is killing Africa, or more to the point, how American Capitalism is killing Africa.

Because, I can and will be happy to argue Africa and why they are in the current postion they are in, as I have with you in the past. You didn't have anything to say then, and I can't see you having anything to say now, so either stop making these horribly ignorant statements, or finally back one of them up with something substantial.

Africa had major problems well before they tried to adapt Capitalism.

[Mr. Ron]

You guys do know that Tway is kidding around, right?

[DBoons Ghost]

You guys do know that Tway is kidding around, right?


That's pretty much all he does lately. My post is directed to coheneran.

If he is joking as well, then I got nothing further.

[Reaganista]

First of all, please stop replacing your c's with k's. For example: "kkkapitalism" and "Amerika."


fukk you


Second of all, American nationalism already is ruining the planet. Too late for that.
Amerika is generally more in favor of free trade than nationalistik polikies


Also, America becoming socialist wouldn't make it more nationalistic anyway.
yeah it would, sokialism within a single state is a very nationalistik konkept.

[Ghostfire3]

You guys do know that Tway is kidding around, right?

Yeah I know. Prime example right here:




fukk you


Amerika is generally more in favor of free trade than nationalistik polikies


yeah it would, sokialism within a single state is a very nationalistik konkept.

And Tway, on some words you really can't replace the c with a k. As funny as it is, words like "sokialism" and "polikies" don't really work like that.

[coheneran]

Elaborate upon this for me, so that I might finally understand how Capitalism is killing Africa, or more to the point, how American Capitalism is killing Africa.

Because, I can and will be happy to argue Africa and why they are in the current postion they are in, as I have with you in the past. You didn't have anything to say then, and I can't see you having anything to say now, so either stop making these horribly ignorant statements, or finally back one of them up with something substantial.

Africa had major problems well before they tried to adapt Capitalism.

Wow, sorry dude, but did you read the few posts preceeding mine? It was satirical.

[Reaganista]

Can you ease off the gimmick a bit? :-/ If it were a new user doing something like that you would have been banned ages ago.

I feel I've raise valid points.

And Tway, on some words you really can't replace the c with a k. As funny as it is, words like "sokialism" and "polikies" don't really work like that.

don't be a faskist

[ratsinthecity403]

Assuming you're being serious, what's ironic is that it's the protectionism of the US and Europe (in particular) that actually does a lot of damage to Africa.That and the fact that an awful lot of countries there have truly appalling leaders and no real sense of basic national unity, among other reasons.

I read a report a while back that was by, I believe, a member of the UN going over why food aid to Africa, while it helped people in the immediate future, wasn't doing much long term good. People were relying on foreign aid, so bad policies by leaders could continue on longer, and the leaders didn't have to worrry about feedinga hungry population.

[Jharaski]

Replace soft c's with s's, man. sosalism. polisies.

[Der Übermensch]

Woah! Not cool! ratsinthecity is basicly using the same avatar as me! This is going to confuse me :(

[23-inch dude]

And maybe what afrika needs is liberalism and free market... a real and good one...

[Der Übermensch]

What africa needs is reorginiation of national boudries so that countries aren't composed of ethnic groups that would like nothing better then to slaughters each other.

[ratsinthecity403]

Woah! Not cool! ratsinthecity is basicly using the same avatar as me! This is going to confuse me :(

ah, sorry man, I didn't think anyone else had taken it. I guess I'll have to change it.

EDIT: Problem solved

[Ghostfire3]

don't be a faskist

Oh, I'm not. Quite the contrary, actually.

[Zoroaster]

It seems to me that a bunch of acne-spotted, self-righteous teenagers would be grossly mistaken in touting the virtues of abject poverty following socialism while concurrently committing themselves to "making poverty history." I believe the well-read, though infinitely stupid, anthropologist would call that cognitive dissonance.

[-1up!-]

It seems to me you have nothing to contribute except flowered insults :rolleyes:

[Zoroaster]

It seems to me you have nothing to contribute except flowered insults

Then by all means, indulge me. I want to know why socialism merits overthrowing a system that works.

[DBoons Ghost]

Then by all means, indulge me. I want to know why socialism merits overthrowing a system that works.

It doesn't merit an overthrowing of anything. It's just nice to talk about.

:wave:

[Zoroaster]

It doesn't merit an overthrowing of anything. It's just nice to talk about.

It's a waste of time. If these so-called left-wing "intellectuals" spent more time trying to implement real, practicable solutions, we'd be living in a better world. Or, strike that. These intellectuals aren't much anyway.

[Ghostfire3]

Then by all means, indulge me. I want to know why socialism merits overthrowing a system that works.

Ha ha yeah. If by "works" you mean making rich people richer and poor people poorer, then yes. It works just fine.

[DBoons Ghost]

Ha ha yeah. If by "works" you mean making rich people richer and poor people poorer, then yes. It works just fine.


Thats not true at all.

You guys with these sweeping generalizations are killing me.

[Atomic Rain]

It's a waste of time. If these so-called left-wing "intellectuals" spent more time trying to implement real, practicable solutions, we'd be living in a better world. Or, strike that. These intellectuals aren't much anyway.
read: Any intellectuals supposing somehting I don't agree with are wasting their time.

Maybe?

[Ghostfire3]

Thats not true at all.

You guys with these sweeping generalizations are killing me.

Oh c'mon. You don't think that happens in America? Ever hear rich people say, "the first million was the hardest to make" ? That's true because after you make that first million you have that money to use to make even more money. Just look at Wal-Mart for example. Since the people who own Wal-Mart are so rich, that means they can just keep building more and more Wal-Marts everywhere. It also means they keep their prices very low so that the "mom and pop" stores will run out of business. There you go, the people who own Wal-Mart are just getting richer and richer and nothing's going to stop them.

[DBoons Ghost]

Oh c'mon. You don't think that happens in America? Ever hear rich people say, "the first million was the hardest to make" ? That's true because after you make that first million you have that money to use to make even more money. Just look at Wal-Mart for example. Since the people who own Wal-Mart are so rich, that means they can just keep building more and more Wal-Marts everywhere. It also means they keep their prices very low so that the "mom and pop" stores will run out of business. There you go, the people who own Wal-Mart are just getting richer and richer and nothing's going to stop them.


That's ridiculous. Wal-Mart is really not a viable example, since most of those mom and pop shops ripped off everyone so they can stay in business to begin with, and price gouged all they could when the going got rough. I've seen it all too often. We all have. If you haven't, you aint been alive long enough.

Wal-Mart is a standard which people can rely on for low prices, which in turn saves the average American money that they can spend elsewhere, like on a house, or a car or anything they want. I mean, the positives outweigh the negatives by a far. It's so simple it's scary you don't see it that way. Plus, mom and pop shops emply 4 people on average, while Wal Mart employs hundreds with each store. Mayhaps not so well, considering their methods of providing their workers with health care, but these people would have nothing if not for Wal-Mart. I am sure on a much grander scale, you can be somewhat more creative with examples than that.

Aside from that, I can't say I have any Wal-Marts in NYC or anywhere in my area for that matter. Areas I know that do have Wal-Marts live and die by them, and the only mom and pop stores that close, or small businesses for that matter, are the ones who overcharge so they can pay their hefty leases as well as keep a profit. I am all for the small business model, but not at the expense of an entire community.

[DBoons Ghost]

The rich are undoubtedly getting richer, but the poor aren't getting poorer in the US. They're getting richer, just at a very slow rate, and at one that is worsening. Of course, that presents its very own set of problems and shouldn't be acceptable either, but saying that the poor are getting poorer in absolute terms isn't accurate.

Even we can all agree, that being poor in America is likened to being rich in other countries.

I would know.

[Zoroaster]

Oh c'mon. You don't think that happens in America? Ever hear rich people say, "the first million was the hardest to make" ? That's true because after you make that first million you have that money to use to make even more money. Just look at Wal-Mart for example. Since the people who own Wal-Mart are so rich, that means they can just keep building more and more Wal-Marts everywhere. It also means they keep their prices very low so that the "mom and pop" stores will run out of business. There you go, the people who own Wal-Mart are just getting richer and richer and nothing's going to stop them.

Right. So your indictment of capitalism is by and large predicated on anectdotal reasoning? Never mind that capitalism has produced higher income mobility than any alternative government scheme could ever dream of. No, forget the incredible welfare it has amassed and the distributive properties it has shown to exhibit with respect to wealth. Why do you think most investment banks retain more commissions from proprietary trading as opposed to private clients? I'll tell you why: because financial institutions in capitalist states enables each and everyone to engage in transfer of shares, not just an elite.

[Zoroaster]

It depends. Because the cost of living in the US is far higher than in the overwhelming majority of countries in the world, it's really hard to say. Although the poor in America don't starve by the roadsides, I'd say that they're looked down on far more than the poor are in other countries, and the decrease in social mobility (which was already low compared to Europe) means that being poor in America is a dreadful experience. I see your point in that being poor in Sierra Leone is worse, but I don't really think that's relevant.

You referred to wealth distribution earlier. Could you please provide a source?

[Delay Pedal Boy]

Real communism and any real form of socialism is about everyone's benefit, so Stalin et al have only been communist in name.

In fact, paying everyone the same for the same jobs is (as expressed) absurd egalitarianism. If the whole world worked for each other, service for service, trade for trade, you wouldn't need money. But I digress, as I do not want to rant.

[Ghostfire3]

The rich are undoubtedly getting richer, but the poor aren't getting poorer in the US. They're getting richer, just at a very slow rate, and at one that is worsening. Of course, that presents its very own set of problems and shouldn't be acceptable either, but saying that the poor are getting poorer in absolute terms isn't accurate.

I don't know, I think the poor getting poorer is pretty true in some cases at least. It's pretty tough to pull yourself out of poverty. And once you live in poverty, that pretty much guarantees that you'll never become rich in America. Either way, I don't like the fact that the rich keep gaining massive amounts of money because they were born in a rich family (I'm not necessarily saying this is true of all rich people). One of the ideas of capitalism is that you work hard and you will eventually be promoted and make more money, but that doesn't really happen. It's more like, if you are born into a rich family, then you will make more money (even more than you already have). It just seems to me that the people below the bosses and the managers work harder and don't make nearly as much money.

[Atomic Rain]

Real communism and any real form of socialism is about everyone's benefit, so Stalin et al have only been communist in name.

In fact, paying everyone the same for the same jobs is (as expressed) absurd egalitarianism. If the whole world worked for each other, service for service, trade for trade, you wouldn't need money. But I digress, as I do not want to rant.

I benefit from my family no longer owning our house?

Communism is a flawed ideal, because it is a utopian ideal. We can learn from it but we should never try to use it in any kind of pure form.

[Delay Pedal Boy]

I benefit from my family no longer owning our house?

Communism is a flawed ideal, because it is a utopian ideal. We can learn from it but we should never try to use it in any kind of pure form.
Maybe you misunderstood. I meant that if, for instance, a plumber works on a doctor's plumbing, he knows he can count on that doctor's medical attention. I said nothing of the abolishment of private property.

[guitrguy]

Maybe you misunderstood. I meant that if, for instance, a plumber works on a doctor's plumbing, he knows he can count on that doctor's medical attention. I said nothing of the abolishment of private property.
Then add human nature and monetary expenses to provide eaches service niether will provide each their services for no monetary charge.

[Iskandar]

Real communism and any real form of socialism is about everyone's benefit, so Stalin et al have only been communist in name.
Absolutely.
In fact, paying everyone the same for the same jobs is (as expressed) absurd egalitarianism.
This is actually a common misconception about communism. It isn't everyone receiving the same money; it's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." If everyone works to their ability, getting whatever you need (which varies) shouldn't be a problem.

That's still a far-fetched idea, though. It sounds nice but isn't likely to be implemented any time soon.
If the whole world worked for each other, service for service, trade for trade, you wouldn't need money. But I digress, as I do not want to rant.
In pure communism, eventually there would (theoretically) be no need for money.

[sunshineplaysbass]

Communism, in its purest form, is theoretically the perfect government. But obviously what is feasable in theory isn't quite as pretty in reality.
Communism may be a branch of socialism, but they really aren't that similar.
For a good read check out "The Communist Manifesto"
However your local library may check you out-they made a friend of mine fill out some form that was like "Have you ever been/Are you currently associated with a terrorist group"
I think it's part of the Patriot Act but i'm not sure.

[Iskandar]

Communism may be a branch of socialism, but they really aren't that similar.
For a good read check out "The Communist Manifesto"
However your local library may check you out-they made a friend of mine fill out some form that was like "Have you ever been/Are you currently associated with a terrorist group"
I think it's part of the Patriot Act but i'm not sure.
That's revolting. What is this, the 1950s commie witch-hunts?

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

It sounds nice but isn't likely to be implemented any time soon.**ever

[Der Übermensch]

Communism, in its purest form, is theoretically the perfect government.
Communism, in its purest form, ISN'T A ****ING GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Its a ****ing system of Economics, which can be implemented under any number of governmental systems... Why can't people grasp this!?!?
For a good read check out "The Communist Manifesto"
Or not... Das Kapital is the one to use... the CM is a load of crap.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

which can be implemented under any number of governmental systemsit can't actually be realistically implemented in any governmental system.

[Der Übermensch]

It can't be realisticly implemented under any governmental system, but in theory, the government style is irrelevent (although some may be more effective then others).

[Iskandar]

it can't actually be realistically implemented in any governmental system.
Your quiet optimism inspires me.

[Zoroaster]

Take a look at this, although you may well have seen it already. I didn't actually refer to wealth as I was talking about incomes instead, but that special report from the Economist makes interesting reading. I can dig up other sources as well, although the ones I'm thinking of are in books that I've got lying around, so it would take a while.

I actually subscribe to the economist, and with all due respect, you're dead wrong when you assert "the poor are getting poorer." If anything at all, the article puts forth rigorous econometric proof that it's the middle class that's getting squeezed, not the so-called working class; which have experienced a 10% wage growth in real terms since the 80s. In effect, what we're seeing is a polarisation of the labour market. That is, as the article puts it, "the bottom is no longer falling behind, the top is soaring ahead and the middle is under pressure."

It's also grossly misleading to make rather rash conclusions on the grounds of income inequality data that understate the importance of health care and other labour-related benefits and indeed the change in household demographics we've seen the last twenty years. As a matter of fact, statistics on spending shows how the so-called inequality truncates the perceived gap displayed in income inequality distributions. Coming from a non-economic background, especially not having dealt with econometrics at an advanced level, it's extremely misguided to go by statistics when chalking up an argument. In other words, without having processed the data and without having analysed any individual residual effects that might skew the results for regression and error sum of squares, you'll ultimately end up in the wrong. Which you just did.

[Zoroaster]

It can't be realisticly implemented under any governmental system, but in theory, the government style is irrelevent (although some may be more effective then others).

What on earth are you trying to say? This post-modernist puffery is beginning to truly irk me. Face it, what's the purpose of exhausting time and energy trying to theoretically validate something without any empirical backing whatsoever. No, strike that. The empirical backing is quite astute and sound when we look at the history of socialism. See, it has without exception failed in each and every state it's been implemented in. That's grounds enough to label it folly and move on. Why perpetuate a falsehood when there are plenty of truths to be had?

In pure communism, eventually there would (theoretically) be no need for money.

If evolution is anything to go by, every species on the face of this planet must be incentive-driven by necessity of their will to survive. Look at the labour market in any so-called "capitalist" state and the same incentive-driven mechanism can be observed. It's not for some arbitrary or bungled set of reasons that labour is absorbed where it's due (maybe anthropologists and/or sociologists might be an exception to that), but rather it's determined by economic incentives coupled with what economist's call intertemporal dynamics, i.e. present and future in a financial context. Cut money out of the equation and thus the financial institutions required to channel finance from surplus units to deficit units, and you have effectively nothing. If that's what the implications of communism entail, count me out.

[Zoroaster]

This is actually a common misconception about communism. It isn't everyone receiving the same money; it's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." If everyone works to their ability, getting whatever you need (which varies) shouldn't be a problem.

I love it how people bandy about that one quote as if it were a maxim in life.

[Zoroaster]

So effectively, social mobility is still very low.

This is simply farcical. I don't know where you're getting this from, but it seems like the argument you've fleshed out is more emotive than informed, to say the least. The Census Bureau has reported consistently that, on average, over 41 percent of Americans increased their inflation-adjusted income by 5 percent or more per year from 1984 and onwards. The primary reasons for changes in income from year to year have been attributed to changes in marital status, changes in the number of workers in the household, and moving into or out of full-time, year-round employment. What's more, in an incredibly robust study conducted in 2000 by the Economic Policy Institute, almost 60 percent of Americans in the lowest income quintile in 1969 were in a higher quintile in 1996, and over 61 percent in the highest income quintile had moved down into a lower income quintile during the same period. This is evidence of incredibly high income mobility. In fact, the highest income mobility on the face of the planet. Not the contrary.

I could go on to point out that the upward movement of workers in the second-lowest and middle-income quintiles is larger than the downward movement. But then again, since this tidy little fact isn't exactly conducive to your "case," I'll kindly shut up now. Be warned however, continue to perpetuate fallacies and I'll open my yap again.

although the fact that the US spends more per head on healthcare than any other country in the world and doesn't have anything like universal coverage indicates that the situation isn't exactly rosy.

The US health care system is a conglomeration of large public and private financing arrangements, dominated by third-party decision-makers. In fact, 60 percent of Americans get their coverage through an employer. As for the remaining 40 percent of American workers without employer-based coverage, they do not receive the same tax benefit under the federal tax code and must use after-tax dollars to pay for their health care coverage, as well as any out-of-pocket health care expenses. Their healthcare expenditure is therefore the result of sloppy government, not of the healthcare system itself.

Oh, and your assumption about healthcare being the biggest household expenditure is wrong. Taxes constitute the highest expenditure in the US.


Basically, are you just saying that unless you've dealt with econometrics at an advanced level we shouldn't bother responding to you? Because I'm not going to pretend that I'm some economic expert, but I can think of a whole load of economists who have worked at a high level in world bodies, national governments and academia who'd disagree with a lot of what you'd say. Highly qualified people can disagree.

I'm merely trying to impress upon you the importance of understanding the uncertainty parameters prescribed to any statistic. If you had taken a course in statistical inference and probability distributions, you'd realize that. As for the "world experts" you're citing, I'm highly sceptical of their claim to fame. The situation is not as dire as the Economist is trying to put forth. While some of their arguments go a far way, other's don't. They're just trying to cover all sides of the story. Latching onto the convenient facts for the sake of expediency is disengenuous to say the least. I trust you understand that?

[Zoroaster]

Link? This simply contradicts what I've read. The CIA World Factbook says that since 1975, practically all gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households, so I've got to challenge your claim there.

The following academic publications should cut it:

1. W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, "By Our Own Bootstraps: Economic Opportunity and the Dynamics of Income Distribution," Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas 1995 Annual Report, pp. 2-23.

2. McMurrer and Sawhill, "How Much Do Americans Move Up and Down the Economic Ladder?"

3. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Moving Up and Down the Income Ladder, No. P70-65, July 1998.

4. Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, and John Schmitt, State of Working America: 2000-01 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000), p. 77.

[Iskandar]

I love it how people bandy about that one quote as if it were a maxim in life.
It's the essence of communism. It's like the Surah al-Fatiha.

If you like, I could change it to, "to each according to his greed."

[Zoroaster]

It's the essence of communism. It's like the Surah al-Fatiha.

If you like, I could change it to, "to each according to his greed."

Well, Professor, let me ask you a hypothetical:

How would "to each according to his need, to each according to his ability" solve the problem of modern logistics in a communist world? Allow me to elaborate. 300,000 packages are sorted every hour at the UPS Worldport along some 17,000 conveyor belts stretching 300 miles, processing more data every 30 minutes than in an entire day of trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Now, this activity is all propelled by economic incentives. In other words, there would be no packages, no conveyor belts, if not for the promise of profit. Without the economic incentives present, the supply chains of innumerable suppliers would be cut and there would be shortages not just domestically but world-wide. Consumption would plummet, jobs would be lost, capital creation would grind to a halt, and the welfare communism so badly covets, would deteriorate altogether.

How does communism propose to solve this problem? Give me a clear-cut answer, and I'll be convinced it's a viable system.

[coheneran]

Well, Professor, let me ask you a hypothetical:

How would "to each according to his need, to each according to his ability" solve the problem of modern logistics in a communist world? Allow me to elaborate. 300,000 packages are sorted every hour at the UPS Worldport along some 17,000 conveyor belts stretching 300 miles, processing more data every 30 minutes than in an entire day of trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Now, this activity is all propelled by economic incentives. In other words, there would be no packages, no conveyor belts, if not for the promise of profit. Without the economic incentives present, the supply chains of innumerable suppliers would be cut and there would be shortages not just domestically but world-wide. Consumption would plummet, jobs would be lost, capital creation would grind to a halt, and the welfare communism so badly covets, would deteriorate altogether.

How does communism propose to solve this problem? Give me a clear-cut answer, and I'll be convinced it's a viable system.

Well, you are trying to apply capitalist concepts to a communist system.

Shortages of what? What gets packaged and sent out worldwide in such great numbers that whole regions must depend on it? Whatever happened to self-sustainability and autonomy?

"Consumption would plummet." Oh noes! However will people manage without their mail-order DVDs and other pointless junk? What if all the workers that spend time making toys for McDonalds, CDs for computer games, any other junk that we buy and believe we can never do without, what if ALLLLLLL those workers (and there's a good few million of them) stopped making that crap and instead started farming? Sure, consumption would plummet, but nobody would lose out on it.

[Zoroaster]

"Consumption would plummet." Oh noes! However will people manage without their mail-order DVDs and other pointless junk? What if all the workers that spend time making toys for McDonalds, CDs for computer games, any other junk that we buy and believe we can never do without, what if ALLLLLLL those workers (and there's a good few million of them) stopped making that crap and instead started farming? Sure, consumption would plummet, but nobody would lose out on it.

I've held this belief for quite some time, and you've now just effectively bolstered it. Socialists are detached from reality. You dare tell me that the modern system of logistics only caters to trivial goods such as toys and computer games? Have you ever heard of capital mobility? Oh, no, you wouldn't have; you're a socialist, not an economist. If not for the system of modern logistics, none of our welfare would be sustainable. In effect, global markets that have for years started converging would be thrown off key and the world would enter an immediate recession. Reverting to socialism isn't a mere matter of telling everyone to produce food and abrakadabra alakazam, it's done. No, structural changes in the economy would have to be ordered around, financial institutions rendered insolvent, capital would be appropriated and applied elsewhere, and so forth. The funny thing about all of those changes is the underpinning need for logistics to institute them. Then again, since logistics would effectively collapse due to a lack of economic incentives and thus co-ordination, your socialist state would necessarily hinge on coercion (by military force); and lo and behold, we have another dictatorship conceived of "good intentions."

The sheer lack of insight that you and your peers bandy about is however not sufficient in throwing off the developments we're seeing happen all across the world. Sure enough, you've impeded progress in terms of detrimental legislation and assorted red tape, but the inevitability of globalisation (helped immensely by modern logistics) will strengthen the private sector and in so doing marginalize the public one. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if in the future government powers started curtailing as a result of an evermore independent and growing private sector. Capitalism is here to stay; bite the bullet and pull up your sleeves. There's no point fighting it.

[coheneran]

If the world had said that about fascism...

I am not a socialist, I am an anarchist.

As for a proper reply to your post, if you want me to do one, you'll have to simplify it for me. I've never been to an economy class and so I don't know what "economic incentive" means, or what you mean by "financial institutions rendered insolvent." So to me, most of your post seems to be a bunch of buzz words.

[Der Übermensch]

How does communism propose to solve this problem?
In communism, people don't work for the "the promise of profit", the work for the good of society. So if this function is as important as you make it sound, it would still happen, as people would see its necessity, and continue to do it.

[Zoroaster]

As for a proper reply to your post, if you want me to do one, you'll have to simplify it for me. I've never been to an economy class and so I don't know what "economic incentive" means, or what you mean by "financial institutions rendered insolvent." So to me, most of your post seems to be a bunch of buzz words.

And yet, without the proper understanding to level criticism against an economic system, you expect people to follow your petty ideology. I think I speak for the whole of mankind when I say, sit down and get to know the facts.

In communism, people don't work for the "the promise of profit", the work for the good of society. So if this function is as important as you make it sound, it would still happen, as people would see its necessity, and continue to do it.

Ridiculous reply. How do you go about determining what's "good for society"? In fact, how can something like production of cars say be sustainable if it's subject to the whim of the "people." Your system relegates everything to something as sporadic as public opinion without the means to comply with said opinion. It's much simpler exchanging monetary currency for goods upon demand than having to take a referendum on whether to produce this good or that good. If you're unable to recognize this patently obvious fact, then I'm sorry, your case is intellectually dead.

[coheneran]

And yet, without the proper understanding to level criticism against an economic system, you expect people to follow your petty ideology. I think I speak for the whole of mankind when I say, sit down and get to know the facts.

I read that as "If you've never been formally taught economics by the capitalist state, and if you don't know what all the words mean, you have no right to criticise anything to do with economics. I think I speak for anyone who agrees with me that you should go back through the education system and have the "facts" pumped into you more thoroughly, dirty commie."

Ridiculous reply. How do you go about determining what's "good for society"? In fact, how can something like production of cars say be sustainable if it's subject to the whim of the "people." Your system relegates everything to something as sporadic as public opinion without the means to comply with said opinion. It's much simpler exchanging monetary currency for goods upon demand than having to take a referendum on whether to produce this good or that good. If you're unable to recognize this patently obvious fact, then I'm sorry, your case is intellectually dead.

You're right, since it's almost impossible for us to determine what's best for society because we can never know ALL the factors, we should just not try and instead live on the basis that what's best for ourselves is the right thing to do.

Actually, it's much simpler to make your own goods, and exchange completed products for materials to create more of said products.

You seem to think that in a worldwide communism, the world would decide as a whole what each region should produce, whether or not it is contrary to what a region's people think they should produce.

[Zoroaster]

Since no one has adequately addressed my hypothetical, here goes again:

How would "to each according to his need, to each according to his ability" solve the problem of modern logistics in a communist world? Allow me to elaborate. 300,000 packages are sorted every hour at the UPS Worldport along some 17,000 conveyor belts stretching 300 miles, processing more data every 30 minutes than in an entire day of trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Now, this activity is all propelled by economic incentives. In other words, there would be no packages, no conveyor belts, if not for the promise of profit. Without the economic incentives present, the supply chains of innumerable suppliers would be cut and there would be shortages not just domestically but world-wide. Consumption would plummet, jobs would be lost, capital creation would grind to a halt, and the welfare communism so badly covets, would deteriorate altogether.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

300,000 packages are sorted every hour at the UPS Worldport along some 17,000 conveyor belts stretching 300 miles, processing more data every 30 minutes than in an entire day of trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
You've been reading the Economist, I see.

Well, you are trying to apply capitalist concepts to a communist system.

Shortages of what? What gets packaged and sent out worldwide in such great numbers that whole regions must depend on it? Whatever happened to self-sustainability and autonomy?

"Consumption would plummet." Oh noes! However will people manage without their mail-order DVDs and other pointless junk? What if all the workers that spend time making toys for McDonalds, CDs for computer games, any other junk that we buy and believe we can never do without, what if ALLLLLLL those workers (and there's a good few million of them) stopped making that crap and instead started farming? Sure, consumption would plummet, but nobody would lose out on it.uh yeah, lets go back to medieval standards of living. That sounds like a great idea.

I read that as "If you've never been formally taught economics by the capitalist state, and if you don't know what all the words mean, you have no right to criticise anything to do with economics. I think I speak for anyone who agrees with me that you should go back through the education system and have the "facts" pumped into you more thoroughly, dirty commie."
No, you don't have to go through the kkkapitalist education system if you want to study something.

[Zoroaster]

You're right, since it's almost impossible for us to determine what's best for society because we can never know ALL the factors, we should just not try and instead live on the basis that what's best for ourselves is the right thing to do.

Obviously you've never encountered general equilibria and the law of welfare economics before. My suggestion: look up information on the Edgeworth box, Walrasian economics, and individual income endowment effects. For lack of more time to indulge you, I'll paraphrase the two fundamental laws of welfare economics:

1. Any general competitive equilibrium leads to an efficient allocation of resources (so-called Pareto efficiency)

2. Any Pareto-efficient allocation can be sustainable by a competitive equilibrium

Naturally, you could go on to say a lot about the differentials exhibited by the consumption contract curve vis-a-vis the price offer curve of pure exchange. Since my going assumption is that you're left in the dark as far as economics is concerned, I'll leave it to the more curious members to do some research on the above highlighted concepts.

Actually, it's much simpler to make your own goods, and exchange completed products for materials to create more of said products.

Yeah, and when I want to take the bus downtown, I'll inevitably have to spend 30 minutes bartering with the bus-driver whether he'll take one cluster of bananas or two bags of potatoes in exchange for the service he provides. Simply ridiculous

You seem to think that in a worldwide communism, the world would decide as a whole what each region should produce, whether or not it is contrary to what a region's people think they should produce.

Right. So say one region holding all the resources in the world decides to grow beats, of all things. Now, say the rest of the world want carrots, only it lacks the resources to cultivate carrots. What then happens as one group approaches the other? Conflict anyone?

[Zoroaster]

You've been reading the Economist, I see.

Ah, you caught me there! I'm a pride subscriber. Not because it necessarily is very rigorous in its treatment of economics - I have academic journals for that, but rather because it brings a lot of dimensions to the table and always strives to look at all sides of the story. Something, I'm sure you'll agree, is sadly devoid in modern journalism.

[dislocated214]

The median wage is that wage or salary which is the most common. It is not the average salary. That is the wage that divided all the incomes of the super rich by those of the poor. That average is not what most people in the US earn. The median income is. And according to the latest statistical survey of Americans, in a period since 1998 when the US economy has expanded by 25%, the median wage, that earned by middle fifth of Americans, has fallen by 3.8% and in fact, since 1973 has stagnated.

At the beginning of May, the US economy was in its fifth year of economic growth, stock markets were nearly back to the levels last seen in the great hi-tech boom of 2000 and profit margins were at record levels after five consecutive quarters of double-digit growth.

But the ‘prosperity' has not ‘trickled down to the ranks of middle America, let alone the industrial working-class and poor and dispossessed. At the same time, stagnating incomes for middle America have been accompanied by soaring inequality. Again, according to the new study, since 1973 annual income growth for the top 1% of Americans was 3.4% and for the top 0.1% it was 5.2% each year. But for the 90% below them, it grew just 0.3% a year since 1973! So much for the American dream!

So if the economy has been growing well, where has all product of the work of the Americans gone? Just consider this. Chief executives of the big companies used to earn 26 times more each year than their average employees. Now they earn a staggering 300 times as much!

The sad irony is that most Americans still believe in the American dream, namely that if "you are poor and work hard, you have chance of becoming rich". According to a recent poll, 80% of Americans believe that, up from 60% in the 1980s.

But the chances of the average American achieving the status and wealth of the super-rich through hard work, education, etc., is not much better than the chances of winning the national lottery. There is another report out that concludes that children from low-income families in America have only a 1% chance of reaching the top 5% of income earners while children of the rich have a 22% chance. The chances of children of middle income Americans getting into the top 5% was just 1.8%, hardly better than the poorest.

Of course, it's even worse for African-Americans, whose children born in the bottom 25% of income households have twice as much chance of staying there as white children of the same income group.

And don't' think this is just America. The same forces of capitalism that keep the rich richer and the poor poorer apply to the rest of the capitalist world. The US is not the worst for the chances of escaping from the bottom. The worst country for that is Britain! Only the UK has a lower rate of income mobility than the US. Good luck in the lottery!

Just as worrying is the risk that an average American household could be thrown into poverty. The volatility of household income rose throughout the 1990s. The share of households that saw their incomes decline by more than $20,000 rose from 13% in 1990 to 17% now.

And it's a myth that hard work will get you to the top. People who work longer hours at work to get on got no further up the income scale than those that did not. And yet in another survey, 61% of Americans thought it would make a difference, 58% of Australians did, but only 33% of Brits and the most sceptical were the French (23%).

Capitalism is not only unfair, it is unjust and unstable. Yet another devastating survey found that long-term unemployment in the US has risen to its highest level in more than 20 years. The average length of unemployment was now 18 weeks. The current ‘boom' has the highest share of people out of job for five weeks or more and when people do get a job, it was more likely to be for less money than the old job.

Those in work and owning their own home (about 70% of Americans) had to dedicate nearly 11% of their incomes after taxes to paying their mortgage. There is now a one in sixty chance that people will default on their payments (much lower than making it to the top).

It now takes the average American two-earner family 32 weeks to pay for taxes, health care, housing, education and transportation. That's up from 28 weeks in 1979. After paying for all these items of basic living, the average family had less left to pay for food, clothing, utilities, saving for retirement, leisure etc., than they had in 1980. In that real sense, middle America is worse off than they were 25 years ago.



Read more:
http://www.marxist.com/usa-statistics-shock240506.htm

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

marxist.com lol

[Der Übermensch]

Since no one has adequately addressed my hypothetical, here goes again
Its been adressed... your closed-minded outlook just won't acknowledge the replies as satisfactory.

[Iskandar]

Right. So say one region holding all the resources in the world decides to grow beats, of all things. Now, say the rest of the world want carrots, only it lacks the resources to cultivate carrots. What then happens as one group approaches the other? Conflict anyone?
Except that's absurd because most regions of the world are capable of growing both.

[Zoroaster]

Its been adressed... your closed-minded outlook just won't acknowledge the replies as satisfactory.

Excuse me? Can you honestly tell me the reply "to each according to his need, to each according to his ability" is sufficient answer to address one of the most complex and indeed most necessary service rendered by capitalism, namely logistics. You're just too damn daft to come up with a solution. Try getting to grips with the real time issues that are inherent in the question of changing from capitalism to socialism, and you'll be much more persuasive. Though, having said that, since this would require some research and actual understanding, I wouldn't expect you to come up with a comprehensive answer any time soon.

Except that's absurd because most regions of the world are capable of growing both.

How simple-minded can you get? I could've extended the hypothetical to encompass any scarce resource that propels modern economies (oil, copper, sulphur etc.). The mere face that you can't seem to wrap your head around the notion that resources are exclusively consumed is evidence enough that you can't handle the real world dynamics that underpin any argument for changing from capitalism to socialism.

[monkeysonmars.]

well this seems like a bit of an odd argument to me as any socialist would argue that situation would not create conflict based on the simple fact that they view human's as naturally cooperative rather than competative.

so the argument shouldn't really be stating 'this will happen' therefore 'there will be conflict', it's more a case of proving that their outlook on human nature is wrong...which is tricky.

[Zoroaster]

so the argument shouldn't really be stating 'this will happen' therefore 'there will be conflict', it's more a case of proving that their outlook on human nature is wrong...which is tricky.

No, no, no, no, no. You can continue to dodge the question and relegate this debate into some undoubtedly ambiguous and deliberately vague discussion about the human condition, but that doesn't address anything remotely related to the viability of socialism. If you're a self-professed socialist, you'd better have some solutions up your sleeve. Simply saying, this is wrong, that is wrong, isn't a sufficient condition to upend an entire economic system that, by the looks of things, is working wonders.

[monkeysonmars.]

oh god i'm no socialist, my house has central heating therefore capitalism's good with me. the point i'm trying to make is that i think it's funny how intricate these debates can get when the basic points such as how people interact isn't agreed upon so really any argument is gonna go nowhere.

[Iskandar]

How simple-minded can you get? I could've extended the hypothetical to encompass any scarce resource that propels modern economies (oil, copper, sulphur etc.). The mere face that you can't seem to wrap your head around the notion that resources are exclusively consumed is evidence enough that you can't handle the real world dynamics that underpin any argument for changing from capitalism to socialism.
Then why didn't you, instead of providing me with an absurd, unrealistic scenario?

By the way, ad hominem is not cool.

[Zoroaster]

Then why didn't you, instead of providing me with an absurd, unrealistic scenario?

By the way, ad hominem is not cool.

Dodging the bullet. Answer my question. In fact, if you find it too hard, why don't you elucidate how you propose the transition from capitalism to socialism would come about. Now, mind you, I will not accept any explanation that deals with the working class overthrowing the ruling class. That's as vague as all the other postmodernist bull you guys bandy about. In other words, I want concrete actions. If you're to be taken seriously, and indeed in order for your agenda to retain an ounce of legitimacy, you'll have to lay bare your action plan. Until you do, I'll just assume you have none whatsoever and label your entire movement intellectually dead.

[dislocated214]

Dodging the bullet. Answer my question. In fact, if you find it too hard, why don't you elucidate how you propose the transition from capitalism to socialism would come about. Now, mind you, I will not accept any explanation that deals with the working class overthrowing the ruling class. That's as vague as all the other postmodernist bull you guys bandy about. In other words, I want concrete actions. If you're to be taken seriously, and indeed in order for your agenda to retain an ounce of legitimacy, you'll have to lay bare your action plan. Until you do, I'll just assume you have none whatsoever and label your entire movement intellectually dead.
Hehe.

"When society is divided between a few have and have-not masses
the have-nots have the numbers so they can kick the halves asses."

You claim not to take in any class-contradictions. How did the bourgeoisie come to power? They also had to overthow a ruling class, the monarchs/nobles/etc. In the Marxist sense, something similar will also happen with the proletariat because they are in such a position where it must happen eventually.

How did the bourgeoisie take power? How did capitalism come about after feudalism?

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

They also had to overthow a ruling class, the monarchs/nobles/etc.
well, in Britain, there was no overthrow.

In the Marxist sense, something similar will also happen with the proletariat because they are in such a position where it must happen eventually.
But of course that's just quasi-religous political prophecy. And you haven't given a proper explanation about how it would come about.

How did the bourgeoisie take power?
They never took power in a literal sense. We have democratically elected governments so there is no ruling section of society.

[Amit]

"Consumption would plummet." Oh noes! However will people manage without their mail-order DVDs and other pointless junk? What if all the workers that spend time making toys for McDonalds, CDs for computer games, any other junk that we buy and believe we can never do without, what if ALLLLLLL those workers (and there's a good few million of them) stopped making that crap and instead started farming? Sure, consumption would plummet, but nobody would lose out on it.

Scientific progress and the pursuit of knowledge would plummet as well.

But hey, why not turn back the clock of civilization a couple millenia?

[Spoonful of Shame]

In regards to Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism, I found this case study my grade 12 economics teacher gave out. The article is from 1989 but it is a great read nonetheless.

Case Study- The East German Economy (1989)

Guiding his Mercedes taxi cab through early evening traffic, Horst Wachendorf smiles at every exhaust-belching East German Trabant he passes.

Happy as he is at the recent turn of history in his divided city of Berlin, Mr. Wachendorf recognizes that the tiny, glass-fibre Trabis sputtering at his side represent more than just East Germany’s drive to freedom. They also underline just how far Socialist Germany fell behind its capitalist sibling during a 40-year separation.

“They build a car in the 1950s and that’s it for the rest of the century.” the West Berlin taxi driver remarks. “Here, every year somebody thinks ‘what can we add on, how can we make it better.’”

Indeed, the Trabis, the car that grabbed world attention by ferrying tens of thousands of refugees to the West, is a perfect metaphor for East German decline.

Before the Second World War, the complex where Trabant was made in East Germany was part of a four car consortium that included the forerunner of West Germany’s Audi AG. In fact, the Trabant was manufactured in Audi’s pre-war plant at Zwickau. But while some parts of the consortium stayed put after the war, Audi fled west to its main plant in Ingolstadt, a corporate refugee forced to start anew. Today, its cars can drive rings around the two-stroke, 26-horsepower Trabis.

“Simply, Audi was in competition with a lot of automobile companies in West Germany and they had to be good to stay alive, whereas Trabant had no competition.” says economist Claus Schnable. “They were given the exclusive right to make cars and there was always demand, no matter what they did.”

“They started on the same footing.” says Dietrich Beier, chief economist of the Berliner Bank. “That is why socialism is condemned.”

The extent of today’s economic gap was evident at the inauguration of a new engine plant in Karl Marx Stadt. The cash-strapped East Germans purchased the line from Volkswagen AG-Audi’s parent-which agreed to take back 430 000 of the simple, bare-boned engines (no transmission or electronics) in payment.

For Volkswagen, the engine line represented obsolete equipment that cried out for replacement with automated technology. ‘But for the East Germans, it was a 30-year advance,” Volkswagen spokesman Otto Wachs said.

“If you look at the technology of the Trabant and the production methods, it’s still at the level of the 1950’s.”

Just how the East Germans managed to lose so much ground in just four decades is testimony to the colossal shortcomings of Stalinist planning systems. After all, nobody was better at socialism than the Germans, but they still couldn’t keep up.

As information begins trickling out-for years, the East German government either fabricated statistics or treated them as state secrets-it is becoming apparent that the country’s economy actually had been going nowhere for some time.

“It is conceivable East Germany had zero or negative growth for all of the 1980s.” said Christopher Matteisen, an East European analyst with London based WEFA Group.

Next door, the driving force of the West German economy throughout the decade was the adoption of new technology, spurred on by heightened competition.

But the East’s highly centralized planning system was incapable of making the necessary adjustments.

With East German products such as the Trabant trapped in a time warp, the country’s exports fell off sharply. In 1973, 4 percent of machinery production was sold to the West; by 1986, the figure had fallen to under 1 percent.

The East Germans found themselves pushed out of market after market-even the West German one next door-by the newly industrialized countries of Asia.

East Germany’s Stalinist formula included 214 central guidelines to enterprises and the organization of industry into 140 unwieldy monopolies called Kombinate.

The East German economy was turned inward. Instead of importing production machinery from, say, the Czechoslovaks, the Kombinate were ordered to manufacture it themselves. Each became a self contained economy, mini-autarchies within the state autarchy.

Today, East Germany, a country of just 16.5 million, produces its own versions of 80 percent of the goods made in the world. Needless to say, not all things are done well.

This drive for self-sufficiency resulted in a poor allocation of precious investment funds. The East Germans spent a fortune, for instance, developing reserves of brown coal.

Whereas many West German homes are heated by clean natural gas imported from the former Soviet Union, East Germany was ruining its environment tying to burn a low-quality fuel that is as likely to freeze on truly cold days as it is to ignite.

The East Germans also poured billions into developing a micro-electronics industry, including a costly exercise at re-inventing the one-megabyte chip.

As a consequence of these wasteful investment policies, East Germany’s infrastructure has been badly neglected. Two-thirds of its housing and much of the rail, telephone, and road systems date from the Nazi era.

Source: Adapted from Edward Greenspon, The Globe and Mail, December 21, 1989.

Any responses?

[dislocated214]

well, in Britain, there was no overthrow.


But of course that's just quasi-religous political prophecy. And you haven't given a proper explanation about how it would come about.


They never took power in a literal sense. We have democratically elected governments so there is no ruling section of society.
Well you claim you don't want the "Marxist BS". But I will give it to you anyway because that is also my opinion.

Marx was around during the Revolutions of 1848, which were the monarchs stepping down and paving the way for Liberalism. He, and other socialists, saw that the business/industrial class were taking power, especially because of the Industrial Revolution. The bourgeoisie were formerly the middle class in feudal society, the nobles/monarchs being higher, and peasant-like lowest. The bourgeoisie then overthrew the nobles establishing bourgeois democracy (in most places, especially Europe).

Now the proletariat is in a condition where they will one day have to overthrow the bourgeois capitalist class, kinda like the Matrix eh? In Marxist opinion, capitalism will ultimately kill itself because of wars over resources and overproduction (not producing more than is needed, but producing more than can sell...for example Nike shoe factory workers can't afford to buy Nike shoes).

Eventually, workers will be in such a position and conscious about their position in capitalism and overthrow the proletariat establishing workers democracy instead of bourgeois democracy or similar bourgeois governments. This will happen when, in Leninism, there is a strong, popular revolutionary party. It would probably happen in nations of the third world, since the people there are super-exploited and more "pissed off". Other capitalist countries wouldn't be able to trade with named socialist countries. Eventually this revolutionary spirit would spread to other countries and lead to the downfall of capitalism.

You must also look at it from an economic point of view. Where do these politicians come from? What is their background? What schools did they go to? How are they able to spend millions of dollars on a campaign and why do they? etc

I'm not a Marxist intellectual you should read Marxist books and see what you can find out about what Marxists think about the collapse of capitalism, etc.

[Iskandar]

Scientific progress and the pursuit of knowledge would plummet as well.

But hey, why not turn back the clock of civilization a couple millenia?
I see no reason why scientific progress wouldn't continue. We're not proposing the extermination of all intelligensia a la Mao's Cultural Revolution.

[Reaganista]

well, in Britain, there was no overthrow
wait you don't get to spread a revolution out over 600 and then say no revolution happened

[Iskandar]

wait you don't get to spread a revolution out over 600 and then say no revolution happened
That's progress, not revolution.

[Reaganista]

progress is change within a system revolution is when you throw out a system and get a different one

[Iskandar]

progress is change within a system revolution is when you throw out a system and get a different one
Yeah but a revolution is the explicit removal of one existing ruling power in exhange for another. Progress can occur over the lives of many ruling powers.

[Amit]

I see no reason why scientific progress wouldn't continue. We're not proposing the extermination of all intelligensia a la Mao's Cultural Revolution.

there simply wouldn't be any need for scientific progress for kollektive farmers

[Iskandar]

there simply wouldn't be any need for scientific progress for kollektive farmers
Uhh I'm not advocating a return to rural agrarianism so try again.

I have used collective farming as an example of small-scale collectivism in the past. It is but one facet of the ideal socialism.

There will always be need for scientific progress. Don't be absurd, man.

[griftadan]

yeah but not a means.

[Amit]

exactly

There will always be need for scientific progress. Don't be absurd, man.

modern scientific progress is impossible without massive corporations competing against each other

see: medicine, information technology, logistics

[Iskandar]

yeah but not a means.
Why not?

It's not like everyone's going to be farming lima beans at gunpoint. Get out of that mindset.
modern scientific progress is impossible without massive corporations competing against each other
I'm sorry you feel that way.

Y'know, Gallileo and Copernicus made incredible progress without capitalism.

[Reaganista]

Yeah but a revolution is the explicit removal of one existing ruling power in exhange for another. Progress can occur over the lives of many ruling powers.
ruling powers aren't necessarily alive
and revolutions don't necessarily have anything to do with politics

[Amit]

Why not?

It's not like everyone's going to be farming lima beans at gunpoint. Get out of that mindset.

there won't be enough people with the motivation to endure decades of stressful education and research just to live the same quality of life as a lima bean farmer

honestly only a fool would do that when given the choice between that or lima bean farming

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Y'know, Gallileo and Copernicus made incredible progress without capitalism.

read my post again

modern science

it's not how i feel it's how the scientific world works try again english major boy

[Iskandar]

there won't be enough people with the motivation to endure decades of stressful education and research just to live the same quality of life as a lima bean farmer
UGH NO NO

Socialism is NOT about everybody having exactly the same goods and salary. It is about a classless society.
read my post again

modern

it's not how i feel it's how the world works try again english major boy
Are you trying to insult me or something? If so, it's immature.

[Amit]

UGH NO NO

Socialism is NOT about everybody having exactly the same goods and salary. It is about a classless society.

oh ok please clarify then

i don't know many doctors who would bust their *** for 12-16 years to live in a classless society

Are you trying to insult me or something? If so, it's immature.

well you are an english major aren't you

do canadian english majors cover pharmaceutical research too or what

it's only about as immature and condescending as telling me you're sorry that i feel that way

[Iskandar]

oh ok please clarify then

i don't know many doctors who would bust their *** for 12-16 years to live in a classless society
What do you want? There's no reason for them to desire one. Clearly the current system benefits them, more than it does others.
it's only about as immature and condescending as telling me you're sorry that i feel that way
Not really. I am genuinely expressing regret that you can't or won't see the merits of my ideology. I would like to think I see the merits in capitalism.

[Amit]

What do you want? There's no reason for them to desire one. Clearly the current system benefits them, more than it does others.

too many pronouns

can you please clarify

Not really. I am genuinely expressing regret that you can't or won't see the merits of my ideology. I would like to think I see the merits in capitalism.

i'll see the merits of your ideology when you expound on them

no one has explained to me yet how pharmaceutical research and industry could feasibly work under socialism

[Iskandar]

too many pronouns

can you please clarify
What I said was not difficult syntactically, but I'll attempt to clarify:

Doctor no want commie because cappie money good
i'll see the merits of your ideology when you expound on them

no one has explained to me yet how pharmaceutical research and industry could feasibly work under socialism
Because ... people are getting paid to do research? Because ... academic support? Because ... people will need pharmaceutical drugs?

ffs it's not like drugstores wouldn't still exist

I'm not interested in banning all private enterprise. This isn't 1984. It's commerce without class distinctions. If class is removed from the equation, many (not all) conflicts go with it.

[Sun Ra]

UGH NO NO

Socialism is NOT about everybody having exactly the same goods and salary. It is about a classless society.


What? I think a classless society is another way of saying everybody has the same goods and salary.

[Iskandar]

What? I think a classless society is another way of saying everybody has the same goods and salary.
Not really. Class is about those who own the means of production and those who work for those who do, not salary. It's a classic leftist perspective.

In any event, I'm going to bed. Egg, catch me tomorrow and we'll commune.

[Sun Ra]

So..... you're saying that Doctors can still get higher wages after their hard work, but .... they wont be seen as elevated in class?

[Zoroaster]

Have anyone else noticed how Marxists, upon being challenged, will always revert to some boring argument about linguistic consistency and how certain concepts can only be applied unto certain circumstances. Allow me to elaborate. Say we're discussing the feasibility of socialism, and someone asks whether the transition from capitalism to socialism is possible in light of capitalism's immense sucess, the marxist undergoing questioning will not address the question. He won't say, this and this should happen, followed by this and that. No, far from it. He'll exhaust some dialectic and expound on how tension between the working class and ruling class will inevitably lead to some sort of all-encompassing "overthrow."

I mean, that's just being bland. Where are the details, where are the specifics? If we're going to "revolutionize" this planet, I'd sure like people to stop harping on the seemingly ceaseless "exploitation" that's going on - which is so minute it can only be labelled a hyperbole - and start engaging reality. Look outside your window, or rather, look no further than your desk. Your computers, your houses, your cars, your education; everything that remotely gives you utility, most probably has its origin in capitalism and the individual entity's desire for profit. Simply wishing the incentives of profit disappear is all fine and good. But I implore you to think about the sacrifices that these "wishes" entail and not least the implications inherent in them.

I ask, should we relegate entire human endeavours to the ash-heaps of history only to secure everyone's survival - which isn't even a certainty at this stage? Call me old-fashioned, but before I can place any trust in your side of the aisle, you'll have to strive to foster at least the semblance of an understanding of real-time issues. And with that explanations are needed. So, again, I repeat myself: how would socialism be instated? An answer that merely rehashes the same ol' tale of class warfare is not a valid one.

[Iskandar]

So, again, I repeat myself: how would socialism be instated? An answer that merely rehashes the same ol' tale of class warfare is not a valid one.
As a syndicalist, I would say: at the worker's level, through gradual means. Government co-operation is also necessary to assist in establishing a solid groundwork.

The basic idea of syndicalism is that workers take control of their own affairs gradually until their superiors are not necessary.
So..... you're saying that Doctors can still get higher wages after their hard work, but .... they wont be seen as elevated in class?
I don't think they're seen as elevated in class already, at least in the proleteriat/bourgeoisie model (which I believe is more accurate and reliable than another other indicator of class). They provide a service and therefore could be considered proles in some sense.

[Cool Mint Listerine]

I don't think they're seen as elevated in class already, at least in the proleteriat/bourgeoisie model (which I believe is more accurate and reliable than another other indicator of class). They provide a service and therefore could be considered proles in some sense.

I dont think you can change people's perception of what people with more money than them are, they're always going to think "upper class."

[Zoroaster]

As a syndicalist, I would say: at the worker's level, through gradual means. Government co-operation is also necessary to assist in establishing a solid groundwork.

The basic idea of syndicalism is that workers take control of their own affairs gradually until their superiors are not necessary.


But what does that mean? Be more specific.

[Iskandar]

But what does that mean? Be more specific.
I'm glad you're taking an interest. :)

Well, workers use means including but not limited to: labour unions, strikes, lobbying etc. in order to bargain for more control over their affairs. There is a goal of what's called "industrial democracy," which is like the model of a democratic government applied to the relation between workers and their management. Workers will have a say in major decisions.

Once that is established, the next goal is to turn that (representative) industrial democracy into a direct democracy, until management is not needed and the workers can make their own decisions; thus we will have an effectively classless society in which every employee has a say in his or her own affairs. It's an effectively bloodless and smooth transition; it's the realization of Marxist goals without Marxist methods.

It's really not that far-fetched; certainly it makes more sense than foisting a revolution, via a bloody, messy coup, upon a populace which is not ready for it and doesn't understand it. It's a strictly voluntary movement with the goal of removing the class divide from capitalism, and validating the worker.

[dislocated214]

Well it still might be Marxist methods, but maybe not Leninist methods. Syndicalism sounds like a pseudo-Luxembourg model. Trotsky wrote something on syndicalism, where he used the Leninist argument that a revolutionary party would be needed to establish Marxist goals, etc. Which Luxembourg disagreed with and so do syndacalists, be they Marxists or anarchists.

Oh, here it is:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1931/unions.htm

[Iskandar]

Well it still might be Marxist methods, but maybe not Leninist methods. Syndicalism sounds like a pseudo-Luxembourg model. Trotsky wrote something on syndicalism, where he used the Leninist argument that a revolutionary party would be needed to establish Marxist goals, etc. Which Luxembourg disagreed with and so do syndacalists, be they Marxists or anarchists.

Oh, here it is:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1931/unions.htm
I'm sorry, but I got very little out of both your post and that link. :confused:

Syndicalists don't necessarily agree that a revolutionary party is needed to establish their goals. Maybe a sympathetic one (like the NDP/various Labour parties) but the Communist International isn't necessary.

I don't think syndicalism uses Marxist or Leninist methods. Both call for violent revolution, for one.

[Zoroaster]

Well, workers use means including but not limited to: labour unions, strikes, lobbying etc. in order to bargain for more control over their affairs. There is a goal of what's called "industrial democracy," which is like the model of a democratic government applied to the relation between workers and their management. Workers will have a say in major decisions.

And yet the direction modern politics is going in is one of increased capital and labour mobility; and therefore the establishment of wide-spanning economic inter-dependence across the globe. I just think your case rests too much on the assumption of historical materialism and fails to address the fact that as markets harmonize globally, the private sector will marginalize any movement by a disenfranchised working class.

Once that is established, the next goal is to turn that (representative) industrial democracy into a direct democracy, until management is not needed and the workers can make their own decisions; thus we will have an effectively classless society in which every employee has a say in his or her own affairs. It's an effectively bloodless and smooth transition; it's the realization of Marxist goals without Marxist methods.

I can't think of how to counter your claim to a smoothe and bloodless transition other than by reverting back to what I already said. So-called workers are in a clear minority in developed countries where the financial structure has done more to accommodate an ever growing middle class than abusing and seemingly exploiting the working class. It all boils down to voluntary choice in the end. When you engage in a labour contract there are stipulations, regulations and provisions in place to ensure no malfeasance takes place. Contrary to public opinion, there's a great deal of transparency into these standard contracts. In fact, as it stands, companies are bound by law to disclose them publically. Which is probably why we haven't seen anything close to a worker's revolution the last fifty years - they're simply put content, as well they should be with the skewed taxation and employment benefits they're party to.

The exaggerrated number of infringements on today's workers aside, I also want to point out that any method that entails getting rid of the very same people that ensure there is work to be had in the first place, is a silly method. Cut out the capitalist and the incentives for profit and the economy turns immediately into a coercive socialist state, whereby people must produce under threat, as opposed to a desire to attain profit. You fail to appreciate the level of co-ordination required to sustain the welfare of the population at large (which my point earlier about logistics highlighted). Ask yourself, how would governments run by worker's co-ordinate property markets, financial markets, retail markets, and so forth. In other words, do they have the werewithal to maintain the level of co-ordination we require to efficiently employ capital and thereby safeguard the welfare we derive from everyday consumption goods.

[Iskandar]

I just think your case rests too much on the assumption of historical materialism and fails to address the fact that as markets harmonize globally, the private sector will marginalize any movement by a disenfranchised working class.
What do you mean by "marginalize?" How will it do that?
I also want to point out that any method that entails getting rid of the very same people that ensure there is work to be had in the first place, is a silly method.
The idea is that workers (blue- and white-collar) function as both management and labour. Businesses are more like co-operatives than the tradition hierarchy. It's a model that I've seen successfully implemented before.
Cut out the capitalist and the incentives for profit and the economy turns immediately into a coercive socialist state
As you are such an ardent capitalist, this might understandably seem an absurd concept to you; but the end goal is that the incentive is goods, not profit in terms of capital. In short, the economy produces according to need, not a desire for monetary profit. People would truly receive what they work for, pound for pound.

Of course, that's not a short-term goal at all. It's a radical concept which won't be instated any time soon. Capitalism has not yet run its course ... although it won't be around forever.

[mcmurray]

Say we're discussing the feasibility of socialism, and someone asks whether the transition from capitalism to socialism is possible in light of capitalism's immense sucess, the marxist undergoing questioning will not address the question. He won't say, this and this should happen, followed by this and that. No, far from it. He'll exhaust some dialectic and expound on how tension between the working class and ruling class will inevitably lead to some sort of all-encompassing "overthrow."

Unfortunately, I must say that is true, and I would consider myself a Marxist for the most part. If capitalism is successful, and the economic state is solid enough, a peaceful transition to socialism would be possible, and more than likely I would think, probable. I would think the more or less socialist governments of many European countries were established peaceably through economic solidity.


I mean, that's just being bland. Where are the details, where are the specifics? If we're going to "revolutionize" this planet, I'd sure like people to stop harping on the seemingly ceaseless "exploitation" that's going on - which is so minute it can only be labelled a hyperbole
At this point this 'exploitation' is really nothing more than social and economic inequality. The only exploitation I can think of is the cheap overseas labor on American products rather than hiring Americans to make the products. While this exploits the individual foreigner, it benefits the economy of that particular country. That, and illegal immigrants.


So, again, I repeat myself: how would socialism be instated? An answer that merely rehashes the same ol' tale of class warfare is not a valid one.
It would be instated on the will of the people and the cooperation of large businesses and the government. As for specifics I can only speculate: possibly the government would seize and redistribute all wealth evenly thoughout the populace. Each person would likely be paid the same amount. The government would probably monopolize all industry and all that, commonly seen in the Soviet Union, but hopefully not in the same manner. The five year plans were garbage. In the spirit of productivity, this must not happen.

For true specifics as to how each thing would take place, I really don't know. I don't know enough about economics to say how it would happen. The easiest way would be to take the route of the 'class warfare' and all that, but it's not the most productive way.

Hopefully that's what you're looking for.

[Iskandar]

It would be instated on the will of the people and the cooperation of large businesses and the government. As for specifics I can only speculate: possibly the government would seize and redistribute all wealth evenly thoughout the populace. Each person would likely be paid the same amount. The government would probably monopolize all industry and all that, commonly seen in the Soviet Union, but hopefully not in the same manner.
Man, seizing and redistributing all wealth couldn't possibly be the will of all the people; and definitely not that of large business.

The whole Bolshevik bloody-coup thing has been tried many times and has failed. Let's let socialism develop on its own ... with some pushing and prodding. You can't force a revolution on people. :)

Zoroaster, please remember that the methods I proposed and those Mcmurray proposed are vastly different. Leftism is a broad ideology.

[Zoroaster]

What do you mean by "marginalize?" How will it do that?

It's patently obvious that the private sector accounts for a significant majority of capital ownership and capital creation in any modern economy.

The idea is that workers (blue- and white-collar) function as both management and labour. Businesses are more like co-operatives than the tradition hierarchy. It's a model that I've seen successfully implemented before.

Right. And that would entail empowering workers without management experience and asking each and everyone to reach a consensus, democratically, on how to best utilize resources. I believe it was Friedman that said: "Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else's resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property."

And here's another question, what are socialists policy on competition? I mean, if you have competing companies under a capitalist regime, how would they differ under a socialist one. Would competition cease altogether? In which I case, I propose socialism is even more farcical than I originally thought.

but the end goal is that the incentive is goods, not profit in terms of capital. In short, the economy produces according to need, not a desire for monetary profit. People would truly receive what they work for, pound for pound.

There is no greater incentive than self-interest. The welfare we enjoy each and every day is a true testament to that. Choosing to ignore it, isn't going to make the world a better place. No, what we should do, is foster competition and the need for ever greater efficiency and improved utilization of capital and labour.

Of course, that's not a short-term goal at all. It's a radical concept which won't be instated any time soon. Capitalism has not yet run its course ... although it won't be around forever.

That assertion is so ridiculous in it's prophetic overtones, I immediately laughed when I read it. You're not playing around with concepts that hold any application whatsoever, you're just living a pipe dream.

Let me tell you something about international trade and its reinforcing effect on capitalism. Today, the $12 trillion U.S. economy is bolstered by free trade. In fact, American exports support one in five U.S. manufacturing jobs. Jobs directly linked to the export of goods pay 13 to 18 percent more than other U.S. jobs. Moreover, agricultural exports hit a record high in 2005 and now account for 926,000 jobs. In a similar vein of thought, the Institute for International Economics estimates that trade liberalization over the last fifty years has brought an additional $10,000 per year to the typical American household. If all trade barriers were eliminated and global trade and investment became truly free, the IIE estimates that American households would gain an additional $5,000 per year.

A Center for Global Development study has also determined that a successful conclusion to the Doha Round would result in an additional $200 billion flowing to developing nations, reducing poverty and economic hardship. What all of these bits of information show is the economic advantage stemming from a liberalization of trade. See, freer trade enables more goods and services to reach American consumers at lower prices, giving families more income to save or spend on other goods and services. Moreover, the benefits of free trade extend well beyond American households. Free trade helps spread freedom globally, reinforces the rule of law, and fosters economic development in poor countries.

Why would people turn away from something that's increasingly giving them welfare and helping to alleviate poverty? If you question that assertion, listen to this. According to Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom, countries with freer trade policies experience higher per-capita economic growth than countries that maintain trade barriers. Countries that opened their trade policies between 1995 and 2004 saw their per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) grow at an average compound rate of 2.5 percent versus 1.8 percent average compound growth rate for countries which increased their trade barriers.

Life is better under capitalism than the socialist experiment some unfortunate countries have been subject to. Recognize this and you'll reject the incommensurate folly of your ideology.

[Zoroaster]

For true specifics as to how each thing would take place, I really don't know. I don't know enough about economics to say how it would happen. The easiest way would be to take the route of the 'class warfare' and all that, but it's not the most productive way.

At least you're being honest. But in all sincerity, shouldn't you learn to grapple with the issues before you subscribe to an ideology? I mean, without understanding economics and in particular the dynamics of income distribution, how can you profess socialism, marxism, or whatever, is more suited than the present status quo? I should think you can't. Then again, that's my opinion.

[mcmurray]

Man, seizing and redistributing all wealth couldn't possibly be the will of all the people; and definitely not that of large business.

The whole Bolshevik bloody-coup thing has been tried many times and has failed. Let's let socialism develop on its own ... with some pushing and prodding. You can't force a revolution on people.
I think you're misunderstanding me. If the people were in favor of it, the people wouldn't have anything against the government redistributing wealth. I also was not advocating the Bolshevik style revolution. I really don't know how it would work. Yes, the Bolshevik style revolution is much easier, but not at all more effective than a peaceful transition would be.

At least you're being honest. But in all sincerity, shouldn't you learn to grapple with the issues before you subscribe to an ideology? I mean, without understanding economics and in particular the dynamics of income distribution, how can you profess socialism, marxism, or whatever, is more suited than the present status quo? I should think you can't. Then again, that's my opinion.
I'm no expert on Marxism, but I do think I know enough about it to say I like the idea. Through reading some of Marx's works (very few of them at this time) I've gained more of an appreciation for it and think it's a swell idea, if implemented correctly. How this is done nobody will be able to tell you with 100% certainty. I think Dropper has a greater understanding of how it could possibly happen than I do. As of right now, I think it's more important to know how the system would work rather than how it would happen as it's unlikely to happen in the near future.

My main objection for capitalism is that it to me looks like a selfish system based on personal greed. Products are not made for the good of the people, they are made for the good of the corporation. This is why medicines cost so much; they have to cover for research and materials, but also have to make a large profit on it.

I just don't think that production should be for profit. I don't like how people abuse the capitalist system and use their wealth for influence socially and politically.

I guess that just turned into a justification for what I believe.

And here's another question, what are socialists policy on competition? I mean, if you have competing companies under a capitalist regime, how would they differ under a socialist one. Would competition cease altogether? In which I case, I propose socialism is even more farcical than I originally thought.
I would think that under socialism there would still be competition, although less than that under capitalism. Under communism there would not be. Dropper, feel free to correct that if it's wrong.

There is no greater incentive than self-interest. The welfare we enjoy each and every day is a true testament to that. Choosing to ignore it, isn't going to make the world a better place. No, what we should do, is foster competition and the need for ever greater efficiency and improved utilization of capital and labour.
It is true that there is no greater incentive than self-interest. That is why communism or socialism is unlikely to occur in America any time soon.

I don't necessarily agree with more competition, but I do agree with greater efficiency and better use of capital. And by that I mean for the capital to greater help society rather than the corporation.

Life is better under capitalism than the socialist experiment some unfortunate countries have been subject to. Recognize this and you'll reject the incommensurate folly of your ideology.
If you're referring to the USSR then you're completely right. As for the other European countries that could be considered socialist, I can't say I agree with you there.

For socialism to lead for communism, it requires a change in human nature. Communism goes against the individual interest. If the utopian communism existed as Marx described it, people would be better off than they are now under capitalism. Unfortunately, it's a nice idea that won't happen any time soon.

[Amit]

This is why medicines cost so much; they have to cover for research and materials, but also have to make a large profit on it.

Without large profit margins, pharmaceuticals would not be able to invest in further research and development.

[mcmurray]

Without large profit margins, pharmaceuticals would not be able to invest in further research and development.
They're also funded by other investors and occasionally governmental allocations. Under socialism it would be entirely funded by the government.

[coheneran]

They could also continue their research for the good of the public, instead of for profit margins.

[lfantwister]

They could also continue their research for the good of the public, instead of for profit margins.

hahaha. where do you live again? It sure isnt' reality

[Der Übermensch]

If all trade barriers were eliminated and global trade and investment became truly free, the IIE estimates that American households would gain an additional $5,000 per year.
But is this justified by the fact that it would probably result in massive job cuts as companies exported American's jobs overseas at much larger volume then they already do? While I hardly have actual statistics in front of me, I would venture a guess that while many incomes coulds rise, the net income for all of american lower/middle households would drop.

Edit: Just want to point out that an Elected government has the duty to protect the interests of its citizenry, and those interests include Job Security, and Tariffs and other trade barriers are a direct function of that.

[coheneran]

hahaha. where do you live again? It sure isnt' reality

Just because it isn't happening doesn't mean it can't happen. That's like saying "I don't have cancer so I will never get cancer."

[mcmurray]

They could also continue their research for the good of the public, instead of for profit margins.
That's how it should have been all along.

[Iskandar]

hahaha. where do you live again? It sure isnt' reality
You mean the reality in which corporations exist for profit?

That's their sole purpose. That is what pharmaceutical companies exist for. They contribute to the public good, but it's definitely not their only motive.

Whether their employees work in the field to serve humanity (and I'm sure they do) is irrelevant.

[Iskandar]

So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property."
But it is everyone's property. When everyone has a share, everyone is obligated to work in their own interest and in the interest of their fellow workers.
And here's another question, what are socialists policy on competition?
You have to understand the concept of a need-based economy first.

Better services, products etc. are produced when they are needed, not because of desire for personal profit.

Workers are motivated to work harder out of a desire to produce more material goods. That concept is not singular to capitalism. It makes logical sense.
There is no greater incentive than self-interest.
People work according to their self-interest in socialism; and in doing, benefit society at large.
You're not playing around with concepts that hold any application whatsoever, you're just living a pipe dream.
You seriously believe capitalism is sustainable and will exist as long as the human race?

They said that about feudalism.

Also: Zoroaster, I would be much obliged if you would please keep your responses concise and direct. I know you're knowledgable on the subject, but you have a tendancy to become unnecessarily verbose.
I think you're misunderstanding me. If the people were in favor of it, the people wouldn't have anything against the government redistributing wealth.
I'm glad to see you posting more often these days.:)

To the point: But how would the entire population be in favour of that? At any rate, giving a government the power to seize the wealth of the entire populace seems like an ominous step toward tyranny.
I would think that under socialism there would still be competition, although less than that under capitalism. Under communism there would not be. Dropper, feel free to correct that if it's wrong.
No, you're correct. :)

[Reaganista]

unnecessarily verbose
don't you mean wordy?