Ask a red

[Gustave5436]

bla bla, i just want to hear his theory.

not lead this discussion once again.

I was only attempting to explain that "communism" is not a synonym for "Marxism-Leninism." No need to be hostile.

 

[holy king]

ah. ok. sorry.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Excuse me if this has already been asked before, and if it has you can just link me to the post where you have explained it, but how would the political system work in your utopia?

I am too lazy to dig that upon again, and anyway:
Repetitio est mater studiorum.
That said, I wasn't aware that I had an utopia to call my own. A vision, yes. An idea of the histrocal development our societies probably will go trough, yes. And please note the probably, I am no vulgar-marxist.
Anyway:

A one-party democracy?

Could be, as explained by Cheezy.

A dictatorship?

Sure, why not? Just read my OP.
But honestly, there shouldn't be any need for that in a future Norway. In principle.

Would organized protests be allowed?

Yes, in principle.

What about labor strikes?

Yes, in principle.

Freedom of speech and religion?

Yes, in principle.

Would certain books and websites be banned?

Yes, of course.

Now let me explain what I mean by in principle.
During normal peaceful times those things you asked about are indeed rights that should be taken for granted in an enlightened society. But as history shows us that the ruling classes will usually not renounce their privileges deliberately. The 30s shows clearly what measures the bourgeoisie are willing to resort to to protect that conformist sleepwalkery that call freedom. I have no illusion that a future socialist society should be confronted with the same situation and then protecting socialism will be more important than certain civil rights for a while.
So in my "utopia" there will be all sorts of fredoms and gluten free cookies for all. In the road towards it we need to be more pragmatic.

Thanks ahead of time!

You're welcome.

Interesting that the author calls Orwell despicable and a worse writer than Marx; it's obvious he's never tried to read Marx. Das Kapital is quite unreadable; the Communist Manifesto is much better written (Engels being co-author).

Since your post don't contain any question I should probably pass it by, but I think a comment upon it is called for.
Clearly you see the defective in comparing a scientific study with a work of fiction regarding its estetical qualities. And anyone familiar with the writings of Marx would know that he was able to express himself in stylish prose, see for instance some of his historical works.
Also, the reason Orwell is called despicable is not his ability to write fiction.

I'm also not sure what your confusion about totalitarianism is; the Soviet Union under Stalin and Nazi Germany are the most obvious examples of totalitarian regimes in the 20st century.

Read what I wrote again then. I don't like that sort of rhetorics. The similarities between nazi germany and the so-called Western democracies should be more relevant to socialists. And the contemporary capitalist societies are no less totalitarian. Do read for instance One-dimensional Man.

I don't know if this is a stupid question or not but what do you think of the Hamiltonian economic program?

It is not stupid, but nothing I studied deply since my salad years some 20 years ago. I think it is just a program designed to initiate the firm control of power and wealth in the hands of a small privileged elite as also outlined in the constition, see Parenti: Demcracy for the Few, chapter 4.

that's where they tend to fail historically.

i have yet to be convinced that a communist revolution can be a democratic one.

especially when they critizise bukhanin for being sectarian and elitary. (not that i am a fan of bukhanin.)

1. Don't. feed. the. trolls.
2. I don't agree with you.
3. I suppose you mean Bakunin. in that case I agree with "they".

oh. a real question by the way: how do you excuse the leninist (english seems to give me no other chance but call it so) intervention in st. petersburg/kronstadt in 1921?

English would have given you the chance to use justify instead of excuse, which would have removed a considerbale part of the biased slant.
Except for the fact that I can hardly see any government of whatever shape or colour not taking action against such a rebellion, I think historical circumstances forced it.
The Kronstadt rebels can not be considered revolutionairies, and as far as i can seeit was necessary for the survival of the young socialist state to brng this under control.
It might be that ther Bolsheviks over-reacted, but they didn't have our 20/20 perfect hindsight.

These guys betrayed communist defined socialism thus being punished by people's iron will.

What's wrong?

What is wrong is that you are, in spite of being warned before, trolling in this thread.
This is your last chance before I will insist on some moderator action.

And, for that matter, the repression of the left in general from 1919-ish onwards?



Vanguardist revolution. "Authoritarian socialism," that is, Marxism-Leninism and related ideologies, is vanguardist. However, vanguardism is not universal to all socialism. In fact, some communists (such as anarchists) are of the opinion that vanguardism is inherently authoritarian and therefore logically inconsistent with communism.

I can completely understand your objection to vanguardism, but don't confuse authoritarian socialism with socialism in general.

First of all, here is your warning also. Read the OP, I never gave you the permission to answer anything in my thread.
Secondly, I advice you to put a new punch-card in your engine.
Authoritarian socialsm is just as trite an expression as liberal democracy or fiscal conservative.

bla bla, i just want to hear his theory.

not lead this discussion once again.

If you don't want that, just ignore it.
You are not exactly doing me a favour by continously commenting any troll post.
Please discontinue with that.

General lament: O tempora, o mores! Are manners that difficult to aquire? Be I too old for this forum?

 

[Lone Wolf]

I have no illusion that a future socialist society should be confronted with the same situation and then protecting socialism will be more important than certain civil rights for a while.
So in my "utopia" there will be all sorts of fredoms and gluten free cookies for all. In the road towards it we need to be more pragmatic.

Since the new socialist society certainly will be under pressure from capitalistic countries, does that mean that only after the destruction of all world capitalists these free cookies will be avaliable? Or is there a possibility of the new socialist state convicing the world capitalists (by force, if necessary) that they'd better leave it alone?

 

[Richard Cribb]

Since the new socialist society certainly will be under pressure from capitalistic countries, does that mean that only after the destruction of all world capitalists these free cookies will be avaliable?

In most cases, yes.

Or is there a possibility of the new socialist state convicing the world capitalists (by force, if necessary) that they'd better leave it alone?

It is very difficult to make forecasts about the future, but if a successful implementation of socialism would happen in the most powerful and advanced capitalist societies (USA, German, France etc) that could indeed be possible. But still, for a transistory period certain sacrifices would had to be made. I am no admirer of Mao to say the least, but he was right in his description of what a revoltion is not.

 

[innonimatu]

It is very difficult to make forecasts about the future, but if a successful implementation of socialism would happen in the most powerful and advanced capitalist societies (USA, German, France etc) that could indeed be possible. But still, for a transistory period certain sacrifices would had to be made. I am no admirer of Mao to say the least, but he was right in his description of what a revoltion is not.

Not all revolutions turned bloody, even if it is true that the threat of violence is always present. Anyway, the problem with talking about a transitory period is that no one will say when it ends. In that sense capitalism is also transitory, so why not wait it out until technology finally forces a change?

That description from Mao was one I first say years ago on a movie by Leone. Even after reading the whole text the criticism in that movie still stuck with me: the revolution is of no benefit to the foot soldiers and civilians who die in it. It certainly was of no benefit to the millions of dead who Stalin and Mao left on their wake. So under what pretext can it be called for? Why should people follow those leaders? Capitalism also has big problems, but if the choice is between two devils, why should peasants, for example, not stick to the devil they know? Of, if they support revolutionaries because the previous regime abused them too much, how long until the new revolutionary regime does even worse under that "transitory" period, creating an equally valid cause for a counter-revolution?
Wasn't the main reason for rebellions in places like China, or Mexico, the rapaciousness of the state and the oligarchies (the wealthy own politics, or are the politicians), usually to support their lifestyles and privileges? And then come the communist revolutionaries, in the context of a big civil war, demanding even more of the peasants, to support the war effort! In the end it turns into a nasty propaganda game between the oligarchies and the revolutionaries, both raping the people, both claiming that it's for their own good! The revolutionaries were right in the beginning, but often turn into something very different during the process...

Worse, sometimes when the revolutionaries win they set themselves up as a new oligarchy.I don't think that Djilas was some kind of "anti-socialist", but he got thrown into prison for criticizing that. And I think that even his account of the yugoslavian civil war during WW2 is more instructive, about revolutions, that Mao's little book.

I like socialism for moral reasons, and think that in the end morals is behind all political choices, even when we justify it with other ideas (like the ever-popular "it's more efficient").
So my question boils down to this: if some socialist leaders are willing to sacrifice any morals, during an undetermined period, for the sake of victory, can they be trusted?

 

[RedRalph]

Thats not really a question about socialist leaders, but leaders in general Inn.

 

[Richard Cribb]

<Snip>
So my question boils down to this: if some socialist leaders are willing to sacrifice any morals, during an undetermined period, for the sake of victory, can they be trusted?

Yes.
Counterquestion: if you were in the leadership in a socialist state and faced domestic and foreign hostilite forces that wanted to destroy said state, what would you do? And note well that this is not a philosophy seminary, but a situation in real life.
I also seem to get the impression that you think that the Russian revolution did not lead to improvement in common people's life. If this impression is right, I find it highly regrettable.

 

[innonimatu]

Thats not really a question about socialist leaders, but leaders in general Inn.

That is true. But leaders who want to carry out revolutions usually have to demand extraordinary scarifies from their supporters, making this question more important in those cases.

Yes.
Counterquestion: if you were in the leadership in a socialist state and faced domestic and foreign hostilite forces that wanted to destroy said state, what would you do? And note well that this is not a philosophy seminary, but a situation in real life.
I also seem to get the impression that you think that the Russian revolution did not lead to improvement in common people's life. If this impression is right, I find it highly regrettable.

I guess that I'm not leader material, for I would seriously consider surrender if I believes that the damage from conflict would be higher that from defeat. For example, I still admire this man, in my own country, for having quited power voluntarily when he could instead have pushed the country into what would likely turn into a civil war and foreign invasion (by our dear american allies).Of, course, if we're talking about Stalin and WW2, surrender was never an option for the USSR.
It's the events on the GDR, 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, etc., which I find hard to justify - even if I do suspect that hostile forces were ready to exploit those.

The russian revolution did improve people's lives, eventually. But at a terrible price, one which I would never be comfortable asking for. That's why the question of how a revolution can be justified interests me.

 

[Teeninvestor]

First of all, I want to ask what is your defintion of "fascism". Is Fascism not just a market economy with an authoritian government???

Second of all, am I considered a fascist???? or an evil speculator(for short selling the stock market)???? Will speculation be banned in the socialist state???

Third of all, how do you plan to reward those persons who display superior abilities in Socialism???? will they be given higher pay or the same pay as others???? if they are given the same pay as others what will be the incentive for improving services or technological innovation??? Will that not create a culture of mediocrity????

Fourth of all, how would a new socialist state "compete" with capitalist economies??? Would a socialist economy be able to produce goods at a cheaper price??? or with better quality??? Would it be able to match capitalist countries in performance??? If not, how could the socialist state prevent the people taking part in the socialist state having second thoughts/escaping from socialism????

Fifth of all, by eliminating all forms of "exploition", have you considered that entrepreneurs who set up businesses most likely work harder than their employees???? I don't like hereditary wealth passing from father to son but should you penalize the success of entrepreneurs who took risk and got rewarded???

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

First of all, I want to ask what is your defintion of "fascism". Is Fascism not just a market economy with an authoritian government???

Fascism denotes a number of qualities:

1) The ideology that the needs of the state come foremost, and that the needs of the individual are insignificant.

2) The interests of corporations and big business are intertwined and both compete with and influence national interests.

3) The suppression of grassroots labor movements as well as unions.

4) Intense nationalism.

5) The willingness of the government to supersede the liberty of individuals to maintain the status quo of the ruling elite.

6) Either directly or indirectly believe in the tenets of social Darwinism, and actively or passively encourage such developments in society.

7) Militarism is not necessary, but often present.

Second of all, am I considered a fascist????

You haven't been around here long enough for us to know. Ask again in a few months. Believe it or not, fascist is not simply some blanket term socialists use for people who do not agree with them, indeed, there are people with whom I disagree vehemently on many issues that I would not call fascist. Further, fascist does not mean Nazi, and should not be construed to mean such; if we wanted to call you a National Socialist, we would do so.

or an evil speculator(for short selling the stock market)????

You're a capitalist rightist. Such is expected of you.

Will speculation be banned in the socialist state???

Of course. Speculators do not contribute to society, and only work for their own gain.

Third of all, how do you plan to reward those persons who display superior abilities in Socialism????

You'll need to explain this one.

will they be given higher pay or the same pay as others????

Certainly not. It may start out that way (there was certainly a pay grade in the USSR to degree, it was simply not so far-flung as in the West), but the ultimate goal of communism is to eliminate the disparities of income, among other things. Of course, I am not a communist but a socialist, and I would be more comfortable with a reduced pay disparity than with none, but when the former is achieved, then perhaps I will consider the latter.

if they are given the same pay as others what will be the incentive for improving services or technological innovation???
Will that not create a culture of mediocrity????

I will answer these together.

In our present society, the motive for doing better is money and wealth. Material wealth. This is the goal that is emphasized, and the primary drive promoted by our society, because it is seen as the epitome of success to be wealthy. That is the system of values we have chosen. Human beings are quite capable, as history has proven, of operating on a different level than this, with a different system of values. If you take people for whom the only motivation to do anything is the increase of wealth, then yes, it will cultivate a culture of mediocrity. However, when people work for the pride of having done a job well, for personal satisfaction, and for the betterment of their community because they understand that people must work for communal betterment and not personal betterment, and that the whole of society is better because of that, then no, I do not believe that mediocrity of aspiration will result, and neither do socialists.

Fourth of all, how would a new socialist state "compete" with capitalist economies??? Would a socialist economy be able to produce goods at a cheaper price??? or with better quality??? Would it be able to match capitalist countries in performance???

It probably doesn't need to export, so it doesn't need to compete. And the notion that this would create poor quality products is a post hoc fallacy.

If not, how could the socialist state prevent the people taking part in the socialist state having second thoughts/escaping from socialism????

Brain drain may very well be a consequence of the emergence of a socialist state.

Fifth of all, by eliminating all forms of "exploition", have you considered that entrepreneurs who set up businesses most likely work harder than their employees???? I don't like hereditary wealth passing from father to son but should you penalize the success of entrepreneurs who took risk and got rewarded???

Their reward is the wealth generated by their employees, who do not receive the full amount of wealth they created in return for having created it. That is the exploitation. The question is not how hard they work, it is the acknowledgment that such wealth could not have been created without the help of everyone involved in the process. That small businessman could not have created the amount of wealth by himself that he did by hiring those employees, else he wouldn't have hired them. When he "is rewarded" with increased wealth by having hired those employees, it is (in our present system) because he gave them less amount of wealth for their labor than their labor actually created, and kept the rest for himself. It is not necessary to do this, however, and still have a functioning business. For example, let's say the businessman hires 5 employees to work for him, and with those five employees he makes 5 times the sales he did before (random numbers for the sake of explanation); in the capitalist economic model, he would make, let's say twice as much as them (again, random number. Assume all these numbers are random unless stated otherwise). Now, he will probably use some of the extra cash from their labor to finance expansion of the business; after all, this is not a pyramid scheme. But, at the end of the day, he is making more than his employees are, which is only possible because they helped him make that money in the first place. That is the exploitation we say is so wrong.
Let's say that, in a parallel universe, that businessman hired the same 5 employees, and they again make the business 5 times as much sales as when it was just the businessman by himself. However, that businessman then only makes as much as the rest of his employees; they aren't necessarily making any more than they would have been in the capitalist alternate universe, but he is making the same as them, so it is fair. He still has that extra money from their combined labor to finance expanding his business, maintaining it, etc. So it is perfectly possible to run a business smartly, economically, and without the inequality and exploitation that our capitalist system has so deified.

Do these answers clear anything up for you?

 

[Teeninvestor]

Thank you for your explanations. It cleared up some things.

I do still have a few questions.

In my teenage years, in addition to spending time reading how to speculate in the stock market, I also read various economic theories. Obviously, one of them is socialism.

One point which I take with socialism is their notion that a person may work for simply work. I agree some people will do work for this purpose(myself sometimes, as I don't like to be idle.) But from what I have observed most people will not work unless they are forced. Now just like a capitalist society a proposed socialist society will need people to do the various jobs. How will socialists be able to force people to do these various jobs(besides using brute force like Mao and Stalin)???? Also how will socialists deal with the problem of free-riders, say people who call in sick every day and do not work???

Second point: Many people in the socialist society may feel they will have a better chance in a capitalistic society. Knowing this, they will eventually advocate capitalism. How will the socialist society continue once more and more of these people become "Closet capitalists"?

To take a crude example, take a "speculator" like myself. Wouldn't most of these people try to move to other countries, or become closet saboteurs in the socialist country???

Also, how will a socialist society reward talent? for example, I feel it would be unfair if one person say contributes much more to society(say, he invents a cure for cancer) and yet he is in the same or even a similar condition to a "free-rider" who does no work. Should talent not be rewarded?

Third point:One of the best things about capitalism(in my opinion) is that it is able to meet demand with supply; capitalists will produce what is profitable, meeting the demand. How will the socialists know what is needed(short of taking a survey of every household)???

Fourth point: Do you think that a socialist country can survive in a world of capitalist nations??? or does a revolution need to occur simaltenously in all the major powers in order for socialism to survive???? As it seems to me if even one capitalist major power survives, it would be able to outcompete most socialist countries.

Fifth point: Do you consider Scanadanvia an example of socialism???? Scandanvia's governments as I recall have over 50% of the economy in the public sector, which means all those capitalists combined cannot match the public. Is that not a characteristic of socialism???

Sixth point: I realize one of socialism's doctrines is that workers are exploited because the capitalist takes part of the value of the labor of the workers away. However, doesn't the capitalist deserve some credit as he/she assembled the workers, the machinery, so the goods can actually be produced. I mean, without the capitalist, we couldn't match the workers up with the machinery to produce things. Didn't he create most of the extra value(as workers on themselves, I noticed, usually don't produce their own products with their own machinery- mercantilist era of China(Han-Tang) and Europe (1500-1700) excepted.

Seventh Point: I realize socialism's goal is equality for all, but has it occured to you that sometimes people are not equal in ability???? Some people get 90% averages, others 80%, others 70%. How can everyone's income be made equal, if people's abilities are unequal????

Eighth Point: How will the common man benefit from socialism???? I mean even in "capitalist" economies like the US, you have a welfare system that basically feeds the poor and make sure they have a pretty good life. How will a common family benefit from the change? for example, in my neighbourhood, a typical family has a home paid off, and several hundred thousand dollars in savings, a moderate amount. They are not rich, but they are not poor either. Solid middle class. How will they benefit???

Fascism denotes a number of qualities:

1) The ideology that the needs of the state come foremost, and that the needs of the individual are insignificant.

2) The interests of corporations and big business are intertwined and both compete with and influence national interests.

3) The suppression of grassroots labor movements as well as unions.

4) Intense nationalism.

5) The willingness of the government to supersede the liberty of individuals to maintain the status quo of the ruling elite.

6) Either directly or indirectly believe in the tenets of social Darwinism, and actively or passively encourage such developments in society.

7) Militarism is not necessary, but often present.

Well, I have some nationalism, but I disagree with the rest of them, unless free market competition is "social darwinism".

Anyways to sum it up, I think the main difference between capitalism and socialism is that socialists think that the profit motive is weaker than the motive for collective good(also known as altruism) while capitalists believe the opposite. So far, it seems capitalism is coming on top. However, if socialism does succeed in a large country(it doesn't count if it succeeds in a country with 100 million barrels of oil to the man), I might change my views.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

To your fifth point, I ask which Scandinavian country you mean. There are 3-8 of them...

 

[Teeninvestor]

Sweden definitely. That is the model example isnt it????

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Well it differs very much from Norway (a non-debatable Scandinavian country) or Latvia (a debatable Scandinavian country).

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Thank you for your explanations. It cleared up some things.

I do still have a few questions.

In my teenage years, in addition to spending time reading how to speculate in the stock market, I also read various economic theories. Obviously, one of them is socialism.

One point which I take with socialism is their notion that a person may work for simply work.

Not simply for work, but for motivations other than a pay raise.

I agree some people will do work for this purpose(myself sometimes, as I don't like to be idle.) But from what I have observed most people will not work unless they are forced.

Of course, you're observing in a capitalist society. As I explained above, there are different systems of value. In socialist countries this has historically not been a problem.

Now just like a capitalist society a proposed socialist society will need people to do the various jobs. How will socialists be able to force people to do these various jobs(besides using brute force like Mao and Stalin)????

I'm not sure, it would depend on the job and the country. I suppose incentives could be thought up. I imagine one way would be to restrict the number of people in one business, say, doctors, if there are too many, or make it more difficult to get into the prerequiste college programs, if they are required. Likewise, if it is "easier" to get into the jobs that are needed, then people will go to them as well; not everyone gets to be what they want to when they grow up, this is a simple fact of life no matter where or when you live. Of course, even capitalist societies don't have an answer to this, apart from offering insane salaries to those positions in need of people, but I explained previously why money would not be of prime importance. Remember that in a socialist society, the basic necessities of life are already provided for by the state.

Also how will socialists deal with the problem of free-riders, say people who call in sick every day and do not work???

They get to suffer at the bottom, skating by with the minimum amount of to survive. Its not a fun life, to be sure, but you won't die from it. One of the main arguments against that safety net is that if it exists, then everyone will automatically fall back on it, because no one ever works harder than they have to, and if they could, then everyone would just graduate from high school and live off the government. This is a logical fallacy.

Second point: Many people in the socialist society may feel they will have a better chance in a capitalistic society. Knowing this, they will eventually advocate capitalism. How will the socialist society continue once more and more of these people become "Closet capitalists"?

What do you mean by "have a better chance?" Better chance at what? Given the choice between equality and inequality, when everyone starts out pretty much equal, I think people will continue to maintain the status quo.

To take a crude example, take a "speculator" like myself. Wouldn't most of these people try to move to other countries, or become closet saboteurs in the socialist country???

Go, if you wish.

Also, how will a socialist society reward talent? for example, I feel it would be unfair if one person say contributes much more to society(say, he invents a cure for cancer) and yet he is in the same or even a similar condition to a "free-rider" who does no work. Should talent not be rewarded?

Of course. There are rewards apart from money.

Third point:One of the best things about capitalism(in my opinion) is that it is able to meet demand with supply; capitalists will produce what is profitable, meeting the demand. How will the socialists know what is needed(short of taking a survey of every household)???

Corporations function more or less like small planned economies. I don't see why an attentive and well-formed system could not successfully plan an economy and meet demand acceptably.

I should mention here that not all socialist economies need to be planned; if a socialist society evolved closer to, say, an anarcho-syndicalist approach, then there could theoretically still be a "free market," but with those businesses run democratically and with fair distribution of wealth (because it would be decided democratically by the workers, who are of course going to lower the top salaries and increase their own). It really depends on how the whole thing goes down.

Fourth point: Do you think that a socialist country can survive in a world of capitalist nations??? or does a revolution need to occur simaltenously in all the major powers in order for socialism to survive???? As it seems to me if even one capitalist major power survives, it would be able to outcompete most socialist countries.

I am not a Trotskyist, and I don't think there are any on this forum. A worldwide revolt would certainly make things a lot easier, but it would proceed unequally, as different nations are at different stages of economic development. Ideally, it would start in the post-Industrial nations, i.e. Western Europe, the US, Canada, South Korea, and Japan.

As for this "outcompetition," I assume you are basing this on the reality that was the West vs. East race that dominated the Twentieth Century. It is important to remember that a socialist revolution is best served when it happens in a capitalist, industrialized nation; there has been no such event in history. Russia, China, Poland, Rumania, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, these places were not industrialized. East Germany was perhaps the most industrial in theory, but it was robbed of most of its industry as war reparations to the Soviet Union, in addition to being the more rural half of Germany to begin with. The Eastern Bloc had to play catchup during the time that the West was growing exponentially; simple math tells you that calling this an uphill battle is an understatement. In November 1917, Russia was, for all intents and purposes, in the 18th Century. What it achieved after the Revolution was nothing short of miraculous, but to compare the West, which began industrialization long before the East in addition to many other advantages, and the East, which was the effective backwater of Europe, is simply unfair and dishonest.

Fifth point: Do you consider Scanadanvia an example of socialism???? Scandanvia's governments as I recall have over 50% of the economy in the public sector, which means all those capitalists combined cannot match the public. Is that not a characteristic of socialism???

I'll let Luce comment on this, as he is Norwegian and I am American.

Sixth point: I realize one of socialism's doctrines is that workers are exploited because the capitalist takes part of the value of the labor of the workers away. However, doesn't the capitalist deserve some credit as he/she assembled the workers, the machinery, so the goods can actually be produced. I mean, without the capitalist, we couldn't match the workers up with the machinery to produce things. Didn't he create most of the extra value(as workers on themselves, I noticed, usually don't produce their own products with their own machinery- mercantilist era of China(Han-Tang) and Europe (1500-1700) excepted.

Yes it does. Capitalism is not pure evil, and its achievements are worth great praise. However, it is an unsustainable system that exploits the things that make it great, which is why socialism is the evolution after capitalism. Socialism will have to meet and exceed the achievements of capitalism if it is to succeed.

Seventh Point: I realize socialism's goal is equality for all, but has it occured to you that sometimes people are not equal in ability???? Some people get 90% averages, others 80%, others 70%. How can everyone's income be made equal, if people's abilities are unequal????

Of course, that is the point of making people equal. If left to their own devices, their inherent inequalities will subjugate one group under another. Such is the basis for social Darwinism that these things should be allowed to evolve naturally. That may be true of the animal and plant world, but humans are unique among species in that we have the power to forgo natural law and create our own laws; it would be a crime against our own intellect and a step towards barbarism to surrender that gift.

Eighth Point: How will the common man benefit from socialism????

A better question is: how do they not?

I mean even in "capitalist" economies like the US, you have a welfare system that basically feeds the poor and make sure they have a pretty good life.

...which only exists because socialists and communists fought tooth and nail for decades for it.

How will a common family benefit from the change? for example, in my neighbourhood, a typical family has a home paid off, and several hundred thousand dollars in savings, a moderate amount. They are not rich, but they are not poor either. Solid middle class. How will they benefit???

I would say they are rich. Low-level rich, but rich. They are in the severe minority.

Well, I have some nationalism, but I disagree with the rest of them, unless free market competition is "social darwinism".

Luce will disagree with me when I say this because he doesn't like the term, but essentially, yes.

Anyways to sum it up, I think the main difference between capitalism and socialism is that socialists think that the profit motive is weaker than the motive for collective good(also known as altruism) while capitalists believe the opposite. So far, it seems capitalism is coming on top.

It is only a matter of time.

However, if socialism does succeed in a large country(it doesn't count if it succeeds in a country with 100 million barrels of oil to the man), I might change my views.

Venezuela is going to be the worst case of Dutch Disease the world has seen in a long time. I hope Chavez is smart enough to build some sort of basis that is not oil for his economy, and quickly.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Do you like Venezuela's model? Do you like Chavez? This is specifically directed to Cheezy, though I would like Luce to also answer it.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, I don't like Venezuela's model. As I said, it is entirely dependent on oil sales, which must stay about $74/barrel to remain economically sound. It is around $55 or so now IIRC, and has been down for some time. He needs to get a basis for his economy quickly, or he won't be able to afford his social programs. Those programs, however, are doing real wonders for the vastly impoverished, illiterate, and insalubrious population. I like Chavez himself, though, even if he is a tad bombastic.

 

[Agent327]

Venezuela's "model" then is quite like modern day Russia, being dependent on oil and gas sales - which is why they're in for a serious economic depression. IMO Chavez's only "model" is the one keeping him in power; I don't consider what he's doing a model at all.

Clearly you see the defective in comparing a scientific study with a work of fiction regarding its estetical qualities. And anyone familiar with the writings of Marx would know that he was able to express himself in stylish prose, see for instance some of his historical works.
Also, the reason Orwell is called despicable is not his ability to write fiction.

Scientific studies should also be readable if a wider audience is the intention of the author. Marx isn't known for his historical treatises. I was well aware of the fact why Orwell was called despicable, but skipped it over necause of the inane reason given.

I don't like that sort of rhetorics. The similarities between nazi germany and the so-called Western democracies should be more relevant to socialists. And the contemporary capitalist societies are no less totalitarian.

One determinative in any totalitarian regime is an autocratic state. What you're doing also falls into the category of rhetoric (and I don't man that pejoratively). And I'm no socialist.

General lament: O tempora, o mores! Are manners that difficult to aquire? Be I too old for this forum?

Ye might be correct there.

 

[Teeninvestor]

I would say they are rich. Low-level rich, but rich. They are in the severe minority.

Rich????? The last time I checked the rich don't ride public transit. And they don't drive 8 year old hondas.

Remember that in a socialist society, the basic necessities of life are already provided for by the state.

That's another point I have to take? for example, if you were planning minister in a socialist US now, how many shoes would you produce??? how many pots??? how many newspapers???? how many computers???? in a socialist system the most easy thing to determine in capitalism becomes a throbbing headache.

Of course, that is the point of making people equal. If left to their own devices, their inherent inequalities will subjugate one group under another. Such is the basis for social Darwinism that these things should be allowed to evolve naturally. That may be true of the animal and plant world, but humans are unique among species in that we have the power to forgo natural law and create our own laws; it would be a crime against our own intellect and a step towards barbarism to surrender that gift.

Making people equal in their abilities will be very difficult, I assure you. You either make everyone extremely intelligent(very hard to do) or you make everyone dumb(which is very bad). How will you plan to do it???

It is only a matter of time.

Well, I could see a situation in which socialism works after the advent of genetic engineering lets people suit themselves to certain roles.

As for this "outcompetition," I assume you are basing this on the reality that was the West vs. East race that dominated the Twentieth Century. It is important to remember that a socialist revolution is best served when it happens in a capitalist, industrialized nation; there has been no such event in history. Russia, China, Poland, Rumania, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, these places were not industrialized. East Germany was perhaps the most industrial in theory, but it was robbed of most of its industry as war reparations to the Soviet Union, in addition to being the more rural half of Germany to begin with. The Eastern Bloc had to play catchup during the time that the West was growing exponentially; simple math tells you that calling this an uphill battle is an understatement. In November 1917, Russia was, for all intents and purposes, in the 18th Century. What it achieved after the Revolution was nothing short of miraculous, but to compare the West, which began industrialization long before the East in addition to many other advantages, and the East, which was the effective backwater of Europe, is simply unfair and dishonest.

Yes I realize that the East was inferior to the west in terms of development and during Stalin's time they achieved miracles. But the collapse of the planned economies weren't warranted; the collapse was mainly internal, rather than external pressures.

There is one socialist whose views I subscribe to, and that is Noam Chomsky. His treatise on US foreign policy is excellent; but I understand his utopia is "syndicalism" in which workers run companies and shove off their bosses???

Corporations function more or less like small planned economies. I don't see why an attentive and well-formed system could not successfully plan an economy and meet demand acceptably.

I should mention here that not all socialist economies need to be planned; if a socialist society evolved closer to, say, an anarcho-syndicalist approach, then there could theoretically still be a "free market," but with those businesses run democratically and with fair distribution of wealth (because it would be decided democratically by the workers, who are of course going to lower the top salaries and increase their own). It really depends on how the whole thing goes down.

Well, I have a question. Corporations do plan, but it is the collective plans/information of all the companies that make up the capitalist system. How will socialists know every piece of information that all those companies would know???

Anyways here is my question for this thread. Assume the most perfect conditions for socialism(that I can think of)-

August 2010. The Financial crisis gets worse. Every bank is bankrupt, there is hyperinflation everywhere. The people of the US believes capitalism has failed. At this point, the socialist party led by Cheezy the wiz march on the white house, takes power from Barack Obama, and establish the socialist states of america. America is still powerful and free from intervention by other nations. Cheezy the wiz implements socialism. Now here's some questions:

1. How will you deal with the financial markets??? will you close the NYSE forever and expropriate the wealth of everyone who invested??? or will you only expropriate the wealth of short sellers???? what about derivatives???? will they be expropriated too???

2. How will you deal with the capitalists??? will you let nationalization in slowly??? or will you take over all the enterprises??? will all the capitalists be shot?? or will they be expelled??? or reeducated???

3. How will you deal with the petit-bourgoeis, who have say a paid off house and several hundred thousand dollars in savings???? will they be expropriated too???

4. Will you continue to trade with other capitalist countries??? or will you establish an autarky??? How will you revive the US economy's competitiveness(assuming you are still trading with other countries)??? How will the US retain the lead in technology it is fast losing???