Wait! What about all the successes of Marxism? Where is your logical argument for the value of implementing its Utopian workers paradise?
Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Capitalism, What are your thoughts?
- Thread starter Joij21
- Start date
It's easy to show the success and failures of jet planes. Millions of people use them. Please show me the success of interplanetary travel.
Elon Musk can't bring even a single human on Mars.
There is a point where a philosophy can be measured by its success based on either its propagation or results. If an economic model is successful, it will outperform competitors and attract adoption or immigration.
Most models require some type of seed funding that wasn't generated using the model itself. And you have to watch out for that type of criticism. It's a valid point, but it has its limits as a criticism.
I will allude to the criticism that we use iPhones in order to complain about oligopolies. The criticism is both valid and a deflection, and you just have to decide which way that conversation is going. Same with regards to the seed funding of a successful economic model
Most models require some type of seed funding that wasn't generated using the model itself. And you have to watch out for that type of criticism. It's a valid point, but it has its limits as a criticism.
I will allude to the criticism that we use iPhones in order to complain about oligopolies. The criticism is both valid and a deflection, and you just have to decide which way that conversation is going. Same with regards to the seed funding of a successful economic model
It's not a moral issue, though. Not completely. Or, the moral argument needs to acknowledge the power of the situation. A sustainable system, by definition, needs to be able to defend itself. But it doesn't even need to be 'might makes right', because success would also be in the form of immigration. And, if that immigration is allowed to be voluntary, it's a measure of explicit relative success.
Self-defense is not the only measure of success, obviously. But it's a measure. Successful self-defense is not an 'auto-pass', but if it cannot defend itself, it's a failure.
Marxism would be a failure if it cannot convince people to organize themselves according to its principles, and thrive. It's not Christianity, where you get Heaven points for jumping on a hand grenade. It's not Christianity, where if you kill enough infidels, you get points in Heaven. It needs to serve its followers in real time, ideally through voluntary adoption (but see again, 'seed investment').
In some ways, humans should be treated as a force of nature, especially if they're outside of your society. Would we praise a medical research system that didn't increase healthspan? Would we insist that a medical system was 'better' if an unexpected disease completely waylaid it? Not really, and in science there's immigration of ideas. If you have a good research ecology, ideas will migrate to regions that have poor ones - but not vis versa.
Self-defense is not the only measure of success, obviously. But it's a measure. Successful self-defense is not an 'auto-pass', but if it cannot defend itself, it's a failure.
Marxism would be a failure if it cannot convince people to organize themselves according to its principles, and thrive. It's not Christianity, where you get Heaven points for jumping on a hand grenade. It's not Christianity, where if you kill enough infidels, you get points in Heaven. It needs to serve its followers in real time, ideally through voluntary adoption (but see again, 'seed investment').
In some ways, humans should be treated as a force of nature, especially if they're outside of your society. Would we praise a medical research system that didn't increase healthspan? Would we insist that a medical system was 'better' if an unexpected disease completely waylaid it? Not really, and in science there's immigration of ideas. If you have a good research ecology, ideas will migrate to regions that have poor ones - but not vis versa.
Would we insist that medical system A is better if medicine system B sabotaged it and destroyed its public trust by pointing at the failures that itself, system B, caused?
Don't pretend marxism versus capitalism is some kind of equal footing playground rumble. It's the haves versus the have-nots and the haves have more resources to devote to their victory.
Don't pretend marxism versus capitalism is some kind of equal footing playground rumble. It's the haves versus the have-nots and the haves have more resources to devote to their victory.
But further, I'm not just talking about 'self-defense' except insofar as the philosophy defends itself, memetically, and is adopted successfully. The version of Christianity that taught that your reward is in Heaven died because its adherents died. Oh, it pops up again once in awhile, but it cannot survive. You can't rely on faith in God to provide. You have to worry about the 'morrow.
The version of Christianity that survived allowed its people to be slightly selfish, to prefer a neighbour over a stranger, to ignore some sins in your brothers. The idea itself lived, and people voluntarily continue to adopt it.
The version of Christianity that survived allowed its people to be slightly selfish, to prefer a neighbour over a stranger, to ignore some sins in your brothers. The idea itself lived, and people voluntarily continue to adopt it.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
The central principle of Marxism is that people organise themselves primarily on the basis of economic relationships, and not on the basis of ideological principles.
There are Marxist political programs, but Marxism is not, in itself, a political program. It's a framework.
You're treating external humans as something other than a force of nature, the model only cares about how it benefits its adherents. We've been mostly respecting borders ("mostly") for two generations now and the Marxist model has been around for much longer (the Soviets literally had the same book we do). If it was capable of being successful, then asking for evidence of success is reasonable. It's certainly been tried. If those regions had shown success, you're correct in that invasion would prevent the success from becoming evident. But if they'd shown success, they'd also have seen immigration, etc.
I don't think Marxism is inherently evil or anything, not that I'd know. It's just a series of angles looking at a problem. But the atrocities done by people who claim to follow the book cannot be swept away.
You're making a moral argument, and that's fine. I think that vegetarianism is superior to bragging about being a carnivore mainly for moral reasons. But an economic philosophy has to have practical success in order to be judged successful. Before then, it's just paper. Libertarianism has also failed, for example. It didn't fail for lack of resources or for lack of people who liked the idea. It failed because it doesn't create a self-propagating success.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
There's no doubt capitalism is successful. Capitalism has destroyed the old governments, overturned the old economies, shattered the old idols, and replaced the old societies with new, industrialized societies, or with societies shaped by regimes whose sole purpose was to support industrialized societies. Through the medium of capitalism, the western nations established worldwide empires and achieved the highest standards of living in human history. Even where their political boundaries did not extend, their economic pull was irresistible. Nowadays, the capitalists have finely honed their tools, but the logic is the same as it ever was. Capitalism has conquered the world.
So the question is not really whether capitalism is capable of building powerful empires and assimilating vast cultures, but whether the capitalist mode of production is truly sustainable. In the Marxist sense, socialism is not offered as an alternative to capitalism that people should opt into: it is described as an inevitable consequence of capitalist failure. If the capitalist system is unsustainable, and if the nature of capitalist failure is such that it produces legions of dispossessed workers all but slave laboring for a pittance, then the conditions become ripe for those workers to forcibly take the economy into their own hands; to "seize the means of production." The people band together out of simple economic necessity: they are all poor, and they all rely on competition over the same thing to live, they are aware of their position and of the positions of their fellows, and they are committed to change their situation.
In the actual world, we have seen that Marxist movements have not only been able to organize, but self-sustain, expand, and ultimately successfully seize the apparatus of state. We have seen this now across the colonized world and in Russia. Now you may question whether any of these is "true communism" or desirable to a certain view, but the fact of their existence and the facts of the oppression that created them cannot really be doubted. Revolutions do not simply "go bad," they reflect the circumstances that force them to survive. Sometimes that involves bad things, but not for no reason: there is a science to it.
So the question is not really whether capitalism is capable of building powerful empires and assimilating vast cultures, but whether the capitalist mode of production is truly sustainable. In the Marxist sense, socialism is not offered as an alternative to capitalism that people should opt into: it is described as an inevitable consequence of capitalist failure. If the capitalist system is unsustainable, and if the nature of capitalist failure is such that it produces legions of dispossessed workers all but slave laboring for a pittance, then the conditions become ripe for those workers to forcibly take the economy into their own hands; to "seize the means of production." The people band together out of simple economic necessity: they are all poor, and they all rely on competition over the same thing to live, they are aware of their position and of the positions of their fellows, and they are committed to change their situation.
In the actual world, we have seen that Marxist movements have not only been able to organize, but self-sustain, expand, and ultimately successfully seize the apparatus of state. We have seen this now across the colonized world and in Russia. Now you may question whether any of these is "true communism" or desirable to a certain view, but the fact of their existence and the facts of the oppression that created them cannot really be doubted. Revolutions do not simply "go bad," they reflect the circumstances that force them to survive. Sometimes that involves bad things, but not for no reason: there is a science to it.
That gets it. Now, the Soviet Union cannot be called a success, because it didn't self-sustain. The prediction that capitalism cannot self-sustain is a powerful criticism (I called it a failure mode upthread) and we're currently experimenting with a variety of interventions. But still asking for evidence of success is reasonable. It's a natural experiment.
Lexicus
Deity
First off I just want to note that a recurring pattern with you is to bring up Mao every time someone mildly criticizes some aspect of contemporary capitalism. It is kind of silly and it invites the "ok boomer" dismissal so you might want to stop doing it and actually engage with what people say instead.
Seguing into the actual point, I do not want some kind of Maoist committee deciding how many clothes people can wear. Rather, I prefer to allow the market to answer those questions: but it must be a given that people are paid a living wage for their work. If that means most Americans can only afford two or three outfits, well, that's the price of dealing fairly with people: of giving the worker a "square deal", as noted Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Theodore Roosevelt put it.
Simple: all the successes you attribute to "western capitalism" are generally actually attributable to labor movements and the movements for political reform that are often connected to them, whereas the social forces associated with capitalism have fought against them tooth and nail. Marxism has inspired most of the labor movements in the last hundred and fifty years to one degree or another. The "successes" you attribute simplistically to Western capitalism virtually all owe something to Marxism.
Capitalism with Marxist tweaking versus Marxism with capitalist tweaking.
Fight!
Fight!
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
That’s true. It’s still worth pointing out there were many reasons for the Soviet collapse, some of which we can learn from. For example it seems to me that Brezhnev’s policy of military expansion was unsustainable. It also seems to me that Gorbachev’s policies generally amount to a big Hail Mary that was probably an overreaction. And I’m not sure about collectivization of agriculture in general. The Soviet System did fail, but not every aspect of the Soviet system was a failure. They did invent space travel.
I think being objective about the iron curtain might shine a light on the true conduct of capitalist and socialist economies outside of the bubble of “capitalism good, socialism bad.” Actually we know capitalism is not all good and we know socialism is not all bad. The reality bears this out as well.
Take China. The question of whether China is capitalist or socialist is a very political one as we have already seen. I believe however that regardless of its current condition it can be called a Marxist success story. After Mao’s death, Deng Xiaoping won control of the party and began to implement the “liberalizing reforms.” Free enterprise and free markets appeared and growth slowly started to increase. I was told by someone that everyone in China remembers this change because “we finally started having enough to eat.”
But even in the presence of this rudimentary capitalist structure, the state maintained direct control of large upstream industries, and created bureaus to regulate and shape the growing markets. Large state planning regimes remained at the forefront and the Communist Party remained in control of the government.
I would call this a Marxist success because it was a Marxist state that created this circumstance and continues to prevail over it. If anything else it’s an instructive case study in how socialist economies can judiciously apply free market policies where they think it might do some good. Lenin’s New Economic Policy ran along similar lines.
Taking into account all you know about China you might decide this means “success” is a mixed bag.
And it is! That’s been my point all along. Cuba has survived three decades now after being “cut off the Soviet vine,” and it has no shortage of critics in the west. But it also does not have many of the problems the west does. One of Cuba’s greatest achievements, its healthcare system, highlights a strength in exactly one of American capitalism’s biggest valleys. And looking at the aggregate, Cuba is nowhere near as large and as wealthy as America. Is that due to capitalism? Well, it seems hard to argue that considering Cuba was capitalist before the revolution, and it was Cuban and American businessmen exploiting the Cubans that led to that revolution! Nevertheless, Cuba is still around to this day.
And then there’s Vietnam, which has fended off both American and Chinese imperialism and made arrangements for its own security continuously for 50 years and counting.
Overall I hope I’ve helped illustrate the case that “success” is an illusory criteria and that what we really want to know in comparing capitalism and socialism is how or why does one lead to the other. The real success is avoiding the mistakes of the past.
I think the most useful realization we could make in this conversation in general is realizing it’s not about free markets versus governments per se, but workers versus bourgeoisie.
Lexicus
Deity
The Marxist perspective is pretty clear that capitalist development is what creates the possibility of socialism, so I'm not sure I can actually accept the premise of this debate. A Marxist would say that arguing over which system is metaphysically superior misses the point by a large margin.
As I've noted elsewhere, I also am not sure that the success or failure (as decided by the exalted posters of CFC, natch) of states run by people who called themselves Marxists has anything whatsoever to do with the validity or usefulness of what Tfish has called the framework of Marxism.
They meet the self-defense criteria, which is a minimum threshold, but an essential one.
But we can also examine explicit preference. Are people migrating to Cuba? Are people migrating to Vietnam? Are people fleeing Cuba? Are people fleeing Vietnam? Is the migration because of oppression or because of perceived opportunity?
Cuba is a good example with regards to that last question. People might be leaving Cuba for the States merely because they think they have higher earning potential in the United States. This is not so much of damnation of Communism as people might think it is, because Cuba is a smaller and isolated economy. For simple economies of scale, a person's quality of life might be higher in a larger economy, even if it is a worse system.
If they are leaving because of perceived oppression, that's a different thing, and is points against the local success
I don't know if Vietnam is subjected to international trade barriers in the same way Cuba is, my suspicion is not. But I literally don't know. And then you would ask the same question about migration
But we can also examine explicit preference. Are people migrating to Cuba? Are people migrating to Vietnam? Are people fleeing Cuba? Are people fleeing Vietnam? Is the migration because of oppression or because of perceived opportunity?
Cuba is a good example with regards to that last question. People might be leaving Cuba for the States merely because they think they have higher earning potential in the United States. This is not so much of damnation of Communism as people might think it is, because Cuba is a smaller and isolated economy. For simple economies of scale, a person's quality of life might be higher in a larger economy, even if it is a worse system.
If they are leaving because of perceived oppression, that's a different thing, and is points against the local success
I don't know if Vietnam is subjected to international trade barriers in the same way Cuba is, my suspicion is not. But I literally don't know. And then you would ask the same question about migration
I do not understand why is it important in comparing systems. Objectively, Cuba and Vietnam lack both and subjectively both are reasons why people emigrate.
Its true that US is special place where people search for capitalist opportunity. Even Europeans do it. The part of it is certainly propaganda about american dream.
I have been in both countries as a tourist. But my Spanish is weak and my Vietnamese almost does not exist, so I do not know much about mindset of people living there.
Vietnamese migration in CZ rapidly grows every year, they are 3rd biggest minority after Slovaks and Ukrainians. Their family is much more traditional than Czech, parents tell children what to do. The politics is generally avoided, since criticising Vietnam means no possibility to visit relatives in Vietnam or relatives coming here. Its much more about denying democracy than about economical system. Vietnamese immigrants are major entrepreneurs here, setting up shops and restaurants
Its true that US is special place where people search for capitalist opportunity. Even Europeans do it. The part of it is certainly propaganda about american dream.
I have been in both countries as a tourist. But my Spanish is weak and my Vietnamese almost does not exist, so I do not know much about mindset of people living there.
Vietnamese migration in CZ rapidly grows every year, they are 3rd biggest minority after Slovaks and Ukrainians. Their family is much more traditional than Czech, parents tell children what to do. The politics is generally avoided, since criticising Vietnam means no possibility to visit relatives in Vietnam or relatives coming here. Its much more about denying democracy than about economical system. Vietnamese immigrants are major entrepreneurs here, setting up shops and restaurants
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I must be the odd ball one since I lean towards humanizing capitalism under social democracy. Rather than taking a wrecking ball to an entire system.
Yeah, repeatedly using Mao and China as an example of Marxism gets old after a while I should stop. Oh wait!
BTW, I like using China for examples because it is a good source for how things can change over time. I think it is a much better example of socialism/Marxism at work than the USSR. Your quote about food nicely demonstrates how the socialism of Mao failed China and how it was the liberalizing and more market openness that provided enough food. And it has been the growth of Chinese consumerism in the past 20 years that has brought significant prosperity to China today. I have no illusions that capitalism requires restraints and all workers need to earn better than just living wages. Wealth and resource accumulation by the few is a terrible problem. We do not disagree.
Trade in hard currency is also a huge portion of that rise. If you're careful to avoid a debt trap, trade with wealthy neighbors is hugely advantageous
Similar threads
