Difference between socialism and communism.

[Alassius]

The proof of your misunderstanding is that you're making things up. The point is to dispel a remaining myth (like divine right) that tries to disguise exploitation. That is not synonymous with a cure-all. It just implies a better understanding and implementation of freedom.

The bourgeoisie can see exploitation in the old system, but they are ignoring or overlooking the exploitation in their system. It's just calling hypocrisy for what it is, not alchemy.

Marx did more than calling capitalism a hypocrisy. He wanted the hypocritical system to go for good. He did indeed intent the abolishing of private property to be a cure-all. Do you agree with that? If you don't, what do you think was his cure-all, seeing that he must have one if he could have a vision for the utopia?

 

[aelf]

Read this bit I added:

And so, to go back to what you said earlier, the fact that some horribly authoritarian regimes arose from the Marxist movement is an indictment of Marxist political philosophy as much as election frauds are an indictment of democracy. To say that Marxism does not solve inequality because people can use political power to exploit others is to miss the point.

And of course the abolition of capital is not a cure-all. If it it's done successfully, does that mean that there will be no bullies whatsoever, that all evil will be removed and that everything will be fine and dandy?

What you're saying is that if something doesn't solve all problems, then it's rubbish. Well, you might want to take a look at your own system then.

 

[Alassius]

Read this bit I added:

And of course the abolition of capital is not a cure-all. If it it's done successfully, does that mean that there will be no bullies whatsoever, that all evil will be removed and that everything will be fine and dandy?

What you're saying is that if something doesn't solve all problems, then it's rubbish. Well, you might want to take a look at your own system then.

Indeed, "no bullies whatsoever" was pretty much what Marx said. Do you have an explanation on how he thought this could happen, other than that he regarded abolishment of private property as a cure-all?

And so, to go back to what you said earlier, the fact that some horribly authoritarian regimes arose from the Marxist movement is an indictment of Marxist political philosophy as much as election frauds are an indictment of democracy. To say that Marxism does not solve inequality because people can use political power to exploit others is to miss the point.

Democracy had been implemented numerous times where even if election frauds still exist, they did negligible harm compared to the benefits brought by democracy. Communism on the other hand failed to deliver its promises in each and every instance of implementation, and made things quite a bit worse than it was before.

While isolated failures of Soviet Union or China alone would be insufficient to conclude communism is not workable, each failure ought to diminish the confidence in communism. When precisely all attempts have failed, that confidence should have been reduced to the infinitesimal.

 

[aelf]

Indeed, "no bullies whatsoever" was pretty much what Marx said. Do you have an explanation on how he thought this could happen, other than that he regarded abolishment of private property as a cure-all?

Citation needed.

Democracy had been implemented numerous times where even if election frauds still exist, they did negligible harm compared to the benefits brought by democracy. Communism on the other hand failed to deliver its promises in each and every instance of implementation, and made things quite a bit worse than it was before.

Oh, yeah? So back in the 18th century there was an extensive and veritable history of the success of democracy to back it up? In fact, in the 19th century, popular revolts in the name of freedom in the same country produced two Empires, and a Terrorist regime too. They should've been jaded about democracy, right?

Anyway, "implementation" is a nice and simple word. Sure glosses over all the inconvenient details.

While isolated failures of Soviet Union or China alone would be insufficient to conclude communism is not workable, each failure ought to diminish the confidence in communism. When precisely all attempts have failed, that confidence should have been reduced to the infinitesimal.

People will still have confidence in the economy. Why?

 

[Alassius]

Citation needed.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
Please read #20.

Oh, yeah? So back in the 18th century there was an extensive and veritable history of the success of democracy to back it up? In fact, in the 19th century, popular revolts in the name of freedom in the same country produced two Empires, and a Terrorist regime too. They should've been jaded about democracy, right?

Indeed, in 18th century we did not know that well if democracy works or not. Neither did we know if communism works or not. Many intellectuals supported communism at the beginning of 20th century. They should not be blamed for doing that, even if what they fought for ultimately turned evil. It was beyond their ability to predict.

But in 21th century, after many successful democracies and all the failed communist governments, you really should not have any excuses to continue supporting communism, unless you have a really, really good reason on how you could have done better, and why nobody in those governments had already thought and exercised your idea.

Anyway, "implementation" is a nice and simple word. Sure glosses over all the inconvenient details.

Pray tell, what inconvenient details am I glossing over?

People will still have confidence in the economy. Why?

Because the economy works? Even in the worst of days, like now, we're in a much better shape than Soviet Union ever was.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Because the economy works? Even in the worst of days, like now, we're in a much better shape than Soviet Union ever was.

Yes I'm sure we could mobilize all our heavy industry for war right now if we had to.

Oh, wait, most of that industry is overseas? Bummer, that. I guess we have to use Hundai cars and Amish furniture in defense.

Most of our "economy" is speculation. Besides, how do you define whether a economy is "better?"

And, lastly, the present is most definitely not "the worst of our economic days."

 

[Alassius]

Yes I'm sure we could mobilize all our heavy industry for war right now if we had to.

Oh, wait, most of that industry is overseas? Bummer, that. I guess we have to use Hundai cars and Amish furniture in defense.

Most of our "economy" is speculation. Besides, how do you define whether a economy is "better?"

And, lastly, the present is most definitely not "the worst of our economic days."

Well, I give you that the Great Depression was quite a bit worse. But can you deny that even in the Great Depression people still survived better than they did in Stalinist regimes, where millions of people actually died?

Assuming you're talking about American industry. It's true that American industry has been shrunk considerably. But suppose a world war breaks out tomorrow, I'm pretty sure America has the ability to turn on the Rust Belt in just 2-3 years. Their industry was shut down because it was too expensive to run, not because they don't have the resources or skills. When the need arises, it'd be a hell lot easier for America to reopen a few Ford factories to make tanks, than to retool a Chinese clothing factory to make guns.

Most of our economy is not speculation. It's in the computer you use to type that post, in the coffee you drink, in the cloths you're wearing, in the house you live, in the place you work. What you might be justified to call speculative economy is actually a small part of the whole. America's TARP has a $700 billion budget, compared with a $14,264 billion GDP.

 

[aelf]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
Please read #20.

Where's the bit that says "no bullies whatsoever"?

Indeed, in 18th century we did not know that well if democracy works or not. Neither did we know if communism works or not. Many intellectuals supported communism at the beginning of 20th century. They should not be blamed for doing that, even if what they fought for ultimately turned evil. It was beyond their ability to predict.

But in 21th century, after many successful democracies and all the failed communist governments, you really should not have any excuses to continue supporting communism, unless you have a really, really good reason on how you could have done better, and why nobody in those governments had already thought and exercised your idea.

What a lousy argument. A good idea is a good idea regardless of how many times people have failed to put it into practice.

I guess you're saying that as long as goal is hard enough to achieve then we should just forget about trying. Sure makes a lot of ethical principles redundant.

Pray tell, what inconvenient details am I glossing over?

Because you're saying "implement" without even looking at whether the things implemented were right or wrong, or whether they still agreed with the original principles.

Because the economy works? Even in the worst of days, like now, we're in a much better shape than Soviet Union ever was.

Most of our economy is not speculation. It's in the computer you use to type that post, in the coffee you drink, in the cloths you're wearing, in the house you live, in the place you work. What you might be justified to call speculative economy is actually a small part of the whole. America's TARP has a $700 billion budget, compared with a $14,264 billion GDP.

A lot of people get irreversibly burned by the economic troubles. It's a myth that everything is alright because the absolute amount of wealth keeps increasing.

And a lot of the people who are burned come back for more because, well, I guess they just have faith in a system that they think will work out. Even though there isn't even an actual system at all, just chaos. That takes more faith than believing in the principles of the Left, if you ask me, since for us there actually are principles at least.

Well, I give you that the Great Depression was quite a bit worse. But can you deny that even in the Great Depression people still survived better than they did in Stalinist regimes, where millions of people actually died?

So those people are killed by communism or what?

 

[Lillefix]

It's like patriotism and nationalism. For some people socialism(patriotism) sounds nicer and more innocent than communism(nationalism), but in essence they are both the same.

 

[Traitorfish]

Indeed, in 18th century we did not know that well if democracy works or not. Neither did we know if communism works or not. Many intellectuals supported communism at the beginning of 20th century. They should not be blamed for doing that, even if what they fought for ultimately turned evil. It was beyond their ability to predict.

But in 21th century, after many successful democracies and all the failed communist governments, you really should not have any excuses to continue supporting communism, unless you have a really, really good reason on how you could have done better, and why nobody in those governments had already thought and exercised your idea.

"What's for breakfast?"
"I don't know, what do you fancy?"
"Omlettes, maybe?"
"Nah, I made an omlette once, a few years ago. It seemed like a good idea before hand, and the recipe looked great. Didn't work out that way, ended up all burnt and salty. I'm fairly sure that it was an inherently unworkable idea, fundamentally flawed in principle and impossible to implement. After all, it's not like humans get can get things wrong, is it?"

It's like patriotism and nationalism. For some people socialism(patriotism) sounds nicer and more innocent than communism(nationalism), but in essence they are both the same.

A flawed analogy, given that patriotism and nationalism are two entirely distinct concepts, merely sharing certain concepts and thematic elements. Patriotism refers to the love of ones country, and reflects sentiment, rather than any defined ideology. Nationalism refers to a variety of sometimes contradictory ideologies which share the common assertion in the legitimacy of the self-determined nation-state. Even if your assertion as to the relationship between "socialism" and "communism" was correct- as opossed to being entirely the opposite- it's still a simplistic and illogical way of expressing that assertion.