Successful Communism

[ilduce349]

Communism fails because if everyone on the planet had equal money, food ect then everyone would live under the poverty line

 

[Yeekim]

In 1917 1 out of 500 people could read and right

How many could read and left?

The inequality in incomes between the worker’s salary and the professional’s salary was only 10 times, while in the US CEO’s were paid 480 times the wages of workers.

Care to provide a source? A few days ago Cheezy claimed the numbers were 1 to 10 and 1 to 10 000 respectively.
EDIT: Found the post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9138046&postcount=71

 

[Cutlass]

I figured as much, but I should at least spell it out to the people too dense to think that any large numbers of people would become communists in a society that protects free markets from state meddling.

Depending on your definition of "free market", the opposite is true. In the current conservative definition of "free markets", people would absolutely become communists if the markets were free of state meddling. In fact, the primary reason for the state meddling in the first place is to give people a reason to choose capitalism over communism. That's the reason there is a liberal-progressive movement in the first place.

 

[Tee Kay]

Yugoslav communism had some moderate success.

A couple of states in India were/are ruled by the Communist Party for many years and they're some of the better states in that country.

 

[aelf]

A successful Communist country, in pedestrian terms, is probably a wealthy and industrialised country to begin with that has a powerful bureaucracy and is able to spout terms like "freedom and "democracy" and be fully believed and embraced by the masses. In other words, not much different from modern capitalist countries, except maybe that the economic structures are slightly different.

When has it worked successfully according to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

If that's all there is to Communism then I wonder why so many books have been written about it. You might as well just read the Bible or something. Parts of it imply the same principle.

 

[amadeus]

Depending on your definition of "free market", the opposite is true. In the current conservative definition of "free markets", people would absolutely become communists if the markets were free of state meddling.

That explains the hammer and sickle on the Singaporean flag, right? It also explains why so many people joined and remained loyal members of the Communist Party (all 10,000 of them!)

 

[Bill3000]

IT is a contradiction. Economic success requires property rights, as the praxeological category of exchange presupposes them. Without property rights, no exchange and thus no capital structure is possible.

Well then I suppose the historical existence of economic exchange between communal tribes falsifies praxeology, then.

 

[Karalysia]

Communism doesn't eliminate property rights.

 

[Whomp]

I would take a contrary view to both capitalists and socialists.

From an economic perspective, if socialism adopts a market mechanidm it can exist whether the means of production is privately owned or socially owned. Socialism is as workable as capitalism.

Where I also have argument is how socialism develops. Why does it have to develop from a Marxist schema?

I would contend capitalism will fail because of its success rather than its failure. It's not the immiserated prole that leads the charge but instead a "intellectual class" that capitalism creates. The mis-employed, under-employed or unemployed educated elite are the ones who will become bitter critics of capitalism and institute central control.

 

[Cutlass]

That explains the hammer and sickle on the Singaporean flag, right? It also explains why so many people joined and remained loyal members of the Communist Party (all 10,000 of them!)

Different countries, different situations. Singapore didn't have to deal with the depressions once a generation that "free markets" cause.

IT is a contradiction. Economic success requires property rights, as the praxeological category of exchange presupposes them. Without property rights, no exchange and thus no capital structure is possible.

And now you understand why anarcho-capitalism can never possibly work.

 

[Gustave5436]

Thus the term "Marxist-Leninist". Ironically enough, Russia would have been better off if its future "Communist" overlords had listened to Marx and let the capitalists have there day in the sun.

The "Soviet Union" was doomed by its authoritarianism, not its agrarian population. Alliances between the fields and factories have been entirely successful, both within the Russian civil war itself and within other revolutionary situations (such as Spain, as previously mentioned).

That said, it is true that scarcity puts a certain strain on socialist economies; the issue of scarcity was what prompted Marx himself to side against the libertarians in his advocation of a revolutionary State. Since scarcity would not be a relevant issue in a 21st century socialist economy, the classic revolutions are of little value as a direct comparison to a hypothetical future social revolution. This is both direct, in the technical possibility of creating a post-scarcity economy, and indirect, as a rational near-future economy would be transitioning from labor to information as the base form of value.

Communism fails because forced equality among all people puts too much power in the hands of the central government.

Would not the existence of a powerful central bureaucracy be inconsistent with equality?

To rephrase your statement, state-socialism fails because it is logically contradictory. Authority as an end unto itself is only consistent with hierarchical socioeconomic systems, such as capitalism, mercantilism, and so forth. Thus, the conclusion then becomes not that capitalism is the end-state of human development (though this is physically possible). Rather, post-capitalist society would follow historical progression towards liberty. Necessarily, then, post-capitalist (or "socialist" if we choose to define the term in its most general sense) society would involve the abolition of social hierarchies as archaic, authoritarian structures which perpetuate inequality by definition.

Depending on your definition of "free market", the opposite is true. In the current conservative definition of "free markets", people would absolutely become communists if the markets were free of state meddling. In fact, the primary reason for the state meddling in the first place is to give people a reason to choose capitalism over communism. That's the reason there is a liberal-progressive movement in the first place.

The right hates subtlety. Where you would follow Bismarck's lead and undermine revolutionary movements by giving some material concessions which leave the ultimate balance of power unchanged, the right would rather unify property and the State, directing the full police/military powers of the State on forcibly suppressing dissent. Ultimately, your approach is much more effective, but fascism is a strong rear line of defense for the bourgeois.

 

[luiz]

I would take a contrary view to both capitalists and socialists.

From an economic perspective, if socialism adopts a market mechanidm it can exist whether the means of production is privately owned or socially owned. Socialism is as workable as capitalism.

Where I also have argument is how socialism develops. Why does it have to develop from a Marxist schema?

I would contend capitalism will fail because of its success rather than its failure. It's not the immiserated prole that leads the charge but instead a "intellectual class" that capitalism creates. The mis-employed, under-employed or unemployed educated elite are the ones who will become bitter critics of capitalism and institute central control.

Schumpeter probably exaggerated the power of the intellectual class, IMHO. But indeed if capitalism is to survive (in a relatively free form, that is) its benefits must be more broadcasted than they are today.

 

[Whomp]

Yes yes the market socialist ideas of Lange. The debate is long over, the Austrians won. Consumer good distribution through exchange can help eliminate shortages of them, but the important thing is there not being exchanges in the higher order capital industries in socialism. Thus those industries are still incapable of economic calculation and result in waste capital creation. The hayekian triangle man, its the key.

Actually, no. It was the guy below Luiz speaks of who's Austrian and studied under Eugen Ritter von Bohm-Bawerk. Also, I never suggested it would produce better results only that it's economically feasible.

Schumpeter probably exaggerated the power of the intellectual class, IMHO. But indeed if capitalism is to survive (in a relatively free form, that is) its benefits must be more broadcasted than they are today.

Maybe so but if change were to develop it's these people who I see attempting to undermine capitalist activities. They have the power of words and it's still all about words.

 

[Cutlass]

Actually, no. It was the guy below Luiz speaks of who's Austrian and studied under Eugen Ritter von Bohm-Bawerk. Also, I never suggested it would produce better results only that it's economically feasible.

Maybe so but if change were to develop it's these people who I see attempting to undermine capitalist activities. They have the power of words and it's still all about words.

Maybe, but despite how notable the intellectual communists are on the net, they are a trivial force in real life. And I really don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.

 

[Karalysia]

The Bolsheviks were a mere 10,000 strong in Russia at the time of the Revolution. And yet....

 

[willemvanoranje]

The mis-employed, under-employed or unemployed educated elite are the ones who will become bitter critics of capitalism and institute central control.

Yet in modern day we are confronted with exactly this group of persons canalising anger and disappointment in a populist direction, where men like Wilders, Haider, Le Pen, etc. operate. Focus on security and immigration. It is a misconception that only low educated unemployed vote for this type of politician.

 

[Whomp]

Yet in modern day we are confronted with exactly this group of persons canalising anger and disappointment in a populist direction, where men like Wilders, Haider, Le Pen, etc. operate. Focus on security and immigration. It is a misconception that only low educated unemployed vote for this type of politician.

That's hardly what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting the unproductive educated elite, like Le Pen (a lawyer and politician) who's mis-employed. Good with words and better at inciting fear.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The Bolsheviks were a mere 10,000 strong in Russia at the time of the Revolution. And yet....

In February, perhaps.

 

[civverguy]

The Bolsheviks were a mere 10,000 strong in Russia at the time of the Revolution. And yet....

I guess a better example would be China, where there were about only 7000 people left after the Long March.
But then right now there is nothing for the average person to sympathize with communist beliefs after what happened in the last century.

 

[Tee Kay]

I guess a better example would be China, where there were about only 7000 people left after the Long March.
But then right now there is nothing for the average person to sympathize with communist beliefs after what happened in the last century.

Or, more accurately, totalitarian beliefs.