Newspaper article (by me!)

[Yorick]

Communism:
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively


Socialism:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


---------
It would seem that Socialism defenition #3: proves your point according to Marxist theory. However Communism defentions #2b and 2c are seemingly contradictory and could explain the confusion. The state had not withered away. So how could Russia have been the final stage in Marxist theory? History and the contempory Communists/Socialists worldwide themselves labeled the government "Communist". Hence the confusion. It's no good now turning around and saying "oh that wasn't communist". The definition changed. Language is ever evolving.

As you said Marx said the west is where it would suceed, but this is, as I said, a pretty lame excuse for an economic system failing. Rather than turning back the clock, I would hope people find a solution better than any system thus far.

I'm fairly anti-capitalist, but I'm also anti-communist. I'm not an economist so I can't invent a great economic theory. But I do know that every example of Communism failed/is failing, whereas Capitalism succeeds incredibly.

Where western capitalism falls down is the humane department, but this is not the fault of the economic theory, but of those at the top of the financial ladder. A blend of the two. Free market with support for the sick, the elderly and the destitute is whats needed. Caring for those who cannot fend for themselves is what defines a society.

A family.

A city.

A nation.

Supporting an extreme view merely pushes people away from achieving that balance rather than towards it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
[b]Free market with support for the sick, the elderly and the destitute is whats needed. Caring for those who cannot fend for themselves is what defines a society.

---

I’m afraid that is a contradiction in terms (like compassionate conservatism). The free market is all about having no support for anyone, no taxes just the state to provide armed forces and law enforcement. Also due to the mindset created under ANY form of capitalism there will always be greedy people who want more and ensure inequality, this is unavoidable, therefore capitalism is fundamentally flawed.
Communism has not failed; Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism have failed, but Marxism has not as it has never been applied in its true form due to its first application though dictatorship. Governments were labelled as communist at the time but then people thought that Russia/China would become truly communist, they never did. There is no point in looking at Russia and saying communism doesn’t work, shall we look at Nazi Germany and say, “this is what the free market leads to?
It is a good idea to read what Marx actually wrote and intended before you start reeling off the old “capitalism good, communism bad” cliché.

[Yorick]

Dramnek,

Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l-
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Capitalism is an economic system not an ethical one. You can have a capitalist dictatorship, a capitalist monarchy or a capitalist democracy. The onus is on those at the top to provide for those at the bottom.

Look at church groups who, it has been statisticaly proven, handle mental/emotional care better than government bodies. Thus many western governments are increasingly outsourcing say, marital counselling services to these groups.

It is up to the society to blend capitalism with care.

Similarly Communism does not have to be a repressive dictatorship.

Look at historical Monarchies. In theory they could have been great. A person trained for the job since birth. No fear of losing the job, so no repressive or populist reactionism.

There were fantastic monarchs and many many hideous ones.

Feudalism too, out of the insecurities plaguing the dark ages was also a beneficial measure of security in theory, yet was hideously abused by those at the top.

It all comes down to the moral fibre of the individuals in power. The systems themselves are not to blame.

As such, you have to break down communism and capitalism into purely amoral economic theories. Emotions and humane considerations aside which works? Which has worked?

Capitalism has been proven time and again to enrich and sustain millions of individuals throughout history. Communism is, by your defenitions so unworkable that it has never been able to be properly implemented.

How fragile is the system if conditions have to be perfect for it to be properly implemented?


Rather than changing the system, would not a better use of energy and time be to create moral awareness in people? Hence religions (well mine anyway ) come into play. Able to exist inside all economic systems, and capable of changing even the most evilhearted individual.

[Magness]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

Capitalism has been proven time and again to enrich and sustain millions of individuals throughout history. Communism is, by your defenitions so unworkable that it has never been able to be properly implemented.

How fragile is the system if conditions have to be perfect for it to be properly implemented?

---

Great point, Yorick. Or to paraphrase your final sentence, how good is an economic system if all of its competition has to be eliminated before it can succeed?

From what Dramnek_Ulk and Barry the Sprout have been saying, it sounds to me that in the competition of economic sytems, communism is the loser because it cannot stand on its own two feet Capitalism works on all scales, small to global. If Barry's protestations are to be taken at face value, communism can only work when there is no competing economic system.

That sounds to me like saying that Beta VCR's could only succeed if VHS VCR's were banned, like Burger King could only make a profit if McDonalds were banned. Communism will only succeed if its competition is banned. Anything, and I mean absolutely, posititvely ANYTHING that depends on the elimination of its competition to be able to succeed, is ALREADY a failure!!!

Furthermore, I suspect that if communism were tried again and it was pure straight-from-the-manifesto Marxist Communism, that as soon as it failed in practice, the communist true believers would still be saying that it wasn't done correctly and that we should try yet again. The same is certainly true here in the USA with a number of failing liberal programs. "It wasn't implemented right." "Enough money wasn't spent." (even after trillions have been wasted.) Liberals and communists are simply incapable of admitting that they are wrong and that their policies won't work. To do so would be tantemount to philosophical and emotional suicide.

[Yorick]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magness:

Communists are simply incapable of admitting that they are wrong and that their policies won't work. To do so would be tantemount to philosophical and emotional suicide.

---

Actually, there are ex-communists in East Germany who do admit the policy failed. This is why I don't quite understand how one could be a commited communist in the face of such admissions. The East German was quite candid, and somewhat deflated about it. An ideological void had filled his life. (A contradiction in terms I know )

He replaced it with extensive travel (to areas previously forbidden - outside the communist world), music and becoming a DJ for radio multiculti. Great guy. One of the most interesting men I've come across.

[Magness]

Hi Yorick.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

Actually, there are ex-communists in East Germany who do admit the policy failed. This is why I don't quite understand how one could be a commited communist in the face of such admissions. The East German was quite candid, and somewhat deflated about it. An ideological void had filled his life.

---

Yeah, I was probably a little too general. But in a sense what I said was still true. While this communist was able admit he was wrong, the admission did have a major impact on him, as you stated. I tend to think that more people than not would not be able to accept making such an admission. Admitting that your world view is wrong, seems to be too emotionally crippling an admission to be made by most. It's probably easier to stand your ground and refuse to accept "defeat", even when all the evidence is screaming at you. I would imagine that this is a problem for many in russia, eastern germany, and other old warsaw pact countries and soviet republics since the fall of the Soviet Union.

[Yorick]

Fair enough. Point taken.

I'm off to bed in a tic. Read you on the morrow eh?

[Magness]

Absolutely.

Capitalism is extremely fragile and does not work nor will ever from an ethical point of view, it barely work in an economic sense. Companies are always expecting to be bailed out by the government, or be given subsidies and preferential treatment and it is so easy for it all to come crashing down. And the whole system has to have lots of safeguards in place to stop it all falling apart. The whole system has to be supported on a never-ending cycle of debt and subsidy adn there must alwasy be someone at the bottem of the chain. And while capitalism has enriched millions, it has trampled millions more beneath its feet. The onus of capitalism is for you to get as much as possible, which is what we trained to do from birth in capitalist society, and that is why you will never create a caring capitalist society. Also under capitalism some people will always have better living standards than others, how can this be justified?
And religion is not there to create moral awareness. Perhaps some of it is now, but if we look at history it has always been used as a tool by the ruling class to enforce their interests and maintain their power, just look at the Catholic Church in Europe in the Middle Ages
Capitalism will always create a class of people who have less than everybody else; this is unavoidable due to the greedy mindset created by it and its fundamental flaws in division of labour.
You can look at any communist country you like and say, “it doesn’t work” but if you had read and looked at and discussed what Marx intended and how it could be applied democratically and humanely, you would see how far from what communism should be, was how it was applied by the CCCP and china
In a violent revolution (which nearly all communist transitions have been based around) a group of people will come to hold power, generally they will be unwilling to give it up and will therefore corrupt communism to their own ends, not applying it in a democratic and accountable manner, because the people involved have grown up under a violent and repressive capitalist regime they have again from birth been trained to grab as much as possible, including power over others.
Capitalism is extremely fragile and does not work nor will ever from an ethical point of view, it barely work in an economic sense. Companies are always expecting to be bailed out by the government, or be given subsidies and preferential treatment and it is so easy for it all to come crashing down. And the whole system has to have lots of safeguards in place to stop it all falling apart. The whole system has to be supported on a never-ending cycle of debt and subsidy. And while capitalism has enriched millions, it has trampled millions more beneath its feet. The onus of capitalism is for you to get as much as possible, which is what we trained to do from birth in capitalist society, and that is why you will never create a caring capitalist society.
And religion is not there to create moral awareness. Perhaps some of it is now, but if we look at history it has always been used as a tool by the ruling class to enforce their interests and maintain their power, just look at the Catholic Church in Europe in the Middle Ages
Capitalism will always create a class of people who have less than everybody else; this is unavoidable due to the greedy mindset created by it and its fundamental flaws in division of labour.
You can look at any communist country you like and say, “it doesn’t work” but if you had read and looked at and discussed what Marx intended and how it could be applied democratically and humanely, you would see how far from what communism should be, was how it was applied by the CCCP and china
In a violent revolution (which nearly all communist transitions have been based around) a group of people will come to hold power, generally they will be unwilling to give it up and will therefore corrupt communism to their own ends, not applying it in a democratic and accountable manner, because the people involved have grown up under a violent and repressive capitalist regime they have again from birth been trained to grab as much as possible, including power over others.
This rant could go on forever, but I have run out of marmalade for my toast.

[Ronn_Bman]

Sorry Dramnek, but the argument just isn't convincing even if you posted it twice [img]smile.gif[/img]

Comparing something that is currently working and has been working with something that, by your own admission, has never happened, because those that tried it didn't do it right, and is, in fact only a theory, is not a good argument for your point of view.

Comparing something real with something imaginary (I use the term loosely) is like comparing apples and oranges.

Star Trek's world seems ideal, but.......it isn't real.