The Marxist reading of the anti-Socialist current in American culture would be that it's in the interests of the Capital-owning class to promote such an ideology, because without it populists like Huey Long get a lot of support and end up interfering with their capacity to exploit the working class. Since it's in the interests of the poor to vote for wealth redistribution, and since the poor outnumber the rich, the only defence the rich have against socialism is to pay for propaganda to make it a dirty word.
I'm not really an expert on American culture but I was under the impression that there is actually quite a strong counter-current to the "rugged individualism", but that collective action to promote collective welfare tends to be more strongly trusted and supported under the aegis of churches rather than the state.
It's philosophically distinct from the ideology of the founding fathers, which is wrapped up in the American identity.
I think this is really accurate. America tends to define itself by its rugged individualism... the idea that anyone can make it if they just have the drive and make the effort.
Of course, that's mostly bullshit, but the idea still clings... the whole American Dream thing. I think socialism runs counter to that meme...
personally, I blame John Wayne.
'course, the people who say that generally turn out to be really thinking 'anyone less lucky/smart/socially adept than me not only can but should die in a fire, and lets pass some laws to maximise the odds', which really isn't the same thing at all.
Don't forget, they also find the one example from a downtrodden group of people and hold them up as a pinnacle for that groups success... see, this person did it, why can't the rest of you lazy assholes do it?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
It's pretty simple. I don't believe the government should be the controlling force in an economy. Command economies have historically not worked out very well and capitalism, for this country, has done quite well. That said, I don't believe in laissez faire capitalism either. A strong government is needed to curb the excesses of capitalism run amok and provide a basic social net for the disenfranchised.
Someone mentioned Western Europe as being socialist. From an economic standpoint, that is not true for the most part. Western Europe has more activistis government in terms of pensions, work rules, etc. but generally leaves the private sector to decide how to deploy capital and run businesses (much like the U.S. does). The U.S. and Western Europe are both mixed economies / governments which I believe is the best system.
What you can't see in the original post is Zalbinion's belief that the government should basically be active in all sectors to artificially curb profits. This is classic strong socialism which espouses a central government directing all economic activity in a country. This command economy socialsm mentality is what I object to, for the simple reason that command economies have never proven to be successful over a long term (even China had to go free market), while capitalism has proven to be pretty damn successful.
EDIT: Octoparrot beat me to the first point
The funny thing is people still like ot pretend The US is somehow more free market than Europe is. We give tons more corporate tax breaks, subsidies and no-bid contracts tha pretty much anyone else. Our government constantly tinkers in the private sector. Europe's economic systems are not terribly different from ours really. The "socialist" part generally comes in with more social programs and more government involvement with public works.
It's philosophically distinct from the ideology of the founding fathers, which is wrapped up in the American identity.
I think this is really accurate. America tends to define itself by its rugged individualism... the idea that anyone can make it if they just have the drive and make the effort.
Of course, that's mostly bullshit, but the idea still clings... the whole American Dream thing. I think socialism runs counter to that meme...
personally, I blame John Wayne.
'course, the people who say that generally turn out to be really thinking 'anyone less lucky/smart/socially adept than me not only can but should die in a fire, and lets pass some laws to maximise the odds', which really isn't the same thing at all.
I think that's an exaggeration, and an unnecessary one. I would describe them thinking "anyone who has the basic necessary physical/mental functions and who works hard can do well and succeed, and if they don't succeed, well, it's their own fault and I shouldn't be obliged to support them." Still a nasty attitude that I completely disagree with, but the point I'm making is that they don't usually WANT a less capable person to fail or be put in a bad situation, but they think that such a situation is that person's fault.
I think that holding individuals responsible for factors well beyond their control is fairly well the definition of rampant assholery, and feel no need to pull punches over it. There are definitely times when you can appropriately blame someone for fucking it up royally, and it doesn't happen often enough in our society - idiots get babied too much. However, the people I'm talking about above aren't about promoting appropriate personal responsibility. They're just smug bastards who don't realise how fragile their own status is.
Pretty much all of western Europe is socialist to some degree and they're hardly dictatoriships or enemies.
Every German professor I've had would stop us and say, "They are Social governments, some have socialist parties, but the countries itself aren't socialist".
The guiding distinctions I can think of is not that "An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise" but a doctrine of regulating the economy to protect smaller businesses and individual workers.
More of a social democracy.
On topic: Americans are biased against socialism. Yep, "it makes them think of communism"; your average person doesn't like nuance and shades of gray in their beliefs. Sort of how the Republican party is so successful.
this is pretty much exactly what i was getting at. except the republican part. that's just dumb.
but since Americans don't have any experience with another form of economic management except generally overt capitalism (except maybe during major major wars), of course they're going to put think of socialism in a governmental context rather than an economic one.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
It's pretty simple. I don't believe the government should be the controlling force in an economy. Command economies have historically not worked out very well and capitalism, for this country, has done quite well. That said, I don't believe in laissez faire capitalism either. A strong government is needed to curb the excesses of capitalism run amok and provide a basic social net for the disenfranchised.
Someone mentioned Western Europe as being socialist. From an economic standpoint, that is not true for the most part. Western Europe has more activistis government in terms of pensions, work rules, etc. but generally leaves the private sector to decide how to deploy capital and run businesses (much like the U.S. does). The U.S. and Western Europe are both mixed economies / governments which I believe is the best system.
What you can't see in the original post is Zalbinion's belief that the government should basically be active in all sectors to artificially curb profits. This is classic strong socialism which espouses a central government directing all economic activity in a country. This command economy socialsm mentality is what I object to, for the simple reason that command economies have never proven to be successful over a long term (even China had to go free market), while capitalism has proven to be pretty damn successful.
EDIT: Octoparrot beat me to the first point
So you'd say you're not biased against socialism at all, but having impartially understood what it is, you reject it because it's a bad idea, yes?
...while capitalism has proven to be pretty damn successful.
For some, it has.
A lot of that success though, has come at the expense of expoitation of foreign resources and peoples. A lot of the reason the exploitation has been in foreign countries, and not the US, is the workers rights and fair wages that were demanded and fought for in earlier years. They were socialist policies and ideals. Many of the benefits we enjoy today are in spite of capitalism, not because of it.
One of the most telling signs about Western capitalism is that, during the cold war, there were plenty of people in Eastern Europe who thought that the idea of someone living on the street in New York was Soviet propaghanda. They couldn't comprehend that a country as rich as the US would allow people to be homeless.
So how should socialism be sold to americans? what approach should be taken?
edit: And of course, SHOULD an approach be taken?
Take the taxes bit out of socialism and you might be able to sell it here. I don't think an approach should be taken though, we're doing fine.
Take the taxes out of socialism and you have massive government programs paid for with...pots of gold found under rainbows, I guess. I don't see a way to have a socialist system without reasonably high taxes.
I tend to regard the reflexive rejection of socialism as being kin to the tremendous sales of SUV's even though many people who buy them don't really need them. They're both symptoms of the American mythology of frontier, individualism and all that.
What you can't see in the original post is Zalbinion's belief that the government should basically be active in all sectors to artificially curb profits. This is classic strong socialism which espouses a central government directing all economic activity in a country. This command economy socialsm mentality is what I object to, for the simple reason that command economies have never proven to be successful over a long term (even China had to go free market), while capitalism has proven to be pretty damn successful.
Forgive my ignorance since I'm not an economics person, but can you briefly explain why China "had" to switch to capitalism, and why command economies haven't worked, or can you direct me to websites/books that explain it? You can PM me if you want, but others here might be interested.
My understanding of China is that the switch to capitalism was at least partially an attempt to blunt democracy activism by "buying off" the emerging middle class--the university students and other professional people agitating for democracy--by introducing some elements of capitalism. I.e. let people get rich and have lots of toys and they won't worry so much about the autocracy.
Similarly, my understanding of the USSR is that (A) socialism, being based upon non-competition, doesn't compete very well--see Cold War and rivalry with USA, and (B) that the Soviet Union started off as the most backwards economy in Europe, still feudal in many ways, and therefore the enormous resources and energy required to transfer the Russian economy into an industrial and technological power led to massive
neglect of the "civilian" sector(s) of the economy, such that by the time of Gorbachev, the move to increasing democratization of the government let the people see the wealth and goodies of the West and, like China, had them clamoring for more than the Communist regime was able to give.
Plus: perhaps a fundamental difference between the socialist and capitalist (and therefore American) mindsets is the definition of "success"; socialists see success in everyone's needs being met, capitalists see success in competitive innovation.
So how should socialism be sold to americans? what approach should be taken?
edit: And of course, SHOULD an approach be taken?
Take the taxes bit out of socialism and you might be able to sell it here. I don't think an approach should be taken though, we're doing fine.
Take the taxes out of socialism and you have massive government programs paid for with...pots of gold found under rainbows, I guess. I don't see a way to have a socialist system without reasonably high taxes.
Exactly, I hate paying taxes and I don't want the government taking money to run programs because they cannot and will not run them efficiently.
My understanding of China is that the switch to capitalism was at least partially an attempt to blunt democracy activism by "buying off" the emerging middle class--the university students and other professional people agitating for democracy--by introducing some elements of capitalism. I.e. let people get rich and have lots of toys and they won't worry so much about the autocracy.
It is all about foreign investments. Without these, China would be a rice growing nation and not much more
Exactly, I hate paying taxes and I don't want the government taking money to run programs because they cannot and will not run them efficiently.
I understand the desire to only pay for effective and efficient services. I don't really understand the "I hate paying taxes" line of reasoning, though; no one likes losing money, but you do realize that, under socialism, while your taxes would go up you wouldn't have to pay for things like housing, insurance, etc.? Ask the typical middle-class family if they'd prefer to keep the current system or pay double the taxes with half the monthly bills.
Honestly, from my time in the Canadian Free Territories, I have not really noticed the taxing all that much. I honestly think it would work out better here. Yeah, 2 times the sales tax as my home state, and a hell of a lot out of your paycheck, but their programs are actually pretty awesome. People can pay for college. With work. I have a friend who is working this summer to pay for his next couple semesters, because he's a canadian citizen. Even I pay as much to attend McGill as I would to attend my state school. I have to say, I'd bitch about the durn taxes, but not having to mortgage your house and sell your car and work 2 jobs just to make sure your kids can become gainfully employed? That would probably pay off.
Not only that, McGill is, if I may be so bold, totally freaking awesome. Harvard can suck it. They grade-inflate, the pansies. This isn't "ololol public schools", this is public funding that allows you to attend excellent institutions.
As for healthcare: there's a thread for that. But I do want to point out how cute it was that when my sister said "I'm not a citizen, where do I pay for this?" when getting treated for something, they replied "We... we don't know how to take your money."
I would describe our local Dutch population in Alberta to be pretty much a socialist outfit.
They buy up a bunch of land in an area, and settle in a single colony. Everyone has their jobs and their responsibilities and I believe they share almost everything.
I've been to one once and it's like an extremely well oiled machine. They're hard working and almost completely self-sufficient. And these colonies are starting to get very fucking wealthy. Then they just go and buy up new land and expand. Each family has like 10-13 kids and are VERY religious.
I think you could view them as the optimal socialist society. The only thing is, it's quite small scale which allows easier controlling of disagreements and all that.
But perhaps something to look at. It certainly seems to work for the Dutch.
'course, the people who say that generally turn out to be really thinking 'anyone less lucky/smart/socially adept than me not only can but should die in a fire, and lets pass some laws to maximise the odds', which really isn't the same thing at all.
Another thing to keep in mind is that there are very, very few capitalists who believe in a completely capitalist system. The actual (non-theoretical) debate between socialists and capitalists is more vs less government intervention and regulation.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I think you could view them as the optimal socialist society. The only thing is, it's quite small scale which allows easier controlling of disagreements and all that.
But perhaps something to look at. It certainly seems to work for the Dutch.
That's an important point too: socialism is often derided as being "contrary to human nature," but I contend that what's perceived as "human nature" isn't automatically natural, and that cultural forces are so strong and so reliable about resulting in modified behavior that socialism itself isn't "unnatural."
What you can't see in the original post is Zalbinion's belief that the government should basically be active in all sectors to artificially curb profits. This is classic strong socialism which espouses a central government directing all economic activity in a country. This command economy socialsm mentality is what I object to, for the simple reason that command economies have never proven to be successful over a long term (even China had to go free market), while capitalism has proven to be pretty damn successful.
Forgive my ignorance since I'm not an economics person, but can you briefly explain why China "had" to switch to capitalism, and why command economies haven't worked, or can you direct me to websites/books that explain it? You can PM me if you want, but others here might be interested.
My understanding of China is that the switch to capitalism was at least partially an attempt to blunt democracy activism by "buying off" the emerging middle class--the university students and other professional people agitating for democracy--by introducing some elements of capitalism. I.e. let people get rich and have lots of toys and they won't worry so much about the autocracy.
Similarly, my understanding of the USSR is that (A) socialism, being based upon non-competition, doesn't compete very well--see Cold War and rivalry with USA, and (B) that the Soviet Union started off as the most backwards economy in Europe, still feudal in many ways, and therefore the enormous resources and energy required to transfer the Russian economy into an industrial and technological power led to massive
neglect of the "civilian" sector(s) of the economy, such that by the time of Gorbachev, the move to increasing democratization of the government let the people see the wealth and goodies of the West and, like China, had them clamoring for more than the Communist regime was able to give.
Plus: perhaps a fundamental difference between the socialist and capitalist (and therefore American) mindsets is the definition of "success"; socialists see success in everyone's needs being met, capitalists see success in competitive innovation.
Please correct me!
China had an emerging middle class in the 70s?
Bwa?
Also - I would think the contrast of East/West germany would be definative enough comparison.
'course, the people who say that generally turn out to be really thinking 'anyone less lucky/smart/socially adept than me not only can but should die in a fire, and lets pass some laws to maximise the odds', which really isn't the same thing at all.
Now that is just untrue Cat.
Don't worry she doesn't normally paint with such a broad stroke. Just when it conveniently disparages a group with whom she happens to disagree.
:P
Edit:
And for the record, I have no problem taking care of folks who nede help, either through government programs (read:taxes) and/or charity.
The problem most people have is with the abuse that comes with it. This includes corporate welfare. The middle gets squeezed from both sides, but the angst tends to roll downhill. After all, we would all like to be wealthy.
Cat - Care to comment on the no pr0n, no booze for the natives thing going on in your neck of the woods?
Hey, so. Has large scale communism ever been attempted in a country that wasn't, you know... obviously dictatorial and corrupt? It's difficult to see if it's the communism that's failing, or the crazy assholes in charge in the case of Cuba, the USSR, etc.
It's pretty simple. I don't believe the government should be the controlling force in an economy. Command economies have historically not worked out very well and capitalism, for this country, has done quite well. That said, I don't believe in laissez faire capitalism either. A strong government is needed to curb the excesses of capitalism run amok and provide a basic social net for the disenfranchised.
Someone mentioned Western Europe as being socialist. From an economic standpoint, that is not true for the most part. Western Europe has more activistis government in terms of pensions, work rules, etc. but generally leaves the private sector to decide how to deploy capital and run businesses (much like the U.S. does). The U.S. and Western Europe are both mixed economies / governments which I believe is the best system.
What you can't see in the original post is Zalbinion's belief that the government should basically be active in all sectors to artificially curb profits. This is classic strong socialism which espouses a central government directing all economic activity in a country. This command economy socialsm mentality is what I object to, for the simple reason that command economies have never proven to be successful over a long term (even China had to go free market), while capitalism has proven to be pretty damn successful.
EDIT: Octoparrot beat me to the first point
So you'd say you're not biased against socialism at all, but having impartially understood what it is, you reject it because it's a bad idea, yes?
Maybe you should define what socialism means to you chief so I can respond directly to it. There have been at least 3 or 4 different definitions already in this thread. Here is what I was referring to
so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
So how should socialism be sold to americans? what approach should be taken?
edit: And of course, SHOULD an approach be taken?
It's sold pretty easily to America's youth who are just barely leaving a socialist/communist lifestyle as everything was provided to them by their parents... for free. It's also appealing to many lazy Americans who just want to be taken care of and expect the fat cats at Halliburton and Exxon to pay for it all.
What you can't see in the original post is Zalbinion's belief that the government should basically be active in all sectors to artificially curb profits. This is classic strong socialism which espouses a central government directing all economic activity in a country. This command economy socialsm mentality is what I object to, for the simple reason that command economies have never proven to be successful over a long term (even China had to go free market), while capitalism has proven to be pretty damn successful.
Forgive my ignorance since I'm not an economics person, but can you briefly explain why China "had" to switch to capitalism, and why command economies haven't worked, or can you direct me to websites/books that explain it? You can PM me if you want, but others here might be interested.
My understanding of China is that the switch to capitalism was at least partially an attempt to blunt democracy activism by "buying off" the emerging middle class--the university students and other professional people agitating for democracy--by introducing some elements of capitalism. I.e. let people get rich and have lots of toys and they won't worry so much about the autocracy.
Similarly, my understanding of the USSR is that (A) socialism, being based upon non-competition, doesn't compete very well--see Cold War and rivalry with USA, and (B) that the Soviet Union started off as the most backwards economy in Europe, still feudal in many ways, and therefore the enormous resources and energy required to transfer the Russian economy into an industrial and technological power led to massive
neglect of the "civilian" sector(s) of the economy, such that by the time of Gorbachev, the move to increasing democratization of the government let the people see the wealth and goodies of the West and, like China, had them clamoring for more than the Communist regime was able to give.
Plus: perhaps a fundamental difference between the socialist and capitalist (and therefore American) mindsets is the definition of "success"; socialists see success in everyone's needs being met, capitalists see success in competitive innovation.
Please correct me!
The USSR was backwards and made great industrial leaps with the first 5-year plan that put the country in a position to survive in WWII, but over the 70 years or so of communist rule there were chronic shortages in even the most basic of goods (olol bread lines) and a general stagnation in quality of living in all communist countries, which were based on a command economy model. The failure of collective farms in the USSR, Mao's intellectual revolution where everyone was supposed to make iron in their backyards, etc. are all examples of the difficulties in a command economy. As Shinto had pointed out, compare what happened in Western Europe vs Eastern Europe during that time. I highly suggest a book called "The Soviet Experiment". Good overview of the regime and the lives of the people during that time. It was one of the primary textbooks for my college course on the Soviet Union.
I am sure people will jump all over me for equating these Communist regimes with socialism and I will stipulate that these governments do not reflect a "true" socialist society. As there has never been a "true" socialist society (everyone has exactly the same wealth, no autocratic government, people living in harmony and all acting in the interests of the collective good, etc.) it is of course impossible to prove that a socialist society wouldn't work. However, the cynical side of me prefers the devil I know (mixed govt / economy) to some social panacea that has never materialized, and whose closest real world examples have pretty much failed miserably. I would like to quote Homer, "In theory Communism works. In theory."
On China, I will reference wikipedia as it is a broad topic. Let me know if there is something specific you want to talk about.
The economy of the People's Republic of China is the fourth largest in the world when measured by nominal GDP. Its economic output for 2006 was $2.68 trillion USD.[1] Its per capita GDP in 2006 was approximately US $2,000 (US $7,600 with PPP), still low by world standards (110th of 183 nations in 2005), but rising rapidly. As of 2005, 70% of China's GDP is in the private sector. The smaller public sector is dominated by about 200 large state enterprises concentrated mostly in utilities, heavy industries, and energy resources. [2]
Since 1978 the People's Republic of China (PRC) government has been reforming its economy from a Soviet-style centrally planned economy to a more market-oriented economy while remaining within the political framework provided by the Communist Party of China. This system has been called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" and is one type of mixed economy. These reforms started since 1978 has helped lift millions of people out of poverty, bringing the poverty rate down from 53% of population in 1981 to 8% by 2001.[3]
To this end the authorities have switched to a system of household responsibility in agriculture in place of the old collectivization, increased the authority of local officials and plant managers in industry, permitted a wide variety of small-scale enterprise in services and light manufacturing, and opened the economy to increased foreign trade and foreign investment. The government has emphasized raising personal income and consumption and introducing new management systems to help increase productivity. The government also has focused on foreign trade as a major vehicle for economic growth. While the accuracy of official PRC figures remain the subject of much debate, Chinese officials claim the result has been a tenfold increase in GDP since 1978. Some international economists believe that Chinese economic growth has been in fact understated during much of the 1990s and early 2000s, failing to fully factor in the growth driven by private enterprises.
Please look at the decrease in the poverty rate from 1981 to 2001.
Also - I would think the contrast of East/West germany would be definative enough comparison.
I was thinking mostly of the 80s, i.e. Tiananmen Square time, but I have no problem being corrected.
And the Germany thing is a good point.
China began it's move toward capitalism in the late 70s. It was starving to death, then they desocialized agriculture and suddenly had a surplus.
There was, and is, a burgeoning middle class in china because economic reform has generated growth.
So no, capitalism was not brought in to buy off the middle class it created.
Also, I hate to mention it because it is so cliche, but a lot of the manufactured goods produced in soviet factories by the end of the Cold War had negative value. The manufacturing process was so inefficient that, say, the raw materials that went in to the construction of a car would be more valuable than the manufactured car.
Hey, so. Has large scale communism ever been attempted ina country that wasn't, you know... obviously dictatorial and corrupt? It's difficult to see if it's the communism that's failing, or the crazy assholes in charge in the case of Cuba, the USSR, etc.
communism in it's truest form hasn't ever really been attempted anywhere, that i know of. cuba was a populist revolt that ended up turning into a little parasitic form of communism, the USSR was influenced much much more by lenin than marx, and china conducted a peasant's revolt in a country already pretty much in chaos when they started.
as long as there's a party with a set leadership who rules autocratically, it's not really marxist communism. that and he fact that marx thought communist revolts would take place in highly developed industrial countries like france, the UK, and America.
if you want to talk about why the USSR's version of communism failed, well, there are lots of reasons. one of the biggest would probably be that massive corruption in the party stagnated the country's progress as a whole, and when you've got all these satellite countries that you've got to baby constantly, it pretty much sets you up for failure. especially when you operate an economic system not designed to make huge amounts of money very quickly. a long and costly war in afghanistan didn't help much either.
china survived almost entirely on foreign investment. without that, they'd be completely fucked.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
'course, the people who say that generally turn out to be really thinking 'anyone less lucky/smart/socially adept than me not only can but should die in a fire, and lets pass some laws to maximise the odds', which really isn't the same thing at all.
Now that is just untrue Cat.
You'll have to excuse Cat. She gets her perception of the Average American from reading poorly-written right-wing fundie blogs. And if you try to tell her that, as an actual American, your experiences are very different, she will let you know how blinkered and deluded you are. She knows how things really are, because she read about it on the intarwebs, don't you know.
Retarded generalizations aside, I don't think people are "biased against socialism" because of scare tactics and code words. I do think it's true that people don't like the word "socialism", and I think it's also true that people largely don't know what "socialism" means. But it's also true that if you used very neutral terminology to explain how you wanted to dramatically raise their taxes in order to provide more services to the poor and needy, and generally increase the level of government interaction at all levels of the economy, people would seriously object on the merits. Us 'mericans don't trust the government. Pretty much every era of our history is rife with examples of the government mucking things up - from the Civil War to the Great Depression to Vietnam - and we've internalized it to the point where we just want them to let us the fuck alone.
That is why we have a distaste for socialism, not because we're ignorant or selfish or stupid. Just as socialism is a viable alternative to what we have, what we have is a viable alternative to socialism. It's a matter of where society places its priorities. The American Mentality isn't better or worse than the stereotypical European Mentality, it's just a different beast raised and fed by a different people.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Hey, so. Has large scale communism ever been attempted ina country that wasn't, you know... obviously dictatorial and corrupt? It's difficult to see if it's the communism that's failing, or the crazy assholes in charge in the case of Cuba, the USSR, etc.
communism in it's truest form hasn't ever really been attempted anywhere, that i know of. cuba was a populist revolt that ended up turning into a little parasitic form of communism, the USSR was influenced much much more by lenin than marx, and china conducted a peasant's revolt in a country already pretty much in chaos when they started.
as long as there's a party with a set leadership who rules autocratically, it's not really marxist communism. that and he fact that marx thought communist revolts would take place in highly developed industrial countries like france, the UK, and America.
if you want to talk about why the USSR's version of communism failed, well, there are lots of reasons. one of the biggest would probably be that massive corruption in the party stagnated the country's progress as a whole, and when you've got all these satellite countries that you've got to baby constantly, it pretty much sets you up for failure. especially when you operate an economic system not designed to make huge amounts of money very quickly. a long and costly war in afghanistan didn't help much either.
china survived almost entirely on foreign investment. without that, they'd be completely fucked.
That's pretty much what I figured. I was just thinking in terms of the East/West Berlin idea. That wasn't due to the economic system, that was because the USSR was pretty bad at being a country. It just seems that if say... Switzerland switched to a communist system tomorrow, it wouldn't actually descend into chaos.
Pretty much every era of our history is rife with examples of the government mucking things up - from the Civil War to the Great Depression.
The only thing wrong with reconstruction was that it ended.
The only thing wrong with government spending during the new deal was that there wasn't enough of it.
I don't know where Vietnam comes in. You can't really compare the government and the free market in fields like defense, where the free market doesn't really play a role.
Hey, so. Has large scale communism ever been attempted ina country that wasn't, you know... obviously dictatorial and corrupt? It's difficult to see if it's the communism that's failing, or the crazy assholes in charge in the case of Cuba, the USSR, etc.
communism in it's truest form hasn't ever really been attempted anywhere, that i know of. cuba was a populist revolt that ended up turning into a little parasitic form of communism, the USSR was influenced much much more by lenin than marx, and china conducted a peasant's revolt in a country already pretty much in chaos when they started.
as long as there's a party with a set leadership who rules autocratically, it's not really marxist communism. that and he fact that marx thought communist revolts would take place in highly developed industrial countries like france, the UK, and America.
if you want to talk about why the USSR's version of communism failed, well, there are lots of reasons. one of the biggest would probably be that massive corruption in the party stagnated the country's progress as a whole, and when you've got all these satellite countries that you've got to baby constantly, it pretty much sets you up for failure. especially when you operate an economic system not designed to make huge amounts of money very quickly. a long and costly war in afghanistan didn't help much either.
china survived almost entirely on foreign investment. without that, they'd be completely fucked.
That's pretty much what I figured. I was just thinking in terms of the East/West Berlin idea. That wasn't due to the economic system, that was because the USSR was pretty bad at being a country. It just seems that if say... Switzerland switched to a communist system tomorrow, it wouldn't actually descend into chaos.
uuuhhhhh i don't know that i'd go that far. china, for instance, couldn't survive with a wholly communist mentality toward economics. probably no large country could as of right now, the world system is capitalist, and eventually both china and the USSR felt they had to adapt to that.
communism as a economic theory is a pretty bad one overall.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
Hey, so. Has large scale communism ever been attempted ina country that wasn't, you know... obviously dictatorial and corrupt? It's difficult to see if it's the communism that's failing, or the crazy assholes in charge in the case of Cuba, the USSR, etc.
communism in it's truest form hasn't ever really been attempted anywhere, that i know of. cuba was a populist revolt that ended up turning into a little parasitic form of communism, the USSR was influenced much much more by lenin than marx, and china conducted a peasant's revolt in a country already pretty much in chaos when they started.
as long as there's a party with a set leadership who rules autocratically, it's not really marxist communism. that and he fact that marx thought communist revolts would take place in highly developed industrial countries like france, the UK, and America.
if you want to talk about why the USSR's version of communism failed, well, there are lots of reasons. one of the biggest would probably be that massive corruption in the party stagnated the country's progress as a whole, and when you've got all these satellite countries that you've got to baby constantly, it pretty much sets you up for failure. especially when you operate an economic system not designed to make huge amounts of money very quickly. a long and costly war in afghanistan didn't help much either.
china survived almost entirely on foreign investment. without that, they'd be completely fucked.
That's pretty much what I figured. I was just thinking in terms of the East/West Berlin idea. That wasn't due to the economic system, that was because the USSR was pretty bad at being a country. It just seems that if say... Switzerland switched to a communist system tomorrow, it wouldn't actually descend into chaos.
A true socialist / communist system has a much better chance to succeed in a smaller country with a more homogenous population. Increasing the size of the country and adding in internal tensions and things suddenly get a lot more dicey. The main problem with true communism / socialism is that people are assholes and always act in their own interest and fuck all to everyone else. These systems require a type of person that is exactly the opposite of that to succeed.
The main problem with true communism / socialism is that people are assholes and always act in their own interest and fuck all to everyone else. These systems require a type of person that is exactly the opposite of that to succeed.
EDIT: Partially beat'd by the above
This is true now, in general, but certainly isn't absolute. Attitudes and behaviors change.
Pretty much all of western Europe is socialist to some degree and they're hardly dictatoriships or enemies.
Every German professor I've had would stop us and say, "They are Social governments, some have socialist parties, but the countries itself aren't socialist".
The guiding distinctions I can think of is not that "An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise" but a doctrine of regulating the economy to protect smaller businesses and individual workers.
More of a social democracy.
On topic: Americans are biased against socialism. Yep, "it makes them think of communism"; your average person doesn't like nuance and shades of gray in their beliefs. Sort of how the Republican party is so successful.
Just because socialism isn't communism doesn't mean it isn't closer to communism then US style capitalism (which isn't perfect capitalism, but thats not the point.)
Socialism simply is a distinct step on the path to communism, as Marx wrote.
Its the qualities of communism, just not the quantities. There's heavy government regulation, but not government control.
The main problem with true communism / socialism is that people are assholes and always act in their own interest and fuck all to everyone else. These systems require a type of person that is exactly the opposite of that to succeed.
EDIT: Partially beat'd by the above
This is true now, in general, but certainly isn't absolute. Attitudes and behaviors change.
I keep waiting but people keep acting like assholes. One day maybe...
What you can't see in the original post is Zalbinion's belief that the government should basically be active in all sectors to artificially curb profits. This is classic strong socialism which espouses a central government directing all economic activity in a country. This command economy socialsm mentality is what I object to, for the simple reason that command economies have never proven to be successful over a long term (even China had to go free market), while capitalism has proven to be pretty damn successful.
Forgive my ignorance since I'm not an economics person, but can you briefly explain why China "had" to switch to capitalism, and why command economies haven't worked, or can you direct me to websites/books that explain it? You can PM me if you want, but others here might be interested.
My understanding of China is that the switch to capitalism was at least partially an attempt to blunt democracy activism by "buying off" the emerging middle class--the university students and other professional people agitating for democracy--by introducing some elements of capitalism. I.e. let people get rich and have lots of toys and they won't worry so much about the autocracy.
Similarly, my understanding of the USSR is that (A) socialism, being based upon non-competition, doesn't compete very well--see Cold War and rivalry with USA, and (B) that the Soviet Union started off as the most backwards economy in Europe, still feudal in many ways, and therefore the enormous resources and energy required to transfer the Russian economy into an industrial and technological power led to massive
neglect of the "civilian" sector(s) of the economy, such that by the time of Gorbachev, the move to increasing democratization of the government let the people see the wealth and goodies of the West and, like China, had them clamoring for more than the Communist regime was able to give.
Plus: perhaps a fundamental difference between the socialist and capitalist (and therefore American) mindsets is the definition of "success"; socialists see success in everyone's needs being met, capitalists see success in competitive innovation.
Please correct me!
A better example.
India had to switch to capitalism because it ran out of foreign currency. Just ran out. No more money left in the country, no nothing left in the country, 2% growth for 50 years, all the legacy of socialism. The you have Manmohan (Sp?) Singh (Sp?) open up the free markets and India today is much better off, 6-7% growth.
You can explain the poverty with the feudal system/poverty of pre independance India, but you can't explain why a countries growth rate goes up 5% annually without saying that capitalism is a better system.
I'm not sure if this is interesting or not, but a fairly common criticism, or noted problem of capitalism is a paucity of information on the part of the consumer- they aren't able to make the best possible decisions because information either isn't that good or isn't that available.
Isn't a central authority (frequently) even worse, though? It seems far more likely that an individual working with poor information will be far better at gauging his or her needs than another individual or group of individuals.
The failing of Communism especially, from what I understand, wasn't that "people are assholes" or some similar cliché (the corruption certainly didn't help, though, of course!), but rather, centralized economic decisions are (in many situations) almost invariably grossly inefficient.
On the other hand, from what I understand, there's a fair number services where a central or socialist authority is absolutely necessary, or at least strictly superior to a purely capitalist system.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
It's mostly a matter of whether you trust corporations or the government more.
Personally I trust neither, but if I had to pick, it would be the government, since they aren't motivated by profit and profit only.
I don't generally have a problem with capitalism. What bothers me is the way corporations are treated by the law as individuals. This doesn't make sense considering the amount of power they hold; it would be logical if they had diminished rights to offset their immense influence.
Also, I hate to mention it because it is so cliche, but a lot of the manufactured goods produced in soviet factories by the end of the Cold War had negative value. The manufacturing process was so inefficient that, say, the raw materials that went in to the construction of a car would be more valuable than the manufactured car.
Posts
I'm not really an expert on American culture but I was under the impression that there is actually quite a strong counter-current to the "rugged individualism", but that collective action to promote collective welfare tends to be more strongly trusted and supported under the aegis of churches rather than the state.
Don't forget, they also find the one example from a downtrodden group of people and hold them up as a pinnacle for that groups success... see, this person did it, why can't the rest of you lazy assholes do it?
The funny thing is people still like ot pretend The US is somehow more free market than Europe is. We give tons more corporate tax breaks, subsidies and no-bid contracts tha pretty much anyone else. Our government constantly tinkers in the private sector. Europe's economic systems are not terribly different from ours really. The "socialist" part generally comes in with more social programs and more government involvement with public works.
this is pretty much exactly what i was getting at. except the republican part. that's just dumb.
but since Americans don't have any experience with another form of economic management except generally overt capitalism (except maybe during major major wars), of course they're going to put think of socialism in a governmental context rather than an economic one.
So you'd say you're not biased against socialism at all, but having impartially understood what it is, you reject it because it's a bad idea, yes?
For some, it has.
A lot of that success though, has come at the expense of expoitation of foreign resources and peoples. A lot of the reason the exploitation has been in foreign countries, and not the US, is the workers rights and fair wages that were demanded and fought for in earlier years. They were socialist policies and ideals. Many of the benefits we enjoy today are in spite of capitalism, not because of it.
One of the most telling signs about Western capitalism is that, during the cold war, there were plenty of people in Eastern Europe who thought that the idea of someone living on the street in New York was Soviet propaghanda. They couldn't comprehend that a country as rich as the US would allow people to be homeless.
I guess success depends on your metric.
Take the taxes out of socialism and you have massive government programs paid for with...pots of gold found under rainbows, I guess. I don't see a way to have a socialist system without reasonably high taxes.
I tend to regard the reflexive rejection of socialism as being kin to the tremendous sales of SUV's even though many people who buy them don't really need them. They're both symptoms of the American mythology of frontier, individualism and all that.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
Forgive my ignorance since I'm not an economics person, but can you briefly explain why China "had" to switch to capitalism, and why command economies haven't worked, or can you direct me to websites/books that explain it? You can PM me if you want, but others here might be interested.
My understanding of China is that the switch to capitalism was at least partially an attempt to blunt democracy activism by "buying off" the emerging middle class--the university students and other professional people agitating for democracy--by introducing some elements of capitalism. I.e. let people get rich and have lots of toys and they won't worry so much about the autocracy.
Similarly, my understanding of the USSR is that (A) socialism, being based upon non-competition, doesn't compete very well--see Cold War and rivalry with USA, and (B) that the Soviet Union started off as the most backwards economy in Europe, still feudal in many ways, and therefore the enormous resources and energy required to transfer the Russian economy into an industrial and technological power led to massive
neglect of the "civilian" sector(s) of the economy, such that by the time of Gorbachev, the move to increasing democratization of the government let the people see the wealth and goodies of the West and, like China, had them clamoring for more than the Communist regime was able to give.
Plus: perhaps a fundamental difference between the socialist and capitalist (and therefore American) mindsets is the definition of "success"; socialists see success in everyone's needs being met, capitalists see success in competitive innovation.
Please correct me!
Exactly, I hate paying taxes and I don't want the government taking money to run programs because they cannot and will not run them efficiently.
It is all about foreign investments. Without these, China would be a rice growing nation and not much more
I understand the desire to only pay for effective and efficient services. I don't really understand the "I hate paying taxes" line of reasoning, though; no one likes losing money, but you do realize that, under socialism, while your taxes would go up you wouldn't have to pay for things like housing, insurance, etc.? Ask the typical middle-class family if they'd prefer to keep the current system or pay double the taxes with half the monthly bills.
I see. That does make sense, thanks for the info.
Not only that, McGill is, if I may be so bold, totally freaking awesome. Harvard can suck it. They grade-inflate, the pansies. This isn't "ololol public schools", this is public funding that allows you to attend excellent institutions.
As for healthcare: there's a thread for that. But I do want to point out how cute it was that when my sister said "I'm not a citizen, where do I pay for this?" when getting treated for something, they replied "We... we don't know how to take your money."
They buy up a bunch of land in an area, and settle in a single colony. Everyone has their jobs and their responsibilities and I believe they share almost everything.
I've been to one once and it's like an extremely well oiled machine. They're hard working and almost completely self-sufficient. And these colonies are starting to get very fucking wealthy. Then they just go and buy up new land and expand. Each family has like 10-13 kids and are VERY religious.
I think you could view them as the optimal socialist society. The only thing is, it's quite small scale which allows easier controlling of disagreements and all that.
But perhaps something to look at. It certainly seems to work for the Dutch.
Now that is just untrue Cat.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
That's an important point too: socialism is often derided as being "contrary to human nature," but I contend that what's perceived as "human nature" isn't automatically natural, and that cultural forces are so strong and so reliable about resulting in modified behavior that socialism itself isn't "unnatural."
People aren't hard-wired for capitalism.
China had an emerging middle class in the 70s?
Bwa?
Also - I would think the contrast of East/West germany would be definative enough comparison.
Don't worry she doesn't normally paint with such a broad stroke. Just when it conveniently disparages a group with whom she happens to disagree.
:P
Edit:
And for the record, I have no problem taking care of folks who nede help, either through government programs (read:taxes) and/or charity.
The problem most people have is with the abuse that comes with it. This includes corporate welfare. The middle gets squeezed from both sides, but the angst tends to roll downhill. After all, we would all like to be wealthy.
Cat - Care to comment on the no pr0n, no booze for the natives thing going on in your neck of the woods?
Maybe you should define what socialism means to you chief so I can respond directly to it. There have been at least 3 or 4 different definitions already in this thread. Here is what I was referring to
I was thinking mostly of the 80s, i.e. Tiananmen Square time, but I have no problem being corrected.
And the Germany thing is a good point.
It's sold pretty easily to America's youth who are just barely leaving a socialist/communist lifestyle as everything was provided to them by their parents... for free. It's also appealing to many lazy Americans who just want to be taken care of and expect the fat cats at Halliburton and Exxon to pay for it all.
The USSR was backwards and made great industrial leaps with the first 5-year plan that put the country in a position to survive in WWII, but over the 70 years or so of communist rule there were chronic shortages in even the most basic of goods (olol bread lines) and a general stagnation in quality of living in all communist countries, which were based on a command economy model. The failure of collective farms in the USSR, Mao's intellectual revolution where everyone was supposed to make iron in their backyards, etc. are all examples of the difficulties in a command economy. As Shinto had pointed out, compare what happened in Western Europe vs Eastern Europe during that time. I highly suggest a book called "The Soviet Experiment". Good overview of the regime and the lives of the people during that time. It was one of the primary textbooks for my college course on the Soviet Union.
I am sure people will jump all over me for equating these Communist regimes with socialism and I will stipulate that these governments do not reflect a "true" socialist society. As there has never been a "true" socialist society (everyone has exactly the same wealth, no autocratic government, people living in harmony and all acting in the interests of the collective good, etc.) it is of course impossible to prove that a socialist society wouldn't work. However, the cynical side of me prefers the devil I know (mixed govt / economy) to some social panacea that has never materialized, and whose closest real world examples have pretty much failed miserably. I would like to quote Homer, "In theory Communism works. In theory."
On China, I will reference wikipedia as it is a broad topic. Let me know if there is something specific you want to talk about.
Please look at the decrease in the poverty rate from 1981 to 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economy
China began it's move toward capitalism in the late 70s. It was starving to death, then they desocialized agriculture and suddenly had a surplus.
There was, and is, a burgeoning middle class in china because economic reform has generated growth.
So no, capitalism was not brought in to buy off the middle class it created.
Also, I hate to mention it because it is so cliche, but a lot of the manufactured goods produced in soviet factories by the end of the Cold War had negative value. The manufacturing process was so inefficient that, say, the raw materials that went in to the construction of a car would be more valuable than the manufactured car.
communism in it's truest form hasn't ever really been attempted anywhere, that i know of. cuba was a populist revolt that ended up turning into a little parasitic form of communism, the USSR was influenced much much more by lenin than marx, and china conducted a peasant's revolt in a country already pretty much in chaos when they started.
as long as there's a party with a set leadership who rules autocratically, it's not really marxist communism. that and he fact that marx thought communist revolts would take place in highly developed industrial countries like france, the UK, and America.
if you want to talk about why the USSR's version of communism failed, well, there are lots of reasons. one of the biggest would probably be that massive corruption in the party stagnated the country's progress as a whole, and when you've got all these satellite countries that you've got to baby constantly, it pretty much sets you up for failure. especially when you operate an economic system not designed to make huge amounts of money very quickly. a long and costly war in afghanistan didn't help much either.
china survived almost entirely on foreign investment. without that, they'd be completely fucked.
You'll have to excuse Cat. She gets her perception of the Average American from reading poorly-written right-wing fundie blogs. And if you try to tell her that, as an actual American, your experiences are very different, she will let you know how blinkered and deluded you are. She knows how things really are, because she read about it on the intarwebs, don't you know.
Retarded generalizations aside, I don't think people are "biased against socialism" because of scare tactics and code words. I do think it's true that people don't like the word "socialism", and I think it's also true that people largely don't know what "socialism" means. But it's also true that if you used very neutral terminology to explain how you wanted to dramatically raise their taxes in order to provide more services to the poor and needy, and generally increase the level of government interaction at all levels of the economy, people would seriously object on the merits. Us 'mericans don't trust the government. Pretty much every era of our history is rife with examples of the government mucking things up - from the Civil War to the Great Depression to Vietnam - and we've internalized it to the point where we just want them to let us the fuck alone.
That is why we have a distaste for socialism, not because we're ignorant or selfish or stupid. Just as socialism is a viable alternative to what we have, what we have is a viable alternative to socialism. It's a matter of where society places its priorities. The American Mentality isn't better or worse than the stereotypical European Mentality, it's just a different beast raised and fed by a different people.
That's pretty much what I figured. I was just thinking in terms of the East/West Berlin idea. That wasn't due to the economic system, that was because the USSR was pretty bad at being a country. It just seems that if say... Switzerland switched to a communist system tomorrow, it wouldn't actually descend into chaos.
The only thing wrong with reconstruction was that it ended.
The only thing wrong with government spending during the new deal was that there wasn't enough of it.
I don't know where Vietnam comes in. You can't really compare the government and the free market in fields like defense, where the free market doesn't really play a role.
uuuhhhhh i don't know that i'd go that far. china, for instance, couldn't survive with a wholly communist mentality toward economics. probably no large country could as of right now, the world system is capitalist, and eventually both china and the USSR felt they had to adapt to that.
communism as a economic theory is a pretty bad one overall.
A true socialist / communist system has a much better chance to succeed in a smaller country with a more homogenous population. Increasing the size of the country and adding in internal tensions and things suddenly get a lot more dicey. The main problem with true communism / socialism is that people are assholes and always act in their own interest and fuck all to everyone else. These systems require a type of person that is exactly the opposite of that to succeed.
EDIT: Partially beat'd by the above
This is true now, in general, but certainly isn't absolute. Attitudes and behaviors change.
Just because socialism isn't communism doesn't mean it isn't closer to communism then US style capitalism (which isn't perfect capitalism, but thats not the point.)
Socialism simply is a distinct step on the path to communism, as Marx wrote.
Its the qualities of communism, just not the quantities. There's heavy government regulation, but not government control.
I keep waiting but people keep acting like assholes. One day maybe...
India had to switch to capitalism because it ran out of foreign currency. Just ran out. No more money left in the country, no nothing left in the country, 2% growth for 50 years, all the legacy of socialism. The you have Manmohan (Sp?) Singh (Sp?) open up the free markets and India today is much better off, 6-7% growth.
You can explain the poverty with the feudal system/poverty of pre independance India, but you can't explain why a countries growth rate goes up 5% annually without saying that capitalism is a better system.
Isn't a central authority (frequently) even worse, though? It seems far more likely that an individual working with poor information will be far better at gauging his or her needs than another individual or group of individuals.
The failing of Communism especially, from what I understand, wasn't that "people are assholes" or some similar cliché (the corruption certainly didn't help, though, of course!), but rather, centralized economic decisions are (in many situations) almost invariably grossly inefficient.
On the other hand, from what I understand, there's a fair number services where a central or socialist authority is absolutely necessary, or at least strictly superior to a purely capitalist system.
Personally I trust neither, but if I had to pick, it would be the government, since they aren't motivated by profit and profit only.
I don't generally have a problem with capitalism. What bothers me is the way corporations are treated by the law as individuals. This doesn't make sense considering the amount of power they hold; it would be logical if they had diminished rights to offset their immense influence.
How the heck does that happen?