Communism vs Capitalism

[Caid Ivik]

2a. Bad situation and death are rather different things. Situation can be relative...but death is rather radical change, don't you think?

2b. Inheritance was in peace, but when unit of peasants lost their lord, they have chosen other commander. If not, they returned or fled and became free. If this one was brave, king gave him a title. And usually some land with it. We can't talk, of course, about justice here, as feudalism is a militaristic system, but also I don't think it can't be improved. See Britain.

3. Tito not, of course, but many partisans in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and elsewhere were. Tito had that luxury because he was able to liberate his country from Germans by own power. Others usually even spilled the other forms of resistance to pave the road for victorious Red Army.

[Edric O]

2a. Like I said, employment is essentially just a very dilluted and more civilized form of slavery. Of course, employment in a mixed economy is far, far better than employment in a pure capitalist economy. 19th century workers really did live like slaves, and could actually die of starvation if they lost their jobs. Today, thanks to socialist reforms, that is no longer the case. And that is why most people in the first world would consider the comparison between employment and slavery to be far-fetched, when in fact it's not.

2b. When a feudal lord was killed and had no heir, various other feudal lords would fight over his domain. No one could gain anything without a fight, especially a peasant. Like you said, there was no justice in feudalism.

And Britain has been capitalist for a good few centuries. The aristocracy is just for show - kinda like the Chinese "Communist" Party.

3. True. As I said, Stalin hurt communism more than any other man ever did, because he turned a movement of liberation and justice into his personal army.

[Wolf]

I'm not sure I should intrude on this heavy-intellectual debate between Edric and Caid, but I'd like to contribute.

1. Since religion is based on something that really cannot be proven or disproven either way, we are given the freedom to do with it as we wish. Because of this fact of faith, we are not "compelled" to go with the "truth", for religious truth is fundamentally what we give it. Here, I must agree with Edric, from doctrine, to worship, to belief itself, religion is only what we make it. If our interactions with religious faith are honest, then we can expect the same returns. In order to make religion a "good" part of society, manipulation of religious doctrine for the benefit of a party, interest group, or single man must be halted -- it may even mean shattering the foundations of organized religion.

2a. Edric; it seems that, using your definition of employment, communist employment is simply a less-restrictive version of slavery than capitalistic employment. Human nature is somewhat capitalistic -- how will you deal with those who do not wish to work? You cannot force them, because a socialist society dictates that the personal choices of citizens be respected. If people realize that they can get away with choosing not to work (unless you find effective ways of punishing them), few people will choose to work, and the society will operate inefficiently. It seems to me that a socialist-capitalist mix such as France or Germany is the best solution, in which workers are subject to the "necessary evil" of de facto forced employment, but are compensated with free education, free medical attention, and security in old age.

2b. It seems that as long as there is a way to get ahead in the system, people who do not have the intention to good for the society as a whole will try to get ahead. The communist revolution in Russia may have good intentions in its leadership (the road to hell is paved with good intentions), but these were quickly eclipsed by the desire fore personal power, the desire to maximize profit, in a sense. Through this view, capitalism, not communism, could be seen as the true rise of Stalin (ironic enough). Because of this, the potential to gain tremendously, men will seek power not for society, but for themselves. This is why feudal Houses have existed, and will exist, as I allude to Dune. This is why we have the fabulously wealthy families of today -- a modern aristocracy, or the "party", a more practical political version of the elite. Plato proposed a solution, by creating a rigorious training system that would turn those who were capable and of the right mentality to lead society into leaders, to this problem. He called these leaders "philosopher kings", as they would rule in their old age and have no more need for wealth, and ahve a great deal of pragmatism. However, is this practical?

3. As was said above, just as in capitalism there is the theory that supply creates its own demand, the existence of power will attract the corrupted by power and those who are corruptable by power. The trick is knowing who is who, people are quite sneaky in the modern day.

*I hope I have not gone off-topic or reiterated things that the two of you have already mentioned. I thought it might help to join this debate. Anyway, I hope you find something interesting in what I have written, and I hope to continue this discussion.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Wolfwiz, that's for what we have Church. Let the religion isn't changed like someone wants, for his own purpose. That causes decay, which endangers us.

2a. Then we can interpret even accepting laws as a dilluted and civilised slavery to state! 19th century workers used their new right to move anywhere they want, their freedom, to come to cities and here find an employment in industry, so glorified by those days' popular positivists. Then they found out that machines won't give them more they had, so they became angry. And they could not return on fields, those were already taken by others. So they became jealous...

2b. It is a justice, in that time's view. But don't forget that land was a possession of king and it was his decision who will be his vassal. Of course, new nobility many times had to fight with older families. Like now in Britain, when Lords won't agree with anyone in their parliament House. But also - british titles still bear some land.

3. So, you see. WW2 was to be a fight between Stalin and Hitler, nothing else.

[Edric O]

Wolfwiz, by all means, please intrude! :) My debates with Caid usually consist of endless discussion around the same points, so a bit of fresh air is always welcome.

1. Since both me and Caid are Christians, we took the existence of the Christian God as a given.

I think we need to make the difference between religion which is merely organized and religion which is based on a heirarchy of clergy. It is the latter that tends to be the most corrupt, and tends to turn away from worshipping God and towards more earthly political machinations. All authority must be questioned. ;)

2a. There is no such thing as communist employment, since communism is a fully co-operative system with no heirarchy to speak of. What you're talking about is socialist employment. And yes, you are correct: socialist employment is still a form of slavery, albeit a more dilluted and more civilized form of slavery than capitalist employment. Essentially, the difference between socialist and capitalist employment is that in socialism the people democratically control the economy, so the slaves are their own masters. Socialism is a great improvement over capitalism, but it's still an inherently unjust system.

However, the one thing that socialism has going for it is that it doesn't go against the present-day human mentality (aka "human nature" - but humans are incredibly adaptable beings, so I doubt that we have such a rigid "nature"). Socialism guarantees a basic standard of living to everyone, but to get anything above that you must work for it. And unlike in capitalism, the amount of money you get depends on how hard you work, not on how lucky you are or how well you can take advantage of others. Still, the fact that you can get richer than your neighbor means that people are motivated to work in socialism by the same basic human instincts that motivate them to work in capitalism. Socialism is easy to reach. You only need to change the system, not the way people think.

Your observations only apply to communism, not socialism. Communism does indeed satisfy every person's material needs, regardless of the actual value of his/her work. As such, most arguments against communism are based on the idea that "it's too good to be true". Perhaps it is. In that case, we'll just have to get as close to it as we can. But we're not even living in socialism yet, so we can definitely get a lot closer to communism than we are now.

But when you look at it, the only thing that communism requires is for people to have a more logical and long-term way of thinking. The system will provide for you no matter if you work or not. So you can stop working and get a huge short-term benefit. But in the long term, your laziness will cause the community to get poorer, and you'll get poorer along with it. So it's in your own long-term interest to work well. Of course, most people today wouldn't see that logical conclusion, and they would only try to exploit the system. But that is exactly why we don't want to switch to communism right away. An intermediate period of socialism is necessary. Rome wasn't built in a day...

And finally, there's the European mixed system (capitalism/socialism, with a lot more socialism in the mix than the USA has) to talk about. There's nothing actually wrong with it - I'd say it's just as good as full socialism. But there is a problem: this mixed system is an evolutionary dead end. Full socialism would be constantly trying to evolve and improve itself in order to reach communism. The mixed system, on the other hand, is based on the idea that things are perfect just as they are. This causes stagnation, and stagnation is death.

2b. There will always be greedy, selfish and power-hungry people who wish to rule supreme and dominate others. Our job is to make sure that they don't succeed. That's why every system needs checks and balances to ensure that no single man (or group of people) gets too much power.

Plato's Republic is an interesting idea, but in practice all the power would rest on the teachers who educate the philosopher-kings. They would form an intellectual aristocracy and eventually the system would degenerate into old fashioned monarchy.

3. Power corrupts, and that is why you can never have a good and just system without democracy. But in a democracy, it is vital that the people realize the extent of their own power, and how precious it is. Otherwise, they might be inclined to simply give it away... and pave the way for dictatorship.

[Edric O]

Caid:

2a. In a democratic country, the purpose of the Law is to serve the interests of the people (while the purpose of a capitalist company is to serve the interests of its owners, not those of its employees). That is why your comparison is flawed. Capitalist employment can be compared with a dictatorship state. And such a state really does enslave its citizens.

And you're not very good at 19th century history, are you? People didn't move to the big industrial cities because they felt like exercising some new freedom - they moved because they were dirt poor back home, and because they had no future in their native towns and villages. Workers did not get into a position of almost slavery out of their own free will. They were FORCED into it by the extreme poverty they were living in.

2b. True. Historical fact is something we can both agree on.

3. See above. Although I think now you're over-simplifying it. The Germans and the Russians were the major players, but they were by no means alone.

[Wolf]

1. I agree. Though I am a Christian myself, I tend to think that religion should be separated from politics & economics. Often, association with either of those fosters corruption of the clergy, which is what I guess is the real problem. Though, I am sure you both already realized this.

2. I see what you mean about communism, thought I still stick by mixed socialism as the next step on the way to a more healthy society. One thing you point out is the adaptability of humankind, something that never occured to me before. People, it seems, are extremely adaptable, and once they adapt they form habits. It is possible that society will habitually form the necessary mind-set for communism to take place. In fact, it is something that may already be occuring. Look at the Western liberal perspective to politics; the government exists to help the people at all costs. Something that is akin to communism.

On the mixed system; I do not think a mixed capitalist/socialist system is necessarily a dead-end. The system can evolve if its participants (the workers and the politicians) see a need for change. Look at some of the current economic problems in Europe -- the EU's decision not to punish Germany and France could be seen as a realization that adaptability is necessary. In a sense, there is no such thing as a dead-end for human society, since we will always try our best to find a way out.

Question: So, the motive for self-preservation and self-interest are present in communism as well as in capitalism. The only difference being that they are trumped by the desire to work to better oneself in a non-economic sense and to benefit society as a whole? If both instincts are present, I can then see how a diluted form (diluted from an adaptive society) of self-interest provides the initial incentive to work, and the overriding desire to do one's best for one's own personal "record", if you will, and society make communism work.

2b. Is there a way to educate leaders without giving the teachers of the leaders too much power? Or, if the teachers themselves would be the leaders who teach when they are not ruling. However, this only works once the system begins. To begin Plato's system, you would need to find currently uncorrupted leaders willing to teach, or to devise a system to find the intelligent and uncorrupted civil servants necessary to do the job. Personally, I'd nominate Ralph Nader, but that's me.

3. Voter-apathy is the single greatest danger to society as we know it.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Clergy can be corrupted only by one thing - political power. But then they lose own basement, so that's why we call many popes as unworthy. Their decay was too bad. Nowadays, it is very hard. Only destructivity in Church authorities are neverending heresies and misinterprations.

2a. Not exactly. Today's states are all capitalistic, by your view, and yet they protect employees as well. And primarily, here is state government unconnected to economics (well, should be by law).

People moved from villages, because they thought it will be easier money to work with some machines than hard full-day working on the field. And in fact, in agriculture you depend more on fortune, while your will receive wage when working for someone always. This insurance was what brought them to cities. Wiser ones remained and then after WW1 took the best...

3. It was their war. It was the very nature of both totalitarian systems - there simply can be only one, others will be consumed by it or will crush it. We had national and international socialisms, both so polarised and fanatical, that it simply can't accept existence of other one, thus it is own negation. Third system negates both, when works - but is still vulnerable to demagogy, that was why Hitler tried to calm USA and Britain. At first, he ment destroy the mirror, which irritated him. Then Germany would be the only one power. Stalin thought the same way. Just one thing he underestimated: same as Hitler, he thought that democracy won't be able to withstand his totalitarian supersystem. But in next years he chosen the worst way to bring down democracy in capitalistic countries, by overproducting it. Communism just isn't capable of it. Monstrous productivity race in final period of Reagan and Gorbacov showed the truth.

[Wolf]

1. I think that the Church needs to focus on what the people of the modern day need rather than what they want the people of the modern day to need.

2. Some corporations do a good job of keeping employees. Because of Federal legislation and Unions corporations *have* to take care of their employees to some degree. However, this really only works in an expanding job market. Companies will "bid up" employee benefits in order to keep their employees from going to get different jobs; in this scenario, the worker benefits. However, if there is a declining job market, corporations will cut what they need to cut in order to survive; expenses, wages, etc.

3. It seems to me that both political and economic systems are cyclical. There is a recession/expansion cycle as there is a liberal/conservative cycle. Reagan's policies in the 80s were more of a "right thing at the right time" issue than any model for a general state of economic policy. Classical Republican economic policy helped the 80s economy, which was growing out of a recession in the 70s. On the other hand, a more liberal leader, Roosevelt, tried everything he could to revitalize the economy. In trying literally everything, he did not exactly stick to one policy or the other, the net effect of his actions being a stabilization of the economy at its incredibly low level. He stopped the decline, but he couldn't bring it back up. World War Two was needed for that. However, I'd like to point out that war *in-general does not really help the economy. It does not hurt it either, but in order for a war to make the economy boom, the economy has to be at *rock-bottom.

[Caid Ivik]

1. That's true. Church balanses on fundamentalism and modernism. Uncertain view on some things nearly spilled the last Council.

3. If american economy would be at the bottom, Japanese would crush them. It was that production of private companies, what gave them victory. If we count number of aircraft carriers sunk by both sides, Americans lead score in only two ships. And still they had nearly 100 carriers at the end of war, while Japan has only two, yet not completed... Effect of 1929 crisis is overvalued for macroeconomy.

But I agree with idea of prosperity-regression cycles. It ensures plurality of thoughts, so people periodically change government. Country can't be led by one party, people must always have an alternative. As in everything.

[Wolf]

1. Exactly, as things stand, the Church does not really want to alter its position on some issues, the result being that as time goes on less and less people are willing to stay with the Church and its unalterable stance on societal issues.

3. Layte Gulf followed by two A-bombs ended the Pacific War. American air power and manufacturing capability ended the war in general.

4?. Again, I think that a capitalist democracy, a socialist democracy, or a communist democracy (it would seem, based on the definition of communism, that communism is inherently democratic, as Edric often says) all satisfy the peoples' need for freedom and liberty. However, of these systems, a capitalist might be more restrictive (since there are people out there who have economic power and have the kahunas to use it), but at the same time the communist system may hold more challenges for the society to overcome as a whole. Since economics (as it is taught at my school) sees the world as having unlimited wants and limited resources, communism can only totally satisfy the needs of people. This is why the mind-set of the people of today have to change, everyone wants more stuff, and because of limited resources, communism would be less apt to provide it than capitalism. I may be wrong, and if I am, Edric will correct me.

[Caid Ivik]

1. But it is no reason to change its stand because someone doesn't think Church follows today's philosophical fashion.

3. But something had to fought for those islands, from which started those hordes of B-29s. And in these naval fights, Japanese were overwhelmed.

4. Regulations, conventions and restrictions are also in today's free economy. They are to help smaller private companies to start and remain in business. Fact is, that economy is a dynamical thing and bancrots and foundings are a part of it, like death and birth in nature. Many regulations are made to stabilise economy, to preserve unsuccesful, but sometimes large companies. We can't preserve old dry trees, those young would not be able to grow where then!

[Edric O]

Caid:

2a. Make up your mind. You want the state to protect employees but at the same time you don't want the state to interfere with the economy? Protecting employees IS interfering with the economy, Caid. Minimum wage laws, social welfare, the right to free health care and education - these are socialist elements. If you want no state interference into the economy, then you'd better be ready to see people starving in the streets, poor families living in ghettos, and disease running rampant through dirty working class neighborhoods. That is what pure ("laissez-faire") capitalism lead to, back when it was the dominant economic system.

Oh, and it also lead to something else: Communist revolutions.

People moved from their villages to urban areas for a variety of reasons. But for the most part, they moved because they had no choice. There simply wasn't any room left for them at home.

And in any case, there is no excuse for the way the workers were treated. The only "freedom" they had was the freedom to choose between working in miserable conditions for ridiculously tiny wages, or starving to death.

3. I won't argue with you on the nature of nazism and stalinism, since we both know that you are completely impervious to reason when it comes to this subject. Suffice to say that they were just as "socialist" as the People's Democratic Republic of Korea (aka North Korea) is "democratic".

Totalitarian systems are just that: totalitarian. They come in many shapes and sizes and they often pretend to hold some high ideals and principles (in order to justify themselves), but underneath that cover they only defend the interests of a corrupt and all-powerful ruling class.

But as much as I hate Stalin, I also recognize his one great merit: He was the one who rid the world of nazism. Blaiming both Hitler and Stalin for WW2 is just plain dishonourable: You're throwing mud at one of the persons to whom you owe your freedom. Stalin may have been a murderer, but he was no warmonger. He did everything he could to keep Russia out of WW2, and the sorry state of the Red Army at the time of the German invasion proves that he wasn't planning to attack anyone.

[Edric O]

Wolfwiz (I'm replying to your original post on November the 7th, which was addressed to me, not to your posts addressed to Caid - I hope there won't be any confusion...):

1. Yes, we agree on this point. Power corrupts indiscriminately, and the worst thing you could do to a religion is giving political power to its clergy. Ironically, Christianity was hurt far more by corruption within its own ranks than by persecution from outside.

2a. Is the mixed socialist/capitalist economy a step in the right direction, towards socialism and eventually communism, or is it just sand thrown in our eyes by a capitalist ruling class that is willing to make some concessions to avoid all-out revolution but has no intention to ever give up power? I really don't know... Only future history will tell.

The western liberal perspective is very encouraging (in the sense that it brings us closer to socialism), and the modern liberals in general are a beacon of hope. Except for one thing: The conservatives have a firm grip on power, and the liberals seem to think that the best way to defeat them is to become more conservative themselves! Look at the British New Labour as the best example. This approach is inherently flawed, and it only makes the liberals weaker, because their voters don't see any difference any more between them and the conservatives.

There is a huge power vacuum forming in the Left (at least in Europe, that is). I'm hoping that the communists will be the ones who fill that vacuum, although that doesn't seem very likely, seeing how fragmented they are these days.

As for your question, I see that you answered it yourself. The instincts of self-preservation and self-interest exist in communism just like they exist in any other system. The difference is that communism channels them towards the idea of bettering oneself and society as a whole rather than towards the idea of dominating others (as capitalism does). A person can live in communism and still be selfish, as long as his selfishness is tempered by reason: If he does his part to help society, then he will also receive the benefits (since he is a member of that society). If he decides to be lazy and do nothing, then he will gain in the short term, but in the long term both society and himself will be worse off.

2b. I think the marxist approach is better. Rather than educating a select few to be good rulers, we should educate all the people to rule themselves. That eliminates the problems that come from putting too much power into few hands. Come to think of it, communism can be described as a society in which every citizen is a philosopher-king...

3. Indeed. Voter apathy is a greater danger to democracy than anything else we face today - including terrorism. Terrorists can kill people, but they can't put a mad dictator into power like voter apathy can.

[Caid Ivik]

2a (wolf.). EdricO, it can lead to both, but in fact also to no one of them. Main is to ensure the balance of both views - that's what we call the good old golden middle path...

2a (our). No need for dualistic view. Anarchy is bad, so we need laws. Laws are to protect all people, including those in economy (which are most, in fact). No matter laws for protecting employment are considered as socialistic. I am middle right not an oligarch. Oligarchy is also an extreme, we've seen fall of Sparta or how Hansa exploited Saxony and Denmark, whatever. Everywhere are needed limits. But what I ment by violent state interference is when state tries to control the flow of money, to abuse its power to have advantages in market. This is a very destructive way, many times seducing various socialistic or military governments.

There was much place in villages. With the end of serfdom they simply lost rules, so they knew not how to work for themselves. That's why most of them went to city. Also new financial aristocracy knew not how much they might want from them - so they wanted maximum. This is even today disturbing: people don't like to work for themselves.

3. Socialism is a middle stage between marxistic capitalism and communism. A revolutionar stage, where must be a leading force to establish the "bright future". Your opinion is, that this force can be truly democratical. Hitler and Stalin had simply idea, that it can't be. As well as they knew it would be best for them to slower the "inevitable process"... I don't know if it was Marx, who did not see human opportunism or just Hitler and Stalin who invented it.

And please, don't call Stalin as one who brought me the freedom. If Roosevelt wouldn't hesitate so long, he could bring us a real freedom. Or maybe if France and Britain would do their work and honor our alliance in 1938. Or just to honor Versailles treaty when Hitler put army to Rheinland. Stalin abused the war to conquer new lands. Altough his idea wasn't to annihilate our nation, thank God, but he tried to erase intelligence, what is same for me. He brought no freedom. Just a new oppression.

[Wolf]

Well, Caid, I think Edric would say that Stalin was heavy social/economic oppression and Roosevelt was simply economic oppression. However, Caid, I agree with you. Stalin did not rid us of Hitler, the allies rid us of Hitler. Actually, if you read Eisenhower's speech before D-Day, where the term "United Nations" is coined, the United Nations stopped Hitler. Now, I really do like the United Nations, my apologies if that lowers your estimation of me.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, Roosevelt wasn't bad when compared to eastern lords. In fact, he helped also smaller companies, what was a good work.

[Edric O]

Caid:

2a. You have some very confusing political views, Caid. Sometimes you sound like a centrist, other times you sound like a rabid right-winger... On the one hand you support laws that protect employees, as well as social welfare and the right to a free education (which are left-wing ideas), but on the other hand you hate unions, you defend business owners and you support big corporations (which are right-wing ideas). A particulary interesting paradox is that you think the state should protect employees, but the employees shouldn't protect themselves (through unions). In the end, you shouldn't be so surprised that the political compass placed you close to the centre on the economic scale. And keep in mind that being a social conservative doesn't mean you also have to be a right-winger.

"The new financial aristocracy" - I couldn't have said it better myself! But the reason why business owners extracted maximum profit from their employees in the 19th century was not because they were "confused" - it was simply because they could. Capitalism is driven by profit, and the capitalists try to extract the maximum profit from their employees' work. Since there were no laws in the 19th century to stop the capitalists from paying their workers just enough to keep them alive, they went ahead and did just that. It was pure capitalism, and it caused extreme poverty and untold suffering. In the end, a combination of factors contributed to the end of that system - most notably the workers' unions.

3. There were many communists in the first half of the 20th century who truly believed that a benevolent dictatorship was possible, and that the Communist Party would always keep the best interests of the people in mind. In essence, they wanted to apply the 18th century theory of the "enlightened despot" to socialism. But as the experience of the Soviet Union proved, this was a pure fantasy. The "enlightened despot" quickly turned into an oppressive tyrant, and socialism was replaced by stalinism. So today we know that democracy isn't just one way of running a socialist system - it's the only way of running a socialist system. A socialist dictatorship simply doesn't work.

4. Like it or not, it was the Russians who really won World War 2. They lost the most, sacrificed the most, and eventually won the most. The nazi invasion of the Soviet Union was the largest land invasion in human history. The Russians faced impossible odds, and yet somehow they managed to survive and turn the tide of the war. Compared to the brutality of the Eastern Front, the war between the Western Allies and Germany looks like a friendly tea party.

As a wise man once said: "WW2 was won with American guns and Russian blood".

[Edric O]

Wolfwiz:

Stalin was obviously an oppressive and murderous tyrant, there is no doubt about that. But comparing Stalin with Roosevelt because they were both left-wingers is like comparing Churchill with Hitler because they were both right-wingers. Remember, the left/right scale is economic. There is also a social scale, and that is the one which reveals the true differences between freedom and tyranny. Hitler and Stalin were both extreme authoritarians. They had very different economic policies, but their social policies were almost identical.

But what do you mean by "economic oppression"? There is no such thing. Or, to be more exact, you could call ANY economic policy "oppressive". You could say that left-wingers are oppressive because they put the economy in the hands of the state, but you could also say that right-wingers are oppressive because they put the economy in the hands of a small minority of very rich individuals. In the end, there is no such thing as economic "freedom" or "oppression" - although it could be said that a true socialist economy (in which the people democratically vote on the economic plan of their choice) represents economic "freedom".

[Wolf]

Edric:

I wasn't really making a statement comparing Roosevelt and Stalin. I was thinking of ways in which they might be compared in order to get a clearer picture of the way things works. When I said "economic oppression", I think I was trying to generalize some of your arguments against capitalism -- my apologies, I should not generalize.

However, what you say about ANYTHING being construed as oppressive is a good point. Simply put, if you do not like or believe in a system, but must follow it in one way or another, you can make a good case for your own oppression. On Hitler & Stalin: They deserved each other. Only fitting that they would fight to the bitter end.

On World War II: I did not say that Russia had no part in the victory of the war. What I said is that the Allies won the war. The Allies are inclusive of Russia, no? Russia was a member of the United Nations after the war -- in fact, the nations that received the Veto Power in the UN (USA, UK, France, USSR, and China) received that power because they were the Allied Powers (Victors) of World War II.

That quote, "Was won by American guns and Russian blood.", is true. Look at Stalingrad, or the bloody offensive that eventually led into Berlin. Russians sacrificed a great deal (as did the Germans, in a way, think of all the German civilians that suffered in both the American bombing and the Russian counterattack). As did everyone, in World War II.

[Caid Ivik]

2a. My view is very usual, just it doesn't fit dualistic view of communism. But balance doesn't mean staying still in hardcore compromise. I believe individual responsibility for his fate, so I am against too large government welfare and mass-power organisations like worker unions. I don't support big corporations - they don't need it - but smaller ones. But all private, with minimal state's limits. Limitations aren't considerable for right or left wing, they are rules, without no game can be played successfully. Large companies of 19th century were based on many cheap workers, which had no motivation to work hard, so there weren't many products with good quality. Also these juggernauts were still too devouring for finances, so these products were too dear for masses to buy. Shrinking of firms and lowering differences between its hierarchy is a logical, economically inevitable, process. We can't have good income if there is no one who would afford it, that's for sure. We all know why Maserati or Lamborghini nearly fell in last decade.

3. Democracy is very vulnerable to corruption. If there would be maintained plurality, communistic party won't be able to set their system in full "grace". If socialist period was set by a revolution, let it is velvet or violent, then I really doubt this democracy would be like today's. We call this form a "people's democracy", rather paradox idiom.

4. Well, that's true. Russians where the winner. But not only they won over Hitler, but also over half of democratic Europe. Czechoslovakia was occupied by Germans, our men fought bravely to liberate her. And after war Russians will say "we gave you tanks, so we take your land as trophy". That's a betrayal. Western allies hesitated with invasion when they saw how they fight with them, they didn't thought Stalin's army will be so fast. And then in Jalta they sold us. American soldiers liberated Pilsen and stayed there, altough Prague was close. Patton simply received an order - stay there! If not, he would liberate Prague about two weeks before Russians, which had hard fights in Moravia in that time.

[Edric O]

Caid:

2a. "Dualistic view" of communism? That's funny - I seem to remember that I was the one who kept trying to tell you that the one-dimensional left/right line is far too simplistic, and that the classical dualistic view cannot explain the complexity of the political spectrum.

But anyway, moving on to your points: First of all, you can't hold an individual "responsible for his fate" if the contest is either rigged or totally random. That's the problem with capitalism. It's an inherently unfair contest, in which merit has nothing to do with success. Capitalist success comes from exploiting other people's work, not through working hard on your own. How many proletarian billonaires do you know?

Second of all, the fact is that the large companies of today are based on cheap labour just as the large companies of the 19th century were. It just so happens that this cheap labour is now located in foreign countries, due to globalisation.

But I'm glad to see you support small firms - as I see it, they are the ones who represent "capitalism with a human face". I will support small companies against the large corporations any day.

"Shrinking of firms and lowering differences between its hierarchy is a logical, economically inevitable, process." - LOL, you're starting to sound like Karl Marx. ;)

But the fact is that capitalism works in the exactly opposite direction: Small firms are eaten up by larger ones, corporations keep getting bigger and more powerful, and differences in heirarchy (and between rich and poor) just keep growing.

3. Democracy is far less vulnerable to corruption than dictatorship is. Dictatorship means absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

A democratic system will always carry some risk that a crazy capitalist party might get into power and undo all the socialist changes done by the various socialist/communist parties. But it is a risk we must take. Without a democratic system, the Communist Party itself will end up getting corrupted, like it did in the Soviet Union.

But in 200 years of capitalist democracy, you haven't seen any crazy feudalist party taking power and starting to undo all the capitalist changes done by the various capitalist parties, have you?

Once capitalism was well established, no one seriously wanted to go back to feudalism. If we do our job right, then when socialism will be well established, no one will seriously want to go back to capitalism.

4. It was a matter of honour. What would you have expected the Americans to do - stab their Russian allies in the back? "Thanks for winning the war for us, now we get to rule over Europe and you get nothing"? Or maybe even "Thanks for winning the war for us, now we'll invade you and take your lands"? It would have meant WW3. And at that point, the Russians would have won against the Americans.

And there was no such thing as a "democratic" half of Europe that the Soviets conquered - Remember that before WW2, Czechoslovakia was the ONLY democratic country left in Eastern Europe. The rest were ruled by various fascist or military dictatorships.

[Edric O]

Wolfwiz:

Well, what can I say? You are perfectly right. Maybe it's just the fault of my lack of inspiration at this late hour (it's quite late over here), but I don't really have anything to add... :)

[Wolf]

What I said wasn't really inspired, either, more or less agreeing with everyone...

I think we're coming dangerously close to running out of things to say...

EDIT: Okay, in an effort to keep things going...

1. I think that as time goes on, people will gravitate more towards socialism as a societal norm. Look at how people are more and more concerned with human rights, and keeping abuses of power in check -- not so 40 years ago. However, the desire for a certain change in government in society cannot alone cause the change. There have to be failures within the existing system that make the change in society likely to happen -- basically, the system has to be poised on the edge of change for change to occur. That, and of course, people need the ABILITY through which to live with the change, not just desire and a failing predecessor.

2. I think Edric makes a good point by putting things in order, feudalism<capitalism<socialism, with respect to which system holds more equity. However, for socialism to be effective, the government must be strong enough and prepared enough to effectively guide the economy. I am not sure if this is truly require, but from my view of socialism, with government payment for education, medical care, and employment, the government must ensure its ability to handle these things, therefore, it needs to constantly work towars keeping the economy stabilized with respect to external/internal shocks and population growth.

There is operational and legislative lag with respect to government actions and the economy, thus, there is a fundamental weakness in socialism as it stands now. This weakness can be changed with technology, or by a change in societal attitudes. However, the weakness is not one which is fatal -- the US government, of which 75% of its budget goes to social programs, already works to guide the economy. It is more or less successful.

3. Capitalism. The only real problem is the fundamental inequity. That, and the semi-Darwinian kill-or-be-killed attitude. This does have its advantages, it gurantees that the people who work are the people who are best at their work; no one is going to hire anything less than the best possible. That, and capitalism is the most efficient economic system for gaining CAPITAL. Not necessarily the most efficient for resource management (capitalism seeks to use the cheapest resources, not always the best, and not always harvested through the best means), but it is the most efficient for growth in national output, or GDP. I think, for a socialism to be successful, it has to commit itself to the most efficient forms of resource collection and management in addition to economically supporting all people. Otherwise, it doesn't do much better than capitalism other than providing employment and equity. In addition to these, it must provide incentives for the people to work. I do not know how it can accomplish these goals, but I'm sure Edric

knows, and I'd appreciate enlightenment on the "how".

4. Lastly, socialism and capitalism can be equally as democratic. In all probability, the evolution of the modern economic society into either of these systems will be accomplished through democratic means. What the people want, the people get. If you have a totalitarian capitalism, its just as bad as a totalitarian communism. I think we know that. The systems are going to be as democratic as we want them to be.

Well, there we go. Hopefully an intelligent post that pertains to the subject. With luck, its not total crap. :)

[Caid Ivik]

2a. Dualism is a philosophical term. In politics you have now two main ways, but we can't say they are opposites. Dualism I'm talking about is in Marx' view over world - good, oppressed against evil, oppressors. But when you try to put this view on pure politics, what is too pluralistic and practical discipline, you will quickly encounter an unfit. Like PRINT command does something else in Basic than in Pascal. I see you do try to understand it, but Marx isn't the way. You know, he was at the beginning of partial politics, in era, when most was still solved by arms.

This world tries to find cooperation, balance, not enemy, which will carry negative responsibility and once maybe destruction. Following rules was always the best way of long-time success without preventing the others. West was able to find it, now we do it too. But we can't look on everything with old eyes. Middle ages of fight ended with WW2, now we must prevent them from return. And as it is profitable to prevent it, who would support your revolts?

3. Absolute corruption is no corruption. It is a state like when society forgets one act as a sin, it vanishes and becomes a part of justice. I fear same would come with any radical change. We've seen how socialism corrupted once itself, people simply found out they don't need to think or work and state will feed them. That's a same corruption - not only decay, even worse, because now we can't restart economy. Feudalism is a specifical phenomenon, it came on ruins of the old Rome and ended in a world war. We can't measure history by it.

4. Honor was already lost in march 1938. They should not leave us twice. In Poland was Pilsudski, and in Hungary Horthy, but because their nations feared Russia and later Germany. If it was worth to establish a democracy in Germany, why it shouldn't be in those countries too? Not saying they sacrificed a perfect stronghold of liberty in CSR.

And we are central, not eastern Europe. Geographical center of continent is near Kremnica in southern Slovakia.