Communism vs Capitalism

[Edric O]

Well, I finally managed to muster the time to reply to this topic. I'm going through a very busy period in real life right now... But anyway, let's get to the point.

Caid:

2a. As I said in my previous post, I am very much aware of the complexity of politics (even more so than you, judging by the discussions we've had in the past). And so was Marx. There might be two social classes in capitalism, but there are a hell of a lot more than just two directions in politics.

Oh, and by the way, it just so happens that Marx wasn't the only communist author who ever existed... You need to have a broader perspective on communism.

If the world tries to find cooperation, that's wonderful news for us - after all, communism is based on cooperation. :)

Anyway, the point is that if the world moves towards cooperation, peace, justice, etc. (as you claim it does), then there won't be any need for armed revolution, because we will achieve socialism and communism peacefully.

But let's face reality: Your optimism is not justified. The world looks more like it is spiraling down into violence, intolerance and barbarity. Capitalism is not fading into socialism on its own - in fact, capitalism is getting even more capitalistic (more exploitative, oppressive and unjust), as if our political leaders are trying to get as back to the 19th century.

Considering those facts, it seems likely that armed revolution will be necessary after all.

Hmmm, I see you have avoided several of my arguments, so I'll just consider that you have agreed with me on those points.

3. Whenever you try a new idea, there is always a risk that something will go wrong. And that goes for political systems too. Capitalist democracy failed many times in its early days, but people just kept trying until they made it work (the French are the best example of this, with their 4 revolutions in the space of less than 100 years). We should do the same for socialism.

Oh, and by the way, in the corrupt stalinist system, the state usually DIDN'T feed and clothe the people - that was one of the major problems with it (and one of the things that put it in opposition to socialism/communism).

Marxism states that a political system can fall in two ways:

Either (a) there is a revolution or revolution-like event, in which one of the exploited classes overthrows the ruling class and establishes a new system, or (b) There is no revolution or revolution-like event, and the whole system becomes increasingly corrupt and decadent, until it collapses on its own, to the ruin of ALL social classes involved.

The Roman Empire is the best example of option b). There was nothing unnatural about its fall, and there was nothing unnatural about the system that developed on its ashes (namely feudalism). After all, feudalism wasn't even restricted to Europe... It was in Asia, too. And it lasted for over 1000 years, which is not bad at all.

4. Again, I'm telling you that the Western Allies couldn't have just stabbed the Soviet Union in the back. It would have destroyed their claim to moral superiority and given them a very bad reputation as traitors. Not to mention that it would have started WW3...

As for the geographical issue, for the sake of simplicity I normally use the term "Eastern Europe" to mean all the former European stalinist countries.

[Edric O]

Wolfwiz:

I'm not sure if keeping this discussion going is a good idea... it has already been going on for a very long time, and like you mentioned, we are running out of things to say.

But now to reply to your points:

1. Well, the world certainly seemed to be moving towards socialism, with increasing personal freedoms, the advancement of democracy, progressive social reforms and workers' rights, until the conservatives came to dominate the political scene in recent years. Now they are busy trying to roll back the wheel of history - and the really worrying thing is that no one seems to be able to stop them. This should serve as a lesson to us: We must not grow over-confident and expect things to get better on their own. Society will not move towards socialism is no one is pushing.

On the matter of a sudden change in society (that is, a revolution), it is obvious that it would only happen if there was a major crisis (or a failure, as you put it) of capitalism. But that is not the only thing required. According to Lenin, there are 3 conditions that must be met in order for a revolution to occur:

a. A social and economic crisis.

b. Widespread revolutionary fervor and a desire to change things among the general population.

c. A weak and incompetent ruling class, unable to produce convincing propaganda AND/OR a well-organized revolutionary organization, producing propaganda of its own and rallying the people to the banner of the revolution.

A particulary powerful and cohesive revolutionary organization will be able to topple even the most well-entrenched government, while a weak and shaky government can create the proper conditions for spontaneous revolution even when there is no revolutionary organization. But first of all, the other two conditions must be met: A revolution will only happen if the system is in a deep crisis and if the people want to revolt.

2. I completely agree. You should also note that socialism tries to get the people to be directly involved in the activity of the government as much as possible. After all, if socialism is to slowly fade into communism, then the people themselves need to slowly start taking over the job of the government. In other words, representative democracy needs to slowly fade into direct democracy.

3. Capitalism is a necessary stage in the evolution of human society. It is capitalism that lays the foundations of socialism, just as feudalism laid the foundations of capitalism. Without the technological and social progress made during capitalism, it would not be possible to make socialism work. In fact, one of the main reasons why socialism failed in the Soviet Union was because they tried to jump directly from feudalism to socialism, without going through capitalism first.

But now to answer your questions:

Socialism commits itself to the most efficient forms of resource collection and management through the democratic control of government. If the government is not doing a good job, the people will vote against it and it will be replaced. Democracy is what keeps the government efficient. The lack of democracy in stalinist countries meant that their governments were horribly inefficient, and although they started out with massive economic growth, they eventually became too incompetent to handle the economy properly. That is why socialism without democracy will never work.

The socialist incentive for people to work is more or less the same as the capitalist one: If you work more or if you work better, you get richer. Socialism puts no limit on how rich you can get - it only puts a limit on how poor you can get, by making sure that all people have the basic necessities of life. Also, in socialism you can only get richer through your own work, not by exploiting the work of others (as it happens in capitalism). The richest people in capitalism are big business owners. The richest people in socialism will be hard working "employees" (I put the term in brackets because socialist "employees" are also the owners at the same time).

4. Not quite. Democratic socialism means both political and economic democracy, while democratic capitalism means only political democracy. So you cannot say that they are equally democratic (unless you are only referring to political democracy).

Also, I certainly hope that we will never see a totalitarian system again and that all social evolution will be peaceful and democratic, but you can never predict the future... With the kind of voter apathy we have today, totalitarianism may well return. :-

[Caid Ivik]

2a. Yes, but are you aware that scale of political diversity is rather different today than in Marx' era? In fact, his era was much more barbaric, not saying that in 20th century it turned to darkest time of all mankind. In fact, I can't say whether world is turning to better or worse. I would say the world is balancing between eras of order and chaos, while order era simply becomes longer and changes are less destructive. This trend may be called "social progress". Too quick change may create a war (in chaos) or decay (in order), so best is to prevent any radical changes. Returning to your previous point (NO I can't so simply agree ;D ), it is responsibility of leaders to maintain balance. With importance of smaller firms we agree, just still you must see economical power of services.

3. Capitalism itself was spawned, not created. People simply found out it is impossible to create a succesful business without spending some income on service improvements. Democracy was created without any connection to it, altough free money flow is one of its needs. But I don't think athenian oligarchs had to fight or take any other such act to establish it. In fact, all monarchs were elected at first. But socialism, that's artificial creation, not a necessity. That's why I'm suspicious about it.

Stalinist socialism was productive enough to feed and clothe people, however estimated progress wasn't reached. Feudalism was typical result of every fall of a dominant empire to anarchy. I have no clue why communistic antiutopy won't be able to turn to it as well.

4. Well, Patton was orderred from Roosevelt to stop his advance in Bohemia, when he liberated Pilsen. In that time, Russians were unable to pass trough western Slovakia. If he would attack Prague, Czechoslovakia would be free about a month before she was. This wouldn't be an act of aggression. It simply would be something else than act of cowardness.

[Edric O]

Caid:

2a. Yes, of course many things have changed. It is precisely because of the barbarity of his times that Marx saw revolution as the only possible way out of capitalism. In a period when the average worker had no voting rights and when joining a trade union could cost you your life, it seemed obvious that the capitalists would never agree to any compromise, and that they could only be brought down by a great rebellion of the exploited working class. But when the threat of such a rebellion became imminent, the capitalists began to compromise. Child labour was banned, the universal vote was introduced, minimum wage laws were passed, unions were officially recognized - capitalism was putting on a human face. And so we got to the welfare state we have today and to our civilized politics (as you put it), and we seem to stand a real chance to find a peaceful, gradual way out of capitalism. So yes, you are right, things are definitely not the same as in Marx's time.

However, although we have a great opportunity in front of us, no one seems to take advantage of it. The social democrats have abandoned socialism a long time ago, and now they are perfectly satisfied with the mixed economy and the capitalist welfare state, seeing no need to move any further. The socialists and the communists are fragmented, and unsure what to do. Many communists still argue about which way is the "right" way to achieve socialism, not seeming to understand that there is no such thing as a "right" way. We will simply have to take what history offers. Right now, gradual reform seems to be the best way; but if we wait much longer and if the conservatives manage to drag us back into the past, we may soon be back in a situation where revolution is our only option.

3. Capitalism was not adopted by consensus, or even by popular vote. It was slowly brought into being by a relatively small segment of society - feudalism's middle class, the bourgeoisie. You can say that capitalism evolved naturally, but then you have to accept that natural evolution includes radical reform and revolution - exactly the things you consider "unnatural" about socialism.

Karl Marx actually agreed with you: he saw socialism as the natural result of capitalism, just like capitalism was the natural result of feudalism.

The Soviet Union was an attempt at "artificial socialism": Applying some sort of shock therapy that would make the economy jump directly from feudalism to socialism, without passing through a capitalist stage first. But as we all know, this "jump" failed. It resulted in stalinism.

Stalinism was definitely productive enough to feed and clothe people; however, in many places, the crazy experiments of all-powerful stalinist dictators resulted in great shortages, and most stalinist states offered less welfare to their citizens that the mixed economies of western capitalist nations. Keep in mind that the fall of stalinism was ignited by industrial workers - the people who are supposed to be the greatest supporters of communism!

I'm surprised no one seems to notice the irony: stalinism was brought down by the proletariat.

As for feudalism, I think I already addressed your point that it was some sort of "typical result of the fall of a great empire" by pointing out that it was in fact a global system, and not just a European thing.

4. Normally I'd say that it's a bit ungrateful to turn to the people who liberated your country (I'm talking about the Allies as a whole) and ask "What took you so long?". But in your case, these were the same people who sold you out to Hitler at Munchen, so you have a good point.

[Caid Ivik]

2a. Conservatives don't drag countries back. They only prevent unwise acts to be applied too quickly. Liberals follow fashion, which sometimes prefers social reforms, sometimes capitalist ones. And from moral view, they never follow what they should. But at least they remain pluralistic, so there is much discussion about each change. Like conservative and socdem parties do so as well. Why are you against pluralism in communist movement?

3. You look too much on technical details. Difference between plantage farmers and industrial workers is minimal. Fact, that trade was smaller in ie gothic era, doesn't mean there is a line. In romanistic era, there was a large circle of capitalistic countries or tribes from Scandinavia trough Russia, Volga, Chazar, Byzantine Empire and muslim world. Before Rome took power over Mediterranean, same could be seen in system of greek metropoles and their colonies. And before the Four Empires same was in Mesopotamy. See? No straight line of slavery-serfdom-capitalism, it's a sinusoid between freedom and restriction. Only scale changes, as well as look on human. It wasn't slave who fought for his rights, it was his master who found out he is also a human. And why there was feudalism I told you before. It didn't appear at all places at once, but one by one. With a sinusoid very like capitalism has.

4. Like when you play Emperor. You fight hardly with one opponent, your ally waits until you both are weakened and then start his massive offensive. You lost all Cobras, but no matter, ally guards you with large forces. Suddenly, he says you should be grateful - so he ends allegiance, unloads an APC full of engineers and capture all your buildings but ie one barracks. Then he returns alliance. He protects you perfectly now, yes...

[Wolf]

Sorry I havn't dropped in this thread for a while, again, maybe we should let it die, but I think that you and Caid deserve some kind of response.

1. Do the people even *want* to stop the roll-back of progressive legislature? America is not yet a dictatorship; there is still the electorate, and the Senate still exists. You would think that if a solid majority felt that it needed to halt what was happening in government, it would. An absence of this majority is worrisome; I partly believe that it is due to a lack of unity of the Democratic party, which, for the last decade, has been on a decline, even with Clinton in office. The largest Democratic stronghold, the South, has been lost to the GOP. Sorry, but this is all American politics, I'm not as well versed on the global scene as I should be.

2. I agree, line of reasoning completed (woohoo).

3. So, therefore, capitalism is necessary for socialism, and then communism to exist? If that's true, then I feel somewhat relieved. For I can easily see the political community gravitate towards socialism, however, that is provided we don't regress. The feudal system was a semi-regression from the Roman Empire, Hitler and Mussolini were regressions from the democracies that preceeded them, and Stalin turned what *should* have been a progression into a regression through a desire for power. If conservatives (some conservatives, there are conservatives who are open-minded towards new ideas, but are either fiercely religious or committed to a strong set of values or beliefs; we cannot blame them totally. With all things, there are good and bad people.) are rolling back the wheel, as you say, what is it that we must do?

[Edric O]

Well, I'm not going to let this topic die just yet, although I think we should be heading towards some sort of ending.

Caid:

2a. Normally, you would be right about your fellow conservatives. The very word which you use to describe yourselves suggests that you are the ones interested in the preservation of the status quo. However, this has no longer been the case in the past 20 years. Rather than trying to preserve the existing status quo, conservatives have been suddenly hit by a wave of nostalgia for the "good old days" of the 1920's, when the super-rich were free from high taxes and the poor starved in dirty slums. So instead of trying to preserve the status quo (which is not all that bad), modern conservatives want to dismantle the welfare state and undo every social reform adopted over the past 100 years. That is what makes them so unreasonable and dangerous.

And what do you mean I'm "against pluralism"? I think I made it quite clear that freedom of speech must be protected at all costs. You cannot have a free communist world without full freedom of speech.

3. You call "capitalism" any system which involves the exchange of goods and services based on a market system of some sort - by that definition, even socialism is capitalist. Hell, even communism could be quite capitalistic by your definition.

The essence of capitalism is not the market, because the market can exist in practically every economic system ever invented. The essence of capitalism is the private ownership over the means of production and the use of wage labour.

In other words, what separates capitalism from other economic systems is not the way in which goods are bought and sold, but the way in which they are produced.

The progression from slavery to serfdom to capitalism (and onwards to socialism and communism) is a progression of the modes of production, not exchange.

And I highly doubt that slaves were freed out of the kindness of their masters' hearts... In reality, they were freed because the slavery-based mode of production had become obsolete and unprofitable.

4. He he, nice analogy. You are right - the Soviet Union did behave along those lines.

[Wolf]

2a. It makes me feel better to know that good conservatives (those who would like to continue the grand old 90s and Clinton years of relative progressivism) still exist.

3. Edric, I can't help but wonder if you feel dirty calling communism something like capitalism; but I realize that you speak from an altered definition of "capitalism". I agree with you, cutthroat, kill or be killed capitalism eventually reaches a collapse, as someone will find some sort of economic superweapon, or some economic shock will destabilize the system (which is precariously stabile; classical economists were wrong in their assumption that the system is self-stabilizing, the 1920s, where cutthroat capitalism was experiencing a golden age, a massive depression hit the US primarily to bank and stock failure, and massive mismanagement of credit).

4. Dirty engineer bsers.

[Caid Ivik]

2a. Well, conservativism and regresivity are rather different views on a thing. But still, why shouldn't we maintain even such thoughts? If others want it, let they have it, that's democracy about...

3. So, how can you produce without a capital? Tools and knowledge are needed, tough they are made from ie stipendial investments and tool bargains. And we need some money to ensure it. Economy can't work, when all product has to be consumed. By the way, have you ever thought about those biblical seven hungry years and such?

4. You see. We don't call this board as official for that game for nothing...

[Edric O]

Wolfwiz:

1. I don't know what the people want, because no one really asked them. They are only given a choice between two packages: liberal and conservative (I'm talking about American politics here). Chances are that most people don't agree 100% with either package, but are forced to vote the one that is closest to their views. European countries usually have more than 2 major parties, and thus a greater variety of packages on offer. European countries are also more left-wing than America.

American conservatives are able to implement their agenda because they draw a lot of votes from people who vote conservative only because they don't want to vote liberal. Take the Religious Right, for example.

On the other hand, it's true that the last 20 years have seen a resurgence of the Right on a global scale, but this is mainly the Left's fault. The Right hasn't gotten stronger - it's the Left who got weaker. In many countries, left-wing parties have lost voters because they are not left-wing enough. The leadership of the Left has moved towards the Center for no apparent reason, and this caused a rift between them and their voters. Even the Communists have turned into centrists in some countries.

I think I know the reason for this crisis of the Left (which is more accurately described as a crisis of liberalism/social democracy), but I will elaborate on it a bit further down.

3. Yes, capitalism is an absolutely necessary stage of the social evolution of Humanity. Like I said, you cannot have socialism if you haven't passed through capitalism first, just as you cannot have communism if you haven't passed through socialism first. Lenin's idea for Russia was that they could achieve a "jump" from feudalism to socialism IF they got massive help from a more advanced socialist country. At the moment, it looked as if a revolution in Germany was imminent, and Lenin was certain that Germany would turn socialist and use its powerhouse of an economy to help Russia make the "jump". But the German revolution was crushed... Lenin had gambled everything on one card, and lost.

Now, as I have arrived to your comment about conservatives "rolling back the wheel", let me elaborate on the problems facing the Left today.

Why is liberalism (or social democracy, if you use the European terminology) losing ground? After all, ever since the New Deal, the Left kept scoring one success after the other. The welfare state was created, then improved and strengthened. The civil rights movement emerged victorious. The mixed economy and the welfare state brought prosperity to a larger segment of the population than ever before. So what went wrong? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Paradoxically, the Liberal Left is losing ground precisely because it achieved all its goals and passed all its tests with flying colours. It stumbled on an unexpected problem: there is nothing left to do. The liberals have already got everything they wanted. Society has reached the end of liberalism. The only way forward now is to leave liberalism behind and move into socialism. But there are no socialists to do this, and the liberals decided that things are fine just the way they are. From the reformers they used to be, liberals turned into the defenders of the status quo. The conservatives, on the other hand, turned from being the defenders of the status quo into being counter-reformers - that is, they made it their goal to undo everything the liberals had done.

So today you have two major political movements, one of which is trying to preserve the status quo, while the other is trying to drag you back into the past. There is no major movement trying to push you forward. Therefore, the resulting movement is a slow drift backwards.

The crisis will end only when the liberals will stop defending the status quo and become reformers again. Only when they will stop trying to defend existing reforms and start trying to push for new ones. The Left should go on the offensive again.

[Edric O]

Caid:

2a. I know they're different, but the American conservatives don't. They make it quite clear that their goal is to take the USA back to the days before Roosevelt and the New Deal. In other words, they want to undo 70 years of reforms.

Of course it's their right to hold whatever opinion they want. But it's also my right to hold the opinion that they're idiots.

3. I take it that you mean "capital" as in "the initial investment necessary to get production started". In that case, you could say that every economic system uses "capital", but the difference lies in the nature and the ownership of this capital. For example, in capitalism it is privately owned, while in socialism and communism it is publicly owned. In feudalism, the "capital" consisted of the land and the serfs on it, and it was a form of property that no longer exists today: an aristocratic privilege, which does not take part in any kind of market (i.e. cannot be bought or sold).

Anyway, the point is that there will always be someone who owns and controls the reasources that are necessary to start a production cycle. In communism, that "someone" are the people themselves.

[Caid Ivik]

2a. At first, USA aren't heart of the world. Second, New Deal gave to their government powerful hand in controlling economy, especially strategic one, like energy and machine industry. These produce all american military power, thing which makes them the primary superpower in the world. Republicans try to maintain this status from times of Reagan, I would say they defend it even more than Clinton or (especially) Carter did.

3. Capital isn't needed only at the start, but many times to very maintaince of business, so its handling must be mostly responsible. I don't see a reason, why should be the capital so widely owned. Also, MY abilities, are only MINE, I can't fully give them to anyone, only provide. State, or society, can't declare its ownership over it. That's against 10th Commandment.