Europe's Utopian Hangover

[Edric O]

1a. Ah, but you forget that we do not want to put ourselves in a position of superiority over the bourgeois. We want to abolish social classes and put ourselves on a position of equality with them. We want equality, not discrimination or elitism. That is why your comparison is inherently flawed.

And keep in mind that true equality can only exist as long as there is true freedom. No freedom = no equality. Socialism involves a big government, of course, but a democratic one, with as many checks and balances as possible. The role of government is to serve the people.

1b. Isn't capitalism (or any other system, for that matter) also affecting everyone in it? It's in the nature of every political and economic system to affect everyone, not just in the nature of communism. If you live in a system that you don't like, you can either try to change it or leave and go somewhere else. This is just as true for capitalism as it is for communism.

2. Let's take a look at the Great Depression (and all the smaller depressions before and after it) to see just how "stable" is the market economy on the whole... ::)

And you think the global economy can't fail? Well, why don't we just wait and see?

3. True. So what's your point? That warfare is still possible under communism? Well, of course it is. But the last time I checked, capitalism wasn't exactly a shining example of peace and harmony...

We will never completely get rid of war and violence. But communism removes their main causes, so at least it will be more peaceful than capitalism.

[Caid Ivik]

1a. Yes, but for them, the equality will be forced!

1b. I can live as selfish farmer with small piece of land and pay taxes from state's support. And live only from fruit of earth and laugh at any commerce. This can be also a nice life, without communism or capitalism. Just there is a difference that communists would steal the land from me.

2. I've already described how it was caused by state regulations. Golden dollar, few machinations inside government experimentators and you have it.

3. I would say how easily we can destroy this system. War will cause return of authority, if not establishing of new dictatorship with unlimited power, thanks to "common nature" of communism. Bee hive will spawn a queen, to say it in short.

[Edric O]

1a. Who is "them"? And I already explained that "forced equality" is logically impossible.

1b. They won't steal anything from you. Communism is based on the free and voluntary association of human beings. In other words, no one is forcing you to take part in it if you don't want to. You can isolate yourself from society and live as a self-sufficient farmer all your life if you want to.

In capitaism, however, you can't do that unless you have the MONEY to buy yourself a big enough farm. It's capitalism, not communism, that forces you to take part in it. In capitalism, it costs you a lot of money to isolate yourself.

2. So when the world's most unregulated economy collapses, you blame state regulations for it... And totally ignore the fact that state intervention is what pulled the economy back on its feet.

3. What the hell are you talking about? From a military point of view, communism is MORE stable than capitalism, because communism removes the major reasons that make people go to war.

You don't see evil overlords trying to take over the world every day in capitalism, do you? So what makes you think you'll see them in communism, especially since communism means that they won't have anything to fight for?

Oh, and you're right about the bee hive. With its rigid chain of command and class structure, a bee hive is the polar opposite of communism (from a social point of view). You could say that a bee hive is the perfect fascist society. And every fascist society needs an absolute ruler.

[Caid Ivik]

1a. For those we are talking about. "Bourgoise", your "capitalist pigs".

1b. So, if I am born in the communistic society, can I just declare my independence and work on a part of land, which is divided for me by "my need"? This sounds a little senseless.

2. Economy was unregulated, but when you control the currency, you are omnipotent. Same was done on east after WW2 by communists, but this fall was controlled. Altough it was a fall as well.

3. I can't say communism will take a mood to fight. You can have equally much as others - but why not more? If you won't have other choice than fight, you will raise arms. If not you, someone else will do so. You have a very negative view on power of individual charisma and imagination. Only if you would erase these things, you will be able to erase greed. But it would be a considerable sacrifice, eh?

[Edric O]

1a. I suggest you refresh your memory. I never used the expression "capitalist pigs", nor any other derogatory term for that matter. You are the one who constantly feels the need to insult his enemies in the crudest way possible.

But anyway, getting to the point at hand, the only thing the bourgeois will have forced upon them is justice. Was it "forced equality" when aristocratic privileges were eliminated and the nobles became equal to the commoners before the law? No, it was justice. It was the elimination of a forced INequality - the one between feudal lords and their serfs. The same thing applies here.

1b. Why is it senseless? It gives you more independence than capitalism ever could. And if you don't like the piece of land that the community gives you for your farm, you can always leave and try to find a better one.

Of course, I wouldn't expect too many people to do that, because living on their own would deprive them of all the comfort and technology that comes with living in society.

2. Let me introduce you to a certain F.D. Roosevelt. He disagrees with you. And it just so happens that his socialist reforms were the thing that saved the US economy and pulled it back on its feet.

Try as you might, you can't argue with history. The unregulated free market caused the Great Depression, and the welfare state ended it.

3. The point was that communism takes care of all your material needs, so only an exceptionally greedy person would want to start a war. There may be plenty of such wannabe warlords around, but where could they get an army from? People who are satisfied with their lives don't usually go risking it all in order to take over the world...

[Caid Ivik]

1a. If you feel that negation is same as insult, then sorry, I know no other way. Have I said it is a direct quote? I just try to use communistic dictionary to stand in terms you understand. Which you did not in previous posts.

Justice...so you think it would be just for state to steal your big house because there can be agricultural station and you will be sent to flat in dirty city, where you can work perhaps as a builder, altough you were a wealthy merchant before the revolution? Your profession would be considered as evil and even if you had that house as a legacy, you will lose it, because only redistributive economics can be justified! It is theft. Like we should not take the land from former feudals, especially when they were making normal money on selling it to former servants, if not giving it to them.

1b. It will be a matter of time until I will start to trade with that community. Technically, there will have to be a trade, you know, for equal redistribution of resources, so I will find a way to get into it. And as I won't be limited by others, I can make a good income from it.

But also think about possibility, that MANY people will do so. Not majority, but just so many, they would create a small, about 10% minority. In Slovakia, it would be a half million of people. Slovakia is cca 49 000 sq.km large, so equally everyone of them will receive a hectar. If we count whole families, free land will be divided to cca 100 000 independent units of size of Vatican. So again, technically. It isn't much, but also, find 100 000 pieces of land of this equal size capable of giving you same as individuals in communities receive. It is technically impossible to redistribute it, and there will always be some unease with it. So the independents will trade between them. And now, when someone will be more productive, he will buy more. And were here again...

2. Roosevelt was a keynesist, I don't agree with his "New Deal" as well, altough this one was working for some time. But also, he never put a hand on minor companies, where most wealth of USA (as well as in all countries nowadays) is created. Even he tried to help them. One thing was right - he tried to set a new dollar based on real economical worthiness. Communists took smaller companies as well, and whole middle class lost motivation.

3. They will be motivated also by their greed. Charisma can spawn unknown abilities. See Muhammad, Bonaparte, Lenin, Hitler...all showed something new human can fight for.

[Edric O]

1a. Strawman. You are trying to misrepresent my position to make it look like something you can attack more easily. A typical fallacy...

The oppressive system you describe has nothing to do with socialism, and it is not what I was talking about. The all-powerful state that can take away your house whenever it feels like it is one of the hallmarks of stalinism and dictatorship. You are arguing against stalinism, not against socialism/communism.

Taking away a man's home and forcing him to move is not justice. Justice is taking away the means of production from the hands of the capitalists and putting them into the hands of the people as a whole.

But seeing how you believe that we shouldn't have even taken away the land from the old feudals, I won't expect you to understand... By the way, do you also think that we shouldn't have taken the slaves from the old slave-owners? After all, slaves were property, and you capitalists always rant about how we should have the deepest respect for people's property. ::)

1b. And you really think that the people living in the communist society will be stupid enough to actually trade with you in a capitalist manner? If they wanted that kind of trade, then they wouldn't be living in communism in the first place.

Also, thank you for proving my point: Living as a self-sufficient farmer is very hard, and you might have to move to another country to get the land you need. So it would be in your personal best interest to stay a member of the communist society. Both you and the rest of the community will have something to gain from it.

2. Keynesian economics (i.e. the welfare state) saved capitalism from almost certain death. They basically represent a compromise between capitalism and socialism, and they improved the situation of the workers just enough to avoid a revolution.

And by the way, which part of the "New Deal" do you disagree with?

3. Notice that all those leaders got into power because the people were unhappy and/or angry with the old status quo. Happy and content people don't start wars and revolutions.

Charisma isn't enough to get people to die for you. They must have a serious reason to do so. They must have very little to lose and very much to gain. None of those conditions are met under communism.

[Caid Ivik]

1a. Stalinism is one possible vector of socialism. And most common. But to the point, so if I have in legacy a castle, you will leave it to me?

1b. If I will invent something they don't have, they surely will do so. And about usual goods, I can trade them with other independents.

2. Welfare state is even in Smith's theories. He said state must ensure those things which are needed, but unable to give a positive income. For example education, security, healthcare etc. Keynesism is of direct state's interventions to market, not by a permanent regulation, but also hits to various needed points. Making a merchant giant from state with back guarded by law control, like Roosevelt and also Hoover before him tried.

I think you mean the neoliberal system, a compromise between classic liberal smithism and keynesism, where state helps only to that is falling. It was a very succesful in post-war Germany, that's for true, but it is like an engine. When you have the good speed, you can push the gear up. And this is fully free economy. You must look on it dynamically, when to set (1) and when (2).

3. OK, I would say I had worse examples. But still, Muhammad. What for they fought his djihad? Or when Jews came to Erec Israel? Maybe it is a divine charisma, but still a charisma and nothing else. Maybe sometimes it is a lust for loot - well, I don't agree with a theory of Mongols attacking Hungary because we prayed to bring down the Hungary...

[Edric O]

1a. Actually, stalinism was caused by a fluke accident of history. It is by no means "the most common" form of socialism (it's not really socialism at all, but for the sake of the argument I'll assume it is) - it only developed in one country (the Soviet Union). But then a second fluke accident (World War 2) suddenly gave that country influence over half the world, which allowed stalinism to spread.

But to the point, about your castle: If you built that castle yourself, or if you bought it with money you earned through your own labour, then you will get to keep it. However, if you inherited it because you're an aristocrat, or if you bought it with money you made from other people's labour, then it will be confiscated.

1b. True. Although I find it highly unlikely that a lone farmer can invent something that an entire technological civilization hasn't thought of... Chances are that you will be the one left behind by technology, not the communist society.

Of course, you could trade with other independent farmers. As long as you don't start exploiting people, we won't interfere with your capitalist trade.

2. In other words, you want as much capitalism as you can get away with. In the good times you can have a fully "free" market and exploit the workers at a maximum rate, because they won't notice. In the bad times you want more state interference and regulation in order to make sure that the situation of the workers doesn't get bad enough to cause a revolution.

How typical...

3. Okay, so the only kind of war that can still take place in communism is a religious Holy War... I can live with that. It's still far more peaceful than capitalism.

[Dunenewt]

1a Isn't North Korea a Stalinist Country?

[Edric O]

Yes it is. And it's also the last truly totalitarian state in the world. But North Korea imported stalinism from China, which in turn imported it from the Soviet Union.

[Caid Ivik]

1a. So if I have it as a legacy, without my own work it is ok, but when I was able to create a successful small firm where my employees had nearly same wage as me, it is a crime?

1b. We've already seen such inventions. But that's not a technocratical look, for example there could be even a common product, but with a better design, which won't fit societies' producing conventions. For example if I would have original recipe of Sacher's cake. With that exploiting, where you would consider it as worthy of "intervention"? When I will banish barter and return to money?

2. Main thing is to maintain balance between both trends. That's what the real politics are about. Now we see social states of Europe turning to economical stagnation. That's a sign that today's socdems will be soon again replaced by right-wing parties. Which will produce again some cash to fulfill further socialistic jokes, after these rightists will be replaced...

3. Living in a preprogrammed society, where everything is de facto given to you (some manual work and you have anything - that easy, no risk, when state ensures you it), that will certainly cause terrific level of moral decay. Even if we don't count my own views at "communist liberty", decay will cause many possibilities. Not only for prophets.

[Edric O]

1a. More like the other way around... I said that if you inherited that castle, it will be confiscated and put to some use that will benefit the people (in the case of a castle, I suppose it could be turned into a museum). On the other hand, if you bought it with money you earned through your own labour, you will get to keep it. If you were the owner of a small firm and kept the exploitation of your employees to a minimum, most of your wealth will probably be considered to have been made through your own labour. You probably won't get to keep a castle, but a more reasonable residence, yes.

1b. Exploitation is when you hire people to work for you and give them back only part of the value of their work in the form of a wage. In other words, capitalist wage labour. We've already talked about this many times before.

And somehow I don't think you can change society with a cake recipe...

2. Today's socdems are the ones who caused their own problems by moving towards the right wing, because they have allowed themselves to become as greedy as all other capitalists.

You say you want political balance, but only because this see-saw balance keeps capitalism alive. When things get bad, you move to the left and agree to make concessions in order to avoid a people's uprising. When things get good, you move to the right in order to exploit the people as much as possible while they're not looking.

3. So if success in life is no longer a matter of dumb luck and people don't have to worry about whether they'll have something to eat tomorrow, then we get "moral decay"? Funny, I always thought that "moral decay" was caused by the existence of poverty and injustice, not by the lack thereof.

The people who are most eager to live a life of crime or to fight in a war are those who have nothing to lose - those who are on the brink of despair. By eliminating poverty and ensuring that everyone's material needs are met, communism eliminates the main causes of crime and war. If you already have a cozy lifestyle, why risk it all on some mad scheme?

[Caid Ivik]

1a. Ok, the obtaining is solved for me. But why not a castle? Maybe I have about 10 wives (freedom of religion...) and dozens of children, so we can have it under full control without servants. And such family also has bigger needs than smaller ones.

1b. I give them my capital, organisation, technology and resources. Without it, they wouldn't be able to produce anything.

2. In fact system of today, which you do call capitalism, is based on balance. IT IS balance itself, balance of uncountable various factors. Thinking by Whitehead, it is a nexus of various separate acts, logical conclusion of society without central command. Problem is that you call "capitalism" everything what isn't true hard-core communism.

3. Well, most of left-aligned clubs (altough nowadays we can't say it is just thing of anarchists) are not criticising economical system itself, but more many of its effects. Problem is, that both communism and traditional capitalism are based on too materialistic look on life. Both promote production as the main reason to live. Both are based on what they think is justified redistribution of products. And then they both fall in dillemas like value of immaterial capital (know-how, organisation etc.). They agree today's capitalistic countries are wealthy and people have less problems and more free time. We can say, their needs are fulfilled. These leftists see solution of it in hardening life (limiting globalisation, free market, but sometimes whole state's control, political as well as economical) or in promotion of personal charity. I think the second one is a very positive trend. I'm sure you've heard Where is the love. That's a right step.

[Edric O]

Well, I finally found the time to reply to this topic again, after a rather long pause. I'm sorry about that, but I'm very busy in real life these days...

1a. From each according to his means, to each according to his needs. If your family is that big, I see nothing wrong with you living in a castle that you obtained through your own hard work.

1b. The only reason they wouldn't be able to produce anything without you is because the system is set up so that all resources and technology are private property.

Or, in other words: Why do people starve on the streets of big cities in countries where they could simply survive on the food they could find in a forest? Because all the forests are somebody else's property.

Also, your contribution is ONE-TIME only, and FINITE. Your capital is finite. You only start the company, and your workers do all the work from that point onwards. Yet you expect them to pay you back for your initial contribution over and over again, for as long as they work in the company. It's like giving a man an apple and expecting him to pay you 10 cents for it every day for the rest of his life.

2. You obviously haven't been paying too much attention to my posts. The claim that I give the name "capitalism" to "everything that isn't true hard-core communism" is utterly ridiculous in itself - I think I made it quite clear that there are fundamental differences between communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, feudalism, etc.

Communism and capitalism are two different stages in the evolution of human society, among many others.

Of course capitalism represents a particular kind of balance - because every system does. When things get unbalanced, we have a revolution and the existing system is replaced by a new one.

The trouble with capialist balance is that it serves the interests of the rich ruling class, as I explained in my previous post (a comment that you have conveniently ignored):

When things get bad, you move to the left and agree to make concessions in order to avoid a people's uprising. When things get good, you move to the right in order to exploit the people as much as possible while they're not looking.

3. "Left-aligned" is a very broad term. Some left-wingers are capitalists (and therefore they do not oppose the economic system itself, just as you mentioned), while others are socialists/communists/anarchists/etc. (and therefore they realize that we have to treat the cause - capitalism itself - and not the symptoms).

"Today's capitalistic countries are wealthy and people have less problems and more free time" - HA HA HA! First of all, I need to remind you that, with a few exceptions, ALL countries are capitalist. Including the vast majority of the 3rd world. And unless you think that starving to death is a way to make people have less problems, I don't see how you can admire the results of capitalism in those countries.

But even if we ignore them completely, and even if we ignore all the ex-stalinist countries (I wonder - how long is the "it was all the commies' fault!" excuse going to last? At some point, you HAVE to start taking responsibility for the fate of the countries you now control, rather than blaming everything on the previous regime), we are still left with the fact that even in the wealthy and prosperous USA, Western Europe, etc. there are still millions of people struggling in poverty.

And communism is not based on a "too materialistic view on life", but on cold hard facts: Whatever your purpose in life may be, you still need to eat. Taking care of your material needs is the purpose of the economy. Your emotional and spiritual needs have nothing to do with the economical system.

[Caid Ivik]

REAL life? I think this is also part of it, at least for me ;D But ok, I have other priorities than fun as well.

1a. This is nice. Will there be permitted polygamy? You know, it is hard to make such family with one. Tough my baptision-father has 11 children with one...

1b. Capital isn't infinite. I must manage the production, so there is still some work from me, altough it doesn't directly create that product. But without capital manipulation, my firm will stagnate. Question is only what should be value of management and responsibility.

2. But when you don't see a difference between i.e. Russia, USA, Slovakia and Zimbabwe? Yes, all are (or call themselves) democratic. Yes, all have free market. But still, they have too much diametral differences.

3. Well, what should I say, return to point 2. And see: Russia fell from socialism to oligarchy, Slovakia just started trend of capitalisation, Zimbabwe is going otherwise and USA are rather balanced for now. Most people in those states which succesfully implemented free market and democracy, are rich. You know, one is else than other one. And then we had decolonisation, which prevented that implementation and thus material progress. What's your main value, by the way...

[Edric O]

1a. What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults is none of the government's business. Forced relations of any kind will be banned, obviously, but voluntary ones are protected by human rights.

1b. Of course capital isn't infinte. That's exactly what I said: That capital is finite, and you expect an infinite payment from your workers in exchange for it.

The manager (who is not necessarely the same as the owner) deserves to be paid for his work just like every other worker does. But a capitalist owner goes far beyond simply getting paid for his work. He owns the company, and as such he owns the products of everyone else's labour. He is the one who sets wages, he chooses who gets hired and who gets fired, etc.

In capitalism, the company leadership holds the power over the workers. In socialism, the workers hold the power over the company leadership.

2. Just because they are all capitalist countries, that doesn't mean that there are no differences between them. There are many different kinds of capitalism. I know this as well as you do.

However, the differences between the different kinds of capitalism are much smaller than the differences between capitalism and socialism, for example. That is my point.

3. Right, so the people in some capitalist countries are very rich compared to the people in other capitalist countries. How exactly does that help your argument?

Let me guess: You will bring up the fact that not all capitalist countries are the same, right? Well, thank you! Because that fact helps MY argument: The rich western countries have mixed economies with a heavy socialist influence, while the poor (ex-stalinist and/or 3rd world) countries are much closer to pure capitalism.

(North Korea, Laos and Cuba are the only exceptions to this rule - a tiny minority compared to the over 100 other dirt poor countries that are much more capitalist than your average western nation)