This is why I love French workers

[chatfsh]

This discussion is growing a little tiresome and repetitive.  As I previously stated, if you want to claim that no socialist or communist countries have EVER existed, that

[Edric O]

So basically what you

[Edric O]

Your response to this is

[Dante]

Some countries are called communist because they said they were communist.

I'm totally the President of the Moon, by the way.

[chatfsh]

Out of curiosity, what exactly is the definition of communism that you uphold? You keep mentioning that all these countries are considered communist by history books, but you never explained why. What is it about those countries that made them communist? If you don't like my definition, then what is communism according to you?

The general definition as is commonly held:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

Dictionary.com:

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

US Library of Congress

[Edric O]

On a completely different note, I'd also like to reply to Anathema and Wolf, whose points I did not discuss so far.

The rich pay as well. CEO's who get their golden handshakes entirely in money got off easily, but many of them lost fortunes when their stocks plumeted. (as did almost all regular shareholders) I know of several Dutch businessmen who got depressed and committed suicide. The idea that the rich ride through the storm unscathed is simply untrue. I'd also mention the hedgefunds who have (wrongly) been blamed by politicians for contributing to the crisis.

The rich pay as well, true. They may even pay more than the poor, in absolute money terms. But the poor tend to lose a greater percentage of their wealth, and, most importantly, they suffer more. If you lose your job and possibly your home, you are in a much worse position - you are suffering more - than a rich person who lost a fortune but still remains well-off even after that loss.

Capitalism isn't just about productivity. It's also about producing things people will actually buy. Some American car manufacturers have been delivering inferior products for decades and of course that's mainly the fault of its policy makers, but to suggest that those plants stay open just to keep its workers employed is absurd. I sympathise with those Chinese workers because they live in a completely different economy and society than we do, but in western countries we have social security and services.

Due to various market failures, asymmetric information, the psychological impact of consumerism and so on, the things that people will buy are not always the things that they need, or the things they would want if they were better informed (or less misinformed). Also, because demand is calculated in monetary terms, and because the rich have more money than the poor, the desires of the rich carry more weight in the market than the desires of the poor. Thus ensuring that capitalist production is skewed towards the desires of the rich.

However, you are correct that yes, capitalism does produce things that are desired by someone to some extent. Same as every other economic system.

And yes, you are also correct that a factory should not stay open just to provide its workers with jobs. I believe that all workers should always be provided with jobs, but not necessarily at the same workplace. If it's necessary to close a workplace, that's fine, as long as the workers get jobs elsewhere.

It doesn't have anything to do with international worker solidarity because it's not a trait unique to French manual laborers. Farmers (who are generally well off), truckers (who often operate their own one-man-business) and civil servants (who are often lazy and incompetent) all follow the same pattern of behaviour.

And it is an admirable pattern of behaviour, even when used for not-so-admirable purposes. It is admirable because it is founded on a spirit of rebellion against the capitalist class. At times, such a spirit of rebellion may lead to misguided actions, or it may be taken up by people who aren't really exploited, but as a general principle it is a good thing to have in any society.

Fascism is technically not marxist in nature, but both ideologies are collectivist: i.e. both stress the importance of the nation above that of individual rights and both advocate far reaching state power under the guise of collective welfare.

The nation? No. Absolutely not. Fascism stresses the importance of the nation above all else, yes, but Marxism stresses the importance of class above all else. And liberalism stresses the importance of the individual above all else.

The first and most important source of opposition between fascists and Marxists is the fact that fascism advocates radical inequality and hierarchy, while Marxism advocates radical equality. I've talked about this in a previous post. But the second most important source of opposition between fascism and Marxism is precisely the issue of nation versus class. Fascists believe that people of the same nation should unite, regardless of class, and fight other nations. Marxists believe that people of the same class should unite, regardless of nation, and fight other classes. Fascists believe that conflict between nations is good and conflict between classes is bad. Marxists believe that conflict between classes is good and conflict between nations is bad.

So you see how fascism and Marxism hold precisely opposite views of the roles of nation and class. Of course they are both "collectivist," in the sense that they believe something is more important than individual rights. However, that is true of all ideologies except liberalism. Liberalism is the ideology based on the view that individual rights are more important than anything else. All other ideologies, by definition, believe that something is more important than individual rights. What you have said basically amounts to the observation that both fascism and Marxism oppose liberalism. Yes, that is true. But they oppose each other even more than they oppose liberalism, and politics cannot be divided into "liberals" and "everyone else".

Yeah, I wanna attack this, too. Not only is there the ex post facto law issue--which, in any remotely fair legal system, would render that plan as you describe it illegal--but there is also the fact that most self-described socialists of our era "hold for themselves profits higher than a worker's wage." Of course, these individuals may qualify for your "capitalists by circumstances" category, but Anathema's right: to line people up and try them, however fair you make it look, for what is fundamentally a belief is not only wrong, but also represents the same sort of early Soviet/French Revolution-guillotine-mentality that you often profess to eschew. Especially when it's a crime that we're all guilty of committing--capitalists and communists alike--when no one, not even most communists, thought it was a crime.

You're suggesting that people should be convicted for things wich weren't defined as crimes at the time they committed them. People who merely were succesfull in a system wich the vast majority of academics regard as best serving the needs of society (or creating the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, if you will)

If we're looking for precedents we'd end up with the Nuremberg tribunals and similar courts after that. I know you despise capitalism and I can understand your reasons to a certain degree, but suggesting that Bill Gates and Donanld Trump have committed crimes against humanity and deserve the same treatment as Goebbels or Goering is a bit rich...

We do not need to look at such enormous crimes as those of Goebbels or Goering to find precedents. People have been put on trial for crimes against humanity or war crimes after having committed much smaller offences. And yes, all trials for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, waging a war of aggression and so forth are trials that technically violate the legal principle that no one may be held guilty of a crime ex post facto. And yet these trials happen anyway, and various people - national leaders, military commanders, and simple bureaucrats - are imprisoned for doing things that were not crimes at the time and place when they happened.

More to the point, leaving aside international tribunals, ex post facto prosecutions (not to mention extralegal punishments!) accompanied almost every single change of political or economic system, whether peaceful or violent, whether by revolution, coup or foreign invasion. High-ranking members of the previous regime, and many bureaucrats, are nearly always put on trial after a new regime takes power (that is, when they are not simply killed without trial). Such things happened during the French Revolution, they happened to British loyalists during the American Revolution, they happened in Russia and Eastern Europe several times over (every time there was a change of regime, including after 1989), they happened in Iraq after the American invasion, and many many other times.

A large number of those trials were in fact show trials. By proposing fair trials, I like to think that my standards are higher than those of most historical regime changes, even if I'm still proposing ex post facto prosecutions.

but there is also the fact that most self-described socialists of our era "hold for themselves profits higher than a worker's wage."

And, as Wolf said, if the only bar is earning more than the average worker you'd have to kill or imprison a substantial part of the population. Including social-democrats and leftist intellectuals.

You misunderstand. I specifically said people who hold for themselves a profit above the wage of the average worker. Profit, not income in general. Profit is income derived from ownership of property - the money that a business owner gets simply by virtue of being the owner, and not as payment for his work. As a Marxist, I believe that profit derives from exploitation. It is wealth that rightfully belongs to the workers, and is unjustly acquired by the capitalists.

However, I wanted to make an allowance for the fact that many capitalists do, in fact, work. If they work, then they deserve to be paid, just as everyone else. A capitalist may declare his entire income as "profit," when in fact a part of it (usually a very small part) comes from the capitalist's own work, and is therefore not really profit - not really due to the exploitation of others. We should not prosecute small business owners who work alongside their employees and pay themselves about the same as their employees, just because they call their payment "profit" instead of "wage." We should only prosecute capitalists whose profits are obviously in excess of the vast majority of wages, which indicates that they are, in fact, true profits.

That is what I meant.

[Dunenewt]

The general definition as is commonly held:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

Dictionary.com:

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

US Library of Congress

[chatfsh]

Your comment would make a heck of a lot more sense if the US was responsible for calling the Soviets communist when the fact of the matter is that the Soviets are the ones calling themselves communist.  Did the Russians have some ulterior motive in referring to themselves as communist?

By the way, how do the British refer to the Soviet Union in terms of economic systems?

[Dunenewt]

Stalinist mainly.  Of course Stalin et al would want to refer to their party as Communist, due to the positive connotations associated with the works of Karl Marx and the other creators of communism.  Has it not occurred to you that the US Gov't has often referred to any left wing movement that is contrary to the goals of the contemporary US regime as Socialist or Communist, but implied in a negative way.

[Edric O]

Your comment would make a heck of a lot more sense if the US was responsible for calling the Soviets communist when the fact of the matter is that the Soviets are the ones calling themselves communist.

Actually, the US (or rather, the West in general) really is responsible for calling the system that existed in the Soviet Union communist.

The Soviets used the term "communist" for the ruling party, not for their economic system (or their political one, for that matter). Their claim was that the USSR was not yet a communist country, but the ruling party was communist in the sense that it wanted to make the USSR a communist country at some point in the future.

The West is responsible for using the term "communism" to refer to the existing system in the Soviet Union instead of their claimed future goal.

Did the Russians have some ulterior motive in referring to themselves as communist?

Well, yes... they wanted leadership of the international communist movement. It was by no means a foregone conclusion that Marxists outside Russia had to support the Soviet state in the years after 1917. The Soviets fought very hard to win the allegiance of communists across the world.

[chatfsh]

Stalinist mainly.  Of course Stalin et al would want to refer to their party as Communist, due to the positive connotations associated with the works of Karl Marx and the other creators of communism.  Has it not occurred to you that the US Gov't has often referred to any left wing movement that is contrary to the goals of the contemporary US regime as Socialist or Communist, but implied in a negative way.

Does Stalinist = communist in the UK?

True, whenever any government faction begins rolling out plans to expand government control over business, healthcare or the climate, then yes they are referred to as left leaning or having a socialist mentality.  Did it not occur to you that there are socialists and communist parties in the US?  If  so why is it so farfetched to think that they would try to exert some influence over government policy?  Even if someone in Congress wasn

[Edric O]

Marxists are very, very, very much opposed to the idea that you can build a socialist economy gradually, by nationalizing means of production one at a time. We firmly believe that it has to be done all at once, or it will not work (in the sense that socialism will never be reached).

Also - although this is not technically part of our ideology - Marxists tend to believe that the existing governments in capitalist countries are entirely in the pockets of powerful capitalist bosses, and most high-level bureaucrats and politicians would have to be replaced in order to make a socialist government possible.

[chatfsh]

Actually, the US (or rather, the West in general) really is responsible for calling the system that existed in the Soviet Union communist.

The Soviets used the term "communist" for the ruling party, not for their economic system (or their political one, for that matter). Their claim was that the USSR was not yet a communist country, but the ruling party was communist in the sense that it wanted to make the USSR a communist country at some point in the future.

The West is responsible for using the term "communism" to refer to the existing system in the Soviet Union instead of their claimed future goal.

It sounds like you're splitting hairs here.  Honestly, I seriously doubt that most people were making any kind of distinction between the Soviets' economic system and their political party.  The bottom line is that it was the Soviets who first called themselves communist and not the west.  So please don

[Sneakgab]

On one hand, the Marxists pretty much support anything that helps the workers,poor,e.t.c. You see, they don't oppose the REFORMS, they just don't think that the STRATEGY of gradual change to a socialist system will work. They make a point of their disagreement, because they don't want potential force to be used for revolution to be squandered by people opting for pointless waiting instead of fighting for revolution.

On the other hand, some reforms ''aren't worth it'' in the sense that they appease the workers at critical times where they would otherwise revolt and make an attempt at socialism, which would bring them far greater good than the slight reforms that benefit them just enough that they put down the shotguns and/or protest signs.

I've heard it claimed that this was one of the motivations behind FDR's New Deal. (that is, that to avoid major change forced by major action, he granted reforms [only so much as necessary] to avoid it).

''Does Stalinist = communist in the UK?''

Stalinism is the word used (commonly in Dune2k, don't know about anywhere else) to describe the SU, under Stalin specifically, I suspect. I suspect the term was coined using the name to emphasize that Stalin had kind of a cult personality dictatorship thing going on (or at least, some people think so. I don't think it was to the extent of Hitler or Kim)

[Anathema]

I haven't covered everything, but I'm short on time. I may add more later.

Indeed, there is a difference, but the difference works in my favour, not yours.

If people die as an unintentional effect of an economic system, without anyone actively trying to kill them, then the system is MORE at fault than if people die as a result of murderous intent. In the case of murderous intent, the responsibility lies more with the individual murderous leader and less with the system.

For that point to work in your favour, we'd have to believe these famines were inconsequential acts of malice. I think it's clear that they weren't. In the case of China it may have been faulty planning, but in the Soviet Union it's quite clear that Stalin wanted everyone to know that he had a monopoly on food, and that you'd better behave. And even then you won't be well fed, since most of the food is taken away to feed the new urban proletariat or exported abroad to pay for the industrialisation.

On a completely different note, I'd also like to reply to Anathema and Wolf, whose points I did not discuss so far.

The rich pay as well, true. They may even pay more than the poor, in absolute money terms. But the poor tend to lose a greater percentage of their wealth, and, most importantly, they suffer more. If you lose your job and possibly your home, you are in a much worse position - you are suffering more - than a rich person who lost a fortune but still remains well-off even after that loss.

Due to various market failures, asymmetric information, the psychological impact of consumerism and so on, the things that people will buy are not always the things that they need, or the things they would want if they were better informed (or less misinformed). Also, because demand is calculated in monetary terms, and because the rich have more money than the poor, the desires of the rich carry more weight in the market than the desires of the poor. Thus ensuring that capitalist production is skewed towards the desires of the rich.

However, you are correct that yes, capitalism does produce things that are desired by someone to some extent. Same as every other economic system.

You're obviously coming from a different angle than most, but when others complain about consumerism I can't resist rolling my eyes. Of course I get annoyed by most of the commercials on TV. I can't say I like the fact that there are masses of people impressionable enough to buy every gadget. Yet still I prefer my products to be demand driven instead of being told what I need, or should want.

"Every other economic system"? The Soviet Union had quite a reputation for producing

A) tanks and bombs

B) inferior junk nobody cared for.

And it is an admirable pattern of behaviour, even when used for not-so-admirable purposes. It is admirable because it is founded on a spirit of rebellion against the capitalist class. At times, such a spirit of rebellion may lead to misguided actions, or it may be taken up by people who aren't really exploited, but as a general principle it is a good thing to have in any society.

How about the farmers who resisted collectivisation of their land in the 1930'ies?

More to the point, leaving aside international tribunals, ex post facto prosecutions (not to mention extralegal punishments!) accompanied almost every single change of political or economic system, whether peaceful or violent, whether by revolution, coup or foreign invasion. High-ranking members of the previous regime, and many bureaucrats, are nearly always put on trial after a new regime takes power (that is, when they are not simply killed without trial). Such things happened during the French Revolution, they happened to British loyalists during the American Revolution, they happened in Russia and Eastern Europe several times over (every time there was a change of regime, including after 1989), they happened in Iraq after the American invasion, and many many other times.

A large number of those trials were in fact show trials. By proposing fair trials, I like to think that my standards are higher than those of most historical regime changes, even if I'm still proposing ex post facto prosecutions.

Civil wars aside, all the examples you mentioned were about government employees or politicians. I'd still like to know how it is even remotely just that civilians will be imprisoned or worse for something wich was not illegal and wich only a small number of people at the time thought was unethical.

Marxists are very, very, very much opposed to the idea that you can build a socialist economy gradually, by nationalizing means of production one at a time. We firmly believe that it has to be done all at once, or it will not work (in the sense that socialism will never be reached).

I wonder what Marx himself would have had to say about this. You have to remember that in the time he lived only landowners had voting rights and he didn't expect that to change.

[Caid Ivik]

You're obviously coming from a different angle than most, but when others complain about consumerism I can't resist rolling my eyes. Of course I get annoyed by most of the commercials on TV. I can't say I like the fact that there are masses of people impressionable enough to buy every gadget. Yet still I prefer my products to be demand driven instead of being told what I need, or should want.

"Every other economic system"? The Soviet Union had quite a reputation for producing

A) tanks and bombs

B) inferior junk nobody cared for.

Of course soviet communist elites preferred "western" products and considered most of Russian production to be an "inferior junk", but why should we imitate their thinking? Many children in soviet towns assembled radios at home, while their American fellows were on LSD  :)

One can say, the innovation process was slow, people were isolated from abroad, one can question the relative effectivity of soviet management in comparison to free western economies...but until WW2 it was hard to have enough bread to feed the population. In this case I wouldn't think of letting companies build Corvettes and every family to have a house near the city. If the Party allowed free economics, there would be demand like in times of monarchy, with super-rich elite and hardly surviving peasantry. Since the revolution the system of state management evolved dynamically and later became a roughly independent alternative to western economics. Generations could feel abused by participating on such an experiment, but wasn't it worth to try?

[Sneakgab]

''For that point to work in your favour, we'd have to believe these famines were inconsequential acts of malice. I think it's clear that they weren't. In the case of China it may have been faulty planning, but in the Soviet Union it's quite clear that Stalin wanted everyone to know that he had a monopoly on food, and that you'd better behave. And even then you won't be well fed, since most of the food is taken away to feed the new urban proletariat or exported abroad to pay for the industrialisation.''

I thought somebody would bring this up. Basically, your saying that this starvation wasn't just tyrannical, but that it was purposely chosen to achieve something else, and that this is a fault of the system. If that's the case I don't know why you mention Stalin, who you seem to agree was just being tyrannical, but anyway.

But anyway, if we assume that industrialization was the best choice under a socialist system, then the leaders made no error right (other than not going capitalist if that is better). Now, are you claiming that capitalism usually does it better? Remember those starvation results for capitalist countries as they were supposed to be industrialized due to free trade? Not only did they not industrialize properly, but millions died.

Well, if we compare the SU to Zimbabwe, then any honest man will tell you the winner. But I won't be unfair like so many capitalist and pick the least favorable case for capitalism. However, the ''advanced'' capitalist countries are basically just America, most of Western Europe, and a few Asian countries. The rest of the world (which is almost entirely capitalist) is backwards; Most of Africa, most of Eastern Europe (Russia and those types of countries), e.t.c. I haven't done looked at any numbers but I think we can see where the guess goes.

So if industrialization is more ''expensive'' in the average capitalist country then if industrialization is the way to go then we should go with socialism basically (ignoring other factors).

But if industrialization is not necessarily the best option, then that means that the socialist leaders did not do as well as they could have. In that case though, could an agrarian country have been much better?

Well, I guess you could say here that I am making the simplifying assumption that industrialization will have the same effect in both of the systems so the one that achieves at the least cost is better (that is quite an assumption).

''You're obviously coming from a different angle than most, but when others complain about consumerism I can't resist rolling my eyes. Of course I get annoyed by most of the commercials on TV. I can't say I like the fact that there are masses of people impressionable enough to buy every gadget. Yet still I prefer my products to be demand driven instead of being told what I need, or should want.

"Every other economic system"? The Soviet Union had quite a reputation for producing

A) tanks and bombs

B) inferior junk nobody cared for.''

A re-iteration of Edrico to an extent, but since I'm just quoting myself anyway I thought I might as well remind of the fact that under capitalism, what is produced is not what will do the most good:

''Perhaps the corrupting element here is that production/supply is determined by demand which is determined by spending power. Most spending power is in the hands of people who NO LONGER HAVE ANYTHING LEFT TO PURCHASE THAT COULD STILL BE USEFUL TO THEM (other than spending their money to make more money, which when successful only re-inforces this problems especially as we all know the only true way one can make money without performing useful labor and what this implicates) and who simultaneously clearly have little interest in the state of others and who therefore do not purchase anything useful for those people.

The implications of all that is obvious. Spending power is used on near useless cr@p which increased demand for said cr@p and therefore diverts production from useful areas to the production of said cr@p.''

Well, I'm not sure if MOST spending power is in the hands of those who already have everything. It is also not exactly clear they have little interest in the state of others. The general point stands though. This does however, ignore investment. I will say though (as I did in that thead but in perhaps less words), that while investment probably has the benefit of increasing the total amount of ''stuff'', it does not cure this problem.

''"Every other economic system"? The Soviet Union had quite a reputation for producing

A) tanks and bombs

B) inferior junk nobody cared for.''

Every nation has to increase defense costs when the great powers of the world all want to crush you. Well, that was the general idea, but with the nuclear arsenal the SU had, I don't think they needed much of military. The same goes for America. I don't know why some countries unnecessarily build and maintain such great militaries. What, just for the invading of third world countries? Isn't that just overkill? It's true that in occupying them, casualties and damage will be sustained by guerrillas or whatever, but that seems to happen ANYWAY. Some damage may be avoided, but is it worth the cost of maintaining all that high tech equipment? I doubt, what a tank or two a week is saved from destruction, at the cost of maintaining more of them and of higher tech and maintenance costs? I've often thought that if America has money to waste on fancy stuff like cruise missiles then surely it has money to spend on helping people (but wait, that would be against the market God's wishes, and such evil would cause widespread apocalypse right?).

So I guess I could say in summary that yeah I don't why the SU insisted on having a bulky military it can never really in use in fear of America's nukes. What, just for fancy military parades? Well, I guess it did need to use that iron fist on the satellite states from time to time (but when we look back, we say it just a few tank displays. Definite overkill). The imperialists could dominate their colonies with power (which considering the two times) was much less.

However, that just goes to show that things could have been better if better and obvious decisions could have been made. This would be especially so, if the unnecessary atrocities of Stalin had not been committed, and therefore the strife in the satellite states reduced. In other words, it is ultimately an issue of leadership, not of system again.

As for that ''inferior junk nobody cared for'', tell that to poor of Ethiopa. They'll take that $h!tty TV off your hands any day. Heck, they'll take anything off your hands, including your fingers.

That there were products that for their cost, would have better served the need of the SU is debatable. Of course, most people say: no, they were worse to make, because they weren't made in capitalism so they were almost certainly not the best because that only happens in capitalism where the market makes everything best. I don't need to tell you the flaw in that, so if you want to make the argument that inefficiency existed in product production selection then you must determine this without relying on theories that are the main points of the discussion in the first place.

''How about the farmers who resisted collectivisation of their land in the 1930'ies?''

''but as a GENERAL principle it is a good thing to have in any society.''

Seems like you ignored that completely. Besides, who said that Edrico thought collectivization was such a good idea anyway (I don't know if he does). I doubt you think it was a good idea, so for you isn't it another example of why a rebellious spirit is in general good?

I think we need to keep this rebellious spirit in good supply for when it is needed, lest all the countries become like America where the people regularly endure government excretion upon their faces.

''Civil wars aside, all the examples you mentioned were about government employees or politicians. I'd still like to know how it is even remotely just that civilians will be imprisoned or worse for something wich was not illegal and wich only a small number of people at the time thought was unethical.''

Well I said I don't know but...

''I'd still like to know how it is even remotely just''

I have already given a possible reason that seems sufficient for an at least ''remotely'' sensible explanation (as I said before, I don' t have a ''position'' here I'm just throwing it out there). Yes there is the agreement of authorities and people, but we can say that of slavery where the slaves were just ''cattle'' so there was nothing wrong with their enslavement. And yet on moral grounds these these people should be punished. Maybe there comes a point where somebody is expected to use common sense instead of unquestionably following the norm. In the face of a broken man on the brink of death being whipped to motivate his work maybe things become obvious enough. How about when man has the wealth of tens of thousands?

Forgetting about morality. What about practicality. What will it help to punish these men?

Another reason (in addition to discouragement of legal villainy) I can imagine is that it will help to develop humanity to the point where we don't need laws and judges to tell us what behavior we should discourage it. Still, I'm far from convinced. I still haven't came up with a good practical reason.

''I wonder what Marx himself would have had to say about this. You have to remember that in the time he lived only landowners had voting rights and he didn't expect that to change.''

In that case the policy would most be dictated by the rich andor capitalists and so the achievement of socialism via the gradual introduction of social reforms would be ever more impossible. Therefore, he would surely have been very very very against the strategy himself (never mind Marx, who in that time would think that such a strategy could possibly work?).

By the way, are you sure that were was enfranchisement for only land owners throughout Marx's life? I don't get the feeling that you hadn't a specific time in mind.

[Edric O]

It sounds like you're splitting hairs here. Honestly, I seriously doubt that most people were making any kind of distinction between the Soviets' economic system and their political party.  The bottom line is that it was the Soviets who first called themselves communist and not the west.  So please don

[chatfsh]

I don't think there was any conspiracy. I doubt anyone intentionally set out to equate the USSR with communism knowing that they were bending the truth. I think it's far more likely they simply didn't bother to look into the issue in any detail, and just said "well, the ruling party calls itself communist, so let's just call everything about the Soviet Union communist - it's less confusing that way." The Soviet system most likely ended up being called communist out of ignorance..

Wrong.  I completely disagree with that statement.  I will tell you why it is perfectly valid to refer to the Soviet Union in terms of socialism (Marxism-Leninism)

Edric

[Edric O]

First of all, Hwi, I already said that the Soviet Union and other similar states met two of the three conditions for socialism:

We can use the three pillars to determine if a certain country or society was socialist. How many of them does it uphold? Let's see: The Soviet Union and other countries following the same system respected pillars 1 and 2, but not 3. Sweden and other social democracies arguably respect pillar 1 (the most important one, since equality is the very purpose of socialism), but not 2 or 3. Other countries, including the United States, Nazi Germany, and most countries that ever existed, respect none of the three pillars.

So, yes, you were perfectly right to point out that the USSR achieved a high degree of equality and had a planned economy with fully nationalized means of production. Those are conditions 1 and 2. However, the USSR did not meet condition 3.

Excerpts from the 1936 Soviet Constitution: [...]

The Soviet Constitution? Oh yes, that was socialist. No doubt about it. In fact, I think I myself brought this up in older threads about socialism and communism. I think the Soviet Constitution was a great document, and may well serve as inspiration for future socialist constitutions. If the Soviet Constitution had actually been enforced, the Soviet Union would have been a socialist country.

However, the Soviet Constitution was never enforced. It is precisely this fact that shows the great gap between official claims and the real practice on the ground. To say that the Soviet Union was not socialist may sound abstract and dubious to someone who does not know what socialism is. But it is much easier, and much clearer, to show how the Soviet government refused to respect its own Constitution. Consider, for example, the following provisions:

ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:

1. freedom of speech;

2. freedom of the press;

3. freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;

4. reedom of street processions and demonstrations.

These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

ARTICLE 127. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No person may be placed under arrest except by decision of a court or with the sanction of a procurator.

ARTICLE 128. The inviolability of the homes of citizens and privacy of correspondence are protected by law.

Article 128 is particularly ironic. How many times did the NKVD or KGB break that one, I wonder...

The Soviet democracy was a form of democracy complete with elections whereby the officials (soviets) were elected at the local levels by the workers, with these going on to elect the next level of soviets at the county, regional and national levels.  The system also sought to advocate a recalling of delegates between elections if the people were not satisfied with the elected soviet.  Universal suffrage was an important component of the 1936 Soviet Constitution guaranteeing that all persons meeting the eligibility requirements could participate in government by voting.

Yes, that's how it was supposed to be. Too bad it wasn't at all like that in practice (mainly due to the fact that there was only one candidate per seat, and voting was usually not done by secret ballot).

Based upon the brief evidence presented, in my opinion, and far more importantly, in the opinion of many historians, it is perfectly reasonable to refer to the Soviet Union as socialist or communist. More specifically, I would describe their form a government as Marxism-Leninism, especially since this is the term that was adopted as the official state ideology by the Soviet Union.

Therefore, I feel confident in stating that in both word and deed, the Soviet Union was a Marxist country as interpreted by Lenin.  I hold to this even if you claim that they did not completely fulfill their Marxist paradigm.  To me the important thing was that they enshrined these objectives in their constitution and did everything within their power to bring about the socialist state.  If they failed in this endeavor, it doesn

[Edric O]

I haven't covered everything, but I'm short on time. I may add more later.

No worries. I'm rather short on time myself, so I reply when I can...

For that point to work in your favour, we'd have to believe these famines were inconsequential acts of malice. I think it's clear that they weren't. In the case of China it may have been faulty planning, but in the Soviet Union it's quite clear that Stalin wanted everyone to know that he had a monopoly on food, and that you'd better behave. And even then you won't be well fed, since most of the food is taken away to feed the new urban proletariat or exported abroad to pay for the industrialisation.

I think you misunderstood my argument. It has nothing to do with the magnitude of the acts - whether they were inconsequential, colossal, or anything in between. The point is that they were intentional, and, for lack of a better term, optional. They were decisions made by a particular administration at a particular time. They were not inevitable consequences of the system. Had there been another leader in Stalin's place, he could have easily chosen not to requisition food and cause a famine. So the responsibility lies with the particular leader and government who took the decision to requisition food, not with the system.

Let me attempt a comparison. The United States currently has a capitalist economic system and a more-or-less democratic political system. Suppose Obama decides to introduce universal health care. Could we then say that universal health care was the result of capitalism, or of American democracy? No. It was the result of the Obama administration. And why is that? Because a different president could have acted differently within the same system.

Likewise, the Great Famine or the purges of the 1930s were not the result of the Soviet system (whatever you wish to call it). They were the result of the Stalin administration.

You're obviously coming from a different angle than most, but when others complain about consumerism I can't resist rolling my eyes. Of course I get annoyed by most of the commercials on TV. I can't say I like the fact that there are masses of people impressionable enough to buy every gadget. Yet still I prefer my products to be demand driven instead of being told what I need, or should want.

The purpose of commercials is precisely to tell you what you should want...

But in any case, I agree that production should be driven by demand. In fact, I think the socialist state should not be allowed to use advertising for products - or anything like it - so that it does not influence people's wishes.

"Every other economic system"? The Soviet Union had quite a reputation for producing

A) tanks and bombs

B) inferior junk nobody cared for.

China built an entire growth model on the production of inferior junk, and I don't see capitalists complaining about it.

Yes, Soviet products were of inferior quality. They were also much cheaper than their higher-quality Western counterparts. Yes, many people in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc dreamed of having those higher-quality Western products. After 1990, most of those people found they could not afford them.

In any case, what I said was that every economic system produces things wanted by someone. Do you deny that Soviet products were wanted by someone?

How about the farmers who resisted collectivisation of their land in the 1930'ies?

Their behaviour was admirable too. Even though it ended up making things worse in the end.

Civil wars aside, all the examples you mentioned were about government employees or politicians. I'd still like to know how it is even remotely just that civilians will be imprisoned or worse for something wich was not illegal and wich only a small number of people at the time thought was unethical.

Government employees are not civilians...? That's news to me.

I wasn't thinking of a punishment as severe as imprisonment for most capitalists - I was thinking of something lighter, like a fine (on top of the loss of their means of production), or temporary restrictions on their right to be elected to public office. Only the most powerful and ruthless ex-capitalists should be thrown in jail.

Of course, this is by no means a requirement of socialism. It's just my personal idea. If the revolution happened tomorrow, I would propose this idea, and it would be up to the people to vote and decide to accept or reject it.

I wonder what Marx himself would have had to say about this. You have to remember that in the time he lived only landowners had voting rights and he didn't expect that to change.

Yes, you are correct. Marx did not think gradual social reforms were useless, he thought they were impossible, because he did not imagine universal suffrage could exist under a capitalist economic system. He was wrong on this point, which is why it was up to later Marxists to discuss the issue of gradual reforms.

[Anathema]

Of course soviet communist elites preferred "western" products and considered most of Russian production to be an "inferior junk", but why should we imitate their thinking? Many children in soviet towns assembled radios at home, while their American fellows were on LSD  :)

I have not tried either, so I can't judge wich is better  :P

One can say, the innovation process was slow, people were isolated from abroad, one can question the relative effectivity of soviet management in comparison to free western economies...but until WW2 it was hard to have enough bread to feed the population. In this case I wouldn't think of letting companies build Corvettes and every family to have a house near the city. If the Party allowed free economics, there would be demand like in times of monarchy, with super-rich elite and hardly surviving peasantry. Since the revolution the system of state management evolved dynamically and later became a roughly independent alternative to western economics. Generations could feel abused by participating on such an experiment, but wasn't it worth to try?

No, I don't think that such an experiment is worth a try. I don't think it's ethical to plunge one or two generations in total misery in the hopes of benefitting their grand(-grand)children. And that's regardless of the conclusion in hindsight that most of the eastern European countries were actually worse off than otherwise.

No worries. I'm rather short on time myself, so I reply when I can...

I think you misunderstood my argument. It has nothing to do with the magnitude of the acts - whether they were inconsequential, colossal, or anything in between. The point is that they were intentional, and, for lack of a better term, optional. They were decisions made by a particular administration at a particular time. They were not inevitable consequences of the system. Had there been another leader in Stalin's place, he could have easily chosen not to requisition food and cause a famine. So the responsibility lies with the particular leader and government who took the decision to requisition food, not with the system.

I think you misunderstood me, but that's my own fault. By "inconsequential" I didn't mean insignificant. Detached would be a better word.

I meant to say that you wouldn't be able to have the same level of industrial growth that Stalin wanted without causing famines, and I believe that this was taken into account beforehand.

Arguably, a more sane leader could have settled for a more modest rate of growth while keeping people alive (let's keep the prospect of a German invasion out of consideration)

But you'd still have problems with getting farmers to give up their land. Especially because they were never asked about their opinion - they never got to vote on collectivisation, not during the revolution nor after that. Even if Stalin's hypothetical replacement would try to accomplish collectivisation more gradually, I don't see how he could do without intimidation and collective punishment. Especially with the prospect of Ukrainian seperatism.

The purpose of commercials is precisely to tell you what you should want...

But in any case, I agree that production should be driven by demand. In fact, I think the socialist state should not be allowed to use advertising for products - or anything like it - so that it does not influence people's wishes.

Obviously advertising is meant to influence your wishes. But more fundamentally, it's meant to tell people that the product in question exists. If you don't know that something exists, how can you make a choice?

Another angle is that I generally trust people to make their own choices. Kids are obviously an exception but it's up to their parents to see that they don't waste their money (or worse, borrow it) buying the latest Nokia phone or whatever.

China built an entire growth model on the production of inferior junk, and I don't see capitalists complaining about it.

They have improved steadily for the last decade or so, partly by specialising. If you discount the times when they put toxins in milk powder or lead paint on children toys (wich is a pretty big IF), Chinese products generally have a good price-quality ballance. Wich is why they manage to export so much.

The Soviets traded mainly with other COMECON countries, wich produced stuff wich was barely better, if at all. If I recall correctly importing western consumer goods was illegal (many aparatchiks got around this by getting them through finland at high prices), not because of chauvenism but because of the very real danger that people would wake up and realize that all domesticly produced stuff was crap.

In any case, what I said was that every economic system produces things wanted by someone. Do you deny that Soviet products were wanted by someone?

No, I won't deny that. But the fact that there are still people who collect and repair trabant cars doesn't mean that it was a good product, or that it would ever have enjoyed wide popularity if the east Germans had more to chose from.

Government employees are not civilians...? That's news to me.

I was thinking more about higher-up bureaucrats mostly. They, and politicians, are technically civilians since neither is military. But you can argue that both are responsible for "crimes" committed by a regime. Wich is not the case for anyone not involved in governing the country.

[chatfsh]

However, the Soviet Constitution was never enforced. It is precisely this fact that shows the great gap between official claims and the real practice on the ground. To say that the Soviet Union was not socialist may sound abstract and dubious to someone who does not know what socialism is.

Then I must question whether or not you understand the proper definition of capitalism.  You commonly refer to the US as capitalist country despite the fact that the economic system does not operate under a free market environment, since a free market has absolutely no government interference or involvement.  Is that not the case?  If I am correct then by your logic, you have no more basis for calling the US capitalist than I have for calling the USSR socialist.  Fair enough?

Now back to the matter of the USSR failing the third criteria of your test for socialism.  I still disagree with you concerning whether or not the USSR implemented a form of democracy as a means to elect their public officials.  I was very busy at work today, but finally had some time to do more research on the topic and was rather intrigued by what I found.

So Stalin tried to bring about free and fair elections, true democracy and equality for all, but alas, he failed in his endeavor?

[Sneakgab]

''Stalin was clearly a monster, but obviously, this did not preclude his initiating democratic reform and making a diligent effort to see it through.''

Strange that a diligent effort towards democracy might involve the mass murder of anyone who you even have a remote suspicion of being against you....

Not to say that I will dismiss what you point to out of hand. I'll look into it granted time and energy.

[Dante]

I'm very much reminded of this moment from another thread...

I'm still laughing at the fact that Tatar_Khan said, "Wow. Amazing, what will they [nutjobs] do next? Link 9/11 to global warming?" and then spazelord, God bless his soul, actually gave it a shot.