Be Strong, Be Wrong

[Wildcat]

The nearest we can get to comparing Capitalism and Communism (as envisaged by Marx - afterall he did advocate a mixed economy) would be a comparison of high taxation economies with low taxation economies.

 

Places like the Nordic Countries with high levels of taxation and therefore more socialist are amongst the most successful countries both economically and in terms of quality of life indexes.

[epiphany]

Places like the Nordic Countries with high levels of taxation and therefore more socialist are amongst the most successful countries both economically and in terms of quality of life indexes.

 

Just to use this point to clarify mine earlier, is it not more practical for economists, sociologists, politicians etc. to look at the elements integral to these successful countries, and refer to them (as I think they do in some cases) as the nation's model (i.e. Swedish model, British model, US model) as opposed to using capitalism, socialism or any predefined ideology to highlight their merits or shortcomings?

 

When asked "which is better? Socialism or capitalism?" are we not sacrificing the more intricate detail, that perhaps spans several key schools of historic thought, in favour of these catch-all categorisations that tell us nothing about which elements of the proposed ideologies have been incorporated into the national model?

[bru-sheff]

Might is right, the argument of a bully.

 

 

Talking out of your bottom, the argument of a commie

[bru-sheff]

Communism must have something going for it, look how much effort the Yanks have put into suppressing it. Blockading Cuba all these years, interfering in Chile and Nicaragua, spending TRILLIONS in the cold war with Russia. Not to mention China, where it seems Communism has been 'bought off' by the west. Why should a huge world power like the USA go to so much trouble blockading little Cuba ??? Would it be because their health and education services are good and are available TO ALL ?? The media will never tell us the truth.

 

 

Yes look at East Germany looked a great place to live ><

[plekhanov]

Again you talk about "capitalist societies" and I am asking how you are defining them as capitalist societies. Similarly, I am asking how you are defining a "communist regime".

 

I know what a Soviet regime is (or was), since that is the specific regime that was practiced. To say communism was practiced is to suggest every single element theorised and/or proposed by communists was ingrained in that system, which I heavily dispute.

What an absurd strawman, to say that the USSR was communist is in no way to say "every single element theorised and/or proposed by communists was ingrained in that system" as communism has be so divergently theorised upon that no one state could ever incorporate "every single element theorised".

 

To say that CCCP (until the more recent reforms), USSR... were Communist is simply to say that they fell within widely accepted definitions of communism.

 

Using such generalised terms in that way only results in false dichotomies, in my opinion, as seen in another thread entitled "socialism vs capitalism" - meaningless, abstract and completely unhelpful in determining the detail of how society should evolve.

I'm using capitalism and communism in the straightforward ways used by those who have advocated and enacted the systems, academics who study such systems and most people who've ever taken an interest in the subject. Unlike you who is attempting to wield politically motivated redefinitions of both the terms.

 

The only 'false dichotomy' anywhere near this thread is the one you are once again trying to spread by redefining 'capitalist' and 'communist' in order to try and disassociate communism with the disastrous practical and moral failures that were the 20th century communist regimes.

 

I am not persuading anyone to give up or adopt anything. You'll notice I have not advocated "capitalism" or "communism" on the grounds of my point above. I do not recognise historical change in this way, rather I see it as a constant evolving of economic and societal stakeholdership, independent of abstract ideological boundaries into which intellectuals have a tendency to neatly package everything.

Says the man who started a thread the entire purpose of which was to try to redefine the USSR and CCCP as capitalist nations

[plekhanov]

The nearest we can get to comparing Capitalism and Communism (as envisaged by Marx - afterall he did advocate a mixed economy) would be a comparison of high taxation economies with low taxation economies.

 

Places like the Nordic Countries with high levels of taxation and therefore more socialist are amongst the most successful countries both economically and in terms of quality of life indexes.

Bull**** "The nearest we can get to comparing Capitalism and Communism" is clearly by comparing capitalist nations (including Scadinavian ones) to Communist ones (the USSR, CCCP (pre economic reforms), GDR...) though I realise of course that this isn't a comparison you want to make seeing how disastrously communist nations come out.

 

In Marxist terms social democracies are capitalist seeing as how they have class, free markets, extensive private ownership of the means of production and most certainly haven't undergone a proletarian revolution.

 

Nordic countries are socialist to some extent by some defintions in that they have some levels of collective provision of education, healthcare... and progressive taxation which redistributes some wealth but it's absurd to pretend they are Communist.

[Wildcat]

Bull**** "The nearest we can get to comparing Capitalism and Communism" is clearly by comparing capitalist nations (including Scadinavian ones) to Communist ones (the USSR, CCCP (pre economic reforms), GDR...) though I realise of course that this isn't a comparison you want to make seeing how disastrously communist nations come out.

 

In Marxist terms social democracies are capitalist seeing as how they have class, free markets, extensive private ownership of the means of production and most certainly haven't undergone a proletarian revolution.

 

Nordic countries are socialist to some extent by some defintions in that they have some levels of collective provision of education, healthcare... and progressive taxation which redistributes some wealth but it's absurd to pretend they are Communist.

 

The problem with your comparison is that aside from Tankies, no one that identifies themselves as Communist identifies themselves with Russia etc. In fact many dissassociated themselves within a few years of the revolution, inspiring Lenin to write about Communism being an infantile disorder. The Trots call Russia state capitalist, or similar (typically they don't agree).

 

Marx specifically didn't argue for the abolition of markets. He argued for the centralisation of communication and transport under the control of the state and the extension of state owned factories. His vision was not so different from britain in the 1950s. His view was that such a state would naturally evolve in to a classless society without personal property, that was the utopian dream, and not a bad one as utopian dreams go. The important and practical steps were around achieving democracy and rights for worker's like the UK had done by the overthrowing their aritocracies through a revolution, and taking the agenda forward through worker's organisations like trade unions.

 

I think it returns us to point epiphany was making. Communist\Capitalist are pretty meaningless because of their lack of precision.

[Tradescanthia]

Having good and available health services is hardly an achievement of communism, we have the same thing here. Was Cuba under US blocade before the bay of pigs?

 

This countries shortcomings regarding healthcare becomes reality when you get diagnosed with cancer. Even Poland has a better record for cancer care. We spend 40% less on cancer drugs than the EEC average. The USA is even worse with it's private systems. My information is based on [a] I am a cancer victim, and I have had conversations with eastern european doctors working in our healthservice. They are NOT impressed to say the least with our standards. Poorer countries than us offering better healthcare beggars belief, but it's true. A question of priorities perhaps ??

People before profit more like.

 

As the man said," Society is judged on the way it treats its old, its young and its infirm".

Not on the amount of nuclear subs it has, or the way it bullies weaker nations and makes huge expensive efforts to control other countries politics.

"Winning hearts and minds" ??? Ha Ha !!, more like maintaining it's interests in mineral deposits.

Why does the USA and UK appear to support Israel in it's bullying of the Palestinians ?? If we are not actively supporting them we are not trying to find a peacefull solution either. [it would'nt be anything to do with money would it ??]

[epiphany]

To say that CCCP (until the more recent reforms), USSR... were Communist is simply to say that they fell within widely accepted definitions of communism.

 

It's more about the everyday usage of these definitions, namely in the context of "communism/socialism vs capitalism" debates, which is obviously what I'm focussing on here.

 

Specific Marxist interpretations and doctrines created the ideological foundations for the Soviet Union. To summarise this as "USSR = communism therefore communism doesn't work" is a typical example of the kind of black and white thinking that stifles serious reasoned debate. I have lost count of the number of times I have read/heard someone conclude "communism/socialism doesn't work" solely on the grounds of their opposition to the Soviet Union. It makes no logical sense.

 

I'm using capitalism and communism in the straightforward ways used by those who have advocated and enacted the systems, academics who study such systems and most people who've ever taken an interest in the subject. Unlike you who is attempting to wield politically motivated redefinitions of both the terms.

 

Show me a serious academic who uses the Soviet Union in the context of my point above.

 

In what way do you see my argument as politically motivated?

 

The only 'false dichotomy' anywhere near this thread is the one you are once again trying to spread by redefining 'capitalist' and 'communist' in order to try and disassociate communism with the disastrous practical and moral failures that were the 20th century communist regimes.

 

My point is clearly not about "redefining capitalist and communist", rather using their definitions properly in debates that single out one extreme statist form of communism. Surely you can see the difference.

 

For example, you do not automatically oppose communism or socialism if you oppose the policies used in the Soviet Union, but many people are irrationally hostile to all socialist and communist ideas outright solely because of Soviet crimes. The same thing happens with many "critiques" of capitalism. The worst historical examples of capitalist excesses are highlighted and the "capitalism doesn't work" banner is whipped out, which captialists in the anarchist and libertarian schools find as problematic as I do.

 

Says the man who started a thread the entire purpose of which was to try to redefine the USSR and CCCP as capitalist nations

 

No, that wasn't the purpose at all. Other people managed to grasp the purpose pretty easily.

 

Those regimes consisted of statist, communist, capitalist and other elements, (as in fact do most regimes falsely labelled in debate under one single ideology) based on a specific school of Marxist reactionism. How exactly is highlighting this obvious point and the problems that stem from not acknowledging it in debates that I come across time and time again trying to "redefine the USSR and CCCP as capitalist nations?".

[epiphany]

Nordic countries are socialist to some extent by some defintions in that they have some levels of collective provision of education, healthcare... and progressive taxation which redistributes some wealth but it's absurd to pretend they are Communist.

 

But not absurd to point out the intricacies, like you have partly done there, in the interests of reasoned debate.

 

Incidentally, a perfect example of these misunderstandings would be someone claiming the Swedish model is socialist and therefore should be rejected. Again, an argument I have come across more than twice. It's based on exactly the same false premise, that we must necessarily assign one neatly packaged ideology to a nation's policy, and why it's absurd to say my argument that uses the Soviet Union as an example is politically motivated.