Refuting the Standard Arguments Against Communism and for Capitalism

And you (and your fellow anti-communists in this thread) make the quite fundamental mistake of equating communism with and judging it by the system that existed in the Soviet Union, and systems inspired by the Soviet model. You then proceed to erroneously assume that all that communism can ever be is a variation on, a "tweaking" of these defunct and deplorable systems. In other words, as I've observed in a previous post, you-all have a negative stereotype of communism deeply, and perhaps inextricably ensconced in your worldview and thought patterns, and are therefore incapable of actually discussing communism because you're incorrigibly prone to turning and twisting any conversation about communism into an opportunity to denounce what Alex Callinicos terms those "instances of bureaucratic state capitalism" popularly known as Stalinism. Yes, upon the raising of the topic of communism you alas promptly go closed-mindedly polemical and prove unable to engage in a constructive discussion. Oh well.

Well, one day you-all will pass from the scene, and as Thomas Kuhn has observed, then it will be possible for a new paradigm, in this case a socioeconomic rather than a scientific one, i.e. the idea of authentic communism, an enlightened idea which will outlive you because enlightenment never completely dies out, to replace what will be left of an unsustainable capitalist system that has finally succumbed to its intrinsic contradictions and evils. Yes, eventually capitalism will most definitely perish, it's already manifestly in the process of digging its own grave (to use an unoriginal but very apt metaphor); and the idea of communism may at last very well be able to come to life (I say may because, contrary to the stereotype, Marxists aren't simpleminded historical determinists who trust that communism is the inexorable outworking of mechanical historical processes, we realize that it's something that we and future generations of bearers of communist enlightenment will have to work hard and diligently to help actualize), and human beings may then finally begin to experience a truly and fully liberated life making for the kind of self-actualization and fulfilment that is our raison d'etre as a species. Yes, there's indeed some ample justification for communists to keep the hope of materializing their vision alive. And, as The Donald would say, "what do you have to lose" by giving the hope of actualizing a communist form of life a chance, since capitalism has so miserably failed us; and Marx would point out that all we have to lose are our chains.

 

And, btw, just to spite all of the anti-Semites out there, happy Yom Kippur.

 

The British Socialist state is not our problem, and it's problems are not ours. Thanks for asking.

Magic wand:
This (debt reduction) is not something that can be fixed
TAXES (of course):
Contrary to what the right would have us believe, our taxes are low by about every metric. The right might have a two-fold problem here. One could be that those who complain that our taxes are too high may be too young to remember them when Reagan came into office or even when Clinton did.

The Treasury Dept. reports that corporate income tax revenues fell 36% between 2000 and 2003 and that it represented just 1.2% of GDP in 2003, -the lowest level seen since 1983 and the 1930s before that. Corporate tax revenue accounted for 10% of all federal tax revenue last year. That's less than a third of what it was at its post-war peak, in 1952, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Thenominal[/] corporate tax rate (which really means nothing) is 35%, but the effective actual rate paid varies per company depending on deductions, etc., but it averages equal to or less than that of other nations.

PERSONAL INCOME TAXES
P.I.T. are at an historical low. When considered along with the natural consequence of cutting revenue, which is the need to also cut spending, we have actually attempted the absurd trick of cutting our way to prosperity. We need to reverse this fast. Though we have seen record increases in productivity over the last 15 or so years, nearly all the income gains have gone to the top 1%. It's time to take some of it back in the form of normal, typical tax rates with the top bracket over 50%.

OFF-SHORED ASSETS
A way of dealing with this problem needs to be found. Enormous amounts of annual revenue are being lost.

------------------------

Then we can begin....

------------------------

Use the revenue generated by the above reforms to fund many large-scale infrastructure projects. This will temporarily "artificially" increase employment but more importantly it will also increase spendable incomes, income tax revenue, and the big one: demand. These three amount to what is called "kick-starting the economy". And as revenue rises and GDP rises due to snow-balling demand, the debt can be paid down as it has in the past when it was as high or higher than it is now.

 

Can't you be more realistic? You know there is no "free market" but it is and must be very regulated to rein in excesses, and government is not inherently socialist since it opposes socialism (worker control).

And that is it Achilles heel that will seal it's fate.

Nope. Capitalists have reduced their burden by resorting to part-time employment that lets them avoid required benefits. And "outsourcing" or contracting with other companies to provide services is irrelevant. If you meant "off-shoring", that was done for cheap labor. If you meant "offshore accounts", that was done as it has always been, for greed and an unpatriotic desire to avoid taxes.

Do you think people living under a more socialist system are shoeless?

 

That is because communism in those cases was undermined and quietly overthrown by "capitalist roaders" as Lenin warned could happen. But this is something the capitalist press in our country REALLY doesn't want you to know about because knowledge is power.

If you're interested you could look into the deeds of Khrushchev and Gorbachev as well as "The Gang of Four" in China.

 

And there never can be the kind of genuinely and totally free market that free-market fundamentalists envision, for the quite simple reason that the drive for accumulation is the only iron law of capitalism that real-world capitalists respect and are governed by, and it will always impel capitalists and capitals to disregard the free-market doctrine espoused by conservatives and "libertarians", and to engage in all of the conduct that works against what economists term efficiency, and that makes capitalism an actually severely unworkable economic system (seeking to profit from what economists call imperfect competition or anticompetitive practices such as the cultivation of monopolies; creating and exploiting information asymmetries; generating negative externalities galore; rigging the system by co-opting legislators, etc.). But of course anti-communists much prefer to focus exclusively on the alleged impracticability of communism and the failure of systems that disingenuously claimed to be communist. So much for their intellectual honesty and integrity.

 

So? The government did indeed manage the economy by protecting our industry. It also managed it by not doing many things letting the people fend for themselves which produced massive poverty and inequality and a horrible lifestyle for everyone but the top. It was managed for the elites, that is how Hamilton set it up. All of our founders were elites, Washington was the largest landowner in the nation at the time. It is true that it was not central planning aka communism but it was most certainly planned for the benefit of industry.

 

Actually what I have in mind is Mr. Koestler's far-out, now totally discredited by genetic science, and somewhat psychologically interesting and bizarre for an ethnically Jewish individual to espouse theory that Ashkenazi Jews are not authentic Jews, so to speak. And also, taking his younger and apparently healthy wife with him when he committed suicide makes their mental soundness, shall we say, questionable.

 

There has never been a truly communistic system and there never will be. It is a Utopian ideal. The systems we refer to as "communism" were also totalitarian dictatorships. Long before these systems were overthrown by capitalism these systems had turned against their citizens.

 

See below.

That's true.

That's true too.

Wellllllllll. Obviously every system has it in for somebody. In the case of the earlier and "purer" days of USSR and China, that was the capitalist class. (Funny how capitalists don't like that.) And yes, they were "citizens". But all they had to do was to comply: follow the law. You make it sound like those governments just persecuted and abused everyone without discrimination.

 

Straw man. Posters are arguing against collectivism in all its many, universally failed forms, Soviet inspired or not. It doesn't work. It never has. It never will. The very act of attempting it ensures the next step is some form of junta.

What an obvious projection and lie. Yeah, all the many forms and kinds of collectivism that failed irrefutably were really just "capitalism in disguise." <Bronx Cheer> Just more "feces" theory. "If you eat enough feces, you live forever. We just haven't found anyone who can eat the right amount without dying yet." Thoroughly dishonest.

What a gross perversion of SOSR and misapprehension of the scientific method. The whole point is that anomalies, -real- things observed empirically, not fanciful utopian musings, eventually crack the preexisting paradigm after lots of resistance. With collectivism, the only "anomalies" would be any instances of success in REAL governments. There aren't any.

The rest is not worthy of response.

 

Now you are putting words in my mouth. Of course such Gov'ts went after their political opponents or those suspected as being political opponents directly and first but there were other groups persecuted. It was not a "just obey the law" and you will be ok situation.

This however was a function of totalitarianism and not communism.

The principle that I first mentioned holds true. Extreme socialism (communism) and capitalism meet at the far end of the spectrum. In both cases you have a small number of people with ownership of all (or most) resources and means of production

Some proto-communist systems (more socialist than communist ... systems that came after communism) such as in Romania worked quite well.

Some who lived through Ceausescu claim that many things were better during those times then after capitalism and especially after Romania joined the Euro. I have had extensive conversations with many such folks. The thing is that most if these folks who I talked to "escaped" Romania ... so things in general were not that great. The human spirit wants to be free.

These systems were hard on that spirit.

 

OK, you say you have a new way of doing it. Explain it. Lets see if its new or just a regurgitation of the past.

 

My my. You really are desperate to cling to your hope of it being and remaining a failure. The desperation is apparent in your total lack of any actual factual understanding of the subject. You offer lots of judgements and opinions, -most of them parroted, -but no actual factual understanding.

Yes, it's true that the USSR and China devolved before they could get started into state capitalism. Why is that so odd in your estimation? Don't you grasp the forces at work? The revolutions would have done just fine if they had not been staunchly and violently opposed by the anti-communist capitalist-roaders and hopeful bourgeois class who launched every form of attack on the new government, from ideological warfare and political and economic and cultural warfare, to outright military warfare including goon squads and sabotage. But they did have those forces arrayed against them. And your own form of opposition here takes the form of pretending the new communist government had no oppositional forces to deal with. "Oh, no, the new government was just inept and and totally failed out of its own blindness, ignorance, and overall worthlessness!" Right?

No. Not right. Those forces, both coordinated and uncoordinated, both organized and unorganized, succeeded in turning the economy right around into state capitalism. What is state capitalism? It's the state machinery owning the means of production for profit. In the USSR the government had state-controlled managers running factories and businesses. Okfine. Maybe they could run it "for the people". But the corrupt government officials overseeing it actually passed a rule, -a law, -that said those manager could make a unilateral decision to sell off "unused and obsolete equipment" and keep the proceeds for themselves! Thus granting them a "profit potential" for how they managed the business equipment. The result was that managers often sold off vital equipment that was hardly "unused and obsolete". It also bought the government officials the loyalty of the managers. And the profits of businesses was of great benefit to the government officials' payroll. Thus the government ran businesses for private profit. That isn't socialism. Whether the private profits go to individuals or the government, it is not controlled and determined by the workers. Hence Lenin called it "state capitalism". And a good, apt descriptive it is.

Now there is some hard factual information for you. Can you do similarly? So far, no. All judgements and opinions.

 

Why wouldn't there be a free market? All it requires is two people arriving at a mutual agreement for transfer of ownership. There are certainly external forces that exert an influence in some of those trades, such as sales tax, but those are just rolled into the price like every other expense and danger. Do you know why tea is more expensive in England than it is in China? Because there is the added expense of transporting it from China, as well as any dangers that might interrupt the transport. Same thing with cocaine from south America. The dangers and added expense due to transportation (I assume mules are not volunteering their services) are added to the expense and then you try to find a buyer in the market for your wares.

And no, government is inherently socialist. That's why they don't call welfare a capitalist service. It's a social service.

It might in some places, but wherever there is a demand for something, there will be investors willing to invest capital in order to make a profit.

You're correct. I meant to type out-sourcing. And yes, it's done for greed. Patriotism is irrelevant, and taxes merely raise the price for the consumer. They don't add any value to the product, but if they get so onerous that people can't afford the product, then you go somewhere else. There are people there, as well as here.

Greed is not a pejorative in the business world.

They're probably trying to boil shoe leather as a garnish for hot water soup in Venezuela.

 

Ok. Fair enough. But let me make a few comments on what you said.

If you consider it carefully, I was actually telling you how it came across to me. That's hardly "putting words in your mouth."

Why would anyone persist in persecuting if the "subjects" surrendered and agreed to obey? In Britain after the monarchy's forces were beaten and subdued, the revolutionaries told the monarchy that if they would cooperate and call off their dogs, the monarchy could keep their wealth and their heads. So even today Britain has royalty but with no power. It was a "courtesy" to allow them to remain in exchange for cooperation.

Confusion results from using imprecise terms, among other things. But there is no precision or validity to the expression "extreme socialism" because there really is no such thing. Socialism is a system under actual control of the working class, -not in words, but in fact. If you don't have that, you don't have socialism. Point 2: communism is a theory. It is a classless, stateless society that cannot be caused, forced, directed, or imposed. It evolves naturally, in theory, from socialism after many, many decades and maybe generations of successful socialist society. All resistance to socialism and in favor of capitalism has been worked out by long habit so that there is no longer any need to guard against capitalist-roaders any more then we need to worry today about feudalist-roaders. At that point there is no use for state machinery and it "withers away" leaving classless, stateless society.

So I don't know what "spectrum" you are referring to.

Please take a new perspective on that. The correct perspective is that lessons were learned as socialism was "figured out" and the violent, imposed, central government method of communist government hadn't worked. So when you say "systems that came after the communist system" if that is a fair rendition, you refer to a "system" that never existed since no state has ever "withered away" yet. And yes, of course it would be expected that a more developed idea and approach implemented after lessons were learned and efforts had failed, would be more likely to succeed longer and a bit better.

-which is part of the lessons learned. Check the freedom that characterizes the Mondragon Corporation in spain and elsewhere.

 

You're joking. Have you ever been to the Romanian countryside? I spent considerable time there in the early 2000's. My girlfriend's family still did not have running water in the home. They complained about prices, sure, but they also remembered when they couldn't even get "free" bread. Some of the worst pollution I've ever encountered was in Romania and people in those regions die very young. Until recently, streets of Bucharest were the home of 10's of thousands of abandoned children. It's only in the last 15 that they have slowly and now nearly eradicated that problem (how that is "arguably worse", I don't know). That's not to mention the 10's of thousands of abandoned dogs that we had to navigate around while walking about.

One of the toughest problems to combat was the dependence on government. People were starving in the countryside, waiting on the state to bring them food. Meanwhile, farmers were dropping their harvest at train stations for trains that stopped coming after the fall of communism. That wasn't a problem of communism, that was a problem of transition. It takes a long time to unwind that mindset, especially when the system in place for decades was dedicated to eradicating free thinking and entrepreneurialism.

 

Doesn't that says more about how communism really doesn't work than anything else? Capitalism managed to defeat its predecessor even though its predecessor was way more powerful in its day so why didn't it happened with communism?

 

We can't say communism didn't work if communism wasn't tried and never existed. Right?

How many years passed between the first attempt at a capitalist society and the point at which a successful, thriving capitalist country was established and survived? Hint: it was a long time.

 

But it did existed, Venezuela is an example.

How long?

 

How do you define capitalism?

Capital is wealth you have that you can afford to invest in order to earn more. This is why capitalism requires an expansion of wealth. We're not going to invest in a business venture that turns sand into sand. We're going to invest in a business venture that turns sand in Bermuda being shipped to a beach in Florida because somebody is willing to pay for the transport of that sand.

A capitalist country certainly does exist, but that's just understanding that profiting from people outside that country to enter the country (for tourism or business or whatever other profit oriented goal you can think of) is going to be economically advantageous.

This is why we worry about things like trade imbalances.

Capitalism isn't something that suddenly occurs once an entire country decides that maybe it might be a good idea. It happens whenever somebody looks at some money they don't really need to pay the bills with then and there, and thinks... "hey, if I buy this widget for a shekel, I think I can sell it for two shekels".

That is the essence of capitalism.

But you're talking about countries and capitalism and first attempts to buy widgets for shekels and deciding to sell those widgets for a profit as if its something that takes decades to do. So... what's your definition of capitalism?

 

Even paying the bills is capitalism. Any exchange of money for any goods and services is an act of capitalism.

 

Originally Posted by Maccabee >
Doesn't that says more about how communism really doesn't work than anything else? Capitalism managed to defeat its predecessor even though its predecessor was way more powerful in its day so why didn't it happened with communism?

--------------------------------
(So you know about the history of capitalism!)


====================================================================

Me:
&#8220;We can't say communism didn't work if communism wasn't tried and never existed. Right?&#8221;

--------------------------------

Maccabee:
&#8220;But it did existed, Venezuela is an example.&#8221;

--------------------------------
(How many times do I have to repeat this??? COMMUNISM IS A STATELESS, CLASSLESS SOCIETY. WHEN AND WHERE DID IT EVER EXIST? Venezuela never has been stateless and classless society. Venezuela was not communist. You aren&#8217;t following. Heck, y&#8217;all aren&#8217;t even trying to follow!)


=====================================================================


Me: &#8220;How many years passed between the first attempt at a capitalist society and the point at which a successful, thriving capitalist country was established and survived? Hint: it was a long time.&#8221;

---------------------------------

Maccabee: &#8220;How long?

---------------------------------

(I thought you knew the history of capitalism??)

 

Or perhaps they are just associating it with every incarnation of communism to ever occur on the planet. The fact that you can't point to a success story speaks volumes.

Look, I'll grant that communism could work, if there were no corruption involved. But ANY system could work under those imaginary circumstances. A society of saints could make a wonderful capitalist system, too. Hell, they could even make anarchy work.

But even then, if there was public ownership of the means of production, one has to ask, what would be produced? For instance, under capitalism, Intel, AMD, etc. have competed (with great success) to make better and better processors. The nature of capitalism dictates that better products must be made to compete. But if there was just one People's Processor Factory, what would be the impetus to create the next generation of processors? Or the next improvement in...anything? Sure, advancement might happen eventually, but without any sense of gaining an advantage over another company, much of the driving force behind innovation would be lost. And that's not even getting into the whole "freeloading" problem that such a system would undoubtedly produce, resulting in a further slowing of progress.

 

No, I didn't mention capitalism according to your quotes and post. It wasn't about capitalism! You need to read more carefully!!!