Socialist Party's policies

Iwasfrozen

^^^^^^^^^^^

Our first marxist split! Who will be Stalin and who will be Trotsky?

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^

Our first marxist split! Who will be Stalin and who will be Trotsky?

A three way split, I want to be neither. You can be Stalin.

Jolly Red Giant

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So no need for derivatives pricing then?

I guess I can work on one of those collective farms, but that sounds pretty shít. I think I prefer things the way they are thanks.

So you are saying that the only think you are capable of doing is pricing speculative financial products?

I would suggest that if this is the case you consider some form of retraining.

I will answer the points about 'money' when I have some time tomorrow or the day after.

It is funny to see the hacks taking swipes because two socialists are engaging in a political discussion - I would suggest a facepalm is appropriate.

garhjw

Will a new police force be formed to suppress dissent? Or would you use the existing police force?

Markcheese

garhjw wrote: »

Will a new police force be formed to suppress dissent? Or would you use the existing police force?

Of course you'd use MOST of the existing police force- and set up another one to watch the first -

Iwasfrozen

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

So you are saying that the only think you are capable of doing is pricing speculative financial products?

I would suggest that if this is the case you consider some form of retraining.

No, I could do something else, I just don't want to. So the fact my job wll be made redundent is a good reason for me to oppose your brand of socialism.

BoJack Horseman

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, I could do something else, I just don't want to. So the fact my job wll be made redundent is a good reason for me to oppose your brand of socialism.

JRG's brand of "socialism" will have the means of to re-educate you to love the party!

Whether you like it or not!

Iwasfrozen

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

JRG's brand of "socialism" will have the means of to re-educate you to love the party!

Whether you like it or not!

This is the new socialism instead of re-education we call it re-training.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, I could do something else, I just don't want to. So the fact my job wll be made redundent is a good reason for me to oppose your brand of socialism.

Judging by your other posts on this forum you would oppose any form of socialism, such is the level of your theological convictions.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Judging by your other posts on this forum you would oppose any form of socialism, such is the level of your theological convictions.

If you're using the marxist definition where the government controls the entire sectors of the economy then yes would oppose that as history has shown us time and time again that ideology leads to totalitarianism. (JRG has already proposed I undergo retraining to fit into his new world order)

But if you're defining socialism as any sort of government involvement in the economy then no I would not be against that. We need a government to provide social welfare, protect property rights and enforce the law.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I you're using the marxist definition where the government controls the entire sectors of the economy then yes would oppose that as history has shown us time and time again that ideology leads to totalitarianism. (JRG has already proposed I undergo retraining to fit into his new world order)

But if you're defining socialism as any sort of government involvement in the economy then no I would not be against that. We need a government to provide social welfare, protect property rights and enforce the law.

Well the Marxist definition is not one where the government controls the entire economy. That would be a Leninist/post-Leninist derived version of socialism.

Marxism is quite broader than that. See Libertarian Marxism, for example.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Well the Marxist definition is not one where the government controls the entire economy. That would be a Leninist/post-Leninist derived version of socialism.

Marxism is quite broader than that. See Libertarian Marxism, for example.

What ever way you want to define it history has taught us giving government control over entire sectors of the economy is a terrible idea.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What ever way you want to define it history has taught us giving government control over entire sectors of the economy is a terrible idea.

Only in a most simplistic and biased view could someone derive such conclusions.

I posted in another thread the huge levels of support for state capitalism in former soviet-bloc countries. And understandably so given the merits of such economic systems. Of free healthcare and education, near full employment, mortgage free housing, economic security, and so on.

Of course there were limitations to such systems due to economic calculation and of a largely undemocratic and oligarchic political system.

But a terrible idea it is not. Not any more terrible an idea than of existing capitalism, which also has its merits and drawbacks.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Only in a most simplistic and biased view could someone derive such conclusions.

I posted in another thread the huge levels of support for state capitalism in former soviet-bloc countries. And understandably so given the merits of such economic systems. Of free healthcare and education, near full employment, mortgage free housing, economic security, and so on.

Of course there were limitations to such systems due to economic calculation and of a largely undemocratic and oligarchic political system.

But a terrible idea it is not. Not any more terrible an idea than of existing capitalism, which also has its merits and drawbacks.

Is any single ex-soviet state doing better economically than the United States where a lot less state interference occurs?

Jolly Red Giant

coolemon wrote: »

As a Marxist myself I am somewhat confused by what you say.

On the one hand you write that a socialist economy is one which uses use-value, and now, in the post above, you say "you cannot run an economy without money".

Money is incompatible with an economy of use-values, and money necessarily means surplus value creation -> and the consequent (re)emergence of a class in society which will seek to control that surplus.

Socialism must be truly revolutionary, eliminating money as the means of exchange.

If that is not possible then the objective conditions for socialism, in the Marxist and anarchist understanding of that term, do not exist to facilitate a revolutionary proletarian class consciousness which can contemplate and conceive of an alternative to capitalism.

Okay coolemon - the issue of 'money'

Under capitalism money is a commodity - and it is a commodity that defines the social relationship between the employer and the worker. Money is the mechanism whereby the employer pays for wage labour and the mechanism for exploiting the labour of the worker. On top of this money is used for speculation, manipulation of the market and contributes the the bubble / crash cycle of the economy.

In a socialised economy money would not play this role. A socialised economy replaces the capitalist mode of production with a mode of production based on use-vaule and this changes the role of money. In a socialised economy money no longer defines the social relationship between the employer and the worker - the worker is no longer a wage slave. Furthermore as speculation, manipulation of markets, the bubble / crash cycle and the pull of inflation / deflation no longer impact on the economy, money no longer plays the role in these spheres as it does under capitalism. In a socialised economy money takes on the role of an accounting mechanism for planning purposes. It puts a structure onto the process of production, distribution and consumption. It allows for the planning of infrastructural development etc. A socialised economy develops at a pace that is stable and sustainable and money play a role in ensuring that stability and sustainability is maintained (in reality paper money would probably no longer be useful and the use mechanism would probably operate through smart cards and other technological mechanisms - but that is something that would be determined as and when necessary).

So to summarise - under capitalism money defines the social relations between the social classes. In a socialised economy money no longer defines social relation, it is a mechanism for planning - it does not create a surplus and as such plays no role in the development of a new social class.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Is any single ex-soviet state dong better economically than the United States where a lot less state interference occurs?

But in case you have not noticed we live in a globalised world. You cannot now separate the USA from the rest of the world economy like it is some self sufficient North Korean autarky.

So, such an answer would require looking at the direct US butchery in Iraq and Afghanistan -> amongst other direct foreign US interventions -> the arming of what is now ISIS, for example.

Of the metal slave economies of the Congo and Indonesia. Of the Coffee and fruit economies of South America.

And so on and so forth.

But to answer your question from another angle, to compare a more established and stable political-economic arrangement like the USA to the recent political-economic status quo of eastern Europe which went through a relatively dramatic structural change would be entirely unfair.

A complicated question to answer though. Should I include debt in an answer?

Debt is like plaster. It masks longer term structural faults.

Jolly Red Giant

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, I could do something else, I just don't want to. So the fact my job wll be made redundent is a good reason for me to oppose your brand of socialism.

The fact that you are engaged in a process of financial speculation that was largely responsible for the crash and current crisis raises the issue of your motivation for wanting to remain in your job.

I have no doubt that those involved in financial speculation would oppose socialism - and there is a clear reason why socialists would oppose financial speculation and all the consequences that it dumps on working class people.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What ever way you want to define it history has taught us giving government control over entire sectors of the economy is a terrible idea.

we agree on something - I would extend that as say that capitalist monopoly is even worse.

Globalised financial speculation has been utterly disastrous not only for working class people but even for the vast majority of people who actually have a vested interest in the maintenance of capitalism. The wealth gap has increased exponentially over the past 40 years as financial capitalism has come to dominate the world economy. It has ruined large sectons of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois classes, driving them into the working class - creating a situation that we have the 1% (or more accurately the 0.1% - 0.01%) and we have the 99% who are facing a day to day struggle for survival as a result of the massive wealth gap in society.

PeadarCo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Globalised financial speculation has been utterly disastrous not only for working class people but even for the vast majority of people who actually have a vested interest in the maintenance of capitalism. The wealth gap has increased exponentially over the past 40 years as financial capitalism has come to dominate the world economy. It has ruined large sectons of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois classes, driving them into the working class - creating a situation that we have the 1% (or more accurately the 0.1% - 0.01%) and we have the 99% who are facing a day to day struggle for survival as a result of the massive wealth gap in society.

Capitalism as generated a far more equal world. How many people have been taken out of poverty since China switched over from communism? and compare that to the millions who died from hunger when communism was in operation under Mao?

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

But in case you have not noticed we live in a globalised world. You cannot now separate the USA from the rest of the world economy like it is some self sufficient North Korean autarky.

So, such an answer would require looking at the direct US butchery in Iraq and Afghanistan -> amongst other direct foreign US interventions -> the arming of what is now ISIS, for example.

Of the metal slave economies of the Congo and Indonesia. Of the Coffee and fruit economies of South America.

And so on and so forth.

That's not answering my question, yes we live in a globalized world and globalization is lifting millions out of poverty in China, India and Bangladesh.

China started off providing cheap goods to western countries and invested the profits in greater infrastructure and eduction for its people and now thanks to western money they are able to transition into providing more advanced goods while the lower skilled work is moving to India, Bangladesh and Indonesia where it will soon develop their economies too.

But to answer your question from another angle, to compare a more established and stable political-economic arrangement like the USA to the recent political-economic status quo of eastern Europe which went through a relatively dramatic structural change would be entirely unfair.

Surely if their economic system is superior it would overcome these shortcomings?

A complicated question to answer though. Should I include debt in an answer?

You can, take into consideration though that 1/3 of US fed debt is owned by US government departments and the US owns roughly 89 cents in other countries debt for every dollar they owe other countries.

Debt is like plaster. It masks longer term structural faults.

Oh you're not the first to claim US downfall from debt, and you won't be the last.

Iwasfrozen

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The fact that you are engaged in a process of financial speculation that was largely responsible for the crash and current crisis raises the issue of your motivation for wanting to remain in your job.

I have no doubt that those involved in financial speculation would oppose socialism - and there is a clear reason why socialists would oppose financial speculation and all the consequences that it dumps on working class people.


we agree on something - I would extend that as say that capitalist monopoly is even worse.

Globalised financial speculation has been utterly disastrous not only for working class people but even for the vast majority of people who actually have a vested interest in the maintenance of capitalism. The wealth gap has increased exponentially over the past 40 years as financial capitalism has come to dominate the world economy. It has ruined large sectons of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois classes, driving them into the working class - creating a situation that we have the 1% (or more accurately the 0.1% - 0.01%) and we have the 99% who are facing a day to day struggle for survival as a result of the massive wealth gap in society.

My work did not contribute to the financial crisis, that's all I will be saying on the matter if you don't mind.

coolemon

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Okay coolemon - the issue of 'money'

Under capitalism money is a commodity - and it is a commodity that defines the social relationship between the employer and the worker. Money is the mechanism whereby the employer pays for wage labour and the mechanism for exploiting the labour of the worker. On top of this money is used for speculation, manipulation of the market and contributes the the bubble / crash cycle of the economy.

In a socialised economy money would not play this role. A socialised economy replaces the capitalist mode of production with a mode of production based on use-vaule and this changes the role of money. In a socialised economy money no longer defines the social relationship between the employer and the worker - the worker is no longer a wage slave. Furthermore as speculation, manipulation of markets, the bubble / crash cycle and the pull of inflation / deflation no longer impact on the economy, money no longer plays the role in these spheres as it does under capitalism. In a socialised economy money takes on the role of an accounting mechanism for planning purposes. It puts a structure onto the process of production, distribution and consumption. It allows for the planning of infrastructural development etc. A socialised economy develops at a pace that is stable and sustainable and money play a role in ensuring that stability and sustainability is maintained (in reality paper money would probably no longer be useful and the use mechanism would probably operate through smart cards and other technological mechanisms - but that is something that would be determined as and when necessary).

So to summarise - under capitalism money defines the social relations between the social classes. In a socialised economy money no longer defines social relation, it is a mechanism for planning - it does not create a surplus and as such plays no role in the development of a new social class.

Without answering every point that you raise, I would disagree with your understanding of the repeated theme in your post - > of social relations.

I disagree entirely that money "defines the social relations between classes".

Money, in fact, has little to nothing to do with the social relations (of production, I assume). Social relations are determined by the forces of production -> which produces definite technical relations of production, and of consequent micro level social-organisational forms for a given level of FoP. These micro-level/workplace organisational forms have consequent affects on all other social-organisational forms and shape the general class composition of society.

So, from my understanding, the social relations are definite with a given level of FoP.

The Soviet Union, while changing the ownership over production from private hands to state hands, could not eliminate the definite social relations produced from a given level of the forces of production.

And, I might remind, class is defined not by property, but by ones relationship to production - and specifically of ones relation to surplus.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Surely if their economic system is superior it would overcome these shortcomings?

Do you not think that is a stupidly absurd question to ask?

They have a markedly different structural-economic arrangement than they did over thirty years ago.

They cannot be compared.

I wouldn't expect you to compare the US economy after a few nuclear strikes on every city to an untouched, say, India. Its an absurd question.

coolemon

PeadarCo wrote: »

Capitalism as generated a far more equal world. How many people have been taken out of poverty since China switched over from communism? and compare that to the millions who died from hunger when communism was in operation under Mao?

But, you see, and I think JRG would agree with me, China was never socialist or communist. Not any more than the DPRK is democratic.

Hollow labels just don't wash for informed discussion.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Do you not think that is a stupidly absurd question to ask?

They have a markedly different structural-economic arrangement than they did over thirty years ago.

They cannot be compared.

I wouldn't expect you to compare the US economy after a few nuclear strikes on every city to an untouched, say, India. Its an absurd question.

Are you seriously comparing a nuclear strike on major cities to the downfall of the soviet union?

If "state capitalism" as practised in Russia is so successful then why does the United States enjoy a lower child mortality rate and a higher life expectancy?

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing a nuclear strike on major cities to the downfall of the soviet union?

No. Just pointing out the absurdity of your question.

If "state capitalism" as practised in Russia is so successful then why does the United States have a lower child mortality rate and a higher life expectancy?

I notice that you put state capitalism in inverted commas. Are you trying to distance yourself from it?

Of what time period?

You see, I don't look at economies the way you do, in an overly simplistic way.

Where does that fact that the Soviet Union was destroyed by war and lost over 21,000,000 people in WW2 fit into your comparison?

And where the USA, isolated on its own continent, escaped destruction?

Things are complicated. And you cannot separate historical conditions, and historical accident, from the successes of the present.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

No. Just pointing out the absurdity of your question.

I notice that you put state capitalism in inverted commas. Are you trying to distance yourself from it?

Of what time period?

You see, I don't look at economies they way you do, in an overly simplistic way.

Where does that fact that the Soviet Union was destroyed by war and lost over 21,000,000 people in WW2 fit into your comparison?

And where the USA, isolated on its own continent, escaped destruction?

Things are complicated. And you cannot separate historical conditions, and historical accident, from the successes of the present.

It seems to me you're trying to justify in your own mind why the US is more successful than Russia.

It couldn't be a fault in your ideology, that's impossible, so it must be something else, political instability from the fall of the USSR, or the damage caused by WWII, or colonialism, or US isolationism or .... something, anything other than a failure in ideology.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It seems to me you're trying to justify in your own mind why the US is more successful than Russia.

It couldn't be a fault in your ideology, that's impossible, so it must be something else, political instability from the fall of the USSR, or the damage caused by WWII, or colonialism, or US isolationism or .... something, anything other than a failure in ideology.

It seems to me that you have a very biased and ideologically charged view of "success".

I don't subscribe to such rigid constraints. Soviet state-capitalism had its merits. US capitalism had/has its merits.

Importantly, both are products of specific historical circumstances and accidents largely beyond the control of anyone, and with the material base of society largely determining the ideological forms of the time.

PeadarCo

coolemon wrote: »

But, you see, and I think JRG would agree with me, China was never socialist or communist. Not any more than the DPRK is democratic.

Hollow labels just don't wash for informed discussion.

The problem is after about 100 years of different attempts they're not hollow labels. Any attempt at communism has resulted in dictatorships. It seems absolute power corrupts absolutely. For all capitalism problems(there are many) its the only system that democracy actually works with.

From a theoretical point of view Communism argues for a utopia. If you look at the overall aims of Communism they aren't bad and in many cases would benefit everyone so I don't think anyone who supports communism also supports famines, political repression etc.

The problem is in the 21st century Communism is no longer theory its been tried in practice many times. At its best in results in what the worst version of Capitalism offers.

By using "Hollow Lables" your asking people and yourself to ignore the disastrous history Communism has which is relevant in any discussion about it. You can't just hand wave things you don't like away.

BoJack Horseman

I'm still waiting for one of the communist fanboyz to list the successful communist democracies that exist in the world.

coolemon

PeadarCo wrote: »

The problem is after about 100 years of different attempts they're not hollow labels. Any attempt at communism has resulted in dictatorships. It seems absolute power corrupts absolutely. For all capitalism problems(there are many) its the only system that democracy actually works with.

From a theoretical point of view Communism argues for a utopia. If you look at the overall aims of Communism they aren't bad and in many cases would benefit everyone so I don't think anyone who supports communism also supports famines, political repression etc.

The problem is in the 21st century Communism is no longer theory its been tried in practice many times. At its best in results in what the worst version of Capitalism offers.

By using "Hollow Lables" your asking people and yourself to ignore the disastrous history Communism has which is relevant in any discussion about it. You can't just hand wave things you don't like away.

But you see you have a very limited understanding what it is you are talking about.

You say these were attempts at Communism.

I completely disagree, from a Marxist perspective. They were in fact attempts at capitalism.

coolemon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'm still waiting for one of the communist fanboyz to list the successful communist democracies that exist in the world.

With a question like that you don't understand the Marxist proposition.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

It seems to me that you have a very biased and ideologically charged view of "success".

I define simple things like political freedom, education, child mortality rate, life expectancy and gdp in terms is ppp to be elements of "success" in an economy and in all of those areas the less bureaucratized West is trumping the more bureaucratized East.

I don't subscribe to such rigid constraints. Soviet state-capitalism had its merits. US capitalism had/has its merits.

The US had far more merits than the Soviet Union, ultimately the Soviet Union collapsed because its citizens wanted it to collapse. Not a very successful system.

Importantly, both are products of specific historical circumstances and accidents largely beyond the control of anyone, and with the material base of society largely determining the ideological forms of the time.

The US is a product of a superior system of free trade and restricted government control over the rule of law it inherited from Britain.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I define things like political freedom, education, child mortality rate, life expectancy and gdp in terms is ppp to be elements of "success" in an economy and in all of those areas the less bureaucratized West is trumping the more bureaucratized East.

How many of the 'bureaucratized East' had colonial assets in the historical past?

because its citizens wanted it to collapse..

Citation?

That is not my understanding of the "collapse". Quite the opposite in fact.

The US is a product of a superior system of free trade and restricted government control over the rule of law it inherited from Britain.

It had a lot if inheritances. Slavery, for one. The rape and robbery of the native population, another.

PeadarCo

coolemon wrote: »

But you see you have a very limited understanding what it is you are talking about.

You say these were attempts at Communism.

I completely disagree, from a Marxist perspective. They were in fact attempts at capitalism.

Why was the USSR an attempt at capitalism? I'm not versed in the intricacies between the different versions of communism. Maybe your can enlighten me.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

How many of the 'bureaucratized East' had colonial assets in the historical past?

Most were colonial possessions of Russia.

Citation?

That is not my understanding of the "collapse". Quite the opposite in fact.

http://prospectjournal.org/2010/12/01/the-demise-of-the-ussr-in-the-face-of-nationalism/

Nationalism killed the USSR.

It had a lot if inheritances. Slavery, for one. The rape and robbery of the native population, another.

Yes pity it didn't ban slavery when Britain did. I don't see how this is relevant?

BoJack Horseman

coolemon wrote: »

With a question like that you don't understand the Marxist proposition.

So no list then?

I assumed the fans of communism would have tonnes of examples of prosperous democratic communist states.

Its odd to be a fan of something that has never existed.... Its like being a passionate supporter of unicorns.

oscarBravo

coolemon wrote: »

And, I might remind, class is defined not by property, but by ones relationship to production - and specifically of ones relation to surplus.

All the talk about "production" strongly conveys the message that supporters of socialism and/or communism are very entrenched in a factory-centric world view.

My company provides broadband services (one of the industries that would be confiscated, according to JRG). Where is the "production" when the business is concerned solely with moving information around? How do you determine what the relationship is with the means and/or mode of production (concepts I have to admit to still being sketchy on, even in a factory-centric setting) when there is no physical thing being manufactured?

coolemon

PeadarCo wrote: »

Why was the USSR an attempt at capitalism? I'm not versed in the intricacies between the different versions of communism. Maybe your can enlighten me.

We can assume that the Communist leaders who initiated the various attempts for which you refer were well meaning. That they did believe in what it was they were doing. They raised the red flags and applied the appropriate labels and lingo.

But from a Marxist perspective there is more to it than this.

Firstly, socialism, or communism, are not brought about because someone, or some leader "wills" it into existence. It does not matter what the person thinks they are doing.

Marx states: "Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production"

Apart from the various leaders of these social experiments calling themselves communists, I don't see how, in any way, these societies can be described as anything but a variation of capitalism.

Some reasons, straight off:

- They were class societies ruled by classes other than the proletariat.
- They had 'wage slavery' - workers worked for a wage, rather like capitalism.
- They had profit/surplus value. Except rather than extracted and exploited by private individuals, it was exploited and extracted by the state.
- They had property. Though controlled by a state the people themselves did not rule or control.
- They had no mechanisms of popular an democratic control to speak of.
- the forces of production -> the technologies employed in production, were indistinguishable from that of capitalist society.
The organisational forms were by and large very much qualitatively identical to those of capitalist society at all levels. Unelected Workplace managers, supervisors, and so on. Professional politicians, and so on.

In every way these societies were a form of capitalism, rather than what is understood as communism or socialism in the Marxist sense - > or in a historical materialist sense.

coolemon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So no list then?

I assumed the fans of communism would have tonnes of examples of prosperous democratic communist states.

Its odd to be a fan of something that has never existed.... Its like being a passionate supporter of unicorns.

Its odd to be a fan of an explanative tool?

That's strange. I guess we should seek to explain nothing then.

coolemon

oscarBravo wrote: »

All the talk about "production" strongly conveys the message that supporters of socialism and/or communism are very entrenched in a factory-centric world view.

My company provides broadband services (one of the industries that would be confiscated, according to JRG). Where is the "production" when the business is concerned solely with moving information around? How do you determine what the relationship is with the means and/or mode of production (concepts I have to admit to still being sketchy on, even in a factory-centric setting) when there is no physical thing being manufactured?

Class is defined by ones relationship to the production, distribution and control of surplus value.

If you own the company, and employ others, then you would be of the bourgeois class. A class that (in the broadest sense) does not produce surplus value and receives the surplus value of other workers.

coolemon

I don't see how this is relevant?

Because the present is built on past material circumstances. As I said, it is pointless to compare two economies in the way you are attempting.

If you had two identical countries with identical histories but whom chose different ideological routes then it night be worth engaging in. Good luck finding one.

PeadarCo

coolemon wrote: »

Some reasons, straight off:

- They were class societies ruled by classes other than the proletariat.
- They had 'wage slavery' - workers worked for a wage, rather like capitalism.
- They had profit/surplus value. Except rather than extracted and exploited by private individuals, it was exploited and extracted by the state.
- They had property. Though controlled by a state the people themselves did not rule or control.
- They had no mechanisms of popular an democratic control to speak of.
- the forces of production -> the technologies employed in production, were indistinguishable from that of capitalist society.
The organisational forms were by and large very much qualitatively identical to those of capitalist society at all levels. Unelected Workplace managers, supervisors, and so on. Professional politicians, and so on.

These are all reasons why real communism is impossible.

You need to have leaders even if through elections which mean you have separate classes.

To build a house you need to put someone/small number of people in charge of building it. Again different classes. They will have to be able to make quick decisions quickly to actually get the house built within a reasonable amount of time. You can't have an election to decide the exact type of cement. Again different classes. The people aren't equal.

Unless you want to go back to hunter gatherer societies people have to specialise i.e accountants, brick layers, bakers etc. Even hunter gather societies have a degree of specialism. Some skills are more valuable hence different classes.

The problem with communism its seems to work on the basis that humans are robots and not actual people with their own different desires and goals.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Because the present is built on past material circumstances. As I said, it is pointless to compare two economies in the way you are attempting.

If you had two identical countries with identical histories but whom chose different ideological routes then it night be worth engaging in. Good luck finding one.

North and South Korea.
East and West Germany.

But that's not "real" socialism because "real" socialism has never existed, right?

You blindly claim state capitalism as practised in former Soviet states is superior to the American system of less government intervention despite the over whelming evidence to the contrary.

When presented with this evidence, like higher child mortality rate and lower life expectancies you try to muddy the water.

coolemon

PeadarCo wrote: »

These are all reasons why real communism is impossible.

You need to have leaders even if through elections which mean you have separate classes.

To build a house you need to put someone/small number of people in charge of building it. Again different classes. They will have to be able to make quick decisions quickly to actually get the house built within a reasonable amount of time. You can't have an election to decide the exact type of cement. Again different classes. The people aren't equal.

Unless you want to go back to hunter gatherer societies people have to specialise i.e accountants, brick layers, bakers etc. Even hunter gather societies have a degree of specialism. Some skills are more valuable hence different classes.

The problem with communism its seems to work on the basis that humans are robots and not actual people with their own different desires and goals.

Look. These are all valid questions and questions raised between different socialist tendencies (like the form of leadership required). You should not expect me to explain everything in the context of this thread. You have to do a bit of study yourself to understand the basic presuppositions and theories of Marxism.

Classes are not defined by skills, by the way. Not in the Marxist sense.

I guess the main point is to remove the "material incentive" for which people superficially strive for now. That is far from impossible to do.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

North and South Korea.
East and West Germany.

But that's not "real" socialism because "real" socialism has never existed, right?

You blindly claim state capitalism as practised in former Soviet states is superior to the American system of less government intervention despite the over whelming evidence to the contrary.

When presented with this evidence, like higher child mortality rate and lower life expectancies you try to muddy the water.

I suppose the DPRK is not "real democracy", is it? - arguing over labels is silly don't you think?

Are you under the impression that the USA was an autarky?

If not, then you necessarily need to understand the broader economic implications of the US economy and as to what leads to its success, as defined by you.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

I suppose the DPRK is not "real democracy", is it? - arguing over labels is silly don't you think?

Are you under the impression that the USA was an autarky?

If not, then you necessarily need to understand the broader economic implications of the US economy and as to what leads to its success, as defined by you.

Not being an autarky is one of the facets that led to US and earlier British economic success.

But again this has absolutely nothing to do with WWII, slavery, colonialism or any of the other irrelevant arguments you tried to muddy the water with.

You claimed Russian state capitalism is superior to the American system, I pointed out this is incorrect.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You claimed Russian state capitalism is superior to the American system, I pointed out this is incorrect.

On terms of your own choosing, and without any apparent consideration for the material causes of those 'successes'.

How does the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki enter into your success equation?

Or is that just another externality with which I muddy the water of your economic template, a template which conveniently you have yet to put forward any historical explanation as to its rise to success, as defined by you.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

On terms of your own choosing, and without any apparent consideration for the material causes of those 'successes'.

In terms of child mortality rate, life expectancy, gdp ppp per capita % of people in tertiary education, are there any other metrics you would like to compare the US with Russia?

btw citation for all my claims can be found here http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Russia/United-States

How does the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki enter into your success equation?

They don't.

Or is that just another externality with which I muddy the water of your economic template, which conveniently you have yet to put forward any historical explanation of its rise to success, as defined by you.

Yes, it's another externality, an irrelevant one at that.

However Japan's infrastructure was devastated after the war but by adapting the American system of free market capitalism they were able to rise from the ruins of the war to become economic power houses.

How the American system of economic success came about is harder to explain, it has its origins in the British industrial revolution of course but also by the limiting of government power that began to take place after the English civil war.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

are there any other metrics you would like to compare the US with Russia?

btw citation for all my claims can be found here http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Russia/United-States

That compares Russian market capitalism and the United States market capitalism presently. Not Soviet State Capitalism and the USA between 1917 and 1991.

You pose stupid comparison really.

They don't.

How are the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima irrelevant?

Are you saying that to not have dropped them would be inconsequential?

by the limiting of government power that began to take place after the English civil war.

Why did they limit government power, as you state?

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

That compares Russian market capitalism and the United States market capitalism presently. Not Soviet State Capitalism and the USA between 1917 and 1991.

You pose stupid comparison really.

We weren't comparing "Soviet state capitalism" (whatever the hell that is) we were comparing (in your words) "state capitalism in the former soviet bloc countries"

Lest you forget here's your exact quote "I posted in another thread the huge levels of support for state capitalism in former soviet-bloc countries. And understandably so given the merits of such economic systems. Of free healthcare and education, near full employment, mortgage free housing, economic security, and so on."

This is what I've been challenging from the start. Can you name one single former Soviet bloc country that is doing better economically than the United States which has a lot less government interference in the market?

How are the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima irrelevant?

Because they are not in any way related to this conversation.

Are you saying that to not have dropped them would be inconsequential?

In terms of the merits between state capitalism vs less state interference in the market place, yes.

Why did they limit government power, as you state?

That's a tough question to answer but in the simplest possible terms Kings were using the apparatus of the state to abuse their position, parliament sought to limit to King's power and found favor among the mercent classes, landed gentry and puritans.