Socialism grows directly out of capitalism.Communism is a further development or "hi

[Rusk]

Previously, you said that it's "every gov't's nature to grow." That is clearly not the case. If you're changing it to "it's some gov'ts' nature to grow," I'd agree.

Governments nature is to grow, it doesn't mean it actually does, some places the population is not allowing it to grow, it doesn't mean it wouldn't given different circumstances.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Governments nature is to grow, it doesn't mean it actually does, some places the population is not allowing it to grow, it doesn't mean it wouldn't given different circumstances.

If gov'ts show no historical tendency to grow, you can't say that it's their nature to grow. And you're acting as if "the population" is necessarily separate from gov't, which is not the case. People in gov't oppose gov't growing, which may be one of the reasons that it's gov'ts' nature to shrink.

 

[Zankou]

the biggest flaw in this historical determinism is that ability of market economies to redirect some of the newly created wealth to the creation of social goods. Capitalism both created more wealth and social goods than communists regimes could while central planning led to economic stagnation.

There are lots of flaws, but one of the biggest technical flaws in Marxist economics is that they are built upon the 'labor theory of value,' which assesses economic production essentially in terms of the labor required to create it. That is because all profits, in Marxist terms, are an *appropriation of labor by somebody else*. Marx's economics leave no room for the idea that an individual can just up and create enormous profits except by taking other people's labor.

This involves a prejudice against 'non laborious' practices that, in a market economy, are valued and paid highly -- particularly coming up with innovative ideas. The labor theory of value struggles to explain why labor is not, in market terms, actually all that valuable. So it has to come up with extremely complicated and gimmicky ways to explain why labor heavy industries tend to be unprofitable relative to labor-light businesses. Why is labor exploitation so empirically unprofitable? Traditional Marxism did not have a good answer. That is because it was built on a sort of rudimentary 19th century theory of economics. For ideological reasons, Marxists have trouble jettisoning this structure and modernizing it (despite the claims to be scientific). Because that would mean losing the labor exploitation dogma.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

This is a central historical problem for Marxism. Marx himself, and the early communists generally, assumed that communism would arise in urban, educated environments, as the proletariat achieved rational consciousness. In particular, Marx believed that *Germany* and the *German labor movement* would be the locus of communism. From the very core of capitalism, places like England and Germany, socialism was supposed to arise, then flowering into communism. That is because socialism and communism were supposed to be uber-rational developments in the development of reason triumphing over tradition, and so it made sense they would arise in the most sophisticated and civilized urban environments.

But communism actually arose primarily in brutal, uneducated, provincial contexts, notably Russia, rather than in the developed capitalist core regions.

Marxists struggled to explain this paradox, and they also struggled to explain why the predictions didn't come true and Jesus didn't arrive with the Second Communist Coming as Marx had predicted. There are libraries full of Marxist explanations and theories about this, most centering on the idea that the forces of reaction turned out to be more sinister and controlling than Marx had understood.

Nowadays Marxism is more about holding faith and being pious rather than belief that the Second Coming is truly imminent; that's an article of faith that nobody actually believes. This is why the Chinese communists hold 'true communism' up as sort of a vacuous far-off ideal, and most Chinese nowadays think of the communists as like Jehovah's witnesses.

I can't comment on whether the Chinese truly think of Communists as equivalent to millennialists like the JW, but the most obvious reason why capitalism persisted in Germany (and the United States) is simple:

Capitalism grew wise to the social discontent it had produced.

Marx's conception of capitalism is an extremely unfettered, unregulated, completely laissez faire type of Capitalism that we tend to think of when we think of the industrial revolution in England or, for a period, in the US. The US and Germany were amongst the earliest to recognize that capitalism, if it is not to be overturned by Reds, would have to regulated by a state looking out for the common weal. Thus you see Bismarck undercut the Reds via vast social policies, and the American system moderating capitalism tremendously in the US and eventually legal recognitions of unions, some regulatory laws passed, et cetera.

Eventually, all 1st world capitalist systems began to accomodate social welfare, to varying levels, to undercut the threat of Communist welfare.. Some went as far to become something like a mixed economy, such as the Nordic social welfare states, whereas others remain broadly liberal.

Those countries which never saw any sort of real mitigation of the excesses of capitalism (such as in say South America) either fell into the power of military governments or of socialst revolutions.

Russia and China, because they never truly were capitalist, could not accomodate any sort of social reform that would've kept the Reds at bay. They broke Marx's theory of history by going from feudalism into socialism immediately.

What's worrying now is that Marx might yet be proven correct that Capitalism will eventually succumb to Socialism, because we are increasingly moving towards such a system whereby capitalism is paired with a vicious disregard for the worker, as in Capitalism. I call this internationalist, globalist, poor-living standard capitalism Sino-Capitalist, and it seems to be the spreading trend. When capitalism will no longer support a middle class, it may well end up being replaced by the revolutionary movement. Which would, of course, be disastrous.

 

[Zankou]

There's no doubt that capitalism has proved vastly more sophisticated and adaptable then Marx envisioned. It has also brilliantly seized on and exploited broader social phenomena like the breakdown of traditional structures of human society, traditional identities.

One of the most characteristic failures of Marxism was to underappreciate how the collapse of traditional structures of reactionary identity *has aided capitalism*. Marxism, and leftism generally, is premised on the belief that *traditional structures of social engagement and identity based on reactionary sentiment* will be replaced by *rationalized structures of social engagement and identity based on common human nature and economic class*. And that capitalism is a sort of middle-stage development that embodies such traditional structures.

For the classic Marxist, as traditional forms of identity -- religious, family, ethnic, national, racial, tribal -- are replaced with rational perception of your identity in terms of the economic structure of human society -- primarily class -- you will naturally turn towards socialism. After all, that kid who is not your biological child, who is of a different religion, who is from a different country, who is a different race: That kid *will be just as dear to you as your own kid, once you see your position rightly*. All traditional forms of identity shall be replaced with a glorious community that thus recognizes and loves common humanity above all else. Honor to labor!

This, in its exaggerated Marxist form, represents a characteristic delusion of much Leftist thought, the assumption that deletion of traditional forms of identity and sentiment will surely lead to replacement by *equal* social sentiment on purely rational class-based grounds. The actual empirical result is rather different: You end up with individualist worker drones ripe for exploitation by global capitalism, and fundamentally incapable of any serious collective action. That central irony illuminates not only Marxism's failures but also much of modern politics. And it's why capitalism keeps winning. It understands human nature better.

If you are really interested in the philosophy, this ideological conflict was developed in great detail during the conflict between the Left Hegelians (which Marx was one of) and the Right Hegelians (now almost unknown, sadly).

 

[James Keith]

I think the existence and then disappearance of state-enforced slavery is sufficient to make the case, and not just some little anecdote.



The amount of resources used by everything has grown. That definition makes the whole point meaningless (the richer the society, the "bigger" the gov't is). We were specifically talking about gov't's power over people and presence in everyday lives.



Which is the reason that your definition is not informative. Looking at spending or taxation is generally irrelevant to the size of gov't (measured by control and presence) because they're arbitrary. Gov'ts can choose not to tax or spend and just accomplish what they want through tax credits or force.

The draft still exists. And your examples don't even fit your definition in terms of "our daily lives". What percentage of the population endured that direct force from govt agents on a daily basis?

Your arguments about resources are just an insistence on redefiing terms because you don't like the way the accurate definitions sound. A small subset of people endure years of training, which is constantly getting more demanding, to reach that level of productivity before part of it is siphened off to buy ever more advanced things for other people. A govt that did not grow should get cheaper for such a harder working populace to support.

And the amount of resources used by everything has most certainly not grown. A computer is far more powerful in processing terms while being far cheaper in terms of resources, so in fact it has shrunk. A govt that utiizes modern technology to replace of armies of beurocrats should similarly be able to shrink as a matter of fact. In this regard the govt has actually grown far more than even its resource use suggests, for example with an NSA that can easily spy on everyone at once.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The draft still exists. And your examples don't even fit your definition in terms of "our daily lives". What percentage of the population endured that direct force from govt agents on a daily basis?

The draft used to be used. Like, people were actually drafted to fight in wars. You don't think our volunteer military represents a shrinking of gov't?

Your arguments about resources are just an insistence on redefiing terms because you don't like the way the accurate definitions sound.

Um, no. Fiscal policy has no impact on the size of gov't by any sane definition. As I pointed out in another thread, if we replaced a cut on the top tax bracket with a "job creator incentive payment" for everyone making more than $250K, it would have the exact same effect on everyone involved, but one policy (the tax cut) is "shrinking the gov't" and one (the spending increase) is "growing the gov't" according to the definition of Republican hacks. Gov't having the power to tax and to spend (i.e., exist) is the key step. Everything fiscal after that is zero sum or about how the gov't is carrying out goals rather than how "big" it is.

And the amount of resources used by everything has most certainly not grown. A computer is far more powerful in processing terms while being far cheaper in terms of resources, so in fact it has shrunk.

That's a derpy interpretation of what I said. Read my comment again in context.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

My wife who is Chinese, told me that communism is an ultimate goal. Governments have tried to reach it, but it remains elusive. There has never been a truly communist government in history. At any rate, I agree that capitalism is the lowest on the evolutionary ladder.

No way did governments try to reach communism. It's a complete oxymoron.

Those governments that claimed to be communist (Soviet Union, Maoist China) had extremely strong, authoritarian states. A strong, authoritarian state is the exact opposite of what a communist society would be like.

One of the most fundamental ideas of communism (from the mid 1800s) is that the workers would have power over all areas of society and that there would be no class distinctions. But by the 20th century, the Leninists and Maoists were saying that a "vanguard party" needed to be in charge to ensure the revolution.

Well, we know that the vanguard party became a privileged class unto itself, so those societies can't possibly be called communist.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

This, in its exaggerated Marxist form, represents a characteristic delusion of much Leftist thought, the assumption that deletion of traditional forms of identity and sentiment will surely lead to replacement by *equal* social sentiment on purely rational class-based grounds. The actual empirical result is rather different: You end up with individualist worker drones ripe for exploitation by global capitalism, and fundamentally incapable of any serious collective action. That central irony illuminates not only Marxism's failures but also much of modern politics. And it's why capitalism keeps winning. It understands human nature better.

"Capitalism" hasn't won a damn thing.

Capitalism with very strong state intervention has, though. In every developed country, it's massive state interference through research and development, military contracts, trade deals, giant bailouts that keep capitalist enterprises afloat.

 

[Jack V Savage]

"Capitalism" hasn't won a damn thing.

Capitalism with very strong state intervention has, though. In every developed country, it's massive state interference through research and development, military contracts, trade deals, giant bailouts that keep capitalist enterprises afloat.

Capitalism by its nature requires strong state intervention so you're not arguing with him. That intervention created it and allows it to survive and for capitalist societies to prosper (or for capitalism to "keep winning").

 

[Zankou]

Yeah, because capitalism controls the state. Agreed. Not sure where you are going with that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, because capitalism controls the state. Agreed. Not sure where you are going with that.

I was just telling him that you guys agree. You're just expressing it in different ways.

 

[Zankou]

I was just responding to him when your post intervened ... since I didn't use quote, it looks like I was responding to you. But in fact we are all on the same page.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I was just responding to him when your post intervened ... since I didn't use quote, it looks like I was responding to you. But in fact we are all on the same page.

 

[Bay Area]

No way did governments try to reach communism. It's a complete oxymoron.

Those governments that claimed to be communist (Soviet Union, Maoist China) had extremely strong, authoritarian states. A strong, authoritarian state is the exact opposite of what a communist society would be like.

One of the most fundamental ideas of communism (from the mid 1800s) is that the workers would have power over all areas of society and that there would be no class distinctions. But by the 20th century, the Leninists and Maoists were saying that a "vanguard party" needed to be in charge to ensure the revolution.

Well, we know that the vanguard party became a privileged class unto itself, so those societies can't possibly be called communist.

Yeah I know. I was speaking more on the theory, than what actually took place. Communism in theory is like a utopia that governments strive to reach...in theory.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

And it's why capitalism keeps winning. It understands human nature better.

It sure seems that way.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Yeah, because capitalism controls the state. Agreed. Not sure where you are going with that.

Well, the issue that I have is the tying in of "capitalism" with "human nature." It gets brought up, A LOT.

We all agree that the state is essential to the current form of capitalism. We also should agree that this system inevitably creates vast inequality. And finally, we have to agree that people generally feel this system is unfair. Poll after poll show that even the most hardcore Republicans feel that "the system is rigged and only special interests have their voices heard" or something along those lines.

And this is in the most corporatized society on earth- the US. Obviously everywhere else in the world this sentiment is much stronger.

So if people are unhappy with the system, but yet the system continues, something isn't quite right. Somehow, the general population isn't able to translate this vast discontent into effective action (but this is another huge, separate subject). So I don't see how talk of human nature can be brought up when these facts are in place.

Capitalism doesn't understand human nature better, it understands manipulation and power better.

 

[IDL]

No way did governments try to reach communism. It's a complete oxymoron.

Those governments that claimed to be communist (Soviet Union, Maoist China) had extremely strong, authoritarian states. A strong, authoritarian state is the exact opposite of what a communist society would be like.

One of the most fundamental ideas of communism (from the mid 1800s) is that the workers would have power over all areas of society and that there would be no class distinctions. But by the 20th century, the Leninists and Maoists were saying that a "vanguard party" needed to be in charge to ensure the revolution.

Well, we know that the vanguard party became a privileged class unto itself, so those societies can't possibly be called communist.

So they can sell the utopian communist ideal in order to establish a totalitarian regime.

Sounds like something power hungry people would do. The old bait and switch.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Yeah I know. I was speaking more on the theory, than what actually took place. Communism in theory is like a utopia that governments strive to reach...in theory.

Well, discussing motives is tough because we can't get into people's heads, but I really don't think "true communism" was the goal, even in theory.

The Russian revolution started as a popular worker's movement with strong worker's councils and other institutions. But as soon as Lenin took over, he got rid of many of these and supplanted them with totalitarian ones where workers had no say.

And of course, Stalin turned it into a horror house. I just can't buy the idea that they really, really wanted to instill communism, but ended up with a hideous, oppressive state instead.

 

[SpidermanISGOAT]

True Marxism is the abolition of government and class systems if I am not mistaken.

What people are forgetting is that socialism or "communism" CAN WORK but it requires something that early Marxist never thought about. An "ideal" population, socialism cannot properly work unless all the people in the society are utilitarian. That is that you cannot have massive wealth inequality, and various people of different intellects, who believe in a variety of different religions and other philisophical beliefs.

What you need is a unified population, either divided by classes and conditioned to love the system they work for (and their class) or you need everyone to be equal and equally productive.

Above all else though you NEED a population that is essentially designed and you need to eliminate "greed". Unless you properly channel "greed" and this ideal society is consumerist in nature and if it was consumerist in nature it would be definition be semi capitalist.

We are a long way off from this. What is more likely is that we will have a totalitarian world system with a ruling elite of intellectuals who run everything and humanity divided into respective caste systems by design. Before we reach that point though it is likely that we will have a world in which statism reigns supreme and crony capitalism reaches an all time high. Therefore massive wealth inequality between the powerful nations/peoples and those of the poorer nations/people.