The Socialism/Communism Thread

When people talk of "market forces" way too many things can be meant or perhaps wrongly "understood" by the phase, due to ideology. I like market forces of the Adam Smith meaning and context of his ideas. We do not have that. I like an ideal of capitalism, but it's something like the supposed quote of Churchill about democracy: worst form of government, except for all the others.

Very much before, and now to totality with the last election, wealth and income disparity radically beyond any rational, justifiable reason represents an internal breakdown of the idea of the true free market, destroys democracy, and is perhaps the second most important policy discussion, after global warming--if and when we might ever have politicians in office who can begin to address it. CEOs that make 1500 to 2000 times their lowest paid workers is one reflection of this (in the sixties it was occasionally as high as 300 times). These nonsensical disparities and an array of others reflect that the old ideas of capitalism--as functionally providing most people with choice in quality and price and better goods and services--have been fatally damaged by a kind of anarcho-capitalism. One that does not feature such choices, but replaces them with focus on profit based on unfair elimination of fair business competition, unchecked "externalities" which hurt the public, and then reductions quality of goods and services, and necessarily to all of these, reductions in the autonomy and democratic participation of average people.

The focus on-and-only-on profit, and then simply moving money around for profit functions as a permanent and immovable driver of these negative elements for the public. The other essential ingredient is that as the costs of living skyrocket to increase these profits, services cost beyond capacity to pay, resulting in insurance profits built to not pay in endless ways to also increase profits. Wages are anchored down to absolute minimums for average workers, to allow for CEO pay increases. Politicians are funded to increase supports for all of this. Primary threats to safety, freedoms and basic rights to individuals comes not from the ordinary market forces of capitalism,but from this higher level of functional anarcho capitalism and oligarchy in the last 60 years or so. It has and is rapidly taking a stranglehold on power and permanency via corporate power in collusion with government. The socio-political nuclear reaction that begin this is the Citizen's United ruling, but I will not digress on that here.

Capitalism of a true Adam Smith, or even Robert Nozick variety, dead now, could have only survived by being subjected to democratic restraints as the electorate sees fit. With the collusion we see the electorate, and thus all average workers are neutered into manipulated wage slaves--what Chomsky has called "atoms of consumption." The Trump voters are happily in this place. There comes a point in which totally unchecked capitalism consolidates power to the anarchic degree that it in fact destroys capitalism's low level benefits to the average person, market choice is gone, and hurts them ever as needed to increase profits, and they are as irrelevant as atoms that make up a factory machine.

This kind of distinction in the examination of the actual problem is beyond the understanding of people raised into a conservative ideology, due to basic ignorance and to the blindness of emotional attachment to a simplistic and now false notion of free markets the likes of which no longer real due to collusion of politicians, large corporations and the hyper rich.

A useful chart organizing the problem:

how-to-keep-profits-growing.png
 
Here is ChatGPT on the matter focusing on income inequality is a bad economics and math:

1.​

  • Capitalism is designed to incentivize innovation, efficiency, and productivity through competition, not to equalize income or wealth.
  • Success in capitalism is often measured by overall economic growth, wealth creation, and improvements in living standards, not by how equally resources are distributed.

2.​

  • In a capitalist system, people earn incomes based on their skills, effort, risk-taking, and market demand for their work.
  • Income inequality often arises because people contribute differently to the economy, reflecting diverse talents, risk preferences, and work priorities.

3.​

  • A system where even the poorest members experience rising living standards could be considered successful, even if inequality grows.
  • Absolute gains in areas like reduced poverty, improved access to goods and services, and better healthcare are more indicative of success than relative disparities.

4.​

  • Economic growth often leads to inequality because early innovators, entrepreneurs, or investors capture more rewards.
  • As wealth accumulates, it can create opportunities for investment and job creation that benefit society as a whole.

5.​

  • Some level of redistribution can address extreme poverty or inequality, but excessive redistribution can discourage productivity and innovation.
  • Judging capitalism by inequality alone ignores the trade-offs involved in policies to reduce disparities.

6.​

  • Metrics like GDP growth, poverty rates, job creation, technological advancements, and overall quality of life provide a clearer picture of capitalism's success.
  • Social mobility (the ability of individuals to improve their economic position) is another crucial indicator of a healthy capitalist system.

7.​

  • High inequality is not inherently a problem if accompanied by robust opportunities, upward mobility, and broad access to resources.
  • Problems arise when inequality stems from corruption, monopolies, or lack of access to education and healthcare, which are issues of governance, not capitalism itself.
By focusing on income inequality, the analysis risks overlooking capitalism's achievements, such as wealth creation, innovation, and poverty reduction, which have lifted billions out of extreme poverty and transformed societies worldwide.

4o
 
Last edited:
We are incapable of funding a movement to another habitable planet. Making Mars habitable is a farcical idea.

Mankind’s only hope for survival is on this little planet.
No, we must boldly go where no one has gone before. Well at least no one that we know.
 
Things that should be noted. At then end of world war II the US had the world strongest army and nukes and control of most of Europe and Asia and what did we do. We left. Russia didn't. We left Japan, We left Europe and rebuilt western Europe with the Marshall plan. We fought to save South Korea and then left. Then the first Gulf war we again had the world strongest army occupying the mother load of oil in Saudia Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait. And we left. Russia never leaves they have to be run out. Socialism only seems to work in theory.
I'm no history anything, but I believe I've read that we actually stayed and helped to rebuild Japan and that is part of why we have a good relationship now.

Plus, I'm not following how this is an argument against socialism?
 
I'm no history anything, but I believe I've read that we actually stayed and helped to rebuild Japan and that is part of why we have a good relationship now.

Plus, I'm not following how this is an argument against socialism?
I started typing out a response to that poster and then figured “why bother?” They only confirmed my lack of engagement when they posted a Chat GPT answer shortly after.
 
When people talk of "market forces" way too many things can be meant or perhaps wrongly "understood" by the phase, due to ideology. I like market forces of the Adam Smith meaning and context of his ideas. We do not have that. I like an ideal of capitalism, but it's something like the supposed quote of Churchill about democracy: worst form of government, except for all the others.

Very much before, and now to totality with the last election, wealth and income disparity radically beyond any rational, justifiable reason represents an internal breakdown of the idea of the true free market, destroys democracy, and is perhaps the second most important policy discussion, after global warming--if and when we might ever have politicians in office who can begin to address it. CEOs that make 1500 to 2000 times their lowest paid workers is one reflection of this (in the sixties it was occasionally as high as 300 times). These nonsensical disparities and an array of others reflect that the old ideas of capitalism--as functionally providing most people with choice in quality and price and better goods and services--have been fatally damaged by a kind of anarcho-capitalism. One that does not feature such choices, but replaces them with focus on profit based on unfair elimination of fair business competition, unchecked "externalities" which hurt the public, and then reductions quality of goods and services, and necessarily to all of these, reductions in the autonomy and democratic participation of average people.

The focus on-and-only-on profit, and then simply moving money around for profit functions as a permanent and immovable driver of these negative elements for the public. The other essential ingredient is that as the costs of living skyrocket to increase these profits, services cost beyond capacity to pay, resulting in insurance profits built to not pay in endless ways to also increase profits. Wages are anchored down to absolute minimums for average workers, to allow for CEO pay increases. Politicians are funded to increase supports for all of this. Primary threats to safety, freedoms and basic rights to individuals comes not from the ordinary market forces of capitalism,but from this higher level of functional anarcho capitalism and oligarchy in the last 60 years or so. It has and is rapidly taking a stranglehold on power and permanency via corporate power in collusion with government. The socio-political nuclear reaction that begin this is the Citizen's United ruling, but I will not digress on that here.

Capitalism of a true Adam Smith, or even Robert Nozick variety, dead now, could have only survived by being subjected to democratic restraints as the electorate sees fit. With the collusion we see the electorate, and thus all average workers are neutered into manipulated wage slaves--what Chomsky has called "atoms of consumption." The Trump voters are happily in this place. There comes a point in which totally unchecked capitalism consolidates power to the anarchic degree that it in fact destroys capitalism's low level benefits to the average person, market choice is gone, and hurts them ever as needed to increase profits, and they are as irrelevant as atoms that make up a factory machine.

This kind of distinction in the examination of the actual problem is beyond the understanding of people raised into a conservative ideology, due to basic ignorance and to the blindness of emotional attachment to a simplistic and now false notion of free markets the likes of which no longer real due to collusion of politicians, large corporations and the hyper rich.

A useful chart organizing the problem:

how-to-keep-profits-growing.png
That feels like the direction we are heading.
 
I started typing out a response to that poster and then figured “why bother?” They only confirmed my lack of engagement when they posted a Chat GPT answer shortly after.
Right there with you. I almost typed a response.

Some peculiar “history” in that post.
 
This is a very complicated subject. I do not wish for it to devolve to pre-conceived notions of socialism/communism and capitalism.

That being said, some things I never knew before the past few years are this:

1. In 1922, Russian Empire life expectancy was around 32 years. US life expectancy was around 40. Despite Russia enduring much worse suffering from world wars and a civil war, by 1975, life expectancy in the Soviet Union was around 70. In the US, it was around 71.

2. The Soviets gave women the right to vote from the start. Despite what we see here, glorifying suffragettes, that's the only reason women got the right to vote when they did. Because of the Bolsheviks.

3. Bread lines - these did not begin until marketization was occurring throughout the 1980s. "Soviet breadlines" are largely a myth. (What the Internet will tell you on this subject is largely a bunch of bullshit. And for good reason.) Inflation was largely tied to this as well.

4. How many countries did the USSR invade/coup as opposed to the USA? I'd say, probably a ratio of 1-10?

Socialism/Communism is a fraught subject. Many people have suffered because of its ideology. "100 million dead!" That's complicated.

But how many have died from capitalist ideology? And how many aren't considered to have been killed from capitalist ideology? Was the starvation of India "capitalist"? It certainly wasn't socialist. Were the world wars "capitalist"? They certainly weren't socialist.

This is not meant as a defense of the Soviet Union. It did a lot of bad things, certainly.

It is to say, however, that the ideology of Marxism/Socialism/Communism is far more complex than we have given it credit. No less so given the fact that our own nation has led numerous embargoes against such countries. Is this because of "freedom" and "democracy"? You've seen the same things I have in the past decade. I would say, probably not.

Always judge a country by its life expectancy. It's the most crucial statistic there is. Income is a side-distraction. "Freedom" is always relative, obviously.

Anyhow, this is the thread to express your thoughts on socialism and communism. Please do so respectfully and thoughtfully.
1. In 1922, Russian Empire life expectancy was around 32 years. US life expectancy was around 40. Despite Russia enduring much worse suffering from world wars and a civil war, by 1975, life expectancy in the Soviet Union was around 70. In the US, it was around 71.

Feels more like the life expectancy at the time of Rome
 
I'm no history anything, but I believe I've read that we actually stayed and helped to rebuild Japan and that is part of why we have a good relationship now.

Plus, I'm not following how this is an argument against socialism?
In the OP "How many countries did the USSR invade/coup as opposed to the USA? "

We clearly don't invade other countries to take them over. We are the goods guys and capitalism success allows us to afford the power to change things for the better. Any social countries have the ability to save the world.
 
This socialist version didn't go well.

Inspired by Mao Zedong’s "Great Leap Forward" in China, the Khmer Rouge sought to rapidly transform Cambodian society into a communist utopia through extreme collectivization and forced labor.

The Khmer Rouge combined communism with intense Cambodian nationalism. They sought to "purify" Cambodian society of foreign elements, which led to brutal persecution of ethnic Vietnamese, Chinese, Cham Muslims, and other minorities.

Their ideology emphasized self-sufficiency, agrarian socialism, and a classless society but was implemented in such a draconian and violent way that it led to the deaths of approximately 1.5 to 2 million people through executions, forced labor, starvation, and disease.
 
The U.S.A., well known for never invading countries or taking them over.

How many people has capitalism killed?
 
The U.S.A., well known for never invading countries or taking them over.

How many people has capitalism killed?
Well capitalism is an economic system which has not invaded anyone. The is no doubt that capitalism has improved economic condition and starvation is rare in capitalist countries. It has happened often in communist places to the tune of dozens of millions. That does not excuse things the US has done in the past that were wrong. But i fail to see how capitalism was the issue unless you call colonialism the result of capitalism. I don't think we do that anymore anyway. The point is what best now. A quick look around the world today and it is hard to justify the current results of socialism. From the freedom index:

  • Cuba: Not Free — Political and civil liberties are highly restricted.
  • China: Not Free — Strict state control, surveillance, and censorship.
  • Vietnam: Not Free — Single-party state with limits on political opposition and speech.
  • North Korea: Not Free — Among the lowest in political freedoms and civil liberties.
  • Laos: Not Free — Limited freedoms under single-party rule.
 
How many would you say and how many recently?
Since you seem to think Chat GPT is a reliable information source, here’s what it has to say about the concept of social death:

“Engel's concept of "social death" refers to the condition in which individuals or groups are systematically excluded from the social, economic, or political life of society. It goes beyond physical death, implying a state of marginalization where people lose their rights, identities, and connections to broader social structures. The term is often used to describe the experience of those who are oppressed, such as enslaved people, colonized populations, or marginalized minorities, who are denied full recognition and participation in society.


In essence, social death highlights the dehumanization of individuals or groups, rendering them invisible or irrelevant to the functioning of society. This concept is particularly powerful when examining the historical and contemporary consequences of systemic racism, inequality, or other forms of social exclusion.”

You also seem stunningly ignorant of how U.S. foreign policy (neocolonialism) has caused death throughout the world. With your anachronistic cold warrior attitude, I’d think that you’re at least aware of how U.S. activities abroad during the Cold War played out.

Markets can be forced open and populations emiserated without a single shot under global capitalism. We’ve seen it happen in our own country. Every death due to inadequate healthcare in this country is a death directly attributable to capitalism.

This is without acknowledging all the violent regimes that the U.S. provided material support to during the Cold War (and before..and after) under the auspices of spreading “freedom” and capitalism.
 
Cont.

From Engels:

"When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another such that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live – forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence – knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains."
 
I guess i have to "think critically" like a college professor
They probably do get free aspirins in north korea
 
Last edited:
The great leap forward in China killed the equivalent of a third the population of south america at the time.
 
The forced collectivization of rural peasants has precisely zero to do with communism or socialism in theory.

It’s telling that you don’t consider any Western European social democracies to be socialist.

If we can blame socialism and communism for Mao, Stalin, NK, and the Khmer Rouge, then I don’t see any reason why we can’t or shouldn’t blame capitalism for brutal U.S. backed regimes throughout South and Central America, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and Asia.

Do you think there isn’t a connection between capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism?
 
Back
Top