The Socialism/Communism Thread

chrissteel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
an0maly said:
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
Click to expand...
That feels like the direction we are heading.
 
Paine said:
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.
Click to expand...
Right there with you. I almost typed a response.

Some peculiar “history” in that post.
 
MendotoManteo said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
UNCatTech said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Paine said:
The U.S.A., well known for never invading countries or taking them over.

How many people has capitalism killed?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
chrissteel said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ask Cambodia and Laos how we were the good guys . Ask a long list of countries in the general Mid East area how we are the good guys after warring in their countries for years and years?
We are one of the worlds biggest baddest war machines .With your logic I suppose Russia is Liberating Ukraine?
 
Last edited:
There is always an excuse
So why can't we find a socialist country where things have not gone wrong. Socialism is never to blame. It is always the evil dictators that preach socialism that are to blame. It like big programs that fail because they didn't spend enough. Don't say nordic countries.
 
chrissteel said:
There is always an excuse
So why can't we find a socialist country where things have not gone wrong. Socialism is never to blame. It is always the evil dictators that preach socialism that are to blame. It like big programs that fail because they didn't spend enough. Don't say nordic countries.
Click to expand...
How are you defining Socialism? By many metrics, most of Europe is Socialist. Why should one not say "nordic countries?" It sounds like you are conflating Socialism and Communism.
 
Your are equating progressive taxes and large welfare payments as socialists. Look at Nordic countries freedom index. their economic index is better that the us

Very little control of the factors of production.

www.heritage.org

Index of Economic Freedom: Read the Report | The Heritage Foundation

Explore the Index of Economic Freedom to gauge global impacts of liberty and free markets. Discover the powerful link between economic freedom and progress. The 31st edition, once again, illustrates key factors shaping our world's landscape. From @Heritage
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org
 
Last edited:
Chatgpt

Engels saw socialism as the necessary transitional phase between capitalism and communism. During this period, the working class (proletariat) would take control of the means of production and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, a temporary state structure where the working class rules in the interests of the majority.
 
chrissteel said:
Your are equating progressive taxes and large welfare payments as socialists. Look at Nordic countries freedom index. their economic index is better that the us

Very little control of the factors of production.

www.heritage.org

Index of Economic Freedom: Read the Report | The Heritage Foundation

Explore the Index of Economic Freedom to gauge global impacts of liberty and free markets. Discover the powerful link between economic freedom and progress. The 31st edition, once again, illustrates key factors shaping our world's landscape. From @Heritage
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org
Click to expand...
The Heritage Foundation. The group that brought the "Mandate for Leadership," and continued to bring bullshit all the way up to project 2025.

Sorry, I'm not reading anything from that group of nuts who seem to think this is a christian nation and that we should all be forced to worship their god while they use policy to get rich and screw the middle class.

www.nytimes.com

Inside the Heritage Foundation’s Plans for ‘Institutionalizing Trumpism’

“People will lose their jobs,” the think tank’s president says about federal workers. “Hopefully their lives are able to flourish in spite of that.”
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

theconversation.com

Heritage Foundation’s ‘Project 2025’ is just the latest action plan from a group with an over 50-year history of steering GOP lawmaking

The Heritage Foundation, a sponsor of the Republican National Convention, would likely be influential in shaping a possible Trump administration’s policies.
theconversation.com theconversation.com
 
Paine said:
Just going to say it outright since a concerned poster us DM’d me urgently about my “defense” of the Khmer Rouge.

Not sure how anyone could gather that I’m defending them by my posts up to this point, but I condemn the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot. That’s why I don’t want their actions associated with socialism or even communism. Their actions fell outside of that ideological umbrella, and anyone who has studied them understands that.
Click to expand...
No possible way could your posts have been construed as “defending” the Khmer Rouge or Pol Pot. You obviously despise the Khmer Rouge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top