The Socialism/Communism Thread

[mpaer]

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.

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?

 

[Paine]

Ask Cambodia and Thailand 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?

It’s crazy that this reflexive citation of Mao and Pol Pot by capitalist apologists persists to this degree. They have no interest in engaging with the actual histories of these countries, just in assigning a “body count” to an ideology that they dislike for whatever reason.

Any cursory look into Cambodia’s history tells you that the Khmer Rouge weren’t anything resembling socialist. As the recruiting maxim goes: “watch what they do, not what they say.”

The Khmer Rouge were ethno-supremacists who sought to restore Cambodia to a perceived past glory. Hm…now what does that sound like?

To lump them in with the USSR and China is just laughable. Never any engagement with the historical and material analysis of these countries. Just communist in name = bad.

 

[chrissteel]

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.

 

[roostra]

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.

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.

 

[chrissteel]

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.

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

 

[chrissteel]

Communist Party of Kampuchea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Say what?

 

[chrissteel]

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.

 

[hedge]

No, we must boldly go where no one has gone before. Well at least no one that we know.

Mar-a-Lago? No thanks...

 

[Paine]

Communist Party of Kampuchea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Say what?

Is the Democratic People’s Republic of NK democratic?

 

[UNCatTech]

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.

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

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.

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

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

 

[Paine]

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.

 

[Zoo_View]

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.

No possible way could your posts have been construed as “defending” the Khmer Rouge or Pol Pot. You obviously despise the Khmer Rouge.

 

[chrissteel]

Google the nordic model. That explains it.
For example:

In the Danish mixed welfare-state economy, private sector expenditures account for more than half of the net national income. Public expenditure is directed primarily toward health and social services, education, economic affairs, foreign affairs, and national defense. The government does not have significant commercial or industrial income.

Denmark - Trade, Agriculture, Fisheries | Britannica

Denmark - Trade, Agriculture, Fisheries: Denmark supports a high standard of living—its per capita gross national product is among the highest in the world—with well-developed social services. The economy is based primarily on service industries, trade, and manufacturing; only a tiny percentage...

www.britannica.com

 

[chrissteel]

Is the Democratic People’s Republic of NK democratic?

My wiki link was not about the name, but the contents of the article.

Just seems to me that every time a country that is run by socialist goes bad it is never blamed on socialism, is just that it never seems to be successful anywhere but in a classroom. The dems always bring up the Nordic countries that really only have gov. run healthcare just like a lot of places.

 

[CRHeel94]

You say you’re an “unabashed capitalist,” but what does that mean? Just that you believe in the power of markets? If so, that doesn’t make you a capitalist alone.

Likewise, being a communist or socialist doesn’t necessitate belief in a command economy just because past countries operated under these auspices. There is a great tradition of market socialism, and most socialists in the 21st century recognize the efficiency of markets when well-regulated and competitive.

I would argue that a communist definitely believes in a command economy, while a socialist does not necessarily.

I'm not sure why believe in the power of free markets is not enough to be a capitalist. Sorry I don't pass your litmus test. I tend to believe that a free market (with certain minimum guardrails) tends to provide the best solutions for most problems. IMHO, it's a much better solution than economies that are centrally planned or where the government owns the means of production, two systems that I have actually lived in.

I had state previously that I live in Costa Rica that has a socialist model similar to many European countries. Beyond socialized medicine and a strong public education, the CR model also had state owned insurance, energy, telecom, banking and alcohol. In the last decades they have gradually opened up those sectors: banking in the 90s (state still has 2.5 banks, accounting for about half the market), telecom in the late 00s (state company has dropped down to about a 33% share...man that was a nightmare...use to have to wait a year or two for a new phone line) and insurance about ten years ago (state still dominates the market with a 80% share). Energy has allowed public producers, but they have to sell only to the state and distribution is still through the state monopoly. Alcohol production is still in state hands even though it makes no sense (loses money incredibly). Back in the 50s and 60s, the state owning these industries probably had a positive impact in economic development, but eventually the model grew obsolete and we have slowly made the right adjustments.

 

[Paine]

My wiki link was not about the name, but the contents of the article.

Just seems to me that every time a country that is run by socialist goes bad it is never blamed on socialism, is just that it never seems to be successful anywhere but in a classroom.

This discussion won’t go anywhere if you don’t acknowledge the historic and material circumstances of the countries you cite. Though China is a pretty good example of a successful socialist country, for all their flaws. Same for the USSR. Despite their flaws, they managed to create a state that rivaled the power of the most powerful capitalist country to ever exist. China is clearly the current rival to American hegemony, as well.

Any other country that attempted to implement anything resembling socialism or communism was stopped dead in its tracks by the most powerful military and economy to ever exist.

They didn’t do this because of altruism or because they wanted to spread freedom. They did it because they knew that socialist economies in the third world would be a direct threat to U.S. economic hegemony.

You also continue to ignore countless examples of failed capitalist states or the times capitalism has “gone wrong.” If we’re saying socialism is when the government owns productive enterprise and capitalism is when these enterprises are privately owned, then there are many examples of capitalist counties with blood on their hands.

Take India for example. From the book Hunger and Public Action:

“it is important to note that despite the gigantic size of excess mortality in the Chinese famine, the extra mortality in India from regular deprivation in normal times vastly overshadows the former. Comparing India’s death rate of 12 per thousand with China’s of 7 per thousand, and applying that difference to the Indian population of 781 million in 1986, we get an estimate of excess normal mortality in India of 3.9 million per year. This implies that every eight years or so more people die in India because of its higher regular death rate than died in China in the gigantic famine of 1958 – 61. India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame.”

These conditions in India were created by a system of private land ownership. If socialism must take responsibility for the death toll of the Great Leap Forward, than surely capitalism must take responsibility for the starvation that takes place under it.

By your definition, socialism only applies to failed governments of the global south. It doesn’t apply to any socialist policy enacted by western governments apparently.

These things can’t be divorced from historical analysis. They didn’t happen in a vacuum as an experiment of whether socialism could or couldn’t work.

 

[Paine]

I would argue that a communist definitely believes in a command economy, while a socialist does not necessarily.

I'm not sure why believe in the power of free markets is not enough to be a capitalist. Sorry I don't pass your litmus test. I tend to believe that a free market (with certain minimum guardrails) tends to provide the best solutions for most problems. IMHO, it's a much better solution than economies that are centrally planned or where the government owns the means of production, two systems that I have actually lived in.

I had state previously that I live in Costa Rica that has a socialist model similar to many European countries. Beyond socialized medicine and a strong public education, the CR model also had state owned insurance, energy, telecom, banking and alcohol. In the last decades they have gradually opened up those sectors: banking in the 90s (state still has 2.5 banks, accounting for about half the market), telecom in the late 00s (state company has dropped down to about a 33% share...man that was a nightmare...use to have to wait a year or two for a new phone line) and insurance about ten years ago (state still dominates the market with a 80% share). Energy has allowed public producers, but they have to sell only to the state and distribution is still through the state monopoly. Alcohol production is still in state hands even though it makes no sense (loses money incredibly). Back in the 50s and 60s, the state owning these industries probably had a positive impact in economic development, but eventually the model grew obsolete and we have slowly made the right adjustments.

Thanks for the detailed response. Your last paragraph gets to the meat of the point I’m trying to make. Some industries are natural monopolies and it makes a certain amount of sense to have government control over it, like healthcare. Other things make a lot more sense if they’re governed by market principles (as long as well regulated), like the car industry.

There are plenty of socialists who believe in markets, so belief in that doesn’t preclude someone from being a socialist.

There are also alternatives to state owned industry that are more ethical and responsive to the needs of workers than private capital and domination by a boss. Things like worker co-ops, for example.

 

[CRHeel94]

We have worker co-ops as well. Some do well, some are very poorly managed and some are downright corrupt...just like anything else I suppose.

 

[Paine]

We have worker co-ops as well. Some do well, some are very poorly managed and some are downright corrupt...just like anything else I suppose.

Exactly right, just like any other enterprise. Same goes for when people talk about corrupt unions. There is space within any enterprise for mismanagement and corruption. IMO, it is a lot easier to deal with these issues in a workplace where workers have power to negotiate and make their own decisions compared to ones where decisions come down by fiat. Democracy in work is just as important as democracy in politics.

End of the day, that’s what socialism is about to me.

 

[CRHeel94]

Having done some consulting for a financial co-op recently...I actually arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion. The 40,000 workers in the co-op elect a 50 person governing body that then elects a nine person board that oversees the management team. The senior managers spend more time on trying to manage the politics of the three boards than actually running the company.

I do like enterprises where employees have a stake. Think its good business.