So Fildel Castro calls it quits.

[Beckwin]

by "keep eachother honest" do you mean "be forced to put up with the bullshit"?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Those are both exactly right. The essential difference is that under capitalism, a large number of people are working for their own interests, so if one guy gets greedy and breaks the rules, another guy can be trusted to call him on it, usually for his own gain. Now, you can argue that communism could be decentralized like this as well, and that the historical failures of the system are because of flawed implementations, but I think that communist systems would be necessarily and fundamentally more centralized than capitalist ones.

In other words, capitalism doesn't fail nearly as hard because it's easier for a million people to keep each other honest than for the same million to keep 10 people honest.

How else could they have been implemented?

[Beckwin]

You could start by putting Trotsky in power instead of Stalin.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

And what would have been different?

[Kuya]

And what would have been different?

Is this a serious question lol?

[Beckwin]

sadly I think it is.

[Charla]

Arguing about communism with Swamp is what I'd call a bad idea. You'll notice I only said "you can argue", so I'm under no obligation to attempt it.

As for "keep each other honest", I mean that individuals in positions of power is motivated to hold other individuals in positions of power (businessmen, politicians, etc.) responsible for breaking the rules in order to further their own interests. As a result, those in power are in general less able to break the rules than they would be if there were fewer of them, as under a system with highly centralized economic and/or political power.

[guartz]

I just saw this awesome documentary in stage6 on Trotsky's exile in turkey, mexico, but god damnit I can't find it again.

Anyway, like Beckwin almost pointed out, free-market capitalism and communism have one thing in common, they never actually existed on this planet. (except maybe in france for about a few months)

So the best any of us can do, (for those who support free-market capitalism or communism) is to make arguments from a moral or ethical stand-point.

for example, anarchists will say "forcing people to pay taxes is wrong, this is why, blah blah"

communists will say "we must have egalitarianism, this is why it's right, blah blah"

It's really the only way any of these things can ever come about (one or the other) is if people believe it's moral.

So I was thinking maybe we can try something like this in BG, have a communism/capitalism discussion through a moral/ethic perspective?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

And what would have been different?

Is this a serious question lol?

Yes, please explain. It's not just about Russia either, there's North Korea vs. South Korea, China vs. Hong Kong, and Cuba as well. What could all these places have done differently?

Arguing about communism with Swamp is what I'd call a bad idea.

I actually have no intention of debating it. I've come to the conclusion that people who believe in communism/socialism have no faith in freedom, liberty, or capitalism. Can't really debate faith. I really just want to know why people who are in favor of it, are in favor of it.

Anyway, like Beckwin almost pointed out, free-market capitalism and communism have one thing in common, they never actually existed on this planet.

Milton Friedman said that Hong Kong was the one place where true free-market capitalism did exist.

[Kuya]

I actually have no intention of debating it. I've come to the conclusion that people who believe in communism/socialism have no faith in freedom, liberty, or capitalism.

Holy rhetoric Batman! Bill O'Reilly, is that you?

Also, go read up on Stalin before you even think about talking further. Also it does not seem to permeate through your thick head that nobody is defending an absolute communism, because it just doesn't work, much like real capitalism. And how in the world can you call this a debate of faith? Did you forget the debate we already had about this? Does your base of negating any points anyone brought before consist of calling it faith? Do me a favor and get yourself a time machine.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Why not just answer the question? What could all the communist countries have done in order for it to work? I don't need to read up on Stalin.

[Kuya]

Why not just answer the question? What could all the communist countries have done in order for it to work? I don't need to read up on Stalin.

So basicaly, you're expecting me to explain it to someone who doesn't even have the slightest understanding of the subject he's trying to get into. And yes, you do.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Why not just answer the question? What could all the communist countries have done in order for it to work? I don't need to read up on Stalin.

So basicaly, you're expecting me to explain it to someone who doesn't even have the slightest understanding of the subject he's trying to get into. And yes, you do.

You, or Beckwin. And no, I don't need to read up on Stalin. This seems like such a simple question...

[Kuya]

Here, i'll humor you. Stalinism and Trotskyism are two schools of the Marxist form of thought. In stalinism the importance is placed on enriching the government over sharing the wealth among the general populace, this is why stalinism is considered to be a corruption of communism by many, especially the troskyists. Stalin also was very violent agaisnt any political dissention, even going as far as having Leon Trosky assassinated. He also used collectivism, which once again, was for the purpose of enriching the government in order to increase the rate of industrialisation, however with this he alianated alot of the populace, even though he did achieve the economic growth. In essence, below Stalin, what was formed was state capitalism, where the state was the one reaping the benefits.

As for Trotskyism, they were more left than Stalinism, and they adhered to the worker's state ideal. They were keen on defending civil rights, even though Stalin was, to some extent. They were not for silencing political dissent, but instead were aimed at proletarian revolution, which was the expansion of the communist/socialist ideal through nations through the working classes.

North Korea still adheres to Stalinism, while China had or still has something similar called Maoism, even after Stalinism was decried as a corruption of communism by Khruschchev.

[Beckwin]

Don't fall into a dictatorship, have transparent elections, transparency in government/bureaucracy, ensure the independence of unions/soviets.

It also helps if you don't have to completely industrialize your nation and/or have to deal with outside attempts to topple your government (sup basically every communist government attempt in the Americas).

I have no faith in capitalism; why should I put irrational investment into... property? As for the freedom/liberty part, communism/socialism is a great emancipation imo.


Here's a question for you, to bring this back to morals/ethics and to touch back on something Charla said:

Why have Western democracies been moving in the direction of socialism, rather than towards freer markets and itty bitty government, over the past 150 years?

[Olo401]

Why have Western democracies been moving in the direction of socialism, rather than towards freer markets and itty bitty government, over the past 150 years?

This has to be the most ridiculous comment I've seen on the subject of political science. Ever.

Western Democracies have been moving in exactly the opposite direction, led by the United States and its march toward a mix of Mussolini-style fascism and Stalinism, only with profit-driven corporate governance at the heart of the oligarcy instead of the faithful members of the party. There isn't a single socialist government left in Western Europe - the closest any government comes right now is in Sweden which is almost exactly dead center on everything.

Right now the only place you can find truly socialist-style governments is in Latin & South America, and that does not include Cuba because it's been a Stalinist dictatorship for over 20 years. Look at Brazil if you want a model of a well-functioning socialist government. I would say Venezuela but unfortunately Chavez seems to be slowly moving down the road towards dictatorship.

[Charla]

Why have Western democracies been moving in the direction of socialism, rather than towards freer markets and itty bitty government, over the past 150 years?

There isn't a single socialist government left in Western Europe - the closest any government comes right now is in Sweden which is almost exactly dead center on everything.

I think what he means is that most of Western Europe has been implementing social services that many Americans would call "socialist" (even though they're using it as an epithet), especially in the Midwest and the South.

If you assume that gradually building social services constitutes "moving in the direction of socialism", then the obvious conclusion is that these societies have reached the implicit conclusion that the ideal arrangement is a combination of the two systems, with an explicitely capitalist economy and a large (by American standards) body of social programs to support those who function poorly in such an economy. In this respect, characterizing Sweden as "dead center" would indicate that it has reached a sustainable balance between capitalist and socialist ideals. Please note that I have no idea how or to what extent Sweden has implemented this, and am basing this statement largely on Olo's assertion.

To return to the "how could it have been done differently" debate, I would contend that even had Trotsky held power, he would have eventually have either been killed or simply died of his own accord, at which point someone with the opposite views would have been likely to take power anyway.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

That was all I was asking for Kuya, thanks.

Why have Western democracies been moving in the direction of socialism, rather than towards freer markets and itty bitty government, over the past 150 years?

Creating dependency = creating votes.

[Beckwin]

Why have Western democracies been moving in the direction of socialism, rather than towards freer markets and itty bitty government, over the past 150 years?

This has to be the most ridiculous comment I've seen on the subject of political science. Ever.

Western Democracies have been moving in exactly the opposite direction, led by the United States and its march toward a mix of Mussolini-style fascism and Stalinism, only with profit-driven corporate governance at the heart of the oligarcy instead of the faithful members of the party. There isn't a single socialist government left in Western Europe - the closest any government comes right now is in Sweden which is almost exactly dead center on everything.

Right now the only place you can find truly socialist-style governments is in Latin &
South America, and that does not include Cuba because it's been a Stalinist dictatorship for over 20 years. Look at Brazil if you want a model of a well-functioning socialist government. I would say Venezuela but unfortunately Chavez seems to be slowly moving down the road towards dictatorship.

What I was pointing to is the gradual incorporation of socialist policy into Western democracies. While I do agree with what you said about corporate governance to a degree, I still see public school and healthcare systems along with market restrictions as standing out more when compared to pre-WWII and also pre-1900. And while there aren't really any truly socialist governments among the Western democracies, they certainly haven't been doing away with taxes, public programs, and returning to laissez-faire economic policy.

Why have Western democracies been moving in the direction of socialism, rather than towards freer markets and itty bitty government, over the past 150 years?

Creating dependency = creating votes.

Why do you hate democracy?

[Charla]

Because it puts power in the hands of dangerous liberals, of course.