WMN: t3_3295fa_t1_cqa4iu9

[TITLE]

CMV: Communism can work. If it were not for Stalin and Liberal Reforms, the USSR would be successful

[Braver_Incident]

Note: This post says view changed, which is wrong. I gave 2 deltas to 2 people whose points I couldn't counter or who changed ONE PART of my view. Feel free to continue to try to earn deltas here EDIT: I got to go, I'll respond in an hour or 2 EDIT 2: I'm back. It's getting hard to respond to everyone D: EDIT 3: I have to go again, and this is getting really hard to respond to everyone. I'm sorry if you made a reply some hours ago and I didn't respond. Not sure when I'll be back EDIT 4: Ok I'm back, I'll try to respond as much as I can EDIT 5: Holy shit this is getting hard, I spent over 30 minutes making 1 response. I don't if I can respond to all of you guys. EDIT 6: Yeah, it takes me at least 20 minutes to make a response. I am definitely unable to respond to everyone, and I have real life work to do. I am responding to one more person for today. EDIT 7: Took me 20 more minutes to finish last response for /u/hellohellizreal. Sorry for everyone else, but I gotta work. I LOVED the discussion we have had so far. Maybe I can do more tomorrow. So, I'm probably get a ton of downvotes because no one cares about reddiquette, but I am genuine in changing my view. ___ First things first: **DEFINITIONS.** Because I don't want to spend my time squabbling over them and getting nowhere. 'Upper Case' **Communism:** Refers to the Leninist, Marxist-Leninist, or Marxist-Leninist-Maoist states that have a Communist or Vanguard Party. (YES, any other socialist that reads this, I am aware that so called Communist states weren't communist, it's just easier to say this) 'Lower case' **communism:** The final utopian end stage for almost all socialist ideologies, where the state and money is abolished, the socioeconomic class structure is destroyed, and private property ceases to exist in favor of community ownership. This is why 'communist state' is an oxymoron. *The fruits of labor (food, clothing, housing, etc.) are provided "from each according to her ability, to each according to her need."* **Socialism:** HUGE broad system of ideologies, united under the definition of:: Democratic ownership of the means of production. Can also refer to the transition stage between capitalism and communism. Ranges from anarchism (horizontally divided decentralized power) to state socialism/capitalism (vertically stacked centralized power) **Capitalism:** Private ownership of the means of production, characterized by social AND economic inequality, and lack of worker democracy in workplaces. **Means of Production/Property:** Facilities and resources to produce goods, like factories; Productive assets. **Private Property:** Anything else a person owns that does not fall under Means of Production or Property, like family heirlooms, toys, and clothes. **Leninism:** Vladimir Lenin's socialist ideology, where the proletariat revolts against the ruling class, but the 'best and brightest' of the proletariat represents them and forms a Vanguard or Communist Party. It is characterized by the use of Soviet Worker Councils to help democratically manage means of production and the economy, and the state which is controlled both by the Supreme Soviet Council and the Vanguard/Communist Party; the state is expected to wither away or become abolished after industrialization and development are achieved and communism is possible. **Marxism:** A materialist philosophy that is also the foundation and justification for a branch of socialist ideologies. Not a political ideology itself. **State Capitalism/State Socialism:** Many people see this as a criticizing word of Communist states, but I see it as a general term that describes any socialist system where power is centralized. (Before socialists come out, Lenin and Marx coined the term and used it to describe the USSR) I say that state socialism IS state capitalism, but state capitalism is not state socialism. An entity can only be state socialist if the state itself properly represents the interests of the proletariat, so that the state acts as an extension of the people's community ownership of the means of the production. If the state ceases to do so, it is not socialist. **Proletarians/Proletariat:** The workers. **Bourgeois/Bourgeoisie:** The ruling class, the capitalists. ___ Second thing, no I do not think Stalin was a good person, but stuff like Holodimir: [STA-CITE]>"The 1932 reductions in state procurements and exports proved hopelessly inadequate. So did the regime's attempt to deliver food relief. In a series of decisions in 1932-33, the Politburo reversed its policy to reserve grain relief for the cities. In March 1932, it 'substantially reduced' the food rations... The urban death rate doubled in the main famine regions. Between August 1932 and January 1933, the Politburo reluctantly reduced grain collection plans by 4 million tons, and the state failed to collect a planned 1 million more. In 1932-33, it released 2-3.5 million tons of grain collections for rural consumption as food, seed, and fodder, of which 330,000 tons were for food... Most state agencies, even including the repressive apparatus, were largely overwhelmed by the scale of the famine tragedy." [END-CITE]https://encrypted.google.com/books?id=Bc30ytJmwzMC&pg=PA502[3] ___ Third, background history: Karl Marx had said in his works that socialism is ONLY possible if the transitioning country is INDUSTRIALIZED and DEVELOPED. His thought process on how society would transition was something like this: **PreCap(feudalism?)** **-[STA-CITE]>** [END-CITE]**Capitalism(industrialization/developing)** **-[STA-CITE]>** [END-CITE]**Proletarian Revolution** **-[STA-CITE]>** [END-CITE]**Socialist state** **-[STA-CITE]>** [END-CITE]**Abolishment of state(communism)** Now, heres some history 101. When Russia had it's proletarian revolution during World War 1, they were NOT developed, NOT industrialized, and practically lived in a preCapitalist stage, if not, then barely exposed to capitalism. They also had just fought World War 1. The combined conflicts resulted in over 10 million Russians being killed. After the revolution, the Communist party got together and all and had a discussion on the future of Russia. Here's the thing, they were divided. One side believed that Karl Marx was 100% correct, and that considering we were underdeveloped, we had to undergo a bourgeois revolution before socialism. In other words, they were advocating capitalism. The OTHER side, strongly disagreed. They thought that capitalism wasn't a necessary stage to reach before socialism. They had another plan. You know what this plan was? It was the detour to communism, a way around capitalism. State capitalism/socialism. I can honestly sympathize with the second group, I mean for crying out loud, they lost MILLIONS of russian lives who DIED FIGHTING for socialism, and these punks were telling them no? Give the power to the capitalists? Nuh uh, that could mean another century, or even more, before another socialist revolution. They would be throwing away everything they fought for. Keep in mind, that at this time, worker conditions were AWFUL. Handing control to the capitalists was basically ensuring oppression for the workers. These 2 groups were called the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks advocated state capitalism/socialism, and were lead by Lenin. Before anyone gets butthurt, Lenin actually called the USSR state capitalist, in one of his quotes, and he saw it as necessary for the union. The USSR was trying to achieve development through an economic phase that SIMULATED capitalism, without the big disadvantage of losing control of the revolution, and maintaining a capitalist socioeconomic class structure. And you know what? It worked. USSR went from a feudal society of field plowers to a superpower that launched satellites to spaaaaaace and could outfight and out manufacture the Nazis in a 40 year time span. It worked for them. Just not as they hoped. ___ FINALLY: My actual post. A lot of what I could have said was actually said in my background history. So this will be short. Lenin's USSR was very progressive. It had free education, healthcare, and abortions. For coming out of a war that struck out a section of their population close to the double digits, they had done well. They had a happy populace properly represented by Soviet councils and the Vanguard Party. Lenin's era was the Golden age for the USSR. However, Stalin later came in. Lenin had not wanted Stalin in power, but he got it. Stalin had taken several measures to consolidate his authority, including reducing the power of the Supreme Soviet Council, and famines like Holodomir had shaken things up. I wouldn't be surprised considering that again, Russia came out of 2 wars that incredibly devastated their country, AND they were very underdeveloped compared to the rest of the world. The efficiency of the Communist system though, was very well represented in World War 2. Stalin's organization of the proletariat and management of war factories had allowed the USSR to OUT MANUFACTURE the Nazi's. After the battle of Stalingrad, they started pushing them back along with the West. Remember this as well, the USSR had lost around 20 million people in total casualties as a result of World War 2. Had Hitler not broken the pact, the Nazi's would have a very real chance of winning. Despite the now 3 wars they have gone through in 30 years, the USSR became a world super power along with the U.S. The death of Stalin and the rise of Nikita Khrushchev had led to the de-Stalinization period, and attempts to compete with the U.S., which has not suffered 3 devastating wars in a row for almost 100 years. They were forced to commodify, and some of Stalin's and Krushchev's changes had led the USSR to have become a degenerated worker's state, in which they cannot hold the title of socialism. (For example, the significant loss of power of the Supreme Soviet in order for Stalin to consolidate power) The USSR, however, still continued to be a prominent power, even going to spaaaaaace first, until liberal economic reforms started affecting the GDP. Gorbachev put the nail in the coffin with Perestroika. Glasnost allowed people to dissolve the crippled USSR early, thus leading into the 1990's, a period of intense corruption and an active oligarchy. Now you have Putin invading Crimea and a country that has an incredibly high crime rate... Had Lenin not died so early, had the wars not crippled Russia like so, had they not lost over 30 million people in the span of 2 decades, had liberal reforms, corruption, and intense competition with an outright scared U.S. occured, I would imagine that the USSR would have been successful in creating a communist society. Now, I AM a Libertarian Socialist, and I prefer horizontal power accumulation over vertical, but the fact that the USSR was able to be so successful while still be in a hellhole shows that if the conditions were simply better, the USSR would have been better too. Socialism is a preferable alternative to capitalism, which has a socioeconomic class structure that creates not just income inequality, but social inequality as well. The bourgeoisie are oppressing the proletariat, just look at Chinese manufacturing by Nike, and Mexican maquiladoras. As Karl Marx had said, capitalism is doomed to fail anyway: 1. Inevitability of monopolies, which eliminate competition and gouge consumers and works. 2. Lack of centralized planning, which results in overproduction of some good and underproduction of others, encouraging economic crises such as inflation, slumps, depressions. 3. Demands for labor-saving machinery, which horse unemployment and a more hostile proletariat. 4. Employers will tend to maximize profits by reducing labor expenses, thus creating a situation where workers will not have enough income to buy the goods produced, creating the contradiction of causing profits to fall. 5. Control of the state by the wealthy, the effect of which is passage of laws favoring themselves. Capitalism is a ticking time bomb. One of these days, maybe a few decades later, maybe even a century, it will. And what about the coming of automation and the possibility of 40% of jobs being destroyed? What then? Capitalism cannot solve for these problems. For Communist states, automaton may actually prove a boon. A UBI could be instated, materials and goods can have better equality at more production, less costs, and if worst comes to worst? Capitalism will have been destroyed, and there will be no more need for a Communist state, in which it will be abolished and a communist society can begin. TL;DR: The fact that the USSR was able to be so successful even being able to compete with the U.S. despite the tens of millions of deaths, wars, and lack of development, means that had it not been for this, the USSR would be successful. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[JurijFedorov]

I don't know how much you know about evolutionary psychology and the selfish gene. But I have made a slideshow on just this topic: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1FA2CJQsym8NFVZDO-NwvXBXCBMNrmKwjwDAr0xvGhdk/edit?usp=docslist_api

[NvNvNvNv]

[STA-CITE]> TL;DR: The fact that the USSR was able to be so successful even being able to compete with the U.S. despite the tens of millions of deaths, wars, and lack of development, means that had it not been for this, the USSR would be successful. [END-CITE]The USSR had pretty much recovered from WWII damage by the late 50s-early 60s. Then, it entered a long crisis that eventually led to its collapse in the late 80s-early 90s. Whatever caused it, it wasn't WWII or Stalin.

[Ashmodai20]

In Star Trek, their economy is pretty much socialist. Everything is provided for you from birth. But they got rid of the major problem preventing socialism from working. Scarcity. As long as our resources are limited their will always be plenty of greed.

[monkyyy]

[STA-CITE]>Proletarian Revolution -> Socialist state -> Abolishment of state(communism) [END-CITE]Power corrupts and the corrupt seek power; your not going to empower the state and then turn around an abolish it cleanly. Its going to fight back bitterly as states tend to do; and most people simply will not care.

[Odoloop]

Here are some interesting articles: [STA-CITE]> Inevitability of monopolies, which eliminate competition and gouge consumers and works. [END-CITE]Response: http://mises.org/library/fear-monopoly [STA-CITE]> Lack of centralized planning, which results in overproduction of some good and underproduction of others, encouraging economic crises such as inflation, slumps, depressions. [END-CITE]Most normal economists argue the opposite, only through free markets is there a correct allocation of resources. Sure there may be market failuers (cause by externalities) but these can be internalized by some government intervention. On the other hand as proved by Russian Communism it is currently impossible for a central planning authority to correctly predict/know everything about needs/wants/market/etc. and use this information for efficient distribution. Friedman on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EkClNPMltQ [STA-CITE]> Central planning tends to be inefficient due to: > One, the resources used for the central planning process cannot be used to undertake actual production. In other words, a person (the planner) who spends eight hours calculating how much flour is needed to produce bread, is not actually producing any bread. > Two, the central planning process, being developed and implemented by mere humans, is inherently flawed. Mistakes happen. Inputs are sent to the wrong factories. A decimal point is misplaced. Too much of one good is produced and too little of another. All of these mistakes mean less output is produced with available resources. [END-CITE]Source: http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=central+planning [STA-CITE]> Demands for labor-saving machinery, which horse unemployment and a more hostile proletariat. Ofcourse the mechanization of our industries will have costs, such as unemployement, while also bringing benefits. But society has adapted, we have moved from a focus agricultural to industrial to service based jobs. The transition between agricultural focus to industrial focus was very harsh for many and so will the next transition be, but as we can see the developed countries workers are better of. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]> Employers will tend to maximize profits by reducing labor expenses, thus creating a situation where workers will not have enough income to buy the goods produced, creating the contradiction of causing profits to fall. [END-CITE] Employes attempt to become more efficient but if wages get to low people leave their jobs. Further many countries now have a minimum wage so I dont see this problem beinng significant. [STA-CITE]>Control of the state by the wealthy, the effect of which is passage of laws favoring themselve [END-CITE] In many countries we see the opposite. In Brazil the poor majority has elected the Workers Party who has passed law and policy which in the short term favour the poor but are now leading to depresion. Will the rich have a big influence sure, but not all forms of capitalist democracies would lead to this (libertarianism). Havent finnished the last two but this is a start :D

[looklistencreate]

I don't agree that automation of all jobs will lead to socialism. If we're dealing with a system where very few if any people have to work modern economic views don't apply. The economy will be something we don't have yet that doesn't fit the description of socialism or capitalism.

[HilariousEconomist]

How about we look towards India or China for the problems with genuine socialist states, rather than the overly-totalitarian USSR. India and China found themselves in endless poverty and was a backwater countries until the very economic reforms you dislike were passed in the 1990s (india) and 1970s (china) that have risen millions out of poverty. Ironically this means one day (because of capitalism) the state will finally have enough tax money (because the wages generated by capitalism) to provide good education and healthcare (because of capitalism). The means the big difference between Cuba and Sweden is Sweden found out if you embrace capitalism (#19 on Index of Economic Freedom) you make enough to pay for social services! Communism and central planning may thus create short term social and economic gains (as was the case in Chile, Cuba, USSR etc) but over time cannot generate enough wealth to have long term social services and economic health (I'm basically describing the history of far-left countries at this point, kinda spot on actually). Pretty much everyone has figured this one out: if you love socialism, prepare to love capitalism too!

[BarvoDelancy]

I'm a libertarian socialist (anarchist) as well and I think we need to talk about types of communism because the purpose of your post seems to be state communism. Lenin argued for the 'withering away of the state' idea, whereby once you achieve true equality, the state becomes no longer necessary. As an anarchist I just don't buy that; we're dealing with power structures here fundamentally and I'd go so far as to argue that the existence of a state perpetuates inequality because you association with the ruling party guarantees favourable treatment. Lenin and the apparatchik lived a far cosier life than your typical Russian farmer. Furthermore, we have situations like the [Kronstadt rebellion](http://libcom.org/history/1921-the-kronstadt-rebellion) whereby a bottom-up self-organized labour movement was brutally suppressed by Trostky. Admittedly the USSR was starved for money and resources while a shockingly small number of people tried to transform the largest country on the planet to an entirely new political system. But the point is that strikes were met with the sort of incredible brutality and violence you'd expect under a fascist. This was not, and never was a worker's state. A brutal dictator like Stalin was, to me, a very easy thing to have happen under Lenin's model because of the incredible power invested in the very few. Even an inevitability.

[jwil191]

This is very well thought out post so bravo. I do have a big problem with who commend the USSR during world war 2. Yes, they became a major power that had very impressive industrial complex. However they did this with no regard to quality of life for the worker or the environment

[Braver_Incident]

[STA-CITE]>However they did this with no regard to quality of life for the worker or the environment [END-CITE]Well that's true, but the alternative was being very susceptible to the invading Nazi army. To not take the course of action could mean German victory. I guess it was a necessary evil, unless being conquered by the Nazi's is preferable to staying Communist.

[NvNvNvNv]

[STA-CITE]> unless being conquered by the Nazi's is preferable to staying Communist. [END-CITE]I doubt that for the average Russian citizen Hitler would have been worse than Stalin.

[jwil191]

I hear you but that is a dangerous game to play. It's hard to say you are for the people but be willing to toss them to a gun line the second shit hits the fan. Ask the Russian soldiers that were forced into battle by firing squads if communism was something worth dieing for.

[Stryker000]

Capitalism nor Socialism (Communism is socialism+totalitarianism) can work independent of the other. Universal Healthcare is present in every single nation you can consider good, but they're all primarily capitalist ran economies.

[Braver_Incident]

[STA-CITE]>but they're all primarily capitalist ran economies. [END-CITE]Which means they exploit workers, including that from developed countries. This is where I take issue with.

[Snedeker]

I guess that the problem is that there is never a scenario perfect enough to get communism to work. It's always, "yeah it would have worked except for X". That's the great thing about capitalism. It always works.

[ReverendEarthwormJim]

[STA-CITE]> That's the great thing about capitalism. It always works [END-CITE]It works because capitalism does not value human life, so consequences can be ignored. The only thing that keeps my employer from killing me to sell my organs is a framework of laws that they have not yet dismantled through their "free speech" bribery.

[Metzger90]

Yeah because communism has such a great track record with human rights. From anarchist Spain to the USSR to Cambodia, communism is usually inhumanely brutal.

[Braver_Incident]

[STA-CITE]>I guess that the problem is that there is never a scenario perfect enough to get communism to work. It's always, "yeah it would have worked except for X". [END-CITE]Cuba, still a Communist state, has the highest Human Development Index in Latin America, has the lowest murder rate, has the highest literacy rate in Latin America, sends more doctors than all of WHO combined, has the highest doctors per capita, is the only country that has sustainable development, yet has suffered decades of being blocked out from the Western world. My post was to show that the USSR has survived unimaginable stress, yet it still managed to compete with the US on the global scale. [STA-CITE]>That's the great thing about capitalism. It always works. [END-CITE]When capitalist countries like the Old Republic of Germany suffer this stress, they turn into fascist states. Capitalism functions on greed for profit as well. Look at the US and Australia. Their political systems are infested with corruption and lobbying. Our own Environment adviser was a business man in an oil company. EDIT: I think I mixed up EPA, FDA, and Tony Abott, I'll get the exact name

[iamthelol1]

Yeah, but China is still a communist state too, and more successful that Cuba. But China is not really communistic.... It's the same thing in pretty much every country. Work a job, get paid in currency, everything works for individual gain. Is Cuba any different?

[Braver_Incident]

[STA-CITE]>Yeah, but China is still a communist state too, and more successful that Cuba. [END-CITE]China abolished worker councils and adopted capitalism as the backbone of their economy, and allowed foreign interests to exploit their cheap labor. I don't know if it would be fair to call them Communist. Cuba is blocked out from the entire western world, yet it still has a high Human Development index of about .78, making it 44# in the best places to live, and it also is the only country with sustainable development. Cuba also has a high literacy rate, has the highest amount of doctors per capita, even sending more than WHO, and isn't one of the murder capitals like the rest of Latin America. Cuba is doing surprisingly well. When the embargo drops, it should flourish.

[iamthelol1]

I'm fully aware of that, in fact I stated it in my second sentence. Also, you didn't even say if Cuba is any closer to communism than China.

[Braver_Incident]

Woops oh sorry, I thought you were being sarcastic :( I think China is no longer pursuing communism anymore, and hasn't made any attempts to sprout Communist states in the world anymore. Cuba, unfortunately, has been trying to sprout Communist states through funding of Communist terror groups in Latin America, which is in a very destabilized state. Cuba also has seemed to retain its Communist structure, rather than morphing it and privatizing industries. I would say that they are still on the path, and thus are closer to communism than China is.

[pensivegargoyle]

There were problems with the Soviet Union before Lenin died. I really don't think there is a good case for thinking everything would have been perfect if only he hadn't or if someone else besides Stalin had taken over the leadership when he did. The contemporary criticisms of Rosa Luxemburg and Otto Ruehle are worth reading. [Luxemberg:](https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch06.htm) *In place of the representative bodies created by general, popular elections, Lenin and Trotsky have laid down the soviets as the only true representation of political life in the land as a whole, life in the soviets must also become more and more crippled. Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders of inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule. Among them, in reality only a dozen outstanding heads do the leading and an elite of the working class is invited from time to time to meetings where they are to applaud the speeches of the leaders, and to approve proposed resolutions unanimously – at bottom, then, a clique affair – a dictatorship, to be sure, not the dictatorship of the proletariat but only the dictatorship of a handful of politicians, that is a dictatorship in the bourgeois sense, in the sense of the rule of the Jacobins (the postponement of the Soviet Congress from three-month periods to six-month periods!) Yes, we can go even further: such conditions must inevitably cause a brutalization of public life: attempted assassinations, shooting of hostages, etc.* [Ruehle:](https://www.marxists.org/archive/ruhle/1920/moscow-and-ourselves.htm) *Here we have a revolution... there we have a revolutionary party – what is to be done? We take the standard revolutionary schema (Lenin’s patent) out of the pocket, apply it... Hurrah! It works – and bang! The revolution is won! And what does this wonderful standard schema look like? ‘The revolution is a party affair. The dictatorship is a party affair. Socialism is a party affair.’ And in addition: ‘Party is discipline. Party is iron discipline. Party is leadership. Party is the strictest centralism. Party is militarism. Party is the most strict, most iron, most absolute militarism.’ Concretely formulated, this schema means: Above the leaders; below the masses. Above: Authority. Bureaucratism. Personality cult. Leader dictatorship. Power of command. Below: Slavish obedience. Subordination. Stand at attention. A multiple boss order....The Russian methods of revolution and socialism is out of the question for Germany, for the German proletariat. We oppose them. Absolutely. Categorically. They would be a calamity. More than this, they would be a crime. They would lead to ruin.*

[Braver_Incident]

I like your post, I have to go for now though. I'll respond in an hour, at most 2.

[Braver_Incident]

Huh, I'm not really sure how to respond to this. I was under the impression that anyone could join the Communist Party anyway, and run for it. If that is true, then it would still be a dictatorship of the proletariat unlike what Rosa claims.

[pensivegargoyle]

Anyone could join and discuss things, at least once they had been vetted politically, but on decisions that had already been made you were supposed to follow the direction the Central Committee had set. That's [democratic centralism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism).

[Braver_Incident]

I don't know how to respond to that... ∆ Since I can't, you win this part. I would have countered by saying that unity is important and the ability to discuss beforehand in democratic centralism would have actually worked, but your past post already counters that.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/pensivegargoyle. [^pensivegargoyle's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/pensivegargoyle) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[aroncido]

Humans are wired to be selfish. If one can, they will try to get a little more of this or that for themselves as opposed to total equality. This you could see very clearly during socialism in Eastern-European countries: everybody tries to get the most of the goods. This is why humans will not support total equality, thus making the Marxian communism impossible.

[mhl67]

Even if that were true, you're missing the point of Socialism, which is to maximize the opportunities available to everyone; so even if humans were totally selfish that would actually be an argument for why people should support Socialism, since individually they all have a greater chance for personal advancement.

[Braver_Incident]

From David Graeber's Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (2004) [STA-CITE]>Case 1: The Piaroa, a highly egalitarian society living along tributaries of the Orinoco which ethnographer Joanna Overing herself describes as anarchists. They place enormous value on individual freedom and autonomy, and are quite self conscious about the importance of ensuring that no one is ever at another person’s orders, or the need to ensure no one gains such control over economic resources that they can use it to constrain others’ freedom. Yet they also insist that Piaroa culture itself was the creation of an evil god, a two-headed cannibalistic buffoon. The Piaroa have developed a moral philosophy which defines the human condition as caught between a “world of the senses,” of wild, pre-social desires, and a “world of thought.” Growing up involves learning to control and channel in the former through thoughtful consideration for others, and the cultivation of a sense of humor; but this is made infinitely more difficult by the fact that all forms of technical knowledge, however necessary for life are, due to their origins, laced with elements of destructive madness. Similarly, while the Piaroa are famous for their peaceableness—murder is unheard of, the assumption being that anyone who killed another human being would be instantly consumed by pollution and die horribly—they inhabit a cosmos of endless invisible war, in which wizards are engaged in fending off the attacks of insane, predatory gods and all deaths are caused by spiritual murder and have to be avenged by the magical massacre of whole (distant, unknown) communities. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>Case 2: The Tiv, another notoriously egalitarian society, make their homes along the Benue River in central Nigeria. Compared to the Piaroa, their domestic life is quite hierarchical: male elders tend to have many wives, and exchange with one another the rights to younger women’s fertility; younger men are thus reduced to spending most of their lives chilling their heels as unmarried dependents in their fathers’ compounds. In recent centuries the Tiv were never entirely insulated from the raids of slave traders; Tivland was also dotted with local markets; minor wars between clans were occasionally fought, though more often large disputes were mediated in large communal “moots.” Still, there were no political institutions larger than the compound; in fact, anything that even began to look like a political institution was considered intrinsically suspect, or more precisely, seen as surrounded by an aura of occult horror. This was, as ethnographer Paul Bohannan succinctly put it, because of what was seen to be the nature of power: “men attain power by consuming the substance of others.” Markets were protected, and market rules enforced by charms which embodied diseases and were said to be powered by human body parts and blood. Enterprising men who managed to patch together some sort of fame, wealth, or clientele were by definition witches. Their hearts were coated by a substance called tsav, which could only be augmented by the eating of human flesh. Most tried to avoid doing so, but a secret society of witches was said to exist which would slip bits of human flesh in their victims’ food, thus incurring a “flesh debt” and unnatural cravings that would eventually drive those affected to consume their entire families. This imaginary society of witches was seen as the invisible government of the country. Power was thus institutionalized evil, and every generation, a witch-finding movement would arise to expose the culprits, thus, effectively, destroying any emerging structures of authority. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>Case 3: Highland Madagascar, where I lived between 1989 and 1991, was a rather different place. The area had been the center of a Malagasy state—the Merina kingdom—since the early nineteenth century, and afterwards endured many years of harsh colonial rule. There was a market economy and, in theory, a central government—during the time I was there, largely dominated by what was called the “Merina bourgeoisie.” In fact this government had effectively withdrawn from most of the countryside and rural communities were effectively governing themselves. In many ways these could also be considered anarchistic: most local decisions were made by consensus by informal bodies, leadership was looked on at best with suspicion, it was considered wrong for adults to be giving one another orders, especially on an ongoing basis; this was considered to make even institutions like wage labor inherently morally suspect. Or to be more precise, unmalagasy—this was how the French behaved, or wicked kings and slaveholders long ago. Society was overall remarkably peaceable. Yet once again it was surrounded by invisible warfare; just about everyone had access to dangerous medicine or spirits or was willing to let on they might; the night was haunted by witches who danced naked on tombs and rode men like horses; just about all sickness was due to envy, hatred, and magical attack. What’s more, witchcraft bore a strange, ambivalent relation to national identity. While people made rhetorical reference to Malagasy as equal and united “like hairs on a head,” ideals of economic equality were rarely, if ever, invoked; however, it was assumed that anyone who became too rich or powerful would be destroyed by witchcraft, and while witchcraft was the definition of evil, it was also seen as peculiarly Malagasy (charms were just charms but evil charms were called “Malagasy charms”). Insofar as rituals of moral solidarity did occur, and the ideal of equality was invoked, it was largely in the course of rituals held to suppress, expel, or destroy those witches who, perversely, were the twisted embodiment and practical enforcement of the egalitarian ethos of the society itself. [END-CITE]These are examples of humans overcoming the 'greed' of human nature.

[NvNvNvNv]

[STA-CITE]> These are examples of humans overcoming the 'greed' of human nature. [END-CITE]By constantly accusing each other of being witches (= bourgeoisie counter-revolutionaries) and ostracizing/outcasting/killing each other. Must be nice places to live, I wonder why their model hasn't caught on.

[looklistencreate]

What makes you think this can apply to larger nations with exposure to other ideals?

[Braver_Incident]

Because I do not see why NOT. I haven't heard anything wrong with the scaling of this stuff I posted.

[looklistencreate]

The fact that this exclusively exists in these small communities seems to suggest that cultural indoctrination is the root of the entire concept, which means that only through suppression of other cultures and ideas can this apply to modern societies.

[Nabowleon]

This is too much to address all at once, so I'll just defend non-state capitalism, and criticize state-socialism and state-capitalism. [STA-CITE]>The bourgeoisie are oppressing the proletariat, just look at Chinese manufacturing by Nike, and Mexican maquiladoras [END-CITE]By and large, in developing countries, these factory jobs are better than the alternatives. People are being payed more to work these factory jobs than they would be working as a farmer, or doing some other work. Yes the capitalists who own the factories are taking part of the profits, but they provided the capital, and without their capital, the workers would still be stuck as peasant farmers. For people in poorer countries to capture even higher wages and better working conditions, they need to accumulate more capital, and become more skilled, a process which can take several generations. Capitalism has fueled this process of wealth accumulation, work force improvement and technological development in all of the wealthiest countries. Indeed this process is working in the developing world, Chinese incomes have been multiplied by 10 or more over the last few decades. [STA-CITE]>Inevitability of monopolies, which eliminate competition and gouge consumers and works. [END-CITE]Monopolies are not inevitable in every industry. Some industries are natural monopolies, the largest company can crush smaller companies with low production costs and prices, but in other industries smaller firms and start ups can be competitive. A lot depends on the regulation of monopolies by the government. Governments sometimes regulate natural monopolies in a smart way, but usually the government is captured by industry interests and actually creates monopolies, through licensure or prohibitive regulation or some other means. [STA-CITE]>Lack of centralized planning, which results in overproduction of some good and underproduction of others, encouraging economic crises such as inflation, slumps, depressions. [END-CITE]I'm sorry, but you think a government controlled economy would result in a more stability? If the government is controlled democratically, it will be subject to the whims of the people, and will be under pressure to fuel bubbles and unsustainable credit booms, not to mention squandering tax money on direct subsidies for inefficient businesses. If the government is controlled by private interests, it will take advantage of its regulatory powers and tax revenue to enrich connected people, and in fact will over time capture and move most of the country's wealth out of the country, to more safe places. If you want an example of the instability of a state planned economy, look no further than Venezuela today, which has shortages in many goods and services, and has no more than a year left of reserves before it runs out of money. [STA-CITE]>Demands for labor-saving machinery, which horse unemployment and a more hostile proletariat. [END-CITE]I don't know exactly what this means, but I'll take it to mean labor-saving machinery results in lower wages and unemployment? Not true, the economic history of every capitalist country refutes this. Saving on labor costs makes production more efficient, and benefits everyone in the long run. [STA-CITE]>Employers will tend to maximize profits by reducing labor expenses, thus creating a situation where workers will not have enough income to buy the goods produced, creating the contradiction of causing profits to fall. [END-CITE]this point has been refuted many times. It's been 150 years of the facts not matching this story. When will marxists give it up? [STA-CITE]>Control of the state by the wealthy, the effect of which is passage of laws favoring themselves. [END-CITE]agreed. Managing the government is a tricky thing. But you think the answer is giving the government total control over the economy? I don't understand you. You think a state planned economy would be more successful than capitalism, but you criticize capitalism for the possibility that the state may start to plan it! Those running Communist country are just as susceptible to greed and the influence of private interest as those running Capitalist countries.

[Braver_Incident]

Hey, if you haven't read my edits already, I don't have time to reply today, it takes too long. But tomorrow I am going to try to reply to you and one other person here, your posts are well thought out. Just letting you know that I am not ignoring you.

[hippiechan]

I've done a fair bit of thinking on the economics of communism and socialism, and I have a background in economics, so I'm going to argue along those lines. First off, let's talk about this definition of lower-c communism: [STA-CITE]> The final utopian end stage for almost all socialist ideologies, where the state and money is abolished, the socioeconomic class structure is destroyed, and private property ceases to exist in favor of community ownership. [END-CITE]The fact that such a thing could even exist is making a lot of assumptions. You're assuming that people's preferences are always going to be aligned to community well being, that no one will ever try to co-opt power, and that everyone will always be equal all the time. The latter of these points is one of the biggest economic arguments against communism - the notion of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" discourages people to work too hard, and encourages free riding. Where is anyone's incentive not just to work harder, but to work *at all*? I would go so far as to argue that communist revolution's *real* end state is the socialist state. The 'best and the brightest' in this state have a vested interest to maintain the status quo, and are benefiting proportionally to the importance of their roles in maintaining the state, that is, they are not underpaid for their work. Your assumption is that the upper class of the best and the brightest will *willingly make themselves poorer* to move towards a classless, stateless society, which I don't think is true. There's no reason for them to do so, they're in an advantageous position to society, and if things are working fine, then there's no problem. Now, capitalism isn't a perfect system in itself. Poor applications of it and misunderstanding of incentive structures can result in capitalism creating phenomenal income disparity and poverty. It was a lack of thought about economics that prompted the works of Marx to begin with. However, capitalism has a number of benefits over stateless communism, when applied correctly, that make it a better system: * Inequality: I'm going to argue that inequality is a good thing. (This is not to be confused with poverty, which is a very bad thing.) Inequality creates a distribution in society that is consistent with work incentives. An individual can move up in society by working harder or with greater productivity than other workers, and they directly benefit from the input that they put in to working harder. Of course, the problem in many modern capitalist societies is that this isn't working, mostly due to the fact that there are significant barriers to income and wealth mobility. These barriers could be removed through distributive taxation and better equalization of education opportunities for everyone (both of which are things I strongly advocate for). * The existence of a state: Having a state to begin with, something that end-goal communism doesn't have, gives a society a lot of power. The government's collection of taxes has a lot of effects, both good and bad. The bad effects are mostly economic, such as disincentivizing hard work to a degree, creating deadweight loss, etc. The good effects, however, are things such as redistribution of wealth, building of social infrastructure, and social security, including welfare, healthcare, education, and even natural disaster protection. * Autonomy: the biggest advantage that capitalism has over, say, socialism, is its preservation of autonomous actions in the market, something that neither communism nor socialism allows. This is advantageous because it means individuals *can* gain a competitive edge in a market and significantly drive up their own quality of life in doing so (and with re-distributive taxes, also drive up the social well-being in the process). Technological gains also create wide-scale benefits in an economy where technology is allowed to dissipate (ie without patents). So, I wouldn't discount capitalism too soon. A capitalist system where the government has goals in mind, reduces barriers to entry in markets, creates public supply of utilities demanded by the public (eg internet, water, power, gas, phone lines, etc), and uses taxes to reduce or eliminate poverty through redistribution and social welfare programs would have a huge competitive edge over a communist country, which fails to understand work incentives, or even a socialist country, which fails to understand innovation and personal autonomous gain. What's more, such a capitalist system ought not to be *too* capitalist - free markets are unethical in many markets, and it's the job of the country and of the people to recognize when having a free market may is a good idea, and a bad idea. Hence, this capitalist system is a bit of a mix of socialism and capitalism: it gains from the organization and centralization of a socialist system where it counts (healthcare, education, public utilities, infrastructure, public works), and benefits from the autonomy and decentralization of the capitalist system where centralization isn't necessary (household products, technological goods, luxuries, furniture, art, etc). ----- **TL;DR:** Communism doesn't understand work incentives; socialism has too much market control; laissez-faire capitalism has too little market control; striking a balance between socialism and capitalism in key markets gains the benefits of both systems, something that the end-state communist society (which I would argue doesn't exist and never will) can't do.

[Braver_Incident]

Hey, if you haven't read my edits already, I don't have time to reply today, it takes too long. But tomorrow I am going to try to reply to you and one other person here, your posts are well thought out. Just letting you know that I am not ignoring you.

[hippiechan]

Sure thing! I'll be looking out for it!

[hellohellizreal]

[STA-CITE]> If it were not for Stalin and Liberal Reforms, the USSR would be successful [END-CITE]The point I will try to make here is that communism will necessarily breed an authoritative government. In your definition of communism you mention that: "private property ceases to exist in favor of community ownership". 1. Can you opt out of this system? If yes, all good, we can nearly already do it now with people who would like to try. If no, then that is a big step towards totalitarianism. 2. What if someone refuses to give up on his private property? That makes him a criminal, so you can just put him in jail. Communist states (Stalin included) killed people who refused the system. Although it was a harsh punishment, they were criminals, by definition. To their eyes communist will persecute only criminals. 3. A real communist system would forbid people to produce on their own ( as they can't own means of production) and decrease overall value creation in the country. If someone wants to grow a tree to sell its fruits, or own a toolbox to fix his neighbor's car, he just won't do it. 4. [STA-CITE]>"The fruits of labor (food, clothing, housing, etc.) are provided "from each according to her ability, to each according to her need." [END-CITE] Unfortunately, their is no way to ensure that the ability to produce will match the needs (food, clothing, ...). If you are not provided enough food, you will produce your own, and become a criminal. If you are not provided enough clothing, and you get a sewing machine to make clothes, you become a criminal. Conclusion: in the ideal communism, you would would be put in a position were no one would have incentive to create value. Then overall wealth would decrease. Then you wouldn't be provided with enough to meet your need. Then you produce it yourself, which is illegal and makes you a criminal. Anyone is eligible for work camp. No wonder the KGB had so much work. [STA-CITE]> USSR was able to be so successful even being able to compete with the U.S. despite the tens of millions of deaths, wars, and lack of development, [END-CITE]One thing that bugs me is that you talk about this "stress" as an external event, like a natural disaster. It is not really the case, those events happened because of this very system. You might consider that because of the wrong implementation of communism, this shouldn't have happened, so it was more a hindrance than a consequence. But I don't think we can totally dissociate these events from the system (although imperfect) that created them. ("Lack of development" rather looks like a consequence than a cause) [STA-CITE]> being able to compete with the U.S. [END-CITE]They might have competed in terms of science and armies. The standard of living of people in the USSR was far behind the one of the US. This might be the most important indicator of the success of a system.

[Braver_Incident]

[STA-CITE]>Can you opt out of this system? If yes, all good, we can nearly already do it now with people who would like to try. If no, then that is a big step towards totalitarianism. [END-CITE]In the final stage of communism, yes, as long as it is something the community does not need. If the communist community ever democratically decides that it is needed, then likely they will take it away. But you can simply just leave and go live in the woods. [STA-CITE]>What if someone refuses to give up on his private property? That makes him a criminal, so you can just put him in jail. Communist states (Stalin included) killed people who refused the system. Although it was a harsh punishment, they were criminals, by definition. To their eyes communist will persecute only criminals. [END-CITE]...Yes, that would make them a criminal. You are correct. [STA-CITE]>A real communist system would forbid people to produce on their own ( as they can't own means of production) and decrease overall value creation in the country. If someone wants to grow a tree to sell its fruits, or own a toolbox to fix his neighbor's cat, he just won't do it. [END-CITE]Personal property still exists. And surplus goods made by the workers went to themselves for their own enjoyment. Here is an excerpt: [STA-CITE]>In addition, the peasant can own his own house and can have a plot of his own, in which he is free to raise vegetables, pigs, fowl, and the like. He can sell his share of the collective farm output as well as the vegetables, eggs, and chickens from his own garden in what is called the “free market.” That is, he can take them to the nearest town and sell them to the townspeople without having to pass through government-operated stores. The right to hold land for a garden and sell the produce of that garden was a concession the government made to the peasants after collective farming had become an accepted thing. [END-CITE]What exactly do you mean by value creation? I never heard of that term. [STA-CITE]>Unfortunately, their is no way to ensure that the ability to produce will match the needs (food, clothing, ...). If you are not provided enough food, you will produce your own, and become a criminal. If you are not provided enough clothing, and you get a sewing machine to make clothes, you become a criminal. [END-CITE]And why cannot that be ensured? [STA-CITE]>Conclusion: in the ideal communism, you would would be put in a position were no one would have incentive to create value. Then overall wealth would decrease. Then you wouldn't be provided with enough to meet your need. Then you produce it yourself, which is illegal and makes you a criminal. Anyone is eligible for work camp. No wonder the KGB had so much work. [END-CITE]The incentive to create value was that if you didn't, you wouldn't be provided with anything yourself. You still have to work. You don't work, you starve. And of course peer pressure from other works as well in the Soviet Councils. [STA-CITE]>One thing that bugs me is that you talk about this "stress" as an external event, like a natural disaster. It is not really the case, those events happened because of this very system. You might consider that because of the wrong implementation of communism, this shouldn't have happened, so it was more a hindrance than a consequence. But I don't think we can totally dissociate these events from the system (although imperfect) that created them. ("Lack of development" rather looks like a consequence than a cause) [END-CITE]The main source of stress I was talking about came from World War 1, the Civil War, World War 2, and a hard and quick change from feudalism to socialism. In 3 decades, the USSR had lost over 30 million Russians and suffered significant infrastructure losses from the Germans invading them. The stress of competing with the US was also a source, but I considered that minor, and I believe the failure of the USSR could have been prevented if the USSR did not suffer so many wars and casualties. The lack of development was not linked to Communism. Communism came AFTER that. Communism came AFTER the feudal society. Communism did not cause a lack of development. This is backwards cause-effect. [STA-CITE]>They might have competed in terms of science and armies. The standard of living of people in the USSR was far behind the one of the US. This might be the most important indicator of the success of a system. [END-CITE]http://tass.ru/obschestvo/1614450 Translate that, google should automatically do it for you. It claims that the life expectancy was about 70 years, which is similar to the life expectancy of the US TODAY. And this excerpt: [STA-CITE]>Did the standard of living rise or fall in the Soviet Union over the twentieth century? The conventional measures of GNP growth and household consumption indicate a long, uninterrupted upward climb in the Soviet standard of living from 1928 to1985; even Western estimates of these measures support this view, albeit at a slower rate of growth than the Soviet measures. The alternative measures of well-being examined in this paper largely support the evidence of improving population welfare throughout much of the twentieth century, despite the many cataclysmic events that marked this period. Four different measures of population health show a consistent and large improvement between approximately 1940 and 1969: child height, birth weight, adult height and infant mortality all improved significantly during this period. These four biological measures of the standard of living also corroborate the evidence of some deterioration in living conditions beginning around 1970, when infant and adult mortality was rising and child height and birth weight stopped increasing and in some regions began to decline. The significant improvements in population well-being before 1970 may in part be related to the expansion of the national health care system, public education, and improved caloric and protein supply during this period. Moreover, these improvements occurred during a period of rapid industrialization, indicating that the Soviet Union managed to avoid the decline in adult stature that occurred in some other countries during their industrialization phases. While the Soviet experiment of the twentieth century undoubtedly failed and in countless ways harmed the lives of Soviet citizens, the record of Soviet health achievement prior to 1970 remains an impressive one [END-CITE]http://ftp.iza.org/dp1958.pdf Comes with graphs at the end for your viewing pleasure. Compare that to US statistics. And according to this US/USSR jointly done source, the life expectancy of USSR citizens was actually HIGHER than the US until 1988, after the dissolution of the USSR, in which it dropped to 4 years under the US. https://www.census.gov/population/international/files/USSR.pdf Go to page 18.

[Tophattingson]

[STA-CITE]>Now, heres some history 101. When Russia had it's proletarian revolution during World War 1, they were NOT developed, NOT industrialized, and practically lived in a preCapitalist stage, if not, then barely exposed to capitalism. [END-CITE]Imperial Russia had certainly entered a Capitalist stage by 1913. While its development was certainly behind that of Western Europe and the US, it massively exceeded anything Marx had seen as he was writing down his philosophy. Russia only acquired it's reputation for backwardness and incompetence during WWI and the Russian Revolution itself, during which the economy rapidly collapsed. Much of the economic growth the Communist Party of the USSR pointed to as it's success in the 20s and 30s was simply a return to the mean after they had destroyed it and depopulated urban centres in the process of fighting the Civil War. Between 1913 and 1921, Industrial production had declined by 69%. Agricultural output declined 40%. Exports declined ~99%. For more information on the Russian economy during this period: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c6021.pdf [STA-CITE]>The USSR was trying to achieve development through an economic phase that SIMULATED capitalism, without the big disadvantage of losing control of the revolution, and maintaining a capitalist socioeconomic class structure. And you know what? It worked. [END-CITE]That just begs the question: Why not be capitalist instead of pretending to be capitalist? [STA-CITE]>USSR went from a feudal society of field plowers to a superpower that launched satellites to spaaaaaace and could outfight and out manufacture the Nazis in a 40 year time span. It worked for them. Just not as they hoped. [END-CITE]The weakness of Russia in WWI was a temporary blip in an otherwise stellar military record. Germany FEARED Imperial Russia more than any other power in WWI because of their record (The Schlieffen plan basically considered France a temporary opponent and Russia the real opponent). They were on track to become the most powerful nation in Europe well before the Soviets were in charge. [STA-CITE]>Inevitability of monopolies, which eliminate competition and gouge consumers and works. [END-CITE]This does not doom capitalism. [STA-CITE]>Lack of centralized planning, which results in overproduction of some good and underproduction of others, encouraging economic crises such as inflation, slumps, depressions. [END-CITE]It's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Centralized planning leads to overproduction, underproduction and economic crisis. This is because it has no method of determining what everyone wants. Meanwhile, markets with their prices not only gives an indication of what people want, but also incentives producers to match what people want. It is an amazing, automatic and oversightless way of ensuring that the goods society most wants are the goods that have highest production priority. The Economic calculation problem is the nail in the coffin of communism being an economic competitor to capitalism. [STA-CITE]>Demands for labor-saving machinery, which horse unemployment and a more hostile proletariat. [END-CITE]horse unemployment? What? Labour saving machinery is the only way to produce more than that of a pre-industrial society, where GDP hovers around $500 at most. [STA-CITE]>Employers will tend to maximize profits by reducing labor expenses, thus creating a situation where workers will not have enough income to buy the goods produced, creating the contradiction of causing profits to fall. [END-CITE]Marx's tendency of the rate of profits to fall has been thoroughly debunked by real-world evidence. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/newsletters11/images/11-4-fig1.gif [STA-CITE]>And what about the coming of automation and the possibility of 40% of jobs being destroyed? [END-CITE]We've already done this twice. First to agriculture (where 99% of jobs were destroyed) and then to industry (where 70% of jobs were destroyed). There was no long-term increase in unemployment then. [STA-CITE]>materials and goods can have better equality at more production, less costs [END-CITE]Historically, planned economies have produced absolute garbage quality goods for anything other than the military. [STA-CITE]>and if worst comes to worst? [END-CITE]Billions die. That's pretty bad.

[Braver_Incident]

[STA-CITE]>Imperial Russia had certainly entered a Capitalist stage by 1913. While its development was certainly behind that of Western Europe and the US, it massively exceeded anything Marx had seen as he was writing down his philosophy. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>Russia only acquired it's reputation for backwardness and incompetence during WWI and the Russian Revolution itself, during which the economy rapidly collapsed. Much of the economic growth the Communist Party of the USSR pointed to as it's success in the 20s and 30s was simply a return to the mean after they had destroyed it and depopulated urban centres in the process of fighting the Civil War. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>Between 1913 and 1921, Industrial production had declined by 69%. Agricultural output declined 40%. Exports declined ~99%. For more information on the Russian economy during this period: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c6021.pdf[1] [END-CITE]That is why I also included 'barely exposed' as you pointed out, they were exposed for little more than 10 years, and also were in the process of fighting wars during half that time. In the scheme of stepping stones on a pond, they lightly landed on capitalism and skipped to the next phase. I'm not surprise, it was war. They returned to the mean, so the same as they had been before, under a new economic system, AFTER fighting a devastating war. That shows already that the Communist system provides significant growth, parallel to capitalism, and it worked after the devastation. [STA-CITE]>That just begs the question: Why not be capitalist instead of pretending to be capitalist? [END-CITE]Like I said, they HAD to grow. Marx's work demanded it. But to become capitalist would mean handing over everything to what they considered the evil, the enemy. This also meant that the final stage of communism could potentially be achieved quicker, without going through a socialist stage after the capitalist one the Mensheviks proposed. They also did not have to potentially fight another civil war in the future. [STA-CITE]>The weakness of Russia in WWI was a temporary blip in an otherwise stellar military record. Germany FEARED Imperial Russia more than any other power in WWI because of their record (The Schlieffen plan basically considered France a temporary opponent and Russia the real opponent). They were on track to become the most powerful nation in Europe well before the Soviets were in charge. [END-CITE]I was not aware of this, do you have a source? [STA-CITE]>This does not doom capitalism. [END-CITE]Inevitability of monopolies. No competition AND a labor force that must work to get money to survive, means that monopolies can significantly lower quality of products, and workers can work for the minimum wage. Monopolies wield incredible power which is used to satisfy greed of profit. How does this not seem like dooming capitalism? [STA-CITE]>It's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Centralized planning leads to overproduction, underproduction and economic crisis. This is because it has no method of determining what everyone wants. Meanwhile, markets with their prices not only gives an indication of what people want, but also incentives producers to match what people want. It is an amazing, automatic and oversightless way of ensuring that the goods society most wants are the goods that have highest production priority. The Economic calculation problem is the nail in the coffin of communism being an economic competitor to capitalism. [END-CITE]Then why were they able to compete for a long time before failing? [STA-CITE]>horse unemployment? What? Labour saving machinery is the only way to produce more than that of a pre-industrial society, where GDP hovers around $500 at most. [END-CITE]Not my words. Horse unemployment just means that there is a force that is pushing unemployment. But each time we have labor saving machinery, we had always been able to counteract loss of jobs with new jobs. [STA-CITE]>Marx's tendency of the rate of profits to fall has been thoroughly debunked by real-world evidence. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/newsletters11/images/11-4-fig1.gif [END-CITE]Maybe that time has not been reached yet? And the countries of the periphery still have a lot to offer in the sense of exploitation, they are still ripe. [STA-CITE]>We've already done this twice. First to agriculture (where 99% of jobs were destroyed) and then to industry (where 70% of jobs were destroyed). There was no long-term increase in unemployment then. [END-CITE]Each time, a wealth of new jobs countered the loss of old jobs, each time, a human was needed to fulfill something. What job in a a post automaton world is going to counter act the loss of jobs? [STA-CITE]>Historically, planned economies have produced absolute garbage quality goods for anything other than the military. [END-CITE]Do you have a source for that? The USSR still engaged in foreign trade. [STA-CITE]>Billions die. That's pretty bad. [END-CITE]Or, like Marx said, it will angst the proletariat of these failing capitalist countries, and become socialist. After recovery, the world is now socialist. When the time is right, the state can be abolished and communism is finally achieved. Historically, any country that is developing, being exploited, has horrible conditions for the workers, or has a failing economic system, has its people turn to 2 things: fascism or socialism. After World War 2, fascism was painted in a far more evil light than socialism, so socialist movements were more prominent.

[Tophattingson]

[STA-CITE]>They returned to the mean, so the same as they had been before, under a new economic system, AFTER fighting a devastating war. That shows already that the Communist system provides significant growth, parallel to capitalism, and it worked after the devastation. [END-CITE]Or... people returning to work as usual. It is historically quite rare for societies in economic devastation to remain in that state for very long. [STA-CITE]>I was not aware of this, do you have a source? [END-CITE]Source 1: Any information on the Schlieffen plan clearly shows that France was to be conquered rapidly so that Germany could focus on Russia as it's true opponent. Almost any book on WWI should cover this. Source 2: Any comprehensive information on Germany's motivation in WWI will go into how it feared Russia's rapid rise in power as making it unbeatable by 1917 (And a similar attitude by France towards Germany). This video goes into some detail on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FgaL0xIazk&t=2m20s This means it's not particularly surprising that Russia defeated Germany in WWII as well. [STA-CITE]>Then why were they able to compete for a long time before failing? [END-CITE]The Communist Party, similar to Capitalist countries, were able to carry out the delayed gratification needed to build up Capital. Although at no point was their growth particularly impressive, it was sufficient to maintain at least the capacity to defend itself. This allowed them to invest in heavy industry just fine, and keep up (over)production in that sector. However, throughout the entire duration of the USSR there was perpetual underproduction and misproduction and low quality for consumer goods and services; a sector that the West would use to fuel it's growth into the 70's and beyond as the USSR stalled. [STA-CITE]>But each time we have labor saving machinery, we had always been able to counteract loss of jobs with new jobs. [END-CITE]Exactly my point. As soon as old jobs become too easy, we become wealthy enough to desire new jobs. For instance, the entertainment sector was near non-existent prior to the 1900s as society was simply not wealthy enough to support it, but it is now absolutely huge. [STA-CITE]>Maybe that time has not been reached yet? And the countries of the periphery still have a lot to offer in the sense of exploitation, they are still ripe. [END-CITE]Simply saying that the time has not been reached yet makes this an unfalsifiable claim (i.e bullshit). Additionally, Marx predicted a continuous decrease in the rate of profit, so even if "That time has not been reached", we should see it decreasing. [STA-CITE]>Each time, a wealth of new jobs countered the loss of old jobs, each time, a human was needed to fulfill something. What job in a a post automaton world is going to counter act the loss of jobs? [END-CITE]In the case of automation to the point of post-scarcity, this question becomes irrelevant as we can produce infinite everything for everyone. In the case of limited automation, then it's the same as every other time we've automated something; new jobs that previously we couldn't support become viable. [STA-CITE]>Do you have a source for that? The USSR still engaged in foreign trade. [END-CITE]http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243&context=njilb describes the prevalence of defective goods. [STA-CITE]>Or, like Marx said, it will angst the proletariat of these failing capitalist countries, and become socialist. After recovery, the world is now socialist. When the time is right, the state can be abolished and communism is finally achieved. [END-CITE]Or, billions die. Why should we risk uncountable numbers of lives in the hope that a multi-time discredited and theoretically flawed ideology will marginally improve people's lives?

[m0ddem]

First, I don't think this is downvote bait; you may not have frequented this sub very often, but nothing you've said is downvote worthy. That said, I've always had several problems with the Communist worldview. For starters, let's talk about the complete abolition of the state. How does the society then defend against external threats? You can't achieve 'little c' communism as you define it, because there's always someone out there willing to take what your society (theoretically peacefully) creates. Second, while C/capitalism certainly doesn't contain all the answers, the Euro states have already shed light on how the way forward may appear; not as any one, pure, ideological system, but a mixed blend of socialist programs with capitalist economic principles. To boil down Communism's failures to one man (Stalin) is both fallacious (because it ignores, among others, Mao) and a judgement on the system itself; if it's flawed enough that one man can functionally alter the course of the proposed evolution of man, that's a judgement on the philosophy as a whole, is it not? One individual cannot ever impede a free capitalist society in such a way, due to the nature of elections, competition, and free markets. As such, capitalism (in a purist sense) is clearly superior to communism (in a purist sense) because communism invites an inherent power vacuum.

[Braver_Incident]

[STA-CITE]> How does the society then defend against external threats? You can't achieve 'little c' communism as you define it, because there's always someone out there willing to take what your society (theoretically peacefully) creates. [END-CITE]Hmmm, well the state should be abolished when capitalism ceases to exist, or in other words, the world becomes socialist. At this point, if everything is owned democratically, then it would be very difficult for a nefariously motivated individual or group to be able to override the majority in a Soviet council, or even take over certain factories or depots for guns to become independent. Ideally, the workers would be armed with guns, originally as to overthrow the ruling class, but also to protect themselves from capitalist invaders, like how it is currently in the U.S. I contend that if the state has been abolished, the current conditions that have warranted that will also make it suitable for armed workers to 'take care' of counter revolutionaries, (those who want to take away from society) But I would agree that, if the state is abolished at the wrong time, way too early, the communist society would become very susceptible to other militaries of capitalist powers. [STA-CITE]>Second, while C/capitalism certainly doesn't contain all the answers, the Euro states have already shed light on how the way forward may appear; not as any one, pure, ideological system, but a mixed blend of socialist programs with capitalist economic principles. [END-CITE]I am aware of it. And I do think they are making progress, and likely the world will be shifting towards their model. However, let's say that automation does come. The EU mixed economy, like you implied, has appeared to be successful and stable, but how would it solve for automaton putting millions of workers out of work? Also, I do not know if the EU currently suffers this, but the US and Australia suffer political corruption, lots of it. Even with some 'socialist principles' the main capitalist backbone of the system means there will always be corporate powers who wish to take control of the government. And they have, in these countries at least. Lobbying, CEO's of carbon, water, and food companies becoming top advisers, and just the drive for profit has already infested our systems. Capitalism functions on greed. Even with the EU's model, businesses will be looking for the lowest bidder to exploit, or outsource to other undeveloped areas like China and Africa. Exploitation will continue to exist. I do like the EU's model, mostly because it means that the possibility of achieving full socialism through reform is much more likely, and they have, for now, been the places of the highest Human Development Index. I still though do not see how it could last. [STA-CITE]>To boil down Communism's failures to one man (Stalin) is both fallacious (because it ignores, among others, Mao) and a judgement on the system itself; if it's flawed enough that one man can functionally alter the course of the proposed evolution of man, that's a judgement on the philosophy as a whole, is it not? One individual cannot ever impede a free capitalist society in such a way, due to the nature of eating contests, competition, and free markets. As such, capitalism (in a purist sense) is clearly superior to communism (in a purist sense) because communism invites an inherent power vacuum. [END-CITE]I'm just focusing on the USSR for now. The future Communist leaders like Mao were influenced by Stalin, not much by Lenin IMO. I tried not to boil it down to one man, because like I said, it was a combination of heavy factors that contributed to the USSR's demise. The USSR had a very rough start when transitioning out of pre capitalism, had gone through several wars and the Nazis that cut swathes into the USSR, competition with the U.S. which had suffered nothing, and later liberal reforms to salvage the USSR. I think these conditions have put extreme stress on the political stablity, which had allowed Stalin and future leaders to consolidate their power. It was the same thing with Adolf Hitler. Germany had gotten the short end of the stick after World War I and the German Republic had been heavily corrupted and unstable, which had allowed a fascist regime to take control. If this had happened to the US, I believe consolidation of power would have occurred as well.

[superkamiokande]

[STA-CITE]>Ideally, the workers would be armed with guns, originally as to overthrow the ruling class, but also to protect themselves from capitalist invaders [END-CITE]Are you assuming scarcity won't be a problem in this society? Because I think the vast, vast majority of human conflict is actually predicated on scarcity, not ideology. If there is not enough of something (e.g., arable land), people sometimes have no choice but to fight to secure those resources for themselves. I feel like the rest (little c communism) cannot follow if scarcity is still the norm. And I can't imagine a scenario in which scarcity is never an issue.

[Braver_Incident]

[STA-CITE]>If there is not enough of something (e.g., arable land), people sometimes have no choice but to fight to secure those resources for themselves. I feel like the rest (little c communism) cannot follow if scarcity is still the norm. And I can't imagine a scenario in which scarcity is never an issue. [END-CITE]You are right, little c communism is also supposed to take place in a post scarcity world. I didn't mention that but you are correct.

[m0ddem]

[STA-CITE]> Hmmm, well the state should be abolished when capitalism ceases to exist, or in other words, the world becomes socialist. At this point, if everything is owned democratically, then it would be very difficult for a nefariously motivated individual or group to be able to override the majority in a Soviet council, or even take over certain factories or depots for guns to become independent. Ideally, the workers would be armed with guns, originally as to overthrow the ruling class, but also to protect themselves from capitalist invaders, like how it is currently in the U.S. I contend that if the state has been abolished, the current conditions that have warranted that will also make it suitable for armed workers to 'take care' of counter revolutionaries, (those who want to take away from society) [END-CITE]Several things are problematic with this paragraph. First, you implicitly state that in order for communism to work, it must perforce be worldwide government. This would involve the deaths of many hundreds of millions of people, if not billions; if that's a requirement for the communist ideal to come to fruition, then again, I question the inherent superiority of its' philosophical objectives. Second, we have real world examples of failed states; while in the communist theory the state fails voluntarily, the simple truth is that when you remove power structures, *something* comes along to fill that vacuum. Boko Haraam, ISIL, and Hezbollah are simple examples of extremist groups that move to fill these voids. Third, you use the example of workers taking justice into their own hands. In every single example of popular revolution in the modern age, from the French Revolution to the present, 'worker justice' ends up meaning mob rule. The state, whatever other failings it has, is the only proven mechanism by which disparate factions can reasonably seek to achieve justice that isn't simply formalized revenge. To quote John Adams "If Men were Angels, no government would be necessary." [STA-CITE]> I am aware of it. And I do think they are making progress, and likely the world will be shifting towards their model. However, let's say that automation does come. The EU mixed economy, like you implied, has appeared to be successful and stable, but how would it solve for automaton putting millions of workers out of work? [END-CITE]By raising taxes on the means of productions to levels the US experienced post new deal and instituting UBI or negative income tax. Thus, the benefits of socialism with the upward mobility of capitalism. [STA-CITE]> Also, I do not know if the EU currently suffers this, but the US and Australia suffer political corruption, lots of it. Even with some 'socialist principles' the main capitalist backbone of the system means there will always be corporate powers who wish to take control of the government. And they have, in these countries at least. Lobbying, CEO's of carbon, water, and food companies becoming top advisers, and just the drive for profit has already infested our systems. Capitalism functions on greed. Even with the EU's model, businesses will be looking for the lowest bidder to exploit, or outsource to other undeveloped areas like China and Africa. Exploitation will continue to exist. [END-CITE]Again, you make the dual mistake of assuming that there can be no tempering of political theories and ideologies, and that any system devised by man is "perfect". Another favorite quote of mine can be bastardized here; capitalism is the worst system of economics ever devised by man - *except for all the other ones*. Very few individuals (certainly not I) claim that capitalism, (especially pure capitalism) is perfect; however, it's far better than the alternatives that have been attempted so far. The other side of your mistake (and it's an easy one to make in this day and age) is forgetting that capitalism can be and is regulated; we have severe issues in this country that, left uncorrected, could easily destroy the system, but when and if society at large finally wakes up and votes for real reform, the system can be returned to a more equitable balance. [STA-CITE]> If this had happened to the US, I believe consolidation of power would have occurred as well. [END-CITE]While possible, it also ignores the fact that democratic, capitalist countries outside the purview of the US can and do work; it's worth noting that China has retained a top down Communist political system while implementing capitalist economic principles in certain areas, and this has resulted in massive benefits for the population at large. If capitalism was a clearly flawed socioeconomic theory, then it would fail far more often than it succeeds; it hasn't. Communism, on the other hand...

[Braver_Incident]

[STA-CITE]> First, you implicitly state that in order for communism to work, it must perforce be worldwide government. This would involve the deaths of many hundreds of millions of people, if not billions; if that's a requirement for the communist ideal to come to fruition, then again, I question the inherent superiority of its' philosophical objectives. [END-CITE]Not necessarily. Like Karl Marx said, capitalism is doomed to fail at a certain point, and the next biggest hump would have been automaton. A peaceful strategy for a Communist state could be to simply "wait it out." [STA-CITE]>Second, we have real world examples of failed states; while in the communist theory the state fails voluntarily, the simple truth is that when you remove power structures, something comes along to fill that vacuum. Boko Haraam, ISIL, and Hezbollah are simple examples of extremist groups that move to fill these voids. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>Second, we have real world examples of failed states; while in the communist theory the state fails voluntarily, the simple truth is that when you remove power structures, something comes along to fill that vacuum. Boko Haraam, ISIL, and Hezbollah are simple examples of extremist groups that move to fill these voids. [END-CITE][Consent of the governed.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed) Power only exists because people recognize the power and the authority, and the decisions that authority makes. If the population is reeducated to understand their role in a Communist country, and know when their state should cease to exist (this for all members of society, workers, scientists, and soldiers) then if one wishes to fill the vacuum of power, the people could simply "not consent" and they would have no power. No one would recognize them. [STA-CITE]>Third, you use the example of workers taking justice into their own hands. In every single example of popular revolution in the modern age, from the French Revolution to the present, 'worker justice' ends up meaning mob rule. The state, whatever other failings it has, is the only proven mechanism by which disparate factions can reasonably seek to achieve justice that isn't simply formalized revenge. To quote John Adams "If Men were Angels, no government would be necessary." [END-CITE]Tyranny of the Majority. Huh. Well, all I can really say is, if the majority truly believes in the action they wish to undertake, then to stop them would appeal to minority interests, which is undemocratic. I don't really know any other way to counter this. One could say that the morality of a society is defined as the morals of the majority. Like if most Native Americans of the U.S. thought killing animals was immoral, then a analysis of the moral system of the Native Americans about animals would only take the majority into account, and that is killing animals is immorals. What is moral is in the eyes of the beholder. [STA-CITE]>By raising taxes on the means of productions to levels the US experienced post new deal and instituting UBI or negative income tax. Thus, the benefits of socialism with the upward mobility of capitalism. [END-CITE]Can you elaborate on mobility? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. [STA-CITE]>Again, you make the dual mistake of assuming that there can be no tempering of political theories and ideologies, and that any system devised by man is "perfect". Another favorite quote of mine can be bastardized here; capitalism is the worst system of economics ever devised by man - except for all the other ones. Very few individuals (certainly not I) claim that capitalism, (especially pure capitalism) is perfect; however, it's far better than the alternatives that have been attempted so far. The other side of your mistake (and it's an easy one to make in this day and age) is forgetting that capitalism can be and is regulated; we have severe issues in this country that, left uncorrected, could easily destroy the system, but when and if society at large finally wakes up and votes for real reform, the system can be returned to a more equitable balance. [END-CITE]But the alternative system has existed on a large scale during a time where the entire world was tryinng to stop it, and where extreme stress from external factors had destabilized it. The current Western countries have not faced the stress the USSR had. The only country close was Germany, which, after world war I, had destabilized and allowed a fascist regime to take control. It recovered after massive amounts of financial aid and more after world war 2 and then the dissolution of the USSR. Doesn't Australia already have regulated capitalism? Yet it still suffers similar problems to the US. It might even be the same for Canada, though I know little about them. What you claim is that these problems can be fixed if a society wakes up and votes for reform. However, like I said, capitalism still functions on greed, no matter how much you regulate it. Regulation can slow or stop the negative effects, like you said. But politicians are still going to be corrupted and lobbied by corporate and financial interests, they will still lie. Politicians are going to only be rich wealthy people, because the average joe cannot afford to campaign. This argument hinges on the "lucky altruistic politician in a shark tank" that will come up, be truthful, be elected and not be seen as a shill, somehow go through a gridlocked congress which will still be dominated by the rich and corrupted, and make reform. You also assume that the rich is going to always represent the interests of the US population, including the workers. Can this be said for most of the time? Especially since their success hinges on expensive campaigns with good funding? [STA-CITE]>While possible, it also ignores the fact that democratic, capitalist countries outside the purview of the US can and do work; it's worth noting that China has retained a top down Communist political system while implementing capitalist economic principles in certain areas, and this has resulted in massive benefits for the population at large. If capitalism was a clearly flawed socioeconomic theory, then it would fail far more often than it succeeds; it hasn't. Communism, on the other hand... [END-CITE]They have worked, in good conditions. Like I said eariler, most of the western countries had never undergone the extreme stress the USSR did. European countries never individually lost over 30 million people in 3 decades, they never had the entire world turn against them, they never had dramatically revolutionize a system in a few years after 2 consecutive wars with no industrial development to support them to good standards. The closest were France and Germany, which received massive aid afterwards and went through reconstruction, after turning to dictatorships as an answer. Capitalism has proven itself to work, but only in favorable conditions. I don't think it would be fair to call China a Communist state anymore. While they had implemented reforms including privatization and capitalist backbone, they no longer represent the interests of the workers. There is no worker council system, and China faces the problem of foreign businesses exploiting the workers for low wages with the Chinese government actually supporting it for money. They are not very progressive, as opposed to the former USSR which had free healthcare, education, and abortions. I would even go so far to say that the capitalist backbone is now more prominent than the socialist principles. The loss of worker councils and foreign interests taking control already shows that workers are no longer having democratic control of most means of production. There are documentaries on this, including one about Nike, and they interviewed the workers, who say they have no more voice at all. They even said that the Chinese army (?) was making sure they worked and they were being paid by businesses to control them. I can send it to you if you want. China has seen great growth because of capitalism, but at a cost of what I think is the original intentions and goals.

[m0ddem]

Saving space to cover Tyranny of the Majority arguments and additional coexisting arguments should we move further. As for upward mobility, I'm referring to economic mobility, and if you want to have that debate we can do that too :)

[Braver_Incident]

Ahhh ok that makes sense. I usually hear social mobility for the same thing. [STA-CITE]>42% of children born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution ("quintile") remain in the bottom, while 39% born to parents in the top fifth remain at the top [END-CITE]http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2007/11/generations-isaacs This is in the US. [STA-CITE]>The intergenerational income elasticity is a measure of the extent to which a child born from a parent who makes $X in income will increase his income to $Y (after doing an integral). (See page 10 of the OECD report for the mathematical definition.) Note that a higher elasticity corresponds to a lower probability of increasing your income. [END-CITE]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility#/media/File:Intergenerational_mobility_graph-1.jpg This is a graph of economic elasticity, there is also a source along with it. [STA-CITE]>The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal published a series of front-page articles on this issue in May 2005. Americans have often seen their country as a ‘land of opportunity’ where anyone can succeed despite his background. A study performed by economists at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2009 found that Britain and the United States have the lowest levels of intergenerational mobility, or the highest levels of intergenerational persistence. The Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland) and Canada tend to have high rates of social mobility. Norway proved to be the most mobile society. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>True rates of mobility in Sweden are similar to those of the supposedly more socially immobile economies of the UK and USA. They are little higher than in the pre-industrial era. [END-CITE]http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Sweden%202012%20AUG.pdf I chose Sweden since that is one of the most progressive countries in the world, besides Norway according to the beforehand report. As you can see, despite the mixed economy countries having higher economic mobility, they are still rather similar. This is opposed to a Communist state and a final stage communist society with no state, where social mobility will be a null value, because class ceases to exist. As EDIT: I think something cut off, I don't remember what it was though :(

[m0ddem]

This is all well and good, but you still haven't proven the argument that many have identified in the thread, which is that communism arrives at a state where everyone has more than they otherwise would; If I have 1000, and the other guy has 10,000, I'd rather that than we both have 100. That said, [STA-CITE]> 42% of children born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution ("quintile") remain in the bottom, while 39% born to parents in the top fifth remain at the top [END-CITE]The 'bottom rung' of American economic status is still far better than most of the rest of the world; while I won't argue that it can't or shouldn't be improved, to act like someone with a cell phone, car, and flatscreen TV lives in abject poverty is somewhat absurd.

[Braver_Incident]

[STA-CITE]>This is all well and good, but you still haven't proven the argument that many have identified in the thread, which is that communism arrives at a state where everyone has more than they otherwise would; If I have 1000, and the other guy has 10,000, I'd rather that than we both have 100. [END-CITE]The wording is a little weird, do you mean that the argument that I have made in the past about Communism making surplus products has not been proven? Or that I never made that argument, and they are, and surplus is a bad thing? [STA-CITE]>The 'bottom rung' of American economic status is still far better than most of the rest of the world; while I won't argue that it can't or shouldn't be improved, to act like someone with a cell phone, cat, and flatscreen TV lives in abject poverty is somewhat absurd. [END-CITE]This is because the US is a core country, as according to the dependency which I linked in another post to you. Other countries in the 3rd world, PINGS (develoPINGs) are periphery countries. According to the dependency theory, the core actively exploits the periphery, but the core also provides something to the periphery. The core cannot exist without the periphery and vice versa. It's a symbiotic relationship in a capitalist world. Yes, the American working class DOES better than that of other countries, but only because of their location, and that the US is developed as well.

[m0ddem]

[STA-CITE]> Not necessarily. Like Karl Marx said, capitalism is doomed to fail at a certain point, and the next biggest hump would have been automaton. A peaceful strategy for a Communist state could be to simply "wait it out." [END-CITE]At bottom, however, you're still failing to acknowledge the underlying point; if communism or Communism or any version in between is truly the superior ideology, it wouldn't have to wait for all the other competing ideologies to die off, whether due to old age or violence. Marx' view of sociopolitical power structures is clearly evolutionary; if we're going to apply simple evolutionary law to political structures, (eg survival of the fittest), then why does communism rely on no competition, whatsoever? This seems suspect, to say the least. [STA-CITE]> Consent of the governed. Power only exists because people recognize the **power** and the authority, and the decisions that authority makes. If the population is reeducated to understand their role in a Communist country, and know when their state should cease to exist (this for all members of society, workers, scientists, and soldiers) then if one wishes to fill the vacuum of power, the people could simply "not consent" and they would have no power. No one would recognize them. (emphasis added) [END-CITE]Two things. One, your second sentence is crucial; people recognize not only the authority of their government to do certain things, but also the *power* of the same to do things, regardless of whether they agree with the things being done. This is the chokepoint through which every. single. Communist. state. has failed to pass; inevitably, the leaders of the People's revolution realize they've been handed absolute power, even if it's only *supposed* to be temporary; you know what they say about absolute power. [STA-CITE]> But the alternative system has existed on a large scale during a time where the entire world was tryinng to stop it, and where extreme stress from external factors had destabilized it. The current Western countries have not faced the stress the USSR had. The only country close was Germany, which, after world war I, had destabilized and allowed a fascist regime to take control. It recovered after massive amounts of financial aid and more after world war 2 and then the dissolution of the USSR. [END-CITE]First, if you increase the landmass of the European countries to make a country the size of the USSR, you start getting towards that massive number of casualties; it's unfair to say no single European country had losses on the Russian scale without acknowledging that Russia is so much larger. Second, communism *didn't exist for all that long*. If we're strictly talking about the USSR, it won the civil war in 1922 and dissolved in 1991, a run of only 69 years; not even an average human lifespan. In contrast, America is a "young" country...and 240 years old next year, having been democratic capitalist republic for the entirety of that existence. The USSR had plenty of satellite republics and international support, not to mention China; to claim that 'the whole world' was against it whitewashes the balance of power, especially during the Cold War. [STA-CITE]>Doesn't Australia already have regulated capitalism? Yet it still suffers similar problems to the US. It might even be the same for Canada, though I know little about them. [END-CITE]Again, you're looking for a utopian environment, and it just doesn't exist; to seek a government where corruption isn't a problem on some level, sooner or later, is to ignore basic human nature. [STA-CITE]> What you claim is that these problems can be fixed if a society wakes up and votes for reform. However, like I said, capitalism still functions on greed, no matter how much you regulate it. [END-CITE]No, you've got it wrong. **Humans** function on greed. Only, that's not what it's always referred to as. Enlightened self interest. Ambition. Communism relies on the greater angels of our nature (altruism) while conveniently ignoring the baser ones. What you're not acknowledging is that there is no such thing as governmental stability in human history. A nation state may last a decade, a century, a millennium, or more, but it will one day end. How it ends varies, but it usually has something to do with structural failures of government. By claiming that capitalism is somehow doomed to this failure, you're not pointing to any inherent flaw in capitalism, but merely an inherent flaw of human political structures. [STA-CITE]> I would even go so far to say that the capitalist backbone is now more prominent than the socialist principles. The loss of worker councils and foreign interests taking control already shows that workers are no longer having democratic control of most means of production. [END-CITE]This last line is the biggest scam in all functional "Communist" governments - democratic control of means of production? Since when has there ever been an election in a Communist country? (Here we're talking North Korea, China, the USSR, and Cuba, primarily). It's really difficult to know the democratic intentions of a group if they're never actually allowed to hold elections, wouldn't you agree?

[Braver_Incident]

[STA-CITE]>No, you've got it wrong. Humans function on greed. Only, that's not what it's always referred to as. Enlightened self interest. Ambition. Communism relies on the greater angels of our nature (altruism) while conveniently ignoring the baser ones. What you're not acknowledging is that there is no such thing as governmental stability in human history. A nation state may last a decade, a century, a millennium, or more, but it will one day end. How it ends varies, but it usually has something to do with structural failures of government. By claiming that capitalism is somehow doomed to this failure, you're not pointing to any inherent flaw in capitalism, but merely an inherent flaw of human political structures. [END-CITE]From David Graeber's Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (2004) [STA-CITE]>Case 1: The Piaroa, a highly egalitarian society living along tributaries of the Orinoco which ethnographer Joanna Overing herself describes as anarchists. They place enormous value on individual freedom and autonomy, and are quite self conscious about the importance of ensuring that no one is ever at another person’s orders, or the need to ensure no one gains such control over economic resources that they can use it to constrain others’ freedom. Yet they also insist that Piaroa culture itself was the creation of an evil god, a two-headed cannibalistic buffoon. The Piaroa have developed a moral philosophy which defines the human condition as caught between a “world of the senses,” of wild, pre-social desires, and a “world of thought.” Growing up involves learning to control and channel in the former through thoughtful consideration for others, and the cultivation of a sense of humor; but this is made infinitely more difficult by the fact that all forms of technical knowledge, however necessary for life are, due to their origins, laced with elements of destructive madness. Similarly, while the Piaroa are famous for their peaceableness—murder is unheard of, the assumption being that anyone who killed another human being would be instantly consumed by pollution and die horribly—they inhabit a cosmos of endless invisible war, in which wizards are engaged in fending off the attacks of insane, predatory gods and all deaths are caused by spiritual murder and have to be avenged by the magical massacre of whole (distant, unknown) communities. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>Case 2: The Tiv, another notoriously egalitarian society, make their homes along the Benue River in central Nigeria. Compared to the Piaroa, their domestic life is quite hierarchical: male elders tend to have many wives, and exchange with one another the rights to younger women’s fertility; younger men are thus reduced to spending most of their lives chilling their heels as unmarried dependents in their fathers’ compounds. In recent centuries the Tiv were never entirely insulated from the raids of slave traders; Tivland was also dotted with local markets; minor wars between clans were occasionally fought, though more often large disputes were mediated in large communal “moots.” Still, there were no political institutions larger than the compound; in fact, anything that even began to look like a political institution was considered intrinsically suspect, or more precisely, seen as surrounded by an aura of occult horror. This was, as ethnographer Paul Bohannan succinctly put it, because of what was seen to be the nature of power: “men attain power by consuming the substance of others.” Markets were protected, and market rules enforced by charms which embodied diseases and were said to be powered by human body parts and blood. Enterprising men who managed to patch together some sort of fame, wealth, or clientele were by definition witches. Their hearts were coated by a substance called tsav, which could only be augmented by the eating of human flesh. Most tried to avoid doing so, but a secret society of witches was said to exist which would slip bits of human flesh in their victims’ food, thus incurring a “flesh debt” and unnatural cravings that would eventually drive those affected to consume their entire families. This imaginary society of witches was seen as the invisible government of the country. Power was thus institutionalized evil, and every generation, a witch-finding movement would arise to expose the culprits, thus, effectively, destroying any emerging structures of authority. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>Case 3: Highland Madagascar, where I lived between 1989 and 1991, was a rather different place. The area had been the center of a Malagasy state—the Merina kingdom—since the early nineteenth century, and afterwards endured many years of harsh colonial rule. There was a market economy and, in theory, a central government—during the time I was there, largely dominated by what was called the “Merina bourgeoisie.” In fact this government had effectively withdrawn from most of the countryside and rural communities were effectively governing themselves. In many ways these could also be considered anarchistic: most local decisions were made by consensus by informal bodies, leadership was looked on at best with suspicion, it was considered wrong for adults to be giving one another orders, especially on an ongoing basis; this was considered to make even institutions like wage labor inherently morally suspect. Or to be more precise, unmalagasy—this was how the French behaved, or wicked kings and slaveholders long ago. Society was overall remarkably peaceable. Yet once again it was surrounded by invisible warfare; just about everyone had access to dangerous medicine or spirits or was willing to let on they might; the night was haunted by witches who danced naked on tombs and rode men like horses; just about all sickness was due to envy, hatred, and magical attack. What’s more, witchcraft bore a strange, ambivalent relation to national identity. While people made rhetorical reference to Malagasy as equal and united “like hairs on a head,” ideals of economic equality were rarely, if ever, invoked; however, it was assumed that anyone who became too rich or powerful would be destroyed by witchcraft, and while witchcraft was the definition of evil, it was also seen as peculiarly Malagasy (charms were just charms but evil charms were called “Malagasy charms”). Insofar as rituals of moral solidarity did occur, and the ideal of equality was invoked, it was largely in the course of rituals held to suppress, expel, or destroy those witches who, perversely, were the twisted embodiment and practical enforcement of the egalitarian ethos of the society itself. [END-CITE]These are examples of humans overcoming the 'greed' of human nature. I am aware of that. That doesn't discount that capitalism will face a major crisis soon, or that it might die very soon. Would it not be preferable to dodge that crisis and move on to the next big thing? Start a new civilization? Even if all countries are destined to doom, shouldn't we make the best of that time for everyone? [STA-CITE]>This last line is the biggest scam in all functional "Communist" governments - democratic control of means of production? Since when has there ever been an eating contest in a Communist country? (Here we're talking North Korea, China, the USSR, and Cuba, primarily). It's really difficult to know the democratic intentions of a group if they're never actually allowed to hold eating contests, wouldn't you agree? [END-CITE]I'm a little confused? By eating contests do you mean LITERAL eating contests? If all quotas are met, and they end up with surplus product to have an eating contest, then I don't see why they wouldn't have. I don't these countries had eating contests because they mostly ate grain, not hot dogs.

[m0ddem]

Using insular, superstitious, and pre industrial agrarian communities as definitive proof that large scale, ethnically and politically diverse societies can override human motivations is a seriously flawed comparison. When collectivism is applied to modern day farming, you get things like the Holodomor, which you've already alluded to, with the clear harms that involves. [STA-CITE]> This last line is the biggest scam in all functional "Communist" governments - democratic control of means of production? Since when has there ever been an election in a Communist country? (Here we're talking North Korea, China, the USSR, and Cuba, primarily). It's really difficult to know the democratic intentions of a group if they're never actually allowed to hold elections, wouldn't you agree? [END-CITE]That's my *actual* quote. If you want to be cute and try to say that elections are irrelevant, go ahead and say so; however, claiming that government of the people *is* a government of the people without a clear mandate of the people is farcical enough that I suppose you have to engage in wordplay to deflect that.

[Braver_Incident]

[STA-CITE]>At bottom, however, you're still failing to acknowledge the underlying point; if communism or Communism or any version in between is truly the superior ideology, it wouldn't have to wait for all the other competing ideologies to die off, whether due to old age or violence. Marx' view of sociopolitical power structures is clearly evolutionary; if we're going to apply simple evolutionary law to political structures, (eg survival of the fittest), then why does communism rely on no competition, whatsoever? This seems suspect, to say the least. [END-CITE]The current world system is capitalism. It has been for the last century. Before that, the world system was feudalism and traditional economies. Capitalism didn't rise in just one country and stayed in one country for a century, capitalism swept the most powerful areas of the world, specifically Europe. Right now, feudalism on a large scale in today's world would not be possible. Same with traditional economies So, capitalism is a world system, that is run by the international bourgeoisie, and produces the international proletariat. How can an international system be overthrown in only one country? How can countries be abolished, if there are still countries? How can a classless communal society exist, if there are classes and property? The bourgeoisie is an international class - how can you abolish it in one place? That's like curing yourself of blood poisoning, but only in one toe. The 'former' proletarians are still proletarians. You haven't abolished capitalism entirely. [World communism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_communism) is a goal of socialism. Socialism and communism cannot exist in one or two countries while a directly opposing system surrounds them, just like feudalism and traditional economies cannot do the same. Capitalism will likely not be able to survive in one country if the entire world was socialist. [STA-CITE]>Two things. One, your second sentence is crucial; people recognize not only the authority of their government to do certain things, but also the power of the same to do things, regardless of whether they agree with the things being done. This is the chokepoint through which every. single. Communist. state. has failed to pass; inevitably, the leaders of the People's revolution realize they've been handed absolute power, even if it's only supposed to be temporary; you know what they say about absolute power. [END-CITE]That's why worker councils, i.e., Soviet councils existed, to be a checks and balances of the workers vs the leaders. It's also not just one person managing the state, various political positions exist, akin to something like the U.S. legislative and executive system. If they realize they have been handed absolute power, they should know that the power ONLY exists because the people being governed accept it, even if they disagree, like you said. You have those who will enforce your power, like the military or the police. But those people only enforce your power because they too, recognized it and accepted it. Look at it this way, if all of a sudden everyone in the United States refused to recognize Obama and his power, including the military, and they choose not to listen to him, then Obama has no power and cannot exert force or wishes, and nothing he does will be enforced. [STA-CITE]>First, if you increase the landmass of the European countries to make a country the size of the USSR, you start getting towards that massive number of casualties; it's unfair to say no single European country had losses on the Russian scale without acknowledging that Russia is so much larger. Second, communism didn't exist for all that long. If we're strictly talking about the USSR, it won the civil war in 1922 and dissolved in 1991, a run of only 69 years; not even an average human lifespan. In contrast, America is a "young" country...and 240 years old next year, having been democratic capitalist republic for the entirety of that existence. The USSR had plenty of satellite republics and international support, not to mention China; to claim that 'the whole world' was against it whitewashes the balance of power, especially during the Cold War. [END-CITE]Should it not be death's per capita, rather that landmass, that allows comparisons of this type? And where did you learn that, I was unaware of that information. Look at stress again. The U.S. never faced massive casualties except in the Civil War, and the British didn't torch everything they owned, except the capital of course. The U.S. even faced decades of isolationism, had an open landmass and few neighboring countries that allowed Manifest Destiny to occur. It took them more than a hundred years anyway to take the torch from Great Britain and become the world superpower. The US had ideal conditions for it's growth, almost perfect. While you are right that the USSR lasted an incredibly short time, it also became a superpower in a incredibly short time. The level of industrialization that the US achieved in 200 years was achieved by the USSR in 20-30. [STA-CITE]>Again, you're looking for a utopian environment, and it just doesn't exist; to seek a government where corruption isn't a problem on some level, sooner or later, is to ignore basic human nature. [END-CITE]But in a country where the need for personal material and financial wealth is virtually eliminated, exactly WHAT would corrupt a government? What would drive them to abuse the system?

[Tsuruta64]

[STA-CITE]> But in a country **where the need for personal material and financial wealth is virtually eliminated**, exactly WHAT would corrupt a government? What would drive them to abuse the system? [END-CITE]Short of Star Trek replicators, this is impossible, because human desires have no limit. Basic economics 101.

[m0ddem]

[STA-CITE]> The current world system is capitalism. It has been for the last century. Before that, the world system was feudalism and traditional economies. Capitalism didn't rise in just one country and stayed in one country for a century, capitalism swept the most powerful areas of the world, specifically Europe. [END-CITE]Capitalism, however, allows for other forms of government, including monarchy, theocracy, and yes, "C"ommunism, to coexist with it. "c"ommunism, as you define it, cannot tolerate the existence of any of these, much less capitalism. I admit to being somewhat mystified that you argue that capitalism has held sway for the last century even though the USSR, once again, was a major world power and clearly not capitalist at all, especially in the early years. If you include China in the mix, the USSR and China had nearly 890 million people out of a total population of approximately 3 billion in 1960; that's roughly a third of the world's population in a clearly non capitalistic state within the last 60 years, not century, so claiming capitalism has had global hegemony in the last century is clearly false. [STA-CITE]> World communism is a goal of socialism. Socialism and communism cannot exist in one or two countries while a directly opposing system surrounds them... [END-CITE]China and Russia have been traditional centers of power, not satellites. They dictate the conditions around them, not vice versa; Ukraine being a perfect current event example. [STA-CITE]> Capitalism will likely not be able to survive in one country if the entire world was socialist. [END-CITE]Absent violent overthrow, I don't agree; capitalism has shown to be one of the best methods of improving economic conditions of any practicable sociopolitical platform. It does not depend on exterior forces to survive and thrive. [STA-CITE]> That's why worker councils, i.e., Soviet councils existed, to be a checks and balances of the workers vs the leaders. It's also not just one person managing the state, various political positions exist, akin to something like the U.S. legislative and executive system. [END-CITE]They were created, but to say they existed is to elide the fact that they vanished almost as soon as they appeared in the Soviet consciousness; to quoth Lenin (who you say was doing just fine until Stalin barged in) ""history of all countries bears out the fact that through their own powers alone, the working class can develop only a trade-union consciousness." *What is to be Done*, 1902. From wikipedia, for the sake of speed: "That is, history had demonstrated that the working class could engage in local, spontaneous rebellions to improve its position within the capitalist system but that it lacked the understanding of its interests necessary to overthrow that system." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy#Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union The idea that Soviet leadership truly trusted the proletariat has always been somewhat suspect. [STA-CITE]> If they realize they have been handed absolute power, they should know that the power ONLY exists because the people being governed accept it, even if they disagree, like you said. You have those who will enforce your power, like the military or the police. But those people only enforce your power because they too, recognized it and accepted it. [END-CITE]You're assuming, first, that military and police are all that good at *thinking*; second, you're making the mistake that even if they think - as opposed to following orders - that they *agree* with you. Finally, remember that in modern times, it's not necessary to have a majority agree; military hardware is designed with the term "force multiplier" in mind. If you're so right about how it's possible for consent of the governed to actually function, how come every communist state has reverted to authoritarianism? [STA-CITE]> Should it not be death's per capita, rather that landmass, that allows comparisons of this type? And where did you learn that, I was unaware of that information. [END-CITE]Fine, going by the Third Reich's numbers in WWII, they lost 10% of their total population; in comparison, Russia suffered 13.5%. Large real number difference, but not statistically significant in terms of culture shock; going back to WWI, the German Empire lost around 3.5% of its' population versus Russia's 2%. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties If you want to compare on that basis, Russia has no argument for any especial consideration of hardship. [STA-CITE]> The level of industrialization that the US achieved in 200 years was achieved by the USSR in 20-30. [END-CITE]The Second Industrial Revolution didn't even start until 1860; this was when steel began to be mass produced. To say that it took the US that much longer is to ignore that the technical processes literally didn't exist until much closer to the time the USSR was interested in developing. [STA-CITE]> But in a country where the need for personal material and financial wealth is virtually eliminated, exactly WHAT would corrupt a government? What would drive them to abuse the system? [END-CITE]Power? Needs and wants aren't the same thing. As the saying goes, the man least qualified to lead is the one who wants to the most, and communist regimes have a bad habit of putting those individuals to the forefront.

[Braver_Incident]

[STA-CITE]> Capitalism, however, allows for other forms of government, including monarchy, theocracy, and yes, "C"ommunism, to coexist with it. "c"ommunism, as you define it, cannot tolerate the existence of any of these, much less capitalism. I admit to being somewhat mystified that you argue that capitalism has held sway for the last century even though the USSR, once again, was a major world power and clearly not capitalist at all, especially in the early years. If you include China in the mix, the USSR and China had nearly 890 million people out of a total population of approximately 3 billion in 1960; that's roughly a third of the world's population in a clearly non capitalistic state within the last 60 years, not century, so claiming capitalism has had global hegemony in the last century is clearly false. [END-CITE]No, communism can't coexist with them, but it's a stage more favorable than any other on Earth, that's why conditions are to be created for it to exist. Even though yes, a third of the world lived under Communism, the primary economic system was still capitalism. Moreover, Communist states were heavily outnumbered, and capitalist exploitation into the periphery still existed, as according [The Dependency Theory.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory) This theory is modeled on a capitalist world system, and if you look at it, you can see that the conditions of this capitalist system still exist today, and definitely existed during the 20th century. [STA-CITE]>China and Russia have been traditional centers of power, not satellites. They dictate the conditions around them, not vice versa; Ukraine being a perfect current event example. [END-CITE]While true, the conditions of a capitalist system still existed. Was the world system buckling? Yes. Were these Communist states, centers of power, able to manipulate conditions? Yes, they were able to start Communist revolutions around the world, they were able to fight proxy wars, but it wasn't enough to overthrow the system. [STA-CITE]>Absent violent overthrow, I don't agree; capitalism has shown to be one of the best methods of improving economic conditions of any practicable sociopolitical platform. It does not depend on exterior horses to survive and thrive. [END-CITE]The effectiveness of capitalism to be able to significantly? I agree, it has proven itself. Capitalism can create incredible growth. Yet Communism was able to similarly replicate that growth, with obvious differences. I'm not sure if that is true or not, what you say on exterior horse. I contend that since capitalism is about trying to find the best conditions for profit (least labor cost, least transport cost) then it will search for areas to exploit, like today in present day China. But will it be able to exploit and outsource in a socialist world? Socialist states would likely prevent exploitation from happening, and see it as a capitalist invasion and thus war. A capitalist state in a socialist world then must rely on itself to survive. It must become self sufficient. It must be able to reap the most from its own people to stay profitable and competitive. In other words, I contend that a capitalist state must achieve [Autarky.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky) Likely, in a socialist world, the socialist states have already established trade with each other, in the form of a interconnected distribution network, not money, not buying. Money in the USSR acted more as trading stamps than what we have now. Only a limited set of products could be freely bought. Items not considering buyable would simply be freely distributed across the socialist world if any area was low on it. Surplus items could be managed by one socialist state and sent to the other. Socialist trading would function more as a bartering system than anything else, really. Knowing this, a capitalist state would already be unable to sell a wide variety of products. In fact, it could be debated that selling itself would be almost impossible. Socialist currency does not function the same as capitalist currency, and thus is not freely convertible. Hard currency, which is what a capitalist state would use, is not used by socialist states. The only reason the USSR was able to have foreign trade with other capitalist countries is because they sold their products for hard currency, which they then used to buy products. Importing and exporting were linked. So, why would a socialist world decide to adopt a hard currency for a capitalist state? Moreover, what could a capitalist state provide that the other socialist states couldn't, likely for free or for bartering? This is why a capitalist state needs to achieve autarky. But now, how much can the capitalists exploit their own people? How low can they be paid? Companies cannot look beyond the border for labor, and the citizens cannot look beyond the border for work. The people also have to work to survive. Companies need profit to survive. Now, I am no expert in economics so if you correct me on this then you are likely right, but couldn't a company just simply go down to the minimum 100% of the time for cheap labor? The people HAVE to accept it, because other wise they will die. Companies are not going to be motivated to lift it because otherwise they lose profit and there is no other source of exploitation. This is the same situation in China. Workers have no other place to turn, so companies just simply make them work for the minimum wage. It's wage slavery. Either people will accept these new conditions for the lowest wage and it is a capitalist dystopia, or they escape. Notice the parallel here and the USSR, where people tried to escape? Opposite economies in opposite economic worlds have a hard time functioning. Double posting because too much.

[m0ddem]

[STA-CITE]> No, communism can't coexist with them, but it's a stage more favorable than any other on Earth, that's why conditions are to be created for it to exist. [END-CITE]In the marketplace of ideas, stronger ideas win out; for you to admit that communism can't outcompete other social structures is to admit that it has inherent flaws as a theory, much less in practice. Beyond that, communism is only more preferable *in theory*. You cannot produce a single example of a functioning, little 'c' communist country in practice, and yet you have the ability to critique functioning capitalist societies, which perforce puts capitalist societies at a disadvantage; in effect, capitalism is made to suffer all the warts of its' existence, while communism is wonderfully perfect and just not "implemented correctly". This is a clear and unrealized issue in any side by side comparison of the two systems. [STA-CITE]> Even though yes, a third of the world lived under Communism, the primary economic system was still capitalism. Moreover, Communist states were heavily outnumbered, and capitalist exploitation into the periphery still existed, as according The Dependency Theory. This theory is modeled on a capitalist world system, and if you look at it, you can see that the conditions of this capitalist system still exist today, and definitely existed during the 20th century. [END-CITE]This ignores that the USSR itself was a master of dependency theory; does the term *Soviet bloc state* ring any bells? Dependency theory is a function of hegemony, not necessarily *capitalist* hegemony. I also question your assertion of capitalism being the "primary economic theory". Are you asserting that the existence of trade between two countries (whether or not it's a function of dependency theory) is an inherently capitalistic act? [STA-CITE]> While true, the conditions of a capitalist system still existed. Was the world system buckling? Yes. Were these Communist states, centers of power, able to manipulate conditions? Yes, they were able to start Communist revolutions around the world, they were able to fight proxy wars, but it wasn't enough to overthrow the system. [END-CITE]So you acknowledge that, especially, Russia and China were *not* surrounded, which again erodes your assertion that capitalistic global hegemony has existed for the last century, and just because it "wasn't enough" doesn't mean that there wasn't competition, which was your initial argument. [STA-CITE]> Yet Communism was able to similarly replicate that growth, with obvious differences. [END-CITE]On a macro scale, yes, but for the individual or smaller communities? Not so much. This leads us back down the road towards Tyranny of the Majority, if you'd like to reopen that front. Also, your ?autocorrect? does wierd stuff, apparently. [STA-CITE]> Likely, in a socialist world, the socialist states have already established trade with each other, in the form of a interconnected distribution network, not money, not buying. Money in the USSR acted more as trading stamps than what we have now. Only a limited set of products could be freely bought. Items not considering buyable would simply be freely distributed across the socialist world if any area was low on it. Surplus items could be managed by one socialist state and sent to the other. Socialist trading would function more as a bartering system than anything else, really. [END-CITE]And therefore limit innovation extensively. Many of the things you currently enjoy - the internet, smartphones, social media platforms (reddit!) and soon (hopefully) small scale solar batteries, cleaner driving cars, and a host of upcoming innovations and improvements exist in a consumer market, which communism is admittedly awful at. As our problems increase in complexity (climate change, population increase, resource depletion) innovation must increase or the human race simply won't survive; communism would not handle any of that well, beyond rationing, and historically rationing in Communist countries has been either used as a cudgel to punish groups that the leadership doesn't like (again, the Holodomor) or handled ineffectively as the size of the governed area increases. [STA-CITE]> Hard currency, which is what a capitalist state would use, is not used by socialist states. [END-CITE]Just pointing out that you're using "socialist" and "communist" interchangeably, which isn't correct. Socialist democratic countries use currency all the time; even in Soviet Russia, currency was used, though I'll grant you it was closer to a ration card than real money. [STA-CITE]> So, why would a socialist world decide to adopt a hard currency for a capitalist state? Moreover, what could a capitalist state provide that the other socialist states couldn't, likely for free or for bartering? [END-CITE]Why do Americans buy German cars? Why do foreign students attend American universities? Why does Africa buy or have American rice donated? Because not every country has everything it (or its' citizens) want, and even if a cooperating "c"ommunist state had some of a particular good or resource, there's no reason to believe they'd have enough to satisfy the demand. [STA-CITE]> This is why a capitalist state needs to achieve autarky. But now, how much can the capitalists exploit their own people? How low can they be paid? Companies cannot look beyond the border for labor, and the citizens cannot look beyond the border for work. The people also have to work to survive. Companies need profit to survive. Now, I am no expert in economics so if you correct me on this then you are likely right, but couldn't a company just simply go down to the minimum 100% of the time for cheap labor? The people HAVE to accept it, because other wise they will die. [END-CITE]There's so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to start. I've already attacked the idea of autarky being necessary in a dominant communist environment, but beyond this, you're assuming that a capitalist state does nothing but exploit the worker, a common communist conceit; however, while this may be true in an oligarchic capitalist society where corporations = government, in blended states or in states where robust regulation exists, corporations are held in check so there is some balance between employer and employee. [STA-CITE]> The people HAVE to accept it, because other wise they will die. [END-CITE]Or another employer offers them more money; you're assuming there's no other competitor. You need to give capitalism a *little* credit. [STA-CITE]>Workers have no other place to turn, so companies just simply make them work for the minimum wage. It's wage slavery. Either people will accept these new conditions for the lowest wage and it is a capitalist dystopia, or they escape. [END-CITE]And here we arrive at your basic flaw. Capitalist *dystopia*. Why do you get to assume the worst of capitalism, and assume the best of communism? Rather, both should be judged on both their flaws *and* their merits. Using China as an example is problematic on several different levels; for starters, citizens don't have the same implicit rights that they do in democratic countries. Additionally, corporations have nothing to fear from the authorities in a given province, given that they've done what it takes to influence unelected and corrupt officials; neither of these conditions exist in a democratic and functioning society.

[Braver_Incident]

[STA-CITE]>They were created, but to say they existed is to elide the fact that they vanished almost as soon as they appeared in the Soviet consciousness; to quoth Lenin (who you say was doing just fine until Stalin barged in) ""history of all countries bears out the fact that through their own powers alone, the working class can develop only a trade-union consciousness." What is to be Done, 1902. [END-CITE] [STA-CITE]>From wikipedia, for the sake of speed: "That is, history had demonstrated that the working class could engage in local, spontaneous rebellions to improve its position within the capitalist system but that it lacked the understanding of its interests necessary to overthrow that system." [END-CITE]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy#Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union The idea that Soviet leadership truly trusted the proletariat has always been somewhat suspect. It does not state that the Soviets lost power during Lenin's rule, but you seem correct about the lack of trust in the proletariat. If you show me that Soviets really did vanish or lost power during Lenin's rule, then I would concede this point. [STA-CITE]>You're assuming, first, that military and police are all that good at thinking; second, you're making the mistake that even if they think - as opposed to following orders - that they agree with you. Finally, remember that in modern times, it's not necessary to have a majority agree; military hardware is designed with the term "horse multiplier" in mind. If you're so right about how it's possible for consent of the governed to actually function, how come every communist state has reverted to authoritarianism? [END-CITE]Well, you are right about that. That would mean that a civil war would have to take place. Most of the people would likely revolt, and there would have to be some people in the military to do the same thing. According to Marx, the proletariat would be armed, and thus they should be able to engage the military. In a socialist society, the workers control the means of production, but the state owns it. The state's ownership is an extension of worker ownership. They give orders to the workers to make what they say, and how much, to fill status quos. If a civil war occurs, the state will lose almost all production, and workers will likely shift it for their own needs. The loyalist military would have to capture means of production in order to sustain themselves, while the workers who have revolted control most of it, and thus they are able to sustain themselves. Add this with the same fact that the workers are armed, it would be extremely difficult for the state to win. This is opposed to a capitalist civil war in which companies will work for whoever is willing to pay. The state in a capitalist civil war already controls some means of production, and the workers do not control any, the companies or rich individuals do. I contend that a socialist civil war would be far more successful for the proletariat than in a capitalist civil war. That's a good point. The USSR is authoritarian in the beginning, since they owned everything and controlled the economy, but Stalin did further that point... Well look at Germany, after World War I. The people resorted to authoritarianism because of the intense stress put upon by the war and their loss. The USSR turned to authoritarianism when Stalin took control likely for the same reason, the past 2 wars put much stress. World War 2, a dire situation in which the largest enemy of Communism was standing head level to them and willing to destroy the Soviet Union must have allowed Stalin to do the same thing. It's the same thing after 9/11, the stress put upon the American people allowed Bush to invade the Middle East and pass the Patriot Act, which we struggle to remove this day. Stress makes all people turn to authoritarian answers, and it is difficult to take back the power away from the government. [STA-CITE]>Fine, going by the Third Reich's numbers in WWII, they lost 10% of their total population; in comparison, Russia suffered 13.5%. Large real number difference, but not statistically significant in terms of culture shock; going back to WWI, the German Empire lost around 3.5% of its' population versus Russia's 2%. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties[2] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties[3] If you want to compare on that basis, Russia has no argument for any especial consideration of hardship. [END-CITE]That's for Germany, and I think Germany suffered a similar situation to Russia, which is why they turned to authoritarianism, except West Germany received massive financial aid by the US and underwent reconstruction. [STA-CITE]>The Second Industrial Revolution didn't even start until 1860; this was when steel began to be mass produced. To say that it took the US that much longer is to ignore that the technical processes literally didn't exist until much closer to the time the USSR was interested in developing. [END-CITE]Ok, you are right about that. US also suffered a civil war there too. [ They finished reconstruction in 1877 according to wikipedia.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era) This is assuming the U.S. did not grow during reconstruction period. At the end of the 19th century, while the U.S likely had 23 years to jump on the industrialization bandwagon, Russia was still a country of farm plowers. According to this paper: [STA-CITE]>In the United States, the first factory system appeared in Waltham and Lowell in the 1810s and 1820s in the textile industry. The factory system then spread to the chemical and metallurgical industries in the 1840s and to all market-oriented industries by the 1860s and 1870s (Nelson, 1980). This American model of manufacturing, which included mass manufacture by power-driven machinery and interchangeable parts, was dominated by machine processes. Machine processes dictated the nature and organization of production, although there was no uniformity in production layout or methods between different industries. For example, in the textile industry, machines almost immediately created a sequential manufacturing process that was characteristic of that industry. In iron manufacturing, however, a standard factory layout, because of the new machines, took a long time to develop and there was little uniformity in factory organization until the end of the 19th century. [END-CITE]http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/industrial.htm The U.S. would have likely reached a good level of industrialization at the end of the 19th century. Contrary to what the paper says, lets assume the U.S. did only have 23 years to industrialize. I do not know the exact date for when Russia started industrialization, but I will assume that it did not happen during World War 1 or the Civil war. The USSR was created in 1927. The USSR was able to match and even out-manufacture Nazi Germany during the middle-end of World War 2. I will say that it reached a good level of industrialization in 1945. 1945-1927 = 18 years, which is very similar to 23 years. So, by me being generous and pushing the date of US industrialization by several decades, they maintain a similar time frame. This means that the planned economy was able to at least MATCH the capitalist economy of the US, even after 2 wars. And again, I was pushing the dates contrary to the paper. [STA-CITE]>Power? Needs and wants aren't the same thing. As the saying goes, the man least qualified to lead is the one who wants to the most, and communist regimes have a bad habit of putting those individuals to the forefront. [END-CITE]Ok, power, in other words in the context of the consent of power, the want for people to accept you as a leader and consent to you as a leader, and thus an ability to use that consent and make things happen to your will. Material things are likely not wanted, so just power itself is what is wanted? Well, I don't really have a counter argument, I guess I concede this point, but I always thought that people want power not just for the approval of others but to get something they wanted in a material, or even sexual sense. For Hitler, it was so that he could wipe out the Jews. For Andrew Jackson, it was so he could wipe out the Native Americans and destroy the Bank.

[m0ddem]

[STA-CITE]> If you show me that Soviets really did vanish or lost power during Lenin's rule, then I would concede this point. [END-CITE]Wikipedia, on how Lenin handled the CCCP and the Central Committee: The system had many faults, and opposition to Lenin and **what many saw as his excessive centralisation policies** came to the leadership's attention during the 8th Party Congress (March 1919) and the 9th Party Congress (March 1920).[9] At the 9th Party Congress the Democratic Centralists, an opposition faction within the party, **accused Lenin and his associates, of creating a Central Committee in which a "small handful of party oligarchs ... was banning those who hold deviant views."[10]** *(emphasis added)* That seems to pretty definitively show that Lenin was making Soviets irrelevant, wouldn't you agree? [STA-CITE]> Well, you are right about that. That would mean that a civil war would have to take place. Most of the people would likely revolt, and there would have to be some people in the military to do the same thing. According to Marx, the proletariat would be armed, and thus they should be able to engage the military. [END-CITE]Here you should remember that Karl Marx was talking about armed insurrection in the late *18th century*. If you have a hundred workers with single action rifles versus twenty soldiers armed with the same, the outcome favors the workers. If you have a hundred workers with small arms facing tanks, how exactly do you expect that to play out? You should look up the term force multiplier (especially as regards technology), and think about the ability of a small, well equipped force versus a mass of underequipped, disorganized mob. Because that's basically the scenario in any modern popular uprising. [STA-CITE]> The state's ownership is an extension of worker ownership. [END-CITE]*Only if the will of the state accurately represents the will of the people, instead of the leadership.* [STA-CITE]>That's for Germany, and I think Germany suffered a similar situation to Russia, which is why they turned to authoritarianism, except West Germany received massive financial aid by the US and underwent reconstruction. [END-CITE]British losses in WWI were equivalent to roughly 2 percent of their population (versus Russia's just under 2 percent, via the same source). In WWII, Britain lost far less in terms of population, but suffered severe shortages and devastation of material on the scale of what the USSR experienced. Additionally, it's worth noting that Poland suffered more losses as a percent of population and was taken over by the USSR; I just don't think this argument holds that much weight, frankly. [STA-CITE]> So, by me being generous and pushing the date of US industrialization by several decades, they maintain a similar time frame. This means that the planned economy was able to at least MATCH the capitalist economy of the US, even after 2 wars. And again, I was pushing the dates contrary to the paper. [END-CITE]On a macro scale, we agree; see my comments previously for a discourse on anything *less* than macro scale. [STA-CITE]> Well, I don't really have a counter argument, I guess I concede this point, [END-CITE]Not to be snarky, you've conceded quite a few points. Has your view changed at all?

[A_Soporific]

I have a problem with some of this stuff. First off, it ignores the communist revolts against the Vanguard Party. Yes, they declared that they were doing things on the behalf of the people, much like the French Revolutionaries before them. The problem is that people objected like in the Vendée or the Russian Peasant Armies they were met with violence. Lenin was complicit with launching coups against representative government and violent suppression of people seeking to protect their own interests. He did so while at the same time calling out labor union leaders for not recognizing that their own interests and objectives differed from those he led, never once realizing that the precise same dynamic was playing out with the Vanguard party and communism in general. Rather than coopting these other movements and incorporating the views of others they simply recreated a new autocratic political system modeled on Imperial Russia. This isn't uncommon in revolutions: when the English killed King Charles I they recreated first a military dictatorship and then reinstituted the Monarchy, when the French Revolted against the tyranny of their absolute monarchy they let absolute power fall into the hands of a small handful of radicals and eventually into the hands of one dictator. It turns out that autocratic and even tyrannical power is really, really useful for those who are in power. Lenin fell into a common trap. Instead of laying the groundwork to establish a stateless society he instead let the tyrannical tools and power of the old regime fall and be crushed by the people he immediately took it up and sought to use it to remake the world around him, just like the Czar before him and made the rise of a man like Stalin inevitable. It's also important to note that many nations exploded in wealth and power. France, Germany, Belgium, and dozens of other nations were destroyed by a world War. Others such as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Austria, Hungary, and dozens of others were created from the corpses of those nations killed by that same war. Yet the 1920's was a time of remarkable growth across the board. The USSR wasn't even remarkable. It was only when the USSR was less impacted by the Great Depression that they bucked the trend, and that was largely because they were recovering slower and indeed lost to their neighbors in the prior decade. No one here is arguing that Russia shouldn't have been a great power. They had been a great power for some time. But, the question here is whether or not Russia did great *because of* or *in spite of* their political and economic leadership. There's a great deal of reason to suspect that it was *in spite of*. If you look at agricultural production you see some pretty serious losses in productivity with collectivization. This has been repeated time and time again. In the Soviet Union in the 20's and 30's. Again in the 50's in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. China's experiences with 5 year plans and the Great Leap Forward. Then again in the Socialist Ujaama villages in East Africa during the 70's. The mechanism being employed weren't just inferior to capitalistic production, but *inferior to the traditional production that preceded it*. The rejections of the value of local knowledge, the subordination of productivity to ideology, and fundamental flaws in Marxist Economics for no other reason that it failed to develop to accommodate new data because it was crushed under political orthodoxy that began with Lenin. Industry was always the focus of Communist states. There were massive gains in this category, but that can arguably be a case of something being superior to nothing. You saw massive and impressive expansion of industry largely from scratch. Imperial Russia had functionally nothing. China less so. Both of these nations had demographics that made great power status inevitable but they were held back by backward and incompetent political leadership and economic structures. But even at their communist peaks Soviet products were always at a design disadvantage (especially for consumer goods), the incentives in the system were designed to promote an orthodoxy over productivity or quality, productivity was never equal to that of their rivals, and even when trade was possible you had things like Yugos trying to compete with Toyotas. Compare South Korea and Japan to the track of North Korea or Russia. Marx was a decent economist for his time, but you have to realize that the theory that he was working on was Ricardian. The premises he was working from were wrong. Monopolies are not inevitable, but there are some conditions that promote them. With the proper incentives they can be prevented from forming. Usually monopolies we see are those with massive barriers to entry, often times the regulatory burdens just compound the problems inherent in running wires the to compete with Comcast. Odd, because *some* planning has been successfully integrated into Capitalist economies, but systemic economic shortages is more often experienced by economies attempting centralized planning. *With perfect information* then a centrally planned economy *might* work out better *for the central authority* but long experience has demonstrated that putting that much power over capital in the hands of a small number of people ends badly. I doubt that horse unemployment is really a thing. You see, the primary cause of a lack of rising wages in the West is largely a function of those jobs moving to developing nations, and people in those nations moving into industrial or service industries from subsistence agriculture. It's less that technology is resulting in fewer jobs, but rather that people who were previously excluded from having any jobs at all are now being included for the first time. Employers aren't the only ones who decide the wages. When they have all the market power they can approach it, but wages often rise over the objection of owners when the value of labor rises. More generally standards of living tend to be higher when people have more control over their own surroundings, rather than delegating that power to some third party. The problem is that the political elite and economic elite aren't necessarily the same people in a capitalistic society. Whenever you have a vanguard party taking over that is absolutely the case. Everything is a ticking time bomb. As long as there is a structure that structure will collapse. Communism is a structure so whenever it is in place it would also be a ticking time bomb. The problem is that Capitalistic alternatives tend to both have *less* concentration of power and be *more* capable of adapting to challenges. Capitalism will eventually collapse because entropy. Eventually it will morph into a form that cannot survive or because people will just decide to try something else. The problem is that the problems that Marx identified didn't result in the collapse of Capitalism when it "should" have simply because the form of capitalism that existed adapted properly to meet those challenges. As long as Capitalism is made to work then it will continue to persist. Vanguard-led revolutions that don't allow themselves to decompose into something fluid and cede power to their own people are far too rigid and incapable of adapting and will always collapse first. TL;DR: The USSR was shackled by massive centralization of power and poor leadership. If people had been allowed to control their own capital then they would have done much better.

[sllewgh]

[STA-CITE]>Monopolies are not inevitable, but there are some conditions that promote them. [END-CITE]Marx did not present any theories on monopoly that I'm aware of, so this criticism is misplaced. [STA-CITE]>The problem is that the problems that Marx identified didn't result in the collapse of Capitalism when it "should" have simply because the form of capitalism that existed adapted properly to meet those challenges. [END-CITE]Marx did have a teleological reading of history and believed that capitalism would inevitably eat itself, but he did not offer any prediction as to when that would happen. He did, however, explicitly account for the fact that capitalism is not static and changes over time. If I am correct, that leaves you without any examples of how Marx was "wrong". Marx was, in fact, wrong about several things, but not what you're trying to assert. I know you're just responding to errors made by Op, who has also misread (or not read) Marx, but many of your conclusions seem to depend upon these mis-critiques.

[A_Soporific]

I know that I am not versed especially well on Marx. Don't get me wrong, I read the Manifesto and Das Capital but I haven't particularly delved into what he did or did not say elsewhere. He was wrong primarily in the notion that capital necessarily replaces labor. This isn't precisely accurate, as capital merely modifies labor. You can have infinity hammers, factories, or trains but you won't get anything done. Moreover, often times when a form of capital that increases the sale value of the final good is introduced you see an increase in labor in that field. For example, the introduction of the cotton gin also increased the demand for slavery in the south in the years prior to the ban on importation of slaves. It might seem like a minor quibble, but it really undercuts the notion that the working classes cannot negotiate on equal footing when it comes to compensation. He also has a nasty habit of divorcing the processes of production and consumption, such as defining the value of a good by the labor put into it as opposed to defining the value of the good by the consumption and the value of the labor as a function of the value of the good. He was working off of philosophy and idealized forms as much as working off of observations.

[iKnife]

[STA-CITE]> He was wrong primarily in the notion that capital necessarily replaces labor. This isn't precisely accurate, as capital merely modifies labor. You can have infinity hammers, factories, or trains but you won't get anything done. Moreover, often times when a form of capital that increases the sale value of the final good is introduced you see an increase in labor in that field. For example, the introduction of the cotton gin also increased the demand for slavery in the south in the years prior to the ban on importation of slaves. It might seem like a minor quibble, but it really undercuts the notion that the working classes cannot negotiate on equal footing when it comes to compensation. [END-CITE]Marx really says basically the opposite of what you think he does, he is actually very interested in the relationship between labor and capital, labor as releasing pent up value in machines, and labor, eventually through alienation etc, being reduced to an appendage of the machine. There are several chapters in Capital on this issue. [STA-CITE]>He also has a nasty habit of divorcing the processes of production and consumption, such as defining the value of a good by the labor put into it as opposed to defining the value of the good by the consumption and the value of the labor as a function of the value of the good. He was working off of philosophy and idealized forms as much as working off of observations. [END-CITE]Again, Marx explicitly confronts this issue and you're not engaging with his argument. Marx understands commodities as being composed of three types of value: value itself, the socially necessary labor time in a thing, exchange value, an abstraction from this value and use value, what the commodity is actually used for in a concrete way. If you want to refute Marx that's well and good but you really have to read him more charitably and closely than your post makes me think you have.

[sllewgh]

[STA-CITE]>He was wrong primarily in the notion that capital necessarily replaces labor. [END-CITE]Marx didn't really say that either. Capital and labor are apples and oranges. What follows in your analysis, therefore, does not hold water. [STA-CITE]>He also has a nasty habit of divorcing the processes of production and consumption, such as defining the value of a good by the labor put into it as opposed to defining the value of the good by the consumption and the value of the labor as a function of the value of the good. [END-CITE]He doesn't really do that, either. Marx identifies two types of value: Use value and exchange value. Use value refers to what the item can do (its "usefulness"), while exchange value refers to what it can be exchanged for (its "price"). So, a silver spoon, for example, would have the same use value as any other spoon, but will have a higher exchange value because of the material, its status as a luxury item, its fine craftsmanship, it's made by a famous smith, ect. These two measures of value are often different, but aren't mutually exclusive or interchangeable. [STA-CITE]>He was working off of philosophy and idealized forms as much as working off of observations. [END-CITE]This was, and is, totally standard practice for social science. You really should not be engaging in all this critique of Marx without a better understanding of what he wrote. It's a dense and complex text. I'm not sure I believe you actually read all 3 volumes of Das Capital, but even if you did and still didn't walk away with an accurate understanding, I couldn't fault you for that. I didn't get it after my first engagement, either.

[Braver_Incident]

∆ That's extremely well thought out. I was thinking to try to attack it but you have not one, but several points that I don't know how to counter. I would be dropping half your arguments. I have been only recently exposed to the inner workings and history of Leninism and Communist states, as I am not a Communist, but a Libertarian Socialist; maybe one day I will find the answers for this, but for now, you leave my mind blank and have changed my view on one thing, for now at least: Lenin made a mistake. If you want, I could try a half assed rebuttal D: BTW did you ever study this stuff? Or were you once a socialist? Because you seem to have a very good deal of background knowledge yourself.

[A_Soporific]

I'm rather firmly Capitalist myself. But I made sure to focus on developmental economics. Basically, looking at how new markets form either when founding a city or from introducing a new technology. It sheds some different light on things. Lenin was trying to recreate the French Revolution only do it with foreknowledge and a clear goal in mind. In doing so he fell into a trap. The method subverted the goal. In creating socialism, which is each person (or possibly people in general depending) having unquestioned control over everything they need to produce things themselves, he opted to channel everything into a small core of ideologically pure professionals. This had the unfortunate side effect of putting the entirety of the state's power in the hands of him, which made it real easy for him to make the changes he wanted but in doing so made the rise of Stalin or a man like him inevitable. If you want some reading stuff I think you would fine especially interesting I would recommend *Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed* and *The sovereign state and its competitors*. To get a better idea of how and why things are structured the way they are and how badly off the rails things get when the incentives are not aligned properly.

[Uintahwolf]

Do you teach at all , or are you a former professor in anything? You have over 70 delta's , and that just blows my freaking mind .

[A_Soporific]

No, I am not a professor. I only have so many deltas because I have been around for a while.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/A_Soporific. [^A_Soporific's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/a_soporific) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[Keithious]

What is a Libertarian Socialist? Do you mean you believe in a mixed economy?

[Braver_Incident]

No, libertarian socialism, which right now is the more popular socialist ideology, is having a socialist economic system (everyone owns everything in eli5 terms) without a strong state. Sometimes there is no state at all, in which case it is anarchism. Power is not centralized into one entity (the state) but it is spread around the people or groups of people. (representatives usually) What libertarian socialism and regular right libertarianism have in common is their view of the state. Both sides see the state as something that should be minimized or done away with completely.

[Keithious]

That seems like it would create an environment where an individual could easily seize power.