Is Communism Really a Failure? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14975006
SSDR wrote:@Senter, "Derailed to state capitalism?" Yeah this is proof that you're very liberal, and that you're either a left communist, Western Marxist, or you're just an ultra leftist. Socialist states such as the Soviet Union were state socialist that had some capitalist characteristics, but they were state socialist.

Uhhh.... why do you say "were"?

You're free to label me however you wish, and you will. But I'm interested in solving problems rather than earning a label.

Marx made it very clear that in his analysis it was the oppressed class under the ancient slave systems, as in Rome, became feudal landowners with a new oppressed class - serfs. He further made it clear that under feudalism the oppressed class of serfs and others created capitalism and became capitalists with a new oppressed class - workers. He further made it clear that this was the consistent story throughout history, and that the oppressed class always became the oppressors. He was also quite clear that under capitalism, the oppressed working class would ultimately become owners of the MoP in a system he called "lower communism" and we call "socialism".

In the Soviet Union the workers were not the owners of the MoP. The state was. That made no change to the relationship the workers had to their bosses. Hence it was not "lower communism" (socialism).


This response of yours makes you sound like you believe that socialism can't have ANY state, whether the state is capitalist or socialist.

You would do much better and be more mannerly if you would ask questions rather that making assumptions like this, and risk being as wrong as this. The desire to have no state is not only counter to Marxism, but is also illogical to the point of being fatuous. So no, I don't oppose any state.


When Marx described socialism as "stateless" he meant a capitalist state, and a capitalist state is a state that enforces capitalist classes, defends private property rights, and maintains a currency and uses debt to control the workers.

Marx didn't describe socialism as "stateless". You're confusing his ideas about communism with those of socialism. If he indicated that socialism would be "the dictatorship of the proletariat", obviously he wasn't describing a stateless society.


Reformism that has some socialized characteristics is state capitalist, not state socialist, and that reformism conserves the capitalist mode of production, but uses some state capitalist or some socialist characteristics to defend its mode of production, so that it doesn't collapse, giving true opportunity for a socialist uprising to occur.

The inclusion of policies and characteristics that resemble some that may be found in socialism doesn't make the system socialism since it doesn't change the owners of the MoP to workers.


How is it different for feudalism to evolve into capitalism? Because both defend classes, currency, the concept of value, debt, and in some cases, slavery (some capitalist countries defended slavery and had it enforced like Saudi Arabia up until the 1960's).

Feudalism didn't have currency. The system was more like a bartering economy. And value? Every system and every proposed system involves the notion of value.


Capitalism is a modernized, less family oriented, liberalized version of feudalism. The only main difference between capitalism and feudalism is that in capitalism, the labourers have opportunities to change their class (for example, a poor farmer starts his own company, gains lots of customers and gains access to natural resources, builds his company, and gets rich and becomes an employer himself), labourers can choose where they live and how their wealth is (in feudalism, landlords chose where you live and how your material wealth is, via how you dress or what luxuries you're allowed to have, etc.), and is not as family oriented (in more advanced capitalism, where the economy is more socialized, via welfare, wages, labour unions, state employment, jobs).

Capitalism is more similar to feudalism than it is to socialism.

And yet your idea of capitalism being (merely) a liberalized version of feudalism is absurd. There is little similarity.
#14975229
@Senter, No one ever said that you were trying to "earn" a label. That makes no sense under socialist circumstances.

The Soviet Union was a state socialist society. The state in the Soviet Union did not have capitalist aims, thus making the Soviet state a non capitalist state.

I am not a Marxist. I am a socialist that supports some of Marx's beliefs. I am no follower of Marx, or anyone. So the definitions we are using may vary. And you can't say that only Marxists are socialists. All Marxists are socialists, but not all socialists are Marxists.

Feudalism did have a currency, and a medium of exchange. There were merchants, land lords, slave sellers, and monarchs had a lot of money.

But, even if capitalism has little in common with feudalism, it's still closer to feudalism than it is to socialism.
#14975250
@Senter, In basic terms, socialism is when the economy is not private, and that it's not family oriented. There are different scales and spectrum of socialism. In socialism, family and employers don't rule you, simply because socialist economics doesn't enforce that. Basically, the family institution doesn't have to exist in socialism because the economy is more public (socialist), so nothing is owned privately.

In pure socialism, there is no currency, no CAPITALIST state, and no social classes. Out of these three things that are the enemies of socialism, you seem to STRONGLY go against the state the most. And a true socialist would go against CURRENCY the most, not the state. Because money and currency are the ultimate evils of society, well at least to a true socialist viewpoint.

Fuck currency, fuck social hierarchy, and fuck enforced family. No human should be above another. And fuck fame. I hate people who get that extra liberal fame.
#14975255
For the closest thing to a communist economy, look to North Korea. While the situation is better than in much of India, Africa, etc, and there is some room for state directed innovation in the hard sciences; the system is actively crippling the well being and health of the Korean people. Compare and contrast with the south who's living standards are at least 10x higher.
#14975257
Igor Antunov wrote: While the situation is better than in much of India, Africa, etc, and there is some room for state directed innovation in the hard sciences; the system is actively crippling the well being and health of the Korean people.


The american system is putting more whites in the grave than the cradle.

And we shouldn't have to discuss how bad Russia is.
#14975293
Libertarian353 wrote:The american system is putting more whites in the grave than the cradle.

That sounds better than the other way around to me. Communism seems to be a system that is very restrictive on personal freedom.
#14977743
SSDR wrote:@Senter, .....

The Soviet Union was a state socialist society. The state in the Soviet Union did not have capitalist aims, thus making the Soviet state a non capitalist state.

Allow me to point out that the essence of socialism is a change in the workers' relationship to production and bosses thereof. In the USSR that relationship didn't change. The workers worked for state managers with little say in the business operation. Certainly they could make suggestions to management, but that is also true in capitalism. Only socialism changes that relationship to one in which the workers are the bosses. And therefore, the common label of "state capitalism" is proper for the economic system of the USSR.


I am not a Marxist. I am a socialist that supports some of Marx's beliefs. I am no follower of Marx, or anyone. So the definitions we are using may vary. And you can't say that only Marxists are socialists. All Marxists are socialists, but not all socialists are Marxists.

True. There are some who call themselves "socialists" who have no track record of any effort to establish a socialist economy on a national scale.


Feudalism did have a currency, and a medium of exchange. There were merchants, land lords, slave sellers, and monarchs had a lot of money.

My understanding is that currency was a later development within feudalism.


But, even if capitalism has little in common with feudalism, it's still closer to feudalism than it is to socialism.

But quibbling over that doesn't strike me as something that can be productive of anything useful.
#14977744
@Senter, Well in pure Marxist terms, the USSR was not a Marxist society. The government was Marxist, and that they were trying to implement socialist ideas into the soviet population, but the soviet population wasn't ready for socialism it seems like. Because if the Soviet population was ready for socialism, then Russia today wouldn't be full of right wing, sexist, hypermasculine pigs like Putin. Neo-Nazism is popular in Russia today, but neo Nazis are using their politics to cope with the bads of Russia today, rather than getting into left wing socialist politics because they're lacking real consciousness.

In the best words, I would want a global socialist society the most, but for now, due to what kind of fucking world this is, we can't focus on global standpoints yet.

But even before later feudalism, the concept of debt did exist, and there was a medium of exchange. And merchants have been around for centuries, all of these are symbols of value and anti socialist characteristics, since this wouldn't exist in socialism.

Yeah comparing capitalism and feudalism is useless.
#14977753
SSDR wrote:@Senter, In basic terms, socialism is when the economy is not private, and that it's not family oriented.

The non-private aspect is part of it. But I don't know with clarity what you mean by "it's not family oriented".

But the other part that is equally or more important than the non-private part, is that it is all about "liberation of the working class" through ownership and control of the MoP. If the working class is not in fact liberated from "wage slavery", it isn't socialism because socialism is not about substituting another collection of bosses for the existing ones.

So a complete description or definition of a socialist economy would be "an economy that eliminates private ownership of the MoP for private profit by replacing capitalist and private ownership with workers' ownership and control."


There are different scales and spectrum of socialism. In socialism, family and employers don't rule you, simply because socialist economics doesn't enforce that. Basically, the family institution doesn't have to exist in socialism because the economy is more public (socialist), so nothing is owned privately.

Sorry but I can't imagine the family unit being eliminated. It's unnatural.


In pure socialism, there is no currency, no CAPITALIST state, and no social classes.

There may be no currency, at least eventually maybe. Certainly there is no capitalist state; there is a socialist state however. And absolutely there are social/economic classes! The remnants of the capitalist class will remain and hold to their hope for a resurrection of capitalism for a long time. And so because classes will remain, state machinery is necessary. That is what "the dictatorship of the proletariat" is.


Out of these three things that are the enemies of socialism, you seem to STRONGLY go against the state the most. And a true socialist would go against CURRENCY the most, not the state. Because money and currency are the ultimate evils of society, well at least to a true socialist viewpoint.

No need to posture an implication that I am "not a true socialist". It's beneath you. But you say I "seem to strongly go against the state". Taken literally, that would be to say that I am against the notion of there being any state in a socialist society. But I'm not sure you said what you mean. However, I just presented my position on the socialist state so I won't repeat it.


Fuck currency, fuck social hierarchy, and fuck enforced family. No human should be above another. And fuck fame. I hate people who get that extra liberal fame.

I don't understand this tirade.
#14977754
Igor Antunov wrote:For the closest thing to a communist economy, look to North Korea. While the situation is better than in much of India, Africa, etc, and there is some room for state directed innovation in the hard sciences; the system is actively crippling the well being and health of the Korean people. Compare and contrast with the south who's living standards are at least 10x higher.

Is there no state machinery in N. Korea? Is there no suppression/oppression of anyone there?
#14977779
@Senter, When I mean it's not family oriented, I mean that all enterprises don't enforce nor promote family values, and that occupations are not limited to the family. Meaning, most people don't work with their relatives.

You never tell me, why are you a socialist? I have mixed feelings about you. In some ways, you don't sound like a socialist because when we talk, you make me feel more alone (and if you were a socialist, you would understand this).

"Sorry but I can't imagine the family unit being eliminated. It's unnatural." Well then you're not a socialist because for you to think that family is natural, rather than realizing that family is an institution that is created in feudalism and in lesser advanced stages of capitalism. Family is slavery. For family to determine your name, and for them to determine your destiny is slavery. If you want to fuck someone, but you can't because your family will judge you then that would make you feel alone. And if you were a socialist then you would understand this.

In socialism there are no economic or social classes. This is because no human should be above another. Classes are a symbol of value, and the concept of value being destroyed is one of the ultimate things in socialism.

You don't understand that "tirade" because you're not a true socialist. You have your own views, but I don't think that you're a true revolutionary. I mean you're defending the family institution.
#14977814
@SSDR, Considering your views on family and family values, your failure to know what "the dictatorship of the proletariat" is, your idea of socialism being classless, and the way you engage others, I see you are not a socialist but rather some sort of fascistic pro-totalitarian. As such, and in light of the fact of my attempts to reason with you, and in light of your resistance to socialist theory, I'm ending this conversation as there is clearly no point to it.

Good day.
#14977818
@Senter, My views on family are socialist leaning. I know what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is, and socialism IS classless. I am not a fascist, but I am not a liberal nor an anarchist. I am not resisting socialist theory, I am resisting YOUR politics. And there is no point for you to say these things because I know that you're not a socialist, you're a liberal, and that you are twisting words so that you can win, which it won't work.

"Good day" what are you, some religious priest?

Really? Did man create... :lol: :lol: :lol: […]

Let me put myself in shame this time. As I said, […]

Very Serious People

I wonder, Sivad, if you actually take time to read[…]

@Verv , Youtube is not bound by "freedom of[…]