[Patrickov]

While pinning your entire economy on one good or service is not a good idea, it does not contradict the argument that the US often involves itself in the politics of other countries for economic gain.

Every powerful enough country does so. For example, the Chinese Communist Party is too dumb to practice this, but it is foolish to believe that they don't want to (as they claim).

[Pants-of-dog]

Every powerful enough country does so. For example, the Chinese Communist Party is too dumb to practice this, but it is foolish to believe that they don't want to (as they claim).

While I think that most countries would do so if given the chance, I think it is logical to assume that only those countries with the ability to do so are actually doing it.

For example, Venezuela and the US both have reasons to be involved in the politics of the other country. However, only the US has the means and opportunity to do so.

[Patrickov]

While I think that most countries would do so if given the chance, I think it is logical to assume that only those countries with the ability to do so are actually doing it.

For example, Venezuela and the US both have reasons to be involved in the politics of the other country. However, only the US has the means and opportunity to do so.

Exactly.

Now I understands that you are simply stating that as a fact, not that you are accusing US for being the only country that wants to do so. My apologies.

[Pants-of-dog]

Exactly.

Now I understands that you are simply stating that as a fact, not that you are accusing US for being the only country that wants to do so. My apologies.

The fact that all countries may want to do so has much less impact on history and politics than the fact that the developed nations have the means and ability to do so.

Right now, the capitalists have succeeded in making their economic system the de facto global order. So from a practical perspective, any country that wants to adopt a democratic socialist government has to deal with the fact that the capitalists will not want any country to threaten their global hegemony.

[Patrickov]

The fact that all countries may want to do so has much less impact on history and politics than the fact that the developed nations have the means and ability to do so.

Right now, the capitalists have succeeded in making their economic system the de facto global order. So from a practical perspective, any country that wants to adopt a democratic socialist government has to deal with the fact that the capitalists will not want any country to threaten their global hegemony.

I don't really think that democratic socialism is going to threaten the "global hegemony of capitalists", at least not in the near future.

From what I've seen in Wikipedia, the DS theory system is still pretty incoherent, with some branches of them too radical for those want to keep most of their earnings to themselves. Therefore, I find it difficult to generalize the demise of (past) democratic-socialist governments, let alone deducing it to some kind of capitalist conspiracy.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't really think that democratic socialism is going to threaten the "global hegemony of capitalists", at least not in the near future.

.....and this is because the west will make sure that it will not happen.

From what I've seen in Wikipedia, the DS theory system is still pretty incoherent, with some branches of them too radical for those want to keep most of their earnings to themselves. Therefore, I find it difficult to generalize the demise of (past) democratic-socialist governments, let alone deducing it to some kind of capitalist conspiracy.

The fact that you find something incoherent has no bearing whatsoever on historical facts. The historical facts are that the US deliberately and decisively interfered in the Chilean experiment of democratic socialism.

[Patrickov]

.....and this is because the west will make sure that it will not happen.

I disagree. Anything gaining popular support would involve letting people know and feel they can live better under it. Democratic socialism seems offering neither.

The fact that you find something incoherent has no bearing whatsoever on historical facts. The historical facts are that the US deliberately and decisively interfered in the Chilean experiment of democratic socialism.

Any other examples? To make it a general case, I expect several more examples, as well as concrete proof that some others simply fail to take off because of suppression from capitalists.

[Pants-of-dog]

I disagree. Anything gaining popular support would involve letting people know and feel they can live better under it. Democratic socialism seems offering neither.

I see no logical connection between people's feelings and the fact that the current global order will take steps to protect its own power.

The Chilean people obviously "knew and felt" that things would be better under democratic socialism, which is why they democratically elected a socialist gov't. This implies that democratic socialism did, in fact, offer something better than capitalism.

Any other examples? To make it a general case, I expect several more examples, as well as concrete proof that some others simply fail to take off because of suppression from capitalists.

Yes, there are many. The vast majority of US interventions in Latin America during the Cold War era were all about supporting US economic interests by installing right wing dictators.

This behaviour on the part of the US is so consistent that I would actually be surprised to find out that they are not meddling in Venezuela. Especially becuase Venezuela has oil.

[Truth To Power]

The vast majority of US interventions in Latin America during the Cold War era were all about supporting US economic interests by installing right wing dictators.

This behaviour on the part of the US is so consistent that I would actually be surprised to find out that they are not meddling in Venezuela. Especially becuase Venezuela has oil.

It's true the USA's hands are dirty -- more accurately, bloody -- in Latin America, but if they are covertly engineering the collapse of Venezuela, why haven't they been able to effect a similar denouement in Cuba?

[Pants-of-dog]

Because US destabilising strategies invariably depend on counter-revolutionary factions in the targeted country. Cuba purged the vast majority of these people, either through violence or exile.

In this way, we see one of the advantages of revolutionary socialism that democratic socialism does not enjoy.

[Decky]

Have you not heard of the bay of pigs invasion Truth to Power? The US did try in Cuba and failed. Just like in the Vietnam war for national liberation working men and women took up their weapons and crushed the servants of the idle rich into the dust. Socialism will win but only when workers are willing to give the right the treatment that it richly deserves.

[Truth To Power]

Because US destabilising strategies invariably depend on counter-revolutionary factions in the targeted country. Cuba purged the vast majority of these people, either through violence or exile.

That's a reasonable explanation.

In this way, we see one of the advantages of revolutionary socialism that democratic socialism does not enjoy.

I.e., extermination camps, like the Soviet gulags. One way to go, I suppose.

Socialism will win but only when workers are willing to give the right the treatment that it richly deserves.

Socialism can never win for the same reason Islam can never win: utter dependence on its declared enemy.

[Pants-of-dog]

Capitalists call their concentration camps "concentration camps" and "reserves" and "townships".

Whatever you want to call them it does not matter. The difference is that capitalists send people to these out of greed, while leftists do it to keep fifth columnists from selling out their country to the capitalists.

[Stegerwald]

@ Pants-of-dog

Because US destabilising strategies invariably depend on counter-revolutionary factions in the targeted country. Cuba purged the vast majority of these people, either through violence or exile.

In this way, we see one of the advantages of revolutionary socialism that democratic socialism does not enjoy.

Revolutionary socialists and social-democrats have always been hostile towards each other. It is important to realize that the establishment of a socialist system is not a goal in itself, but only a conceivable (possible, potential) means for the improvement of human existence. The goal of politics must be to increase the personal freedom and wealth of the citizens.

In the past the social-democrats have argued that socialism is a beneficial system, because it reduces the exploitation of the workers, and because it is more productive than capitalism. However, this is just a claim. Social-democrats need to prove that their alternative is better, also in the long run. It is irresponsible to gamble and experiment with the well-being of the people. So changes must be introduced in a gradual and reversible manner. Of course this precludes the use of revolutions.

At the start of this thread Mikolaj has asked for evidence, that social-democrats have indeed been able to realize long-term improvements. Our present discussions indicates that socialist reforms have rarely been permanent, at least within democracies.

[Decky]

Of course they are not permanent. The capitalists give the workers just enough to stop them revolting at times when the working class are strong enough to challenge them and when that time passes the capitalists take those bribes away again. Democratic socialism can never achieve lasting change.

[Pants-of-dog]

@ Pants-of-dog

Revolutionary socialists and social-democrats have always been hostile towards each other.

No, Castro and Allende were close, and openly supported each other. Allende even used the gun that Castro gave him during his final hours.

It is important to realize that the establishment of a socialist system is not a goal in itself, but only a conceivable (possible, potential) means for the improvement of human existence. The goal of politics must be to increase the personal freedom and wealth of the citizens.

In the past the social-democrats have argued that socialism is a beneficial system, because it reduces the exploitation of the workers, and because it is more productive than capitalism. However, this is just a claim. Social-democrats need to prove that their alternative is better, also in the long run. It is irresponsible to gamble and experiment with the well-being of the people. So changes must be introduced in a gradual and reversible manner. Of course this precludes the use of revolutions.

You seem to be ignoring the history of Latin America here. The Cuban revolution worked precisely because they were revolutionary, while Chile's did not.

At the start of this thread Mikolaj has asked for evidence, that social-democrats have indeed been able to realize long-term improvements. Our present discussions indicates that socialist reforms have rarely been permanent, at least within democracies.

Again, it is hard to have long term experiments when the US comes and shoves the leftists into death camps.

[Stegerwald]

@ Pants-of-dog

No, Castro and Allende were close, and openly supported each other.

I saw that Ombrageux refers to both Allende and Mitterrand, which makes sense. This is also the approach of TheRedBaron. Unfortunately my own knowledge about Chile is zero, and with regard to France it is limited to the trade unions. However, the French government of Mauroy, during the period 1982-1984, was indeed a shared project of Mitterrand (PSF) and Marchais (PCF). The PCF belonged to the Eurocommunist movement, which was a mixture of revolutionary and democratic socialists. However, these cases are exceptional, and perhaps merely an armistice.

[TheRedBaron]

@ Pants-of-dog

No, Castro and Allende were close, and openly supported each other.

I saw that Ombrageux refers to both Allende and Mitterrand, which makes sense. This is also the approach of TheRedBaron.

Although this thread is stimulating, I will not comment on Allende, for two equally important reasons. First, I agree with Karl Marx that the transformation towards socialism (in the traditional sense of the word) presupposes a highly developed capitalist system. Since at the time the west was more developed than Chile, the European proletariat (if you like) was more amenable to socialism than the Chilean. Therefore it is best to study the European movement. Second, while the European social-democrats of the time had sympathy for Allende, they were critical about his policies. When one considers great men such as Brandt, Mitterrand, Wilson, Kreisky, Palme, den Uyl etcetera as a group, Allende is clearly a maverick.

By the way, old jokes about Cuba abound. Here is one: Cuba is the largest state of the world. The government resides in Moscow, the army fights in Angola, and the people live in Florida. And, why is the friendship between Cuba and the Soviet Union a black hole? Because she deepens all the time.

[TheRedBaron]

@ Stegerwald

Unfortunately my own knowledge about Chile is zero, and with regard to France it is limited to the trade unions. However, the French government of Mauroy, during the period 1982-1984, was indeed a shared project of Mitterrand (PSF) and Marchais (PCF).

It is striking that sometimes right-wing governments have applied socialist policies. For instance, immediately after WWII large parts of western Europe used central planning. This was necessary in order to repair or rebuild the devastated infrastructure. An additional reason was that the USA obliged the European states to render an account of the expenditure of the Marshall aid. The OECD is a spin-off of this surveillance.

The case of France during the presidency of De Gaulle is particularly interesting. From 1947 until 1970 France was fairly successfull with the application of four-year planning. Although the plans were indicative, the trade and industry were willing to comply, since the state controlled the banks (and thus the credits). The plans were based on the material (physical) production. Planning was made easy by the fact, that France had little foreign trade. The French call this period the Trentes Glorieuses.

However, the state found it difficult to restrain the inflation. Priority was given to the stimulation of the national demand, in order to realize the goals of the plan. As a result the French franc was a weak currency, which was devaluated several times. Therefore the fifth plan included value planning.

It is evidently interesting to compare the performance of the French plan-economy with the German economy, which has a preference for market mechanisms. In fact in the period 1945-1970 the growth rates were similar, so that both economies performed equally well! (You can check this for yourself. Nowadays there are lots of economic databases available on the web).

Still, this conclusion has a limited validity. For when the trade in the European Community intensified, it became more difficult to plan the French economy. France was no longer free to devaluate, since devaluation comes to a rather unfair method of international competion. An additional problem was the acceleration of the technological progress. From 1970 onwards the economic results deviated strongly from the planned goals. From 1980 onwards the plans no longer contained concrete goals. The market mechanism had triumphed also in France.

It is fascinating to see that central planning (a socialist idea) existed in a capitalist state, albeit in special circumstances.

[Pants-of-dog]

@ Pants-of-dog

I saw that Ombrageux refers to both Allende and Mitterrand, which makes sense.

Ombrageux 's posts tend to ge Euro-centric, which is consistent with his arguments about how white poeple are better than everyone else.

This is also the approach of TheRedBaron. Unfortunately my own knowledge about Chile is zero, and with regard to France it is limited to the trade unions. However, the French government of Mauroy, during the period 1982-1984, was indeed a shared project of Mitterrand (PSF) and Marchais (PCF). The PCF belonged to the Eurocommunist movement, which was a mixture of revolutionary and democratic socialists. However, these cases are exceptional, and perhaps merely an armistice.

Europe seems to have widespread support for social democracy, but very little support for democratic socialism.

----------------

Although this thread is stimulating, I will not comment on Allende, for two equally important reasons. First, I agree with Karl Marx that the transformation towards socialism (in the traditional sense of the word) presupposes a highly developed capitalist system. Since at the time the west was more developed than Chile, the European proletariat (if you like) was more amenable to socialism than the Chilean. Therefore it is best to study the European movement.

First of all, I do not think the Chilean system was significantly less developed than Europe at the time, much like today.

Second of all, history shows us that it was the proletariat of the developing world that was more amenable to socialism than their European counterpart. This suggests that Marx was incorrect about that.

Second, while the European social-democrats of the time had sympathy for Allende, they were critical about his policies. When one considers great men such as Brandt, Mitterrand, Wilson, Kreisky, Palme, den Uyl etcetera as a group, Allende is clearly a maverick.

Yes, he was a democratic socialist, while these others were social democrats.