Capitalism versus Communism Thread.

Post Reply New Topic

The industrialists were told by the government what to produce and in what quantity. They never lost their ownership rights in the formal or legal sense, but the gave away their economic autonomy in exchange for favors.

ruveyn

What Nazi Germany was then in that regard, State Capitalism is what we call it today, and to name a few: China, Saudi Arabia Iran, Russia, and Venezuala all run a model or close variation of it. It is based on Socialism, and capitalism exists to empower the state and its obligations.

Socialism in it's purest form requires great Evil to achieve it.

When subservient (but allowed to thrive under) to capitalism and both are in the service of democracy - as lived out in the EU, USA, etc, rights are ensured, the chances for a good quality of life enabled, and a decent balance between liberty and equality struck (depending on the values/beliefs of that nation).




How were the Nazi's not socialist?

Nazi Ideologist Gregor strausser: "We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies of today's capitalists system, with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and money,"


Some key points from Nazi Party Platform:
Gurrenteed Jobs
The abolition of all incomes unearned by work
The ruthless confiscation of all war profits
The nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations
Profit-sharing across all industries
Prohibition of Child Labor
Extensive development of insurance for old-age
Land reform suitable to our national requirements

and many other progressive reforms were championed by the Nazis and cheered on by the Left everywhere around the world. It wasn't until 1928 when Stalin declared that hence forth, nobody who wasn't loyal to Moscow could no longer use the term socialist, and would have to be called Fascists. Fascists up until that point had been another favored sub-sect of socialism that was loved by progressives everywhere! Hitler and Musolini, but national socialism and international socialism would be forever in war with each other for the hearts and minds of those on the left. I guess the left hated the stigmas associated with Hitler's Nazism and so that is why they drifted more towards communism.

The Nazi's began out as hardcore Socialist Progressives, and slowly more towards State Capitalism as practiced by China, Saudi Arabia Iran, Russia, and Venezuala today.

Just because one deviates from certain principles of socialism does not make one a non-socialist, especially if the sum totality of their actions are socialistic in nature... Unless ideological purity as a litmus test is applied and determinative of something'a ability to be called socialist.

Firslty you will not find a Marxist who will argue against the need for capitalism to rapidly bring about industrial change and educate the ignorant masses, and yes communism is seen as the natural progression from socialism. From there on however your post is a mish mash of populist hyperbole nonsense. Welfare under a socialist system will be there for those who need it, there would be no acceptance for obvious malingerers, such behaviour goes against the very essence of the Marxist mantra "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

National Socialism has nothing whatsoever to do with Socialism, the former defines the defeat of the working classes whilst the latter represents the working beginning to overthrow capitalist oppression.

Communism you cry is the state oppression of the masses, I suggest you do some research into the actual definition of the term, then you will find that communism is the final stage in the removal of the state






Again common fallacies at work here, it can be argued that socialism died when Stalin came to power, stalinism is pretty much an anathema to socialism, his actions not those of the capitalists are what destroyed the socialist revolution of the early 20th century, capitalism has lumbered on way past its use by date, primarily due to the lack of leadership from the Marxist parties and the betrayals of the stalinists



Your belief that North Korea represents communism shows how little you know of the term

@MarketAndChurch: Socialism by definition means that there is common ownership of the means of production. Communism was not really socialism, before you try to argue from that angle. Communism is more along the lines of state capitalism. Fascism kept the ownership in private hands. True, it took away autonomy, meaning it wasn't capitalism either. But it was not socialism. All socialists HATED Fascism.

This is the idea that we, usually get, and tend to believe, but I'm not so sure on that, I think someone who actually *knows* about socialism and communism can give us a more accurate view on this, on wether that is actually the case, the little I know of is that part of Marx's ideology (Marxism) was that workers did not get their pay equal to their production, which was, according to him, explotation (resulting in, from what I understand, the non-existence of companies as we know them, and non-existence of employers and private property). Now, this interpretation doesn't necessarily means equal payment for alll, regardless, however, I'm not saying that isn't the case, but I want to make sure for certain when Marx from his communist manifesto (haven't read it) explicitly implies that a surgeon gets the same payment as a gardener.


I highly doubt that, and I believe that the very same thing can be said by a socialist, I mean, in a capitalist society, there are lazy and incompetent people that gain more than the hard workers and more competent, that is an observable fact.

The issue is that, how often that can be compared to the USSR for example, I know that the USSR exploited their workers in factories (by that I mean overworking several hours), West Berlin seemed to have a better and more attractive way of life than East Berlin, being partly why the soviets had to build a wall.

In any case, it could mean that people are forced to work, and profit wouldn't be so much of a motivation and ambition, I mean, it can be said that a socialist motto goes on the lines of "work for the benefit of your community" not for profit.



That was the case in the Soviet Union.


I don't think that is necessarily the case, given that different branches of Socialism exist, and I believe there are those that are anti-marxists.



The Nazis were facists and they despised Communism.

Last edited by blunnet on 09 May 2011, 9:04 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Marx taught that when communism emerges the state will wither away. The state is only necessary in the transition from private ownership of the means of production to social ownership of the means of production.

ruveyn

How about you substantiate this outrageous BS, give us a complete breakdown from the dawn of man until now! You are obviously the idealogue here judging by your blanket statements based on emotion and ideology rather than facts.

I can think of one or two arguments here,

1/ Socialism and capitalism are merely ecconomic systems. Both can manifest themselves as totalitarian, democratic, monarchistic, anarchistic and for the most part the deaths you attempt to lay at the feet of socialism/communism have resulted from the actions of the political system imposed not the failings of the ecconomic system. On the other hand capitalism has motivated more warfare throughout human history than marx's limited grasp on things ever has [if one works things out as per capita impact rather than raw numbers taken without any frame of reference].

2/ Are you aware that more people died as a result of decisions Winston Churchill made during the last decade of the Brittish Raj in India [with regard the hoarding of crops for Brittain attenuating the famines impact] than died as a result of the failings of chairman Mao Tse Tung's 'five year plans'?

I would like to see your 'facts' [with references] to substantiate your claims, I find it hard to believe that you can even believe them yourself. Socialism has only been imposed anywhere for just over 90 years, it had nothing to do with the millions who died in WWI and WWII, it's failings are responsible for the famines in the Russia the Ukraine and China yes but it's failings are not the cause of all the wars, they are caused by despots and megalomaniacs, by the greedy and corrupt not an ecconomic system.
The ideology of 'the workers international' and the ongoing revolution was abandoned by Russia with the death of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung respectively and compared with Brittish, French, Spanish and Dutch imperialism and now US 'corporate hegemony' very few people died as a result of their feeble efforts.

Get some perspective, do some actual research, the truth is not wishful thinking extracted from the depths of your colon.

peace j

edited for grammar

Socialism requires great evil to achieve it? and capitalism does not, the USA is a good example of freedom and improved quality of life? - you are indeed ignorant, over a million have died in Iraq alone [over two million displaced] so that US based corporations can rape their new colony - a perfect example of capitalist greed. The Us has embarked on over fifty wars in the last 150 years purely to serve it's native business interests [the Mexican land grab, the Phillipines for United fruit etc...] still one fifth of it's population lives below the UN set poverty line.

Nazi Germany was far from socialist, the use of the addend 'socialism' to National Socialism [Nazi] was purely political and not factual, it was done to lure the working classes away from the communist movement which was huge and internationalist in motivation. The re-emergence of Germany as an ecconomic power was built off foreign investments, through the mid twenties and into the thirties, none of which were nationalised. The flight of opportunistic capital into germany taking advantage of bargain basement industrial plants was in part what caused the slump and following market panic that caused the 'great deppression'. Nazi germany was all about capitalism much of it US! Are you aware that General motors manufactured armaments for the regime right up until it's last plant was destroyed in the fire bombing of Dresden? are you aware that your beloved country paid reparations/damages to said company after a court case after the war?

You my friend are ample proof of the danger of two things, a little knowledge and ideological absolutism...

peace j

Under capitalism man exploits and oppresses man. Under communism it is the other way around.

ruveyn

Can't have too much of a good bumper sticker?

Exactly! One great example of this is Chile in the 70s (or was it 80s--I can't remember). They democratically elected a socialist government--a coalition of various left wing parties. The president Salvador Allende nationalized some things (copper mines for instance), instituted a program providing free milk to children, started agrarian reform, encouraged cooperative style corporations etc. All of this was quite within the bounds of the existing constitution. There were some problems (ex: "capital flight") and the USA basically started economic warfare against them (in part because American companies had owned the copper mines), but throughout this Allende maintained democracy. Despite the urgings of his advisors he refused to censer the press, for example. Unfortunately he was overthrown by a USA backed military coup, which resulted in Chile spending ~10 years in a military dictatorship. And it was not benevolent--anyone who was associated too much with the socialists went missing. The USA didn't exactly approve, but they seemed less concerned about it than about the democratically elected socialist government. Presumably it was because the dictatorship was right-wing. But guess who caused more suffering. Not the socialists!

Redistribution is theft.

ruveyn

@ ruveyn

Do you have anything other than slogans to contribute pops? You are starting to remind me of how I think the little piggie squealer in Animal Farm would have turned out, bitter, repetitive and barely lucid.....

When will you start engaging in dialogue, answering peoples questions, citing some rationale etc?

@ MarketAndChurch

Come on mister figures lets at least get some titles of books I can read and therefore see the error of my thinking as I am so obviously missinformed....

peace j

How could a criticism of redistribution not follow for taxation more generally though? I mean, even a "night watchman state" will appropriate funds that certain individuals will consider unjustified. After all, what constitutes the minimum is still up for debate, as how many cops? What kind of enforcement? How much military protection? Etc, are all open questions, where there might not be any truth, as the difference might just be "How many people are you willing to put up with as being mugged?", which is a subjective question.

So, really, how does this even follow? Especially given that to make the distinction of theft, you have to have a concept of property, and property is a social construct(which could allow for non-theft appropriation of one's wealth), UNLESS you want to promote some idea of natural-rights, but natural rights is utter crap if you have any conception of evolution as evolution both has the beings evolve, but also often the memes evolve.

Finally... is this really supposed to mean something? I mean, redistribution could actually be theft, but without a sense of ought, there is no point in the statement. And once we invoke some notion of morality, usually what is condemned is also murder, as well as ignoring the suffering of others. I mean, you are against theft, but fine with people dying in the streets, but why privilege one rule over the other? Utilitarianism, a simple enough construct, would allow theft to prevent suffering. How is it wrong?

I spent some time looking into that famine you brought up. The highest figures posted for the man-made famine you described was 6 million people. By sheer numbers, and to use an example you brought up, just the simple haggling over the territory between Hitler's Berlin and and Stalin's Moscow costed 14 million people their lives - and this is not including military loss of life - this is just civilian casualties killed off either through killing policies like Hitler wanting to make a new frontier out of that area of land, or indirectly through punishment policies aimed at increasing the suffering of the populace like Stalin's 5 year plans paired with his view that Ukranian nationalism was both evil and needed to be stamped out.

That doesn't mean that the Famine in India is any less horrific to the human experience, but on sheer numbers alone, there is no comparison of any examples you bring up, versus everything else that has happened in the last 100 years to the horrors of Nazism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Trotskyism, or any other form of collectivism. Why do you remove the great advances and innovations of Socialism from the horrors of its past or treat them as isolated incidents? This is removing Musolini, lenin, or Stalin from H.G. Wells George Sorel or William James... all socialist philosophers who influenced those dictators... Why do you only recognize the positives while excusing the negatives or minimizing the severity of the issue as being disconnected from socialism? You don't do the same for Capitalism... you take the good(I'm assuming you have at least a few good things to say about it) with the bad, but I guess that's how the beautiful perception of Socialism has been preserved for so long... you deny your past like the soviet joke: "The future is known, it's the past that's always changing."

The economic system is directly tied to the political system, and one cannot remove one from the other as you and many others do. Textbook theories are adjusted to real-world conditions and variables, and just because some of the concepts of that theory are lost in its application, it doesn't make it any less of that theory... all that is indicative of is the difficulties in making it work in real life, and in some cases, to put it plainly, it just sucks.

WWII was started by the Nazi's. Sub-sequent wars since have been a clash to keep benighted territories from being engulfed by communism and the horrors that often ensued. 100 million dead is a vast understatement, especially when you include all the soldiers who died in service of these regimes, and all the people who died indirectly as a result of one of these collectivist political religions.