“Socialism” vs. “Capitalism” debate

[Peyroteo]

Polarisation of either is 100% nonsensical. Capitalism has plenty of flaws, the answer to those flaws is most definitely not socialism however. Capitalism with socialist measures to balance things out is the best we can do, going too far into one direction or the other obviously won't work. Not sure what's the point of arguing which one would be worse.

 

[Sweet Square]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm

From the horse's mouth. Granted he's describing a specific form of socialism here, but that entire section of the manifesto illustrates even Marx made a distinction.

I think we are getting our wires crossed, yes Marx made a distinction between other forms of socialism and his ''scientific'' socialism but that's different than saying the Marxist view is socialism as a necessary phase which again is just a mis reading of Marx. Also I might as well say it Marx was right about the other forms of socialism, they are fecking shite nonsense. Utopian socialism my arse! Also the type of communism/socialism @bondsname was describing was clearly in the vein of Marx.

I also don't understand what you mean by there is no state in a communist society. It seems fairly explicitly stated:

It mostly from Engels

The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away - Anti-Dühring

The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong—into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax - Origins of the Family

but also this letter from Marx(Yes this a deep cut)

And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Production), (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat,[1] (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society .
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_05-ab.htm

Here's a section from the video I posted which at least helped me.

In the Critique of the Gotha programme Marx writes,

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. (Marx 2000, 614)

In this passage Marx distinguishes between communist society when “it has developed on its own foundations” and communist society “just as it emerges from capitalist society” and is “still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges”. What Marx means by this can be understood by re-phrasing what Marx said about capitalism as an organic system so that it refers to communism. Re-phrasing Marx quotes in this way is a standard practice among Marx specialists, such as Michael Lebowitz and Istvan Meszaros. Doing so is not anachronistic in this case since Marx explicitly says that the conceptual points he makes about capitalism as an organic system are “the case with every organic system.” (Marx 1993, 278)

According to Marx, communism has “developed on its own foundations” when “every economic relation presupposes every other in its communist economic form, and everything posited is thus also a presupposition”. That is to say, it is composed of a chain of interlocking parts that simultaneously constitute and reproduce it as an economic system. Communism’s development into an organic system with its own foundations “consists precisely in subordinating all elements of society to itself, or in creating out of it the organs which it still lacks.” It must come to create “its own presuppositions. . . by means of its own productive process” such that “it no longer proceeds from presuppositions in order to become, but rather is itself presupposed, and proceeds from itself to create the conditions of its maintenance and growth.” It must in short become self-reproducing.

In order to do so communism must pass through a “process of becoming” in which it arises out of capitalism and so initially exists in “its embryonic state”. During this phase it is “still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges”. That is to say, during its phase of becoming the foundation of communism rests on parts inherited from capitalism. This results in communist society initially being “oppressed by a whole series of inherited evils, arising from the passive survival of archaic and outmoded modes of production, with their accompanying train of anachronistic social and political relations.” For Marx one of the primary evils communism would inherent from capitalism is people being paid with labour vouchers per amount of labour performed, rather than receiving freely according to need. Marx holds that “these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society.” (Marx 2000, 615) As communism develops into a phase of being and establishes its own foundations these defects are removed. Marx writes,

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! (Marx 2000, 615)

Communism will not of course develop its own foundations overnight. As a result, during its phase of becoming communism requires a communist mode of regulation which enables it to subordinate “all elements of society to itself” and create out of society “the organs which it still lacks”. For Marx the communist mode of regulation was the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx writes,

Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. (Marx 2000, 611)

The centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, this would be the process of becoming.

 

[MackRobinson]

I think we are getting our wires crossed, yes Marx made a distinction between other forms of socialism and his ''scientific'' socialism but that's different than saying the Marxist view is socialism as a necessary phase which again is just a mis reading of Marx. Also I might as well say it Marx was right about the other forms of socialism, they are fecking shite nonsense. Utopian socialism my arse! Also the type of communism/socialism @bondsname was describing was clearly in the vein of Marx.


It mostly from Engels






but also this letter from Marx(Yes this a deep cut)



Here's a section from the video I posted which at least helped me.



The centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, this would be the process of becoming.

We probably are getting our wires crossed because I never argued for or against the Marxist view socialism being a necessary phase. What I did argue is that it isn't accurate to use socialism and communism interchangeably (even if Marx did) because the former covers a broad spectrum of socioeconomic systems while the latter is a very specific form.

In regards to the idea of no state in communism I disagree (based on Chapter 2). A classless society and the existence of a State aren't mutually exclusive. The State can be a dictator, the Gang of Four, the Party, or whatever totalitarian governing body. If there is no State, then who controls the means of production?

 

[Synco]

We probably are getting our wires crossed because I never argued for or against the Marxist view socialism being a necessary phase. What I did argue is that it isn't accurate to use socialism and communism interchangeably (even if Marx did) because the former covers a broad spectrum of socioeconomic systems while the latter is a very specific form.

In regards to the idea of no state in communism I disagree (based on Chapter 2). A classless society and the existence of a State aren't mutually exclusive. The State can be a dictator, the Gang of Four, the Party, or whatever totalitarian governing body. If there is no State, then who controls the means of production?

I don't claim exhaustive knowledge on this subject, but I have spent some time reading the originals. I'll try to outline what I've picked up on this issue.

When reading the later Marx - especially The Civil War in France, on the Paris Commune and its bloody suppression - I find it very clear that his idea of communism was to a large degree a non-statist one.

He praises the Commune as a kind of blueprint for a communist revolution, and the nucleus of a future communist society - a system based on the self-governance of local communities (hence the term "communism"). The central state is to be stripped down to its few remaining necessary functions, and its servants to be subjected to strict oversight from, and accountability towards, the members of the communes (i.e. the people).

The bureaucratic, militarized central state on the other hand is painted as an oppressive force, inherently opposed to the freedom of society.

This is much in line with the Engels quotes in that post above. And with others of Marx' writings, like the Critique of the Gotha Programme, in which he lambasts the statism of the German social democratic leadership. A short excerpt:

First of all, (...) the German Workers' party strives for "the free state".

Free state — what is this?

It is by no means the aim of the workers, who have got rid of the narrow mentality of humble subjects, to set the state free. In the German Empire, the "state" is almost as "free" as in Russia. Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".

-----------

In the period of the Russian revolution, I find it quite obvious that the institutions most in line with Marx' outlook - as portrayed above - were the Soviets of workers and soldiers. And, curiously, the ancient peasant self-governance institution of the mir, that both the Czarist regime and later Stalin aimed to abolish. (See Marx' letter to Vera Zasulich for that.)

The development of a party-led, super-centralized, and bureaucratic state dictatorship actually posed a massive legitimacy problem for the Bolsheviki in terms of Marxist theory. Afaik, the strict theoretical distinction between "socialism" and "communism" as "different stages" of communist development originated as an answer to this very problem - a legitimating ideology for the Soviet state apparatus. I've seen it (believably) attributed to Stalin, but wikipedia says it may already have been a creation of Lenin. I've also read somewhere that this terminology may date back to Engels, but in light of what I know from the two old men, I deem it very unlikely that, if it's true, he had used it in the exact same sense.

The Marx/Engels term I've usually encountered for the necessary transition period from capitalism to a free society is not "socialism", but "dictatorship of the proletariat". Which is - again going by The Civil War in France - supposed to be not only compatible with grassroots democracy, but actually an enactment of it against the centralized bourgeois state machinery.

 

[Synco]

Social Darwinism is a thing, and it a racist, xenophobic ideology that has NO scientific standing and was largely abandoned by most sane academics after WWII. People who envoke "Darwinism" to talk about socioeconomic issues are usually low-information voters regurgitating a right-wing talking point.

No disagreement on the whole (except maybe for the odd detail). That's basically what I meant with "Darwinism" as a dismissive label, directed against the ideology of Social Darwinism.

But since I'm not terribly educated on the subject, let alone a biologist, I just wondered if anyone can point to a halfways credible source claiming it's anything beyond that.

 

[Sweet Square]

I don't claim exhaustive knowledge on this subject, but I have spent some time reading the originals. I'll try to outline what I've picked up on this issue.

When reading the later Marx - especially The Civil War in France, on the Paris Commune and its bloody suppression - I find it very clear that his idea of communism was to a large degree a non-statist one.

He praises the Commune as a kind of blueprint for a communist revolution, and the nucleus of a future communist society - a system based on the self-governance of local communities (hence the term "communism"). The central state is to be stripped down to its few remaining necessary functions, and its servants to be subjected to strict oversight from, and accountability towards, the members of the communes (i.e. the people).

The bureaucratic, militarized central state on the other hand is painted as an oppressive force, inherently opposed to the freedom of society.

This is much in line with the Engels quotes in that post above. And with others of Marx' writings, like the Critique of the Gotha Programme, in which he lambasts the statism of the German social democratic leadership. A short excerpt:


-----------

In the period of the Russian revolution, I find it quite obvious that the institutions most in line with Marx' outlook - as portrayed above - were the Soviets of workers and soldiers. And, curiously, the ancient peasant self-governance institution of the mir, that both the Czarist regime and later Stalin aimed to abolish. (See Marx' letter to Vera Zasulich for that.)

The development of a party-led, super-centralized, and bureaucratic state dictatorship actually posed a massive legitimacy problem for the Bolsheviki in terms of Marxist theory. Afaik, the strict theoretical disctinction between "socialism" and "communism" as "different stages" of communist development originated as an answer to this very problem - a legitimating ideology for the Soviet state apparatus. I've seen it (believably) attributed to Stalin, but wikipedia says it may already have been a creation of Lenin. I've also read somewhere that this terminology may date back to Engels, but in light of what I know from the two old men, I deem it very unlikely that, if it's true, he had used it in the exact same sense.

The Marx/Engels term I've usually encountered for the necessary transition period from capitalism to a free society is not "socialism", but "dictatorship of the proletariat". Which is - again going by The Civil War in France - supposed to be not only compatible with grassroots democracy, but actually an enactment of it against the centralized bourgeois state machinery.

Top post.

 

[Sweet Square]

Anyways onto more important stuff'

Comrade Britney Spears! Star calls for strike and wealth redistribution

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...ar-calls-for-strike-and-wealth-redistribution

Britney Spears has amplified a call for a strike and the redistribution of wealth in the US in a post on her Instagram. Spears, 38, shared a graphic by the writer Mimi Zhu, which included the line: “We will feed each other, re-destribute [sic] wealth, strike.”

Spears captioned the graphic: “Communion moves beyond walls” and added three red rose emojis, a symbol associated with the socialist cause online.

Zhu’s post declared: “During this time of isolation, we need connection now more than ever. Call your loved ones, write virtual letters. Technologies like virtual communication, streaming and broadcasting are part of our community collaboration.

“We will learn to kiss and hold each other through the waves of the web. We will feed each other, re-destribute [sic] wealth, strike. We will understand our own importance from the places we must stay. Communion moves beyond walls. We can still be together.”

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Atze-Peng]

'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Karl Marx Critique of the Gotha Program.

And one last time, start using your own words rather than quoting your Messiah. This is borderline cult-behaviour.
What Marx is suggesting is simply redistribution. He says this in that very quote that you take from people who are capable of performing better in order to give it to thsoe who need it.
Aisde from the obvious fact that our current social democracies do that (progressive taxes, welfare, etc.) to a certain extent - it also needs to be seen in context of what Marx is suggesting. The context is that all means of productions are owned by the public. What does that mean? It means the abolishment of all individual ownership for the greater good. So who owns it? The public and as a result soemone needs to administrate it - that's what we call a government nowadays. Aka you give the power of defining that to a government. Ironically that will result in the part of the proletariat that becomes the government to cease being the proletariat as they are aquiring more power and thus are of a higher class.

Now this in itself isn't an issue, the issues occur along the lines and why there will never be a socialistic utopia happening, because along the way of creating it, it already falls apart.
1. Marx mentions how technology and the improvement of it will naturally decrease the need for physical labour of production. As we now know empirically, that didn't happen. instead the increase of technology resulted in an increase of productivity - and thus an increase of higher living standards than during the lifetime of Marx. Technology wasn't traded for more free time, but for more wealth.
This means that a) Marx was utterly wrong in his assessment and b) in order to satisfy his assessment, you need to decrease peoples average living standards.

2. Further Marx assumes - without any evidence to it - that people will still freely work and be creative with it, if they had to do less forced labour in order to make their living. So far all experiments and social observations we have on the matter hint to the opposite. Though we would need further experiments on the matter to know for certain.

3. Additionally Marx assumes in such a case of having all basic needs (not luxury, but basic needs such as health, shelter, food) met, all - and he made it very clear that he means ALL - people would be motivated to work for the good of society. Once again his assessment was a failure. And everyone with at least half a brain knows how this is beyond naive at best. I could now give you a rundown from my experience of having lived in a socialist "utopia", but I really can't be bothered to make such an extensive list.

4. If there are not enough people who will end up freely working the essential jobs (such as cleaning the trash, producing food, etc.) - according to ones abilities will mean force involved by the state. Especially when the nations infrastructure keeps falling apart, because everyone just does what he wants to do without taking any responsibilities. Because this is what it essentially comes down to - freedom of any responsibilities.


There are other issues with this such as Marx limiting everything to plain class when multiple aspects create a complex interplay. He completely ignores status and power since in it's simplified argumentation he assumes that both of those are irrelevant as they - in his argumentation - only derive from someones economical position and thus are pretty much synonymous with class - which they do not.
Anyhow, those are the main points. There are also issues with Marx and Engels character that show how they both were preaching water while drinking wine. But let's leave this out of the discussion as well. Their assessments and predictions are already more than flawed enough to make a point.

'''The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them.'' - Karl Marx Grundrisse.

As I said above. This will result in a lot of what we would nowadays consider poverty, because the advancement of technology and productivity has resulted in an increase of wealth and not a decrease of labour. Meanwhile capitalism has created this wealth. Bummer, I know. Tough pill to swallow.

''Now you can disagree with all of that and think it's a complete load of bollocks but that still doesn't mean socialism = sharing. Its quite clear here that Marx(And thus Socialism/Communism) has feck all to do with sharing.

An argument purely based on semantics. You can now argue that redistribution doesn't necessarily mean sharing. There are points to be made about this, but it's pretty irrelevant to the discussion.
I assume this is a rebuttal to me saying "everyone wanting to be and actually being a decent person and willing to share". Considering the (decreased) labour of people needs to be redistributed and Marx himself stated that he thinks in his utopia everyone is willing to use their abilities for the good of society, it eventually means that their labour will result in having to go to others without a materialistic payback. You can now say this is not sharing - but [insertthewordyouconsidermoreaccurate] - but that doesn't make a difference to my point.

Funnily enough in one of the quotes you used from Marx, he himself is using the word "sharing". See: "These social relations between the producers, and the conditions under which they exchange their activities and share in the total act of production, will naturally vary according to the character of the means of production."

'Millions of people throughout history have been organised by a common denominator - Their class. The argument have you ''ever tried to find that for just a group of 10-15 people? Yeah, try doing that for millions'' is horribly wrong historical and a tad bit silly. Also even if we play into you're bizarre reading of socialism and pretend countries like the Soviet Union and 'current day China were/are socialist countries then you're line about equal poverty is just untrue. The Soviet Union took millions out of poverty and became the the 2nd biggest world power in short time span(Life expectancy after the fall of the soviet union has gone down about 10 years btw)and CCP in China is really the only successful story of the 21st century.

Using the same limited argumentation as Marx. There are more common denominators than just class. But I will leave it at that for now.
More important is that you are saying my comparision is a tad bit silly. No, it isn't. We do have common denominators. Those are based on nations and their written and unwritten rules. Social agreements that have developed and people have agreed upon over centuries to come to the point where we are today.

Also are you counting the massive amounts of deaths that the soviets caused just by collapsing due to creating as system that was built to fail as it is not sustainable. Similar issue that China has currently by increasing their living standards and eventually being unable to profit from their cheaper labour.
Not to mention that both cases are built upon authoritarianism. Now if you are fine with that, that's on you. I am not. I like having a certain amount of freedom.

'Sadly you've confused you're failure to understand the basics of socialism and to organise a group of people as the fault of socialism and not one of you're own making. I've got a shit left foot and a bad back that doesn't mean football is a terrible sport.

Why do you think in football we have divisions that are equivalent to a merit-based hierarchy? Because this is a normal competitive drive and why capitalism generally works - because it rewards competition. Socialism punishes it through massive amounts of redistribution. My entire point from the get-go.


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

That's a strange question. Everything that has ever happened in human history is obviously compatible with human nature (whatever that may be). Otherwise it wouldn't have been possible for humans to do it.

In that sense, I also don't understand why an authoritarian regime should be considered an "outside force" - outside of what? That's a bit puzzling, especially since you seem so fond of hierarchies as the basis for human interaction.

As for your request, my understanding is that there were many social changes that disproved popular predecessors of the ideology you offer - the claim that certain freedoms and basic equality for specific sets of people (or humans as such) are impossible, because a supposed "human nature" does not allow for it. That concerns social betterment of women, slaves, workers, peasants, children, colonized people, specific minorities such as Jews, and many others. The go-to argument of power has always been to declare their marginalized status as natural and inevitable, and their emancipation as being "against human nature" (or "God's will", or whatever). On the long run, this has usually been proven to be essentialist (and interest-driven) nonsense.

You bring up very valid points here and that's an interesting discussion to have all on it's own. But it would go past what this topic is about, so if you feel like continuing that I wouldn't mind going into further detail via PM about this.


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

What the hell is "full communism/socialism"? Communism is authoritarian socialism. Socialism isn't a subsystem of communism as the poster stated. Socialism is a broad concept that can have varied implementations. Democratic socialism cannot be lumped into communism, unless he wants to false argue Norway is similar to the USSR.

I stand firmly by what I said. His post is complete nonsense and lacks a basic understanding of the things he talks about.

The thread-title is about socialism, not democratic socialism. And while there are small overlaps, those two are not exactly comparable.
And since I can also use quotes rather than arguments such as the other poster.
Lenin: "The goal of socialism is communism."

What a bunch of complete and utter garbage

Every political and economic system (except maybe libertarianism) requires some deal of authoritarianism because in a cooperative society rules must be enforced (ie. contracts)

Libertarianism also requires at least some deal of authoritarianism by your definition of authoritarianism meaning rules. The only system that doesn't is anarchy - which will bring us back into the stoneages and cause a right of the strongest situation. But thats a different topic altogether.
That being said - the general usage of authoritarianism means a form of government that limits freedoms drastically through a centralised and overburdening power. And my point was within the realm of this definition.

Socialism isn't about making everyone equal. It's about providing a safety net for the most vulnerable because everyone isn't born with the same opportunities. The most straight forward way to accomplish this is to tax (not steal or take) from those with an overabundance of resources.

Yes, that's exactly what socialism is about. Marx said it himself. It is creating a system where everyone is of the same class by reducing ownership to a minimum, creating a system where all basic needs (health, shelter, food) are met and taking away the ability to aquire more wealth than others since said ownership would become public ownership.

Furthermore we already take away from those with an overabundance of resources in our social democracy. It's called progressive taxes which result in the top 1% paying 1/3 and the top % paying 1/2 of the populations taxes. Plus or minus a little depending on which social democratic country you are talking about. Meaning they are already disproportionally benefitting the countries financially.
The key here is to find a middle ground between progressive taxing and giving room to invest, progress and grow.


And before you are arguing wealth is being transfered from the bottom to the top: This is an universal problem we simply do not have a solution to. It happens in monarchies, aristocracies, capitalist system, socialist systems. Hence, most socialist regimes of the 20th century had a trackrecord of being rather wealthy while the population was poor ("we are all equal, some are just more equal"). Fun Fact: The eastern german SED was - right before the fall of the DDR - the second wealthiest political party in the world and their wealth has never been (officially) found.
So yes, this is a problem. An important one for sure. But it is not a problem that socialism will fix.

Are you pretending like private enterprises don't engage in corruption? Do lobbyists not exist? If you give too much power to anything corruption is amplified. This isn't a socialism specific problem.

You are strawmanning my argument. I never said other systems aren't corrupt. I am a libertarian, just so you know. My issue is that the more power you put into a government, the worse the effects of corruption will be. Not to mention that governments generally are ill-run and the opposite of King Midas (everything they touch turns to shit - which is universal to all governments on the map of political views).
Hence, I even said "And last but not least there is no government form that has no corruption" in the exact post you quoted me. It's like you didn't even read what I said and just went off, because I criticised your ideology.

Socialism does not eradicate competitiveness. Many of the current social democracies have highly skilled workforces that can compete in the global economy.

Social democracy =/= Socialism. As I said above, it's a balancing act between measurements such as progressive taxes while still giving room to progress and growth. Socialism does NOT provide the possibility for such a balancing act.

Given the scarcity of things such as natural resources and land (which is the number one indicator of wealth throughout history), it is never in the public good to allow small groups of people to acquire resources indefinitely. That's why we have things such as anti-trust laws

So instead of individuals such as in a capitalistic system, you want to give it to the individuals in a socialistic system aka the government (=no private ownership)? That's essentially switching from Cancer to Tuberculosis.
Other than that - see above. The transfer from wealth from the bottom to the top is an universal human problem and not specific to one or the other system.

Darwinism applies to biology. What you are describing is social Darwinism and there is absolutely no scientific support for that nutjob theory.

Social darwinism applies to purely biological differences - such as superior race theories. That wasn't the point I was making, though.

My exact quote was "In fact, it is opposite of our instincts and on a darwinistic view where you want to get the best possible survival and procreation chances for yourself - not for others"
With that I meant that we are biologically programmed to try to get the best for us (and usually for the people very close to use). There are ways to live this biological drive out productively and destructively. The productive variant would be a healthy amount of competitiveness which makes people strive to improve and be better than others NOT by putting others down, but by simply being better. Since we are in a football forum, C. Ronaldo is the prime example of that. He isn't putting other players down by being an unfair player, etc. - but he is just working his ass off to be better than them. And as a result of being better, he aquires more wealth. In the end we are still animals and have a certain amount of animalistic drives that need to be incooperated in our societies.
So my point is that removing this aspect of mankind - which pure (= so you don't mistake it with social democracies again) socialism does - will lead to a decline of said society. And due to the lack of private ownership you remove the ability of being rewarded for simply being better than others within a merit-based hierarchy.

In biology, cooperation is has been a staple of many species (including humans) and many times increased the chances for survival.

And competitiveness between tribes to improve ones own tribe have also been staples. Just taking one aspects ouf of biology while ignoring the other essential is just intellectually dishonest.

Your post lacks an understanding of Darwinism, economics, and basic history.

If you multiple times fail to understand what I am saying and purposefully or subconsciously strawman several points I made, then yes, it probably lacks all these things. Which is why I explained you my points in more detail now.



Peace, guys. I'm out.

 

[Sweet Square]

1. Marx mentions how technology and the improvement of it will naturally decrease the need for physical labour of production. As we now know empirically, that didn't happen. instead the increase of technology resulted in an increase of productivity - and thus an increase of higher living standards than during the lifetime of Marx. Technology wasn't traded for more free time, but for more wealth.
This means that a) Marx was utterly wrong in his assessment and b) in order to satisfy his assessment, you need to decrease peoples average living standards.

Again this a very basic misunderstand of Marx and socialism. Technology can lead to the decrease for the need of physical labour(Automation)but without class struggle this will not happen for the worker.
Soz I'm going to quote that German dude again

Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and consequently all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. - Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848):

"...it is the machine which possesses skill and strength in place of the worker, is itself the virtuoso, with a soul of its own in the mechanical laws acting through it; and it consumes coal, oil etc.,...just as a worker consumes food, to keep up its perpetual motion. The worker's activity, reduced to a mere abstraction of activity, is determined and regulated on all sides by the movement of the machinery, and not the opposite. The science which compels the inanimate limbs of the machinery, by their construction, to act purposefully, as an automaton, does not exist in the worker's consciousness, but rather acts upon him through the machine as an alien power, as the power of the machine itself." - Grundrisse (1857-1858):

"...as the division of labour increases, labour is simplified. The special skill of the worker becomes worthless. He becomes transformed into a simple, monotonous productive force that does not have to use intense bodily or intellectual faculties. His labour becomes a labour that anyone can perform. Hence, competitors crowd upon him on all sides, and besides we remind the reader that the more simple and easily learned the labour is, the lower the cost of production needed to master it, the lower do wages sink, for, like the price of every other commodity, they are determined by the cost of production.

Therefore, as labour becomes more unsatisfying, more repulsive, competition increases and wages decrease. The worker tries to keep up the amount of his wages by working more, whether my working longer hours or by producing more in one hour...the more he works the less wages he receives..." - "Wage Labour and Capital" (1847):

Anyways I'm not going to do this for the rest of you're post.

Peace, guys. I'm out.

All I can only suggest is you give the whole Marx thing a second reading because you seem to have a rather bad misunderstanding of it.

 

[Raoul]

Polarisation of either is 100% nonsensical. Capitalism has plenty of flaws, the answer to those flaws is most definitely not socialism however. Capitalism with socialist measures to balance things out is the best we can do, going too far into one direction or the other obviously won't work. Not sure what's the point of arguing which one would be worse.

Perhaps I missed it, but is anyone here arguing or 100% capitalism (full deregulation with no social programs at all) or 100% socialism (state owned means of production) ?

 

[Synco]

@MackRobinson

I was curious about a distinction between socialism and communism being attributed to Engels, so I searched around a bit. And I've actually found something. It's still in line with what I've written, but it also gives weight to a point you made.

There's also an interesting part on Marx' revision of (post-)revolution concepts in the Communist Manifesto you quoted, and a confirmation of the idea of basing future Russian socialism on traditional forms of collective peasant landownership (which I have touched upon in my post).

I'll post it later on.

(Apologies for swamping you with posts, I'm on a bit of a roll today.)

---------

You bring up very valid points here and that's an interesting discussion to have all on it's own. But it would go past what this topic is about, so if you feel like continuing that I wouldn't mind going into further detail via PM about this.

Alright, if you want to reply that way, feel free to do so. Kannste dann auch gleich auf deutsch machen.

 

[Peyroteo]

Perhaps I missed it, but is anyone here arguing or 100% capitalism (full deregulation with no social programs at all) or 100% socialism (state owned means of production) ?

Don't think so but there are people arguing why 100% socialism is better than 100% capitalism or viceversa when it's a discussion that really doesn't matter.

 

[Charles Miller]

I'm not socialist, but i'm against neoliberalism. Capitalism is not a system, its the human nature. We need to regulate it to avoid the extremes of injustice. But i think free initiative and private property need to be preserved. Free trade should not be a dogma. It caused the destruction of the industries in many countries. Of course China and some others are winning in this game. I think every country should be allowed to protect its industries and workers.

There is another thing that is more subjective: those guys who are not part of the economic elites, but are always angry in the social media attacking leftists, and defending the agenda of the billionaire class, i think those are pathetic human beings and deserve zero respect.

 

[Eboue]

There is another thing that is more subjective: those guys who are not part of the economic elites, but are always angry in the social media attacking leftists, and defending the agenda of the billionaire class, i think those are pathetic human beings and deserve zero respect.

hell yeah get their ass

 

[Silva]

---------Nerd alert------

there's no need for this dude, we can always see your name next to your posts

 

[Sweet Square]

there's no need for this dude, we can always see your name next to your posts

 

[2cents]

Mediocre yet thought-provoking thread:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Cascarino]

Eboue's awfully rude. Can't stand him.

I much prefer your posts where you never pretend to be intelligent.

I remember quoting this before and don’t remember if I’d already relied, but even if I did feck it

i have the belief that all people deserve a dignified life and that people like edgar are symptoms of a system which denies this to the masses. so when i come on here and see you two posting some of the dumbest shit imaginable to defend the system and imply that regular folks deserve to struggle for basic human needs, its feckin obnoxious.

ive read this capitalism v. socialism argument many times before and in every other instance the people favoring capitalism say "look at the increased standard of living" "more people have clean water" "wages have risen" "even poor people have iphones" etc. and i dont agree with those arguments but at least they make sense from a certain point of view. you two have spent the last few pages literally just saying "making things doesnt matter. working hard doesnt matter. all that matters is marketing and selling things to people". its a joke. both of you are fecking jokes. you can continue to pontificate from your swiss university and edgar can make gobs of money in manhattan but just know that any regular working person would read the shit you have said and tell you to drop dead.

I actually think you’re posting style is pretty hilarious, but I also appreciate the arguments you put forward and the obvious philosophy behind them. You and a fair few others in this thread are brilliant and can be pretty informative.

feck off dude. Do something useful in your life, educate yourself, maybe you will manage one day to get out of your mum's bedroom and earn a minimum salary.

You have no idea about mine or EAP background, where did we start, what we achieved, how easy or hard it was to do so. You're just a bitter man, so feck off.

NB: I am not at a Swiss university.

I find it pretty telling that you responded with that minimum salary jibe. The thought that @Eboue is motivated by his supposed lack of earnings rather than his outlook on life and his view that everyone is entitled to a certain level of dignity and security. It’s because you can’t fathom that he actually cares about people who may not be as fortunate as him, so surely it has to be down to the fact he’s a pleb.Tbh people with your view (in that reply, maybe outside of that you’re ok) on the world make my skin crawl, and I’d rather get by picking coppers up from the street than have your outlook.

Although I pretty much disagree with @finneh and @edgar allan on pretty much everything, I am glad that they put forward different views and arguments on here so we get a discourse going.

 

[Synco]

So, continuing from my last post, one more contribution to some points made here.

I found the various forewords to later editions of the Communist Manifesto insightful in terms of the development of the authors' theoretical reflections over time. Marx and Engels have used them to point out reinterpretations in light of historical experiences, indicating the historical relativity of some of their assertions. Which should have put a check on overly dogmatic readings.

Spoilered, since this is rather nerdy.

Spoiler

Here are parts that I found interesting & that have to do to with previous posts of mine. Some are quite counterintuitive to popular wisdom.

I find the 1882 foreword especially interesting. In addition to the favourable remarks on the obshchina / mir (sharply contradicting most later Marxist interpretations of historic materialism and the Manifesto), it draws a sketch of the United States' emergence as an economical world power, and the beginning of rapid capital concentration/monopolization processes within it. And it describes Russia as the (then current) revolutionary vanguard in Europe, again much in contradiction to a host of later Marxists, probably most of all the Germans.

Historicity of political programmes and measures; state criticism (1872 German edition):

The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”

(...)

But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter.

On revolutionary tendencies in Russia; the obshchina / mir as a feasible basis for a future Russian socialism; as a consequence, the relativity of the specific historic development processes analysed in the Manifesto (1882 Russian edition):

The Tsar was proclaimed the chief of European reaction. Today, he is a prisoner of war of the revolution in Gatchina, and Russia forms the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe.

The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?

The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.

On the terminology communism/socialism (1890 German edition, slightly altered in the 1888 English one); Here, Engels indeed draws a distinction between communism and the various forms of socialist thought of the mid-19th century. But it's also clear he primarily refers to a form political labeling, part of the ideological disputes of that time. A temporary political necessity, not a precise distinction. Consequently, he refers to communism as a socialist concept in the same passage, and he used the term "socialism" throughout his later political work.

Thus, to a certain extent, the history of the Manifesto reflects the history of the modern working-class movement since 1848. At present, it is doubtless the most widely circulated, the most international product of all socialist literature, the common programme of many millions of workers of all countries from Siberia to California.

Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. In 1847, two kinds of people were considered socialists. On the one hand were the adherents of the various utopian systems, notably the Owenites in England and the Fourierists in France, both of whom, at that date, had already dwindled to mere sects gradually dying out. On the other, the manifold types of social quacks who wanted to eliminate social abuses through their various universal panaceas and all kinds of patch-work, without hurting capital and profit in the least. In both cases, people who stood outside the labor movement and who looked for support rather to the “educated” classes. The section of the working class, however, which demanded a radical reconstruction of society, convinced that mere political revolutions were not enough, then called itself Communist. It was still a rough-hewn, only instinctive and frequently somewhat crude communism. Yet, it was powerful enough to bring into being two systems of utopian communism — in France, the “Icarian” communists of Cabet, and in Germany that of Weitling. Socialism in 1847 signified a bourgeois movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, quite respectable, whereas communism was the very opposite. And since we were very decidedly of the opinion as early as then that “the emancipation of the workers must be the task of the working class itself,” we could have no hesitation as to which of the two names we should choose. Nor has it ever occurred to us to repudiate it.

-------------
My opinion on the argument about socialism, communism, Marxism: There is no definite, binding meaning to any of these terms (although they aren't arbitrary either). They have been used by everyone and his dog, sometimes over several centuries, and for the most disparate purposes.

So it's up to everyone to judge how they are to be interpreted and valued, and how much they apply to our world and its future.

That judgement is of course helped by serious knowledge about the subject. What I (and others) have tried to point out here is that it pays to be careful regarding the bits of common wisdom floating around about Marx' supposed theories. Historically, Marxists are at fault there as much as detractors.

 

[Luke1995]

Like someone said, capitalism is human nature. People want to buy things, and they want to do it faster than others, in big quantity.

That's not exactly how it should be, but I don't see a way to fix it.

 

[Raoul]

Like someone said, capitalism is human nature. People want to buy things, and they want to do it faster than others, in big quantity.

That's not exactly how it should be, but I don't see a way to fix it.

Similarly, humans are egoists designed to seek the best deal possible. That doesn't however mean we can't cooperate to advance our mutual interests.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Humans were completely fine living in communistic societies for hundreds and thousands of years, was it not perfectly in our nature to do so?

It’s a daft argument, we are adaptable, that’s the only ‘human nature’ thing we have, merchants and moneylenders were looked down upon and agrarian aristocracy were the pinnacle of one’s ambition for most of the last two millennia, yet now they rule the world. The change in technology and environmental conditions facilitate the evolution of our society and what’s considered to be within the norms, or human nature, for the individuals.

 

[Luke1995]

Similarly, humans are egoists designed to seek the best deal possible. That doesn't however mean we can't cooperate to advance our mutual interests.

Sure, but perhaps that cooperation was easier before the internet era. Nowadays, you have all these social media accounts and Youtube stars fueling a big division of opinions which just leads to more hate between those who want different things.

 

[Cascarino]

Sure, but perhaps that cooperation was easier before the internet era. Nowadays, you have all these social media accounts and Youtube stars fueling a big division of opinions which just leads to more hate between those who want different things.

Is that a bad thing?

 

[Luke1995]

Is that a bad thing?

It's just that now there are so many places we can get the news from. How do we know what is true and what is false ?

But no, it doesn't need to be a bad thing. Groups of people who share the same ideas can use social media to get together. Just not sure about what the long terms effects are.

 

[RedRonaldo]

Both has its pros and cons if you ask me. Under normal circumstance I prefer capitalism as it motivates people to work harder for their own goods, its relatively fair game for most. Under period of crisis, socialism may works out better, as people are generally greedy/stupid, if not for government intervention they may end up badly.

 

[berbatrick]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

checkmate.

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Foxbatt]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Who is Carl Mark and who is Mow?

 

[Sweet Square]

Who is Carl Mark and who is Mow?

The less talented step brothers of Karl Marx and Mao Zedong

 

[JPRouve]

I'm pretty sure that they are all Pokemon characters.

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Fosu-Mens]

Capitalism in a business market will only be to the benefit of the customer as long as there are at least a certain amount of operators in that market. When the number of businesses goes below a certain amount (relative to market size and geographical area), the customers end up with the bill. And given that capitalism is more or less market Darwinism over time, this convergence to a duopoly or similar is bound to happen. If this convergence does not happen, then the other outcome is an "equilibrium" between the operators in the market where they are basically offering the same product/services... Again, the customers ends up with the bill.

When the number of providers goes below a certain threshold or enough time passed without radical changes in the market and thus an equilibrium is created, then capitalism goes from good to bad.

 

[Walrus]

The issue with modern capitalism lies in the control and influence obtained by the "elite" (read: the rich). Basic economics would dictate that if rich businessperson a starts treating their employees like shite and raising prices, people will stop buying their products and their workers will quit. This is fine. The issue is when you - as a society - allow this influence to creep into the political system and the media; institutions that have a huge impact on the general public and public perception.

If you think about it in terms of impact, its not really any different to state controlled media in a dictatorship; the papers will print what they are told to print. Journalism becomes agenda driven rather than being genuinely in the public interest. To me, this seems to be a problem that plagues numerous societal models. Regulation is needed, but in order to regulate, you have to have a political system that is truly independent from the media in the first place - it basically becomes a vicious circle, which I believe is what we have seen in the UK over the past couple of decades.

 

[DoomSlayer]

If you live in a bubble, a utopian socialism or capitalism can be implemented fully. But the real world provides so many obstacles and constant changes to the dynamics of all the different types of events happening around us, that it will never be possible to achieve an idealistic philosophy.

The problem will always be that as much as all humans share similar traits, we also vastly differ based on geographical location, culture, ethnicity, history. You could try and create something more balanced in an enclosed community, but you will never be able to make the whole world comform to a singular way of thinking.

 

[2cents]

End thread/

 

[Foxbatt]

For a lot of Americans even a national universal health care like the NHS is communism. So the UK and most of Europe is communist?

 

[Suv666]

Amazon workers dying while Bezos rakes in millions. Makes my blood boil. I dont understand how anyone with so much money can treat his workers like this. Psychopath. I wonder how many billionaires have psychopathic tendencies?
I don't know what the solution is but billionaires should not exist. For every Bill Gates, there are 10 Jeff Bezos.

 

[BobbyManc]

I dont understand how anyone with so much money can treat his workers like this.

That’s how he makes so much money.