Greatest debate in modern history? Socialism(not Stalinism) vs Capitalism

[mheslep]

The history of totalitarian collectivism sentiment goes much further back than the Cold War in the US. FDR's administration was loaded with people who were gaga over both the USSR and Mussolini. The fact that the USSR and Italy were on opposite sides in WWII doesn't make fascism and USSR socialism idealist opposites. After the war, US intellectual opinion was nearly all collectivist:

In 1945, 1950, at the end of the war, intellectual opinion [in the USA] was almost wholly collectivist. Everybody was a socialist. They may not have used the term but that's what they were. However, practice was not socialist. Practice was free enterprise.

The role of government at that time was such smaller than it has since become and from 1945 on to 1980, what you had was galloping socialism. Government took over more and more control. Government spending went from about 20 percent of national income—government federal, state and local—to about 40 percent of national income until Reagan came along.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2006/Friedmantranscript.html

 

[mheslep]

1919 Socialist Party of NY - Manifesto:
http://www.marxisthistory.org/history/usa/parties/spusa/1919/0500-lw-manifesto.pdf

Program.
1. We stand for a uniform declaration of principles in all party platforms, both local and national, and the abolition of all social reform planks now contained in them.
2. The party must teach, propagate, and agitateexclusively for the overthrow of Capitalism, and the establishment of Socialism through a Proletarian Dictatorship.
3. The Socialist candidates elected to office shall adhere strictly to the above provisions.
4. Realizing that a political party cannot reorganize and reconstruct the industrial organizations of the working class and that that is the task of the economic
organizations themselves, we demand that the party assist this process or reorganization by a propaganda for revolutionary and industrial unionism as part of its general activities. We believe it is the mission of the socialist movement to encourage and assist the proletariat to adopt newer and more effective forms of organization and to stir it into newer and more revolutionary modes of action.
5. We demand that the official party press be party-owned and controlled.
6. We demand that officially recognized educational institutions be party-owned and controlled.
7. We demand that the party discard its obsolete literature and publish new literature in keeping with the politics and tactics above mentioned.
8. We demand that the National Executive Committee call an immediate emergency national convention for the purpose of formulating party policies and tactics to meet the present crisis.
9. We demand that the Socialist Party repudiate the Berne Congress or any other conference engineered by “moderate Socialists” and social patriots.
10. We demand that the Socialist Party shall elect delegates to the International Congress proposed by the Communist Party of Russia (Bolsheviki); that our party shall participate only in a new International with which are affiliated the Communist Party of Russia (Bolsheviki), the Communist Labor Party of Germany (Spartacus), and all other Left Wing parties and groups.

 

[mheslep]

Another early US socialism party factoid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs" of the popular vote in the 1912 presidential election.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, but what about the 3rd world? How will capitalism give the tools to starving people to develop?

I'm not sure I understand the question. If we assume that all people are roughly equally genetically, then setting them up with the same government and economic system will enable them to reach a similar level of deveopment.

Consider the leap forward that East Germany took after re-unification. All it took for them was a proper government. Admittedly, not a perfect example - the Africans will have cultural issues to overcome, which will take generations, but they can still do it.

Is that what you were asking?

 

[AlexES16]

I'm not sure I understand the question. If we assume that all people are roughly equally genetically, then setting them up with the same government and economic system will enable them to reach a similar level of deveopment.

Consider the leap forward that East Germany took after re-unification. All it took for them was a proper government. Admittedly, not a perfect example - the Africans will have cultural issues to overcome, which will take generations, but they can still do it.

Is that what you were asking?

Well in my country there was a cold war proxy war in the 80s, 80000 killed and a lot of damage to infrastrcuture, now the problem is criminality, gangs are everywhere and a lot of enviromental damage, the principal river of my cuntry could be depleated and poverty is still high, corruption is also a problem. So in this situtation, i really don't know what the country needs, what's the role of government in capitalism? to be honest history says that capitalism is the most succesfull, but i really don't know if tis apliable to my country, to be honest i feel ignorant.

 

[AlexES16]

PS: the peace come in 1992

 

[vici10]

The problems in Africa are not cultural. The problem that it has a lot of natural resources. And it is well known that US will support any dictator in third world country if it means profit for its corporations. This is an interesting link about Congo: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Africa/Business_War_Congo.html

 

[mheslep]

The problems in Africa are not cultural.

How would you know this?

The problem that it has a lot of natural resources. And it is well known that US will support any dictator in third world country if it means profit for its corporations. This is an interesting link about Congo: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Africa/Business_War_Congo.html

That's a 2001 article from Dollars and Sense magazine, about which wiki says:

Dollars & Sense is a magazine dedicated to providing left-wing perspectives on economics.

Published six times a year since 1974, it is edited by a collective of economists, journalists, and activists committed to the ideals of social justice and economic democracy.

It was initially sponsored by the Union for Radical Political Economics, but as of 1996 it is no longer affiliated with that organization. Today, the magazine is published by the independent Dollars and Sense, Inc., a non-profit foundation based in Boston, Massachusetts. Circulation is about 7,000.

Everything in that article may be factual. But I decline to accept any of as such with more references, and the article provides zero.

 

[Al68]

So in this situtation, i really don't know what the country needs, what's the role of government in capitalism?

None, directly. Capitalism is just something most people engage in when free to do so. It's not even very accurate to call it an economic system. It would be more accurate to describe it as what happens in the absence of any economic system.

Of course government plays an indirect role by outlawing robbery, theft, murder, etc. But capitalism itself is just the voluntary exchange of goods and services, and has nothing to do with government at all, except to the extent that government restricts individual liberty.

 

[vici10]

Since mheslep demanded references, I provide some references. They show that war in Congo was mostly fueled by desire of corporations to make profit from mineral resources of Congo, that it is not about culture.


The references:

Friends in high places; Richard C. Morais, Forbes Magazine 08-10-1998
http://www.forbes.com/global/1998/0810/0109038a.html

Congo: Business as usual?; Lokongo, Antoine; New African 06-01-2001
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5391/is_200106/ai_n21473473/?tag=content;col1

"Blood Diamonds" and Africa's Armed Conflicts in the Post-Cold War Era; Orogun, Paul; World Affairs 01-01-2004
www.gpia.info/files/u16/OrogunBloodDiamondsAfricasArmedConflicts.pdf[/URL]

A Call to Arms, The Industry Standard, June 11, 2001 v4 i23 p55
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HWW/is_23_4/ai_75669917/

Coltan Trade Finances War, Says Report, Africa News Service, Jan 14, 2002 p1008014u3204

Coltan Traders Contribute to DRC War, Africa News Service, Jan 17, 2002 p1008017u7351

Coltan, Materials World, June 2004 v12 i6 p18(1)
http://allafrica.com/stories/200201170440.html

Guns into copper: Zaire's rebel chief savvy in business. (mining deal between America Mineral Fields and government of Laurant Kabila) Victor Ozols. American Metal Market, April 17, 1997 v105 n74 p1(1),

African and American connivance in Congo-Zaire; Ngolet, Francois Africa Today 01-01-2000

Lokongo Bafalikike, "4.7 million dead, and nobody cares?" New African, 05/2003 p20(2)

Heritage Oil's Fight in Africa, Sunday Monitor (Uganda) 19/8/07

War: Arms and the Child: Kids have been fighters in the Congo, but can they survive peace?; Maclean's 02-09-2004

How America ran, and still runs, the Congo war; New African 09-01-2001
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5391/is_200109/ai_n21477105/

CNN Diplomatic License, Should War Be Privatized?, 13/07/2002
[url]http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0207/13/i_dl.00.html[/url]

Investors Speak Out Against Fueling Of Congo War By Conflict Minerals
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 11 /CSRwire 2010
[url]http://www.csrwire.com/press/press_release/28446-Investors-Speak-Out-Against-Fueling-Of-Congo-War-By-Conflict-Minerals[/url]

 

[vici10]

There is another important reference that I just have missed.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa72638.000/hfa72638_0.HTM

 

[AlexES16]

Mixed economy a viable solution for third world countries?

 

[AlexES16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy sound good.

 

[russ_watters]

The problems in Africa are not cultural. The problem that it has a lot of natural resources. And it is well known that US will support any dictator in third world country if it means profit for its corporations.

While I agree that to some extent the existing problems in Africa are due to bad colonialism from Europe and mixed-message support from Europe and the US, that doesn't have anything at all to do with what I said in my previous post and is off topic for this thread.

Why? Because even if the western world treats Africa perfectly (however that will look), there are still cultural problems that will hinder development. Even if we swoop in and crush the dictators and install democracies and then shepard them for a few years until they reach a certain level of stability (see: Iraq), it will take generations for the cultural problems to go away.

This works the same for cultural problems anywhere: in many parts of the US, the racism culture was deeply ingrained in society and legal(or at least overlooked) until the '60s. Only after the people involved in the civil rights era are dead can the issue really die completely.

 

[Sea Cow]

Because even if the western world treats Africa perfectly (however that will look), there are still cultural problems that will hinder development. Even if we swoop in and crush the dictators and install democracies and then shepard them for a few years until they reach a certain level of stability (see: Iraq), it will take generations for the cultural problems to go away.

Do you understand just how patronising and arrogant this sounds? (And either hopelessly naive or outright hypocritical.)

Even if 'we' swoop in and crush dictators etc etc.

Do you not know the recent history of your own country (assuming you're American) in setting up and supporting dictators around the world over the last half century? I could furnish you with a list if you like.

Bringing up Iraq, a country that the US and their allies have done their level best to destroy, is a sick joke in this context.

 

[Count Iblis]

The long term future is clear: Capitalism will slowly evolve into a communist system due to automization. In the future everything we need will be produced without human labor by machines. The whole system can maintain itself but it will grow out of control leading to the infamous http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/07/64235" , unless strictly controlled.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you understand just how patronising and arrogant this sounds? (And either hopelessly naive or outright hypocritical.)

Even if 'we' swoop in and crush dictators etc etc.

Do you not know the recent history of your own country (assuming you're American) in setting up and supporting dictators around the world over the last half century? I could furnish you with a list if you like.

There is no need to furnish me with a list. I know the history of my country and what you are talking about is irrelevant to the issue of this thread and irrelevant to the point I was making. I will not permit this to become another random US-bashing thread. You've been warned: stay on topic.

 

[zomgwtf]

russ not to drag this thread further off topic but I don't think it's right for you to blame Africa's condition on internal cultural problems. I've studied African culture and ancient African cultures and I can definitely say that while they did have their fair share of cultural difficulties the majority of their problems came from Europe and friends. Most of their problems have to do directly with the greed of the 'developed nations'.

So while it IS fair to say that Africa has cultural problems that it would need to get over I have to disagree in the way you attempt to make it look as though Africa is just one big problem in the world full of difficulties that can never be corrected. Which is what I get from your post.

 

[russ_watters]

russ not to drag this thread further off topic but I don't think it's right for you to blame Africa's condition on internal cultural problems.

I did no such thing. You didn't read my post either!

I've studied African culture and ancient African cultures and I can definitely say that while they did have their fair share of cultural difficulties the majority of their problems came from Europe and friends.

Then we are in agreement!

What I said was that that they can take advantage of and prosper under democracy/capitalism like the west. It won't be easy - because of those cultural problems you acknowledge they have - but they can do it. That's it. That's all I said. Everything else being brought up here was generated by people with a chip on their shoulder about the US.

 

[Sea Cow]

What I said was that that they can take advantage of and prosper under democracy/capitalism like the west. It won't be easy - because of those cultural problems you acknowledge they have - but they can do it. That's it. That's all I said. Everything else being brought up here was generated by people with a chip on their shoulder about the US.

I don't think that is a fair characterisation at all. What I said in response to your post suggesting that somehow it was the US and the West in general's job to bring freedom to Africa was not due to a 'chip on my shoulder'. I would say exactly the same about my own country, the UK, and the poisoned legacy it has left behind in its former colonies in Africa and elsewhere. I'm new here, so I don't know the culture of the place yet, but it seems an odd way to go about things to tell someone they are dragging a thread off-topic for pulling them up directly on what they themselves have posted.

It is the west that has messed up Africa in 200 years of colonialism, shaping the various economies there to fit the needs of the 'mother country' rather than the needs of the various countries' own people. The same goes for Latin America and US intervention there.

I see optimistic signs in Bolivia, Venezuela and elsewhere that people are starting to come up with their own regionally and culturally appropriate solutions. They don't need an enlightened West to show them the way. Quite the opposite – they need real fair trade with the West and beyond that to be left alone. Just as Britain, as the former colonial master, is the last country in the world that can help Zimbabwe, so the US is the last country to be trying to sort out its former 'backyard', Latin America. Real democracy can mean the dismantling of capitalist modes of production, which have left the majority population destitute. Capitalism ≠ democracy. Pinochet was an extremist monetarist capitalist loon. In Chile and many places elsewhere, democracy was overthrown in order to preserve/impose capitalism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

What I said in response to your post suggesting that somehow it was the US and the West in general's job to bring freedom to Africa

You might note (underscored text)...

Why? Because even if the western world treats Africa perfectly (however that will look), there are still cultural problems that will hinder development. Even if we swoop in and crush the dictators and install democracies and then shepard them for a few years until they reach a certain level of stability (see: Iraq), it will take generations for the cultural problems to go away.

He did not suggest that it is "the West's job" to do anything. He seems to theorize that what ever change in relationship between Africa and the West occurs there will still be cultural hurdles to overcome for the people of those nations. You somehow read into this that the West ought to "bring freedom" to Africa and went off on a tangent from there.

 

[AlexES16]

I don't think that is a fair characterisation at all. What I said in response to your post suggesting that somehow it was the US and the West in general's job to bring freedom to Africa was not due to a 'chip on my shoulder'. I would say exactly the same about my own country, the UK, and the poisoned legacy it has left behind in its former colonies in Africa and elsewhere. I'm new here, so I don't know the culture of the place yet, but it seems an odd way to go about things to tell someone they are dragging a thread off-topic for pulling them up directly on what they themselves have posted.

It is the west that has messed up Africa in 200 years of colonialism, shaping the various economies there to fit the needs of the 'mother country' rather than the needs of the various countries' own people. The same goes for Latin America and US intervention there.

I see optimistic signs in Bolivia, Venezuela and elsewhere that people are starting to come up with their own regionally and culturally appropriate solutions. They don't need an enlightened West to show them the way. Quite the opposite – they need real fair trade with the West and beyond that to be left alone. Just as Britain, as the former colonial master, is the last country in the world that can help Zimbabwe, so the US is the last country to be trying to sort out its former 'backyard', Latin America. Real democracy can mean the dismantling of capitalist modes of production, which have left the majority population destitute. Capitalism ≠ democracy. Pinochet was an extremist monetarist capitalist loon. In Chile and many places elsewhere, democracy was overthrown in order to preserve/impose capitalism.

I think you are right my friend. Here in my country US monopolies come and treat the left, they like to do extorsions to the country. Thanks to 80s war, the guerrila bringed democracy and freedom of expression. The ANEP that is the private sector even buyed death squads to mass murder inocent people and people that was against the right wing capitalist dictadorship. By the way the dictadorship was suported by US with millions of dollars and military equipment. But at the end the people united can't be defeated by imperialism.

 

[AlexES16]

Cuba has high human development and they have an embargo. Venezuela is improving his human development and Russia after the fall of USSR is now a mess, racism, poverty, violence. There is an increasing nostalgia for the communist times. Now this doesn't mean that the iron courtain was wrong or that dictadorship is good but looks like even the bad aplicated socialism has is advantages. Capitalism looks like it needs an abundancy of resources, imagine an alien invation or another ice age, or the light of a supernova burn the surface of planet earth. That will live millions more in hunger and i don't think capitalism has the tools to save people that is already in poor state. You talk about competition, how can a person with brain damage of years of malnutrition can compete with a guy with resources?. I find in the same level of utopia the "invisible hand of the market" and the "communist society". The importance sectors of the economy should be own by workers, water, food, health, education, heavy industry.

This sounds pretty much reasonable to me:
http://www.slp.org/res_state_htm/socialism_m_p.html

 

[AlexES16]

What about a future with nanotechnology, super nuclear reactors, robots, genetic engineering, clones, cyborgs, brain chips to make you smarter. How can you let all that withouth regulation and the hope that the "invisible hand of the market" will use it good?

History shows that capitalist are as bad as communist dictators. But Socialism has never been aplied, capitalism yes, and with horrible consecuenses.

 

[AlexES16]

So how will work capitalism in a great shortage of resources?

 

[AlexES16]

Look Venezuela they nationalilized the oil and they are building many things with. Capitalist powers are totally angry becouse of that and they strongest government ally is the USA government with such military. In the Human rights there is a part that says "Every nation is free to choose its form of government and the free determination of nations".

End the Cuban Embargo to see if its communism that have them like that.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think that is a fair characterisation at all. What I said in response to your post suggesting that somehow it was the US and the West in general's job to bring freedom to Africa...

I happen to believe it is our responsibility, in part because of the hand we've had in causing the problems, but again, that piece of this is irrelevant. However democracy can come to Africa, Africa can be capitalist/democratic. That was my point. Yes, I suggested a way that capitalism/democracy could come to Africa and if you don't like it, fine! Maybe Africa's dictators will some day choose to hand over their countries to the people. Maybe the people will revolt. I really don't know nor do I care - for the purpose of this thread - how it could happen. The point, again, is that Africa could prosper under democracy -- but it can't happen overnight because of their cultural problems. That's it!

...was not due to a 'chip on my shoulder'.

The fact that you are still harping on a minor and irrelevant part of my post while ignoring the main point shows that that part of my post hit a sorespot for you. Get over it.

 

[Al68]

The ANEP that is the private sector even buyed death squads to mass murder inocent people and people that was against the right wing capitalist dictadorship. By the way the dictadorship was suported by US with millions of dollars and military equipment. But at the end the people united can't be defeated by imperialism.

You seem to be using a very very different definition of capitalism than commonly used. Those on this forum advocating capitalism are talking about free market capitalism, ie capitalism practiced by people voluntarily as a result of individual liberty, not a government imposed economic system at all.

No one here is advocating anything resembling a "capitalist dictatorship", or any type of capitalism imposed or organized by any government. We advocate individual liberty, and that means the freedom of each person to choose to engage in capitalism or socialism as they see fit.

The results of economic freedom are obvious: higher standard of living for middle class and poor people. The inevitable result of government controlled economies is just as obvious: Mass poverty.

 

[noblegas]

I happen to believe it is our responsibility, in part because of the hand we've had in causing the problems, but again, that piece of this is irrelevant. However democracy can come to Africa, Africa can be capitalist/democratic. That was my point. Yes, I suggested a way that capitalism/democracy could come to Africa and if you don't like it, fine! Maybe Africa's dictators will some day choose to hand over their countries to the people. Maybe the people will revolt. I really don't know nor do I care - for the purpose of this thread - how it could happen. The point, again, is that Africa could prosper under democracy -- but it can't happen overnight because of their cultural problems. That's it!

I think that a large bulk of Africa's problems are the result of western interventionism. For example, If the aid provided by western governments that is intended to be directed to assist the africans in poor living conditions did not go to the hands of the corrupt dictators who of course will not spend the money on who it was directed at, they would not remain in power. The spread of malaria could be partly blamed on the environmentalists in western countries that persuaded governments to banned the ddt vaccine that would have prevented malaria from spreaded and 40 million africans would not have unnecessarily died from malaria. Yes the problems that exist in africans stem directly from africans themselves, but western governments and western environmentalists exacerbated many of the problems in Africa

 

[Sea Cow]

No one here is advocating anything resembling a "capitalist dictatorship", or any type of capitalism imposed or organized by any government. We advocate individual liberty, and that means the freedom of each person to choose to engage in capitalism or socialism as they see fit.

What does that mean? Your freedom to do whatever you want may be impinging on another's freedom not to be acted on by those such as you behaving how they want.

Where do you stand on freedom of ownership. Should I be free to own an essential, limited resource and charge you rent to use it? That's a strange kind of freedom – the freedom to exploit and be exploited.

ETA: With such essentially social animals as humans, it makes no sense only to advocate individual liberty. The individual human can only survive as part of the group. And with the benefits gained from the group come responsibilities towards the group.

 

[mheslep]

Since mheslep demanded references, I provide some references. They show that war in Congo was mostly fueled by desire of corporations to make profit from mineral resources of Congo, that it is not about culture.


The references:

Friends in high places; Richard C. Morais, Forbes Magazine 08-10-1998
http://www.forbes.com/global/1998/0810/0109038a.html

I took a look at your first reference. It doesn't support your thesis. Yes people are attempting to make profit from mineral resources there, even through corrupt means. People also make profits from mineral resources in Canada, the US, and Australia, yet they don't have civil wars.

 

[AlexES16]

You seem to be using a very very different definition of capitalism than commonly used. Those on this forum advocating capitalism are talking about free market capitalism, ie capitalism practiced by people voluntarily as a result of individual liberty, not a government imposed economic system at all.

No one here is advocating anything resembling a "capitalist dictatorship", or any type of capitalism imposed or organized by any government. We advocate individual liberty, and that means the freedom of each person to choose to engage in capitalism or socialism as they see fit.

The results of economic freedom are obvious: higher standard of living for middle class and poor people. The inevitable result of government controlled economies is just as obvious: Mass poverty.

You mean this?

 

[Al68]

What does that mean? Your freedom to do whatever you want may be impinging on another's freedom not to be acted on by those such as you behaving how they want.

Of course no one should have the freedom to do whatever they want, only those things that don't violate the rights of others. In this context, voluntary trade of goods and services obviously doesn't violate anyone's rights. Using force or fraud clearly would, and should be illegal.

Where do you stand on freedom of ownership. Should I be free to own an essential, limited resource and charge you rent to use it?

Again, no, but the question isn't relevant to the issue, since the resources in question aren't limited. At least not in the U.S., where even unused land is plentiful.

If we were talking about some resource that was essential and limited, it might be a different story. Do you have an example?

That's a strange kind of freedom – the freedom to exploit and be exploited.

If you're using the words "freedom to exploitand be exploited" to refer to the voluntary exchange of goods and services, then it's not strange at all. "Exploiting" opportunities is how poor people escape poverty.

What is strange about recognizing that a person has ownership rights to the product of his labor, and therefore the right to sell or trade it as he sees fit?

 

[Al68]

You mean this?

Sorry, I was too lazy to watch it all. So I can only say I agree with the first two minutes of it.

 

[Sea Cow]

Those on this forum advocating capitalism are talking about free market capitalism, ie capitalism practiced by people voluntarily as a result of individual liberty, not a government imposed economic system at all.

This simply isn't true. Have a read of some literature about the labour movement in the US in the first half of the 20th century and how it was brutally and often illegally suppressed. Socialism appears to have been largely written out of US history, but up to the 1940s, it was very much there and a force among the many who worked in industry, who sold their labour in a 'market' that screwed them if they did not come together and fight collectively for better conditions.

You might also wish to consider the fairness of the price that slaves and the descendants of slaves received for their labour right up to living memory in the US, which only ceased to be a formally racist state just over 40 years ago.

Once you move away from the US and look at the position of, for instance, the Indian builders who died in their hundreds building the Burj Dubai, all for the princely sum of $5 per day, your position becomes simply ludicrous. Those who control capital impose their terms on those who have no leverage. There is nothing free about such a market.