• Response to #ResistCapitalism
    51 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Flameon;49598380]Totally! I'm not disagreeing and saying that the USA was "uniquely" evil for the time - the whole history of the time was barbarity. But, the American/European experience was redeemed. Today we say, "Yes, we comitted great evil just like everyone else, but we have redeemed ourselves by being committed to democracy/ethics/human rights/humanism/etc". I'm just reflecting that all it takes is a couple bad runs in Communism for us to say, "NEVER AGAIN!" but Capitalism, with a history that is essentially equally as bloody, is allowed the chance for redemption. @Duct: Landless white men - 1856 Non-whites - 1870 (in theory... in practice wait another ~90 years) Women - 1920 Native Americans - 1924 So you are right. More like 150 years not 200. My mistake.[/QUOTE] I don't see why capitalism is an American/European thing like that. Capitalism existed in Ancient Greece, it existed in the Chinese Song dynasty, in Tokugawa Japan, and in many other places around the world from the Medieval period onwards. I dislike the term capitalism though, it has particular value-judgments and connotations. It could be replaced by a better term like "Market economy". It's a largely organic economic system which inevitably develops when agrarian economies become sufficient enough to support trade and urban settlements. As for Communism, it's an explicit political ideology that originated in western europe during the 19th century, and the Marxist branch in particular is very German-centric, and often it was an alien imposition upon Asian and African societies.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49598646]I don't see why capitalism is an American/European thing like that. Capitalism existed in Ancient Greece, it existed in the Chinese Song dynasty, in Tokugawa Japan, and in many other places around the world from the Medieval period onwards. I dislike the term capitalism though, it has particular value-judgments and connotations. It could be replaced by a better term like "Market economy". It's a largely organic economic system which inevitably develops when agrarian economies become sufficient enough to support trade and urban settlements. As for Communism, it's an explicit political ideology that originated in western europe during the 19th century, and the Marxist branch in particular is very German-centric, and often it was an alien imposition upon Asian and African societies.[/QUOTE] I think your broad interpretation of Capitalism as market economy would mean that Communism, broadly interpreted, applies to a heck of a lot of ancient Asian and African societies. Hell, tons of indigenous communities today are built on communal modes of organization around the means of production.
[QUOTE=Flameon;49599100]I think your broad interpretation of Capitalism as market economy would mean that Communism, broadly interpreted, applies to a heck of a lot of ancient Asian and African societies. Hell, tons of indigenous communities today are built on communal modes of organization around the means of production.[/QUOTE] Which societies in particular do you refer to as being communist? If they were communist, why have they ceased to be viable? Also "means of production" is a weird thing to say these days. The correct term now is "Factors of production", since economic thought has progressed since the days of Marx.
Its hard to be viable when you are encroached upon by another ideological system. But the Lacandon Maya of Chiapas were doin' fine until NAFTA roled up, and there are plenty of successful Communes as business models that seem viable to me. Also, means of production isn't some antiquated term. Factors of production is broader because it includes natural resources.
I think to adapt to this new world where the economies of developed countries revolve around offering services rather then manufacturing I hold the idea that we should have a system of government paid education and healthcare with little or no welfare except for the retired elderly and disabled. We require a mixed economy that offers people the ability to get a good education without having to worry about having enough money to pay for their insurance or without worrying about drowning in debt. If you're a minority or single mother chances are financial aid will cover you with the current system. It covered my sister who is a single mother when she went to school for dental training. From my view, offering welfare in the form of unemployment benefits takes away that incentive to work as much as people like to say it doesn't. Unless you are injured on the job, in which case I can understand being on welfare while you recover. There's always work to be done. Whether it's maintaining roads, janitor work, being a garbageman, a mailman, changing oil or a laborer. In this present day pure capitalism will never survive. A market economy where the people pay into a universal healthcare and tuition is government covered is the way to go. Teach a man to fish, as the saying goes. But that mans health should never be up for profit.
[QUOTE=Flameon;49599535]Its hard to be viable when you are encroached upon by another ideological system.[/quote] Then perhaps that speaks of the older system being a failure in some way. [quote]Also, means of production isn't some antiquated term. Factors of production is broader because it includes natural resources.[/QUOTE] Means of production is antiquated by this point in time, economists don't use it any longer.
I suppose so. Sort of dangerous to subscribe to a "might is right" / "survival of the fittest" mentality when we are talking about building better collective futures. As for its antiquity: do any search on google scholar restricted to econ journals on the term and you'd see its still used.
[QUOTE=Flameon;49600203]I suppose so. Sort of dangerous to subscribe to a "might is right" / "survival of the fittest" mentality when we are talking about building better collective futures.[/quote] When it comes to creating a better collective future, we pick the model that works the best. If communism worked, then most of the worlds countries would have adopted it by now because the clearly superior aspects of it would have allowed Communist countries to overtake their neighbours. The example of Botswana is pretty clear. It was the poorest and most isolated country in Africa, with a tiny population. It adopted the market system and in the space of fifty years went from subsistence to becoming a fairly well-off country. Multitudes of other countries under Communist regimes have been given far more leeway with much more resources, people, and time (or support). Despite this, all of them have failed catastrophically and their populations rebelled and overthrew them. If Botswana can succeed, then any country can. [quote]As for its antiquity: do any search on google scholar restricted to econ journals on the term and you'd see its still used.[/QUOTE] Examples?
[quote] Examples?[/QUOTE] I dunno, google it? Since im part of a university I don't know if you have access to these articles but here are three I just randomly grabbed trying to restrict my searches to economics journals. [url]https://cje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/01/05/cje.bev083.full[/url] [url]http://www.rebe.rau.ro/RePEc/rau/journl/SU15/REBE-SU15-A15.pdf[/url] [url]ftp://ftp.repec.org/opt/ReDIF/RePEc/rau/journl/WI12/REBE-WI12-A3.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=Flameon;49600885]I dunno, google it? Since im part of a university I don't know if you have access to these articles but here are three I just randomly grabbed trying to restrict my searches to economics journals. [url]https://cje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/01/05/cje.bev083.full[/url] [url]http://www.rebe.rau.ro/RePEc/rau/journl/SU15/REBE-SU15-A15.pdf[/url] [url]ftp://ftp.repec.org/opt/ReDIF/RePEc/rau/journl/WI12/REBE-WI12-A3.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] They don't seem to be using it in a Marxist/Socialist context at all. You also didn't respond to the points earlier about Botswana.
Oh I mean, yeah Marxists use the term for sure, but i imagine these authors mean the same thing when they talk about the means of production. I interpreted what you were saying as, "The term means of production is outdated, people now call it factors of production." Maybe I misunderstand, are you instead saying, "The term means of production is still used but it refers to something different than Marxists meant, and the term Marx was talking about has since evolved to be factors of production." ? As for Botswana, my bad! I'll be honest I'm not up to date on the Botswana case study and would need to read more, but maybe the answer implicity is that its an exception instead of a rule? I'm thinking about the impact of the Chicago school in Latin America. In these countries, free market policies seriously decreased life quality for a majority of Latin Americans. De-nationalizing industries destroyed local economies, caused structural violence, etc. Or I'm considering Jamaica where free market economies basically fucked them over.
[QUOTE=Flameon;49601107]Oh I mean, yeah Marxists use the term for sure, but i imagine these authors mean the same thing when they talk about the means of production. I interpreted what you were saying as, "The term means of production is outdated, people now call it factors of production." Maybe I misunderstand, are you instead saying, "The term means of production is still used but it refers to something different than Marxists meant, and the term Marx was talking about has since evolved to be factors of production." ?[/quote] It seems to be quite different in the new context. Like, modern economists are a very different animal to the marxist. [quote]As for Botswana, my bad! I'll be honest I'm not up to date on the Botswana case study and would need to read more, but maybe the answer implicity is that its an exception instead of a rule? I'm thinking about the impact of the Chicago school in Latin America. In these countries, free market policies seriously decreased life quality for a majority of Latin Americans. De-nationalizing industries destroyed local economies, caused structural violence, etc. Or I'm considering Jamaica where free market economies basically fucked them over.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. As far as the evidence goes, most of the Latin American countries which strongly suppress the market (like Venezuela or Cuba) have poorer living conditions than those which allow it to operate relatively freely (like Chile or Uruguay). Market economies have existed all over the world relatively uninterrupted (18th century China, India, Japan, even the Aztec Empire to a degree) for centuries and have done pretty well. The well-functioning market economies have a clear and fair legal system, comprehensive regulation, and a lot of flexibility. When we consider where market economies have succeeded (Poland, Britain, Germany, America, Mexico, Botswana, Chile, China, Japan, Australia, the Baltic nations, etc) all over the world, it stands to reason that its been generally beneficial. One only has to compare the Eastern bloc nations in their communist days, to the modern eastern european nations to see why the market economy just works. The reason China was so wealthy and advanced is because it developed a complex market economy early on (it remained in this position until the 19th century).
Has there ever really been a country with communism? I mean you can only get a classless society using violence and oppression on your own people, and as far as I know all countries who have tried to be communist has only become super opressive socialistic societies. I find it mind-boggling that there are so many people with knowledge of history who actually are pro-communism in practise for this reason. Am I missing something or are all these people either stupid or horrible people with no empathy for other human beings? (This is not some random stab at everyone who is pro-communism, I genuinly want to know how you think.)
[QUOTE=maeZtro;49602479]Has there ever really been a country with communism? I mean you can only get a classless society using violence and oppression on your own people, and as far as I know all countries who have tried to be communist has only become super opressive socialistic societies. I find it mind-boggling that there are so many people with knowledge of history who actually are pro-communism in practise for this reason. Am I missing something or are all these people either stupid or horrible people with no empathy for other human beings? (This is not some random stab at everyone who is pro-communism, I genuinly want to know how you think.)[/QUOTE] Because communism is an ideology, it isn't defined by all countries who tried to establish a communistic society but failed.
[QUOTE=maeZtro;49602479]Has there ever really been a country with communism? I mean you can only get a classless society using violence and oppression on your own people, and as far as I know all countries who have tried to be communist has only become super opressive socialistic societies. I find it mind-boggling that there are so many people with knowledge of history who actually are pro-communism in practise for this reason. Am I missing something or are all these people either stupid or horrible people with no empathy for other human beings? (This is not some random stab at everyone who is pro-communism, I genuinly want to know how you think.)[/QUOTE] Even in theory you can't seamlessly apply communism to a capitalist democracy, it's too foreign. A lot of westerners who consider themselves to be communist just use communist symbolism and propaganda as inspiration for a vaguely anti-reactionary, anti-government agenda which is usually just as bad.
[QUOTE=Cold;49602860]Because communism is an ideology, it isn't defined by all countries who tried to establish a communistic society but failed.[/QUOTE] That people have tried and not succeded shows that it's extremly hard to implement, I would even say impossible. No matter what laws you make there will always be a lot of smart people who wants more than what they get and finds a way to get it, these people are part of the upper class in USA and simply telling them there is no free market for example won't work. Even if you took their money they would find a way to create a new upper class. The only way to stop these people from getting more money or resources that I (and judging from the state of the rest of the world anyone else) can think of is through violence and oppression, if you know another way I would very much like to know because marx himself didn't have the answer.
I often hear people say that communism is a good ideology at heart. I strongly disagree with that. Communism requires indoctrination and curbing freedom of speech, or it can't be maintained . There will always be people not agreeing with such a system, and unlike capitalism, communism doesn't leave room for compromise, or it'll fall apart and become a free market economy like what happened with the Soviet Union after perestroika. It can only be maintained by silencing dissenters, which will always lead to government collapse on the long run. Communism is flawed and will never ever truly work. Atleast in a capitalist system there is room for compromise between socialists and capitalists in the form of a free market economy with government intervention.
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;49603203]Who knows, you can turn it into a does a country ever been really capitalist. You end up with the dumb word game where people call IS(IS)(IL) Daesh changing fuck all and nitpicking, communism and capitalism and everything else work towards their ideal utopia, no shit the road is long towards that and at times unrecognizable. In the same way Nazi Germany wasn't really Nazi.[/QUOTE] It's not the name I am arguing about, it's that it is impossible to implement without killing off half of the population and even then no one is sure it would be sustainable. I don't know if pure capitalism has ever existed either and I think it's pretty much on the same level as marxist communism when it comes to viability. [QUOTE]And revolutions always involve death and destruction, except the rare few cases it didn't.[/QUOTE] So are you arguing that death and destruction is an ok way to implement communism or what's the point of that statement? Because that would make you a pretty horrible person in my mind. [QUOTE]Sure. There also have been countries that had communists come into power and with that not happening but I admit happily that it is the monitory. But I like to quote some tv ad here, "Past results don't have to representative of future results."[/QUOTE] I'd like examples of communist countries then, and not some little country that isn't acknowledged by the rest of the world. Also, past results don't have to represent the future but looking at past results is the only way of telling how likely it's that something will go a certain way. I could argue that if I drop a rock outside my house it will fall upwards into space but that would be pretty unlikely since all other rocks I and everyone else have dropped outside my house has fallen to the ground. [QUOTE]And loads of people walk around openly proclaiming their capitalist. Having the shiny history it has its okay. That it killed a fuck ton for greed, who cares! See can play that game. Capitalism is bad, but its the best we got. It's often said, but never questioned why. As we are on a baseless roll anyway I would say capitalism is the best we got because capitalism murdered any other alternative.[/QUOTE] I have met a few people who endorse pure capitalism through opression and they are not anymore clever in my mind, but many people who say they like capitalism really just mean that they want a relatively free market where people can compete on roughly the same basis, which I admitt is not possible in a society with pure capitalism. [QUOTE]Well according to the hat girl in the OP if you don't have money you just deserve to die or live with a crippling illness. And if your hungry you can always it the bootstraps being handed around. Statements that indeed sounds like empathy to me. Which sort of shows complete shit happening is not limited to exactly communism.[/QUOTE] Please show me where she is saying that if you have no money you deserve to die or live with crippling illness? I admit that she is simplifying the problem of poor and crippled people but don't you get food and housing if you have nothing in USA? There needs to be more done about these problems and I think USA should move closer to socialism with Bernie Sanders but at the same time it shouldn't lose the core values of capitalism. [QUOTE]The more fun part about #ResistCapitalism is that it does mean #SupportCommunism or #SupportSocialism, it could be many other things with a less shit trackrecord but I'm probably the only one stupid enough to talk about the hashtag itself.[/QUOTE] I agree with you on that but I was discussing how people can be for communism in practise as the way I understood it, people at the hat-woman's school was.
For better or worse, communism as a political movement and force is pretty much dead now. Even the Indian maoists and south American revolutionaries are giving up. In the west, all that remains are bitter university lecturers, some students, and rejects from the mainstream political parties.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.