Socialism

[Steel Tiger]

This thread has been an interesting read so far and I thought I would like to add to it.

Last time I'm saying this, There are no Communistic States.
"There cannot be a Communist State or Country. Why you may ask? Because Anarchy is the Lesbian Half-Sister of Communism. To say that the USSR was a Communistic country is to say that there can be an Arachicial country. It's an Oxymoron. But then, why do we call these States Communistic? Because they claim to be, and that automatically makes it true, even if what they are is the exact opposite of what they claim to be. For instance, I'm the Pope. That makes it true using the same logic." - My Socialist teacher.

I have to disagree with your teacher on one point. A state is not defined by its form of government. It is an entity which has within it a form of government and a political system (which is a different thing). A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area. It doesn't matter what the people living in the state call their government system or how it functions, as long as that group of people are recognised as having sovereign rights to a piece of ground they have a state.

So, yes, you can have a social state or a communist state, or a republic, or a strawberry daiquiri state if you want to.

I agree that you cannot have an anarchic state, because anarchy is not a political association.


We have not, and will not, see a real communist state because it is a pipe dream. Even Marx knew this when he wrote Das Capital. He put forward communism as an ideal, an intellectual exercise, if you will (I think Engels got a little confused and thought it could work, but his economics are pretty iffy). In almost every case that a state has claimed to have a communist government they have had a totalitarian regime.

Here, in Australia, we have a high level of socialist elements in our government, but it is most definitely not a socialist state. Our government is a parliamentary democracy and we are technically a commonwealth.


It is interesting how the descriptions of government systems has changed. Our parliamentary system, the US's republic are really just oligarchies - a small group ruling on behalf of the majority. Why? Because real, full blown, democracy can't work either. Imagine a country the size of the US trying to function with every decision having to go to every person eligible to vote. It would be pandemonium. Hence, the republic, or our parliament.

 

[CuongNhuka]

They all do.

With Communism, you have power too tightly consolidated in the state,

I'm going to ignore that (once again) there is likely to be no state in Communism, but anyways. State ownership is one of three options under Socialism/Communism. The other two are:
Employee ownership (you would elect your manager, he/she elects his/her manager, so on -OR- you use a confederation system instead of managers; either way, employee's have MUCH more authority, and would be a position for more individual profits)
Community ownership (mostly with small and/or nieghborhood things, like stores, movie theatures, so on)

Many Socialists want big huge companies that we would collapse without (like fuel) to be run by the state to get rid of prophet motive. Here's why that is good:
The oil industry is slowly raising prices per-gallon, and saying that this is because of increases in crude. While this could very easily be true, those same industries are making huge amounts of money. Infact, last year one Oil company make more profits (after expenses) then any other company in the U.S. Many other fuel companies are making record profits. Imagine what would happen to those prices if the people who ran those companies made no profit. However, those advocates (largely) want to nationalize the biggest company, and let it compete with private companies. It is misconcpetion that all socialists want to nationalize every buiness in the country.

 

[CuongNhuka]

This thread has been an interesting read so far and I thought I would like to add to it.



I have to disagree with your teacher on one point. A state is not defined by its form of government. It is an entity which has within it a form of government and a political system (which is a different thing). A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area. It doesn't matter what the people living in the state call their government system or how it functions, as long as that group of people are recognised as having sovereign rights to a piece of ground they have a state.

So, yes, you can have a social state or a communist state, or a republic, or a strawberry daiquiri state if you want to.

I agree that you cannot have an anarchic state, because anarchy is not a political association.


We have not, and will not, see a real communist state because it is a pipe dream. Even Marx knew this when he wrote Das Capital. He put forward communism as an ideal, an intellectual exercise, if you will (I think Engels got a little confused and thought it could work, but his economics are pretty iffy). In almost every case that a state has claimed to have a communist government they have had a totalitarian regime.

Here, in Australia, we have a high level of socialist elements in our government, but it is most definitely not a socialist state. Our government is a parliamentary democracy and we are technically a commonwealth.


It is interesting how the descriptions of government systems has changed. Our parliamentary system, the US's republic are really just oligarchies - a small group ruling on behalf of the majority. Why? Because real, full blown, democracy can't work either. Imagine a country the size of the US trying to function with every decision having to go to every person eligible to vote. It would be pandemonium. Hence, the republic, or our parliament.

Marx's Communism is basicly the same thing as Anarchy. "A Classless, Stateless Society" is the stated goal of Communism. Stateless-ness is the same thing (basicly) as governmentless-ness. Thus "Anarchy is the Lesbian Half-Sister of Communism". So, (once again) claiming to be a Communistic State/Country/Government is basicly the same as saying you have an Anarchial Government. Infact, Communism (like Anarchy) is meant to be Global. You know, take place everywhere. So, again, you cann't really have a Communistic Governement, unless it's global.

Once again, "Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen" - Leon Trotsky (I checked my source and realised I misquoted, but same thing). Saying that you cannot have Democracy and Socialism together, because Democracy requires a free market is called the "Package Deal Fallacy". Which is assuming that because Democracy is often linked with a free market, that they must always be linked.

 

[Ray]

Saying that you cannot have Democracy and Socialism together, because Democracy requires a free market is called the "Package Deal Fallacy".

You're right. People seem to often make the apples to oranges of "types of gov't" to "types of economic systems" comparison of "democracy" vrs "socialism." should be "capitalism" vs "socialism."

 

[CuongNhuka]

You're right. People seem to often make the apples to oranges of "types of gov't" to "types of economic systems" comparison of "democracy" vrs "socialism." should be "capitalism" vs "socialism."

So Ray, what's your stand on all this?

 

[Steel Tiger]

Marx's Communism is basicly the same thing as Anarchy. "A Classless, Stateless Society" is the stated goal of Communism. Stateless-ness is the same thing (basicly) as governmentless-ness. Thus "Anarchy is the Lesbian Half-Sister of Communism". So, (once again) claiming to be a Communistic State/Country/Government is basicly the same as saying you have an Anarchial Government. Infact, Communism (like Anarchy) is meant to be Global. You know, take place everywhere. So, again, you cann't really have a Communistic Governement, unless it's global.

Marx postulated three phases of social development - capitalism, which was all around him; socialism, a situation in which there are still some classes but where society has generally moved away from them; and lastly communism, a social situation with no classes and no states. He further postulated that his ideal of communism would be global because it would simply be the best system to live under and people everywhere would rise up and change their situation. Marx's position was not so much one of "smash the state" as it was the state will inevitably disappear having become redundant.

What is anarchy, on the other hand? It can be:

1. The absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.
2. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing authority, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).
3. The absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere.

Marx really didn't espouse any of these concepts. That is probably why his brand of communism is often referred to as utopian communism. Full blown angry anarchic communism has been around a lot longer than Marx. It arose out of the chaos and fear of the English Civil War and the French Revolution. These were people seriously at odds with monarchy.

They advocated (and still do) the abolition of the state and capitalism in favour of a horizontal network of voluntary associations, workers councils, and/or commons through which everyone would be free to satisfy their needs. Its not really anarchy either.

The problem that arises when comparing communism to anarchy is that communism requires cooperative action to succeed, anarchy does not. In fact it demands the exact opposite. The simple fact is that even the anarchists don't really want anarchy, so the hypothetical communist states are anarchic because they are suggested systems for cooperative living which precludes anarchy.

Once again, "Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen" - Leon Trotsky (I checked my source and realised I misquoted, but same thing). Saying that you cannot have Democracy and Socialism together, because Democracy requires a free market is called the "Package Deal Fallacy". Which is assuming that because Democracy is often linked with a free market, that they must always be linked.

I agree very much with Trotsky. Socialism and, by extention, communism require real democracy (as in that beast that used to live in Athens). These systems require it more that the oligarchic systems we live under do.

You are right that democracy does not require a market economy. They have become closely associated because the largest economies are market economies and they exist in countries that describe themselves as democratic. But free markets are much older than democracy having arisen is some places around the eastern Med well before the current era. What's more, the afore mentioned Athens did not have a free market. It, the Athenian state, had monopolies on all sorts of goods, but democracy flourished.

Government systems and economic systems are not one and the same. Look at China. It is a totalitarian government which describes itself as communist, but they are moving toward a free market economy.

Now fully-fledged Marxist utopian communism does not need a market economy because it will have supposedly moved well passed those concepts. The whole world will be living in the same idyllic system according to Marx and thus there will be no place for a market economy just as there will be no place for classes or states.

In effect Marx was describing Heaven.

 

[Marginal]

I'm going to ignore that (once again) there is likely to be no state in Communism, but anyways.

I was mainly thinking of China's system and how it has been moving towards a mixed economy as their communist structure was proving unworkable. That tends to be the case in every country that's adopted communism so far. (Either that, or you end up with people in crushing poverty while the great leader gets yet another terrible haircut etc)

State ownership is one of three options under Socialism/Communism.

Are the terms socialism and communism interchangeable?

 

[Steel Tiger]

Are the terms socialism and communism interchangeable?

Well no they're not. When Marx laid out all this stuff he saw three clear phases of society - first capitalism, then socialism, and finally communism. Of course, nowadays the terms are conflated into one and are considered to be violently opposed to capitalism.

 

[CuongNhuka]

There is a reason why the two concepts are half sisters, not identical twins. And why anarchy is a lesbian.

the state will inevitably disappear having become redundant.

What is anarchy,

2. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing authority, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).

There it is. They share many principles (no government, people act out of free will, so on), but in Communism, people act for the common good. See what I mean?

Although, I must give you credit, you seem to be the only person who is argueing with me that seems to have really done her homework!

Marginal: China has a differnit kind of economy called Statism/something else I cann't remeber because I'm tired. But it's were the government has complete control of the economy, and is not answerable to the people. The reason why major thinkers in the Rose and Fist Tendency are so pro-Democratic is because Democracy is (by design) answerable to the people. That is the major differnce between Socialism and a Fascism.
Also, no the terms are not interchangeable, but share enough in common that I can often refer to them both at the same time. (kinda like extreme Libertarianism and Anarchy).

 

[Steel Tiger]

There is a reason why the two concepts are half sisters, not identical twins. And why anarchy is a lesbian.



There it is. They share many principles (no government, people act out of free will, so on), but in Communism, people act for the common good. See what I mean?

I don't disagree that the two concepts are related, as you say they share a number of elements, what I disagree with is the statement that a communist state is anarchic one. To my understanding communism can have a state (as I defined it earlier) whether it be the size of San Marino, the USSR, or the entire planet, while anarchy cannot. The essential notion of anarchy does not allow for those institutions that would be capable of carrying out the actions that would allow it to be recognised as sovereign over a territory. Does one person make a state? Possibly, but it is not a society.

We will not see a proper communist state because the very nature of humanity does not allow for it. We are essentially selfish beings. Altruism does not help me pass on my genes. It is a learned behaviour because we know that helping others can benefit us, even so, we still think in terms of "what's in it for me?" From a political point of view, anarchy is the ultimate expression of this aspect of ourselves, but it does not form societies, no matter how much the idealists would like it to.

 

[Ray]

So Ray, what's your stand on all this?

I have to apologize, I haven't read the posts because it seems a rehash of stuff. Once you hit 50 you begin to notice that some topics keep coming up.

Capitalism, pure greed and Adam Smith's invisible hand of all working in their self-interest is what keeps the economic world turning. I'd love a world where truely unfortunate people are taken care of and given something within their abilities--something that helps them to feel needed and appreciated.

Earthly socialism, where the state owns the means of production "sounds" like a great idea. In practice, it has not shown to be a great economic driver. Look at China...they are "experimenting" with capitalism and giving their citizens a better life.

I've said it before: it is only when my interest is interest in my neighbor's well-being can a communal ownership of the world and its resource work. Unfortunately, I believe that it will take place during the millenial reign of the savior; and not before.

 

[CuongNhuka]

what I disagree with is the statement that a communist state is anarchic one.

I didn't say they are the same thing. I said that by calling a country Communistic (which has the goal of being Stateless) is the same as saying there can be an Anarchial Government. Is that something you can agree with?

Ray, I've said this to a couple here (many times each), but State control of industry is one of three options. The others are worker and community. An example of the worker controlled is where you elect your direct manager and/or the company ex.s (the possible managers have to "campaign" for your support). Community ownership would be for like the neighborhood store, schools, so on.
State ownership has become close to a dirty in the Socialistic Comminity. It is mostly advocated with major industries (like fuel), and many advocate nationalizing one company, and having it compete with the free market (It's really only Market Socialists that still advocate state run companies).

 

[Archangel M]

Socialism and the Chinese earthquake.

The problem is that these buildings were not up to standards, but the more fundamental question is why they were not. It is not merely a matter of obedience. It is a matter of economics. The people who build buildings need to be held liable for the structural integrity of the buildings. But of course a lack of accountability is a famed feature of all governments everywhere, in contrast with private enterprise.

China has undergone a private-enterprise revolution in the last decade and a half, one that has transformed the country and dramatically raised the living standards of the population. But the system that built the schools that collapsed is as stuck in the past as the system of Chinese communism itself. The government orders schools to be built and they must be built, period.

What if the resources aren't available? What if the workers lack the skill to accomplish the task? What if the machines that are to build them do not work properly and lack replacement parts? What if resource supply should be allocated differently according to the needs of the people? Under socialism, economics is beside the point. The schools must appear. This is the way the system works.

But let us not get too far afield from the core point. The remnants of socialist central planning killed the kids. Yes, the government is to blame. The survivors and their families are right about that. But they have another enemy as well. It is the deadly ideology that set out to put government in charge of economic life, which includes building structures to house children for educational purposes. They can add the tragedy of the Xianjian Primary School to the list of deaths caused by socialism.

 

[Big Don]

CuongNhuka, you don't seem to want to hear anyone's opinion of socialism but your's. That is a failing due to your age. You'll likely grow out of it.

 

[Ray]

Ray, I've said this to a couple here (many times each), but State control of industry is one of three options. The others are worker and community. An example of the worker controlled is where you elect your direct manager and/or the company ex.s (the possible managers have to "campaign" for your support). Community ownership would be for like the neighborhood store, schools, so on.
State ownership has become close to a dirty in the Socialistic Comminity. It is mostly advocated with major industries (like fuel), and many advocate nationalizing one company, and having it compete with the free market (It's really only Market Socialists that still advocate state run companies).

A small commune, a state with the population of wyoming, a megalopolis, a large country...it's still the state owning the means of production. Governing a state is like boiling a small fish.

 

[Steel Tiger]

I didn't say they are the same thing. I said that by calling a country Communistic (which has the goal of being Stateless) is the same as saying there can be an Anarchial Government. Is that something you can agree with?

No I cannot agree with that because anarchy, by its very nature, precludes government. Anarchy is about individual freedoms and lack of responsibilities, it is not about cooperative action. The so-called Anarchic communists are not really talking about anarchy they are talking about communism.

Nor can one have an anarchist state for the very same reasons. If I may quote myself for a moment:

A state is not defined by its form of government. It is an entity which has within it a form of government and a political system (which is a different thing). A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area. It doesn't matter what the people living in the state call their government system or how it functions, as long as that group of people are recognised as having sovereign rights to a piece of ground they have a state.

Anarchy does not conforn to this definition because there is nothing one could call a political association. As soon as such a thing exists it is no longer and anarchy. It has become something else.

Anarchy is the ultimate indivualistic ideal just as communism is the ultimate cooperative ideal. Neither condition can exist because they do not take into account human nature, training, and experience. They are theoretical constructs dreamed up by philosophers and nothing more.