[wildman]

how is this substantively different from how the USA is run?

Per Capita Income:
USA - $47000
Guatemala - $3000

Median income:
USA - $31,111
Guatemala - $1,813

Source:IMF 2010

---

Last edited by wildman; 09-07-2011 at 07:43 PM.

[Chwisch87]

Well you have to remember that what we call communism is pretty arbitrary.. For instance, the two people who insisting on calling the soviet union a socialist society were the soviets themselves and the United States. The soviets to gain points with those who saw the idea of socialism as a good thing and the United States who wanted to show the evils of socialism.

The reality is Marx for the most part levied some pretty good critiques of the capitalist system. We corrected this in the united states with regulations on banking and financial institutions, which are the backbone of providing capital to business. It was only when we because to deregulate this that all hell started to happen (around the 1980s).

One of the hardest things that Lenin had to do was convince the left in the new soviet Russia to adopt a sort of State Capitalism. The VAST majority of the soviets were against this. As a matter of fact they first thing they did was abolish the "soviets" or workers counsels in favor of a more centrally planned system. Trotsky went along with this (though turned against it in his critiques in exile of Stalin) and Stalin when full steam a head with this idea creating a totally centrally planned bureaucratic state. Even though it is mostly thought of if Trotsky had succeeded Lenin as Lenin on his death bed wanted we would have had a softer form of Stalinism.

Trotsky in exile, near his death, began to question whether the proletariat could actually become a ruling class. A pretty heavy critique of Marx mind you; though he did only took up the topic to refute it.

That is in essence the biggest issue with Marx, the proletariat are mostly stupid workers.. its very hard for them to actually become a ruling class.

[jolepp]

Since I can't think of any society--whether the advanced industrial society of East Germany or the agrarian poverty holes elsewhere--where communism has produced anything other than a dictatorship of an impoverished society, it is very hard to say that the thesis has been proven. The only communist society that has progressed is China, and it is hardly a society that Marx would applaud, today.

These days China is communist only in the sense that the communist party has a monopoly on political power, socialsim in the sense of the state controlling (all) the means of production has been long abadoned in favor of a capitalistic mode of production based on private ownership (McGregor, The Party).

I suppose the communist party's monopoly on political power in the USSR was originally a result of bolsheviks grabbing a monopoly of power midst the revolution and civil war to further their cause (which, in their opinion, was so good that it justified this, or any means); once down this route it is very hard to turn back, to cede power to the opposition. One could see this an attempt to create a virtual benevolent dictator for the "real socialism" they were setting up (as a precursor to socialism and eventually "communism" (in the sense of an utopia where state would cease to exist)). What they actually soon got was Stalin.

The biggest failure of the USSR, IMO, was that it was a totalitarian system, where the populace was subject to terror (especially in Stalin's time, but this continued in a milder form after that); even if the economic performance had been consistently stellar this would still not justify a government like that. The economic performance of the early USSR was remarkable in that they transferred an agrarian country to an industrial one during the lifetime of a generation (otoh they were mostly implementing what had been invented and proven elsewhere). At any rate the economy began to stall after this and by the 1980s they were in dire straits.

One wonders whether it would be possible to combine socialism in a strict sense and democracy and what would result. It can, and has been argued that all advanced countries are doing this in a loose sense by merely not having a laissez-faire economy, that is, controlling the means of production indirectly by regulation.

[GeneV]

These days China is communist only in the sense that the communist party has a monopoly on political power, socialsim in the sense of the state controlling (all) the means of production has been long abadoned in favor of a capitalistic mode of production based on private ownership (McGregor, The Party).

I suppose the communist party's monopoly on political power in the USSR was originally a result of bolsheviks grabbing a monopoly of power midst the revolution and civil war to further their cause (which, in their opinion, was so good that it justified this, or any means); once down this route it is very hard to turn back, to cede power to the opposition. One could see this an attempt to create a virtual benevolent dictator for the "real socialism" they were setting up (as a precursor to socialism and eventually "communism" (in the sense of an utopia where state would cease to exist)). What they actually soon got was Stalin.

The biggest failure of the USSR, IMO, was that it was a totalitarian system, where the populace was subject to terror (especially in Stalin's time, but this continued in a milder form after that); even if the economic performance had been consistently stellar this would still not justify a government like that. The economic performance of the early USSR was remarkable in that they transferred an agrarian country to an industrial one during the lifetime of a generation (otoh they were mostly implementing what had been invented and proven elsewhere). At any rate the economy began to stall after this and by the 1980s they were in dire straits.

One wonders whether it would be possible to combine socialism in a strict sense and democracy and what would result. It can, and has been argued that all advanced countries are doing this in a loose sense by merely not having a laissez-faire economy, that is, controlling the means of production indirectly by regulation.

I would agree with that, and add that a number of communist countries saw rapid advancement in their economies at first. The big stagnating factor, be it a communist society or otherwise, is a lasting dictatorship. The paranoia about different philosophies infiltrating through the ballot box soon stifles any innovation. Hmmmm. Sounds familiar.

[Nesster]

Friedman (as in the other thread) in his NPR interview said something interesting about why we have such political dysfunction: politicians are incentivized in ways not congruent with good government. He mentioned things such as gerrymandering districts as being a political payoff... I'd add the need to continually raise funds, the need to survive primaries (current driver of Republican politics)...

This is applicable in the context here - in a state run economy there isn't a heterogeniety of incentive like there is in a more chaotic or capitalist system.

Also, anyone who has worked in a non-coop corporation - or church - understands the limits of 'democracy' within those systems. You don't get to vote for CEO or Owner. You dont' even get to vote for your boss or their boss.

[rparmar]

Hasn't that been well understood since 1964 when Gen. Jack D. Ripper declared that essence was defined as our "precious bodily fluids"?
Or perhaps I'm confusing him with another eminent philosopher.

And that's all she wrote for this thread!

[Wheatfield]

Hasn't that been well understood since 1964 when Gen. Jack D. Ripper declared that essence was defined as our "precious bodily fluids"?

I'll remind my wife of this next time she washes the bedsheets.

[wildman]

One wonders whether it would be possible to
combine socialism in a strict sense and democracy and what would result.
It can, and has been argued that all advanced countries are doing this
in a loose sense by merely not having a laissez-faire economy, that is,
controlling the means of production indirectly by regulation.

Sure it's called a mixed economy. But the purpose is not so much to
control the means of production as to control the externalities of the
means of production. Pollution for instance.

I'm congenitally suspicious of any purest approach such as Communism
or laissez-faire Capitalism. They both postulate the existence of human
behavior that does not exist in nature.

A mixed economy seems a lot closer to the truth than either of the above.

If the Right had the power to put forth their ideology the way Communism did in the
Soviet Union we would be discussing the collapse of the Capitalist experiment in a
short time.

[GeneV]

Sure it's called a mixed economy. But the purpose is not so much to
control the means of production as to control the externalities of the
means of production. Pollution for instance.

I'm congenitally suspicious of any purest approach such as Communism
or laissez-faire Capitalism. They both postulate the existence of human
behavior that does not exist in nature.

A mixed economy seems a lot closer to the truth than either of the above.

If the Right had the power to put forth their ideology the way Communism did in the
Soviet Union we would be discussing the collapse of the Capitalist experiment in a
short time.

I agree completely. (I'll just post that because the Board won't let me "like" any more of your posts)

Purist approaches start to take on the aspects of a religion, and then they cease to be adaptable to different circumstances. On the capitalist side, externalities and massive, monopolistic business entities are the Achilles Heels of the Invisible Hand. On the Communist side, there is an even larger misplaced faith in the pure motives of mankind.

[jolepp]

Sure it's called a mixed economy. But the purpose is not so much to
control the means of production as to control the externalities of the
means of production. Pollution for instance.

Yup. There is a crucial distinction in trying to mitigate problems in a pragmatic fashion and striving to implement a dogma.

A mixed economy seems a lot closer to the truth than either of the above.

Quite. As in not perfect, but probably the best that can be had. Of course there is the degree of mixedness (regulation).

If the Right had the power to put forth their ideology the way Communism did in the
Soviet Union we would be discussing the collapse of the Capitalist experiment in a
short time.

Unfortunately it seems that some on the "Right" are as dogmatic as the bolsheviks: both consider their ideology so good that its implementation justifies any means. Of course, in politics, and dealing with humans in general the lust for power is a key factor; ideology may just be a smokescreen to cover this.

[wildman]

Purist approaches start to take on the aspects of
a religion, and then they cease to be adaptable to different circumstances.

And, like any other religion, the true believer in economic dogma can't
step back and ask himself - "Is my understanding of how human economies
work really so complete, deep and perfect that my dogma deserves the
degree of certainty I impute to it?".

On the capitalist side, externalities and massive,
monopolistic business entities are the Achilles Heels of the Invisible
Hand.

Something 18th century Smith could of had no knowledge of - players in
the market so large, integrated and essentially Stateless that they
rival and exceed in power and influence conventional geographically
limited Nation States.

On the Communist side, there is an even larger
misplaced faith in the pure motives of mankind.

I think Marx was very unsophisticated about human nature. He didn't seem
to appreciate that the individual can thrive on a certain amount of uncertainty
and openess to change. Kill the sense of possibilities and opportunities
on a individual level and you eventually end up with a stagnant system
that will collapse from lethargy and inertia.

[GeneV]

Something 18th century Smith could of had no knowledge of - players in
the market so large, integrated and essentially Stateless that they
rival and exceed in power and influence conventional geographically
limited Nation States.

Actually it did exist (East India Company), and Smith was spot on in criticizing that form of business entity as promoting undue influence on government, seeking monopolies and constantly struggling with the self-interest of its officers and directors. Smith favored some degree of government regulation and even a progressive tax system. I think that in the U.S., today, he would have to be a Blue Dog.