Should Communism Be Declared A Criminal Ideology?

[Forty Two]

Your capitalists aren't more responsible than ours Rum. They're pigs.

That is the nature of the beast anywhere in the world. But you guys allow them much more freedom than is wise. Capitalism will always stray into a robber baron mentality unless corralled by strong government, unions, and an educated public.

That's true, other than the fact that capitalism has caused more people to rise out of poverty in the last 30 years than any time in human history, and that it is the capitalist economic systems which foster the highest standards of living for the most people in the fairest manner than any other economic system in the world. Well, except of course Asia, Africa and South America, which are economic wonderlands, far and away superior for the common man than the largely capitalist west. Just look at south America, where most of the continent does fantastic, except the ones like Chile, which embraced free market capitalism and are doing horribly. Chile, after all, has been the number 1 economy in South America.... number one in robber barons, that is!

Chile is ranked as a high-income economy by the World Bank,[15] and is considered as South America's most stable and prosperous nation,[16] leading Latin American nations in competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Chile

In 2006, Chile became the country with the highest nominal GDP per capita in Latin America.[20] In May 2010 Chile became the first South American country to join the OECD.[21] Tax revenues, all together 20.2% of GDP in 2013, were the second lowest among the 34 OECD countries, and the lowest in 2010

The Global Competitiveness Report for 2009–2010 ranked Chile as being the 30th most competitive country in the world and the first in Latin America, well above Brazil (56th), Mexico (60th), and Argentina which ranks 85th; it has since fallen out of the top 30.[20] The ease of doing business index, created by the World Bank, listed Chile as 34th in the world as of 2014, 41st for 2015, and 48th as of 2016.[24] The privatized national pension system (AFP) has an estimated total domestic savings rate of approximately 21% of GDP.[25]

But, hey, the theory of socialism says that the common person is supposed to be better cared for and have a better quality of life when the State controls the means of production, so, real world examples of socialism's ubiquitous failures and capitalism's comparative success, well, that just proves capitalism always devolves into robber baron oppression, and socialism only doesn't work when it's not the real socialism or it's fucked up by the wrong people doing the socialism-ing.

Socialism if the way forward to help the poor. That much is obvious. Because, if there is one way to help the poor, it's to take away from them the right to produce goods and services, except how, where, and when the State directs. That's a tried-and-true method of economic success.

[rainbow]

Gosh you do talk a lot of crap.

[Scot Dutchy]

That's why I never read it. It is depressingly monotonous.

[DRSB]

For Brits and Americans it is incomprehensible. In the company I worked the BoD was sacked twice by the BoC because of bad performance and policy.
It does make for good working conditions as labour laws are very strict here. We also have permanent contracts which gives great security.

Brits remember what industry was like when Unions and 'bosses' were pitted against each other and thousands would walk out over a dispute about 3 minutes extra tea break time. That memory lingers for many.

Adversarial politics. I dont say we dont have strikes but they are very seldom. When the train drivers went on strike years ago they did it off-peak so as to cause as little inconvenience to passengers and it only lasted a couple of days before everyone was back round the table. We call it "polder" politics.

Trains don't matter in Dutch-land, because people can ride a bicycle from one end of the country to the other in an hour.

Well, actually many communists lived in immigration for years funded by donations or by unknown sources, in any case spending other people's money. Marx had no problem freeloading on Engels either. Lenin had new clothes sewed just on the eve of the revolution knowing the shops would be emptied soon. These people liked the good life. After the revolution too there were special grocery shops for these people, no shortage, no scarcity of any kind.

[JimC]

Every revolution has a greedy, ego driven elite...

[DRSB]

Every revolution has a greedy, ego driven elite...

And not only revolutions, the bosses of big international corporations too, politicians as well, privilege, privilege, privilege, people quickly get accustomed to it.

[pErvinalia]

Your capitalists aren't more responsible than ours Rum. They're pigs.

That is the nature of the beast anywhere in the world. But you guys allow them much more freedom than is wise. Capitalism will always stray into a robber baron mentality unless corralled by strong government, unions, and an educated public.

That's true, other than the fact that capitalism has caused more people to rise out of poverty in the last 30 years than any time in human history,

It's the protectionism of young industries by socialist concepts that has allowed them to do anything at all. Without that protectionism Japan, Sth Korea, India and China wouldn't have achieved anything. Sth Korea, for instance, would still be making hair wigs as their primary export industry, instead of cars and electronics.

and that it is the capitalist economic systems which foster the highest standards of living for the most people in the fairest manner than any other economic system in the world.

"Fair"? Rubbish. Capitalism is built on massive levels of debt (both financial and environmental), and massive levels of inequality. It brings the plebs up to the poverty line, and then the rest of the profits all go to the top few percent. That, along with the debt, isn't sustainable.

[JimC]

Perhaps what 42 is getting at is that free enterprise is a driver of innovation, particularly technological innovation, and that new forms of employment follow. To a fair extent that is true, IMO, although scientific research, often state supported, is another massive driver. However, 42 does not seem to get that capitalism is not an unalloyed benefit. It tends towards creating inequality, feverish consumerism and environmental damage, unless kept on a very short lease by rational government oversight.

[Forty Two]

JimC, one, I have not suggested it is an unalloyed benefit - I stated very clearly it was "comparatively" better.

Also, you refer to capitalism "tending to create inequality" which is the theoretical mantra, yes. However, in socialist countries - those with the State owning and/or controlling the means of production by and large, what is equality like there? Was there greater "equality" in communist Soviet Union? Communist Cuba? Socialist Venezuela? Is that "equality?"

Yes, there is income inequality in capitalist countries, and that's precisely because capitalism requires economic liberty/freedom. When you have freedom, people are free to do different things, and pursue different goals. Freedom requires a degree of inequality, because someone who exercises their freedom to focus on a career and work single-mindedly toward a goal (by way of example) and plunge head first 100 hours per week toward a dream, forgoing other things, is generally - generally - going to wind up more financially well-off than someone who ops for a more leisurely approach or ops for a more balanced approach. And, foundationally, someone who thinks freedom is important sees that as a good thing.

Now, the kind of "equality" fostered by socialism requires a lack of freedom - individual freedom cannot exist in the economic realm under socialistm - it's anathema to it.

[laklak]

As long as I'm in the elite I don't give a shit what you call the system.

[pErvinalia]

It's not a case of all capitalism or all socialism, 42.

[Forty Two]

Right - it's the case of primarily capitalism, or primarily socialism. If the State is the primary owner/controller of the means of production and property, then the tendency is (based on real world experience) that the lot of the people is worse, not better, oppression increases, freedom/liberty decreases. In the countries that have their foundations firmly rooted in free market capitalism, the lot of the people is much better both economically and in terms of individual freedom and liberty. That's really rather inarguable when you look at which countries do well, and which don't. Capitalism provides the means to have the generous social safety net that is called "socialism" these days but is really more accurately described as social democracy.

And it is really inarguable as a matter of statistics and fact, that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than pretty much anything else in the history of the world, especially in the last few decades.

Of course it's not all this or all that. Hardly anything in life is absolutely an absolute. That doesn't mean socialism doesn't suck ass. It does. Social programs don't necessarily suck ass. And welfare doesn't necessarily suck ass. Socialism - as an economic system - is oppressive and tends to make things worse. The worst capitalism has to offer is nothing compared to what socialism can do.

[pErvinalia]

The countries that fare the best in a range of metrics are more socialist minded than the less socialist minded. Not to mention the biggest lifter out of poverty has been China, a socialist state.

Getting a bit sick of making these points.

No one on these boards would argue that socialism is great. Same as most of us wouldn't argue that unfettered capitalism is great. It's about a mix. But it's pretty clear that the mix shifted towards the socialism side compared to the US leads to better outcomes for most citizens.

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

Yes, there is income inequality in capitalist countries, and that's precisely because capitalism requires economic liberty/freedom. When you have freedom, people are free to do different things, and pursue different goals. Freedom requires a degree of inequality, because someone who exercises their freedom to focus on a career and work single-mindedly toward a goal (by way of example) and plunge head first 100 hours per week toward a dream, forgoing other things, is generally - generally - going to wind up more financially well-off than someone who ops for a more leisurely approach or ops for a more balanced approach. And, foundationally, someone who thinks freedom is important sees that as a good thing.

This is an attractive myth, the myth of the "self-made man". Sure, it will happen on occasion, but the reality is that the majority of those in the top 5 or 10 % owe their wealth to being born into it. It's not just not the inherited wealth, but all the high quality education and health benefits that go with it. On top of that, both the wealthy as individuals, and their corporate organisations, have the money to steer politics (particularly in the US) towards policies that maintain or extend their privilege.

That myth is a powerful bit of political spin, throwing the enticing scent of champagne and caviar towards the masses, in the sure knowledge that an insignificant minority of them will make the cut, and join their betters to actually taste them...

[DRSB]

Was there greater "equality" in communist Soviet Union? Communist Cuba? Socialist Venezuela? Is that "equality?"

In one respect definitely yes: access to education.