Should Communism Be Declared A Criminal Ideology?

[DRSB]

You have read Das Capital, I assume, so you'd know. Why are you asking me?

Das Kapital does not describe how Marx imagined a communist system to be.

As for why I'm asking you - that's because you're engaging in this conversation and expressing a viewpoint, or trying to do so. One might reasonably surmise that you would know something about that which you are so vociferously opining.

No, it doesn't, it is in the Scientific Communism (essentially Lenin's interpretations of Marx's writings) which is the third part after the Capital and the Dialectic Materialism, few make it as far, I didn't.

[Forty Two]

You have read Das Capital, I assume, so you'd know. Why are you asking me?

Das Kapital does not describe how Marx imagined a communist system to be.

As for why I'm asking you - that's because you're engaging in this conversation and expressing a viewpoint, or trying to do so. One might reasonably surmise that you would know something about that which you are so vociferously opining.

No, it doesn't, it is in the Scientific Communism (essentially Lenin's interpretations of Marx's writings) which is the third part after the Capital and the Dialectic Materialism, few make it as far, I didn't.

There are detailed imaginings in the Communist Manifesto, too, written by Marx and Engels - and the question posed by rainbow involved what Marx imagined it to be.

[DRSB]

So there's your holiday reading, guys: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... ifesto.pdf

[Svartalf]

With industrial armies, no families, no freedom of religion, babies raised in common, enforced uniformity and distribution of population over the countryside

Please quote exactly where in Marx's writing that these are stated.

I assume it's more inline with the Little Red Book or the Khmer Rouge ideology than anything Marx wrote

[JimC]

Capitalists always fail. It is never sustained growth always boom and bust which is not good for the workers. The shareholders could not care less.

I think that is a clear exaggeration. Capitalism, particularly without checks and balances, can tend to boom or bust, but does not always, particularly in modern democratic societies. All of modern European society contains strong elements of capitalism, plus good social safety nets and government regulation.

[Hermit]

Indeed, but it is the capitalism that has benefited them.

But? I agree that capitalism has benefited the Chinese economy, but again, it's difficult to argue that the government owned and run aspect of the economy has not. I remind you once more about the 10% average GDP growth over a period of 30 years, compared to The US's ♥%.

Are you perchance trying to argue that China does capitalism better than the US? Or maybe that Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama were inveterate socialists?

The 10% growth did not begin until the capitalist reforms.

You keep saying that no communist system can possibly work. Today most of China's economy is government owned and run. By your definition it is a communist system, and economically it's doing better than the US. You keep objecting to the 'no true Scotsman' argument. Except when it suits you to use it, it turns out.

[laklak]

Yeah the majority of large Chinese companies are state owned. They're also monopolies, and have little international presence. Their market is China, and the Chinese consumers have no choices. There is no competition, they enjoy huge gubbmint subsidies, and can't compete in international markets. If that's the sort of economy you admire then by all means move to China. But for me, fuck that shit.

[pErvinalia]

China's economy is 50% more trade focussed than the US. So to say they don't have to compete internationally is incorrect.

[Hermit]

If that's the sort of economy you admire then by all means move to China.

How many more times...

I lost count of the number of posts in which I mentioned I'd rather live in a mixed economy like Australia's or some western European country's than North Korea or China. That said, I most certainly would not want to live in your fucking shithole either, where the most common reason for personal bankruptcy is not being able to pay medical bills.

Yeah the majority of large Chinese companies are state owned. They're also monopolies, and have little international presence. Their market is China, and the Chinese consumers have no choices. There is no competition, they enjoy huge gubbmint subsidies, and can't compete in international markets.

So what? Coito two asserted that no socialist economy can ever achieve what a capitalist economy does. I provided an example proving him wrong, complete with facts and a link to it. His response? That's capitalism at work, not socialism. He has not yet come around to explaining how an economy majority owned and run by the state is capitalism at work. I await his next lot of rationalisations with bated breath. Or he might just ignore the matter and move on to other things. He's pretty good at doing that as well.

[laklak]

If there's no consumer choice, no competition, massive government subsidies, and their idea of innovation is to rip off capitalist intellectual property, then I'd have to say they haven't matched the achievements of capitalism. Where's China's SpaceX, Tesla, Virgin, Microsoft, Oracle, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Nissan, Fiat, etc? There's a reason the world's most innovative companies are capitalist.

[Hermit]

If there's no consumer choice, no competition, massive government subsidies, and their idea of innovation is to rip off capitalist intellectual property

There is competition. The Chinese government has closed its own underperforming companies by the thousands. Additionally, the various provinces compete against each other. There also is choice. Subsidies? How do you work that one out? I mean, what's the effect of the government taking money out of one of its own pockets and stuffing it into another of its own pockets? Yes, China steals technological and intellectual property. So did Japan. It's how they got going as an economic powerhouse. Come to think of it, Microsoft and Apple were pretty dab hands at it too. PARC and and early MS-DOS come to mind.

I'd have to say they haven't matched the achievements of capitalism.

In economic terms China has more than matched the achievements of capitalism in the past three or so decades. Between 1978 and 2005 China's per capita GDP grew from $153 to $1,284. That's an increase of 839%. Even after taking inflation into account that's a significant hike for its 1.4 billion people. During the exact same period per capita GDP in the US grew increased by less than half that rate. China's economy has grown by 10% p.a. over the past 30 years. The US was happy whenever its rate got near the 3.5% mark.

Where's China's SpaceX, Tesla, Virgin, Microsoft, Oracle, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Nissan, Fiat, etc? There's a reason the world's most innovative companies are capitalist.

Unless you expect to see carbon copies, China either has the above or is rapidly approaching having them.

[pErvinalia]

If there's no consumer choice, no competition, massive government subsidies, and their idea of innovation is to rip off capitalist intellectual property, then I'd have to say they haven't matched the achievements of capitalism. Where's China's SpaceX, Tesla, Virgin, Microsoft, Oracle, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Nissan, Fiat, etc? There's a reason the world's most innovative companies are capitalist.

Soon enough China will have companies to match those (already beat Amazon with Alibaba; and Huawei have the second largest sales of mobiles behind Samsung), in no small part due to their IP requirements they put on foreign companies manufacturing in China, and their protectionist policies.

[laklak]

Well, we know that China has hit, exactly, all their 5 Year Plan Estimates on a year-to-year basis. That is completely unprecedented, not even the Soviets managed that. We also know that China is investing eye-wateringly massive amounts in fixed assets, and in fact are currently investing more than they did at the height of the global recession in 2009. That bumps the GDP but has little to do with actual, long-term, economic growth.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/douglasbul ... 609c0f6d3d

Most Chinese SOEs (state owned enterprises) are not, in fact, 100% state owned, and many DO function as capitalist corporations, with the State acting as major stockholder. Also, the average return on assets for SOEs is just over half that of private corporations, 5% opposed to 9%, and this trend has been true for over 25 years.

SOEs are massively favored by financial regulators and government economic policies. Government regulations are specifically crafted to favor the SOEs over private corporations. Many are, in fact, monopolies with no competition at all. Privately owned firms outperform SOEs on ALL fronts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/douglasbul ... cations=CN

Given their less than transparent methodologies and the fact that they never, ever miss their planned growth rates or adjust those figures retroactively, one might be forgiven for being a bit skeptical about the actual numbers.

That said, it's hard to argue with their unbelievably rapid development in the last 3 decades.

[Forty Two]

With industrial armies, no families, no freedom of religion, babies raised in common, enforced uniformity and distribution of population over the countryside

Please quote exactly where in Marx's writing that these are stated.

I assume it's more inline with the Little Red Book or the Khmer Rouge ideology than anything Marx wrote

Communist Manifesto, Page 26 - abolition of private property, confiscation of the property of emigrants and "rebels," abolition of ALL rights of inheritance, exclusive monopoly of "credit" (all lending) in the State (i.e., you can't borrow or lend money), centralization of all communication and transportation in the hands of the State, common plan of agriculture, equal liability of ALL to work - LIABILITY to work -- industrial armies - gradual abolition of the distinction between city and country by the gradual, but forced, re-distribution of the populace,

Proletariat with "wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie..." and "centralize all means of production in the hands of the State. Abolish countries and nationality. Abolition of the present family, marriage and child-rearing system. "The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course...." says the Communist Manifesto. “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists."

“On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.” - again, that's Marx in the Communist Manifesto.

The family is gone - who raises the kids? The "community." The kids go to community facilities to be raised pursuant to State standards.

Individuality should be eliminated, says Marx. The individual must be "indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible." And, "In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality. And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so." -- Marx wants the abolition of individuality and freedom, because that's antithetical to communist egalitarianism. Plain and simple. It's set out as if it's targeted at the bourgeoisie, but the Proletariat doesn't get individuality either. Marx's view is that the Proles don't have individuality and freedom NOW, so all he's saying is we should drag the bourgeoisie down to that level, so everyone is equal.

Take the capital, take the property, take the rents, take the lending, take the communications, take the transportation, take the family, take the children -- redistribute the population - make everyone equal - impose on everyone an "equal liability to work" and put them in industrial and agricultural armies to do what they are told in accordance with a community plan - and each gets what they "need."

That's what Marx wrote. Look, the Communist Manifesto is not long. You can read it in under an hour. Someone linked to it above, and if you google the damn thing you can get it from a Marxist website or a library so you can be assured that you're getting from a source you trust.

Communism is like religion. It's adherents think they like it, but to a person they hardly ever read the books.

[Forty Two]

As for China, I explained this before, but Hermit pretends that I didn't, claiming I'm somehow ignoring the point. Stop that, Hermit.

Maoism brought famine and massive death by the 10s of millions in the Cultural Revolution. In 1978, Deng Xiaoping, a Chinese revolutionary and veteran of the Communist Party, adopted capitalist methods and reforms in order to stimulate economic growth and restore confidence in the party. He and Jimmy Carter signed an historic accord in 1979, reversing decades of China-U.S. tension. Deng launched several economic reforms that allowed private sectors to start and operate their own businesses once again. He also established four special economic zones along the coast of China with intentions of attracting foreign investments.

Due to the reforms Deng put in place, China has gone from being a country that opposed capitalism to one that embraces property rights, profits and free market competition.

It's the capitalism within China that started in 1978, and caused the decades of rapid economic growth -- http://www.usfunds.com/slideshows/how-c ... AXevWhKjIV

One such marginal revolution is private farming. Private farming was certainly not new in China. Before 1949, it had existed for millenia. In the early 1950s, Mao tried ruthlessly to collectivize farming. Some peasants believed in Mao and hoped collectivization would offer them a way out of poverty. After 20 years of collective farming and 40 million famine deaths, they knew better. Many went back to private farming after Mao died, even though Beijing was still trying to beef up the commune system. In September 1980 Beijing was forced to allow private farming in areas where “the people had lost their confidence in the collective.” But once the floodgates of private farming were opened, it could no longer be controlled. By early 1982 it became a national policy. Chinese agriculture was decollectivized. Later in the official account of reform, Beijing would credit itself for launching agricultural reform. But the reform enacted by Beijing merely raised the purchasing prices of grain and increased grain import; private farming, which really transformed Chinese agriculture and freed Chinese peasants, did not come from Beijing.

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/janu ... capitalist

Thus - under Communism - 40 million dead and mass starvation. Turn the farms private, and allow privatized farming in the capitalist model, and people eat. Add special economic zones and privatization of industries over decades, and that's where Chinese prosperity came from. If you think it came from the high-competence planing of Beijing communist bureaucrats, you're nuts.