Should Communism Be Declared A Criminal Ideology?

[Hermit]

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

Correction: You think you explained something. You've done no such thing. Circular arguments and bald assertions simply are not explanations.

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

You can say that until you're blue in the face. The facts remain that the majority of Chinese enterprises are state owned and run, and that these state owned and run enterprises are responsible for the lion's share of China's spectacular growth in GDP during the past few decades.

But, yeah, no true socialism... The irony of your spin is not lost on me.

And with that I shall retire from this aspect of the discussion. Feel free to let loose yet another avalanche of words just the same. Someone else may possibly pick their way through your next Gish-gallop.

[pErvinalia]

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

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.

As for free market competition, I explained this before, but 42 pretends that I didn't. Stop that 42.

There's little to no free market in China. The for-profit sector is protected by tariffs, currency manipulation, and beneficial foreign IP arrangements.

No matter how you dice it, 42, China is still by a large margin a socialist economy. And the reason why the privatised sectors of the economy do so well when opened up somewhat to competition is because of historic protectionism that allowed those industries to grow sufficiently first before competing on the world scale. Same as happened in Japan, Korea and Taiwan before it.

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

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.

Is 42's definition of anything what we should be using? (sure, I get the fact that you are looking for contradictions in his posts, but that's like looking for flies around shit...)

China's system of government and its economy may have roots in genuine communism, but it's mutated and seriously twisted. I've said before, Marx, Lenin and Engels would be spinning in their graves to see it called communism... The main thing it shares with the Soviet model is authoritarian state control. Its economy has large components of the robber baron capitalism of the 19th century, with party cronies having their snouts well and truly in the trough, and individuals who control factories making obscene amounts of money, with a lot of freedom in their decisions.

[laklak]

I'd like just a few moments at the trough, Comrade. I don't need much, just my Fair Share.

[Hermit]

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.

Is 42's definition of anything what we should be using?

Certainly. Coito Two has showered us with clips of Milton Friedman's expositions of capitalism. Let us use them. Milt's central point is that governments must not even try running the economy, let alone own the means of production, for nothing good can possibly come of it. The ownership of the means of production must remain in private hands for the sake of economic growth. It is the only way of raising millions of people out of poverty.

Oh. Wait. That's the definition of capitalism we've been using all along.

[JimC]

To me, "ownership of the means of production" is a much more circumscribed thing than Friedman and his disciples meant. It does not mean ownership of public infrastructure (a rather fuzzy set, I must say), nor does it mean that the government cannot regulate your arse if the consequences of your ownership go against the public good, as defined by the electorate. And of course the government should "run the economy", as long as it is careful, rational, and with the lightest hand compatible with the greatest good...

But it does mean that innovative entrepreneurs can try their hand...

[Hermit]

That's fine, but I want to discuss Coito Two's assertions in terms of his own definitions, and he has paraded Friedman's lectures, replete with supercilious smiles, often enough to assume Coito's and Milt's definitions are close enough to identical.

[rainbow]

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

Now don't be cruel. Poor Farty has been trying very hard to find quotes to support his argument.

[rainbow]

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

Marx never said this.

Liar.

[Scot Dutchy]

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.

That is exactly my point Jim. The checks and balances are built into the socialist state not the capitalist one. In the Northern European Social Democrat model the checks are very tight. I think Americans and many Brits do not appreciate how tight they are.

[Scot Dutchy]

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

Marx never said this.

Liar.

An example of community and socialism is the Kibbutz in Israel while it does have other problems the children are brought up by the community.

[DRSB]

Look, I grew up very socialized, from 1 year of age on, creches and kindergarden, then school and activities, not that bad, really, it was fun, better than at home with an overwhelmed housewife, my parents were teachers, I would not trade that for whatever 42 considers "traditional order".

[Scot Dutchy]

Look, I grew up very socialized, from 1 year of age on, creches and kindergarden, then school and activities, not that bad, really, it was fun, better than at home with an overwhelmed housewife, my parents were teachers, I would not trade that for whatever 42 considers "traditional order".

That's the story you hear from many people who lived through the communist period. My wife has a couple of Russian friends that speak of that period quite affectionately and now in old age do miss the security that was available.
I think people like 42 are so brain washed. For the average Joe Communism was nowhere as bad as the propaganda claimed it to be. Free education, health care and social services. Not to be scoffed at. No unemployment. The only requirement was total control by the state. At least you were given two weeks paid holidays.
The American dream was for the vast majority just that a dream which has now turned into a night mare. With huge inequality American society is verging on slipping into the third world. The Trump has proved he is completely useless at anything except increasing his own family's fortune by any means possible.

[DRSB]

The Americans have two weeks holidays as well and this includes public holidays and sick days. Most of them have never been abroad either, one third are Christian fundamentalists, really, I am not moving there any time soon, not for their breathtaking nature either.

[Scot Dutchy]

The Americans have two weeks holidays as well and this includes public holidays and sick days. Most of them have never been abroad either, one third are Christian fundamentalists, really, I am not moving there any time soon, not for their breathtaking nature either.

That is today when most Europeans are enjoying 6-8 weeks paid holiday and travelling all over the world without the worry that their jobs wont have disappeared when they return.

I was seconded as IT bod in a real American company (Brown and Root) where the Americans had American contracts. They were terrified to go holiday. Some even came back everyday to check if their desk was still there. It was known in the company that happened sometimes without warning. A great way to live but you have "freedom".